permaculture

[Toby Hemenway <hemenway@jeffnet.org>]

 1earth permaculture at permaculture1@start.com.au wrote:

> you made the
> quantum leap of comparing an old aboriginal woman to a drug
> corporation

Sigh. If after 3 attempts, my basic point is still this badly misunderstood,
I'm probably silly to try again. But I'm a stubborn ol' Taurus. I'll make
this as brief and simple as I can.

When the interactions among people are within one culture, then "this is our
tradition" is ample justification. But when 2 cultures with different
traditions meet, and one of them acts in a way that seems a disservice to
the other, the context is now much larger, and must accommodate--or at least
acknowledge--both traditions. That is what this case is about: a meeting of
2 cultures. "This is our tradition," when the tradition is not shared, is no
longer ample justification and becomes a recipe for conflict. That's true
whether it's as simple as claiming ownership of a plant, as horrific as
clitoral mutilation, or anything else. "This is our tradition" does not
offer a solution. It results in extermination or assimilation of the less
powerful culture; an ugly fact, but the truth so far.

This aboriginal woman considers herself part of an aboriginal group. But,
like it or not, in this connected world, she is also a member of several
larger groups, from local government all the way to being a citizen of
Earth. I believe our actions--mine, hers, and everyone's--need to take this
larger context into account. If an action that is right within the local
group is a disservice to the larger group, then something's going to have to
give. It might be nice if we could all go back to a world of isolated
villages with mutually exclusive traditions. But that world is gone. So I
think it's reasonable to ask that each person consider their actions from
the viewpoint of a global family member as well as a clan member. Not to do
so means a continuation of the suffering the world has seen so much of.

End of thread for me.