On
>the other hand, the Brits and the French stepped outside of
>their boundaries


what boundaries? and who decides?


and wished to conquer coloured persons not
>only because of their interest in expansion but also because
>they felt the need to civilize barbarians.


you're wrong. this is a back-formation. as i said, the discourse on civilizing the barbarian came long after the initial contacts. it came after the balance of power shifted. same thing with arabs and east africa, once the power was all on one side, the contempt followed.

see, not only are you accepting a later view as an earlier one, you're also ignoring the history and power that "we" had. europe didn't sail the world to civilize anyone, they used the civilizing mission as an excuse to continue what they were doing at a point when they knew that the natives were getting restless. when "we" first encountered "them", the technology gap wasn't that great, and the attitudes were quite different.

>
>>but i would also point out that in fact there has been a
>>tremendous amount of western study of the non-western world.
>> think about napoleon in egypt or richard burton or the
>>asiatic society or max muller. i know, i know, you're going
>>to quote edward said at me, but the point is that the
>>respect, admiration and interest existed.
>
>But only among scholars who are a small minority of the
>population.

no, not just scholars, but the people who funded them, which is far more important, and the people who consumed popularizations of their work. the popularity of chinoiserie or omar khayyam was much more general.


>>and i'll also point out that today, you and i *and the local
>>peoples* know about angkor wat, khajuraho or the cave
>>paintings in north africa bc of western inquiry/research.
>
>Seriously tho'....you are an exception to the rule. How many
>white Americans/Blacks/Europeans/Asians/etc know/have
>access/have interest in those things? Very few. The general
>population is what concerns me.


no, what i was saying there is that the general population around khaj, angkor wat, etc know about them *today* bc of westerners.




>Again, you're not normal...and take that as a compliment.
>Mention "The Tale of Genji" to anyone and expect a blank
>face.


and these people know who botticelli is?

look, the only reason i know what the tale of the genji is because was on the syllabus at my university. and i could name exactly one botticelli painting. so that's about equal. in fact, i would go on to say that i think anyone who can name three paintings by botticelli knows who murasaki is.



>I still stand on my belief that mutual respect is lacking.
>As proof, why is it that the study of European languages and
>cultures is universal? Everybody and their mommas wanna
>speak French, eat French, travel French and yet Andreas from
>Germany could give a tick's ass 'bout learnin Chinese?

no, i don't think so. how many people in China are learning French... or Dutch? forget about Basque. people learn the languages of economic power, it has little to do with respect or admiration. i mean, there was a tremendous boom in the study of japanese during the 80's, that's not bc everyone started admiring Endo all of a sudden. and it also has to do with the fact that the french or the americans promote the study of their language in a way that the chinese or the ibo don't. there's an alliance francaise in every big city, there's no alliance ibo.

and many an andreas has indeed learned chinese. there's a major center for the study of my own obscure and marginal language in norway, but where will you find centers for the study of norwegian in the third world?