Warring countries, or Where I Complain While Greatly Simplifying Important Issues
So I'm reading some articles for my class's unit on Ousmane Sembene's novel Xala (which, by the way, is a really really great book and also a really really great movie), and I come to a piece by Chinweizu about how Africans need to reclaim their own culture and religion rather than adopt Arab or European models if they are to have any future. So far so good right? But then he keeps going on about Russia as being one of the European influences, or talking about how Africans must reject Europeanisation "whether in the American, Russian, or other version" and meh. Meh meh meh. I am kind of pissed off at having Russia be bracketed into "Europe" like that, because goddamit, Russia is not really a European country. It is also not an Asian country, of course, but it is not European. And while we're at it, America is not European either, and I do think such distinctions matter, guh.
In Russia, we tend to call the region that Russia occupies "Eurasia," which is not a common term in America, but which should be, because the split between Europe and Asia is not some kind of easy dividing line. In regards to the content of Chinweizu's article, on the one hand I will admit that Russia's colonizing influence on Africa is indeed rather European-culture-ish. But not entirely. First off, the reason that Russia is European-ish is that it itself underwent the same Europeanisation that he is talking about, albeit without colonial pressure. Russia's Europeannness stems from its own inferiority complex, from when Europe regarded it as a backwards and barbaric Asian country, and Peter the Great attempted to modernize it according to European standards, partially by force. Rather like Chinweizu states, Russians then began to see everything European as superior and civilized and to be imitated, and began to culturally colonize themselves, so to speak. (Of course there were always opposing factions of Slavophiles who argued along Chinweizu's lines and wanted to return to Slavic roots instead. This is still an issue, and made more complicated by Russia eventually becoming an imperialist and colonizing force of its own, and its dealings with the former Soviet Republics.)
But at the same time, Russia still cannot be lumped in with "European culture." Partially because it's not like we erased all our heritage (and I'd rather not have others erase it for us). Partially because the Europeans never saw us that way themselves--Napoleon, for instance, still called Moscow "that great Asiatic capital." And especially because as far as talking about Imperial Russia colonizing Africa--well, Russia was in direct conflict with Europe and America at the time, wasn't it. There was this whole communism vs. capitalism thing and the rush to induct various African nations into the opposing ideologies, and I don't think Soviet-communism-driven imperialism should be reduced to "the same thing" as the Western-capitalism-driven kind. If Arabisation and the Arab influence over Africa gets its own category, well, then I think European and Russian influence could at least get the dignity of separation too. It is not cool to erase a country's culture while complaining about the same happening to your country.
Russia's kind of an interesting entity, really, occupying a strange second-tier in-between status. It is an ex-Imperial power and a colonizer, but not quite on the same level as the British Empire and all that, and even as it has a measure of power it is very much the Other to the Western countries, too, and struggling under their cultural hegemony. A weird bit of middle ground to tread.
Speaking of that, I am also not comfortable with the facile grouping of "American" under "European," not even so much here but in general. America's history of conflict with Europe is complex enough for that to not work for me. I am actually thinking right now of my other class, where we discuss British novel film adaptations, and questions of heritage, and of who is "allowed" or perceived as "allowed" to make such adaptations. We talk of how foreign directors have taken on such films, and the difference in justifications of "how can they make a film that is English" depending if they are from a former colony or not, and who has "ownership" of a country's cultural heritage. It seems pretty clear that directors from former colonies do not need to defend their projects since they are given a measure of ownership of the stories, and even license to rewrite them, while as entirely foreign directors are regarded with suspicion--and it becomes tricky when the director is foreign, but from a country that is fairly subjugated by the West in the modern cultural landscape. Who is intruding on whose culture then?
However, when we talk about this in class, people keep saying "England and/or America" as though they were one entity and there was no conflict there, but there is! It is bizarre that people keep talking as though Americans can without question adapt English films. Certainly, America is a former colony and has shared cultural heritage, but I think it is necessary to acknowledge America's current world standing as the primary Imperial power, and the fact that England now stands as America's subordinate. I rather feel we keep breezing by American directors' "obvious" right to adapt British works "since it's all the same" because none of us in the class are actually British, or else the Brits would tell you it is very much NOT all the same, and they quite resent some of the American appropriations/misrepresentations of their culture (ironic, ha?).
