The Empire Strikes Back

Recent, within the last decades, advances in the way Americans relate to the past and the world around them has long provoked a reactionary backlash. A better example could not be found than a history book released fairly recently. The book attempts to be a response to Howard Zinn's A People's History of the United States, which committed the heinous sin, in some people's mind, of presenting a historical perspective focusing on 99% of the population, instead of the 1% that makes up the generals/leaders/wealthy. (I'm paraphrasing Zinn there.)

Hence we now have a massive tome entitled A Patriot's History of the United States: from Columbus's Great Discovery to the War on Terror. The title tells us everything we need to know about this book, presumably the author's intent. What are we to make of this, and how worried should we be that some people want to go back to a 1950's worldview: the Indians were savages, America is the greatest country that has ever existed and we should believe whatever our leaders tell us?

The real kicker is that subtitle, though. What exactly did Columbus discover and what was so great about it? We know now that Columbus wasn't the first European to make his way to North America, viking explorers can claim that title. Which ignores the the larger question: how can someone discover something millions of people already knew since the day they were born? It's like saying I discovered blogs when I first started one. In which the discovery is personal only, and of no historical value, obviously not the intent. The only way we can keep Columbus' discovery great is by denying that the original inhabitants of America were even people. Hence, Columbus discovered an un-inhabitated wilderness. In which case, the title of the book is inherently racist and ethnocentric. As for the greatness of this supposed "discovery", it doesn't seem to have been so great for the Indians, who would spend the next 500+ years being slaughtered by colonial powers and their proxies.

Sadly, I don't see the "Columbus' Great Discovery" meme going anywhere. Until, we all just need to preserve and spread the truth about history: the heroes weren't always the winners and the winners weren't always the heroes.

Gift economy

There was a pot luck (sp?) at work last Friday, and it got me thinking about a gift economy. (an economy with no exchange) The pot luck being a perfect example: entry into the system requires you bring one thing, it doesn't a certain type, shape or minimum value. Once in the system, you can take as much as you want from everything that was brought.

The equivalent would be some kind of community store, and bringing in an item would give you access to the store. If the communal store were to have enough item's to satisfy people's needs, we would need many more people contributing than a simple pot luck. And what stops a handful of bad apples from abusing the system? Once you start trying to figure out this nugget things get hairy fast. Employees would be needed to monitor the community store and to make sure people weren't just bringing in garbage. Who would the employees be? Anyone in the community could volunteer, perhaps, and maybe working a shift would count as a contribution to the store. How often would a person need to contribute? Once a week? Once a month? Once in their lifetime?

Perhaps there could be a share/use ratio, like p2p sites. And anyone who's ratio is within certain bounds is trusted to use the system to it's full extent. Anyone who hasn't contributed much in a while needs to contribute x number of goods to get back in good standing. Again more regulation, more problems arise. Maybe people are good enough that no such rules would be needed at all? It's hard to say.