Folk music

We went to the international folk fair in Milwaukee this afternoon.

Most costumes were a snapshot of what was popular at some time in the past (the Malian men wore current styles, though) The art displayed, ditto. The dances were usually done to more modern fusions, using old-style costumes.

I wanted to ask "What is modern Lithuanian culture? How does it differ from generic 'European'?" I didn't want to embarass anybody, though. And the answer might be hard to put into words. They undoubtedly have songs and books in their own language, and some of the things they write would inherit somewhat from the old culture, but I'd bet that most of it would be written within the context of the broader generic culture, with its values and assumptions.

Backing up, what goes into culture? Religion, collective history, local fashions, local traditions. Besides the language, one obvious distinctive of (e.g. I'm not really trying to pick on them; plug in whoever you like. That was just the booth I was in front of when the thought came to mind.) Lithuania is their politics, which sometimes partakes rather strongly of religion--but isn't something other people can appreciate.

Just for laughs, I looked up vibee.tv for the top 10 pop stars in Europe today. One "star" was a duo (UK and Nigeria). 3 were US, 3 1/2 were UK, 1 Korea, 1 Canada, 1/2 Africa. 1 was EU. I get the impression of some blenderizing of culture.

How does "Lithuanian" music get to compete in that environment?

It manages. I wonder why they didn't put some of it in at the fair

Santa Claus Boys

Santa Claus looks a bit different in Liberia. The Poro and Sande societies have associated mask and raffi-covered “devils.” Many of the societies delegate certain of these to go (with burly assistants) into the villages to requisition provisions for the village youth currently sequestered in the bush school. On the other hand, some “devils” are entertainers—their musicians play and they dance, sometimes even on stilts. They don’t entertain for free.

Somewhere along the line, possibly in the 40’s from American servicemen working in places like “Smell no Taste”, some tribal Liberians heard of Santa as a magical being. A spirit going around to homes giving things to children didn’t quite make sense, but they figured out a logical category for him, and ever since, in December, the Santa Claus boys go about.

A collection of boys follow a figure completely hidden in rags, and they sing and play improvised drums and kalimba while “Santa” dances. One of the boys sings the situation (abbreviated here):

“Santa Claus was flying on a 707 from New York to Paris, but the plane broke and he fell into the ocean. A fishing boat helped him out, but it sank at Freetown. He swam to shore and took a bus to Monrovia, but the bus went off the road to miss a snake and lost a wheel at Zagbo. He waited by the road, and a generous taxi driver stopped and gave him a ride to Gbangba Town. The poor man has walked all the long way from Gbangba Town, and he needs small small money to get to Robertsfield, and small money to get a plane to go back home.”

At this point one rattles a tin can suggestively.

Cultural Imperialism

There's a difference between the confidence that our culture is the best, and the hubris to believe that our culture will and must dominate the world. The Almighty didn't make our culture.

Reciprocity

One of the aspects Jackson brought out in the book I just wrote about was the different view of gifts and charity.

A benefactor's clients owed gratitude and support to him. Apparently in Roman times benefactors could be choosy about who they gave to. The benefactor could lose face if his clients were unworthy--they were now associated with him.

In modern Korea (from the book):

An American couple slowly became suspicious as a Korean they knew showered them with gifts and treated them to luxurious restaurants. They finally discovered why. After spending months attempting to establish guanxi ("relationship"), she hoped to obligate them to teach her son English. Reciprocity is a natural part of relationships.

I have never found the article from years ago which claimed that when "The Best and the Brightest"™ devised the fundamentals of the modern American welfare system they didn't bother to talk with the mere religious folks who'd been doing the heavy lifting for years.

One of the side effects of the system is that, because it is merely a bureaucratic machine, there is no relationship between benefactor and client. It is impersonal, which is isolating and bad enough, but also, in our individualist society, evokes nothing from the recipient--not even always gratitude, since the gift is often seen as entitlement.

As quoted above, reciprocity expectations can and will be abused, but in charities their lack--if it doesn't actively divide us, it fails to unite.

I'm not proposing any cures or improvements. I doubt there are any. But I wish TBATB had listened first.

Ebonics

The youtube video "The Origin of Black American Culture and Ebonics" by Thomas Sowell asserts that the foundations for much of modern "ghetto black" language and culture are traceable to the ScotsIrish culture of the American South (also see Albion's Seed), and thence to their aboriginal cultures in the British Isles.

My first thoughts were that I'd already noticed some cultural similarities (and important differences--modern "black ghetto culture" is orders of magnitude wealthier than the old backwoods white South and Central USA), but that the language seemed only sort-of related. But I know little about dialects.

My second thoughts were wishing he'd given some numbers for the achievement statements he'd made, but realizing that they probably aren't there.

