From: iview-AT-technologist.com
Date: Wed, 07 Oct 1998 08:37:33 -0700
Subject: Re: To Meg...Re: To Enrica...Re: Taslima Nasreen and her head


Dear Meg,

My fight is against the patriarchy...and it's a lonely struggle for most
women *and* men, globally...unless we unite, which is a possibility
because of our internet connections.  However, my holding an unpopular
opinion, on this list, regarding symbols and icons seems to have brought
on divisions among ourselves...which is also very interesting,
sociologically.

There is no hypocrisy attached to the feeling of oppression brought on
by the division of "nation" states throughout the continents of Asia and
Africa.  To be sure, the greed and lust for power and money allowed our
own kind to sell us into the hands of *colonial* oppressors.  

Today, it is an economic oppression of proportions that threaten the
existence of the same nation states carved out by colonial
oppressors...economic expansion in other countries has been threatening
the survival of the average American worker as well.  All the more
reason for us to be concerned about the greed and lust of corporate
structures that are solidly entrenched power bases lobbying in
Washington...and hurting the American worker.  Many residential
neighborhoods in Cambridge struggle to survive in the shadows of Harvard
and MIT which seemingly pretty much own this city...and many
neighborhoods have died.  However, activists living here keep up the
fight, since any resistance is better than none...if even one person
survives, or even one neighborhood isn't gutted to make room for
corporate expansion.

What is "western" anymore?  As long as there exist "nation" states,
there is an east and there is a west.

Sorry you see my living in Cambridge as me being hypocritical.  Once
again, I will not direct my comments at *you*.  I believe this list is
about issues of concern to Third World Women and writing.  If I'm wrong,
I hope the list owner will correct me, and I will stand corrected.

