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

No, all Achilles had to do was encase his ankle in concrete with hover jets attached, al Eddie Izzard...

Ben, you'll be telling me next that there is no Holy Grail, that Atlantis never existed and that the Turin Shroud doesn't really have the face of Jesus on.

And then we shall have to have words...

Brief tangent (and I know I'll end up regretting this), but I have a question for Gigabane. If you are a staunch atheist, how do you reconcile that with your belief in astrology?

>> And then we shall have to have words...

Poo! Wee! Willie! Bum!



B

That's more like it. Back to the proper intellectual level of H2G2 which I am used to.



Pee Poo Belly Bum Draws

>and I know I'll end up regretting this<

And so, no doubt, will the rest of us...

>>My personal view is that the book is both a wave and a particle. It is both sexist and not sexist - (mildly sexist in effect, not sexist in intent) - and my feeling is that the racism comes into the same category but more so.
<<

Yes! This is what I have been feeling but was nowhere near close to being able to express that clearly.

One aspect of this thread that has been niggling at me is the putting up of inherently opposing ideas (is the book racist or not). Of course viewing the duality helps the debate in a lot of ways, but there is a point beyond that.

I'm tending towards blicky's perspective at the moment, because looking at if from that place is opening my mind in interesting ways, or maybe deepening it. And I am still with SD's words about the masculinity of LotR, and have been thinking about how those values listed earlier as being essential to be reflected for men (in particular at this time) still have value even if the book also contains a racist perspective. Personally I think that a maturing of masculinist identity is going to have to include an analysis of racism. I think it would be a mistake for men valueing the masculinist themes of LotR to deny or avoid the racist tendency (feminism having made that mistake far too often).

The problem with saying the book isn't racist or it is racist is that the people on the other side get let off. I've posted about this before - that rather than asking am I racist, it is more useful to ask "in what ways am I racist?" That way I don't have to be either completely in denial (I'm not racist) or risk being labeled a neonazi (I am racist). I think this applies to sexism etc and can be applied to LotR.

I also think that we still haven't very clearly explored what racism is - the impression I have on h2 is that some people think that racism is only race hatred like is practiced by overt bigots and nazis. To see racism in such narrow terms stops us from seeing other forms of racism - eg socialised, institutional, unintentional etc.