I don't have the years needed to answer the question: At the time of the Civil War, what was the African ethnic background of blacks in the various parts of the country (and territories)? Fischer's African Founders notes that some people wanted Igbo slaves and others wouldn't have them. That sort of preference would make for initial regional differences in ethnicity. If there was a founders' effect in slave culture, or if the descendents of those slaves stayed in the same region, you'd expect some differences from region to region.

Long yams

Dr. Boli mentioned that the Metropolitan Museum of Art was making some of its coffee-table books freely available. In the book on art of Oceania, page 65, it says: "The Abelam recognize and cultivate two distinct categories of yams, a small variety used as ordinary food and long yams--massive tubers that commonly attain lengths of six to nine feet and, in exceptional cases, can be up to twelve feet long. An Abelam man's social standing is determined not only by his abilities as an orator and, formerly, a warrior; it is also, quite literally, measured by his success in growing long yams."

UPDATE: For more details there's an Abelam culture web site.

-archy

We're assured that patriarchy is double plus ungood. I don't generally see a clear description of what that means, but it seems to be contrasted with matriarchy or egalitarianism, though defining those is a bit fuzzy too. I can think of others, like "spoiled-child-archy".

I don't hear a lot about modern matriarchies, though we're told there used to be a wonderful matriarchy before the horrible Bell Beaker people showed up and did bad things. I gather that the professionals don't think much of Marija Gimbutas anymore, but like the claim that Columbus proved the Earth was round, pop culture won't let go of it. If we restrict ourselves to modern cultures, there don't seem to be very many. This is a representative list of what one finds in a brief search.

In that list, the Mosuo are tiny and isolated; the Minangkabau seem to use a division of authority; the Akan, though with matrilineal clans, have men as kings and women as queen-mother who may or may not have authority; Bribri are also matrilineal and men and women share distinct authorities; the Garo are matrilineal but men manage; and the Tuareg also have division of roles. It looks as though women inheriting is taken as the key feature of a matriarchy. Most of them seem to have distinct but roughly equivalent roles for men and women--which would fit under egalitarian, wouldn't it? (Except for extreme definitions that draw no distinction between the sexes...)

Why so few? Why are there essentially no tribes where women run the show? There seem to be two competing hypotheses: That in every place on Earth men succeeded in leveraging their greater strength to seize power, or that patriarchies survive better than matriarchies. The distinction between the two may be a bit blurry, but the assumption behind the first is that the power is not held legitimately, and the conclusion of the second is that it is held this way because it arises naturally and works better, with no moral implications.

I have a suspicion or two about the first hypothesis--it seems too facile.

I wonder where we could set one of these up

I had never heard of the Boogg before. It's a Zurich tradition: a snowman stuffed with straw, cotton, and dynamite. It beats Jimmy the Groundhog for drama.

UPDATE: Incomplete w/o a video. This is from 2018.

The 3D Gospel by Jayson Georges

The premise of this short book (hat tip to AVI is that there are three main approaches to "transgressions": fear (vs power), shame (vs honor) and guilt (vs innocence). The guilt/innocence paradigm dominates the West, shame/honor the MidEast and East, and fear/power is typical of animist cultures.

The thesis is that although the gospel addresses the needs and fears of each of these, the typical Western apologetic around individual sin and satisfaction of justice doesn't fully reach people whose paradigm is different.

He cites Ephesians to illustrate the gospel confronting the different culture types: sin and punishment: Eph 7:1, 2:5; honor within a new family: 1:5, 2:19 (vs 2:12-13); and power against evil spirits: 1:19-21 etc. I leave as an exercise finding references to sins forgiven, welcome at the banquet of God, and power over evil spirits in the gospels.

On the whole I thought the little book useful, though two things bothered me a little.

I'm a Westerner, and not a member of an "honor culture," so I almost certainly don't have a good feel for how the gospel can be taught most effectively in one. I suspect that would come through people from within those cultures, and I, and Georges, are second-guessing. It feels that way, anyhow.

The bad news that comes before the good news is that we're sinners, and the implication for a family-honor based culture is much more dramatic than for a guilt/innocence based one. It isn't merely you who are shamed by sin, but your family, no matter how they may have hidden their shame before. It isn't just what the rest of the society sees that matters, but what God sees.

It would seem (to this outsider) to be a very great wrench to accept the claim that your clan has been living in shame. On the other hand, once you accept that, it is a very great incentive to redeem your clan's honor by turning to God.

But as I said, I'm an outsider.

The other itch was that when addressing fear/power animist societies he seems to be saying that the charismatics and pentacostals speak their language better than other denominations. The Orthodox and Catholics do exorcisms and blessed icons too.

And yes, he does explain that all instances of cultures are blends of these principles.

Have a read. What do you think?