Re: Amerindian navigators and Eurocentrism in scholarship

[Bill Perez <p_covalent@xnet.com>]

Yuri Kuchinsky 17784 wrote:
> 
> [A poster whose name I'm not going to reveal, and whose email address had
> some error in it, sent me the following message.]
> 
> On Mon, 8 Sep 1997, xxx wrote:
> 
> > Yuri Kuchinsky 17784 wrote:
> > >
> > > ...Somehow, and Eurocentrism has
> > > certainly played a role in this area, the academic consensus was
> > > formed that the South American Natives were "land-locked" (imagine
> > > this!) and ignorant of the arts of shipbuilding and navigation....
> > > ... Could it be that old academic Eurocentrism making
> > > its appearance here once again? ... the gallery of ignorant fellow Eurocentrists,
> > > as it were...  You get the picture...
> >
> > All this pointed mention of "Eurocentrism." Are you saying that
> > mainstream scholars believe that Europeans were the first to travel to
> > the Pacific islands? Where is the "Eurocentrism" in the prevailing
> > picture of the Asiatic origins of Polynesians and Micronesians? The
> > "native" Polynesians, as far as I know, have never been depicted as
> > Europeans. It seems odd to insert the term "Eurocentrism" into a debate
> > that explicitly concerns a time and place before the advent of
> > Europeans. One might as well decry "Eurocentric" theories of star
> > formation or ribosomal function.
> 
> My dear friend xxx,
> 
> I mean exactly what I say.

That it is "Eurocentric" to believe that only Polynesians travelled long
distances in the Pacific prior to the sixteenth century?

> Amerindians are not given credit for their
> achievements because of the prevailing false dogmas and academic
> ignorance.

Why is historical happenstance to be considered "credit?" Is there some
sort of accounting book in which you are keeping track of the
superiority/inferiority of various peoples? Are those peoples who did
NOT make transoceanic voyages at some time in their history to be deemed
unimportant, marginal or stunted? In what sense is their account
"debited?" What about space voyages? Have they automatically validated a
Russian and American claim to superiority? This sort of "ranking" of
cultures by their "achievements" seems to me to have its modern origins
in authentically "Eurocentric" scholarship, and I think we would do well
to let it go.

And why would dyed-in-the-wool "Eurocentrists" be so ready to dispense
"credit" to Polynesians, while withholding it from South Americans? How
would this bear at all on the European's "historical credit" ledgerbook?

> I'm simply pointing out that these people are denying the
> obvious.

And, let's not forget, accusing them of "Eurocentrism."

> I think it is quite reasonable to ask the question why is it that
> they have such an attitude.

Is it reasonable to then provide any answer whatsoever? It is widely
known that the CIA has used college campuses in clandestine research
into mind control. Could it not be that the CIA is behind all this?

At any rate, you did not question. You emphatically asserted:
"Eurocentrism has certainly played a role in this area."

BOP