"a boy who had virtuallly none of the exterior qualities (skin tone, language, or cultural literacy) and therefore could have none of the interior attributes of being French". (524, Stoler)
This quote , that the physical is merely a logical result of the emotional/intellectual/spiritual life of the individual is similar to the empirical approach that Wallace takes in "The Malay Archipelago". Obviously, this is very flawed.
Race then becomes complicated for the mixed-blood subject because it is less easy to judge them base on similarities in appearance or the use of European names. In fact, "physiological attributes only signal the non-visual and the more salient distinctions of exclusion on which racism rests" (521, Stoler). Racism is not merely about physical difference, in fact it is the physical difference that highlights or is a result of more fundamental differences on which racism rests.
In relation to Burmese Days then, it would seem Orwell critiques this. Despite Flory's familiarity with European high culture he is still ugly because of his birthmark, still Othered by the European community. On the other hand, Elizabeth's ignorance of Western culture and her dubious morality does not translate into poor looks. I don't know if there is a discrepancy I am merely looking for due to the Stoler reading, but it does point to fundamental flaws in the way one approaches the whole "appearances are a natural result of the emotional/cultural/intellectual reality of the individual" idea that the West seemed to have adopted at that point in time.
Posts
1 comment:
Check/check plus
Interesting Christine, but doesn't "the whole "appearances are a natural result of the emotional/cultural/intellectual reality of the individual"" also occur today?
Post a Comment