All the best,

-Manjusree




dharlem-AT-pipeline.com wrote:
> 
> Dear Manjusree-
> I don't speak for my oppressors, and it was my understanding that this list
> was not for that purpose.  Your rant against "the west", coupled with your
> signature reference to Cambridge, seemed dissonant to me.  Ok, not
> dissonant so much as hypocritical- and I thought I should draw some
> attention to the fact that THIS medium in THIS time, favors engagement and
> discourse BEYOND the lines drawn in the sand, by colonial men.   What does
> "west"  mean anymore?  I am of African, Native American, and Italian
> ancestry.  Does this make me "western" or THE MAN; or am I as oppressed as
> I believe I am, despite the plush insinuations of my geography?
> Am I included in the designation of being "western", because powerful
> whitemales have dicked this joint around like no one else?  Because that
> feels too much like laying claim to the dessimation of my own ancestors.
> Either that, or as YOU put it:
> >I have no intention of directing my comments at you.
> Well, that's what i'm talkin about!
> Just because the sloganeers haven't got a title for global engagement of
> conscious people, is a good enough reason alone, to chuck the east/west
> designation, if only because it means nothing now.
> Really-  Take It Easy Yourself-
> meg
> 
> At 09:37 PM 10/6/98 -0700, you wrote:
> >Dear Meg,
> >
> >In your educational background you must also have read how twisted
> >history is in favoring western conquests of African and Asian
> >continents...your hostility towards me is astounding...and I have no
> >intention of directing my comments at you.  Cambridge, Massachusetts is
> >commonly known as "the People's Republic" because of the amount of
> >resistance to status quo and corporate.
> >
> >Thanks.
> >
> >-Manjusree
> >
> >dharlem-AT-pipeline.com wrote:
> >>
> >> Dear Manjusree,
> >> I don't know what documents you're referring to, but by the tone of your
> >> statements like the following:
> >>
> >> >>>Yes, I know that Ms. Nasreen is supported by the west...which >>>neither
> >> knows nor cares to know much more about the east than >>>those images that
> >> aspire to western means and ends.
> >>
> >> lead me to believe that your definition of what's "west" is limited to
> >> describing white patriarchy/THE MAN.  Statements like this ignore the fact
> >> that the majority of people in this country are NOT white and male,
> >> although they haven't the power nor privilege of white males. But then,
> >> that's the problem with gross generalizations, isn't it?
> >> If you have a problem with the way powerful white men (and WAY too many
> >> white women) represent, I think you should say so, since these "documents"
> >> you're alluding to, don't really support  the "fact" of our non-white,
> >> non-male majority.  "The west' includes me and apparently you as well.  Yet
> >> there is nothing in your post that describes my attitudes or outlook- just
> >> more divide/conquer and we/they stuff.   Like that helps.
> >> As to Cambridge being "The People's Republic", you'll have to direct me to
> >> the document that supports this claim, since all mine say Its AMERICA,
> >> baby, and you're most definitely OF IT, in it, and thereby "west"-ing like
> >> mad.  Your implication that while  "the west" is bad, where YOU reside is
> >> different, and somehow gooder, is jingoistic, disingenuous, and ludicrous.
> >>
> >> Take it Easy Yourself-
> >> meg
> >>
> >> At 05:08 PM 10/6/98 -0700, you wrote:
> >> >Dear Meg,
> >> >
> >> >Cambridge is known as the "People's Republic."  As an American,I'm
> >> >entitled to express my opinions on history and what I observe around me,
> >> >and to vote accordingly.  My observations about the west are
> >> >documented...not by me, but by many historians.  You are free to call my
> >> >expressions what you will.
> >> >
> >> >Take it easy...I'm not hostile...and I guess you're not really familiar
> >> >with Cambridge!  :>
> >> >
> >> >All the best,
> >> >
> >> >-Manjusree
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >dharlem-AT-pipeline.com wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> Dear Manjusree,
> >> >> You have such hostility toward all things western- why then are you in
> >> >> Cambridge?
> >> >> Meg
> >> >>
> >> >> At 12:58 PM 10/6/98 -0700, you wrote:
> >> >> >Dear Enrica,
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Yes, I know that Ms. Nasreen is supported by the west...which neither
> >> >> >knows nor cares to know much more about the east than those images that
> >> >> >aspire to western means and ends.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >My argument is only that women must unite, and patriarchal symbols are
> >> >> >an *obstacle* to such unity.  I see what you mean about the use of
