GENBRIT-L Archives

Archiver > GENBRIT > 2000-12 > 0975926046


From: Don Moody <>
Subject: Re: Netiquette
Date: Mon, 4 Dec 2000 10:34:06 +0000


In article <>, Caz <>
writes
>George Spooner <> wrote in message
>news:3a2b350f$0$...
>>
>> "Don Moody" <> wrote in message
>> news:...
>>
>> <snip>
>> >And a complete rebuttal of
>> > the flaming into which the *pig-ignorant amongst the parasites* are so
>> apt
>> > to descend.
>>
>> (my emphasis)
>>
>> Pleased to see that *you* don't stoop to inflammatory remarks Don. 8^)
>> Geo.
>
>Or even *rise* to apologies for attempting to besmirch someone's
>character... But perhaps
>you're still too busy wiping the egg off your face Don??
>
>:o)
>
>Caz

Caz,

No egg on my face.

Whose character did I attempt to besmirch in the quoted posting? No-one.

Who did I flame? No-one.

If the objection is to the use of 'pig-ignorant', why? It was common
parlance in at least north London in at least the first half of the 20th
century. Formed by eliding 'pig headed' and 'ignorant'. Used to
distinguish between those who were non-culpably ignorant by reason of
lack of opportunity to learn, and those who were culpably ignorant by
reason of refusal to take the opportunity to learn which had been
presented to them.

As I understood the discussion of the thread, several participants were
trying to define a single position somewhere between total ignorance and
expert knowledge which separated unworthy questions from worthy
questions. I pointed out that there is no single position, that
circumstances alter cases. I accepted and always have accepted that the
fact of ignorance is not of itself culpable. To put it in the words of a
very wise Wapisiana shaman back in 1961: in any new situation everyone
is a baby, knowing nothing.

But in the real world, including this ng, we all see people who not only
are ignorant but who positively stroppily refuse to learn when
opportunity offers. These are the pig-ignorant. It would be pig-
ignorance to deny that pig-ignorance exists. I'm ignorant about almost
all of human knowledge; I'm not pig-ignorant about the least particle of
it.

As my Wapisiana friend was pointing out nearly 40 years ago, getting
from babyhood to adulthood in a new situation requires learning. And
those not willing to learn will not survive. There was no room in his
tribe for what I called the pig-ignorant (his word was kenaima) because
they consumed resources which could be put to much better use by those
willing to learn.

Once somebody 'went kenaima', the nearest Wapisiana would fetch them a
back-hander at neck level with a razor-sharp 14" machete. It
specifically was not regarded as the killing of another person but as a
form of pest control. Metaphorically chopping off the persistently pig-
ignorant in this ng, or any other situation, is pest control, too.

For all our technology, the fundamental kinds and patterns of human
behaviour do not change much over time or between cultures. If genealogy
is only about cataloguing names, then it is almost pointless. If it is
about understanding what real people did in the culture of their time,
and from that drawing out lessons useful to oneself and ones
descendants, then it has enormous value.

If an apology is due it is for my failure to realise that a common,
well-understood by the working-class, technical term in north London
50-100 years ago was unknown further afield.

Don

HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
HYPERPEOPLE: the multinational invisible college of experienced professionals
working in one-task multidisciplinary syndicates at and from their homes.
Tel: +44(0) 1626 821725 Fax: +44(0) 1626 824912
Ashwood, Exeter Cross, Liverton, Newton Abbot, England TQ12 6EY
HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

This thread: