Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post

roachboy · 03-01-2007, 07:06 AM

shani: since the thread looks like it's winding down, i'll say more about the history digression above.

1. i wrote the last post in kind of a rush because i had to be somewhere: whence its unclear character. mea culpa: i wanted to post but fundamentally didnt have time to do it properly.

2. what i meant was: the usual history of the states does what you did--links everything back to plymouth/the puritans (who were much more fully in force politically/culturally in salem than in plymouth as it turns out)---what i was pointing out is: that is but one origin point for the colonies----and that chronological sequence is not particularly determinate.
the history of the colonies does not move in a single line ordered chronologically--it did not build on itself--rather, the colonies had multiple origin points, each of which entails a different storyline--and this multiple history is not adequately crunched into a single overaching narrative. the history of, say rhode island is tied to the puritans--but that of new york, pennsylvania, maryland, virginia, the carolinas and georgia are not. and if chronology alone were determinate, then why doesnt the Official Story start with jamestown and present the entire history of the united states as unfolding from virginia? because it does not serve the same ideological purpose. that's the only reason.

anyway, these places (the colonies) had discrete histories that did not really intertwine in any meaningful way until the revolution--and even then, communication laterally (across colonies) was a problem. the colonies were economically organized around england as the hub, not laterally. this doesnt mean that they were wholly isolated from each other--but it does mean that there is no single history--making of this diversity of histories a single one is basically a myth of the birth of a nation-and a particular nation--a protestant nation. well, the united states aint like that. its history aint like that.

the subtext for it was something i wrote to jorgelito earlier in the thread about christians someone being accustomed to working from a position of domination--that is being THE dominant religion in the states--and not being able to adjust to finding themselves in an explicitly pluralist context. i was going to say that the strange defensiveness that runs across the thread from folk who identify as believers is demonstrates this inability to adjust--in the confusion of statements of non-belief with anti-christian sentiments, for example--and you can see the results in the thread as a whole.

so there we are.

03-01-2007, 07:06 AM	#56 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	shani: since the thread looks like it's winding down, i'll say more about the history digression above. 1. i wrote the last post in kind of a rush because i had to be somewhere: whence its unclear character. mea culpa: i wanted to post but fundamentally didnt have time to do it properly. 2. what i meant was: the usual history of the states does what you did--links everything back to plymouth/the puritans (who were much more fully in force politically/culturally in salem than in plymouth as it turns out)---what i was pointing out is: that is but one origin point for the colonies----and that chronological sequence is not particularly determinate. the history of the colonies does not move in a single line ordered chronologically--it did not build on itself--rather, the colonies had multiple origin points, each of which entails a different storyline--and this multiple history is not adequately crunched into a single overaching narrative. the history of, say rhode island is tied to the puritans--but that of new york, pennsylvania, maryland, virginia, the carolinas and georgia are not. and if chronology alone were determinate, then why doesnt the Official Story start with jamestown and present the entire history of the united states as unfolding from virginia? because it does not serve the same ideological purpose. that's the only reason. anyway, these places (the colonies) had discrete histories that did not really intertwine in any meaningful way until the revolution--and even then, communication laterally (across colonies) was a problem. the colonies were economically organized around england as the hub, not laterally. this doesnt mean that they were wholly isolated from each other--but it does mean that there is no single history--making of this diversity of histories a single one is basically a myth of the birth of a nation-and a particular nation--a protestant nation. well, the united states aint like that. its history aint like that. the subtext for it was something i wrote to jorgelito earlier in the thread about christians someone being accustomed to working from a position of domination--that is being THE dominant religion in the states--and not being able to adjust to finding themselves in an explicitly pluralist context. i was going to say that the strange defensiveness that runs across the thread from folk who identify as believers is demonstrates this inability to adjust--in the confusion of statements of non-belief with anti-christian sentiments, for example--and you can see the results in the thread as a whole. so there we are. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite Last edited by roachboy; 03-01-2007 at 07:11 AM..