Dear All,
Recently Andrew Herod wrote:
...there are plenty of people I think should be offended
constantly...capitalists, Nazis, homophobes, religious fundamentalists,
Tories...
While not wishing to appear immune to the general spirit of irony that is
apparently the mood of the moment (see my earlier postings), I find it
depressing that many academics still lump together incredibly heterogenous
groups under a single label and then denigrate them. While I don't have a
particular problem with offending Nazis, homophobes and religious
fundamendalists (although I would ask, To what end?), to talk about
'capitalists' as if they were all evil scum-of-the-earth and owners of
Bolivian sweatshops is to overlook the many who would fall into the
'capitalist' camp vis-a-vis certain economic principles but whose social
principles are far more progressive than many so-called socialists. Ditto
Tories (less so in the latter case, admittedly).
Surely the time has come to stop judging people by outward appearances and
spurious 'essentialities' (i.e. as envisaged by academic theory) and start
judging people as 'good' or 'bad' (and most people are a mix of both) by
their _actions_.
I find it intenesly depressing that a so-called 'radical' forum is so
easily reduced to the lowest level of debate. Unless, of course, Andew was
being very subltly ironic - in which case, I've missed the point,and I
apologise.
Cheers,
Graham
At 11:32 AM 7/13/00 -0400, you wrote:
>Certainly, it's clear that this Cree man has a good sense of humor and
>historical irony in what he is doing. Indeed, it seems to me that
>irony can be used as a quite biting political statement in many ways. I
>think, though, that the reaction to the response to the original post
>was more along the lines that by appearing to ridicule the actions of
>this "silly colonial" the political point that he was trying to make
>was also being written off. Indeed, there is an issue of power here in
>that colonial powers and mindsets often attempt to poke fun of
>subaltern groups so as to delegitimize them (think of the innumerable
>"Irish jokes" or jokes about "Taffy and Jock", etc.). So, I would
>argue that there is a difference between, for example, subaltern
>peoples poking fun at themselve and at the outside groups that hold
>political or cultural power over them, and those outside groups telling
>jokes/ poking fun at subaltern groups. This is not to say that we
>should engage necessarily in PC language politics where we can't say
>certain things for risk of offence [there are plenty of people I think
>should be offended constantly...capitalists, Nazis, homophobes,
>religious fundamentalists, Tories,], but it is to say that there are
>issues of power that we should be aware of when engaging in this
>practice which we should critically evaluate. Equally, this is not to
>say that, for example, "English bad...Aborigine (anywhere) good"; there
>are many things that "Aboriginal peoples" in different parts of the
>world have done that, I hope, most of us would agree are to be
>condemned (eg female circumcision, human sacrifice) that, in some
>cases, outside powers have done their best to abolish (eg the British
>in India banning the practice of sutee). saying that all English
>people are bad and all aboriginal people are good is perhaps one of the
>crudest reductionism's one can think of. On the other hand, there are
>legitimate political issues that aboriginal populations in Canada and
>elsewhere have that, in my opinion, should not be so simply written off
>as "silly".
>
>As to the significance of categories of national identity, I suspect
>the reason that no one gets agitated about Anglo-saxons' UDI from Rome
>1500 years ago or reclaiming parts of Iraq etc is that no one in
>Britain who does not have recent family members from Italy or Iraq (ie
>perhaps great-grandparents) seriously considers themselves as "Roman",
>"Iraqi" etc. Indeed, the fact that Welsh, Irish, Scots, and Cornish
>people do agitate against Anglicization is that, for them, these
>national identities do have very real meaning in their daily lives.
>
>Best,
>
>Andy Herod
>
>
>On Tue, 11 Jul 2000 22:16:53 GMT Dan Knox <[log in to unmask]>
>wrote:
>
>> "Hey "Critical" Geographers (and others on the list),
>>
>> Lawrence Berg wrote:
>> >Even if they were meant to be ironic, Hillary Shaw's comments can >also
be
>> >read as dismissive of indigenous self determination.
>>
>> Certainly they can...they might also be read as amusing (at least in part)
>> and certainly much else liable to cause offence has been posted to this
list
>> today. What strikes me as most interesting about the "the empire strikes
>> back" thread has been the ways in which boundaries are erected and
>> maintained around what we can and cannot be cynical about. In talking
about
>> the various national identities within the United Kingdom very little is
off
>> limits and it is _all_ very amusing (largely). Canada too, it seems, is
>> amusing. Clearly the Cree man in question has a strong enough sense of
>> irony... The way in which indigenous self determination is being talked
>> about here (and often we are left to wonder who these "selves" are anyhow)
>> is patronising in the extreme. There is something slightly offensive
>> running through an argument that, crudely put, runs a little like this:
>>
>> a) we are reflexive social scientists...we do not believe in the inherent
>> significance of categories...we thus engage ironically with our western
>> national identities...
>>
>> b) this man and these people are not reflexive social scientists...they
>> believe in the significance of certain categories that mean something to
>> them...they do not engage ironically with their national identities (and
so,
>> by implication, neither must we)...it is really cute and sweet etc etc.
>>
>> I guess, however, that this is also to some extent a class related
>> phenomenon within the UK. Interestingly, again, we see very little
>> discussion on this list of anything that occurs in Ireland. Those
Orangemen
>> just aren't so damned attractive I guess. We have a whole series of value
>> judgements surrounding different ideas of nationhood and different
>> nations...English bad...Aborigine (anywhere) good... Just wondered whether
>> or not this ought ever be brought in for questioning ?
>>
>> Hillary - be strong !!
>> Cheers
>> dan"
>> =============
>> Dan Knox
>> Department of Geography
>> University of Durham
>> Durham
>> UK
>> DH1 3LE
>>
>> 0191 374 2472
>>
>> [log in to unmask]
>> [log in to unmask]
>>
>>
>>
>> ________________________________________________________________________
>> Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com
>
>_____________________
>Dr. Andrew Herod
>Associate Professor
>Department of Geography
>204 GGS Building
>University of Georgia
>Athens, GA 30602, USA
>
>Tel: 706 542 2856
>Fax: 706 542 2388
>Email: [log in to unmask]
>
>When I give food to the poor, they call me a Saint.
>When I ask why the poor have no food, they
>call me a Communist.
>
>Dom Helder Camara
>
>"Con el coyote no hay aduana"
>
>
>
Graham Gardner
Institute of Geography & Earth Sciences
University of Wales
Aberystwyth
Ceredigion
SY23 3DB
Wales
UK
Tel: 0044 (0)1970 622606
Fax: 0044 (0)1970 622659
E-mail: [log in to unmask]
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|