On Sat, September 27, 1997 at 07:58:39 (-0700) Colin Danby writes: >I've had an instructive offlist correspondence with the >irascible Bill L and will try to clarify a couple of points. Let me add some rascibility, then. > ... the nature of culture >in general, if considered carefully, ma[kes] it rather difficult >to wall up the world into separate cultural compartments. Quite right. >2. What riles Bill is what he sees as the assertion that one >cannot criticize something someone else does without sharing >in their culture. That, in those general terms, is not what >I am arguing nor what I read Ajit to be saying. I'm fine with this, if in fact Ajit is not saying that. > I am arguing >that in specific contexts these critiques are used to push >other agendas, as in the last century Mill's influential >portrayal of the treatment of women in India was used very >directly to support colonial rule. I don't disagree here with your historical example, but could you clarify what you mean by "these critiques"? If you say "critiques from outside" a particular culture, I may have to get irascible again. Let me twist history a bit (by, inter alia, condensing it to one sentence). Suppose that at the time Mill made his criticism of the treatment of women in India that he was factually correct, that women were indeed being terribly abused throughout Indian society. Perhaps we can separate our criticism of Mill into two categories: 1. His "correctness" of argument and supporting facts; 2. His moral decision to spend his time criticizing victims of his country's oppression, similar to that of those who carped only at the relatively minor abuses of the Sandinistas while the US supported a far greater crime in attacking them. Perhaps we can simply say that he may have been perfectly correct in his criticisms of the abuse (1), but his moral choice (2) to offer this criticism while largely ignoring the much greater crime, for which he bore partial responsibility, is reprehensible. But, then suppose Mill saw the error of his ways, and wrote a much longer, more detailed and penetrating critique of his own country's actions, his responsibility in perpetrating the crimes, etc. To this, he appends his original criticism of the abuse of women in Indian society. I presume you would not then find this (a criticism by a white male from outside India of Indian "culture") objectionable? >Perhaps the main thing Bill & I disagree on is whether we >disagree, as I like Bill's statements of principle. I'm >happy to let anyone criticize anything they like, but when it >comes to deciding which to take seriously I do worry about >critiques that seem both minimally informed and to repeat a >long line of lurid and distancing portrayals of 3rd world >culture. To me this seems to be a particular concern; Bill >perhaps still sees it as overly general. But I do think we >can agree on the importance of understanding each particular >situation and the politics implicated in it. I'm not quite sure what you mean by "distancing" (criticism implies distance, does it not?), but I basically agree with this. I have one final question. I'm not very consistent in my treatment of the words "black", "blacks", "white", "whites", etc. when referring to black persons, black "culture" (I still don't know what this is exactly), etc. Is it the accepted practice to capitalize these words? There, are we best pals again? Bill