> >> >> >language as a "symbol."  However, language is not, to my understanding,
> >> >> >an "icon" -- to which status the west and western/westernized feminists
> >> >> >have raised Ms. Nasreen, to her own detriment.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Furthermore, my question is what is Ms. Nasreen's purpose...to be an
> >> >> >icon or to help women unite?  Are non-western women headed for more
> >> >> >"divide/conquer" fiascos of western origin?  "Divide/conquer" leads to
> >> >> >more bloodshed...it is a patriarchal tool for ultimate
> self-destruction.
> >> >> >What brand of feminism is this that we must raise up icons all the
> >> >> >time...don't we have any confidence in our beliefs...in ourselves?  Are
> >> >> >most women throw-aways and the rest extraordinary exceptions of
> symbolic
> >> >> >proportions???  I'm sorry, I don't buy that.  The sad truth is, from my
> >> >> >observation, that an educated elite group of South Asian women are
> >> >> >marching ahead leaving most of their sisters behind in the dust, and
> >> >> >racing towards westernized forms of self-glorification.  This is
> >> >> >embarrassing at best.  I fervently pray that we can save Taslima
> >> >> >Nasreen, the *human being*.  I cannot, on principle, support the icon.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >The recent communication I've had from Bangladesh tells me English
> >> >> >newspapers don't have the story...but bangla papers may...I'm still
> >> >> >researching this.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Best regards,
> >> >> >
> >> >> >-Manjusree
> >> >> >Cambridge MA
> >> >> >USA
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Enrica Garzilli wrote:
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Dear Manjusree, I am a pragmatic woman.
> >> >> >> Taslima is already there. We cannot conceptualize and impose our
> >> >> >> thinking and our thought on people. If THEY regard her as a symbol
> and
> >> >> >> this is useful to the cause, why not? The important matter is not the
> >> >> >> person, Taslima. She comes much much later. The important matter is
> >> >> >> people, means and results.
> >> >> >> We have much better -- incomparable in fact -- writers, and much
> >> >> >> "better" symbols. But Taslima is famous in the West as well in the
> East.
> >> >> >> She is a recognized sybol. And it is a matter of fact that people,
> all
> >> >> >> of us, need symbols. Also you, in your mail, use as a symbol a
> jargoon
> >> >> >> that is not easily understandable to us, not English mother tongue
> >> >> >> speakers. You are using language as a symbol, as a castal
> communication
> >> >> >> and means of recogniction.
> >> >> >> That's all. And she is well supported by feminist groups here in
> Europe,
> >> >> >> and by PEN, etc.
> >> >> >> She perhaps uses us to become famous, why not to "use" her?
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Enrica
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> iview-AT-technologist.com wrote:
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > Symbolism is a patriarchal conceptualization of an exaggerated and
> >> >> >> > self-delusional image of itself.  I think that Ms. Nasreen has
> >> >> >> > out-patriarched the patriarchy.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > However, if indeed women, in our struggles, require a symbol of a
> >> woman
> >> >> >> > fighting for the rights of all women, we already have
> Behula...to whom
> >> >> >> > Dr. Rinita Mazumdar's poem has done elegant justice.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > -Manjusree
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > Enrica Garzilli wrote:
> >> >> >> > >
> >> >> >> > > iview-AT-technologist.com wrote:
> >> >> >> > > >
> >> >> >> > > > Partha,
> >> >> >> > > >
> >> >> >> > > > I oppose Ms. Nasreen's tactics...anyone who leaves out her
> >> sisters is
> >> >> >> > > > suspect in my eyes.  Secondly, she has my support if in fact
> she
> >> >> speaks
> >> >> >> > > > also for her sisters who have equally opposed
> fundamentalists.  I
> >> >> didn't
> >> >> >> > > > find that evident in her letter to the world's myriad and
> complex
> >> >> >> > > > Governments to save her.  I pray they can.  She seems mightily
> >> >> >> > > > self-righteous about visiting her ailing mother in Bangladesh.
> >> Such
> >> >> >> > > > dramatics don't impress me.
> >> >> >> > > >
> >> >> >> > > > I really don't see your point about international support for
> >> her and
> >> >> >> > > > her being exempt...I never suggested she is exexmpt from
> receiving
> >> >> world
> >> >> >> > > > support to save her.  I simply don't support her sensationalist
> >> >> tactics
> >> >> >> > > > that seem to catapult her to center stage.  Of course I oppose
> >> >> >> > > > fundamentalists, fanatics, fascists yadda, yadda,
