Date: Mon, 04 Mar 2002 12:26:32 +0800 From: Colin Kenworthy <ckenwort-AT-marloo.ac.cowan.edu.au> Subject: Re: visiting Mecca & Medina I thank Ralph Hajj for his challenging of the distinction that I made between religious and racial discrimination. The point is taken that both Mecca and medieval cities used religion to support a social structure and a set of social relationhsips that had economic and political advantages and disadvantages for different groups. Identity is, I agree, based on relationships and in an earlier email today, I wrote about the ways in which i have have "identified" with particular "holy places" of different religious groups. I argued for an open door to holy places. I realise that Westerners who have the freedom to travel can be constructed as using the "otherness" of foreign places to generate meanings for their own lives. And the reference I made to my experience at Cantebury can be construed in this light. BUT I would want to argue that pilgrimages to holy places can have a largely positive outcomes for the pilgrim and for those with whom he or she interacts. The same regeneration cannot be claimed for all modern tourism. Ralph Hajj wrote: > > I respectfully disagree when you say that religious discrimination is more > justified then the racial for instance. You seem to be implying a > fundamental difference between discrimination based on religion and one > based on race or socio-economic conditions. > > Any distinction between discrimination based on race and one based religion > is purely arbitrary and can be based on incidental things. There is no > essential difference between South African apartheid, Apartheid in Palestine > and the law forbidding non-Muslim from working, living or even visiting > Mecca and Medina two fairly large sized cities. > > The fact that medieval cities did the same does not imply that this practice > is justified. It simply means that these cities also practised > discrimination. Two wrongs or a hundred for that matter do not make a > right. After all it is certainly not a great compliment to the Wahabites to > be compared with medieval society or with the Emperors of China (remember > that the opulence of the forbidden-city existed in a society where famine > was endemic). > > Now to the question of sacred places as opposed to the walling-off of entire > cities: Religions are by their very nature discriminatory as are all > identities by the way. Identities justify each other, so that a group that > is discriminated against is forced to form an identity is order to defend > itself (so for instance, minority artists in Quebec are being forced to > regroup in order to defend themselves, in essence creating an identity as > minority artists). When these groups are finally in position of power, > they might very well discriminate against other groups and so on so forth. > Identities as such have no existence beyond this relational logic. A > questioning of discrimination is a questioning of identity as such. > > Our opposition to discrimination implies a questioning of the underlying > ideology that produces these sacred places and in extension a > questioning of identity as such. Is the fact that a sacred place becomes > forbidden to the non-initiated independent of other social discriminatory > practices against them? Or is the ideology that produced one form of > discrimination the same as the one that produces the other? My answer is > that the same ideology that produces prohibitions against non-initiates > produces social, political and economic discrimination against them (the > rights of Christians in Saudi-Arabia, the rights of pagans in the newly > Christianised Roman Empire, the rights of Peasants in Imperial China, etc. > etc. Ad Nauseausm). I welcome any counter-examples. > > The reverse is not always true, so that the fact that there is no > prohibition against Christians entering mosques in Egypt does not imply that > there is no discrimination against Coptic Christians there. Discrimination > against non-initiates is only a symptom that can or cannot occur. > > >From: Colin Kenworthy <ckenwort-AT-marloo.ac.cowan.edu.au> > >Reply-To: postcolonial-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu > >To: postcolonial-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu > >Subject: Re: visiting Mecca & Medina > >Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2002 15:23:03 +0800 > > > >ere are multiple examples of sacred places being restricted to the > >initiated. These usually constitute a symbolic statement about the power > >of the IN group. > > > >For the first three hundred years and even after, the architecture of > >Christian churches was so organized so that even those who had aligned > >themselves with the Christian community, but had not yet been baptized > >were allowed only into the courtyard or the porch of the church, but > >were not allowed to enter the nave of the church till after they