Whether pioneers were or were not self-sustaining individuals can be
argued until the cows come home. The point is, if they weren't operating
businesses they were able to sustain themselves in a manner relatively
free of the money-system. They didn't have to devote their entire life to
pursuits meant to get them out of debt. Today, everyone is born into a
nation's debt. Whoever controls the debt-system also regulates our lives
...whether they do it intentionally or not is besides the point.

Harry Veeder


On Wed, 25 Jun 1997, DDeBar wrote:

> This is also a bit off topic, but...
>
> I have a background in communications arts. I am interested in all types of
> media. One of the most interesting stories I have read, viewed, etc., was
> in a comic book from the early '70s called "Slow Death" comics. In it,
> Earthlings get to a planet orbiting Alpha Centauri and, um, "do their
> thing", so to speak. It looks remarkably like the story of the colonization
> of Africa, America, Asia, Austrailia...well, you get the picture. Anyway,
> the imagery of the "colonists" in their spaceman attire, and other visual
> effects which seemed extremely appropriate to the story, really disabused
> the reader of any notion of frontier individualism on the part of these
> hired "explorers". It may sound silly, but I've always wanted to try to
> bring this little story to a larger audience via TV or film. Perhaps
> someday...
>
> - DDeBar
>
> ----------
> > From: Nestor Miguel Gorojovsky <[log in to unmask]>
> > To: [log in to unmask]
> > Subject: Re: [CHOMSKY] The "big/small" enterprise debate
> > Date: Tuesday, June 24, 1997 8:11 PM
> >
> > El 24 Jun 97 a las 9:16, Lawrence Libby nos dice(n):
> >
> > >  I have
> > > come to believe that the myth of the independant homesteader in the
> > > US is just that: a convenient myth.  It is of great use to the
> > > people who slash welfare and other socially beneficial programs.
> > > What follows is one paragraph from _The Way We Never Were, American
> > > Families and the Nostalgia Trap" by Stephanie Coontz HarperCollins
> > > 1992:
> > >
> > > "In reality, prairie farmers and other pioneer families owed their
> > > existance to massive federal land grants, government-funded military
> > > mobilizations that dispossesed humdreds of Native American societies
> > > and confiscated half of Mexico, and state-sponsored economic
> > > investment in the new lands.  Even 'volunteers' expected federal
> > > pay: Much of the West's historic 'antigovernment' sentiment
> > > originated in discontent when settlers did not get such pay or were
> > > refused government aid for unauthorized raids on Native American
> > > territory. It would be hard to find a Western family today or at any
> > > time in the past whose land rights, transportation options, economic
> > > existance, and even access to water were not dependant on federal
> > > funds. 'Territorial evperience got Westerners in the habit of
> > > federal subsidies,' remarks Western historian Patricia Nelson
> > > Limeric, 'and the habit persisted long after other elements of the
> > > Old West had vanished.' "
> >
> > Thank you for this piece of social historic realism.  It is very
> > useful when one has to deal with neoliberals who praise an inexistent
> > "lonely individual without State" in America.
> >
> > I believe, however, that the "free homesteader" was none the less
> > free because there was a whole nation behind him.  This has always
> > been the case when settlement took place. But settlement itself can
> > assume many different forms.
> >
> > Will return on this later.
> > Nestor Miguel Gorojovsky
> > [log in to unmask]
>