pynchon-l-digest V2 #1331

[Christina L. Svendsen]

On Wed, 26 Jul 2000, pynchon-l-digest wrote:

> Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2000 08:40:00 +1000
> From: "jbor" <jbor at bigpond.com>
> Subject: Re: pynchon-l-digest V2 #1330

> 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)

sorry, i must have misread an extreme into your post.

but i still feel the need to point out that first of all, african
record-keeping was not limited to "legends, religion, animism." oral
history in the w. african tradition of strict memorization is not to be
dismissed, & by the 15th c. onwards local west africans had learned enough
Arabic to keep their own written records. 

not christian or european but Islamic culture, coming out of the Maghreb
area and the Sudan, was the major foreign presence in West Africa for a
long time. that's why so many west africans, as far south as senegal, are
muslim. 
 
in v. pynchon is talking about south africa, which is REALLY DIFFERENT
from central & northerly parts of africa. (haven't read GR yet - very 
sorry! - so can't comment there. ben marcus's *history of string and wire* 
got ahead in line.)

> 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.

well one would hope not!
though really, i think that a knowledge of this history actually makes the
*similarity* in development between european & african cultures more clear
- both of whom were capable of owning slaves, keeping records, setting up
tax sysyems and the like - instead of denigrating them or justifying
racial oppression.

after all it's an awful fact but (think of the greeks) slavery is
considered by some historians as a kind of prerequisite for the blooming
of a really complex cultural & artistic system, because it relieves
certain members of society from the pressure to survive & creates leisure
time for those select people.
 
> > 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.

ya think? this was aristotle's entire point! 
he was justifying the system of slavery in his own society.
i was trying to discuss the different ways ppl engaged in slave-holding
societies can organize & perceive their forms of slavery, in ways that
sometimes seem strange to us now, & which are not based on the color
prejudice that is the issue in the US now.
i didn't bring it up because i agree with him (i don't.)

-c.