PAGE IN PROGRESS What you see here is a page of my hypertext book POWER of meanings // MEANINGS of power. Initially empty, this page will slowly be filled with thoughts, notes, and quotes. One day, I will use them to write a coherent entry, similar to these completed pages. Thank you for your interest and patience!
Ch 10 in history of archaeology: "The real breakthrough in relation to archaeological research came in 1941, when the Dane Johannes Iversen published his ground-breaking book Land Occupation in Denmark’s Stone Age, which demonstrated for the first time that environmental change was caused mainly by human impact since Neolithization (Iversen 1941). " [by why mainly?] "The breakthrough introduced a new scientific rigor to archaeology, allowing archaeologists to put together a history of humans across the world, but it had a significant effect in other fields, too. Carbon dating has helped us reveal how our bodies work, to understand the climate of the Earth and reconstruct its history, and to track the sun’s activity and the Earth’s magnetic fields. Radiocarbon dating was also instrumental in the discovery of human-caused climate change, as scientists used it to track the sources of carbon in the atmosphere over time." from https://news.uchicago.edu/explainer/what-is-carbon-14-dating#:~:text=Radiocarbon%20dating%2C%20or%20carbon%2D14,of%20the%20carbon%2D14%20isotope.
Ch 18 in History of Archaeology: "A general trend in the historical archaeology of colonialism has involved the willingness to envision European encounters as less culturally devastating to Native peoples. The impacts of genocidal wars and the introduction of virulent diseases were all too real, but not all Indigenous peoples were annihilated or culturally dispossessed as a result of European interaction. Archaeologists’ readiness to reject the pervasiveness of European control has included an engagement with living Native peoples and the development of greater respect for Indigenous historical perspectives and cultural traditions. A more discriminating viewpoint has permeated the entire field since 2000, but nowhere has it been more influential than in the examination of Native encounters with European colonialism (see Beaule 2017; Berrocal and Tsang 2017; Boudreaux et al. 2020). A study published at the beginning of this era neatly dissected the Native/newcomer dichotomy. Concentrating on the city of Cuenca in Ecuador, Ross Jamieson (2000) examined the social relations practiced in this Spanish colonial settlement that was once home to the Inka. First inhabited by Spaniards in 1557, the city remained part of the Spanish Empire for the next 300 years. Jamieson’s research showed that social standing in the city was under constant negotiation, such that a neat dichotomy of the city’s residents was impossible to sustain. Social position was mutable and rooted in the conditions of colonialism as they existed at particular points in time. Additionally, the once-presumed separation between public and private spheres, and their attendant connection to men’s and women’s roles, did not exist in the Ecuadorian city. Studies such as this create a fresh perspective on colonialism and lead to a more realistic portrait of the Native peoples who confronted European colonialism. Three studies in the new tradition forever changed the paradigm of analysis. These studies—completed independently but in adjacent regions of North America—demonstrate the maturity that historical archaeology has developed since 2000. The first investigation focused on the idea that the Senecas of the Iroquois Confederacy had suffered irreputable cultural decline by the eighteenth century, largely as the result of European encroachment. Historians saw cultural deterioration where anthropologists perceived cultural continuity, even though both had examined the same documentation. Kurt Jordan’s (2008) archaeological research demonstrates that the Senecas modified the structure of their political economy to adjust to the realities they confronted in the eighteenth century, rather than simply choosing to acculturate to European culture. The Senecas adopted European objects selectively and thoughtfully, accepting only items consistent with their desires. The Senecas were not the unthinking, avaricious consumers once envisioned by historical archaeologists. In the second study, Neal Ferris (2009) investigated nineteenth-century Native cultures in Ontario, Canada, by analyzing precontact and early postcontact village remains. His analysis of several centuries of Native life demonstrated that the region’s Indigenous cultures did not undergo massive cultural modification as a result of European contact. Rather, only two to eight percent of the artifacts found at Native-occupied villages were of European origin. Much Indigenous daily life remained rooted in traditional ways of life and represented a process of changing continuity. The rapid culture changes many historical archaeologists once envisioned as being caused by