KS> Is the d.c. an amalgam of individuals of many different tribes?
 JC> To my way of thinking, it depends on how you are meaning the words
 JC> "individuals" and "tribes". And I am not sure I would call it an
 JC> "amalgam" either. To me an "amalgam" implies that it is a "mixture". I
 JC> don't think our "mainstream culture" (personally, I prefer that to
 JC> "dominant" which to _me_ implies the opposite of "submissive") is a
 JC> "mixture" of anything. I think it  is a unique development. A product
 JC> of ever-changing values. And it is an ever-changing culture of values
 JC> and ethics.  
 
 My confusion arose, in part, because I wasn't sure if we were 
 speaking of a Native American d.c./mainstream culture or if
 we were speaking of a d.c./mainstream of the U.S. as a whole, which
 would by definition include some native americans.  
 
 JC> IMHO, when I try to define the "mainstream culture", I look at the
 JC> icons and the advertising of the culture. 
 JC> Who are the "heroes"? Madonna and Mike Tyson. _Why_ are they
 JC> "heroes"? You tell me.  How does one become a "hero" like them?
 JC> What gets the big advertising dollars? Things that cost money. How do
 JC> you get money? The easiest way you can.
 
 Ok.  Now I'm getting somewhere. 
 
 KS> I don't understand what you mean by "a different concept of history".
 
 JC> Try reading these two books. They should be readily available.
 
 JC> "Lies My Teacher Told Me" by James W. Loewen and "The White Man's
 JC> Indian" by Robert F. Berkhofer, Jr.
 
 I contacted our county library and they happen to have Loewen's
 on the shelf.  Now to get a library card....  :/   I suspect I know
 what I'll find - similarities in the writing of U.S. history books, 
 much like in not-so-long-ago-Russia?  It seems to me that all
 history books are written from one perspective.  Yes?
 JC> Think values, ethics, icons, home, family, commercial televison.
 JC> There is an article in the current Reader's Digest about "rude
 JC> children". They are a product of the "mainstream culture".
 
 This helped me also. 
 
 I'd like to get back a moment to your original paragraph:
 JC> To my way of thinking, it depends on how you are meaning the words
 JC> "individuals" and "tribes". 
 
 I think we can drop this.  It's not pertinent, as I thought the DC 
 under discussion might have been a DC of Native Americans.  This clearly 
 isn't the case.
 
 mainstream (vs. dc)...
 JC> (personally, I prefer that to "dominant" which to _me_ implies 
 the opposite of "submissive")
 I agree.  So we can drop this too.  Which leaves me the following
 to think about:
 JC> And I am not sure I would call it an "amalgam" either. To me an 
 JC> "amalgam" implies that it is a "mixture".  I don't think our 
 JC> "mainstream culture" is a "mixture" of anything. I think it  is a 
 JC> unique development. A product of ever-changing values. And it is an 
 JC> ever-changing culture of values and ethics.  
 For purposes of clarification, I would like to tell you how I think 
 of this, so that you can point out to me where our thinking
 becomes divergent.  I believe this will aid my understanding as I
 don't understand how the mainstream could *not* be a mixture.  
 I see cultures as dynamic - for better or worse, not static. I see 
 cultures made  up of people who carry and/or change their values 
 and ethics.  I have a difficult time separating the people from their 
 values, etc. Although I see the mainstream as containing ever-changing 
 values and ethics I can't grasp a mainstream that would *not* be a 
 mixture of cultures, because, in my head, it is the *people* that 
 change and carry the values, and it is the people that are necessarily 
 cultural.  I see values, morals, and ethics as being, at least *in part*
 cultural.  Although I don't adhere to many of the "outward" signs of
 my birth culture, and have taken on some signs of the new culture in 
 which I find myself, I still bring with me many of the "internal", less 
 visible, signs of my birth culture.   
 
 I'm in danger of confusing myself.  (g)  Am I part of the "unique 
 development" of which you speak?  Am I part of the "ever-changing
 values and ethics" of which you speak?  I might agree with this,
 because I have done away with some of my birth values and have
 developed some of my own.  Yet, if this is the case, at the same
 time I still maintain *some* outer and inner signs of culture which,
 to me, would indicate that me and others like me (from *whatever*
 culture), on the whole are, therefore, a "mixture" of cultures.  
 Or, have I come to understand your point of view (via skirting
 Jack Robinson's barn) that this "mixture" of cultures is the new
 and "unique development" of which you speak and this is the part
 that contains the "ever-changing values" of which you speak? 
 As an aside, I think that your last two sentences, "A product of 
 ever-changing values. And it is an ever-changing culture of values 
 and ethics.", also go a long way toward explaining the creation and 
 change in *law* that so many of us also view as static, especially 
 when considered in the perspective of our short lifespans.
 
 Whew...  (g) that's enough thinking for me for one night!  
 Please pass the aspirins, or some other bottle containing liquid 
 refreshment, whichever happens to be closer!
 
--- QScan/PCB v1.19b / 01-0462
---------------