The ongoing critique in scholastic circles of "euro-centrism"
more and more appears as a member of that large family of
ideological persuasions generally called "post-modernism,"
defined here as a purely academic compensation for the
material defeats the movements of the '60s Karl and
At 09:34 AM 4/12/00 -0500, you wrote:
The trick is to reverse cause and effect, and by attacking the effects
(which exist purely in the superstructure of rarified scholastic dispute)
we can soothe feelings wounded by our inability to oppose effectively the
victories of racism and imperialism
Carrol Cox wrote:
The ongoing critique in scholastic circles of "euro-centrism"
more and more appears as a member of that large family of
ideological persuasions generally called "post-modernism,"
defined here as a purely academic compensation for the
material defeats the movements of the
"eurocentrism" needs
to be retired from our vocabulary, since it acts only to deflect
attention from the ills it pretends to name.
Carrol
Term 'eurocentrism' is problematic although conception that eurocentrism
is colonizer's model of world (as jim blaut, no postmodernist, calls it)
seesm
Term 'eurocentrism' is problematic although conception that eurocentrism
is colonizer's model of world (as jim blaut, no postmodernist, calls it)
seesm generally agreeable. Term can, however, flatten complexity of
european culture and history that includes peripheral regions, social
classes,
I think, I agree with everything that Carrol says. It is a point that I
have tried to make several times, although much less elegantly.
The responses that I have seen so far seem to miss the point (in my
opinion) of Carrol's post and of Marx and Engels' critique of critical
criticism.
Naming calling lets off frustration, but silencing an "opponent" is
a pretty hollow victory. And advances the cause not at all.
And then, there are those who delight in disrupting left discourse,
with shouting denunciations of ill defined crimes, that the perpetrator
couldn't possible
Rod Hay wrote:
I think, I agree with everything that Carrol says. It is a point that I
have tried to make several times, although much less elegantly.
The responses that I have seen so far seem to miss the point (in my
opinion) of Carrol's post and of Marx and Engels' critique of critical
At 09:34 12/04/00 -0500, Carrol wrote:
The ongoing critique in scholastic circles of "euro-centrism"
more and more appears as a member of that large family of
ideological persuasions generally called "post-modernism,"
defined here as a purely academic compensation for the
material defeats
