Some Additional Thoughts on Kincaid

Nice, heated, but informed disucssion on Thursday!  I wish we had more time to discuss Kincaid specifically, but we can return to many of her ideas in future classes.  Here are some additional ideas to ponder based on points made in class (but not developed), and some of the responses I glanced at after class:

* Is colonialism truly over?  We talk about people getting over their situation and moving on, but is there a historical date for colonialism ending for any country?  And if so, what does it change?  Can a colonial country (Britain, France, etc.) still rule without ruling?  What does 'independence' really mean? 

* Is part of the outrage/insult we feel reading Kincaid based on the fact that the narrator (who is supposed to be limited or omniscient, but in both cases largely unaware of 'us') calls us out?  Traditionally, the narrator is supposed to be our 'guide' through a world, and here the narrator turns on us, making us complicit in the 'fictional' world she creates.

* Is she trying to make American/European readers feel the same outrage that indigenous people have felt for centuries in novels?  Remember, from Columbus onwards, most writing and novels have made no bones about calling natives "lazy, stupid, weak, unintelligent, inferior," etc.  Is she trying to take power back and call those who would be complicit in tourism "ugly"?  By mastering the language, is she also hijacking the genre itself and making it speak for her? 

* Even though many countries rely on tourism and many natives participate in it, does that make it right?  Can Kincaid still read it as an evil and colonialist institution even if most of Antigua disagrees with her?  (in a related argument, if a Native American writer, such as LeAnne Howe or Sherman Alexie, criticizes Native American mascots in sports, do other Native Americans have to agree?  Do they need a consensus?).

* Consider how many of the arguments we read about in defense of slavery can be equally applied against Kincaid's argument.  Like her or not, it's chilling how we can use many of the same 200/300 year-old arguments (we're protecting them, they need us, their lives are better, we're bringing them civilization and a chance at a market economy, etc.).   

* And finally, is being ignorant an excuse?  A 'tourist' doesn't know about the postcolonial issues of an Antigua or a Barbados, etc.  He/she only went there to escape from their own taxing lives.  Are you innocent if you simply didn't know?  And can you help the economy of a nation while destroying its soul?

And here's a final quote from Kincaid from a later part of A Small Place: "Eventually, the masters left, in a kind of way; eventually, the slaves were freed, in a kind of way.  The people in Antigua now, the people who really think of themselves as Antiguans (and the people who would immediately come to your mind when you think about what Antiguans might be like; I mean, supposing you were to think about it), are the descendants of those noble and exalted people, the slaves.  Of course, the whole thing is, once you cease to be a master, once you throw off your master's yoke, you are no longer human rubbish, you are just a human being, and all the things that adds up to.  So, too, with the slaves.  Once they are no longer slaves, once they are free, they are no longer noble and exalted: they are just human beings."