a. the practical knowledge (in terms of the environment and how to live off it). That was, of course, of huge value and significance to indigenous people often living in a harsh environment.
But the value to people who have farming and agriculture and fertiliser that means we don't just feed ourselves but much of the rest of the world - not so much. Sure, they might occasionally turn up something new to put on a plate - a finger lime, or grass flour that makes an OK bread - but there's nothing earth shatteringly important to be learned. (And bushland management by fire - once you've learnt how that works, and recognise how it's changed the landscape, what else do you need to know? The idea that it is only local aborigines who understand that, and should be in control of it in future, is fanciful.)
b. the cultural knowledge.
The most common thing pushed, of course, is the inherent environmentalism of the idea of connection to land and belonging to it. But really, the West has moved in that direction anyway, pushed by both increasing scientific knowledge of how the environment works, and the obvious harm seen in the degradation to it caused by the expanding human footprint.
I've always thought that indigenous "management" of the environment vis a vis "colonial" harm to the environment is not something that can readily be credited to their culture sensitivity, when:
1. they did change the landscape significantly with the technology they had (fire);
2. I think its still an open question as to whether they caused a significant number of megafauna extinctions; and
3. who knows they might have done had they had better technology.
As to mythology generally, I would say that all mythology is of some interest, but it's a game of "let's pretend" to say that all mythology is of equal interest. Mythology that has a long history in written form, and is inherently complex, is inherently of greater interest than that oral traditions that are often just local creation myths. (I was thinking about this while watching a video of a drone light show at Riverfire in Brisbane this year. It was based on an aboriginal story about a fighting whale and turtle, or some such, that led to the creation of Moreton Bay islands, or something. Ho hum. It might have kept aboriginal kids interested 300 years ago, but it's a hard sell now!)
And truth be told, if "connection to land" is of such value now that it keeps you on land that is basically harsh and un-fertile and incapable of use in any way that is of modern economic value, it's hurting you and your children rather than helping.
But this is a problem all indigenous find themselves in - whether it be in Greenland, New Zealand, or Brazil. They are often caught trying to straddle the worlds of the old way of living with the new, but this is a very difficult balancing act.
But this is a problem all indigenous find themselves in - whether it be in Greenland, New Zealand, or Brazil. They are often caught trying to straddle the worlds of the old way of living with the new, but this is a very difficult balancing act.
Exactly. I think that creates psychological issues in the generations being raised today because on the one hand they are told to maintain their traditional culture but they must live in our culture. That conflict is exacerbated because in traditional cultures elder respect is often paramount. That respect can stifle innovation and new ways of dealing with the world. There was a study released several years ago which argued that when a leading figure in a field retires of dies, there tends to be a flourish of creative thinking. I'm a little doubtful about that but it is remarkable how in the presence of contradictory evidence some concepts become entrenched. The counterpoint I have noticed is that when I read the literature in a field there often is a wide variety of views expressed. However, those views are expressed but not necessarily embraced by the wider community. A good recent example of entrenched authority the criticism by Hossenfelder and Weinstein regarding the dominance of String Theory over the 30 years. That was so strong that many aspiring physicists had to do their theses in that field or walk away.
You make some other good points. I'll try to address those later.
There are two aspects here, I think:
ReplyDeletea. the practical knowledge (in terms of the environment and how to live off it). That was, of course, of huge value and significance to indigenous people often living in a harsh environment.
But the value to people who have farming and agriculture and fertiliser that means we don't just feed ourselves but much of the rest of the world - not so much. Sure, they might occasionally turn up something new to put on a plate - a finger lime, or grass flour that makes an OK bread - but there's nothing earth shatteringly important to be learned. (And bushland management by fire - once you've learnt how that works, and recognise how it's changed the landscape, what else do you need to know? The idea that it is only local aborigines who understand that, and should be in control of it in future, is fanciful.)
b. the cultural knowledge.
The most common thing pushed, of course, is the inherent environmentalism of the idea of connection to land and belonging to it. But really, the West has moved in that direction anyway, pushed by both increasing scientific knowledge of how the environment works, and the obvious harm seen in the degradation to it caused by the expanding human footprint.
I've always thought that indigenous "management" of the environment vis a vis "colonial" harm to the environment is not something that can readily be credited to their culture sensitivity, when:
1. they did change the landscape significantly with the technology they had (fire);
2. I think its still an open question as to whether they caused a significant number of megafauna extinctions; and
3. who knows they might have done had they had better technology.
As to mythology generally, I would say that all mythology is of some interest, but it's a game of "let's pretend" to say that all mythology is of equal interest. Mythology that has a long history in written form, and is inherently complex, is inherently of greater interest than that oral traditions that are often just local creation myths. (I was thinking about this while watching a video of a drone light show at Riverfire in Brisbane this year. It was based on an aboriginal story about a fighting whale and turtle, or some such, that led to the creation of Moreton Bay islands, or something. Ho hum. It might have kept aboriginal kids interested 300 years ago, but it's a hard sell now!)
And truth be told, if "connection to land" is of such value now that it keeps you on land that is basically harsh and un-fertile and incapable of use in any way that is of modern economic value, it's hurting you and your children rather than helping.
But this is a problem all indigenous find themselves in - whether it be in Greenland, New Zealand, or Brazil. They are often caught trying to straddle the worlds of the old way of living with the new, but this is a very difficult balancing act.
But this is a problem all indigenous find themselves in - whether it be in Greenland, New Zealand, or Brazil. They are often caught trying to straddle the worlds of the old way of living with the new, but this is a very difficult balancing act.
ReplyDeleteExactly. I think that creates psychological issues in the generations being raised today because on the one hand they are told to maintain their traditional culture but they must live in our culture. That conflict is exacerbated because in traditional cultures elder respect is often paramount. That respect can stifle innovation and new ways of dealing with the world. There was a study released several years ago which argued that when a leading figure in a field retires of dies, there tends to be a flourish of creative thinking. I'm a little doubtful about that but it is remarkable how in the presence of contradictory evidence some concepts become entrenched. The counterpoint I have noticed is that when I read the literature in a field there often is a wide variety of views expressed. However, those views are expressed but not necessarily embraced by the wider community. A good recent example of entrenched authority the criticism by Hossenfelder and Weinstein regarding the dominance of String Theory over the 30 years. That was so strong that many aspiring physicists had to do their theses in that field or walk away.
You make some other good points. I'll try to address those later.