Hm... while the word 'soil' might have associations to agriculture, I
suspect that hunter-gatherer tribes had notions of tribal territory even if
it was not fixed. It could be negotiated over, but once it came to it those
tribes fought over land.
The form of globalization that seems bound on breaking communities by
taking over their land IS dangerous. And if you identify with some ideology
that sees it as legitimate or even righteous to appropriate lands and break
communities, you could legitimately be seen as a dangerous person.
On Wed, Apr 17, 2019 at 1:56 AM John McCreery <john.mccreery@xxxxxxxxx>
To me, obsession with “soil” is not only primitive but very dangerous.
Conflict over territorial boundaries is found in numerous animal species.
Concern with soil per se most likely dates back to the invention of
agriculture. That said it remains alive and well in disputes that include
not only Israel and Palestine but also Pakistan and India in Kashmir and
China, Japan and the Philippines in the South China Sea. The violence of US
reactions to the 9/11 terrorist attacks was a reflex response to the
attacks having occurred on what Americans consider their own sacred soil.
That said, it remains to be seen whether the diminished obsession with
native land found among those like you and me, who have benefited from
globalization and emigrated to live and work in other places, or the
intensification seen in right-wing nativism in Trump, Brexit, and populist
political movements worldwide will prevail.
Thinking bleak thoughts,
Sent from my iPad
On Apr 17, 2019, at 5:29, Mashhood Sheikh <senor_massao@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Understanding our past and future is a natural desire and can take the
form of DNA testing/genealogy reports, genetic susceptibility to diseases,
etc.; nothing wrong with that; the prices are coming down like crazy, and
these days one can get a complete report for few hundred USDs. In some
years, it will be as cheap as buying a coca cola. Its use will also
increase significantly as there is already a move towards “personalized”
medication. Knowing our susceptibilities “could” be helpful for preventing
certain diseases. These were the things that came to my mind with
Lawrence’s original email on this topic.
Torgeir’s email; however, points to issues related to “identity”. I agree
with Lawrence that it isn’t really a “quest”; although people are free to
be obsessed with anything including their race, religion, language,
culture, or soil. My family roots are from central and northern India.
Generations ago during the Muslim rule of India, my forefathers converted
from Hinduism to Islam. Since they were high caste Hindus, they took the
surname “Sheikh”, to maintain their high social status among their new
community of Muslims. None of that matters today, as I am a non-believer in
Norway. That said, I agree with Torgeir: *“Does that mean that its
constituent members consider legally naturalised nationals AS NATIONAL as
those who have the blood and soil on their side? Probably in many cases
not.”* This is true, but times are changing. To me, obsession with “soil”
is a primitive idea mostly found in deserted places far from the rest of
USA went through this a long time ago (mostly the western and east coast),
while all this is still new to many European countries. I do not see much
change in my lifetime, but maybe my fourth generation would experience the
“inclusiveness” of today’s New York or Boston in Norway; Ok, may be fifth
or sixth generation..but if I have to bet, I’ll probably put my money on
8th generation 😊. Until then, my son’s name (Aaron Sheikh) will continue
to raise eyebrows in Norway.
Cheers and happy Easter,
*From:* lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> *On
Behalf Of *Lawrence Helm
*Sent:* 16. april 2019 20:55
*Subject:* [lit-ideas] Re: The Philosophy of John Wayne (was: Stand Up
As the author of the “Was” poem and an Anglo-American to boot, I must
confess with Palma that I do not understanding what the question is.
Take this sentence: “And isn't our ongoing quest to unearth our roots a
testament to precisely the idea that we DO have roots in a SPECIFIC soil,
and that this makes us DIFFERENT from those with roots in OTHER soils?” I
understand the “isn’t our ongoing quest” part and in response to that, my
answer would be “no.” My grandfather, Troy Matthews knew a doctor whose
last name was Matthews and they began searching for genealogical
information that would enable them to determine whether they were related.
I inherited Troy Matthews’ genealogical work and from time to time tried to
expand on it. Later on, one of my daughters became a Mormon. Mormon’s are
interested in their ancestry because they believe that they can pray for
their dead relatives in an intercessory way and enable them, heretics
though they may have been when alive, to enter heaven. My daughter and I
don’t discuss Mormon theology, but we have from time to time discussed
genealogy – not in a long time however.
One other thing, the reason I submitted my DNA information to Ancestry.com
was because we had a family tradition that we were part Indian. One of our
ancestors, William Leander Sparks, while moving West with his parents
encountered a destitute young Indian maiden from a tribe that had been
mostly wiped out by another tribe. He married her and therefore, we were
all told, we have Indian ancestry. I was encouraged to think that in the
Marine Corps who tested my blood and put Blood-type-B on my dog tag. Blood
type B is the common blood-type of American Indians. In Korea I was taken
under the wing of a full-blooded Oklahoma Indian named Emhoola, whose
tribal commandment was that all of us part-Indian Indians show up at the
slop-chute every afternoon whenever we weren’t on duty.
Years later non-Marine-Corps doctors checked my blood and said it was not
blood type B. I argued with them: “But my dog-tag says . . .” Several
other blood tests confirmed their statements. If I had been wounded in
combat, I would have been in big trouble. So when Ancestry.com offered
all its members a DNA check for $100, I sent mine in. And it came back “no
Indian.” My mother’s main argument was that she had seen her grandmother
sitting cross-legged in the backyard smoking a corn-cob pipe, and she
*From:* lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [
mailto:lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>] *On
Behalf Of *Torgeir Fjeld
*Sent:* Monday, April 15, 2019 7:13 AM
*Subject:* [lit-ideas] The Philosophy of John Wayne (was: Stand Up Comics)
In the West known as wild there is one philosophy that holds sway. We read:
"Out here, due process is a bullet."
(Colonel Mike Kirby in The Green Berets 1968, directed by Ray Kellogg.)
Anyway, philosophy with a loaded gun inevitably ushers into defeat and
solemn humming of the unforgettable Beatles ditty: "speaking words of
wisdom, let it be." There seems to be a list-wise general agreement
("consensus") that nations should be codified as per the French/American
approach (and we refer to the view propagated by Anderson, Kamenka and
Alter, amongst others), namely that these are voluntary ("imagined")
communities that can (as per Ernest Renan) be dissolved or abolished when
its potential constituents wish it so. Hence, we have the possibility of
naturalisation. It is logical and inevitable that Americans find this the
only way to conceive of nations. However, in many parts of the world (and
even in the USA itself) there are dissenting voices. While not going to
take sides in the debate, it might be useful (a nicely utilitarian concept
to lure all you Anglo-Americans to read this post until the end) to notice
that AFTER the American "revolution" (i.e. war of independence from Great
Britain), many political entities introduced nationalism by official
decree. And then there are many nationalisms that doesn't fit neatly into
this dichotomy.of "state nation" over and against "kultuur nation."
Is it possible to be naturalised into nations today? Yes, in most cases
such a possibility exist. Does that mean that its constituent members
consider legally naturalised nationals AS NATIONAL as those who have the
blood and soil on their side? Probably in many cases not. And isn't our
ongoing quest to unearth our roots a testament to precisely the idea that
we DO have roots in a SPECIFIC soil, and that this makes us DIFFERENT from
those with roots in OTHER soils?
Our task is to ask, much less to answer.
Mvh. / Yours sincerely,
Download the Introduction to my latest book -- rock philosophy:
meditations on art and desire -- for free from https://bit.ly/2vMGwVs.
Get a 24% discount by using code CFC159723D56 on checkout at the publisher
https://vernonpress.com/book/494. It is also available from Amazon: