[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: plants db - indigenous
- To: permaculture <permaculture@franklin.oit.unc.edu>
- Subject: Re: plants db - indigenous
- From: Pacific Edge Permaculture + Media <pacedge@magna.com.au>
- Date: Fri, 04 Jan 2002 17:34:53 +1100
- In-reply-to: <LISTMANAGER-75912-37932-2002.01.03-10.37.01--pacedge#magna.com.au@franklin.oit.unc.edu>
- Newsgroups: permaculture
- User-agent: Microsoft-Outlook-Express-Macintosh-Edition/5.02.2022
> From: 1earth permaculture <permaculture1@start.com.au>
> Date: Fri, 04 Jan 2002 1:36:02 +1000
> I'm just trying to put the original statement and meaning forward again - a
simple story about a woman teaching as is her centuries old custom, using
plants not pills - before it was taken off on a tangent about 'hoarding
knowledge' by Mr Grayson and others.
Actually, I never used the term '"hoarding knowledge" or alleged that was
what the Aboriginal woman was doing. In fact, I said exactly the opposite -
that she was sharing traditional knowledge with people outside her culture.
While my comments were a tangent, as Marcus suggests, to his original
posting, they are certainly not a tangent to the wider context or indigenous
knowledge, its access and use... they are central and critical to it. The
opinions made public on this listserv attest to that. I raised the issue
because it has for some time been an underlying source of uncertainty,
concern and, judging by the posts, tension in discussions about traditional
knowledge and indigenous rights.
The issue needed to be raised and explored, I believe, so we could clarify
our attitudes to it. The discussion shows that, within permaculture, there
is as much diversity of opinion as you find in the wider community. Maybe
this should not be surprising. As the postings show, there are those who put
the ownership of indigenous knowledge first and those who believe that
sharing that knowledge is the key to enacting permaculture's second and
third ethics. No doubt, both see themselves in compliance with
permaculture's ethics.
If one good thing comes of this discussion, it will be caution from people
who would seek to speak for all permaculture practitioners on topical issues
as did one Australian some years ago - an animal rights person - when he
said in a public forum that 'permaculture' opposed kangaroo harvesting for
food. There is a diversity of thought among permaculture practitioners just
as there is diversity in their gardens.
> She also talks about 'latant racism' which is an underlying attitude
> in the white society... It is latant by begrudging them what little
> support they are finally receiving, not even saying 'sorry' for the
> past because of possible litigation, or even condescending saying "I
> support a treaty and reconciliation" but then doing nothing at all in
> you own life to live up to it.
How do you know that people who support a treaty and reconciliation are
doing nothing further? Isn't that something of a broad assumption? Where is
the evidence?
To simply label these people I assume it is me because I made that statement
- 'condescending' is a real put-down of people who have struggled against
their education, family influences and background to come to the position at
which they can support those things, even if they do nothing further. I
think labelling those people is making exactly the same tactical mistake has
been made by the environment lobby - encouraging, cajoling and lecturing at
people to change then, when they make a small step for the better,
criticising them and telling them that it is not enough. That's a sure way
to alienate potential supporters. People move small step by small step...
having made one, they should be congratulated and helped to take the next
small step. Just coming to a point in their minds where they can support
reconciliation is, for many people, a big leap.
Stating " ...but then doing nothing at all in you own life to live up to it"
does not take into account the fact that, in contemporary Australian
society, people are time-poor. What do time-poor people do? Even if we
disregard the fact that more people are working longer hours (many
involuntarily; many because the real value of wages has declined and they
need a part-time job to maintain their families), do they ignore their
families? Drop whatever community work contribution they manage to squeeze
in? Ignore the aged and sick family members they might be caring for (and
that's a large and growing number of people as the Australian population
ages). To do what, exactly?
Having come to this point in the discussion, a point at which people have
declared their attitudes and, hopefully, gained insight into the attitudes
of others, I see the discussion as having polarised. It is now that I
remember a precept of Dr Stephen Covey - 'think win-win' - and wonder if
there is some way this can be applied to the delicate issue of indigenous
property rights and what has been described as the 'greater good'?
One of the benefits of this media is that we can hold a conversation over a
period of a week or two to explore such issues and that people can
participate, observe without commenting or click the 'delete' button if the
subject doesn't interest them. The good thing I notice about this discussion
is that we can talk about delicate issues without labelling each other
'racist' as occurs when these things are discussed in the wider public
forums of the media. By making their postings, Marcus and Felicity have
stimulated a worthwhile discussion.
...Russ Grayson