European material culture simply did not occur among most Native peoples. The third study, completed by Kerry Thompson (2009), examined Navajo (Diné) identity in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries by focusing on housing and other elements of the built environment. Thompson examined a range of information—including artifacts and historical documents—from almost 400 hogan sites in the Four Corners region of the American Southwest. Rather than relying solely on the narratives provided by Americans who interacted with the Navajo, Thompson concentrated on a ceremony called the Blessingway, a ritual that allowed the Navajo to negotiate the invasive policies imposed upon them by the US federal government. Similarly to the other two studies, Thompson learned that American policies and actions did not disrupt the core beliefs of Navajo culture. Studies such as these have created a new mode of analysis. Rather than thinking in terms of European conquest and Indigenous disintegration, historical archaeologists today envision negotiation and adjustment. Many historical archaeologists now employ the concept of the “resistance of culture” to interpret culture contact situations. This idea asserts that individuals react to new experiences in ways that conform to their own cultural expectations (Sahlins 2005, 4–5) and applies equally to the presence of Europeans and their artifacts. Historical archaeologists no longer perceive European objects as “intelligent artifacts” (Gosden 2010[EF1] , 40), items with the power to create new mindsets among Indigenous peoples. Historical archaeology has advanced to a point that negotiation and adjustment are viewed as more realistic strategies adopted by both Indigenous and European cultural members. This line of thinking has led to the publication of new collections (e.g., Cipolla and Hayes 2015; Scott 2017) as well as monographs (e.g., Beaudoin 2019; Wernke 2013) proving the point."
When I say that everybody is powerful, I am not talking about some kind of absolute power. Power and powerlessness are not absolute, because they are mixed in every situation, in our every action. Same as everybody is powerful, everybody is also powerless. We all have power to help or to hurt others. You can think of examples of yourself doing both. Influencing each other
Because we don't know (we cannot know) the full (ripple/butterfly) effect of our actions, we do not full understand our power but how to connect this with intentionality? our actions need to be intentional in order to be considered a form of power but intentionality does not mean fully understanding the impact
We have power but our perception of our own powerlessness does not help us use our power in the best way. When we persuade ourselves that we are powerless, we cannot properly use our power.
whether you think you have power, or you think that you don't, you are probably right (and you are probably wrong)
From Starts With Us newsletter (April 12, 2013): Before you say, “That’s the same as not being able to control anything!” — remember that how we act affects everything around us. While we can control only our own actions and behaviors, each action and behavior can have implications and effects far beyond the limits of our lives. Your children may imitate it, your family may be impacted by it, and your friends may learn from it — then it can ripple out to their children, their family, their friends, and so on. Every “big” event in our world is just the compounding of a million tiny events; a million small actions. Insisting on the power of the individual doesn’t mean ignoring the impact of systems or pretending that one person can fix massive problems. It isn’t reckless optimism with our eyes closed to the powers that be; it is a conscious practice of agency. Of course global events and political strife affect us, but we don’t live our lives on C-SPAN — we live our lives in our communities. Maybe we can’t end world hunger by ourselves, but we can listen with curiosity to our teachers, relate with compassion to our neighbors, and speak with courage at our town hall. Start with you. Everything else will follow.
from “great work of your life” - “Our actions in expression of our dharma—my actions, your actions, everyone’s actions—are infinitely important. They connect us to the soul of the world. They create the world. Small as they may appear, they have the power to uphold the essential inner order of the world.” Does that mean that action that are not in expression that our dharma can destroy the world? Apparently, yes, as Cope writes later: “If you bring forth what is within you it will save you. Yes. But this saving is not just for you. It is for the common good. If you bring forth what is within you, it will save the world. It will rescue the times. It will save the whole people. Likewise: If you do not bring forth what is within you it will destroy you. But not just you. If you do not bring forth what is within you, it will destroy the whole people.”