[alt.activism] Akwesasne Notes -- Basic Call to Consciousness 1977

ericbr@microsoft.UUCP (Eric BROWN) (01/16/90)

In article <NELSON.90Jan15103904@image.clarkson.edu> nelson@clutx.clarkson.edu writes:
>And greed has also produced all of the world's misery.

Ah.  Perhaps, then, you could explain how greed causes disease and drought;
even the hunter-gatherer societies that you are so enamored of have
plenty of misery: the misery of babies dying because of bad water, bad
food, or no water or food during a drought.  Somehow I find it hard to
believe that accidental deaths are the result of greed, as well.  But
I'm sure you'll enlighten me.

-- 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Brown                       ...!{sun, uunet, uw-beaver}!microsof!ericbr
These are my opinions.  If they were Microsoft's, you would pay $500 for them.
----------------------- Long Live the New Flesh! ----------------------------

utility@quiche.cs.mcgill.ca (Ronald BODKIN) (01/17/90)

In article <NELSON.90Jan15103904@image.clarkson.edu> nelson@clutx.clarkson.edu writes:
>And greed has also produced all of the world's misery.
	I don't agree at all.  "Duty" based ethics have been used to both
directly and indirectly make people suffer.  Directly as in the instance of
a Roman Catholic church making people act against their own interests out
of a sense of duty (see the middle ages -- what great progress) and indeed,
the fact remains that people who TRY to help others out usually fail
miserably.  See the current brilliant state of welfare etc., or better yet,
try out any socialist experiment (say Britain before Thatcher got people
greedy again).  I agree that GREED has a pejorateive sound to it --
but ultimately self-interest is the only rational thing to pursue, and unless
you believe in spirits etc., then happiness is the thing you should identify
therewith.  As such, greed is essentially seeking out your own good, and
that has produced much more benefit that the stagnation of duty -- in
the end the second morality crushes self-esteem and I believe spiritual
needs of humanity can be identified with intellectual needs.  The
"spirit" is just the human mind, and people DO need to think and achieve,
there are some things which are of religious-like significance to rational
people.  As for the reason for this belief, I don't see any evidence for
supernatural beings, they contradict my general impression about an
orderly universe where man is capable of achievement and any particular
system I've bothered to look at has been riddled with contradictions and
inconsistencies.  How can Christians go on believing when Christ says
three times in their own bible that he is going to have the 2nd
coming within the life-time of those present?  Answer: no one CARES
if its true, they are just trying to fill some psychological need.  I
don't have that need myself -- I would humbly submit I've outgrown it.
		Ron

nelson@sun.soe.clarkson.edu (Russ Nelson) (01/17/90)

In article <10282@microsoft.UUCP> ericbr@microsoft.UUCP (Eric BROWN) writes:

   In article <NELSON.90Jan15103904@image.clarkson.edu> nelson@clutx.clarkson.edu writes:
   >And greed has also produced all of the world's misery.

   Ah.  Perhaps, then, you could explain how greed causes disease and drought
   ...

Oh, absolutely.  I am not at all justified in saying that.  But
neither is Ronald BODKIN justified in saying "... I think [greed] has
produced all the world's progress."

You jumped all over my case when I was wrong.  Where were you when Bodkin
was wrong?
--
--russ (nelson@clutx [.bitnet | .clarkson.edu])  Russ.Nelson@$315.268.6667
Violence never solves problems, it just changes them into more subtle problems

arromdee@crabcake.cs.jhu.edu (Kenneth Arromdee) (01/17/90)

>Violence never solves problems, it just changes them into more subtle problems

The same applies to non-violence, of course....
--
"Workers of the world, we're sorry!" --Soviet protestor's slogan

Kenneth Arromdee (UUCP: ....!jhunix!arromdee; BITNET: arromdee@jhuvm;
     INTERNET: arromdee@crabcake.cs.jhu.edu)

aesop@milton.acs.washington.edu (Jeff Boscole) (01/17/90)

---------------------------------------------------
>From: rubin@cbnewsl.ATT.COM (michael.rubin)

> There are certainly advantages to a socioeconomic system like the Native
> Americans had  .... 
  
