Modern America Class 2002 Notes and Queries on Juhnke and
Hunter
Day 2
Jan. 10 2002
1. Names. Keep reading, group B responses for
next time. Thanks to Group A—I got responses from everybody, well before the
due time, and they were very interesting (and diverse). We’ll look at some of
them as we go on here, and at some of the web sites too, if the Great Tech God
allows.
On the Tech Question, note my Learning Circle
group working on things. Lauren Selleck is student assistant for this class,
will be helping me work on the web site for the course and other things as
well. She took the class herself, though not in this version, so she knows a
fair bit about it. Web site at http://www.bluffton.edu/~gundyj/Modamer.html
. Check it out, briefly.
2. I also want to think carefully with you about
some things in the text, esp. in the introduction.
Some propositions—see where you come out.
War is better than peace.
The Ten Commandments say “Thou shalt not kill,”
and Christians should never kill anybody no matter what the circumstances.
Killing people whenever it’s to my advantage to
do so is all right.
The United States should be given back to the
Indians
In my personal experience, violence is always
effective as a way of solving problems.
When Jesus said, “Do unto others as you would
have them do unto you,” he really meant “Do unto others as they do unto you.”
It’s better to let somebody else have whatever
they want than to do anything resembling violence.
When I am pushed around by someone more powerful
than I am, it makes me respect them.
So, OK. If most of us find most of these
statements too extreme, in one direction or another, maybe there’s a little less
division, and more space to find some common ground for discussion, than we
might think. Let’s think about what J/H actually say in that introduction.
Introduction
What is “mimetic violence”?
What is “redemptive violence”? Think of examples
of that idea in American history and culture? What about the movies? Can
anybody think of a movie in which a reluctant hero is forced to use violence to
restore the community? How many can we think of?
This, I would suggest, is an essential, if not
the essential, American myth: that violence is necessary to the struggle for
freedom. It’s hedged around with some qualifications: it has to be “good”
violence, those who wield it have to be careful how they use it, etc. But we
grow up hearing over and over that it’s the only way. Don’t we?
“The U. S. is a great and free country, we are
to conclude, because Americans have been effectively violent.” (11)
Is it true that we have fallen under the
“tyranny of our violent imaginations”? What examples or counter-examples would
you offer?
Jamie Burke: “Our nation would be different if not for the wars, not necessarily better
or worse, but different.” What do you think? I agree, absolutely. How do you
suppose we might be different? More like Canada, perhaps? Fewer guns, less
street violence, different beers?
“Few people remember these details of history,
but we all carry a very vivid history that has been absorbed, rather than
processed, and so remains unconscious.” (11) Think so? How do we operate in the world? We imagine most of it, because what we
actually see and hear and touch is quite small. That imagination is based
on--what?
I heard once that if people died in real life at
the rate they do on prime-time TV, the planet would be entirely depopulated in
something like 8 years. That may be an exaggeration. But think about it.
“We believe a new historical self-understanding
is essential . . . a new vision which transcends national boundaries and
generates the capacity to resolve conflicts nonviolently both within and among
the nations.” (14) What do you think?
What’s happened in terms of “mutuality”
post-Sept. 11? What do all those “God Bless America” signs mean? I saw a sign
outside a church in Toledo that said “Allah is not America’s God.” What do you
think? Does America have its own God, one that loves us more than anybody else?
What kind of God would love Americans more than Africans or Poles or Chinese?
My point, really, and I think their point as well,
is that between absolute pacifism and utter warmongering there’s a large space
for negotiation. You don’t have to be a pacifist to conclude that it’s better
to get through a situation without having to kill anybody, if that’s possible.
What they want us to do, I think, is to consider whether violence really is as
effective as we’ve learned that it is, and second to explore nonviolent
alternatives that have been more viable and possible than we may have learned.
Chapter 1 Original Peacemakers: Native Americans
We read a bit of Mary Rowlandson’s narrative of
her captivity during King Phillip’s War in another class this week. She sees
the Indians who take her captive and kill several members of her family as
bloodthirsty, Godless savages; and there’s no question that she is treated
badly. But they do keep her safe, more or less, and they do eventually accept
ransom and return her to her husband. They don’t rape or torture her.
The native holocaust. 70 million people living
in the America’s in 1500, though “only” 7 million north of the Rio Grande.
Disease the main killer, brought over without intention mostly, but just as
devastating for that. And the second holocaust of war, this one indeed
intentional.
The Iroquois League of Peace and the
leader-prophet Deganawidah. Righteousness, health, and power. Surely not
everybody in the Five Nations became a peacenik. Consider Jesus, the Prince of
Peace, and the record of Christians in the last two millenia. Did you see the
piece on The Onion sometime in late September? “That Thing About Not Killing--I
Meant It,” God Says. Or something like that.
The adoption rituals, strange and painful to
Westerners, but motivated by a desire to establish the sort of kinship that
keeps people from killing each other. (21)
The Praying Indians, who are mentioned by
Rowlandson.
Metacom, labelled King Philip by the English.
http://members.aol.com/mayflo1620/indian_relations.html
Details of the Mayflower colony relations with native Americans, etc.
The Lenape or Delaware, and their Red Record.
William Penn the Quaker and the founding of
Pennsylvania. More on this later.
Prophets: Tenskatawa, Tecumseh, Handsome Lake
and the shift of the Iroquois from hunting to farming.
Cherokee civilization and their choice to go on
the Trail of Tears rather than fight back.
The Cheyenne and plains Indians. Fewer killings
on the Way West than our image, maybe. Note that John D. Unruh was professor of
history at BC, died an untimely death just after completing his masterwork,
which is still widely respected and cited . . .
Cheyenne Peace Chiefs and war societies.
Lawrence Hart, a current Peace Chief and Mennonite. See Eric’s web reference,
to a site related to a recent documentary that I may try to track down.
The Potlatch ritual of the northwest tribes. http://www.prairiewoman.com/article1001.html
How did Indian cultures survive? Because of
the warriors? Or because of the peace chiefs? Or because of the women?
33 ff: the story of the 1968 reenactment of the
Washita massacre. The reconciliation scene after the mess-up at the ceremony,
giving the blanket to Capt. Gault. Peace broke out.
Websites:
http://members.aol.com/mayflo1620/indian_relations.html
Website: www.crystalindks.com/cheyenne
I used the used the website www.constitution.org/cons/iroquois.htm. It is an outline of what Deganawidah
followed when he gathered with the other lords together. It is divided into different sections. Some of these sections discus the rights and
duties of the lords while others go into topics like adoption, power struggles,
and treason or secession by a nation.
http://www.geocities.com/CapitalHill/7153/index.html)
http://www.journeytowardforgiveness.com/stories/hart/biography.asp