To Live or Die in Wales 2

Two things have happened since I posted on Tony Hopfinger's story in The Walrus.
First, The Walrus has now posted the whole story, so my issues about getting permission from an appropriate group of elders is moot. The story is now available for all to read at the link above.

Second, I got an email today from an elder in Wales who I had asked if it was ok to post the article. He said he wouldn't know how to go about consulting the elders on this (modestly not including himself in that group) - to explain to them what a blog is and how everyone in the world can read it and give them the story. I'm going to take the liberty here and quote a bit of what he said in the email.

I imagine that in the end they would say in our language "azukiaq taimanapiruaq", meaning what a tragedy it was what happened. They, perhaps would be looking for the moral of the story or how it can help young people today, much in the way many traditional stories were structured, as an educational device. I, myself, would urge you to post the whole article on your blog spot. Mike's story, our story, needs to be told and spread so others begin to understand our lives, just as we, here need to read stories of others elsewhere and how they live.

I would note (and say thanks) that Jeremy commented on the first post:

The ethical questions you raise seem interesting, but trivial in our present context. News people shoot video and edit to create their own message. Advocacy journalists, such as Rupert Murdoch having no scruples feel free to twist the story to fit a predetermined message. Swift Boat advocacy groups change the course of history using techniques that would put Goebbles to shame.

I don't dispute that the issues Jeremy raises are significant and affect a lot more people than how journalists write about Alaska Native communities. But Jeremy's criticism could be made about nearly every post on every blog - there are more important issues to write about. And I have, in other posts written more directly to some of the issues he thinks are more important.

But I would dispute that this is trivial. Everything is connected. It doesn't matter at what point people become aware of their biases and the negative effects they can have on others. Once they have this awareness in one area, it can be applied in another area. Jeremy is concerned with the sort of intentional manipulation of information that George Orwell warned against long ago in the book 1984 and "The Politics of the English Language".



I think that if someone reads my post and Tony's article and reexamines unquestioned beliefs they have about rural Alaska, then they might also be more ready to question what they hear on any of Rupert Murdoch's media outlets. Understanding doesn't always come in a direct, linear path. Unexpected insights here, affect thinking there. One person can understand the implications of one story, someone else the implications of another story.

I also think in Jeremy's comments there is an understandable concern about the erosions of free press rights of journalists and that he can see me adding a level of permission needed to publish or broadcast something. There is a difference though between asking permission of those who normally have little or no power to protect themselves (what I was doing) and asking permission of George W. Bush before you write about the Iraq war.

The seemingly small courtesy of asking permission for something for which you legally do not need permission can go a long way. It shows respect - and respect for others is one of the most powerful ways to establish meaningful communication and peace among human beings.