   Oh?  I wasn't aware that they had a "system....."
   Wasn't nature their "system?"


> Unfortunately, there are some basic problems that make such a society
> unimplementable under conditions that exist in the modern world.
 
   Let's not run to extremes here..   ( Why do these discussions 
go so overboard? )  I think some folks get the wrong idea that this
Native America stuff is another one of those "grand megalomanic schemes"
such as *Manifest Destiny* that Europeans brought to the Americas.  :=:
Nothing could be further from the truth.  This social change is wrought
through one-on-one personal growth.   BTW, some of the most difficult
problems of character development are very elusive; they are not *gross*
social movements, but microscopic and unique to each special case.  :=:  

   The _Akwesasne_Notes_ article certainly presents its share of
idealizations, which were all so evident to me as I typed it up.... :=:
I studied some rhetoric and propaganda at the University for Media Studies.
What I could appreciate about the _Akwesasne_Notes_ writing, though it
is propaganda, is that it is such *great* propaganda !  I share with others
the deepest and highest respect for John Mohawk.     

   A few USENET postings have misconstrued the nature of this conflict
between Invading Colonizers and Indigenous People.  It is not a conflict
among competing "systems."   It is that fundamental ancient struggle
between "systems" and a "non-system."  This is how I understand what it
is all about -- it is so subtle -- one can't see the nose of one's face.
Kurt Vonnegut sometimes spoke of "Man's big brain..."  (this problem).
"Out there" is infinity, but men presume to impose upon it their finitistic
and deterministic "models."  "In here" is also infinity but men presume
again to "comprehend" that which is spiritual, as well.  

    We haven't a secured handle on the definitions of words such as
"objective" or "subjective."  What we can do in the meantime is to make
a conscious decision to abandon the pretense of knowing; then, we 
might be awakened to that road leading to recovery.   :=:

    ---------=============***************=============-----------
                                :=: 
( aesop@milton.u.washington.edu )             "The Doctor is In."   $ 0.05

aidas@castle.ed.ac.uk (David A. Sinclair) (01/17/90)

In article <NELSON.90Jan16164818@image.clarkson.edu> nelson@clutx.clarkson.edu writes:
>   In article <NELSON.90Jan15103904@image.clarkson.edu> nelson@clutx.clarkson.edu writes:
>   >And greed has also produced all of the world's misery.
>
>   Ah.  Perhaps, then, you could explain how greed causes disease and drought
>   ...

Case in point.
The myth that you're following is that drought causes famine in itself.
The truth is that the world has enough resources and that the rich
 countries are consuming far too much of them. All major famines are 
normally blamed on 'acts of god' when in fact, the USA and europe store
massive stocks of grain and even in the countries that experience famine
there is enough land, or enough grain to feed the people. The 1984 Ethiopian
famine was blamed on drought when in fact the government controlled half of
the country had plenty of food and was even using it's land to export tobacco.

-to quote Bertold Brecht "Famines do not occur, they are organised by the 
grain trade".

jaf@druwy.ATT.COM (John A. Frieman) (01/19/90)

In article <3655@cbnewsl.ATT.COM>, rubin@cbnewsl.ATT.COM (michael.rubin) writes:
> In article <4602@druwy.ATT.COM> jaf@druwy.ATT.COM (John A. Frieman) writes:
> >
> >When greed was exhibited by Native person it was discouraged.  There is the
> >story of a man who was a skilled hunter.  One day as he was butchering a
> >deer he a killed two old people came to receive there share, as was
> >customary.  The hunter kept his eyes down on the deer and refused to
> >acknowledge them.  From that day he was known as "He Who Cuts Meat With His
> >Head Down."  Even after the hunter reformed his ways the name stuck for
> >many years.  
> 
> There are certainly advantages to a socioeconomic system like the Native
> Americans had, where a person's objective is to maximize his standing in
> the community rather than the amount of his private property.  Quite
> simply, there are more reasons to be nice to your neighbor and fewer
> reasons to be nasty to him.
> 
> Unfortunately, there are some basic problems that make such a society
> unimplementable under conditions that exist in the modern world.

