Why is cultural pluralism always used as a smokescreen to deny cultural differences? Is it so that we cannot see the woods for all the trees?
I actually argue in my thesis that Mugabe take more than a leaf or three out of Ian Smith's book. Have you heard of Operation Hectic / Operation Quartz?
But things are always infinitely more complicated than the black and white identity politics that Westerners habitually read onto the (post)colonial scene so that they may apportion blame along exactly those lines. In many respects the colonised of Zimbabwe saw the colonisers through the lens of tribalism, rather than in terms of Modernising domination. The colonisers were considered in some respects to be a white tribe who had conquered them and were to be respected and ultimately defeated on those terms. So the white influence in Zimbabwe was not read -- at least not entirely -- as a colonial plague from the outside, whose influence was to be eliminated in order to make Zimbabwe pure again.
The white Zimbabweans left a legacy of ...certainly oppressive practices, but also Christianity, a notion of democracy (for white liberals also intervened) and so on. This interpollenation between black and white cultures cannot be reduced to the terms of a simple morality play.
Sunday 22 June 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
-
Perhaps even the majority of people absolutely have a reading and perception problem or just want to be something they are not. I just rec...
-
Wouldn’t a Matriarchal Society Be Great? | Clarissa's Blog It's very bizarre essentialism. The 19th Century European notion -- or ...
-
It's very important to find the central points from which ideas are being disseminated, if one wants to have a chance to change the dire...
No comments:
Post a Comment