Continuing from the previous two posts
discussing the nature of most scientists regarding the understanding of
cultures, dating of sites and artifacts, and the development of events in
pre-history, and the stages, periods, and method of diffusion they use, we
continue here with the points claimed about diffusion and our responses:
3) Technology
diffusion has often occurred by one society luring skilled scientists or
workers by payments or other inducement. The problem with this is that
history suggests just the opposite, such as when foreigners are brought into a
culture, they generally absorb and become part of the new culture, not the
other way around.
4) Trans-cultural
marriages between two neighboring or interspersed cultures have also
contributed. The problem with this is that almost all the examples of a
more modern group encountering a lesser knowledge or advanced culture, the more
modern group tries to implement modern changes which, for the most part in
history, were rejected…often violently, by the larger, less advanced group, or
the larger group merely tolerates the existence of a new group and rejects
their more advanced ideas, such as the American Indians who rarely ever adopted
European (western) culture. Even when the Indian acquired horses, guns, etc.,
they used them, but in the same manner as they had lived in their culture
before acquiring such items, not altering their behavior and adopting any
European customs.
Numerous subjugated or conquered
cultures, despite living around or among wealthy environments, have chosen to
remain unique and somewhat isolated: Left: Peruvian people; Center: The Navajo
people; Right: The Australian aborigine, are just a few of such cultures where
the archaeological diffusion principle does not hold true
5) Among literate
societies, diffusion can happen through letters or books. This doesn’t hold
true either. Except in Hollywood movies and fictional adventure writing,
cultures are seldom influenced by other cultures unless it is forced upon them.
Even when forced relocation is implemented, the original group or culture tries
very hard to maintain their own culture (Irish, Spanish, Italians, etc., in
modern times when moving to America created their own enclaves and did not
become absorbed into American culture; Chinese brought6 to America for cheap
labor created their own “Chinatown” enclave in almost every region; Americans
living in Japan for business purposes, etc., live in their own community and
rarely intermingle). In fact, it is a well known sociological fact that “As
immigrants from Asia or the Pacific Islands arrived in the United States, they
often joined their compatriots in already established ethnic communities where
common language and culture made them feel at home. The result has been the
creation of enclaves in the pattern of Chinatowns, the oldest such
communities.” In fact, according to Pascual, “They created their own
institutions and their own internal labor markets These communities evolved
into centers for residential housing, community and religious organizations,
ethnic shopping, and employment. Enclaves were a means for protection and
survival; as such, members of the ethnic community defended them from
extinction. Traditional Chinatowns, Japantowns, and the International District
in Seattle are current examples of this form of enclave.” This, of course, runs
contrary to the diffusion concept cited by archaeologists.
Left: Japantown in San Francisco, California, in the lower Pacific Heights; Center:
Little Tokyo in Los Angeles: Right: Chinatown in Philadelphia; Bottom Left:
Filipinotown in Los Angeles; Center: Little Saigon in Orange County,
California; Right: Dutch village and enclave in Solvang, California. These are
just a few of the hundreds of such isolated cultural communities in the United
States, not to mention others around the World
6) Direct diffusion
was very common in ancient times, when small groups, or bands, of humans lived
in adjoining settlements. On the other hand, the story of Africa over the
past several hundred years belies this idea—villages upon villages have always
seen one another as enemies. It is also opposed to the experience of the
American Indian, where one tribe, living near another, remained aloof and did
not adapt one to the other, but considered anyone other than their own tribe
“the enemy.” Scientists
defend this idea by citing that Canadian hockey became popular in America, and
American baseball became popular in Canada. However, while Americans have
embraced hockey (Americans embrace any
sport), Canada has never really embraced baseball. Only 90 Canadians are
involved in American professional baseball at all levels, while 43 Japanese
players played in the Major leagues alone in 2011, a country that is not a U.S.
neighbor.
Top:
Separatism is a way of life in Africa, where villages, regions, and countries
are still resistant to one another, and where wars and battles between
neighbors is a constant factor and has been for hundreds, if not thousands, of
years—and where diffusion is simply not possible; Bottom: The Amish of
Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Indiana, are large cultures within the United States
that neither are influenced by their surrounding neighbors, villages, towns and
country, nor is the surrounding cultures influenced by them
7)
Indirect diffusion is very common in
today's world, because of the mass media and the invention of the Internet.
This is certainly not the situation today in the Middle East, like in Iraq, the
Sunni and Shiites have been enemies forever and nothing seen today in
coalitions actually has made any change—the only time they stand together is
against the West, but left to their own, they fall back into opposition to one
another.
8)
Forced
diffusion occurs when one culture subjugates (conquers or enslaves)
another culture and forces its own customs on the conquered people. To
support this idea, scientists cite the forced Christianization of the
indigenous populations of the Americas by the Spanish, French, English and
Portuguese. However, despite this major effort, especially in the presence of
physical and mental abuse if not adopted, the indigenous populations of the
Americas did not and have not in any significant numbers embraced Christianity at any deep-seated level,
or even adopted the European way of life.
Scientists
also cite the work of American historian and critic Daniel J. Boorstin in his
book The Discoverers, in which he
provides an historical perspective about the role of explorers in History in
the diffusion of innovations between civilizations. However, while this sounds
good, and perhaps at times did take place, the Aztecs, Mayan, and Incan
cultures never adapted to the Spanish culture—nor to the European culture that
followed. They have always been aloof, and maintained their own cultural
identity—especially in Peru where the Inca and other native cultures filtered
back into the mountains and maintained their own culture, as passive, backward
and cowed as it was.
Conquered and subjugated indigenous
peoples of Andean Peru simply withdrew into the mountains and jungles to avoid
Spanish and later European contact. They live much like they have always lived,
not influenced by the modern cultures around them
In
reality, only cultures that are near identical in their development have been
seen to adopt the tendencies of another culture, such as England and France,
Spain and Portugal, Russia and Poland, etc., most changes in recorded history
have been brought about by power and conquest, such as Greece, Rome, Babylon,
etc. But other cases have been shown to be just the opposite, such as the
Nephites and Lamanites, China and Japan, United States and American Indian
tribes, etc.
The
point is, archaeologists, anthropologists and other scientists can make such
claims as diffusion to build up their situations of ancient, pre-historic
cultures and peoples, to support their theory of diffusion and other scenarios,
but actual events show less support than most people realize, and certainly far
less than the archaeologist would have us believe.
No comments:
Post a Comment