I agree, but maybe we can work to change the conditions which foster greed
and poverty.  Native people realized the interdependency of all life, not
only human.  Concern for others was not solely based on pressure from the
society, it was a recognition of the interdependence of all life.

> - It does not work in a community too large for everybody to know each
>   other (a few hundred), or where people can freely move to other places.
>   The sanction of bad reputation given to the hunter in John's story is 
>   meaningless if he interacts with people who don't know him personally.

The reputations of people amoung the Haudenosaunee traveled widely through
an extensive trade network.  The influence of the Six Nations was felt from
Canada to the Carolinas and west to the Mississippi.  The community was in
reality quite large.

> - Life in small villages may be peaceful much of the time, but if someone
>   powerful has a grudge against you, it is hard to leave.  Reputations are
>   easier to destroy maliciously than physical property.

This may be true in Western society, but it is harder to do in a clan based
society with strong family bonds.  Gaining status by attacking another would 
not work in such a society, it would backfire.  Status is gained by ones own 
works.  Balance is the key.  A great orator of the Six Nations was elected
a chief (a title of honor, not power) for his skill with the spoken word, 
but he was never elected to the council because his powers of oration were 
deemed sufficient power for one person.  BTW The elections I mention above 
were by the Clan Mothers of the tribe.  The Haudenosaunee are a matralineal 
society where power is shared amoung all of the people.

> - Since it does not encourage material progress, useful things like indoor
>   plumbing, eyeglasses, and surgery with anesthesia do not get invented.

But many good things do come of it:
1 - The Constitution of the United States is, in part, based on the Great
Law of the Haudenosaunee.  See "The Forgotten Founders", its currently in
print.
2 - Sixty percent of the varieties of food consumed in the world were
domesticated by Native People.
3 - Religeous tolerence was practiced.  This was certainly not taught by the
Puritans, although it was practiced by the Dutch.

> BTW, from what I've read, Native Americans (at least in the Southeast)
> at the time of first Spanish contact had far from a classless society;
> they had kings, aristocrats and armies sponging off the common guy too,
> just on a smaller scale than in Europe.  While the Spaniards moved on
> to looting the richer Incas, their smallpox and influenza wiped out half
> the population of North America - probably hitting hardest the bigger,
> more crowded villages containing the kings and aristocrats.
> The nations that formed AFTER this first disruption are the ones that
> John is writing about.

Not quite, the League of the Six Nations (Haudenosaunee) was formed circa
1390.  This is well before the European invasion.  Spanish in New York
State?  The English and French introduced smallpox in the northern areas.
Class refers to a fixed position in a society based on birth.  ie: a noble
title.  As I pointed out above "chief" is a title of honor not power or
birth right.  It is given an can be taken away if not lived every day.

> --Mike Rubin (wearing my armchair anthropologist's flame-proof hat)

I will try to do my part by living the Great Peace.

John A. Frieman
Nyah-weh ska-noh, gayah-da-sey
I thank thee to know that thou art strong, friend
The traditional Seneca greeting.
(If you are strong, you have no reason to fear me, know that you are strong)

nelson@sun.soe.clarkson.edu (Russ Nelson) (01/19/90)

In article <1989@quiche.cs.mcgill.ca> utility@quiche.cs.mcgill.ca (Ronald BODKIN) writes:

   In article <NELSON.90Jan15103904@image.clarkson.edu> nelson@clutx.clarkson.edu writes:
   >And greed has also produced all of the world's misery.

   	I don't agree at all.
I am just as correct as you were when you said that greed has produced
all of the world's progress.

   "Duty" based ethics have been used to both directly and indirectly
   make people suffer.  Directly as in the instance of a Roman
   Catholic church making people act against their own interests out
   of a sense of duty (see the middle ages -- what great progress) and
   indeed, the fact remains that people who TRY to help others out
   usually fail miserably.