> yadda...and if
> >> >> as you
> >> >> >> > > > say we don't get "befooled...by...bigots," that's news to me!
> >> >> >> > > >
> >> >> >> > > > -Manjusree
> >> >> >> > > >
> >> >> >> > > > Partha Banerjee wrote:
> >> >> >> > > > >
> >> >> >> > > > > I have my own reservations about Taslima, her sensationalism
> >> >> (and bad
> >> >> >> > > > > writing), and all. However, that does not exempt her from
> >> >> getting our
> >> >> >> > > > > support from an international arena. This is all we can do to
> >> >> support her
> >> >> >> > > > > voice of dissent and oppose barbarism practised by
> >> >> fundamentalists and
> >> >> >> > > > > fanatics and fascists. We do it in Bangladesh, we do it in
> >> >> India, we do it
> >> >> >> > > > > in USA. And we don't get befooled by double standards and
> >> >> >> > > > > confusion-creating tactics of the bigots.
> >> >> >> > > > > __________
> >> >> >> > > > >
> >> >> >> > > > > >Partha,
> >> >> >> > > > > ...
> >> >> >> > > > > >I feel that Taslima Nasreen should not have left her
> >> bangladeshi
> >> >> >> > > > > >sister writers in the dust in her own climb towards
> >> >> international fame
> >> >> >> > > > > >and acclaim...she seems to have a tendency to turn to
> those who
> >> >> support
> >> >> >> > > > > >sensationalism vs those who support universal human rights.
> >> >> >> > > > > >
> >> >> >> > > > > >Lest anyone misundertand me and think me cold-blooded and
> >> >> heartless, I'm
> >> >> >> > > > > >actually moved by Ms. Nasreen's plea to other
> Governments, and
> >> >> I hope
> >> >> >> > > > > >the outrageous death threat against her cannot be carried
> out.
> >> >> The
> >> >> >> > > > > >thought occurs to me, nevertheless, that perhaps she
> might also
> >> >> turn to
> >> >> >> > > > > >her sister writers who have not only made greater
> >> contributions to
> >> >> >> > > > > >bangla literature, but have struggled even harder in
> protesting
> >> >> >> > > > > >oppression and abuse of Islamic women without leaving
> >> >> Bangladesh.  I
> >> >> >> > > > > >don't presume to know statistics but base my comments on
> >> >> recollections
> >> >> >> > > > > >of my readings by literary analysts and exchanges with other
> >> >> writers.  I
> >> >> >> > > > > >pray for her life and her mother's good health.
> >> >> >> > > > > >
> >> >> >> > > > > >Best regards,
> >> >> >> > > > > >
> >> >> >> > > > > >-Manjusree
> >> >> >> > >
> >> >> >> > > I have interviewd her and had the opportunity to talk to her for
> >> quite
> >> >> >> > > some time informally.
> >> >> >> > > I asked her about her relationship with feminist groups in
> >> Bangladesh
> >> >> >> > > and India. She told me that many of them wanted to use her name
> >> to have
> >> >> >> > > publicity, to become famous. That's very possible.
> >> >> >> > > However, I also had the impression of a certain ambiguity from
> her
> >> >> and a
> >> >> >> > > certain will to be "the first", to be the heroine of the
> >> situation (I
> >> >> >> > > have written all that in the report of the JSAWS, and her
> >> lecture, and
> >> >> >> > > reported the recorded  reaction of people present.)
> >> >> >> > > Like a hero, she wants to be isolated and alone. She wants to
> >> fight by
> >> >> >> > > herself. For sure she is very childish... (besides the
> opportunity
> >> >> to be
> >> >> >> > > alone in terms of results)
> >> >> >> > > However, she is a symbol. That is important, not HER private
> >> figure and
> >> >> >> > > personality. Sho cares of her in person?
> >> >> >> > > The importance is in people who fights not in her name but taking
> >> her
> >> >> >> > > name as a symbol of funfamentalists' oppression and
> prevarication.
> >> >> >> > > WHat do you think about it?
> >> >> >> > >
> >> >> >> > > Enrica
> >> >> >> > > --
> >> >> >> > > Dr. Enrica Garzilli                 University of Perugia (ITALY)
> >> >> >> > > Istituto di Linguistica                      Piazza Morlacchi, 11
> >> >> >> > > 06123 Perugia                  Tel./Fax: +39-75-585 3755 (office)
> >> >> >> > > Editor-in-Chief,
> >> >> >> > > Intl. Journ. of Tantric Studies, Journal of S. Asia Women Studies
> >> >> >> > > htpp://www.asiatica.org/
> >> >> >> > > *****************************************************************
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> --
> >> >> >> Dr. Enrica Garzilli                 University of Perugia (ITALY)
> >> >> >> Istituto di Linguistica                      Piazza Morlacchi, 11
> >> >> >> 06123 Perugia                  Tel./Fax: +39-75-585 3755 (office)
> >> >> >> Editor-in-Chief,
> >> >> >> Intl. Journ. of Tantric Studies, Journal of S. Asia Women Studies
> >> >> >> htpp://www.asiatica.org/
> >> >> >> *****************************************************************
> >> >> >
> >> >
> >