Re: Anti-Eurocentrism: Idealist Diversion from An (fwd)

[xxxxxx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]

>The critique of eurocentrism has been around a lot longer and
i>ndependently
>of>postmodern anything.  Only those who only heard of "eurocentrism" in
>the
>last ten years or who only know of it through pomo would emphasize a link
>between pomo and the critique of eurocentrism.  Much pomo itself is
>plenty
>eurocentric and whatever critique of eurocentrism is in pomo only shows
>how
>unoriginal much of pomo is.

Mat, i do not know if you are referring to my below post or not, i exactly
argued the same. being critical of eurocentricism and colonizer's world
view does not necessarily entail post-modernism. one can still be critical
of eurocentricism without falling into cultural relativism. critique of
eurocentricism has been around since the 60s. it has nothing to do with
fishy and apolitical post-modernism. In my case, for example, i am both
critical of american capitalism and turkish capitalism since i believe
they are part of the same world system, which is modern capitalism.
however, i also can not simply disregard the fact that european capitalism
made use of others' labor to establish itself, so it was responsible for
imperializing the world, and degregading other nations, cultures and
histories. this is simply a documented fact. thus, in principle, i give
support to proggesive/ anti-imperialist struggles, decolonization
movements and minorities oppressed by states. it is still better to live
in a relatively free society rather than in an imperialized/ slave
society. For example, if one day racists whould decide to form their own
state within the US or segrate schools, i would join the struggle to make
the hell out of it, but if, lets say, indians, women, gays, african
americans, disabled people, would come together making demands for
recognition and change to alleviate their circumstances or call for
justice, i would wholeheartedly support them however bourgeois these
demands might seem in the first place (capitalists abuse these demands
too, but it does not mean that they are wrong in principle. each position
should be judged against "concrete" circumstances, to cite Andy Wayne
Austin). Somebody mentioned Said today.  For example, regarding his recent
article (law and order) I support Said's critique of police force as an
instrument of oppression and terror *both* in the US and the Arab world.
if Said would say "our system is better than your system; we have a better
culture and a better police force",  he would be doing pure orientalism
and elite nationalism, but he is not. he is critical of injustices in both
parts of the world (though i do not agree with Said since he is too much
literary theory and language focused. but this is besides the point. i am
talking about Said as a _political activist_ here)



In the case of pomos, the basic difference between marxists and pomos is
that for marxists class, gender and race inequalities are systemic. these
inequalities are structural to capitalism rather than accidental.What
distinquishes marxists from pomos is the need for progressive,
counter-hegemonic coalitions in the fight against capitalism.
(anti-imprialist, anti-racist, anti-sexist, anti-capitalist).Marxists need
four of these, not only one! this does not make us Pomo. Marx and Engels
would totally agree with four of those. We need a
marxist/feminist/anti-racist marxism.


somebody mentioned today that Spivak does not have the right to criticize
eurocentricism and capitalism becasue she has a western salary. She buys
her flight ticket to _India_ with this salary so she benefits
from the system. This is very much like saying Marx did not have the right
to criticize capitalism because he was coming from a bourgeois class.
quite strange indeed! Why Spivak? why Said? why Amin? but why not some
other person? We have been discussing Diamond here, nobody mentioned
his salary (that would be stupid anway), or how it would hinder his
critique of eurocentricism. This remided me of the culturally hostile,
conservative responses saying that foreigners can not criticize US since
they benefit from its advantages. so go back to your country if you don't
like it.. Such arguments can not see that whatever these people benefit
from the system individually, they are still racially discriminated,
just a simple mentioning of Spivak's salary is a sub-conscious racism
while all the hell of other people have the same salaries . Race
cuts across class since the capitalist system is _structured_ in a  way to
favor whites. An asian prof that has a same salary with white prof will
still be discriminated..if you are an asian worker (plus a woman imagine),
you will even be more discriminated..



thanks,


Mine





>> I agree; anti-eurocentrism carries the danger of post-modernism. I would
>> add, however, not every critique of eurocentricism should inevitably
>> lead to post-modernism. Samir Amin has an excellent book called
>> _Eurocentricism_; Samir is not a post-modernist; he is a marxist; or
>> GAyatri Spivak, Indian feminist, for example, argues in her critique of
>> Butler and Foucault that post-modernism is an ideological product of
>> eurocentric mentality even though post-modernists claim that it does not.
>> Post-modernsits do not challange imperialism or pay attention to
>> political economy, which Marxist critics of eurocentricism does. I think
>> one can draw a line between the two if one does not want to fall into
>> problem of "reverse" eurocentricism, orientalism or cultural relativism.
>> Recently, Valantine Moghadam, socialist feminist specialized in women's
>> issues in the middle east has drawn attention to this necessity arguing
>> that women's oppression in the third world is an "interactive" product of
>> global and local capitalism; the universal and the particular;
>> I definetly do not see any problem in arguing that African
>> people are more oppressed than white people, because global
>> capitalism definetly priviliges whites for the world system is racially
>> biased (as well class and gender).An african worker is at a more
>> disadvantage compared to white worker. he is subject to double
oppression,
>> capitalism and racism. sAying this has nothing to do with giving credit
>> post-modernism.
>>
>> To challenge post-modernism, we should still be critical of
>> how eurocentricism is ideologically produced and reproduced not only by
>> the academics here, but also by the academics in the third world
countries
>> under the name new orientalist studies.
>>
>>
>> Mine
>>
>>
>>
>> Carrol wrote:
>>
>>   > The ongoing critique in scholastic circles of "euro-centrism">
>> <more and more appears as a member of that large family of
>> >ideological persuasions generally called "post-modernism,"
>> >defined here as a purely academic compensation for the>
>> >material defeats
>> >the movements of
>>
>>