All too often, altruistic people fail in their goals.  That is because their
goals are *their* goals, not the goals of the people being "helped".  If I
ask someone "How can I help you?", and I listen to them, and help them do
what they want to do, how can I possibly "fail miserably?"

The problem that I have with greed is simply this: Greed is self-interest
at the expense of others.  If you saw a ten dollar bill lying on the sidewalk,
would you pick it up?  A greedy person would pick it up.  A self-interested
person would leave it there, realizing that it doesn't belong to them,
that someone will be looking for it, and sooner or later they'll lose
something that they will want someone else to leave there.
--
--russ (nelson@clutx [.bitnet | .clarkson.edu])  Russ.Nelson@$315.268.6667
Violence never solves problems, it just changes them into more subtle problems

byoder@smcnet.UUCP (Brian Yoder) (01/19/90)

In article <1963@quiche.cs.mcgill.ca>, utility@quiche.cs.mcgill.ca (Ronald BODKIN) writes:
> In article <4602@druwy.ATT.COM> jaf@druwy.ATT.COM (John A. Frieman) writes:
> >When greed was exhibited by Native person it was discouraged.  There is the
> >story of a man who was a skilled hunter.  One day as he was butchering a
> >deer he a killed two old people came to receive there share, as was
> >customary.  The hunter kept his eyes down on the deer and refused to
> >acknowledge them.  From that day he was known as "He Who Cuts Meat With His
> >Head Down."  Even after the hunter reformed his ways the name stuck for
> >many years.  

I seem to remember an old european fable about King Midas being too
greedy and getting in trouble for it. To claim that excessive greed 
is a property of people with white skin is a racist sentiment, don't
you think?  Perhaps IF it was true that there was no greed (whatever that
means) before the europeans came, it may have been because natives had
so little to be greedy of (few machine, nice places to live, etc.) comapred
to more modern societies. 

> 	I cannot concur that "greed" is a disease, rather I think this
> attribute has produced all the world's progress.  

Quite true, why should a Thomas Edison spend all his time, effort, and
talent inventing things if they are of no particular benefit to him?
Or would you claim that the world is better of without the things that
people like Edison have created?

> And no, I don't
> believe in "spirits" of the air or the land or whatever, I'm not a
> mystic, I don't believe people should live like animals, and I frankly
> find the world view your article espoused (although you didn't
> write it) totally repulsive.  

Actually, in some ways indian cultures were capitalistic.  Trade between
families prospered, and there was a strong correspondence between what
an individual produced and his lot in life (even if it might have been
shared with a small band of family and neighbors).  Interpreting their
way of life as COMPLETELY socialistic (as many do these days) is perhaps
a distortion of the truth.  It was more likely the case that individuals
living alone would have had a very hard time of it under those primitive
conditions and chose to organize in that way voluntarily (of course this
is a gross generalization, but we are talking in generalities here already).

> No one can deny that in the history
> of Western Civilization there have been some evil things done and
> some mistakes made, but on the whole I'd pick it over the primitive
> socialism that is advocated, and I have only bothered to comment on
> this article since no one has had the presence of mind to do so. 

I wonder how many people here on the net would personally choose to go 
live under these utopian circumstances?  I'd say none, since that option
is pretty much open to anyone.  It wouldn't cost much!  Maybe that's
the situation to the homelessness problem.  Just send them into the
wilderness to live the utopian lives of savages, living off the land
and happily avoiding the complications of modern life.  I bet they'd
like that! ;-)

I would have responded earlier, but I have been swamped with work. Sorry.
I can't get 'em all ;-)

Brian 
-- 
-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-
| Brian Yoder                 | answers *byoder();                            |
| uunet!ucla-cs!smcnet!byoder | He takes no arguments and returns the answers |
-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-

aesop@milton.acs.washington.edu (Jeff Boscole) (01/19/90)

>From: nelson@sun.soe.clarkson.edu (Russ Nelson)

> If you saw a ten dollar bill lying on the sidewalk, would you pick it up? 
> A greedy person would pick it up.  A self-interested person would leave it
> there, realizing that it doesn't belong to them, that someone will be
> looking for it, and sooner or later they'll lose something that they will
> want someone else to leave there.

