A friend, a 72-year-old former Marine colonel, proudly displayed a t-shirt he bought in N. Dakota. It showed two American Indian warriors below the words "Homeland Security" in caps, and below the picture was, "Fighting terrorism since 1492."
capricorn152244 wrote:Chapter 4 Discussion Questions:
1. In current geopolitics, which country or countries besides the United States do you feel exhibit high degrees of cultural imperialism in their dealings with other countries? How cultural imperialism exhibited by non-European countries?
The U.S. showed cultural imperialism toward native populations, although that charge seems the mildest that can be leveled at us with regard to Native peoples and black slaves. I suppose I'm not connecting with the question with regard to other countries. We spread our influence militarily, and we did (and do) attempt to make other countries adopt our concept of democratic government, which is part of our culture. Our popular culture spread like wildfire, but that was presumably a welcome import. We've accepted culture from many other countries, so there has been reciprocity. It';s possible my eyes aren't open to the extent of our "cultural imperialism."
2. Syncretism, the blending or merging of ideas seems like a good idea, especially if we take the best parts of others’ thinking to improve our own. Syncretism is also the basis of many fears surrounding globalisation we face today; are these fears founded or unfounded? Why?
Of course, the more xenophobic elements in the country don't pause to consider that cultural blending can be positive. The fear of adulteration, contamination, and perhaps most of all, replacement, is too strong.
3. When Loewen discusses interculturation to what do you believe he’s referring? Is this the American ideal of the Melting Pot? Does interculturation differ from syncretism? Is this difference semantic only?
I think interculturation is the more "enlightened" (or academic) term for the Melting Pot. The Melting Pot is intended to idealize a meeting in the civic sphere, transcending all ethnic differences, while those differences are given room to flourish to some extent. I say to some extent, because it's essential to have a national language. History happened to favor English.
4. Loewen points out many of the flaws of how Native Americans are handled in American historical education. Currently it seems in America that if you actually want to learn about Native Americans, one has to go out of his way to do so, usually by going to college and majoring in something directly or tangentially related to Native Americans (e.g. Native American Studies, Anthropology, etc.) How would a balanced approach to this work? Would a “history of the American continents” be a more fitting scope for what we should instruct in high school/college?
While I'm never certain of what was said to me as I occupied my desk in those years of schooling, I don't believe that I was told about Indian slavery, just one example of an omission that softened the blow for kids who needed to receive a positive image of their country. To be told of both extermination (which was difficult to downplay) and slavery would have been too much to handle. This is just an example of what is withheld for the sake of patriotic feeling. Yes, I think your idea of history of the American continents is a very good one, though there would be howls at any course not titled U. S. History. Let's dispel the message that what happened on these continents before Columbus arrived was just a primitive and insignificant prelude to the deliverance by Western Civilization.
5. Loewen has been keen to continue to suggest balance as a way forward for history education in the US. If we attempted to address balance, especially apropos to the Native Americans, what would we change? What do you suppose teaching high school juniors (third year) American history “traditionally” and then teaching high school seniors (fourth year) American history as told by Native Americans? Does this come to balance? Laterally, how can we balance teaching the American experience from other groups’ perspective as well (e.g. African Americans also have a very long, and very rich history in the Americas) without tipping the scales too much toward one group or another?
Great question. There is always a point of view, the challenge is to own it. This is what the textbooks don't do, according to Loewen and others. They peddle an Olympian perspective of U.S. History, when there can be none. I don't know about the viability of balance within a single course. This might get head-spinning for students. Maybe it is better to do as you suggest, openly offer two looks at the same subject. So much of learning occurs through contrast.
6. Loewen introduces the idea of the “frontier” being a spurious misnomer and a European cultural discount of the Native Americans already living in the Americas. Putting that aside for the moment, is the idea of the frontier important to Europeans? Or to all people? Is the “frontier” simply a trope introduced by those who seek to conquer or annex land? Many Sci-Fi works involve the idea of the frontier as an important backdrop for their stories (e.g. Star Trek, SeaQuest DSV, The Expanse, etc.) Is this part of the “human spirit” wherein we all have a natural, innate curiosity and wish to explore the world around us, or is it really just imperialism wherein we wish to make everything of which we are aware familiar and thus part of our domain?
Phwew, that's a pregnant question. How can we individuals step away from our own history to answer whether the frontier is only a cultural trope? It is certainly a powerful Romantic notion for Americans. The idea would also seem inseparable from the larger notion of progress; it's always
advancinginto and beyond the frontier. Without that cultural ideal, it might be doubted whether frontier would be part of worldview. While all human beings have sought to remake nature to their convenience, Europeans took that to the max, entailing the crushing of frontier and the construction of a new one, in space, for instance.
7. Loewen indicates the acceptance of the Indian Wars and the genocide of the Native Americans owes a lot to the subtlely advanced idea the Native Americans were simply victims of progress and history. On the face of this, it is easy to see the flaw in the logic and the underlying untruth. However, recently we have ventured forward into societal changes that have a real cost in human lives. For example, the general increase in speed limits on motorways in the US has led to more auto accidents. Self-driving cars have had a few fatalities associated with them, which surprised none of the proponents, citing “known human costs” and “price of progress”. At what point do we as a society decide something is worth it or not worth it in human life terms? How should these decisions be made? And by whom?
I, and I would think all of us, have a conflict of interest because we would not be here today if the Indians were not treated exactly as they were. That applies as well to other tragedies of history. So we perhaps unconsciously make these allowances and rationalizations.
On human costs, our calculations seem less than rational many times, which is not necessarily "bad." If it could be demonstrated that self-driving cars in wide use will decrease auto fatalities by 25% overall, while causing a considerable number, we will surely resist this movement. There is something more horrifying about getting killed by a machine than by a human driver of a machine. Also regarding human cost and monetary cost, we often hear statements such as, "If only one life is saved, the cost no matter how great is worth it," but we don't operate that way. Some deaths are acceptable when the existence of a technology is so vital to our way of life, and we don't have enough money to reduce risks to zero anyway. I don't think anyone really decides these matters; we just tacitly agree to carry on.