BootsnAll Travel Community

"IF YOU GO to Antigua as a tourist, this is what you will see..." writes Jamaica Kincaid in the opening of her book "A Small Place"

She then proceeds to lay a smackdown on Western tourists who seek a cure to their loneliness in warm, impoverished places like her native Antigua.

I think every tourist and every traveller should read this short, clear and impactful book. Makes you think about travel in another light.

If you've read it, post your thoughts. Is she right? Is she exaggerating? Do you feel guilty? Especially if you've travelled to the Carribean, does this ring true? Are travellers different from tourists with regard to the accusations she levels against Western visitors?

If you havent read it, it is a short, addictive read worth checking out. The prose is wonderfully lucid and the sentiment irrepressable.

Amazon link, reviews, comments etc

hmmmm not a popular read eh?

No, it's not.

I read it and felt nothing.

thank you for your sparkling insights~

Never heard of it, but it sure does sound interesting from the info on Amazon. Kind of reminds me of Aime Cesaire's Discourse on Colonialism, another brilliant and brutally honest book. Short too so there's no reason to be scared off. A bit older of course, but since he is one of the most important writers and poets from that region I think it's still very relevant. Not to mention his poetry, talk about intense writing.

Hey thanks for mentioning that Elis, I'd never heard of him, but I enjoy reading poet-revolutionary types (...the pen is mightier??). Cesaire looks like a good read to the tune of Fanon, Ngugi and Said

Perhaps the difference is that Kincaid's work is not academic in the least. The way she writes it, the reader is able to view the island of Antigua through the eyes of a local person, but one with criticism for the colonizers, the tourists AND the nationals.

If you are a sensitive person-who-is-sometimes-a-tourist, this book will make you squirm a bit (I know I did) yet at the same time, her agruments are not flawless, which can make for interesting discussion.

Kincaid is a strong writer but her racial politics gets in the way.

"Cesaire looks like a good read to the tune of Fanon, Ngugi and Said"

You'd be better off reading Archie Comics.

'but since he [Aime Cesaire]is one of the most important writers and poets from that region I think it's still very relevant.'

This is more a reflection of the lack of quality writers, the lack of an intellectual culture in the Carribean, than the lucidity of Aime Cesaire. Again, another good writer (better poet than writer in this case] spoiled by ideology.

THe only problem you might have, mina, is that I'm not sure if al of Cesaire's writings have been translated from French. What makes him especially interesting is that while his writing might seem academic at first glance, he was also very active on the political front. He was mayor of Fort-de-France as well as sitting in the French National Assembly.

Thanks Elis~

Barudh I see you are up to your mean-spirited derailment again; if you are a representative of "intellectual culture" I'd say they are better off w/o it, what being a construct of the colonizers and all.... but saying so is disrespectful of the creative and intellectual work that IS being done, work which speaks in a voice happily outside of your sacred dead white guy canon

I'd rather this thread get locked up than hear another hateful, dismissive and verbose post from you.... so please dont bother...

quote:

Originally posted by Barukh:
Again, another good writer (better poet than writer in this case] spoiled by ideology.

Barukh!! This reminds me of you, bless your little heart.

Sacred White Guys.

What does skin colour have anything to do with the quality and relevance of writing, of thoughts? What you are doing is turning people into symbols.

How do people like Rigoberta Menchu get away with winning literary prizes and get their books used in college campuses all over the country even though they are telling lies?

This is the danger of politicizing thoughts, people become liked for what they represent, not for what they do. Oftentimes, these people pretend they are 'revolutionaries,' play up the race card and timid Westerners eat it up. Lately, in American and European intellectual culture, being a 'person of colour' implies a wisdom, an authority that must be obeyed lest one risk being called a 'racist.'

'if you are a representative of "intellectual culture" I'd say they are better off w/o it, what being a construct of the colonizers and all.'