I dispute this.  A "needy" person picks it up.  Somebody solving the litter
problem picks it up.  Someone respecting the USA picks it up, recyling a
bill so that it won't become defaced.  Someone educating another about the
problem of carelessness picks it up.  

We might recognize that people don't "own" money anyway.  What they lease
is the privilege of stewardship over some promissary notes.

      ----------============************============-------------

nelson@sun.soe.clarkson.edu (Russ Nelson) (01/19/90)

In article <1468@milton.acs.washington.edu> aesop@milton.acs.washington.edu (Jeff Boscole) writes:

   >From: nelson@sun.soe.clarkson.edu (Russ Nelson)

   > If you saw a ten dollar bill lying on the sidewalk, would you pick it up? 
   > A greedy person would pick it up.  A self-interested person would leave it
   > there, realizing that it doesn't belong to them, that someone will be
   > looking for it, and sooner or later they'll lose something that they will
   > want someone else to leave there.

   I dispute this.  A "needy" person picks it up.  Somebody solving the litter
   problem picks it up.  Someone respecting the USA picks it up, recyling a
   bill so that it won't become defaced.  Someone educating another about the
   problem of carelessness picks it up.  

Can you say "grasping at straws?"  I knew you could.

The fact remains that everyone who picks the bill up is stealing
someone else's ten dollar bill.  A person in "need" does not lose
their sense of ethics.  A ten dollar bill is not litter, it will
retain value even if defaced, and punishment is not education.

Sounds like you want to live in a place where private property left in a public
place becomes someone else's private property.  Foo on you.
--
--russ (nelson@clutx [.bitnet | .clarkson.edu])  Russ.Nelson@$315.268.6667
Violence never solves problems, it just changes them into more subtle problems

utility@quiche.cs.mcgill.ca (Ronald BODKIN) (01/20/90)

In article <NELSON.90Jan18224433@image.clarkson.edu> nelson@clutx.clarkson.edu writes:
>The problem that I have with greed is simply this: Greed is self-interest
>at the expense of others.  If you saw a ten dollar bill lying on the sidewalk,
>would you pick it up?  A greedy person would pick it up.  A self-interested
>person would leave it there, realizing that it doesn't belong to them,
>that someone will be looking for it, and sooner or later they'll lose
>something that they will want someone else to leave there.
	To the extent that greed is "short-sighted" self-interest, I am
against it.  However the obvious context of the word in the given article
was greed as pure self-interest, or an assumption (maybe more accurately)
that ALL egoists are "greedy".  By the way, your reasoning for a
self-interested individual is BADLY flawed.  It is an axiom that you cannot
act in method X and expect others to do so just because you did.  The
dollar bill is pretty close to a prisoner's dilemna game -- assuming there
is no penalty for picking up the bill:
1) everyone is better off if no one picks up dropped items that aren't theirs
2) each individual will always find it profitable to do so if there is no
penalty for doing so, REGARDLESS of how many people would do the same or
not (standard n-person prisoner's dilemna situation).
	So a person who is self-interested will likely work to have laws
made/enforced about taking others property -- THAT would be in their
interest, but given the absence of such laws (and given its worth BOTHERing
to stoop to pick up that $10 bill) and given that there is no implicit
penalty (e.g. if the person was with a business associate they would be
unwise to convey a negative impression) the person should pick it up.
And, as for greed as pursuing self-interest to the extent of harming
others, I think that this is completely natural and correct.  Every time
I decide not to smoke a cigarette I am harming the members of the
tobacco industry (I am just being greedy and putting myself first).
		Ron

utility@quiche.cs.mcgill.ca (Ronald BODKIN) (01/20/90)

