Apologies if you received an incomplete mail from me (technophobic!), but what I was intending to write was:
Cyril Belshaw's message included "what is the view of the people themselves about this
enterprise????? What do they get out of it???? Is it really serving up the
people on a platter, or is there more to it than that? "
and
"This is not a matter of, pardon me, black and white. But it is a matter of
what the people's goals in life are. If from our perspective they may be
confused, ill informed, or low in value, who are we to impose our own value
judgements on their decisions? At best, if we are in contact with them, is
to to help them inform themselves...."
I understand that you anthropologists (I am more of a tourism person than an anthropologist) are largely dealing with the "other' culture rather than our own, but I believe that the ideas being expressed in the discussion, so far, tend to ignore the fact that the appropriation of culture for commercial purposes is still an on-going process for us. We are equally exploited and channelled to see our culture as a thing of commercial value. Clearly not everyone is convinced in the merits of this, but what is to be done? It has got to the point that very few people are capable of distinguishing authentic culture from manufactured culture - and certainly any kind of continuity of traditional culture in the future will only ever be considered relative to the principles of economics. I for one find the idea somewhat frustrating and a bit sad.
However, to continue the discussion on a level whereby we are only considering the extent to which our capitalist persuasion has contaminated other cultures is myopic and slightly imperialistically-constrained. The process is not merely one concerning the domination of one culture (or approach to culture) by another, but is about the global subversion of culture where we are as much the victim as anyone else.
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|