Customer Reviews

Utopian Legacies: A History of Conquest and Oppression in the Western World

5 star:		(2)
4 star:		(0)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(1)

 

 

I have to disagree with the previous review. Although Christianity, in theory, may not carry a utopian view, it certainly conducts itself thusly. This book targets many important issues and explains the many "whys" associated with our history. It is an important contribution to anyone's collection of Native American history. It outlines quite clearly how objectives based on religious beliefs often foil themselves and result instead in calamitous outcomes.

Rather than argue with the Christian semanticist reviewer, let me say that I found compelling Mohawk's premise and evidence that our most vicious behaviors, from ethnic cleansing to enslavement and genocide are often deeply rooted in the highest aspirations of the Western world.

Of course this book was written before the onslaught of the recent spate of Muslim, Christian, Sikh, and state terrorism, so we cannot limit vicious behavior to the West. The issue is who is it who defines "highest" and what do they do as a result.

Utopianism may refer literally to the absence of all conflict, peaceful co-existence and so on, but human beings are human beings and when utopianism takes hold, true believers are either spat upon or spit upon those outside themselves. On the positive side we have the Oneidans, the Shakers, and other such peaceable groups, many quite small and short-lived, although that is certainly not always the case. On the other side, we have many historical horrors.

From the Puritan's (and Ronald Reagan's) "Shining City on the Hill" to Hitler's Aryan nation to the Crusaders' "salvation" of Jerusalem (the original 'shining city on the hill'), to the Muslim vision of paradise, to the apocalyptic vision of the "Rapture" -- wherever a powerful sense of exclusive idealism, religious or not, has taken root, believers frequently have behaved savagely toward those they deem "not worthy" of experiencing that ideal.

These "others," whether Jew or Christian, Hugenot, Hindus, Muslim, black, women or indigenous peoples of colonized lands, have been systematically and often brutally excluded from experiencing idealized human and religious glory both in concept and in fact.

It is in his description of this process as it regards native peoples that Ifound Mohawk's book an excellent, if disturbing read.

I greatly looked forward to this book but couldn't have been more disappointed. The author correctly identifies Utopianism, the belief we live in a perfectable world, as the dominant source of mischief and tragedy throughout history.

Utopian zeal shapes nations, political parties, education, law and people's lives, on a moment to moment basis. From Darwin to Marx to Freud to Stalin to Hitler to the 60's culture to modern hate groups, socialists and activists. All these things share the belief humans can "progress" to a perfect world.

The book's failure is in identifying Christianity as Utopian when it has actually been the primary force opposing Utopian impulses throughout history. I don't know where the author could have gotten his understanding of Christianity (or history), but "The Kingdom of God" he describes Christians as referring to is something to be established by God, not people.

Because of the existence of sin (specifically, Original Sin), Christians recognize no human action can possibly create Utopia. We do not live in a perfectable world. Christians see human thought as being so corrupted by sin, people cannot even IMAGINE a perfect world. All attempts will lead to ruin. Further, Christians view the Utopian impulse of humanity as evidence of and reflecting the desire of a fallen mankind to return to fellowship with God in the Garden of Eden -- something no human action can bring about, only the Grace of God.

Thus, Christians, and those operating under Christian thinking, have been the historical force OPPOSING Utopianism. The author's scholarship and understanding is so wrong, he misidentifies the only historical solution to the problem he is talking about.

[The Puritan intent to set up an example of a shining "city on the hill" wasn't Utopian -- no group was more conscious on a moment-to-moment basis of the unavoidability of sin than Puritans -- but rather a demonstration of what could be done when adhering to God's given laws for a fallen, corrupt people]

Recently, Utopian idealism, the denial of human sin, has been reformulated on the assertion humans are only mechanically derived animals; complicated bits of matter to be manipulated to a higher state by an elite which believes it has higher vision (replacing God with their own desires).

Modernity is Utopianism, made scientifically plausible by Darwin whose Victorian-era studies seemed to eliminate God, thus Original Sin. The result was predicted and predictable (by Christians): Karl Marx quickly folded Darwin's science into communism and the attempt to perfect human nature scientifically, to create a Worker's Paradise (60 million killed in Russia, 50 million killed in China). Then the Nazi's (National Socialists) trying to create an Aryan super-race, also based on the science of Darwin (20 million dead & Holocaust). And eugenics and abortion: the modern world.

Utopianism, rationalized as science, has killed 200+ million and enslaved billions in the great secular socialist states we live in. This is why Christians advocate decentralization of power; to avoid its concentration in the hands of corrupt humans. And why the Utopians seek to centralize it, so the elite can shepherd us to Utopia. The modern Left are INTERNATIONAL Utopians while the Right are NATIONALISTIC Utopians (my country, my race). Same thought process, different implementation. Christians oppose them both; WW II, Cold War, etc.

The author barely discusses socialism and Marxism while attacking Christianity. For this reason, the author's error makes the book perverse. Wrong history, wrong analysis, wrong conclusions. Just wrong.