File spoon-archives/marxism-international.archive/marxism-international_1998/marxism-international.9801, message 86


Date: Tue, 06 Jan 1998 15:40:24 +1000 (EST)
From: Gary MacLennan <g.maclennan-AT-qut.edu.au>
Subject: Is there a moral point here was Re: M-I: Blaut on Indian death


At 09:29 AM 1/5/98 -0500, you wrote:
>At 07:26 PM 1/4/98 -0500, you wrote:
>>Doug:
>>
>>This claim is NOT controversial in the literature. The best known popular
>>account is Alfred Crosby's THE COLUMBIAN EXCHANGE. Also see McNeill's
>>PLAGUES AND PEOPLE. The classic sources are monographs and papers by
>>Woodrow Borah et al. This fact -- of the crucial importance of disease in
>>the conquest of the Americas -- was not really known until maybe 20 years
>>ago. However, this does not obscure the bloody deeds of the Spaniards and
>>Portuguese.
>>
>>Jim Blaut   
>>
>
>It is very important to realize that some people raise the issue of
>disease-caused deaths precisely to "obscure the bloody deeds." I have in
>mind specifically a long review of Kirkpatrick Sale's "Conquest of
>Paradise" that Columbia University historian Simon Schama wrote for the New
>York Review of Books. The review, like much of Heartfield's stuff, was
>apologetics for these "bloody deeds" that Jim Blaut is referring to. Schama
>makes two points essentially:
>
>1) Disease killed most of the indigenous peoples, not the sword.
>
>2) Genocide was carried out by the strong tribes against the weak tribes
>long before Columbus.
>
>Hence, the crimes of the Europeans is made to appear more like
>misdemeanors. I plan to track down this rancid essay before this thread is
>done. It is a fountainhead for all of the excuses for genocide from the
>bourgeosie, and complements Heartfield's "Marxist" excuses.
>
>Louis Proyect
>
>
>
>     --- from list marxism-international-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---
>
Lou et al,

This is of course an extremely important thread.  Much of it has great
relevance for Australia around the question of Land Rights for Indigenous
Australians.

The Right here have argued that the near extinction of Australia's
Aborigines was primarily the work of germs and viruses and in any case just
another instance of the working out of the survival of the fittest.  They
are also searching desperately for evidence of some people who were wiped
out by Australia's Aborigines.  So far they have not come up with any.
They also argue that it is totally unjustifiable to allow Aborigines to
lock up land from development.

But the purpose of my post is to try and inject a concept of morality into
this debate.  I know that will bring hoots form the Marxist reductionists.
However I would argue that implicit within what for convenience I will term
the 'Heartfield position' is a moral notion that it is wrong to deprive a
particular group of the benefits of capitalism/modernity.

If I am correct here then surely we should address the moral question of
whether it is right to destroy a culture or way of life in the name of
progress or modernity or whatever.

I think that this is as the many posts have testified a very complex issue.
 My use of the slash 'capitalism/modernity' is meant to draw attention to
what I feel is an underlying confusion.  Can we simply equate capitalism
and modernity?  I am inclined to say that we should not and I want to go
further and argue that capitalism is what prevents us from delivering the
promise of modernity -full citizenship for all based on liberty, equality
etc.  What I believe here is that the proponents of progress argue that
they are offering modernity to indigenous peoples but in reality they are
offering capitalism.

So to take a specific instance - say of the Yanomami Indians, we would need
to know exactly what they are being offered through development.  Lou seems
to think that they will be offered a life of misery, disease etc.  This is
of course a reasonably empirical matter.  Is Lou just being an atavistic
romantic or could it be that he has solid historical evidence on his side?
I may be wrong but I would suggest that the evidence supports Lou's case.

Now to argue that this doesn't matter and that progress must continue is I
believe to take a Nietzschean and not a Marxist portion at all.  Moreover I
do not believe that this matter should be solved by quotes from classics
but rather by a very determined effort to maintain and if necessary update
the emancipatory thrust of the Marxist program.


regards

Gary




     --- from list marxism-international-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---

   

Driftline Main Page

 

Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005