From: owner-aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com (aml-list-digest) To: aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com Subject: aml-list-digest V1 #617 Reply-To: aml-list Sender: owner-aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com Errors-To: owner-aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com Precedence: bulk aml-list-digest Tuesday, February 19 2002 Volume 01 : Number 617 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2002 17:15:20 -0700 From: Lynette Jones Subject: Re: [AML] A Mormon _Fiddler on the Roof_ Amen! Rob, perhaps you are helping to create a new vision. Thank you. Lynette Jones - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2002 19:19:20 -0500 From: "Tracie Laulusa" Subject: Re: [AML] A Mormon _Fiddler on the Roof_ I so agree. And how about the 'theme' song about the fiddler himself. I have spent time contemplating exactly what the author was trying to express in that little ditty. Tracie Laulusa - ----- Original Message ----- Don't strip FIDDLER of it's beauty, truth and emotional power by down playing this or by trying to make Tevye into a nice modern American Protestant/Mormon rural-type. When after debating within himself if he should accept his daughter despite her secretly marrying a Gentile ("On the one hand..." he says..."On the other hand...") Tevye turns his back on the girl while shouting at her, "No, there can be no other hand!" I'm sorry if you missed it in the structure and text of the play, but choosing between his love for his daughters and his Orthodox religious traditions IS INDEED THE ENTIRE THEME OF THE PLAY. (Good grief! The show opens with the song "Tradition"--tying all of the communities traditions, along with all the age and gender roles, to the will of God Himself.) The fact that some Saints have a problem with the play's theme when it is blatantly stated, proves my point that they would resist an authentic "Mormon Fiddler." - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2002 13:37:36 -0700 From: "Sharlee Glenn" Subject: Re: [AML] A Mormon _Fiddler on the Roof_ Robert Lauer, in his excellent (though somewhat more heated and condescending than I would think necessary) response to my response to his original post wrote: > I'm sorry if you missed it in the structure and text of the play, but > choosing between his love for his daughters and his Orthodox religious > traditions IS INDEED THE ENTIRE THEME OF THE PLAY. > (Good grief! The show opens with the song "Tradition"--tying all of the > communities traditions, along with all the age and gender roles, to the will > of God Himself.) > The fact that some Saints have a problem with the play's theme when it is > blatantly stated, proves my point that they would resist an authentic > "Mormon Fiddler." And what exactly would constitute an "authentic 'Mormon Fiddler'"? Your point about Eastern European orthodoxy is well taken, but I have to question your argument that a story about a devout LDS man "compromis[ing] on his belief that the Lord intends for all Saints to be married in the Temple" would a pose a parallel dilemma. You've got me thinking now, though. What *would* be an analogous conflict for a Mormon character? I'd be interested in hearing everyone's ideas. > In fact, Chava is NOT saying "good-bye" to her family forever; she and her > Gentile husband follow Tevye and the Jews when they are force to leave their > home. (Her following the jews is the second to last stage picture that the > audience sees.) Don't mean to pick at nits, but, in fact, she *does* say good-bye (probably forever) and she does *not* follow Tevye. Tevye and Golde are going to America. Chava and her Russian husband, Fyedka, leave too, but they are going to Cracow. > Tevye has nothing to forgive his daughter of; she has done nothing against > HIM. In the Jewish view, she has rejected her people's covenant with God. > According to Jewish tradition, Tevye must now decide if he will continue in > the traditional practice of the Torah ("Tradition!") or accept what is > indeed a change and COMPROMISE in that tradition. Which he does (compromises) time and time again throughout the course of the play. Tevye, in fact, is a pretty flexible guy (he even dances with his wife (a woman!) at the marriage of Hodel (who arranged her own marriage!). The play seems to me to be not so much about whether or not he will compromise and more about where he will draw the line. How far can he compromise without compromising away his soul? A theme very similar to that of Bolt's _A Man For All Seasons_. > But first the writer better understand what exactly FIDDLER OF THE ROOF is > and how the story springs from a Jewish view of life. Then he better make > sure that he's not embracing some white-washed "Gospel According to > Hallmark" version of Mormonism--a fluffy, sweet, non-threatening concoction > that is totally out of touch with the objective realities of Mormon history, > culture and doctrine--not to mention human nature. I absolutely agree with you here. > >From posts I've read over the past six months, I think there are plenty of > talented folk here who could do just that. We agree again! Thanks for the conversation, Rob. Sharlee Glenn glennsj@inet-1.com - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2002 17:58:20 -0700 From: "Eileen Stringer" Subject: [AML] DIAMANT, _The Red Tent_ (was: Orson Scott CARD, _Rebekah_) > Has anyone on the list read THE RED TENT? It's a best selling novel (just > released as a Trade Paperback) about the rape of Dinah; also retells the > story of Jacob, his wives, his mother (Rebekah), and others. > It's pretty earthy in places, but I found it interesting, and would > recommend it to anyone interested in literature inspired by the Old > Testament, I found it extremely boring. I found even the earthiness mundane and pedestrian. I could not finish it either time I attempted it. I tried both reading it and then listening to it on tape (unabridged) during my longer commutes now during the Olympics. I had to quit listening to it whilst driving it was putting me to sleep. Eileen eileens99@bigplanet.com - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2002 21:06:07 -0500 From: Richard Johnson Subject: Re: [AML] Judaism: Race or Religion? I have only two reflections on the topic: A very interesting gentleman named Irwin Cohen was a member of our Stake in upstate New York. (Mid sixties-- He also wrote a book on Mormonism and Jewishness-- the name of which I have forgotten and my copy of which has disappeared some years ago) He used to go around and do firesides, in part because he was, at least theoretically a direct decendent of Aaron, and that was a hot topic in the sixties. He reflected with some amusement(?) that relatives and friends had rather vitriolically told him that now that he was a Mormon, he could no longer be a Jew. (He really felt that Mormonism had enhanced his Jewishness in many ways) Anyway he claimed to be a Jew through and through, even if he was a Mormon Jew. In 1978 one of my Jewish friends and I organized (with the help of grants from the NEA, the National Council for the Humanities and about four smaller financial "grant-givers" a week long festival at Georgia Southern College which was titled _The World Festival of the Yiddish Spirit_ . We had Jewish people with a Yiddish background from all over the world. Israel, Poland, Rumania, Germany, The Soviet Union, Canada, and many places in the United States. Among the honored guest were Isaac Singer, A Traveling Jewish Theatre (A great group from New York) many representatives of the Yiddish Theatre of New York City a really terrific composer-musician (At my age I can't remember my kids names every time, so forgive me if I can't remember his. We had a wonderful Museum display of materials dealing with the Jewish Settlement of Georgia. (Many folks don't know that one of the first Jewish Settlements in the US was in Savannah GA., Home, to this day of at least three major synagogues) The treasurer of the Confederacy was a Georgia Jewish, David Emmanuel, man who is given credit (if such is the proper term) for keeping the war between the states (Or as Georgians often call it, The War of Northern Aggression) going for at least a year longer than the finances logically should have allowed. After original and traditonal plays, many old Yiddish American Movies, many panels and symposia, it finally concluded. It was one of the highlights of my life and in the concluding session I was nominated and voted unanimously to be an Honorary Jew. I still have the hand lettered certificate of adoption signed by many of the attendees (Chaim Potok was a last minute withdrawal from the group, but many other famous folk were signers. I will treasure it till the day I die, even if no-one will ever point me out on the speakers stand and suggest that particular heritage. I can't quite claim to be a Mormon Jew, but I'm at least an honorary Mormon Jew. Richard B. Johnson Husband, Father, Grandfather, Puppeteer, Playwright, Writer, Director, Actor, Thingmaker, Mormon, Person, Fool I sometimes think that the last persona is the most important http://www.PuppenRich.com - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2002 19:23:33 -0800 (PST) From: Ed Snow Subject: [AML] Richard Rennert--Utah Sculptor Anyone heard of him, know him? I'm in Palm Springs on business and went to an art gallery and found some delightful sculptures called "Sunbeams" with about 6 wonderfully individualized kids and another called "Deacon's Bench" with some equally quirky/cute 12 year olds sitting at the Sacrament bench. He's based in Utah. Anyone know how I can reach him? Ed Snow ===== Read free excerpts from _Of Curious Workmanship: Musings on Things Mormon_, a Signature Books Bestseller at http://www.signaturebooks.com/bestsell.htm __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Sports - Coverage of the 2002 Olympic Games http://sports.yahoo.com - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2002 19:24:28 -0800 (PST) From: Ed Snow Subject: [AML] Re: James (not Richard) Rennert--Utah Sculptor Oooops. Got his name wrong on the previous post. James Rennert, Utah sculptor. Anyone heard of him, know him? I'm in Palm Springs on business and went to an art gallery and found some delightful sculptures called "Sunbeams" with about 6 wonderfully individualized kids and another called "Deacon's Bench" with some equally quirky/cute 12 year olds sitting at the Sacrament bench. He's based in Utah. Anyone know how I can reach him? Ed Snow ===== Read free excerpts from _Of Curious Workmanship: Musings on Things Mormon_, a Signature Books Bestseller at http://www.signaturebooks.com/bestsell.htm __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Sports - Coverage of the 2002 Olympic Games http://sports.yahoo.com - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 16 Feb 2002 08:37:21 -0700 From: "Steve" Subject: [AML] Article on Mormons and Race Here's a better-researched-than-usual newspaper article from a US paper, which I found to be very informative. http://www.pe.com/lifestyles/stories/10025459_PE_LIV_nblack.html To me, the most telling paragraph ends with the most telling sentence... "...But the revelation has borne little fruit in nearly 25 years. The number of African-Americans in the 11 million-member church is apparently minuscule. While African blacks are joining the church in impressive numbers, American blacks still see it as "a white people's church," according to studies done at Brigham Young University in Utah. The Mormon church does not keep membership statistics by race. Steve Perry - -- skperry@mac.com Free music downloads at http://stevenkappperry.com - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 16 Feb 2002 10:18:12 -0700 From: "Brown" Subject: Re: [AML] Tooting Own Horn This is thrilling, Annette! Tell us the title and something of what it's about! This is your begining, and it can get you started on a great career! Congratulations! Marilyn Brown - ----- Original Message ----- From: luannstaheli To: Sent: Friday, February 15, 2002 5:34 PM Subject: Re: [AML] Tooting Own Horn (was: Responding to Critics) > > Annette, > Is this the book??? They accepted it???? Yeah! Can all of us in your critique > group pat ourselves on the back after we pat yours ; - ) ???? > CONGRATULATIONS!!!! > > Annette Lyon wrote: > > > For those who read my reply to Darlene, the story I told has a new ending. > > For those who didn't read the post or have forgotten: I mentioned a book I > > had entered into a contest, which the judge practically shredded, he/she > > hated it so bad. I didn't take the judge's comments about my writing ability > > too seriously, but I did figure something had to be wrong with the book. A > > year later and much soul searching and revising later, another contest judge > > loved it and suggested I look for a publisher. So I submitted it. > > > > And (yippee!) it was accepted by Covenant! (Insert Toyota jump here.) I > > always hoped I'd get to toot my on horn on the list. I've been working > > toward this day for many years. :) > > > > Annette Lyon > > > > > -- > AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature > > - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 16 Feb 2002 10:54:04 -0700 From: margaret young Subject: [AML] Agendas in Lit Classes (was: Race Issues in Mormonism) I'm really, really curious about who Ethan's English professors were who "guilted" him over race issues. I don't recognize his name, so I don't think I was one of them. Since I know the faculty pretty well, and since I know that we have only one class in African American literature, I'm curious about the who. We have certainly taken some hard hits over some of our professors' feminist agendas (and we lost two of our profs over that issue), and I know Gene England was never hestitant to bring up the subject of race--though I don't recall him sending anyone down a guilt road. I am really curious about who else brings this particular agenda into their classes. I suppose I do, in a way. Not to make my classes feel guilty, but to give them an opportunity to ask questions. Once a semester, I have Darius join me to talk about our project. It ends up being more a testimony meeting than a scolding session, and is usually the one class of the semester that ends with everyone hugging each other. (Quite a sight.) Maybe it's not kosher to name names (only Jeff could officially tell us what's kosher), but I'm real curious. Oh, and Darius and I often speak to Mormon literature classes, and have addressed Eric Eliason's and Gideon Burton's. I don't FEEL like we pass out free tickets for guilt trips, but I would genuinely like to know if Ethan--or anyone else--felt that one of our presentations had that effect. [Margaret Young] [MOD: I'm not sure I'm comfortable with names being named in this context. Perhaps Ethan could give a more general response characterizing the classes, with a private note to Margaret about any specific professors involved? But I'd like to broaden the topic as well, to include anyone who--for any reason, not just race--felt he/she had been "guilted" or otherwise subjected to a particular agenda in literature classes, either at BYU or anywhere else--and how that did or didn't affect your approach to literature, including Mormon literature. In doing this, please keep in mind that some of us on AML-List are, or have been, literature teachers. Bashing the way someone else makes a living is not really appropriate for the List. At the same time, it's clearly List-appropriate to talk about the impact of professional English teaching on literature, including negative effects and reactions. So go ahead and trot out your war stories, relating them as much as possible to these larger issues. At the same time, please keep in mind as well that our chief goal is to have a good, open, vigorous but respectful conversation. Tolerance and an assumption of goodwill on everyone's part is likely to take us further than confrontation and