Some of this thread reminds me of just what is wrong with our academic style.
Heartfield seems adapt at appropriating some very important texts and turning
them into silliness. I would like merely at this time to interject a few
questions.
1. If more slaves died from disease during the Middle Pa
Louis Proyect wrote: 1) Dee Brown -- Bury My Heart At Wounded Knee
> 2) Peter Mathiessen -- In the Spirit of Crazy Horse
> 3) Peter Mathiessen -- Indian Country
Matthiessen, Peter [2 t's also wrote, at least I thought it was him, maybe
someone else can correct me] a book with a title with "t
Doug,
You might want to look at:
Klein, Laura & Lilian Ackerman (eds.) Women and Power in Native North
America (1995 Norman, OK)
Bernstein, David J. Prehistoric Subsistence on the Southern New England
Coast (1993 San Diego)
Simmons, Wm. S. The Narragansett (1989 NY)
Sharer, Robert T
Louise Erdrich. Great author. Wonderful insights.
Love Medicine is the second title.
Sid
>
> I liked "Bingo Palace". I can't remember the woman's name who wrote it, she
> also wrote Heart Medicine? (or Love Medicine?) or something like that and
> "Beets... something" I know it's very current,
I liked "Bingo Palace". I can't remember the woman's name who wrote it, she
also wrote Heart Medicine? (or Love Medicine?) or something like that and
"Beets... something" I know it's very current, were you looking for olden
days stories? I'll dig you up a better reference if you don't mind reading
Thanks to everyone who's supplied titles on Indians. Most have been about
their decimation by the Europeans - I'm more interested in stuff about
their social lives - work, kinship, property, etc. Any ideas?
Doug
See the book edited by Annette James, "The State of Native America". It
was published by South End press in 1992 or 1993. there ar many excellent
articles dealing with land, fishing rights, water, governance, and
resistance.
On Mon, 5 Jan 1998, Doug Henwood wrote:
> Thanks to everyone who's
On Mon, January 5, 1998 at 13:23:13 (-0500) Doug Henwood writes:
>Thanks to everyone who's supplied titles on Indians. Most have been about
>their decimation by the Europeans - I'm more interested in stuff about
>their social lives - work, kinship, property, etc. Any ideas?
You might try:
Alvin
:23:13 -0500
> Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> From: Doug Henwood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: Marx on Native Americans
> In-Reply-To:
> References: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Mime-Version: 1.0
> Content-Ty
> Doug Henwood wrote:
> >
> > Can anyone recommend anything good to read on Native Americans/Indians?
>
I found Ronald Wright's _Stolen Continents_ a real education. His account
of the Spanish conquest is incredible. If I remember correctly, Wright
estimates that 9/10s of the Indian population
There was a book in the late 70s or early 80s called KEEPERS OF
THE GAME by an anthropologist (Calvin ???) whose last name I
cannot remember. He makes a very interesting and HIGHLY
controversial argument about how the tribes in the northeast and
northwest (that is, what we now refer to as the Mid
Doug Henwood wrote:
>
> Can anyone recommend anything good to read on Native Americans/Indians?
Ward Churchill is about as much native american as most white radicals
can handle. He has written much to challenge white radicals' views and
stands on native american issues. I always find his writin
A comment on this thread, from near Zimbabwe:
> Date: Sat, 3 Jan 1998 10:56:43 +
> Reply-to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Louis:
> >These questions are popping up everywhere in the world today. The NY Times
> >reported that Mugabe is threatening to finally expropriate the rich white
> >se
On Sun, January 4, 1998 at 15:17:35 (-0500) Doug Henwood writes:
>Can anyone recommend anything good to read on Native Americans/Indians?
>
>I notice lots of people here & on the Spoons Marxism lists using "Indians."
>Is "Native American" just not sticking?
Here are some I have found helpful:
Wa
At 03:17 PM 1/4/98 -0500, you wrote:
>Can anyone recommend anything good to read on Native Americans/Indians?
>
>I notice lots of people here & on the Spoons Marxism lists using "Indians."
>Is "Native American" just not sticking?
>
>Doug
1) Dee Brown -- Bury My Heart At Wounded Knee
2) Peter Math
James Michael Craven wrote:
>The point is that the robbing of territory, displacement of Indians
>and genocide idicted Capitalisms own private property institutions
>and legal criteria for establishing "ownership". On the basis of what
>has been done to Indians, presumably anyone with a bigger gu
Can anyone recommend anything good to read on Native Americans/Indians?
