Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2001 10:55:42 -0400 From: Lesk Andrew <leska-AT-MAGELLAN.UMontreal.CA> Subject: Re: Reply to Sangeeta on Naipaul I know I am singling out a mere part of what Salil wrote, but I would still like to comment on it: On Wed, 17 Oct 2001, Salil Tripathi wrote: > my point about malaysia and homosexuality was precisely that. if naipaul is > wrong about islam, and wrong about thinking poorly of homosexuality, then > should we not see similar questions raised by the same individuals on the > list about islam's views of homosexuality, or, at least a government that > professes to be islamic, and its views on homosexuality? (personally, i > believe keynes's or forster's homosexuality are not relevant in evaluating > their economics or literature). naipaul has a distaste for homosexuals; > surely that's less harmful than some islamic societies, in which they are > tossed from helicopters or dropped from high-rise buildings? and if naipaul > has a distaste for that aspect of islam as well, is that wrong? Whenever I see the word "surely," I know it's always a warning to head for the hills. It reads the someone (ie, the audience) is being talked down to, presumably because they are not as enlightened as the speaker. Salil's "surely that less harmful" tacitly affirms more "passive" forms of homophobia in that Salil's slippery slope argument actually depends on making nebulous distinctions. But it begs the question (and the use of "surely" always seems to beg the question). I don't see the distinction that Salil seems to unironically suggest we make. It only reminds me of people who say things like "some of my best friends are gay/jewish/black, but...." Andrew --- from list postcolonial-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005