defensiveness.] - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 16 Feb 2002 11:24:08 -0700 From: rwilliams Subject: [AML] Eduard SAID, _Orientalism_ (was: Race Issues in Mormonism) Jim Picht writes: >I'm not certain whether or how I'll make this relevant to the topic at >hand, but Edward Said is a red flag to me, so here goes. I think one of >my happiest accomplishments this semester is getting Said removed from >our core curriculum (along with Foucault; I also got Isaiah Berlin >_in_), and I did it precisely because I read _Orientalism_ as a bit of >intellectual terrorism that serves to kill critical examination of Islam >and the Islamic world - an anti-intellectual justification for hatred. > >Said delivers himself of no passages in the book that say clearly that >white skin makes one racist (he's come pretty close in his newspaper >commentary in the last few months, but his newspaper articles haven't >been part of our curriculum, so they don't bear discussion just now). >What his book does, I think, is press the notion that Western views of >Islam are conditioned by a culture that presses scholarship into the >service of imperial ideology, hence our critiques of Islam must be >invalid. The implication isn't that I'm racist because I'm white, but >because I'm from the Western intellectual tradition. More precisely, >it's not that I'm racist, but that the truth of Islam is culturally >determined, and my western insistence on finding objective truth is >pointless, if not outright pernicious. My way down that path only serves >the interests of ideology and oppression. [snip] Actually, I'm not an apologist for Said, and have no real vested interest in defending him. In fact, as I am currently pursuing a Ph.D. in Comparative Literature with an emphasis in East Asian Studies, one could argue that I should join hands with Jim, blasting Said as a career-destroyer. Jim rightly asks, isn't Said totally invalidating my very attempts to understand the orient? If we accept Said's claim that all knowledge is culturally constructed and ideologically tinged, doesn't that force us to more or less just pack our bags and go home? Why try? Why should I even TRY to understand another culture if I cannot approach that culture with ultimate objectively, especially if, as Said argues, my knowledge could in fact reinforce large and ominous things like Western Imperialism? These are very good questions, and I can't say that I have all the answers. But I would like to make a case for Said, and argue that entirely dismissing _Orientalism_ as an act of "intellectual terrorism" may be a bit harsh--I think an overreaction, though, granted, a very popular one. To do so, perhaps a bit of background: I first read Said when I was living and teaching in Mainland China. I was halfway through an M.A in English Literature at Utah State, and my wife and I (we were newlyweds) were excited at the possibilities for adventures in the exotic East. To be sure, I knew very little about China when I arrived. The decision to leave had been rather sudden, and in preparing for the trip I only had time to rent a few documentaries on China, glance over a few books on Chinese language, and talk to some friends who had been to China before. Just getting off the plane it became painfully obvious that we were fish out of water. The plane was late, and our ride was nowhere in sight. Everything was different. It smelled, looked, sounded, and felt so completely foreign that I was, to be honest, terrified. We didn't even have Chinese currency to pay for a cab. What to do? Eventually, some good-natured English speakers must have seen the worried look on our faces, and volunteered to help. We made our way to the school, and tried to get settled. Finding ourselves suddenly immersed in another culture, we were determined to learn as much as we could. There was a rather adequate school library there, and I immediately started reading everything I could find (in English) on Chinese culture and the Chinese language. A lot of the other Western faculty members at the school were also very helpful in providing information. I spent most nights pouring over histories of China, taking copious notes, attempting to gauge everything I learned with the "reality" I saw around me. Gradually, a picture started to emerge, a picture of the "East," a picture that eventually became so clear that I found evidence for it everywhere I turned. I was quite naturally comparing my "Western" attitudes with the "Eastern" attitudes I confronted in the Chinese culture. Things in the "West" were a certain way, and things in the "East" were another way, and, naturally, the more I understood the "East," the more comfortable I felt there. The Eastern mind, I found, is more communal, passive, less organized, and given to certain irrationalities. By contrast, the Western mind is more individual, creative, and much more likely to follow logical thought processes. Oh, there was tons of evidence! Just look at the Chinese writing system. They didn't even have an alphabet. Their language was conveyed using an ideographic system of pictures and symbols, without any reference to phonetics (which, I no longer believe by the way). Their dictionaries were nightmares. And consider the endemic lack of notice in official business! One minute we would be teaching class, maybe giving a test, and the principal