had > >been baptized. > > > >The iconostasis in Orthodox churches excludes the laity from the inner > >sanctum The sanctuary, the Holy Place. It does not seem unreasonable > >that people who have a strong belief system, should be allowed the right > >to exclude people who may not value or who may even do things to devalue > >objects, rituals or persons that are central to their belief. > > > >Aboriginal rituals are closed not only to non-Aboriginals, but also to > >the non-initiated or to persons of the "other" gender. > > > >Most medieval cities were organized in such a way that non Christians > >were excluded. Ghettos existed for Jews. La Giudecca in Venice. > > > >The Forbidden City in old Peking was just that - forbidden. > > > >The modernization of the West, that began in the banking houses of > >Florence and Bruges, was accompanied by secularization that opened the > >cities to all. > > > >TO CUT TO THE CHASE. TO ANSWER THE QUESTION. > > > >Is the motivation behind Charles Orlowek's question based on the idea > >that those who have money should be free to travel where they want? that > >tourists have a right to see the world and everything in it? > > > >There are many Muslims who are very poor and would never have a chance > >to see what the average Western tourist is able and is interested to > >see. But theses same Muslims will often spend a lifetime saving to make > >the haj before they die. > > > >The Comment on the capitalists who walled themselves inside quebec, or > >Portland, or Melbourne leads to another question. > > > >Is it defensible to exclude "others" for reasons other than religious > >belief? For racial differences? For socio-economic differences? > > > >In Australia for over a century, Indigenous Australians were not allowed > >into any towns after dark. The system of Apartheid was based on the > >Australian examples of the Native Welfare Acts of the beginning of the > >twentieth century. Aborigines were excluded in other ways. They were not > >able to earn money, to drink alcohol, to marry without permission, to > >keep "mixed blood" children, to own weapons, to move from the camp > >outside one town to the camp outside another. South Africa's pass laws > >were set up to keep Africans out of cities at the same time as taking > >advantage of them as cheap labour. > > > >USA and Canada are replete with examples of excluding Native Americans > >not only from cities but from vast tracts of territory. > > > >Lastly, a feature of many North American cities and of some in Australia > >is the growth of "secure" apartment houses and of "secure" estates > >where palatial houses, shopping malls, churches, recreational facilities > >and beaches are all contained within a walled and patrolled perimeter > >fence that excludes the hoi polloi because they do not have the money to > >enter. > > > >This kind of exclusion seems to me much less defensible that the > >exclusion of "infidels" from Mecca. > > > >Most of these exclusions are based on an assertion of power. Most work > >to assert thta power becasue they maintain differences. > > > >I can understand the reasons for non-Muslims being excluded from the > >Holy Cities. > > > >What seems regrettable is that throughout the centuries up until the > >middle of the last century, Muslims, Christians and Jews lived together > >in the Middle East and in many small towns and settlements actually > >shared the same Building that was used as Mosque on Fridays a synagogue > >on Saturdays and a church on Sundays. > > > > > > > > > > > > > >Paul Brians wrote: > > > > > > For what it's worth, I believe non-Mormons are not allowed in the > > > Mormon Temple in Salt Lake City--but that's not an entire city. > > > -- > > > Paul Brians, Department of English > > > Washington State University > > > Pullman, WA 99164-5020 > > > brians-AT-wsu.edu > > > http://www.wsu.edu/~brians > > > > > > --- from list postcolonial-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu --- > > > >-- > >Colin Kenworthy > >School of Education > >Edith Cowan University > >2 Bradford Street > >MOUNT LAWLEY > >WESTERN AUSTRALIA 6050 > ><c.kenworthy-AT-ecu.edu.au> > >+61 (0)8 93706203, fax +61 (0)8 93706044 > >Mobile 0407998966 > > > > > > --- from list postcolonial-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu --- > > _________________________________________________________________ > MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos: > http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx > > --- from list postcolonial-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu --- -- Colin Kenworthy School of Education Edith Cowan University 2 Bradford Street MOUNT LAWLEY WESTERN AUSTRALIA 6050 <c.kenworthy-AT-ecu.edu.au> +61 (0)8 93706203, fax +61 (0)8 93706044 Mobile 0407998966 --- from list postcolonial-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu --- --- from list postcolonial-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005