LENIN'S TOMB

 

Tuesday, June 13, 2006

Wanted: Loyal Natives to Discuss Empire on the BBC. posted by Richard Seymour

Please make yourself available to Mr Andrew Marr, remembering to make the appropriate genuflective noises and express sufficient gratitude:

Open Letter to Andrew Marr, Presenter, Start the Week on Radio 4, the BBC.

Dear Andrew,

This is an open letter that I am going to ask the people--many of whom are prominent academics-- I have copied in to circulate as widely as possible, to draw the attention of people to the egregious manner in which you dealt with the follow-up this morning's show on 'The Legacy of Empire'. I am appalled and shocked at your biased introduction to the evening phone-in. You use dismissive words like 'blarney', 'aggressive', and 'too much heat' to describe an impassioned discussion of a painful and traumatic legacy that didn't fit the genteel upper-class British converation over 'tea and cucumber sandwiches'model. This then set the tenor for the phone-in that followed.

But worst of all is the patent attempt to bring in a 'positively disposed to Empire' Indian woman to neutralise what you saw as the 'aggression' of the Indian woman you had invited to be on your morning programme. It is obvious what that is trying to accomplish and completely unworthy of someone in your position. It is, after all, an old colonial strategy: pick the good native to neutralise the bad one quickly 'The British empire was good on the whole,' she announces, to Andrew Marr's relief. What this
person's credentials are to opine on Empire and India other than 'being' of Indian descent and 'married to a white man' are completely unclear. Is everyone of British descent qualified to discuss the Norman Conquest, the Magna Carta or even the Normandy landing? She tells us that the Empire means a lot to Indians because her grandfather salutes her white husband(!). Empire is 'anachronistic' for young Indians, apparently. Each of her questions/comments to callers betrayed, I'm sorry to say, as a teacher, ignorance and little other than a desire to smooth over any rough edges from the morning. As though there were no connection between sectarian violence and the Partition! And as though a critique of Empire precludes a critique of the Indian state which often works with what it inherited from the colonial state: please see the work of most people copied in on this letter. We find it possible to do both self-criticism and a critique of colonialism, and what is more, to see the connections in a complex historical and political frame. Next time, at least find a scholar of/on India--rather than a young woman from the office next door- if you want some damage control done. That is, if you are bothered about being serious at all rather than getting an agenda through.

I realised from your mode of operating today and how you handled the programme (including the nervousness about real debate as opposed to some facile smorgasbord 'point of view' dance) that your own pro-colonial biases are pretty apparent. Nevertheless, I would have expected a more general *show* of fairness (and that favourite BBC buzzword 'balance') from someone in your position. Apparently not. Several have written to me condemning the shameless plugging of Ferguson's racist text and the way in which the whole programme was not about the legacy of empire, but that text and its release this week. People will be interested in the following nuggets from the text the BBC wishes to launch as a definitive account of Empire:

'Like attracted and continues to attract like; those who are drawn to 'the Other' may in fact be atypical in their sexual predilections'

'When a Chinese woman marries a European man, the chances are relatively high that their blood groups may be incompatible, so that only the first child they conceive will be viable'

'Human beings do seem predisposed to trust members of their own race as traditionally defined'


We are supposed to react to this kind of thing with a lack of forcefulness or passion, and just to the whole Oxbridge boys back-slapping tally-ho routine. And if we don't, a nice native will be found and then wheeled on to say 'No, no, guys, it was all great really!.

I regret coming on at the last minute. As an academic with serious interests in the matter, I thought I'd be participating in a real discussion, not a book plug, a sham and an apologia for the past. (Those of you who are simpy copied in to this letter should know that the original programme had three white scholars, two of whom are pretty openly pro-empire, and one token black man, until the BBC were told at the last minute that they should ferry in an Indian woman so they could look 'balanced' and 'fair'. Then they didn't like what they heard: the pliant Oriental woman they had hoped for didn't turn up, so they quickly ferried one in for the evening to recover lost ground.

Nevertheless, I shall take some heart from the scores of emails that have flooded in to me thanking me for challenging Ferguson's biases and egregious theory. You really think that we should take two centuries of exploitation, war, famines and immiseration and do some sort of clinical 'balance sheet'? Well, we did. And as Robert said, it came out negative. Doing another 20 pro-empire programmes with a gaggle of Indian women willing to echo what you want them to say aren't going to change that, but do go ahead and give it your best.

I told Victoria I would be happy to come on again. Allow me to withdraw that offer firmly and unconditionally. I'm an academic, not a paid monkey.

Shame on you!


