;-)

Still, I do look forward to the result…

Yes, I promise. Although note that I said “start,” not “finish” . . . . ;-D

I think.

Sorry to be so long in replying; if you’ve checked in, you know about my - ahem - recent technical difficulties.

I had not seen Taylor’s piece; I’ve been on the road almost nonstop lately. Thanks so much for the heads-up - I’ll check it out tonight!

And of course you may use anything you want from ARA on your blog. I’m hoping (hoping - sigh) to get to the review this weekend, or at least an abbreviated version thereof. But for your blog, I defer to your preferences: I’d love to guest; or if you want to get it up sooner, feel free to use anything I’ve already put up; or both, or some other variation. I’m just honored to be asked!

I would also like to share your unique perspective re: Radical Hope from my blog, either as a “guest essay” or a link to your ultimate review or by cherry-picking your earlier comments, above. May I? And which of the above would be your preference?

Yes, of course, it would be more than prudent to “get it right.” My impression is that Lear attempted to do so, but I’m not in a position to say whether or not he was successful. I’ve yet to locate a critical review, but I picture Lear as someone who would welcome feedback, and I hope you provide him with some, if you discover research shortcomings.

Absent the technology to hurtle 50 years (or a week, who knows?) into the future of our immediate culture, he’s pretty much forced to borrow from other cultures in search of material for exploring his thesis.

And, absolutely, ‘Native American’ is a goofy section in which to file it. (I found it on the ‘New Books’ display table.) For what it’s worth, Lear left me with a profund respect for the richness and resourcefulness of the culture of the Crow, and serious doubts whether the one into which I was born could ever approach it even for survival value. It’s a useful signpost: “Go this way.”

WRT Lear, I think (so far, anyway) that three issues are at the root of this:

1) He’s chosen a culture not his own (for necessary reasons, given the subject he’s exploring), and gets some things wrong;

2) In attempting to prove his thesis, he projects thoughts, feelings, cultural norms, social mores, etc. in a way that advance his argument, but don’t necessarily reflect the indigenous reality; and

3) Because of his choice of vehicle to make his argument, the book appears in Native American sections of bookstores, rather than in philosophy sections, raising certain expectations as to the nature of the content.

Issue 1 I think is quite natural, although I do get the impression that he hasn’t gone much beyond the existing [white] literature on the Crow, nor that he spent any significant time with Crow elders trying to understand some of these issues. I guess the significance of counting coups is the best example - i.e., along with other white authors, not grasping the real significance of why counting coup without sustaining injury was regarded as worthy of greater honor than being wounded in the process. When I review the whole book, I’ll get into that in detail, because I doubt that I’m being clear here.

Issue 2: Again, I think this is understandable. We all bring our own experiences to everything, and to some degree, we all project those experiences upon those of others that are unfamiliar to us. Anyone who’s ever studied philosophy or spent any time in the academic world will also immediately recognize the potential pitfalls inherent in this sort of “meta-” approach to anything. What I mean is that there comes a point in such an analysis where the meta nature of the theory requires imputing certain interpretations to something, whether or not those interpretations are accurate (or even exist) in order to make the “meta-” point, if you will. And I think there’s some of that going on here. Doesn’t mean that he won’t, ultimately, turn out to be right about the alrger issue; it simply may mean that he’s not [entirely] right about it WRT the Crow. [And, of course, by the time I’m done with the book, I may change my mind and decide he’s 100% right . . . . ]

WRT Issue 3, this is less Lear’s issue than that of publishers, booksellers, and reviewers. I wonder how many booksellers took a look at the tipi on the cover and tossed it into the “Native American” sort pile, without ever reading a word of it? It really does belong in the philosophy section. That said, I think it should also appear in the Native American section as a crossover text. But I think being clear about what the content actually is could help inoculate author and publsher against the inevitable charges that Lear “just doesn’t get it,” wrt expectations naturally raised by its apparent default classification as “Native American.”

And all that said, I still there’s value in doing what Lear has done, however I ultimately come down on his interpretation. WRT his particular thesis, to some degree, it almost doesn’t matter whether or not he’s right; he’s giving us a new way to understand this kind of cultural devastation, which (we can hope) in turn might help us prevent it in the future. But I do think - especially when someone appropriates a culture not his own as a vehicle to advance a pet thesis (and I don’t mean that as snarkily as I realize it sounds) - that that person 1) has an added obligation to make extra efforts to “get it right” wrt that culture, and 2) can inoculate himself against charges of racism or other -isms, and tuhs protect the integrity of his thesis and entertain a greater hope of actually having it heard.

How do our reading lists get so long? When I visit Powell’s (largest bookstore west of the mighty Miss) I have to limit my exposure to about a half-hour. Otherwise I go catatonic.