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 ---