Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1998 17:29:32 -0400
From: etsou-AT-hearst.com (Elda Tsou)
Subject: Re[2]: An Intellectual Catastrophe


     i disagree. if by "british" you mean the "original" (if there is such 
     a thing) british inhabitants (i.e., the celts--who came from the 
     continent--and before them, the picts?, i believe), then yes, they 
     were certainly influenced by the romans, but certainly not to the 
     extent to which they forsook their culture. if by british you mean the 
     modern britain, they are the products of countless waves of invaders, 
     the angles, the saxons, the jutes, the normans, etc. etc. there is no 
     there there!


______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: Re: An Intellectual Catastrophe
Author:  JOSHI <sjoshi-AT-eagle.cc.ukans.edu> at Internet
Date:    8/12/98 2:31 PM


     
Deeb wrote:
     
"This ridiculous argument would suggest by
extension that only a native of Rome can be a good Roman Catholic; other 
Catholic Italians, Spaniards, Latin Americans, Philipinos who are converts 
are inauthentic and cut off from their traditions. According to Naipaul, 
then, Anglicans who are not British are only converts and they too, like 
the
Malysian or Iranian Muslim, are doomed to a life of imitation and 
incompetence since they are converts."
     
But it is true! The British have repressed their original culture after 
voluntary/involuntary conversion and roman imperialism; how much do they 
or we know about their druid religion and
heritage? Dolmens and the Stonehenge are mysteries. Traces of the past may 
show up in tattoo designs or jewellery, but conversion was certainly 
followed by Rome-worship and repression/denial of heritage.
     
Sam
     
     
     
     --- from list postcolonial-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---


     --- from list postcolonial-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---