As well, how do we decide which issues become those of "others"? If we are always to regard the issues of "others (China)" [in this case] as outside our area of interest then we risk detaching ourselves from broader human concerns.
I don't think we're understanding each other, since I keep seeing that apathy banner waved in the horizon. I never argued to view these issues as outside of our area of interest. Quite the opposite.
The use of "human concerns" is a great example. Even those terms signal to universalism. Nowadays, a lot of scholarship has found that a lot of "human" assumptions are actually coded as "Western" and "male."
The (my) point is not to throw out that frame, but to question it. To decenter it so that we can attempt a more comprehensive view of a situation not taking the above assumptions for granted.
I agree with your aside about 'one-size' fits all rhetoric - I don't think you'll find anything in my posts that would contradict that position. But I will add that in such a brief post it's not possible to do justice to the nuances of historical experience or to the complexities of diverse cultures.
I don't think you've explicitly contradicted it, no. But I think your reasoning implicitly leads us there (see example above). Most of my arguments are more concerned with questioning the frameworks that people use and how they function than with "facts" (the employment of "facts" one could say is what I find interesting). I work on language, which is why most historians hate people like me with a passion (see how White's Metahistory got slammed in the field).
Anyway, that's why the specifics of your take on Tibet really weren't central to me (I don't see why you've mentioned it in your last post, other than you might have misread me), what mattered to me was a defense from the charge that contextuality and an eye for our position lead to apathy. I see context and positionality as prompting more engagement with others and ourselves, because it impels us to question.
I agree 100%, one post (or several) doesn't do justice to the complexities of any situation. I'm aware of that, but I still feel that even gesturing to possible nuances is better than an unquestioning acceptance of a "normal" (Western) view. For example, the military thing in the Olympics as *not* a mistake and *not* functioning under a Western reading, but perhaps something else we could discern after a more detailed look at China and its internal complexity. A complete picture would never emerge, I wouldn't argue that as a possibily, but this approach decenters the central assumptions, which I think is important especially when looking at a non-Western context. The Western lens has been and continues to be "normal" when its no more inherently privileged than any other for good and ill.
Given that, I try to have an eye out for another read of the situation outside the standard one.
I appreciate the background on Canada. I'm going to try really, really hard not to read it as a dismissal of colonialism. Or placing Canada as somehow comparable with the non-West. As someone who studies the cultural production of the non-West, my bells are ringing, which tells me that my critical framework is in the way.
what I meant was that the histories of the two countries are *different*, that each has different complexities woven into its tapestry.
But see that's the thing. In my reading of your argument, the positing of differences is centered on Canada and present-focused. That's why I said that your logic, though ostensibly acknowledging difference, does so at the cost of history. Particularly colonial history, which is more relevant for our context, in my opinion, than premodern China. It will come to no surprise that I see history deeply affected and complicit with Western imperialist logic. One of its trademarks, is how it insiduously hides itself in ways that seem harmless at first glance.
What happened there after the "arrival" of the Europeans in the late 18th century, and then the Americans and the Japanese was tragic. (my value judgement I know) It was prior to that perhaps the most powerful state on earth (I know - define power)
Uhhh...I think our discussion has run its course. We're at that disjunct. I've already explained twice how the bolded remarks (snark?) misreads my position (I'm partial to Foucauldian takes on power myself btw) and I'm sure in just doing that I'm reacting to a misreading of your point...and so on. And most importantly, since there's nothing at stake in reconciling the two (in this context!
), perhaps it's best to acknowledge the noise and move away. Just to make it extra clear: I'm saying let's agree to disagree.
Not that I don't love talking about this stuff, clearly, but perhaps people want to gush about Michael Phelps.
alcyone