h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

" Excellent Entry on the Australian Aboriginal creation myth"

I find this wording to be patronising and condescending. The Aboriginal story of creation is fundamental to their culture and is certainly not seen to be a myth by them.

Would you write about the Christian myth of the Resurrection or the Islamic myth of the Night Journey? No, you would describe these as beliefs.

Succinctly and correctly put, SWL.

Yep, what he said

<>

Yes.

Sorry to be facetious, but I would actually. It's all just tribal nonsense.

I have to agree. I'm really tired of people playing the religion card the way that others play the race card and bleating 'You can't say that, I'm offended!'. Get over it. If your religion/beliefs are strong enough within you - whatever religion and/or beliefs you might adhere to - you don't get offended by someone using one word over another. All that PC crap belongs where it started - in the 1980s.

Yes echo, but you have a right to mock/deride/whatever elements within your own cuture

To describe the belief systems of people we don't understand - people who have been systematically dispossesed of their land and culture, by people who look and sound very much like the perpetrators (e.g the BBC, you, me, SWL, etc. - is ignorant, rude, offensive, racist, etc.

No it isn't. It's white man's guilt focused through the lens of political correctness. When 'offensive' statements are made there will always be a handful of people who get up on their hind legs and make a fuss, and there will be a majority who shrug it off or raise nothing more than a wry smile. Unfortunately it's the minority who are most vocal and who therefore shape public awareness and, ultimately, public opinion. For the worse.

That sounds a lot like a double standard, six7s.

Perhaps this isn't an appropriate discussion for Feedback, but once a debate has been started...

I remember once about a year ago having a discussion with a friend about the film The Producers, specifically about the song "Springtime for Hitler" and the satire concerning Hitler and Nazi Germany inherent in that song and the film. Both my friend and I are Jewish, and my friend argued that the satire is acceptable only because Mel Brooks was "a member of the community". I argued that satire is satire, whether you're Jewish or not. Some things are always in poor taste, and some things are generally funny if you've the ability to appreciate them.

A similar standard can be applied in this case, I think. Being "of the community" doesn't give you special privileges; either you can say something or you can't - and in this case, I think, you can. Like Gosho said, surely if one is a person of great faith one doesn't need it reinforced by a single word on h2g2's front page - and furthermore, if we want to get into all that political correctness, to give a minority special treatment because they've been subject to persecution is also a bit condescending - it suggests that they *need* the special treatment.

Religions are religions, cults are cults, practices are practices, beliefs are beliefs and myths are myths. Are we worried about offending the ancient Romans, or the scientologists? No. We really shouldn't be worried about offending the Christians or the Muslims either, but unfortunately practice tells us that when we do that, we get blown up.

Of course there are double standards. That's life. Can you say, hand on heart, that it is likely that "The Islamic myth of the Night Journey" will ever appear on the Front Page?

It won't, because we know it will cause offence.
And we know what the result will be.
But it's ok to insult Aborigines because they're thousands of miles away and don't have a prior history of getting stroppy.

By the way, I personally agree that the Dreamtime creation story is a myth, but have we learned nothing about the nature of free speech?

>> the nature of free speech <<

I must say, I do agree. The weight of reponsibility is on us to show respect for one and all. It is the only way we can then turn around and demand it back.

I agree, Wilma.

We may have a right to say these things, but if we know or suspect that our words cause offence, then we are knowingly being disrespectful.

Having said that, I'd be surprised if the 'myth' word is thought offensive here. It has a number of meanings depending on context, eg. a legend or a lie, and I think it was the first of these. Of course, if anyone says that they found it offensive, then we should respect that and find an alternative.

The term 'creation myth' is perfectly acceptable and commonly-used terminology when discussing any culture's beliefs concerning the origin of humanity, earth, life, the universe etc. 'Creation myth' is referring to this. The word 'myth' is not to be taken offence at. The correct phrase is 'creation myth'. A quick search on google should assuage your fears.

