Having said this, even though time has proven the place names no longer valid, the land which is referred to when someone speaks of 'Burma' is still present today as 'Myanmar'. Going off that (although in a very random way), today we are so conscious and quick to distance ourselves from being 'racist', whether as a writer, reader, or critic (just think of how much effort is made by postcolonial authors to not fall into the trap of 'exoticism' etc.). Does this necessarily mean, though, that 'racism' (as we know it) is a thing of the past, like the place names of 'Burma', 'Siam', and 'Cochin-China'? Or, does it simply mean that it still exists, just lurking around in disguise, masquerading with another name?
I suppose explaining how this thought came to me would be helpful- I was just thinking of how 'anti-imperialist' readings of Conrad's texts were the 'norm' until Achebe came along. In 100 years' time, will our 21st century analyses (not just of Conrad's but all texts) become merely readings that were never 'fully able to transcend the assumptions of [our time]' (Matin's introduction)?
(292 words)
Posts
2 comments:
I sympathise greatly with your observations. And this is why contexts are so important in the discussion of any issue. I might even claim that the contextual is the ethical, insofar as one strives to do justice to a past or history that has entered eternally into the immemorial.
Check plus
Excellent; particularly the point about how we have to necessarily read Conrad retrospectively because even the countries he traveled through have changed configurations.
Post a Comment