Casaire (and many other false prophets) learned their vitriol in the West, from 'the colonizers.' Their lessons and morality came from a context of Western culture, were written in Western languages and based on Western philosophy. Was socialism indigenous to the Caribbean? No, this was a European idea, based on the history and context of European societies. These ideas couldn't and didn't work in the third world because they were imposed ideas; seductive of alienated, Westernized intellectuals. The developing societies of the region needed better things, more important things than revolutionary poetry. They needed health care and literacy, science, education. What did they get? This political rubbish! They needed to be free from the yoke of the colonial powers; the creation of third worldist radicals was, in my opinion, another form of imperialism.

It is the cruelist ignorance. Cesaire was a leader in a leaderless, chaotic place. He could have done great good but instead, encouraged by naive Westerners, chose to be a racialist poet, and minor political hack (his Negritude Movement was silly bullshit) instead.

These absurd ideas these people learn in Western universities are so damaging because they bear no fruit. People are starving and the intellectuals are writing poetry, yamming about political theory.

But kids in college love it (Chomsky like, totally rules, dude) and it sure does sound cool. Haven't you heard, radical chic is the new black, darling.

Someone may be able to point out some things that Chomsky has said that aren't right. Because he's a person and you can do that to anyone. but...

Acting like he's some kind of Bozo is wrong, Barukh. If you think he's a complete idiot (my words) then you yourself are highly politicized. Noam rules alotta things.


You didn't mention him until the end of your rant, so I'm not sure he fits in here- not a point that you've proven anyway.

He teaches linguistics at MIT, his political stuff is on the side.

So what's up with lumping him in here?
Intellectual dishonesty?

'Brad Pitt' is spelled with one D.

quote:

Originally posted by Barukh:
This is the danger of politicizing thoughts, people become liked for what they represent, not for what they do. Oftentimes, these people pretend they are 'revolutionaries,' play up the race card and timid Westerners eat it up. Lately, in American and European intellectual culture, being a 'person of colour' implies a wisdom, an authority that must be obeyed lest one risk being called a 'racist.'

Ironic that you talk about politicizing thoughts, then link to an article from David Horowitz. This is a guy whose only claim to fame is his noisy transition from rabid Marxist to rabid right-winger. I always wonder about people who go from one form of wackoism to another. What does that say about their mental processes? That they're flawed and reactionary, perhaps?

Since you're so fond of quotes and excerpts, here's a good one:

"One thing you can say for David Horowitz: After almost 40 years of work as a political journalist, after a career in activism dating back to the civil rights struggle, after courting both Black Panther and Gopac tiger, after a miraculous conversion from the radical left to the woolly right, after writing books and columns beyond number, he is now capable of outwitting a bunch of college students."

quote:

he is now capable of outwitting a bunch of college students."

And their professors, and the media, and the race industry..

What Horowitz did earned him death threats, it caused a huge contraversy; minimizing it to 'outwitting college students' is stupid. Why was it such a big deal? Why did people trash University newspaper offices all over the country? Horowitz makes people uncomfortable.

So what does thave have to do with what he wrote. Was he wrong about Rigoberta Menchu? Was he wrong about slavery reparations?

The exerpt (which did little justice to the excellent article) was in itself contradictory. 'He does all these things, then can only do this one thing.'

Horowitz drives the left crazy. I can only respect that.

And leftists obviously make you "uncomfortable" as well as driving you crazy. SO where's this getting us? nowhere. We already figured out that you're a conservative Barukh. Big deal.

quote:

And leftists obviously make you "uncomfortable" as well as driving you crazy.

How am I a conservative? Leftists make me uncomfortable? Really? I lived for 9 years of my life on a socialist commune (AKA: Kibbutz). My parents were both socialist, very left wing Zionists. My entire life was spent around these types of people..

Why does someone have to either 'liberal or conservative?' The truth is I am neither. See, Elis, there is this really neat thing. It's all the rage it's called Thinking For Yourself. It's great, you should give it a try.

You don't have to subscribe to the moralizing, preachy left, nor the facist right. Fuck them both.

quote:

Thinking For Yourself. It's great, you should give it a try.

Gosh, I just love having my intelligence insulted. Gives me that warm, fuzzy feeling inside.

And with that, another topic has run its course.

Topic closed.