Good point, Eds.

Here's one definition:

creation myth:
In most mythologies and religions, an account of the origin of the world, as well as of the human race and all the other creatures on Earth. There is a remarkable similarity in the creation stories as recounted in the holy books of major religions, and in the myths and legends of ethnic groups, such as Native Australians and Native Americans.
(Philip's World Encyclopedia, 2005)

I agree, it's a 'creation myth', it's what it is

Ah. OK, fair enough. However since it has been raised here perhaps putting the term in '' would be pertinent? As in: 'creation myth' ... or not? Now I 'get' it, I don't mind so much.
W

<>

Fair enough, and I also personally agree that they are all myths, but I think the point being made is that if Christian or Muslim or Jewish beliefs were being referred to on the Front Page they would not be called myths. Presumably because these believers would find that term insulting.

Sauce for the gander ...?

az

Well, personally, I'd have no trouble with an entry on the Christian 'creation myth', for the reasons explained by the italics above. It is an important part of my beliefs, but I do also know what the phrase means!

Well I for one look forward to the day when the italics dare describe something as the 'Islamic Creation myth'. Because if they've any sense they wouldn't as a Fatwa may well be winging their way. Surely it is obvious that a great disagreement is now going within the Abrahamic religions between the extremists who believe in the literal word of the holy books and those being more liberal, who are prepared to see stories as allegory. So yes the word 'myth' is highly charged, and not just some neutral intellectual term. Ask Salman Rushdie, who wrote just wrote a story, and had to go into hiding for years. But I don't expect the Aboriginals are likely to react like this. Let's face it, they've had 200 years of being treated like shit by arrogant Europeans and their thinking, and show little signs of behaving like those of the Abrahmic traditions

The word 'myth' stems from the Graeco'Roman tradition, 'mythos'. Within Western thought the concept of 'myth' has a particular meaning. The apparent atheist Plato wrote in terms of mythos, ie the realm of perfect forms, without meaning this was literally true. The concept of myth has long been used in the West but has very little to do with cultures from a wholy different tradition, although applied to them since European Imperialism colonised other cultures around the world..

Aboriginal Australians have lived in Australia anything from 120,000 to 60,000 years. That is thousands and thousands of years before the first cave dwellers had even arrived in Europe. To use a relatively recent western classical concept to decribe their cultural 'beliefs', (for want of a better word, sorry) is frankly silly. From the very little I understand of Aboriginal ideas their tradtional concept of past and present differs from ours. In one sense creation is continually occuring. So to describe it as yet another 'creation myth' like something western, is simplistic, inaccurate and as SWL says, patronising.

-----------

>> The term 'creation myth' is perfectly acceptable
To you, perhaps. To people who have been systematically oppressed, it's yet another insult, especially so when prepetrated by people who - with a little thought - could find alternatives

You are paid to think



>> The word 'myth' is not to be taken offence at.
This is akin to a dentist saying 'this won't hurt a bit' - yeah, it won't hurt the dentist!



>> The correct phrase is 'creation myth'. A quick search on google should assuage your fears.

A quick search (ok, a slow search) on h2g2 provides alternatives:

C26 - Mythology & Folklore
C30 - Religion & Spirituality
A686937 - The 'Genesis' Creation Account

Face it, no one has surfaced to say that they *are* offended by the use of the phrase "creation myth". I grant you that it's not fair to call Christian or Muslim myths, for example, something other than that if you're going to use "myth" to describe Aboriginal stories, but to me there really isn't a whole lot of difference between the beliefs described in the FP entry in question and, say, the story of Noah's Ark or the bit about God creating the world in seven days. I can only wish that it were possible for the BBC to call *everything* a myth. I certainly would, but then again I am an individual without very many identifying factors who is unlikely to be sued for it.

But in the end, I don't see anything offensive about the use of "myth" or "creation myth" - I just grant that in comparison to Christianity or another mainstream faith, it might not be PC.