would suddenly announce a surprise assembly, and EVERYONE had to go. These dichotomous structures were not racial judgments, I maintained, but cultural realities, things to be inspected and conveyed. I was not a racist, but I knew a different culture when I saw one, and this was undoubtedly a different culture. But then I read Said's _Orientalism_, and I was actually forced to think about how I was thinking, and, more importantly, to consider how my thought processes were affecting my relationship with the Chinese people around me. For those list members not already familiar with Said's argument in _Orientalism_, let me use a summary by A.L. Macfie that I think adequately captures Said's analysis (though, granted, if you REALLY want to understand Said's argument, you'll have to read him yourself, which apparently you won't do anymore if you are at Jim's university): "According to Said, the orientalist [by which he means the scholars that have traditionally devoted their energies to understanding the orient] assists in the creation of a series of stereotypical images, according to which Europe (the West, the 'self') is seen as being essentially rational, developed, humane, superior, authentic, active, creative, and masculine, while the orient (the East, the 'other') (a sort of surrogate, underground version of the West or the 'self') is seen as being irrational, aberrant, backward, crude, despotic, inferior, inauthentic, passive, feminine, and sexually corrupt. Other 'orientalist' fantasies invented by the orientalist include the concept of an 'Arab mind', an 'oriental psyche' and an 'Islamic Society.' Together they contribute to the construction of a 'saturating hegemonic system,' designed, consciously or unconsciously, to dominate, restructure, and have authority over the orient--designed, that is to say, to promote European imperialism and colonialism." To make a long story short, I realized that in my categorizations of "East" vs. "West," I had become, albeit unwittingly, an orientalist. I had been placing all of the realities and evidences around me (and, as any anthropologist will tell you, at any given moment there are an infinite number of realities that one can choose to represent) into an inherited structure, a strict and dualistic dichotomy that in turn was dictating the type of evidence I was gathering. Suddenly (well, not exactly "suddenly"; these things happen with a lot of careful thought), I realized that the infinitely complex situations I was encountering were, in fact, just that, and not simple binary equations. So I started to reexamine the stereotypes I had created, and found that I had been making evaluative judgments without regard to the inherent complexity of the human condition. The effect that this intellectual transformation had on my interaction with my Chinese friends cannot be overstated. I became a better listener. I was more open. I was more willing to spend time with the Chinese faculty at the school. I was, in short, less quick to judge others. Now, if Said's attack on close-minded essentialism can have that kind of effect, then I definitely think there is at least some value in it. Now, a few points of clarification: I have found that most of the time when people say they have "read" _Orientalism_ what they mean is that they have read a chapter or two, skimmed the work, or (worse) just read a lot about it. But if you read _Orientalism_ from cover to cover, you'll find that, in the final analysis, the book isn't nearly as inflammatory as it is often made out to be. Take, for example, Jim's reading of the book: "What his book does, I think, is press the notion that Western views of Islam are conditioned by a culture that presses scholarship into the service of imperial ideology, hence our critiques of Islam must be invalid." Jim is exactly HALF right. Yes, Said's book does argue that Western views of the Orient are conditioned by culture, a culture explicitly linked to the Imperial project (especially in the 18th and 19th centuries), but I think the misreading occurs in Jim's "hence." There is nothing in _Orientalism_ to suggest that any and all Western critique of Islam is "invalid." Whether or not one's understanding of the East is "true" or not is not always the most important question. At the beginning of _Orientalism_ Said makes it quite clear that determining the "reality" of the Orient is not within the scope of his study. He writes, "the phenomenon of Orientalism as I study it here deals principally, not with a correspondence between Orientalism and Orient [that is, between the discourse and the reality represented by it], but with the internal consistency of Orientalism and the Orient . . . despite or beyond any correspondence, or lack thereof, with a 'real' Orient" (5). In other words, whether or not an Orientalist's data is correct or not, is not the question. Something can be "true" and still be Orientalist. You can, for example, have a lot of "true" statistics about black people, and still be a racist. What Said is really saying is that there are good ways to approach the Orient, and there are bad ways, and Orientalism is a bad way. Said is NOT saying that it is impossible for a Westerner to have a valid approach in studying the Orient. No, Said argues quite persuasively that it IS possible to approach the Orient from a healthier, more