On 12/6/04 11:34 AM, "Robin Hamilton" <[log in to unmask]>
wrote:
> May I suggest that we call in an independent arbitator to rule on this?
I don't need anyone ruling on what is to me absolutely clear.
But like you Robin, I have no wish to enter into an argument which is
pointless. And it's not as if I dislike you.
> (Sorry, I couldn't resist this:
>
> "pig ignorant orientalism"
>
> I've read Said too, so don't patronise me.
I wasn't referring to Said, although he is impossible to ignore in such
discussions, and I wasn't patronising you. I was referring to the
discredited book on Arabic culture which has been discussed recently in
relation to the Abu Ghraib scandal, and which the US Army and Rumsfeld refer
to as their "bible" on Arabs. Unfortunately I can't remember the name of
its author, maybe someone else has it at their fingers, but it has gathered
a fair bit of coverage recently; in some universities in the US this book is
taught as a classic example of orientalism and bad sociology (eg, Arabs are
sex obsessed, Arabs are illogical and violent, Arabs are untrustworthy,
etc). It's been contended that this book was a major text behind the idea
of using sexual humiliation as torture, as being particularly demoralising
for Arabs (what I don't understand about this is the implicit assumption
that such torture would be less offensive to westerners). There's a direct
line between racism/cultural imperialism and things like Abu Ghraib, and
always has been. And that, fwiw, is what people are objecting to.
Best
A
Alison Croggon
Editor, Masthead: http://www.masthead.net.au
Home page: http://www.alisoncroggon.com
Blogs: http://theatrenotes.blogspot.com http://alisoncroggon.blogspot.com
|