RE: [POLITICS] White Missionaries' Contact with Inuit

[Guest guest]

[HJ]> However, from what I've gleaned from folks who have worked with

> tribes, either as translators or missionaries or doctors or

whatever ...

> it isn't really the *motives* of the modern folks that is the

problem ...

> the problem is with " modernity " itself. It is very difficult, when

exposed

> to the concepts of warm houses, flush toilets, soft beds, etc. to

keep

> living in a hut. I mean, I COULD go out and live in the goat shed

outside.

> Or pitch a tent, and cook over a fire. Nothing stopping me, and when

> I do that for a week or so camping, I think it's fun. But I just

can't do it,

> given the choice. Warm bed wins every time.

I completely agree with this. When in African villages, I'd have

maybe 2 cotton skirts and 3 cotton tops and 1 pair of shoes, no

jewelry, no makeup. But I still stood out because my clothes weren't

thread bare and I *had* shoes. My presence, as unobtrusive as I

tried to make it, said " wealth. "

The fact is, though, that modernity exists in remote, rural areas now

whether there are NGOs (non-government organizations -- missionaries,

peace corps, other non-profits) working there or not. Coca-cola,

ultra-pasteurized boxed milk, sugar for chai, and hydrogenated

soybean oil were in the most remote places I encountered. Rural

villages often have someone who has a generator and has a business of

showing western movies once a week or once a month. *Small* towns

have bars with televisions, showing western tv shows.

I mentioned the self-formed language committee who sought out

Wycliffe's help -- they were desperate for getting mother-tongue

literacy & education. But there were also some (from the tribe) who

wanted only English, who felt that mother-tongue literacy would " hold

back " the tribe. It seemed to me that a lot of Africans wanted to be

like the western world and were almost racing to catch up. There was

often dissension w/in tribes -- " our ways are good and we can't lose

them " vs " our ways our backwards and we need to change. " (I didn't

enter into many of these discussions, but when I did it was generally

in favor of traditional ways -- but then there'd be those who'd

say, " you just want to keep us from the good things you have. " )

If there are " pristine " primitive groups still in existence, they are

very rare. Modernity has arrived (from many sources) and it is hard

to see comforts others have and not want them for yourself & your

family.

[Guest guest]

The fact is, though, that modernity exists in remote, rural areas now

whether there are NGOs (non-government organizations -- missionaries,

peace corps, other non-profits) working there or not. Coca-cola,

ultra-pasteurized boxed milk, sugar for chai, and hydrogenated

soybean oil were in the most remote places I encountered. Rural

villages often have someone who has a generator and has a business of

showing western movies once a week or once a month. *Small* towns

have bars with televisions, showing western tv shows.

I mentioned the self-formed language committee who sought out

Wycliffe's help -- they were desperate for getting mother-tongue

literacy & education. But there were also some (from the tribe) who

wanted only English, who felt that mother-tongue literacy would " hold

back " the tribe. It seemed to me that a lot of Africans wanted to be

like the western world and were almost racing to catch up. There was

often dissension w/in tribes -- " our ways are good and we can't lose

them " vs " our ways our backwards and we need to change. " (I didn't

enter into many of these discussions, but when I did it was generally

in favor of traditional ways -- but then there'd be those who'd

say, " you just want to keep us from the good things you have. " )

If there are " pristine " primitive groups still in existence, they are

very rare. Modernity has arrived (from many sources) and it is hard

to see comforts others have and not want them for yourself & your

family.

I discovered this too. On one of my trips to South America, I went into a very

isolated area of a very poor settlement. While there, we wandered into what was

their equivalent of a convenience store (carrying some of their cultural basic

supplies for sale). Imagine my shock when I discovered a case of bottled

Coca-cola for sale !

Rebekah

[Guest guest]

I love languages, and I agree it is important to preserve them. Losing an

indigenous language is a loss for all of us and I applaud the missionaries

efforts to save them. However just as important is preserving indigenous

religions. I just heard a lecture by Fox, an Episcopal priest. In

his work with the indigenous, he has observed that the people who preserve

their own cosmology/religion do much better than those that do not. I guess

he is kind of a spiritual version of Weston Price.

Irene

At 09:47 PM 12/13/2004, you wrote:

>,

>

>Thank you for your comments.

>

>I do realize that not all missionaries are the same. It sounds as if

>Wycliffe has done a good job.