critical standpoint. Consider this paragraph in the final chapter: "I would not have undertaken a book of this sort if I did not also believe that there is scholarship that is not as corrupt, or at least as blind to human reality, as the kind I have been mainly depicting. Today there are many individual scholars working in such fields as Islamic history, religion, civilization, sociology, and anthropology whose production is deeply valuable as scholarship. The trouble sets in when the guild tradition of Orientalism takes over the scholar who is not vigilant, whose individual consciousness as a scholar is not on guard against idees recues [French for "idea received"] all too easily handed down in the profession. Thus interesting work is most likely to be produced by scholars whose allegiance is to a discipline defined intellectually and not to a 'field' like Orientalism defined either canonically, imperially, or geographically" (326). Said then uses the example of Clifford Geertz, who many of you may already know. Why Geertz? Isn't Geertz a Westerner critiquing and attempting to understand the Orient? Using the straw man caricature of Said as "intellectual racist," wouldn't Said say it is IMPOSSIBLE for someone like Geertz to understand Islamic culture? (Geertz is white, by the way). No, the reason Said likes Geertz is that Geertz's "interest in Islam is discrete and concrete enough to be animated by the specific societies and problems he studies and not by the rituals, preconceptions, and doctrines of Orientalism" (326). In other words, if you are going to investigate the "orient," then fine, go right ahead, but be careful that your critical approach does not produce hasty generalizations and cultural stereotypes (as there is a long history of both in Western understanding of the Orient). That's it. Just be careful. Or, as he says it, be "vigilant." Said repeats this idea several times throughout: "My objection to what I have called Orientalism is not that it is just the antiquarian study of Oriental languages, societies, and peoples, but that as a system of thought it approaches a heterogeneous, dynamic, and complex human reality from an uncritically essentialist standpoint" (333). So is it possible to for a Westerner to produce "valid" critiques of the Orient? Absolutely, as long as one is conscious that one is approaching this "other" culture through one's own cultural lenses that may, in fact, interfere with the ultimate objectivity of one's findings. Does that mean that ultimate objectivity is impossible? Probably, but I don't know why that is so troubling to some people. I don't think it means, as I implied in the beginning of this (now ridiculously long) post, that we need to "just pack our bags and go home." Why, I asked at the beginning, should I even TRY to understand another culture if I cannot approach that culture with ultimate objectively? The answer, I think, is hidden within the question. Perhaps recognizing that we do approach other cultures with preconceived, culturally formed notions, is the _best_ way to proceed. It demands a certain humility. Or, stated another way, maybe we should try to understand another culture if, and only if, we realize that we cannot approach that culture with ultimate objectivity. Otherwise, as humans, we are susceptible to the kind of misjudgment, miscalculation, racism, and hasty generalization that, like it or not, has characterized most Western discourse on the East (and vice-versa). To call Said's work "intellectual terrorism," is, in my mind, a grave misjudgment. And to remove it from one's curriculum because one sees it as "anti-intellectual justification for hatred" (which is it, by the way, intellectual or anti-intellectual?) is equally unfortunate. - --John Williams UC Irvine - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 16 Feb 2002 12:34:26 -0600 From: "Rose Green" Subject: [AML] Re: DIAMANT, _The Red Tent_ Ugh. I read it and my sense was that the author thought it would be interesting to write about the family of Jacob because there would be all of these strange interpersonal relationships to drive the story. Just as long as nobody really believes all that religion stuff. You know, we'll just humor the old guys (Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob) in their weird beliefs. I simply can't believe that the women in this family were as ignorant of the gospel as this book seems to say. In fact, I didn't get any kind of religious feeling out of it at all, except maybe to say that religion is pretty strange. I can't figure out why bookstores shelve it in the religion section. I know that any novel inspired by the Old Testament is going to be pretty fictionalized, but I just didn't feel like a) it was very realistic, given who the men are in this story, and b) it was true at all to the spirit of Genesis. Rose Green _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp. - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2002 13:15:24 -0700 From: "Ethan Skarstedt" Subject: RE: [AML] Agendas in Lit Classes (was: Race Issues in Mormonism) On the guilting going on in lit classes at BYU. I will go ahead and not put in any names of the professors who guilted me for two reasons. 