ELL: New SIL Alias: WRAP-UP
J. DIEGO QUESADA
dquesada at chass.utoronto.ca
Fri Sep 24 00:32:04 UTC 1999
*** EOOH ***
Return-Path: <owner-endangered-languages-l at carmen.murdoch.edu.au>
X-Authentication-Warning: carmen.murdoch.edu.au: majodomo set sender to
owner-endangered-languages-l at carmen.murdoch.edu.au using -f
Date: Thu, 23 Sep 1999 17:32:04 -0700
From: "J. DIEGO QUESADA" <dquesada at chass.utoronto.ca>
Organization: UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO
To: endangered-languages-l at carmen.murdoch.edu.au
CC: ling-amerindia at unicamp.br
Subject: ELL: New SIL Alias: WRAP-UP
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Sender: owner-endangered-languages-l at carmen.murdoch.edu.au
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: endangered-languages-l at carmen.murdoch.edu.au
The exchange of messages of the last days, especially the information
provided by our Brazilian colleagues, was very illuminating in finding
an answer to my initial query.
The question on whether NT was a SIL Alias has to be answered
negatively. Legally, it seems, they are separate. Hence I must admit
that the term "Alias" was, technically speaking, erroneous; but that is
what the query was about: to find out whether or not NT is an alias.
And our SIL-colleagues and their most fervent, engaged, and vehement
simpathizers on this list will get credit here that no piece of paper
was cited or found where the two appear as legally merged. The latter
colleagues were more concerned with the issue than the former (kind of
interesting that other people come up in defense of allegedly accused
ones, but the latter did not even bother to speak up). But, once more, I
underscore that the intention behind the query was not to mount a
witch-hunt or something of the like, but simply to get certain things
straight.
Thus, no alias.
Marcus Maia, based on irrefutable information, writes, on the other
hand:
> "The truth is SIL and NTM are not the same organization and yet they
share pretty much the same goals. Years ago I was in a federal
committee who
investigated missionary agencies in Brazil. We amassed lots
of
evidence of all
kinds about the purposes and actions of these organizations
in Brazil."
Marcus shared some of that info with us. That info leads to the issue
of
commonality of interests, shared activities, and even to act in a kind
of "echeloned-relay race" (cf. the Karaja project). Knowing all this,
the situation in Panama (original cause behind my query) now makes
very
much sense to me. What is going on there is one of those situations in
which, according to D. Moore,:
> "SIL collaborates with the New
> Tribes Mission (=Novas Tribos) and also with others, such
> as MEVA, in
> Brazil. Derbyshire, for example, worked in an area
> controlled by
MEVA"
This points to the second point in my query, of whether there
is a
connection between the two due to common interests. The
answer is a
blatant "yes".
As for the consequences for the "recipient
communities", the last point
in my query, there seems to be agreement here that
they are negative not
only because "alphabet soups" (M. Maia) are created,
but even worse,
because in a way the community is simply left like
the audience of a
tennis game, looking here and there, seeing the ball
going from one side
to the other, without being able to do anything. I
find that negative.
I then went on to ask about the intention of changing
names:
> "A couple of years ago there
> was a name change in Brasil, when SIL
> listed itself as the Sociedade
> Internacional de Lingu.stica, which
> caused much amusement among
Brazilian
> linguists. I don't know if this
> name is still in use." (Moore)
Or even worse, a "cell transplant" took
place in Brazil as ALEM was
created with SIL's flesh (Drummond). My
question in that respect, why?,
has not been answered satisfactorily.
Marcus cites Chomsky, as puzzled as I am,:
> "how come we know so little if we
have so much evidence? Orwell's
problem."
Marilia Faco Soares, finally, hit
the nail on the head with her
posting,
which summarizes the discussion
that is coming to an end (as far
as I am
concerned):
> a) one and the same missionary
institution can be duplicated
into
> several national
institutions which mirror
itself (egs. ALEM, in Brazil,
> Vision Mundial, in Equator
etc, created in image of
SIL);
>
> b) there is a (hidden)
partnership among legally
distinct missionary
> institutions, due to an
overlapping which make of them
faces of the same
> thing (as perceived by the
indigenous communities);
>
> c) damage is caused/can be
caused to the indigenous
communities by
> missionary institutions
whose understanding of serving
God is reduced to
> tame/ to change the other
and everything which
identifies him as an
> individual/ as part of a
group.
>
> So now, it is urgent that
a serious attitude be taken
collectively in
> order to change the
situation.
As the one would say
in German: SIL and
akin organizations
STECKEN UNTER
EINER DECKE
or the
Brazilians "FARINHA DO
MESMO SACO" (que
saco!!!...)
Thanks to every one;
it was very
enlightening (though a
bit
uncomfortable to
some). Since science
is not neutral, it
should not
surprise nor hurt
anyone that such
issues are touched
upon. In science
and other practices,
each horse takes care
of his grass.
ITE MISSA EST.
J. Diego Quesada
----
Endangered-Languages-L
Forum:
endangered-languages-l at carmen.murdoch.edu.au
Web pages
http://carmen.murdoch.edu.au/lists/endangered-languages-l/
Subscribe/unsubscribe
and other commands:
majordomo at carmen.murdoch.edu.au
----
More information about the Endangered-languages-l
mailing list