pynchon-l-digest V2 #1330

[jbor]

----------
>From: "Christina L. Svendsen" <cls4r at unix.mail.virginia.edu>
>To: pynchon-l at waste.org
>Subject: Re: pynchon-l-digest V2 #1330
>Date: Thu, Jul 27, 2000, 6:37 AM

Thanks for your response. I certainly wasn't suggesting that pre-colonial
Africa was "a-historical", although a Western conception of "history" with
its illusion of objectivity is arguably quite different from other
approaches to the past (legends, religion, animism etc). I do think,
however, that many of the European traders, explorers, missionaries,
invaders would have been viewing and judging tribal cultures and practices
from a Eurocentric (and Christian) perspective. I think Pynchon addresses
this in both V. and GR. (Foppl's Siege Party, Frans in Mauritius, Weissmann
in Sudwest)

I guess my point is that, despite its truth, none of what you point out can
or should be used as justification for slavery and racial oppression in the
US c.1700-2000.

> there are a number of different tribes
> of australian aborigines. interestingly enough however certain major
> cultural characteristics hold true for all major groups of them! such as
> the one i mentioned...

In the hundreds. There is much debate about this too. It seems possible that
some of these tribes were extremely warlike.

> the human species is made up of different races.

Yes. But *racism* stems from a denial of the fact that there is such a thing
*as* the human species/race.

> not necessarily. aristotle says something along the lines of: "you can
> only become a slave if you have a slave-like nature."

Again, I think this is merely justifying, or can be used to justify, racism
and racial oppression.

> are the biases & foibles of english professors so much worse,
> large, whatever, than other readers of pynchon? to think so seems too
> knee-jerk to me...

Yes, I'd agree with you on this.

best

>