|
quickly, i think you misread my post. i don't want to waste time repeating myself, but:
>the physical/cultural boundaries that separate one region from the other. the reason why we differentiate Africa from Europe from Asia. Who decides? Well...that's a hard question..I don't know.
are you going to indict the Moors, Zhang He and the Turks as well? the peoples aroudn the Red Sea who traded with South and Southeast Asia? i mean, where is this heading? no one should have ever set sail?
>Well...i'm not sure I agree with that. Even today, there's a >stigma of foreignness that's attached to Middle >Easterners/Asians/Africans.
girl, how can you possibly argue against a back-formation by saying there are prejudices today?!?! a back-formation is precisely projecting *today's* prejudices back onto the past.
This stigma is an >extension/continuation of the past. And, peep the early >texts/art of Europeans who documented distant lands...
i have. i cited two specific examples, the british in india and the pourtugese in angola. i could give citations but this needs to be more serious on both sides to go to that extent.
> > when "we" first encountered "them", >>the technology gap wasn't that great, and the attitudes were >>quite different. > >Actually, I'm not so sure 'bout that either. The >introduction of rifles began the process of westernization.
slow down. to consider one of my examples from above, the battle of panipat used rifles before any process of westernization.
>If there is admiration, why is it that Europeans don't adopt >the cultural/social products of other countries in the same >way that others have adopted theirs? Westernization is a >mainstream process. Easternization? Never even heard of the >word.
come on. i'm sure you can think of a hundred ways in which western culture as adopted the social and cultural products of the east. i gave some examples up above, i could have as easily said look at bocaccio or the number 0 or linguine or the Cantos. why would you want to act like we've westernized while they have not adopted things from us, and thereby reverse all the *amazing* scholarship that has been done in the last 50 years? i mean, this is *precisely* what YT believes, that we are mimic men and they are self-made. it's utter nonsense. i find it mind-boggling that you would repeat this argument.
> >Go to any European country. There's hardly any Eastern >influences in the physical environment. Whereas in Japan, >Brazil, Ghana, westernization is evident.
Granada? Moscow?
> >>>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. > >The scholars and those who fund them are associated with >higher institutions, which means that they are in the >minority.
actually, omar khayyam was *popular*. mass printings. and that's just one example. if we include material culture, the examples are innumerable.
for that matter, people who know about botticelli in china are also an extremely small minority.
> >>>>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. > >Who? On the behalf of the general American public, I have no >idea who wat or khajuraho are. On the other hand, name some >Europeans and I guarantee that Americans will have some idea >who you're referring to.
you are missing my point. for the third time around, i'm talking about the people who actually live in the VICINITY. that's why i said *local peoples*. that was my point. the people living near khajuraho or angkor wat in contemporary times didn't know about them until western inquiry.
>Again, I'm not denying that there are *some* Europeans with >interest in foreign cultures. But, I'm more interested in >taking a survey of all Europeans to see if they have any >interest in Africa or the Middle East.
i'm more interested in you knowing where angkor wat and khajuraho are. seriously. bc i also think that your mission to indict YT for insufficient respect for the Wonders of the Third World is... well, uninteresting, besides being in some ways unfair. who cares what YT thinks? why bother taking a survey of all Europeans? i'm far, far, far -- actually, this was my great epiphany of 1988, but anyway -- interested in actually addressing the materials themselves than indicting YT for not knowing them. and, i must also say, in historical terms, YT often knew more about the rest of the world than we knew about each other, which leaves a bitter taste in my mouth. so, mlle freeman, each one teach one. here's and here's .
|