>

>Enjoy! ;-)

>

>Judith Alta

>

>

>

>

> Re: [POLITICS] White Missionaries' Contact with Inuit

>

>

>[Judith] I will repeat. The only reason that missionaries want to

>preserve language is that it makes it easier for them to push their

>way into the lives of the people they are converting.

>

>Hi Judith,

>

>Speaking as a former member of said-group (Wycliffe Bible

>Translators), I can tell you that is not the only reason that

>Wycliffe missionaries often give 20+ years of their lives to language

>and literacy work in minority languages. Yes, it is a primary

>motivating factor -- and perhaps for some it is the sole factor, but

>not for all.

>

>I was with Wycliffe, working with a minority ethnic group in Africa

>for 2 years (and might still be there if I hadn't gotten sick). I

>was helping develop an alphabet and mother-tongue literacy materials

>in that language. There were already several churches established in

>the area (they used an English Bible) and the little education that

>was offered (govt sponsored education) was in English.

>

>The tribespeople themselves (note: in using the word " tribe " I'm not

>trying to be demeaning as it might sound to some; it was the

>preferred word when I was there) approached us, asking -- more like

>begging -- for our help. They wanted education in their language.

>They wanted a Bible in their language. I worked as a linguistic

>consultant to a self-formed language committee whose 2 goals were

>education in the mother tongue and a mother-tongue Bible. They were

>worried about the young children only being educated in English.

>They told me, " Without our language, our culture will die. "

>

>Although a young, single female wouldn't have much status in their

>culture, I was treated with enormous respect. At one meeting of the

>language committee, one man made a speech about " why should

>leave her country to come here and help us with our language? " He

>and the others always treated me with deep gratitude for my help.

>One man once referred to me as a member of the tribe.

>

>I don't think that those of us who speak English and have millions of

>books in English available to us can imagine what dignity it gives to

>a minority ethnic group to have their own language written. To be

>able to begin education of their children in their language instead

>of the foreign English language. The group I worked with felt that

>their language was somehow inadequate and that it couldn't be

>written -- it wasn't as " good " as English. I saw a look of

>indescribable dignity and soul-satisfaction (I really don't know how

>to describe it) when some of these people realized for the first time

>that they could read their language -- that their language was " as

>good as " English. We know the power of the written word. What if

>written words were in other languages, but not your own?

>

>Like I said, churches were already established there and a fair

>number of people were already Christians, so if I (or Wycliffe) was

>solely interested in conversions, there was no need for me to be

>there. My work was done out of a deep, deep respect and admiration

>for indigenous cultures. My work was done because I am pained by the

>loss of languages and cultures. I believe that the whole world

>suffers a loss when a language/culture dies. I chose that work

>because I believe in the God-given dignity and value of every human

>being and I have those beliefs because of my Christian faith. (I'm

>not saying that those of other faiths would not share that same

>belief; just saying where I get mine from.)

>

>I've always understood the conflict around missionary work and have

>had to wrestle with those issues. And I completely agree that

>damaging things have been done by missionaries. Things that make me

>cringe and make me hate to say in public that I was a missionary!

>But, those things are not all missionaries at all times.

>

>I was *so impressed* seeing the work of Wycliffe first-hand over 2

>years. I believe that much of the work that is done by them wouldn't

>be found objectionable by most people (even those antagonistic to

>Christianity). The value of the linguistic work in helping to

>preserve language and culture is *immeasurable.* There is no money

>to be made in this. If it weren't those who had religious

>motivation, I don't think you'd see anyone spending 20-30 years of

>their lives working in these difficult situations. And, if it

>weren't for those people, more languages would be disappearing than

>already are.

>

>We had many seminars in anthropology helping us to see our own

>cultural and spiritual blinders and there were discussions about " are

>we harming cultures or helping? " There are many, many missionaries

>who care deeply about such things. There are also those who don't.

>There are missionaries I would give financial support to today and

>those that I feel are doing harm -- it's particularly sad because

>it's done " in the name of God. "

>

>Judith, I think I understand your views about Christians and

>missionaries. I've seen what you've seen and dislike and I dislike

>it as well (perhaps even more than you!). I think I would agree that

>many Christians seem to be the most judgemental people I know as

>well. I feel weary by many things I see Christians say and do. But

>I wanted you to know that what you've described is not the whole

>picture.

>

>When people are ugly and obnoxious, those are the people who get

>noticed. Those you don't notice may also be Christians, but you'd

>never know it because they aren't drawing attention to themselves.