In conclusion, people in general tend to be really bad at lifting themselves up out of their local point of view and seeing that is IS only a limited, local world-perception rather than "just how things are." And we should all practice this a bit more, no matter what our place in the global game of cultural imperialism.
In Russia, we tend to call the region that Russia occupies "Eurasia," which is not a common term in America, but which should be, because the split between Europe and Asia is not some kind of easy dividing line. In regards to the content of Chinweizu's article, on the one hand I will admit that Russia's colonizing influence on Africa is indeed rather European-culture-ish. But not entirely. First off, the reason that Russia is European-ish is that it itself underwent the same Europeanisation that he is talking about, albeit without colonial pressure. Russia's Europeannness stems from its own inferiority complex, from when Europe regarded it as a backwards and barbaric Asian country, and Peter the Great attempted to modernize it according to European standards, partially by force. Rather like Chinweizu states, Russians then began to see everything European as superior and civilized and to be imitated, and began to culturally colonize themselves, so to speak. (Of course there were always opposing factions of Slavophiles who argued along Chinweizu's lines and wanted to return to Slavic roots instead. This is still an issue, and made more complicated by Russia eventually becoming an imperialist and colonizing force of its own, and its dealings with the former Soviet Republics.)
But at the same time, Russia still cannot be lumped in with "European culture." Partially because it's not like we erased all our heritage (and I'd rather not have others erase it for us). Partially because the Europeans never saw us that way themselves--Napoleon, for instance, still called Moscow "that great Asiatic capital." And especially because as far as talking about Imperial Russia colonizing Africa--well, Russia was in direct conflict with Europe and America at the time, wasn't it. There was this whole communism vs. capitalism thing and the rush to induct various African nations into the opposing ideologies, and I don't think Soviet-communism-driven imperialism should be reduced to "the same thing" as the Western-capitalism-driven kind. If Arabisation and the Arab influence over Africa gets its own category, well, then I think European and Russian influence could at least get the dignity of separation too. It is not cool to erase a country's culture while complaining about the same happening to your country.
Russia's kind of an interesting entity, really, occupying a strange second-tier in-between status. It is an ex-Imperial power and a colonizer, but not quite on the same level as the British Empire and all that, and even as it has a measure of power it is very much the Other to the Western countries, too, and struggling under their cultural hegemony. A weird bit of middle ground to tread.
Speaking of that, I am also not comfortable with the facile grouping of "American" under "European," not even so much here but in general. America's history of conflict with Europe is complex enough for that to not work for me. I am actually thinking right now of my other class, where we discuss British novel film adaptations, and questions of heritage, and of who is "allowed" or perceived as "allowed" to make such adaptations. We talk of how foreign directors have taken on such films, and the difference in justifications of "how can they make a film that is English" depending if they are from a former colony or not, and who has "ownership" of a country's cultural heritage. It seems pretty clear that directors from former colonies do not need to defend their projects since they are given a measure of ownership of the stories, and even license to rewrite them, while as entirely foreign directors are regarded with suspicion--and it becomes tricky when the director is foreign, but from a country that is fairly subjugated by the West in the modern cultural landscape. Who is intruding on whose culture then?
However, when we talk about this in class, people keep saying "England and/or America" as though they were one entity and there was no conflict there, but there is! It is bizarre that people keep talking as though Americans can without question adapt English films. Certainly, America is a former colony and has shared cultural heritage, but I think it is necessary to acknowledge America's current world standing as the primary Imperial power, and the fact that England now stands as America's subordinate. I rather feel we keep breezing by American directors' "obvious" right to adapt British works "since it's all the same" because none of us in the class are actually British, or else the Brits would tell you it is very much NOT all the same, and they quite resent some of the American appropriations/misrepresentations of their culture (ironic, ha?).
In conclusion, people in general tend to be really bad at lifting themselves up out of their local point of view and seeing that is IS only a limited, local world-perception rather than "just how things are." And we should all practice this a bit more, no matter what our place in the global game of cultural imperialism.