|
>ok, but i'm not sure that your original remark about most >immigration being people of color is true. it may be, but >i'm not sure that it is. so i'm not sure you're right to >say "Y'all don't want any immigrants because y'all scared >that they're gonna dilute the white population." there was >a just a movie at the human rights watch festival about >discrimination against pourtugese in france, for example, >and i know that eastern european immigrants are treated >pretty badly in western europe. so i question those >comments.
Well...If eastern european immigrants are treated poorly, ethnic groups (with coloured complexions and from greater distances) are screwed even that much more. >when was the start of european civilization? and when did >europeans think of themselves as civilized and needing to go >to foreign lands to spread this civilization? > >i suspect that it's in fact a back-formation. i'm only >familiar with a few cases (eg pourtugese/angola, >british/india) but the notion of a civilizing mission came >long after the initial encounter during the Age of >Exploration, and after the balance of power was decisively >in favor of europeans. and this long, long, long after a) >the birth of european civilization, and b) engagements with >the non-european world.
I'm gonna have to back out on this one because I don't know enuff about ancient civilizations to speak on it....
But a general thought: Who were the ones financing exploration and on a mission to colonize distant lands? Sure, the Japanese also joined in on this colonial scheme BUT their interest in building the East Asia Prosperity Sphere was only confined to East Asia. On the other hand, the Brits and the French stepped outside of their boundaries and wished to conquer coloured persons not only because of their interest in expansion but also because they felt the need to civilize barbarians.
> >i don't know if botticelli is common knowledge in east asia,
haha...looks like I spelled his name wrong.
>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.
>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.
>i'll skip the obvious examples of picasso and whistler and >talk about me. i'm only research-level literate in english >and maybe french. i've never completely read a grown up >book in a non-western language, even when i lived in the >third world. every single thing i know about trade btw axum >and india or cambodian sculpture or the great monuments of >zimbabwe, i had the chance to learn bc of a long history of >western interest in the non-western world. the reason i >know the names of say, Ibn Khaldun, Murasaki Shikibu and >Bhaskara is bc some YT was interested before me.
Again, you're not normal...and take that as a compliment. Mention "The Tale of Genji" to anyone and expect a blank face.
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?
|