>

>(One note to anyone who may not understand why it is a loss to the

>world when a language dies. The true loss/tragedy, of course, is to

>that culture, but I wanted to speak to how it affects the rest of

>us. If you've ever had exposure to another language, you know that

>there are some things that just don't translate from one language to

>another. People say, " Oh there's this great phrase in French which

>describes such-and-such so well, but there's no real equivalent in

>English. " Well, languages convey world views, they convey ways of

>seeing. For example, time is " cut up " differently from language to

>language. How we view time is constrained by the language we speak!

>The richness and diversity in perspectives that are contained in

>language are a gift to everyone. When a language/culture dies, that

>view dies, that way of seeing that might provide new insight or just

>add richness to understanding is now gone.)

>

>Best to you,

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>Important Native Nutrition Addresses

> * Native Nutrition on the

> < />WEB

> * Search the message <http://onibasu.dyndns.org/>ARCHIVE ­ NEW FEATURE!

> * Change your group SETTINGS

> * <mailto: >POST a message

> * <mailto: -subscribe >SUBSCRIBE to the

> list

> * <mailto: -unsubscribe >UNSUBSCRIBE

> from the list

> * Send an <mailto: -owner >EMAIL to the

> List Owner & Moderators

>

>List Owner: Idol

>Moderators: Heidi Schuppenhauer

> Wanita Sears

>

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 12/13/04 9:25:51 PM Eastern Standard Time, hl@...

writes:

> >Some Christians will back off sooner than others when they realize the

> >other person doesn't want to hear what they're saying. But I can't

> >imagine that any Christian would keep on " pushing " for any other

> >reason than a deep concern and compassion for the person they are

> >speaking to.

> >

> [Deanna] No, this is not always the case and besides, it goes against

> Lord Jesus's teachings. Jesus said something the the effect: If they

> will not listen, wipe off your feet and leave. So I do not think this

> idealism is Christian. Pushing, like punching, is not the way. You

> brought up Crusades earlier. Pushing can go too long and too far.

______

It appears that the quoted text was attributed to me, although I didn't write

it.

In the text that Deanna quoted, it appears that the conversion is taken to be

between two people: the believer, and the unbeliever. Something is missing

from the equation. Where's God?

If someone will not believe, the believer should pray for them, not harass

them. If the Holy Spirit cannot open their heart, what makes a human think they

could?

Chris

____

" What can one say of a soul, of a heart, filled with compassion? It is a

heart which burns with love for every creature: for human beings, birds, and

animals, for serpents and for demons. The thought of them and the sight of them

make the tears of the saint flow. And this immense and intense compassion,

which flows from the heart of the saints, makes them unable to bear the sight of

the smallest, most insignificant wound in any creature. Thus they pray

ceaselessly, with tears, even for animals, for enemies of the truth, and for

those

who do them wrong. "

--Saint Isaac the Syrian

[Guest guest]

ChrisMasterjohn@... wrote:

>In a message dated 12/13/04 9:25:51 PM Eastern Standard Time, hl@...

>writes:

>

>

>

>>>Some Christians will back off sooner than others when they realize the

>>>

>>>

>> >other person doesn't want to hear what they're saying. But I can't

>> >imagine that any Christian would keep on " pushing " for any other

>> >reason than a deep concern and compassion for the person they are

>> >speaking to.

>> >

>> [Deanna] No, this is not always the case and besides, it goes against

>> Lord Jesus's teachings. Jesus said something the the effect: If they

>> will not listen, wipe off your feet and leave. So I do not think this

>> idealism is Christian. Pushing, like punching, is not the way. You

>> brought up Crusades earlier. Pushing can go too long and too far.

>>

>>

>______

>

>It appears that the quoted text was attributed to me, although I didn't write

>it.

>

>In the text that Deanna quoted, it appears that the conversion is taken to be

>between two people: the believer, and the unbeliever. Something is missing

>from the equation. Where's God?

>

>If someone will not believe, the believer should pray for them, not harass

>them. If the Holy Spirit cannot open their heart, what makes a human think

they

>could?

>

>Chris

>

>

It has been so long, I haven't a clue as to who said what. I will stand

by ahimsa. As far as pushy Christians go, I live in Bible Belt

country. The only pushy ones I can think of are Jehovah' Witness

folks. I am usually pushed by God, thank you very much. But I will

acquiesce to nonviolence (ahimsa). If my kids are assaulted, I might

react or I might yield depending on the situation. We should be

perfect, as our Father in heaven. Or at least try as sinners will.

All my love,

Deanna