In article <521@smcnet.UUCP> byoder@smcnet.UUCP (Brian Yoder) writes:
>I seem to remember an old european fable about King Midas being too
>greedy and getting in trouble for it. To claim that excessive greed 
>is a property of people with white skin is a racist sentiment, don't
>you think?  Perhaps IF it was true that there was no greed (whatever that
>means) before the europeans came, it may have been because natives had
>so little to be greedy of (few machine, nice places to live, etc.) comapred
>to more modern societies. 
	Taking greed as short-sighted pursuit of self-interest, I'll agree
that excessive greed is an insult.  And as for greed being a property of
skin colour, I'd say that of course its racist, but as a property of a
CULTURE it is quite accurate to say that greed is more common in the West
(although it should be replaced by a more rational form of self-interest).
Re: so little to be greedy of, good point.

>Quite true, why should a Thomas Edison spend all his time, effort, and
>talent inventing things if they are of no particular benefit to him?
>Or would you claim that the world is better of without the things that
>people like Edison have created?
	You contradict yourself here BADLY.  Edison profited both
financially and spritually from his achievements.  I cannot IMAGINE
anyone producing a worth-while creation without having a large amount
of self-esteem and (in most cases) a fairly large amount of contempt of
a large number of people and their negative view of the planned object.
Do you think Ford created the assembly line with the idea of "helping
his fellow man"?  HOGWASH.

>...  Interpreting their
>way of life as COMPLETELY socialistic (as many do these days) is perhaps
>a distortion of the truth.  It was more likely the case that individuals
>living alone would have had a very hard time of it under those primitive
>conditions and chose to organize in that way voluntarily (of course this
>is a gross generalization, but we are talking in generalities here already).
	You are probably right to a significant extent, but the ARTICLE
is different.  They are chanting "turn back the clock" -- "usher in a new
dark age" along with all the other "Greens" of this world who would be
delighted to "solve" the environmental problems of the World in this
fashion.  When an individual eats spoiled food through necessity, I don't
fault him the way I do one who would advocate voluntary consumption of
same.

>the situation to the homelessness problem.  Just send them into the
>wilderness to live the utopian lives of savages, living off the land
>and happily avoiding the complications of modern life.
	I am not sure I'd like to contend with bands of maurauders
in the wilderness.  Send them to Brazil's rain forests to give the
Brazillians a few more woes attendant on cutting down the rain forest (-:
		Ron

livesey@solntze.Sun.COM (Jon Livesey) (01/20/90)

In article <NELSON.90Jan19093652@image.clarkson.edu> nelson@clutx.clarkson.edu writes:
>In article <1468@milton.acs.washington.edu> aesop@milton.acs.washington.edu (Jeff Boscole) writes:
>
>   >From: nelson@sun.soe.clarkson.edu (Russ Nelson)
>
>   > If you saw a ten dollar bill lying on the sidewalk, would you pick it up? 
>   > A greedy person would pick it up.  A self-interested person would leave it
>   > there, realizing that it doesn't belong to them, that someone will be
>   > looking for it, and sooner or later they'll lose something that they will
>   > want someone else to leave there.
>
>   I dispute this.  A "needy" person picks it up.  Somebody solving the litter
>   problem picks it up.  Someone respecting the USA picks it up, recyling a
>   bill so that it won't become defaced.  Someone educating another about the
>   problem of carelessness picks it up.  
>
>Can you say "grasping at straws?"  I knew you could.
>
>The fact remains that everyone who picks the bill up is stealing
>someone else's ten dollar bill.  A person in "need" does not lose
>their sense of ethics.  A ten dollar bill is not litter, it will
>retain value even if defaced, and punishment is not education.
>
>Sounds like you want to live in a place where private property left in a public
>place becomes someone else's private property.  Foo on you.

I lived for a few years in Switzerland, where it was quite routine to
leave ones bags on the railway station platform while going for a
coffee.   Each morning, the Journal de Geneve would have a column of
pro-forma classifed ads from the Geneva Police, each saying "A wallet
containing SfrXXX was found on Bvd. Such-and-So and handed in the the
police.   To reclaim it, call Police Post YYY".

It's a little wierd at first, but you get used to it.

jon.