Zorra
Zorra's JournalIt's impossible to say. Small, traditionally organized quasi-communal tribes are so different
from the impersonal chaos of the industrial world in so many ways that the word better in the OP subject line is inappropriate, IMO.
What's interesting to me is the possibility that some hunter gatherer tribes as small closed societies may understand the effects of constant surveillance on human beings from birth, and are allowing their children to experience life with minimal surveillance conditioning.
Individuals, particularly anthropologists in this context, in industrial societies generally have difficulty comprehending the real individual and collective consciousness/worldview of past and hunter gatherer societies. Anthropologists very often develop theories on very incomplete information and process this information from their own conscious and unconscious processes and value systems based on their experiences as people raised in industrial cultures. They often formulate theories based on observation of material relics or art, with little or no information as to what was going on in the consciousnesses of hunter gatherer individuals and the hunter gatherer culture's respective collective consciousness.
I love this magazine article below, from 1891, and have posted it on DU several times, because it illustrates differences in the worldviews and understandings respective to two very different cultures. Granted, most North American aboriginal cultures had already been tainted by European interference by this time, but, IMO, the differences in intrinsic cultural worldviews are still relevant in the present with respect to present day traditional North American native folks and descendants of European imperialists.
Please keep in mind as you read this that this entire article is Huggins' basically clueless outsider interpretation of what was going on in the minds and hearts of North American native culture(s) of the time. I believe the the excerpt I have chosen to post here is a succinct illustration of the wide and deep chasm in values, consciousness, and understanding between two very different cultures.
snip---
Huggins: "You say that wisdom comes in dreams, and that they who work cannot dream ; yet the white man, who works, knows many things and can do many things of which the Indian is ignorant."
Smohalla: "His wisdom is that of his own mind and thoughts. Such wisdom is poor and weak."
Huggins: "What is the wisdom of which you speak, that comes in dreams ?"
Smohalla: "Each one must learn for himself the highest wisdom. It cannot be taught in words."
The President has nominated a republican for the post of Secretary of Defense,
and Democrats have every right in the world to question and suspect the President's motives and judgment for doing so.
The fact is, a person has to have a serious lack of good judgment, ethics, and morals in order to identify as a republican and to voluntarily become a member of the republican party. If we consider the massive harm that republicans have done, and continue to do, to people, our country, and the world, it is naturally very, very worrisome to a large number of Democrats that Obama chose a republican for this important post.
A republican is not fit for high office because of the simple fact that they exhibit such inexcusable poor judgment that they willingly choose to be a republican. Fatal flaw. End of story.
Did the President not see, and understand, what Bush years did to us and our country? We progressives certainly got it, and we damn sure don't want any more of it.
This Democratic President who we just elected for a second term, who does not have to worry about re-election, is displaying awful and suspect judgment in choosing right wingers for high level posts in government, when these choices are absolutely not dictated by necessity. The President certainly does not need to kowtow to republicans and other RWers and their lunatic desires.
Personally I'm really pissed off about this, as are many other Democrats, and generally we don't give a rat's ass about the opinions of those who are so starry eyed in love with the President that they believe he can do no wrong.
It appears to me that if Obama appointed Rupert Murdoch, Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, Michael Wiener, and Pat Robertson as FCC Commissioners, some DUers would be singing the praises of the President's infallible wisdom and brilliance by being so bipartisan in his choices.
It's perfectly OK to question the President. It's healthy. It is not healthy to never question him, and to blindly defend him even when he is clearly wrong.
But of course, that can never happen, because he is so good, wise, and wonderful that he can never be wrong! Catch 22!
Sycophants, nobility/authority worshipers, and cults of personality are threats to any and every democracy.
Yes, President Obama has done some awesome things, and it is right that he be commended for doing them.
But nominating republicans and Wall St. Banksters to high level cabinet posts are not among these awesome things, and some of us see this as a form of betrayal to our party and our belief systems. Some of us actually wonder exactly what the President's relationship is to Wall St. and wealthy private interests, and worry that he may be primarily serving the 1% and not the American people. Yes, of course, he's far superior to Romney. But in reality, that doesn't take much, and certainly does not place the President beyond justifiable reproach.
Since some of us do not worship the ground he walks on, we are going to continue to criticize and pressure the POTUS when he fucks up, and does not really explain his actions satisfactorily to us.
The POTUS is supposed to be our servant, not our king, or our deity.
Profile Information
Gender: FemaleCurrent location: Earth
Member since: Tue Sep 23, 2003, 11:05 PM
Number of posts: 27,670
