Re: Amerindian navigators and Eurocentrism in scholarship

[Bill Perez <covalent@xnet.com>]

Yuri Kuchinsky wrote:
> 
> Bill Perez (p_covalent@xnet.com) wrote:
> : Yuri Kuchinsky 17784 wrote:
> : > Bill Perez (p_covalent@xnet.com) wrote:
> 
> : > : That it is "Eurocentric" to believe that only Polynesians travelled long
> : > : distances in the Pacific prior to the sixteenth century?
> : >
> : > Yes, in so far as Amerindians are not given the recognition for doing the
> : > same.
> :
> : Please explain. I do not see the European connection here.
> 
> Is it possible that you really don't understand this, Bill? Or are you
> just trying to obfuscate?

I am sorry if you feel "obfuscated" by my attempts to get you to clarify
your statements. I have to admit that it is *I* who feel *you* are
trying to obfuscate things. I thought I made my questions quite plain,
direct and simple. You have decided to leave most of them hanging, when,
in fact, honest answers might clear things up for me. Please note that I
have taken the time to answer *your* questions, even when they might
appear rhetorical, as above. I am not necessarily accusing you of
*dodging* my questions, as your comments show that you think that I have
other motives in asking them beyond seeking an answer. I assure you that
I don't. I am sincerely interested in replies.

> Do I have to explain to you that the mainstream
> scholarship in this area was strongly influenced by Europeans and their
> descendants?

Is this all you meant by "Eurocentrism?" That most of the scholarship
has been done Europeans and their descendants? I guess the next question
(or actually the original question) is how their European pride, their
scrupulously maintained image of European supremacy (what I consider to
be "Eurocentrism," as opposed to a statistical sum of surname
derivations), is bolstered by the current mainstream picture of
precolumbian Pacific migration patterns. If no such support is gleaned,
then in what way does the ancestry of scholars bear on this issue? How
is their picture of the Pacific's peoples distorted by their (the
scholar's) surnames and languages?

> 
>         ...
> 
> : > : And why would dyed-in-the-wool "Eurocentrists" be so ready to dispense
> : > : "credit" to Polynesians,
> : >
> : > Because no bigot however misguided can deny the reality that the
> : > Polynesians were there for ages.
> :
> : Why not? Because of the sheer volume and quality of the evidence? Why
> : wouldn't it be suppressed or ignored? You seem to be admitting that the
> : evidence for long-distance Polynesian voyages is of a much different
> : order than that for long-distance Amerindian Pacific voyages.
> 
> And why not? Nobody in their right mind will deny that Polynesians were
> settled on Polynesian islands from ancient times.

Hmmm. You imply here that someone in "their right mind" *can* deny
Pacific voyages originating from American shores. This is at odds, it
seems, with your general stance on this issue, i.e., that people who
deny this do so against the dictates of reason and evidence. Unless you
are saying (in a strange, roundabout way) that people, "in their right
minds," can neither deny that Polynesians made Pacific voyages, *nor*
deny that Amerindians did so. In which case the "Eurocentrists" are "in
their right minds" on one issue (Polynesian voyages), but "out of their
right minds" on the other (Amerindian voyages). The question then
continues to be: why the dichotomy? And what does it have to do with
"Eurocentrism?"

> And yet most mainstream
> scholars do deny that Amerindians had a capability to sail far into the
> Pacific.

In accordance with "right-mindedness" or in conflict with it? Or can
someone in their "right mind" reasonably take either side of this
debate?

> All this is common knowledge. Does any of this come as a surprise
> to you? So why all these questions (of course assuming this is not all
> about obfuscation plain and simple)?

As I said, the questions are intended to elicit answers. "Plain and
simple." I am quite sure that you know exactly what you *mean* to say.
But, as it may be clear from this post, I find myself needing to
decipher your language, and do not consider myself entirely successful.
Are you using some jargon unfamiliar to me? If so, perhaps simple
definition is in order. Am I misunderstanding the term "Eurocentrism?" I
had always thought that it referred to a view of history that imagined
Europe and European civilization to be of central (and perhaps
exclusive) importance, and to be generally superior to any other. If
this differs substantially with your understanding of the term, please,
set me straight. But, from the standpoint of my understanding, I was
intrigued in the points of contact you saw between "Eurocentric"
theories of history and ancient navigation in the Pacific.

> 
>         ...
> 
> : So are you implying that the Spanish are behind the current "bigotry"
> : and "recognition" thievery? Or are you saying that the "Eurocentrism" of
> : the distant past has led to the current confusion and ignorance?
> 
> Both.
> 

The Spanish seem to me to be quite placid of late. At any rate, I was
not aware of the importance of their scholars in current Polynesian
historiography and archaeology.

Are you also implying that people, misled by ancient "Eurocentrisms,"
are necessarily "Eurocentrist" themselves?

BOP