1. No offense, but I don't know Margaret from Eve and 2: Because, overall, I respect them and got a lot out of their classes despite the occasional guilt bomb. I will, however, say that Margaret was not one of them and I don't think I ever saw one of her presentations with Darius. I'll give general examples though. For instance, in a Shakespeare class, as we dealt with "The Tempest" as soon as we hit Caliban the discussion either devolved or was led down (who can tell in that setting) into speculation on Shakespeare's feelings on the treatment of black folks, how _we_ felt about the treatment of black folks, etc... with just the barest nod towards actually discussing the work at hand. This little side jaunt into our feelings on racism against blacks and then against Indians and ad nauseum with a great deal of tearful testimonies and silent nodding on the part of the professor and other tearful class members went on for three days and comprised the entirety of our dealings with that play. The general consensus ended up as, "those poor people, don't we feel terrible for keeping them down for so long." At that point, being the cynical person that I am, I had decided that I'd rather keep my mouth shut and get a better grade in the class than take up my lance and blast the windmill. Then we started in on "Othello"... Another example: Class title: Post 1960s American Novel. 8 of the 12 novels we read were by black authors, 2 by Hispanics and 2 by others (white guys). The subject material was certainly not representative and it ended up being a class that should have been entitled Race Issues in Post 1960s American Novels, not at all what was advertised. I felt desperately cheated. Consensus? Same as above. I did take up my lance after awhile in this class. I don't think I got a worse grade because of my tilting but I certainly got a lot of the "poor unenlightened whiteguy" treatment. There were a few classes where I don't remember being guilted but I don't remember if that was because we never happened across a good leaping off point or because the professors dealt with it intelligently. To end. I never took the African American Literature class, although it would have fit my schedule once, because I was pretty sure I'd had all I needed or could handle concerning "Race Issues" All the browbeating and guilting happened in other classes and took up a great deal more class time than I felt was warranted. So, there's my rant. I feel like I must say that, despite my complaining on this issue, I very much enjoyed and profited from my experience as an English major at BYU and would recommend the program to anyone. Just, as with anything, go into it with your grains of salt at the ready. - -Ethan Skarstedt - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 17 Feb 2002 21:38:24 -0700 From: "Cathy Wilson" Subject: Re: [AML] Nineteenth Century Ideas If you read through Eric's post on acculturation (I submit a humble whoops on writing it "enculturation"), you can't help but notice that the Victorian cultural values he cites sound all too close to home. >Women were inherently more spiritual than men, more immediately in tune with God's Will. Just heard this in Stake Conference: Mom raises the boy, and the wife finishes the job :(. >Masturbation was morally and physically crippling, and almost any means should be undertaken to prevent it. One young man recently confided that he learned to masturbate from a long and searching (and detailed) interview with a stake president. >Of course, men were to work and support the family and women were to find their satisfaction in life through domesticity. This one almost needs no comment. Many women do go to work today but if they have children, it's always with huge misgivings and guilt. >Intercultural dating or marriage was unheard of, let alone interracial. Echoes of "marry only in the temple..." For a long time I was fascinated with the image of the perfect-family culture we believed in from the 1940's and 50's, and even earlier. I fantasized that those earlier times might indeed be preferable to our fast and sometimes confusing times today. But something about it kept nagging at me, and I wanted to really know what informed those times. Then I saw three TV shows: "Sins of the Father" and a special preceding it--how the Ku Klux Klan was extremely pervasive throughout the U.S.in the 20's through the 50's--millions of people claimed membership. But even if everyone didn't belong to the Klan, the cultural beliefs were pervasive: fight (and destroy, if you can), that which disagrees with you. This violence, however much unstated, infused much of our thinking during those decades. I saw another program, a dramatization of Woody Guthrie's life, which again reflected those values. Guthrie used his homegrown songs to buoy up (and incite) downtrodden workers in California, but he and those workers were silenced in the most dramatic ways--beatings and destruction of property--because they upset the men in powers. "Father Knows Best" takes on a nasty meaning when you place it in those times. . . I think that much of this is also way too close to home, although we don't go so far as beating each other, most of the time anyway. We simply find other ways to beat each other down when we are Right and They are Wrong. Cathy (Gileadi) Wilson Editing Etc. 1400 West 2060 North Helper UT 84526 - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ End of aml-list-digest V1 #617 ******************************