To: Sherman Logan
You are correct. Said was a founder of postcolonialism, a neo-Marxian doctrine that attempts to lever history into the usual tiresome model of oppressed and oppressor classes. It is from this that we get the rather odd notion that proliferated essentially unquestioned on campus during the 70's, that the outrageously imperialistic Soviet Union was actually a liberator if one only had a grasp of "advanced" political thought: one part amnesia, two parts self-inflicted blindness.
The difficulty with the position is that Said himself, not an Indian but a Palestinian, had far less acquaintance with India than did Kipling. Underlying this is the assumption that a grasp of postcolonialism, like all Marxian and neo-Marxian doctrines, elevates the thinker above the model, transcending the old oppressor/oppressed dialectic into a new enlightenment. One finds, however, that its adherents constitute some of the most prejudiced, least tolerant, least enlightened intellects on the planet.
Hence we have Said, arguing with a superficial grasp of India and an incomplete acquaintance with Kipling, that it all fits into his neat intellectual model of imperialism. And so it does, if you're willing to twist it enough.
To: Billthedrill; Sherman Logan
You are correct. Said was a founder of postcolonialism, a neo-Marxian doctrine that attempts to lever history into the usual tiresome model of oppressed and oppressor classes.
Aye, but you'd be surprised just how much of the Marxist argumentation radical Muslims have adopted and internalised. When people talk about the Red-Green alliance, they're not being pert.
posted on 03/01/2010 12:02:13 PM PST
by Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus
(We bury Democrats face down so that when they scratch, they get closer to home.)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson