"The world is big. Some people are unable to comprehend that simple fact. They want the world on their own terms, its peoples just like them and their friends, its places like the manicured little patch on which they live. But this is a foolish and blind wish. Diversity is not an abnormality but the very reality of our planet. The human world manifests the same reality and will not seek our permission to celebrate itself in the magnificence of its endless varieties. Civility is a sensible attribute in this kind of world we have; narrowness of heart and mind is not."
- Chinua Achebe, Bates College Commencement Address, 27 May 1996
What a beautiful thing to say. Here's something a bit more gutteral : F**k off Bush and Osama!!!
- Chinua Achebe, Bates College Commencement Address, 27 May 1996
What a beautiful thing to say. Here's something a bit more gutteral : F**k off Bush and Osama!!!
posted by sleiman @ 10:22 AM
5 Comments:
At 11:11 AM, July 05, 2006,
Anonymous said…
I wasn't talking about America at all. I mentioned two individuals, Bush AND Osama, famously known for their 'black and white' rhetoric, as obvious contrasts to what Achebe said. That's all.
Chinua Achebe is pretty impressive as a writer. I read one of his works, 'Things Fall Apart' and I was very impressed with his ability to tell a tale without having to de-legitimise the value of the cultural experience.
Is it true that all cultures are equal? I won't say no to that, though I'm pretty sure that virgin sacrifices to appease a rock have limited value...
Nonetheless, the humanity of the individual still exists. Achebe's writing, in my opinion, is testament to the fact (and I use that word deliberately) that it is possible to recognise commonalties between people, if not within the culture itself.
I don't believe that observation necessarily equates to fact and so I think that this has been the greatest weakness of the cultural and social sciences. The idea of form over feeling seems to be a fundamentally, common weakness of ours.
Long live being a UFO!
At 9:07 PM, July 09, 2006,
KH said…
haha - gotta love that US sense of paranoia...
on that note, I managed to read 'the world is flat", another Thomas Friedman book, during my break.
A good read if you're interested in that type of thing. Check Amazon for a synopsis.
Anyway, even if one agrees with the laughable assumption that the US "is THE world leader in mulicultural diversity and tolerance" it will be interesting to see what happens when, as the book points out, in a "flat" world, less and less people from other cultures see the need to move to the US to take advantage of its position as the economic leader of the world.
When the ability to take advantage of economic opportunity anywhere in the world, from your land of origin, becomes widespread then that economic incentive for migration becomes far less of a factor.
In its place, lifestyle and the ability to be accepted will play a far greater role in terms of the decision to migrate.
For countries such as the US, Australia, Canada etc. who pride themselves on their multicultural-ness, lowering migration levels might prove to be a rude awakening as to how unwilling migrants are to come to our countries based purely on how they will be treated by the Anglo-Saxon majority.
Then again, as long as that migration decrease originates from countries in Asia, the Arabian Peninsula, Africa and non-English speaking Europe, perhaps the majority won't really mind...
At 11:23 PM, July 09, 2006,
Anonymous said…
Having read many of his articles, Mr. Friedman comes across as being so tolerant of Middle Eastern weakness that he (and many like him) seems to revel in the role of the wise and gentle healer, a role that apparently only he can take on. In other words, it's not likely that I'll be reading anymore of his works.
On that note...
Is it absurd for me to say that permanence in culture doesn't exist? Then why is there satisfaction in the idea that it does. Achievements are like a double-edged sword but when the sword cuts, does anyone look to the sword holder?
Achievement and power does not necessarily negate truth yet what becomes of truth if it's value is greater than heart? After all, humans are a species with dignity and we all wear royal robes but it would seem that there are those who have forgotten the tailor. Beware of the naked king and his golden threads...
At 12:44 PM, July 14, 2006,
KH said…
Danny
Let's just clarify and qualify a few things.
1. The US does have a great history in passing laws and leading the movement towards equality but that does not make it THE world leader in anything. As an example - you could very well say that the Lincoln imposed amendments to the US constitution were world leading (despite being pre-1900) and a huge step towards multicultural tolerance HOWEVER it's important to note that not long after, in 1896, the US Supreme Court passed down the “separate but equal” doctrine which allowed state governments to separate people as long as the separation was equal…
It wasn’t until the 1950’s that the human rights movement really started to kick off in the US – Geez – Brown v Board of Education – the landmark case striking down segregation mandated by law was decided only 50-odd years ago and the US Civil Rights act was introduced only 40-odd years ago.
The point of this is to keep in mind that the passing of laws does not necessarily equate to a wholesale change in the level of multicultural tolerance within a society when those laws themselves can be amended.
Oh - and to answer your request for an example - The Australian Constitution was introduced in 1900 and had within it certain implied "civil rights" (like the UK, we don't have a Bill of Rights - for various reasons)that remain until this day.
2. Another point is, irrespective of whether the US was the world leader in the development of the civil rights movement and its attempts to drive multicultural tolerance, where is the US now? You say the US IS the world leader, but use examples that can only show that the US WAS, at one stage, a driving force.
3. A question I have is whether there is a difference between civil rights that ought to be afforded to citizens and civil rights that ought to be afforded to all people irrespective of domicile? I'd answer no, but others may disagree. Anyway, the point remains that I believe that if the US wants to be/is to continue to be the world leader in multicultural tolerance, there has to be a shift in how it approaches cultures and peoples outside of its national borders.
At 1:18 PM, July 21, 2006,
Anonymous said…
Being a leader in anything is in itself a form of comparative sport and as we all know, the only thing that we can really compare ourselves to is ourselves. At least, so I've heard.
Intellectual success represents a kind of co-ordinated skill but without the heart where are the tears for those without coordination?
By the way, I want to mate el-Masri and Sonny-Bill to create the ultimate Bulldog.
Post a Comment
<< Home