From: Marianne Dugan <beaver.cs.washington.edu!gnosys!OREGON.UOREGON.EDU!MDUGAN>
Subject: Re:  Darwinism, social and otherwise
Date: Sun, 13 Sep 1992 01:29:07 GMT

Original-Sender: Marianne Dugan <OREGON.UOREGON.EDU!MDUGAN>

Lyn Dearborn wrote:

> Why
>can't "we" be considered as such, rather than a culture, like the lost tribes
>in the philipines, who have been SO REMOVED from human society for SO MANY
>YEARS, that the collective "we" need to be "polled."

Well, Lyn, I second that emotion; yet it seems there are those
one the net -- Peshewegunzh and others -- who (I feel; maybe I'm
misinterpreting?) keep telling us non-natives that everything we
write on the Net is coming from a non-native viewpoint and that
we obviously can't understand the native point of view on issues
such as abortion, evolution, and environmentalism.  To me, that
is the crux of why Peshe's and others' posts stir up so much
reaction.  Because, deep down, I think a lot of us have the
feeling that Lyn has -- that none of us has a monopoly on what
"THE" native point of view is.  And I humbly submit that, as a
non-native (but one who has lived in poverty among natives) I am
not "in touch" with what it means to be a native person.

So we (non-natives) are torn between "polling" native persons as
to how they feel about controversial issues such as abortion,
evolution, environmentalism -- and instead of polling, reaching
across as fellow humans.

But this is "nativenet" and not "humannet" and so it has a
particular mission, which the moderators and others have
attempted to formulate in the recent past.

>I know I've said this at least twice in the last years, BUT anyone who is
>on the Native Net for the purpose of finding our collective stance on ANYTHING
>is out of luck .

Yes, and I'm sure that's not why I'm on the net; because I
disagree with the concept that there is a "collective stance" of
any ethnic, gender, nationality, etc., group.  The reason I'm
here is because since my earliest memories I've felt out of place
in "my" society and reached out toward native societies, and so
the name and purpose of the list attracted me.  I find myself
wondering if I really have any right, however, to put in my 2
cents, not being a native, and not having anything to offer
native people!  To informally "poll" the Net (at the risk of
exasperating Lyn and others?) -- what do both native and non-
native listeners to the Net feel about that issue?  It seems to
me from the mission statement of the Net that it is mainly
intended as an empowerment tool for native persons, and I think
that is an important mission.  Is it being sabotaged by non-
natives using big words to further philosophical battles?

Of course (and this goes to Lyn's reluctance to post her very
personal spiritual experiences here) even if "we" don't speak on
the Net, we're out there reading all this, and then "we" are (or
at least I feel as I am) a sort of voyeur, an anthropologist.  I
studied anthropology in college, and it was wonderful; I felt I
learned more how to be a human (while other people saw it as a
science to be practiced).  And then I went out into the real
world -- including native "worlds" -- and found out
anthropologists were despised for their scientific intervention
in native cultures.  So I kept my mouth shut about my major!
But, to get back to the point, do "we" really have a place on
the Net, or are we mere oafish white intruders?
----------------------------------------------------------------
Marianne Dugan  mdugan@oregon.uoregon.edu