One of the racisms that I see about the LotR is contained in the idea that it was a product of it's time - that somehow if one is unaware of the societal racism then one isn't racist. I think this is untrue.

~~~

>>
>> I think it highly unlikely that the indigneous peoples of the UK/Europe did for instance because when you look at people who revere the Earth they tend not to be afraid of the night (possibly because pre-industrial cultures spend so much more time in it).

Can you add a bit to that, please?<<

I think the less time we spend with something the less we understand it (or the more we forget). Alot of Westerners seem to have an almost pathological fear of the dark. The cure for this is to spend time in the dark (really, this works). I think that people that live more closely to the land (including those in the West) spend more time in the dark and are less afraid of it because it is not so unfamiliar to them.

The reference to industrial cultures is that we are simply so accustomed now to turning on the light that we are in danger of forgeting how to be in the dark.


~~

>>
>> indigneous cultures tend not to see white=good and black=bad in the way that the West does

What does indigenous mean in this context?

I view myself as an indigenous Brit, (among other things), whose culture and in particular whose original religious traditions were trashed by being overlayed by an alien and monotheistic import from the Middle East.

I am saying this in all seriousness.

Christianity f**ked over the indigenous peoples of Western Europe as thoroughly as it f**ked over that of any other indigenous peoples. It just happened 1000 - 1500 years earlier with us.
<<

hmm, the dangers of trying to give a definition of indigenous. Let's just say that in this context I am referring to the people of the land (NZ Maori call themselves tangata whenua, which means people of the land, although whenua also means placenta which gives it a more complex meaning I feel). Personally I think indigineity is not defined by race or even ethnicity, it is defined by a people's relationship with the land.

The West tend to see themselves as landowners. Alot of other people understand that they belong _to_ the land not the other way around. That is what makes them indigenous, and it renders a wilingness to be changed by the land rather than to chnage the land and use it (which is the West's current modus operandi).

I entirely agree that it is possible for Brits to be indigenous. My personal feeling is that most are not, or they are disconnected from their indigineity. It heartens me to hear a Brit acknowledging themselves as indigenous

I think that the big challenge for white cultures is to stop being white and to become indigenous again (eg I'm not a white NZer, I am a South Pacifican of Scots descent).

It's really interesting to me the waves of colonisation of the UK, the Christian one being particularly damaging, and some of it is very recent. I know that alot of the reason I am here is because of the Highland clearances which isn't that long ago. When you look at the gross human injustices that happened there, and then look at what they and their descendants did to the indigneous peoples they encountered...it's heartbreaking really, and it's those stories of my people being forced off the land that have deepened the compassion I have for the people that lost their land so that I could live here.

Sorry for the ovelong answer (perhaps we could continue in the land matters conversation). I guess it is relevant to an extent though because I feel that Tolkien's desire for an English mythology is in part a desire to belong again.

kea.

Well, the matter of exactly who is indigenous to the British Isles is a bit of a thorny one.

England takes it's name form the Angles, who didn't even arrive here until after the Romans had finished with place, and they had kicked out the Celts.

The truly indigenous peoples of the British Isles are the Celts, which would give us a shared cultural outlook with Northern France (Breton, as oppsosed to Normandy, which came later) and large parts of (Iberian) Spain. In fact, because of the Angle settlement of the islands, that period of history which Tolkien was a specialist in had much more in common, culturally,with Scandanavia, Germany and even Iceland.

Strangely, Tolkien couldn't abide Celtic mythology, despite the fact that it has much stronger ties to the British landscape than that of Northern Europe...

>> rather than asking am I racist, it is more useful to ask "in what ways am I racist?"

Just highlighting this. It is a question it behooves all of us to ask ourselves.


>> To see racism in such narrow terms stops us from seeing other forms of racism - eg socialised, institutional, unintentional etc.

Ditto sexism. One of the problems with sexism is that there *are* differences between the sexes - if there weren't there would be no transgendered people or ladies loos.


>> A lot of Westerners seem to have an almost pathological fear of the dark. The cure for this is to spend time in the dark (really, this works).

100% agreed. I used to live in a rural area, I had great night vision and good hearing. I would prefer to walk without a torch because it messed up my night vision. Now I live in a town and my night vision is crap even when I go back to rural areas. I am very wary of bad lighting. Most burglars are afraid of the dark, and most have poor night vision themselves. You can see a torch for miles on a clear night.


>> Personally I think indigineity is not defined by race or even ethnicity, it is defined by a people's relationship with the land.

Hmmm. In which case there are very few, but still some, indiginous people in Western Europe. Incidentally Kea, have you read this from Kipling: http://www.poetryloverspage.com/poets/kipling/land.html


>> I guess it is relevant to an extent though because I feel that Tolkien's desire for an English mythology is in part a desire to belong again.

Which is interesting. The Hobbits and the Elves are definitely indigenous by your definition, and the Ents, of course.

B

When i said there are no gods as we would want. I did not mean there is definatly no higher power at work.
you are right to fear the question, as do i.
something really might be watching...

actuall i hear the celts are native of india in the first instance and moved to extreme n scotland and bread into scotish stock.

SORRY
could all people that wish to talk to me do so in "need help naming a political system because i am following too many threads"

That is almost certainly the case. We speak a language that is classed as part of the same linguistic family as India.

Certainly it would explain why those qualities we so associate with the Celts (small, dark skinned, dark haired) are so at odds with what we think of as the characteristics of the Angles and the Northern Europeans in general.

So the mystery deepens, but not for practical purposes - the first 'civilization' to be indigenous to the British Isles *was* Celtic.

>> The truly indigenous peoples of the British Isles are the Celts,

What about the Picts?

"The Scots (originaly Irish, but by now Scotch) were at this time inhabiting Ireland, having driven the Irish (Picts) out of Scotland; while hte Picts (originally Scots) were now Irish (living in brackets) and *vice versa*. It is essential to keep these destinctions clearly in mind (and *verce visa*)."

B

True enough, but unlike the Celts, the Picts didn't leave us much of a record. We have a very detailed picture of Celtic myth and legend (most of it about cattle rustling ), but virtually none of what the Picts believed or of the stories they told.

