Just my 0.02 worth . . .
I don't know very much about the political situation between China and
Tibet, or the historical situation between Japan and China, so I was
interested to learn a bit about them. However, it seems somewhat
of-the-topic (even if Malcolm did *ask for it*, as it were). It seems to me
he was trying to interrogate a certain phenomena, namely, why is it whenever
Europeans and North Americans try to discuss or analyse colonialsm, we feel
compelled to mention examples of colonial or colonial-type endeavors
perpetrated by other folks? His tentative answer to his own question was
"guilt". I think his question and his answer are substantive, and deserve to
be treated as such. For example:
1. Is his claim that we can rarely discuss colonialsim without attempting to
deflect the attention "elsewhere" true? What proof do we have ?
2. If it is true, what does that say about the stated vs. the actual
purposes of such conversations ?
3 .If we accept, if only tentatively, that conversations about colonialism
that degenerate into guilt-redistribution sessions preserve colonial
relations and attitudes rather than examine (or *GASP* resist) them, where
are we now?
On a related note, I'm interested to see how certain fields of power (i.e.
fields of power that coagulate around notions and practices of masculinity)
circulate on this mailing list. This would be an example of (as Malcolm
pointed out) power can be * boring.*
lets all play nice in the sandbox,
chloe
"The women who hate me cut me
as men can't Men don't count.
I can handle men. Never expected better
of any man anyway.
But the women,
shallow-cheeked young girls the world was made for
safe little girls who think nothing of bravado
who never got over by playing it tough" Dorothy Allison
I don't know very much about the political situation between China and
Tibet, or the historical situation between Japan and China, so I was
interested to learn a bit about them. However, it seems somewhat
of-the-topic (even if Malcolm did *ask for it*, as it were). It seems to me
he was trying to interrogate a certain phenomena, namely, why is it whenever
Europeans and North Americans try to discuss or analyse colonialsm, we feel
compelled to mention examples of colonial or colonial-type endeavors
perpetrated by other folks? His tentative answer to his own question was
"guilt". I think his question and his answer are substantive, and deserve to
be treated as such. For example:
1. Is his claim that we can rarely discuss colonialsim without attempting to
deflect the attention "elsewhere" true? What proof do we have ?
2. If it is true, what does that say about the stated vs. the actual
purposes of such conversations ?
3 .If we accept, if only tentatively, that conversations about colonialism
that degenerate into guilt-redistribution sessions preserve colonial
relations and attitudes rather than examine (or *GASP* resist) them, where
are we now?
On a related note, I'm interested to see how certain fields of power (i.e.
fields of power that coagulate around notions and practices of masculinity)
circulate on this mailing list. This would be an example of (as Malcolm
pointed out) power can be * boring.*
lets all play nice in the sandbox,
chloe
"The women who hate me cut me
as men can't Men don't count.
I can handle men. Never expected better
of any man anyway.
But the women,
shallow-cheeked young girls the world was made for
safe little girls who think nothing of bravado
who never got over by playing it tough" Dorothy Allison