I notice lots of people here & on the Spoons Marxism lists using "Indians."
Is "Native American" just not sticking?
Doug
Blaut made the memorable statement that indigenous people weren't
conquered -- they were _infested_! (This drew a hearty laugh from a
Guatemalan friend of mine.)
Sid
>
> If I'm remembering correctly, James Blaut says in The Colonizer's Model of
> the World (Guilford, a couple of years ago) that
t;[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: Sun, 04 Jan 1998 15:46:24 -0500
> Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> From: Louis Proyect <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: Marx on Native Americans
> In-Reply-To:
> References: <[EMAIL PR
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> From: Doug Henwood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], Louis Proyect <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Re: Marx on Native Americans
> In-Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Mime-Version: 1.0
> Content-Type: text
Response: Even granted that Indians did not historically have a
concept of private ownership of land or institutions of private
property governing establishing basis of legitimacy of ownership of
land, capitalist society does and from the standpoint of the core
criteria and values for establi
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Louis
Proyect <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes
>The law that ceded tens of thousands of
>acreage to the Seminoles in 1938
I see. As Marcel Marien said of the Belgian Resistance, native land
rights came 'after the war'. I don't really see how a law passed in 1938
change
Again it is difficult to talk sense into Louis when accusations like FBI
membership collusion with genocide and other emotionalism is in the air,
but here goes.
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Louis
Proyect <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes
>The American Indians did not have a concept of land ownership
Heartfield:
>And yet, strangely, afforded native Americans no protection whatsoever
>against the invasion of these lands and the slaughter of their
>inhabitants. Native American land rights proved about as 'real' as the
>rights of Jews in the Warsaw Ghetto.
This is baloney. Native American land r
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Louis
Proyect <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes
> What we differ on is the substantial question of social
>justice. You side with the land thieves, I side with the victims.
You confuse questions of history with questions of policy. I'm not
taking sides with anyone in hist
Heartfield:
>The Native Americans were slaughtered, not robbed. Property rights are
>alien to native American culture.
>
The American Indians did not have a concept of land ownership like Donald
Trump's, but they certainly did have a concept of territoriality.
Heartfield is aware of this, I'm sur
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Louis
Proyect <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes
> Over here much more rigor is
>necessary.
and then
>It is the genocidal exploitation of Native Americans and African
>slaves that made US capitalism possible.
I was unaware of the exploitation of Native Americans in the N
Heartfield:
>I was unaware of the exploitation of Native Americans in the North. One
>might have thought that reservations and genocide made exploitation
>impossible, but perhaps in your scientific rigour you have discovered
>some new form of exploitation.
I am referring to the general sense of
This is a bit of a mess, because Louis is angry about something that
gets in the way of his thinking, but here goes:
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Louis
Proyect <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes
>
>Or was "ennobling" American Indians just a convenient fiction?
Isn't that what I said? Fictitious. Pro
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Louis
Proyect <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes
>Heartfield:
>>
>>In Particular Marx and Engels both considered native American society
>>backward technologically and morally, as the blood-ties of kinship
>>groups (gens) stifled individual personality.
>>
>
>I think at thi
Heartfield:
>This is a bit of a mess, because Louis is angry about something that
>gets in the way of his thinking, but here goes:
James, it not a bit of a mess. Your post is a complete mess. You should be
aware that PEN-L is not the Spoons Lists. Over on the Spoons Lists you can
feel free to mak
LM:
In fact the French courts and the English Parliament ennobled Native
American leaders as Chieftans or Chiefs of their tribes or clans on the
model of the fictitious recognition of the land rights of the Scottish
lairds. Like that artificial nobility, the Native American chiefs were
receive
Heartfield:
>
>In Particular Marx and Engels both considered native American society
>backward technologically and morally, as the blood-ties of kinship
>groups (gens) stifled individual personality.
>
I think at this point we understand what Heartfield means by "individual
personality". It has l
MARX ON NATIVE AMERICANS
>From the Ethnological notebooks
Ed. Lawrence Krader, Van Gorcum, Assen, Netherlands, 1972
Marx's notes on Lewis Morgan's Ancient Society were principally
concerned with family organisation and became the basis of Engels
'Origin of the family, privat
34 matches
Mail list logo
