On 4/15/07, ravi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
So, Doug, from your previous criticism of Roy, can we assume that you quote the above with approval since it is not written in English? One assumes Ivy League political science programmes are offered in Urdu? ;-)
Aren't you guys guilty of the same sin that you accuse of? Doug's criticism of Arundhati Roy is entirely accurate: yes Roy is a commodify marketed and sold to intellectuals, yes she speaks in the language of the elite and to that extent her voice is not the voice of the underprivileged that she champions. And no, that doesn't mean she is not an intelligent articulate individual who is well worth listening to. further excuse for such phrases as "the language of the colonialist".
Mahatma fucking Gandhi wrote in English, for crying out loud. I have volumes of it (moth eaten but readable) in boxes back home! (b) As
English is and has always been "the language of the colonialist" in India. It is "taught" (actually forced down the throats of students) in schools not at home. And those schools are part of the educational system that is very much the legacy of the colonial era. That Gandhi wrote in English changes nothing. Of course that is not to deny that there are some benefits to learning the colonialist's language. If life gives you lemons.... -raghu.