The crucial point is, of course, that we have no real idea of what the Angles had in the way of myths and legend either, as it was pretty much eradicated by the Christains. As a nation, we lifted Arthur almost wholesale from the French (Mallory. Although I think Nexus7's project on Arthurian Legend does take the stories back further than that - certainly Gawain and the Green Knight smacks of pre-Christain imagery), and there is little else.

The first real attempt at any sort of 'Angliscised' legend telling apart from Arthur is Geoffrey of Monmouth, which is again heavily influenced by factors from outside, such a christianity.

My point is that Tolkien's wish to create an 'English myth' is crucial, because it is actually referring to a fairly narrow timeframe - between the fall of the Roman Empire and the arrival of Christianity.

OK, let's see if I can get ignored again

'rather than asking am I racist, it is more useful to ask "in what ways am I racist?"'

That's the second time I have seen that particular line crop up on hootoo. Seems to be a staple of a particular view point that is prevalent on h2g2 at the moment.

So could someone explain the following to me? (all hypothetical I hasten to add).

"Am I racist? Yes, I do the following things, hold the following opinions, act in the following ways."
"Am I racist? No, I do nothing, think nothing, and act in no way which could be defined as racist."

"In what ways am I racist? I do the following things."

Seems to me that the 'in what ways am I racist' carries with it the assumption that I *am* racist. And that is not necessarily so.

I think what really worries me about the question of 'in what ways...' is the effect it may have upon the individual who has asked themselves this. It seems to me that, excluding all you well balanced individuals with full self knowledge, this question will serve to justify those who are racist (who will simply deny that they act in any such ways) and to put a guilt trip on those who are overly concerned about how their actions and opinions come across to others, since there is always a way, especially to a certain mindset, to view any act, thought or deed in a negative light. It is likely to damage the very people who have the most care and compassion for and about other people in the world.

Of course, all the above assume one is honest with oneself and can hold a purely objective view of oneself, a feat that is in no way guarunteed.

Ben Re Black presence in Britain.

To be honest I have not been able to remember my original source, probably a book on Social work, however the following link gives some information, and check out the history of Bristol as well. I am moving house soon and I will probably encounter my source in a box in the attic.

http://www.victoriaspast.com/BlackLinks/blackhst.htm

Re Black moods, black Magic ect ect

This raises for me the most complicated of problems which links directly back into the central theme which began this discussion.

There is no doubt in my mind that the European negativity towards Black is as has been described on this thread, in some way related to latitude, long Dark winter nights ect, I also suspect that from the 16th century onwards, or thereabouts, the use of technology to keep the night at bay may well have added to the mystification of darkness.

BUT

From the 17th century onwards the negativity of the word Black became a perpetuating force in the system of opression begun by slavery based on race, and continued through quasi religious and quasi political doctrine and dogma. This was not deliberate and for most 'white' people in the western world the association was an unconscious one, amplified by practices of segregation. This Segregation was for the most part perpetuated by members of the economic power base. The ideology of the KKK and others grew out of Slave traders and Slave owners unjustified desire to perpetuate a situation out of which they were becoming extraordinarily wealthy. One good example of a wealthy organisation in the UK that was founded in order to finance slave trading is Barkleys Bank.

The association of Black with Bad and therefore Negro with Bad was perpetuated by various means until the mid 20th century, when it began to be openly challenged from a relatively sophisticated sociological view point, the most famous and vocal individual was probably Malcom X, but he was not alone in directly challenging the associations that could be found simply by opening a dictionary, never mind looking at important documents like the US Constitution for instance. There are of course more complicated linguistic mechanisms which perpetuate opresssion than simply the word Black.

There is no doubt in my mind that for the average 'white' person in the western world that when they spoke of a dark night being intimidating , that Racist association was furthest from their mind. But as Malcom X, Marcus Garvey and others pointed out the association would be there when faced with a black man or woman.

The debate on associations in language as it relates to Race leads to an identification of two strands in anti-opressive action. One: racist ideology needs challenging and deconstructing for the outrageous falacy that it is. Those aspects of ordinary life which perpetuate Racist ideas also need challenging.

Political Correctness is an interesting example of how complicated these challenges can be.

PC was originally a Right Wing Term which was first used to denigrate ideas emerging from the University of Berkley California. It was a response to the perception that directly challenging Racist ideas and everyday ideas which perpetuated negative association, were a form of etiquet. What was interesting was how quickly the left wing began using the term to describe what it was doing. PC has to my mind become exactly what it was originaly (and I believe Eroniously) attempting to challenge, a form of etiquet. I believe that many people in western society 'talk the talk' but rarely face the genuine chalenge that anti-opressive action represents, and has therefore become one of those aspects of language which perpetuates the oppression it seeks to address.

Comming to the point, I feel quite uncomfortable with the accusation of racism applied to LOTR, although I can see aspects of the use of socialy contextual language within it which could be regarded as complicit in the pepetuation of opression.

I think this discussion seems to be glossing over the fact that in the background mythology, and I think stated in LOTR, though I may have to read the whole thing for the umpteenth time (GOODIE) to find it, that Orcs were originally Elves which were corrupted by Melkor, after he attempted to create his own unique race, in direct defiance of Illuvata, and failed. In this the, metaphore is that even the purest of folk can be corrupted. This is further supported by Saurons journey, who begins as fair and ends as foul.

I find myself increasingly frustrated by extreme right wing attempts to appropriate works, and by how easily otherwise fair minded people seem to drawn into acceptance of this appropriation.

Going back to the indigenous British conversation, the Celts were not the original inhabitants of the British Isles, it was actually the Beaker people who were driven out/ exterminated by the Celts.

Apparently the name derives from the only archaeological traces of them being drinking beakers. I was hoping that they all looked like the guy in The Muppet Show who went "Meep, meep, meep, meeep" all the time, but sadly this isn't the case.

did anyone actually mention the BRITONS who were the indigies in the first place

I think Britons is the name given by the Romans for the celtic people mentioned earlier.