Dr Priyamvada Gopal
University Senior Lecturer
Faculty of English
Cambridge


You can listen to the show here. I think, having listened to this, that the real sleaze ball in this show is Niall Ferguson, who manages to insinuate his white, male superiority in several oleaginous ways. It isn't easy to quantify, but there are some repellent moments wherein he simply finds himself incapable of listening - everything someone else says is 'silly', 'no one' takes it 'seriously'. His views are backed up by the immense authority of being the son of colonists in Kenya, of being the self-confident, swaggering white man sans jodphurs. One hears him sneeringly put down the uppity natives several times, each time with increasing arrogance. He plays fast and loose with his rhetoric: rejecting the 'label' of a defender of empire, before going on to apologise for it in the most crude fashion possible; pretending not to take a moral view on empire, but then valorising it; pretending not to engage in utopianism, but buttressing his support for empire with various dystopias; pretending not to be nostalgic for empire (he must assume that no one reads his books, with their reminiscences about his 'magical' childhood - would that it were so), then going on to enthuse about its achievements and bemoaning its fall; insisting that Britain acquired its empire in a fit of absent-mindedness, before going on to lay out the strategic, premeditated character of empire-building etc. There's a curious defense of empire raised - when they die, they go through their bloodiest, most violent periods. And therefore? And therefore, one assumes, they mustn't be terminated. Ferguson asserts that colonial nationalist movements played no part in the downfall of the British Empire, "heroic though they, er, well, some of them were". Well, this bears some thinking about. Ferguson's preferred explanation is that Hitler brought the British state to near bankruptcy. One assumes if that explanation wasn't available, the relative economic decline from the 1870s might have sufficed. If not that, then a failure of nerve, a lack of commitment, a liberal betrayal - what is absolutely clear is that he prefers whatever explanation denies the natives any proper agency, any real capacity to affect change. Indeed, his account of empire omits so much of the experience of those who were its subjects, and his enthusiasm for it pays no attention to any preference they might have - indeed is openly dismissive of the only two individuals in the debate who come from colonial backgrounds. He is simply incredulous that they might have a different take to he on their experience and those with whom they share a history. Niall Ferguson may once have been an historian, but he is not one now. He is an unabashed, paid apologist for the new American Empire, and the sheer duplicity, the smirking glibness, the cheap macho swagger, the torsions of rhetoric and the condescending sneer are all symptoms of this.

12:35:00 pm | Permalink | Comments thread | | Print | Digg | del.icio.us | reddit | StumbleUpon | diigo it Tweet| Share| Flattr this

Search via Google

Info

Richard Seymour

Richard Seymour's Wiki

Richard Seymour: information and contact

Richard Seymour's agent

RSS

Twitter

Tumblr

Pinterest

Academia

Storify

Donate

corbyn_9781784785314-max_221-32100507bd25b752de8c389f93cd0bb4

Against Austerity cover

Subscription options

Flattr this

Recent Comments

Powered by Disqus

Recent Posts

Subscribe to Lenin's Tomb
Email:

Lenosphere

Archives

September 2001

June 2003

July 2003

August 2003

September 2003

October 2003

November 2003

December 2003

January 2004

February 2004

March 2004

April 2004

May 2004

June 2004

July 2004

August 2004

September 2004

October 2004

November 2004

December 2004

January 2005

February 2005

March 2005

April 2005

May 2005

June 2005

July 2005

August 2005

September 2005

October 2005

November 2005

December 2005

January 2006

February 2006

March 2006

April 2006

May 2006

June 2006

July 2006

August 2006

September 2006

October 2006

November 2006

December 2006

January 2007

February 2007

March 2007

April 2007

May 2007

June 2007

July 2007

August 2007

September 2007

October 2007

November 2007

December 2007

January 2008

February 2008

March 2008

April 2008

May 2008

June 2008

July 2008

August 2008

September 2008

October 2008

November 2008

December 2008

January 2009

February 2009

March 2009

April 2009

May 2009

June 2009

July 2009

August 2009

September 2009

October 2009

November 2009

December 2009

January 2010

February 2010

March 2010

April 2010

May 2010

June 2010

July 2010

August 2010

September 2010

October 2010

November 2010

December 2010

January 2011

February 2011

March 2011

April 2011

May 2011

June 2011

July 2011

August 2011

September 2011

October 2011

November 2011

December 2011

January 2012

February 2012

March 2012

April 2012

May 2012

June 2012

July 2012

August 2012

September 2012

October 2012

November 2012

December 2012

January 2013

February 2013

March 2013

April 2013

May 2013

June 2013

July 2013

August 2013

September 2013

October 2013

November 2013

December 2013

January 2014

February 2014

March 2014

April 2014

May 2014

June 2014

July 2014

August 2014

September 2014

October 2014

November 2014

December 2014

January 2015

February 2015

March 2015

April 2015

May 2015

June 2015

July 2015

August 2015

September 2015

October 2015

December 2015

March 2016

April 2016

May 2016

June 2016

July 2016

August 2016

September 2016

October 2016

November 2016

December 2016

January 2017

February 2017

March 2017

April 2017

May 2017

June 2017

July 2017

August 2017

Dossiers

Hurricane Katrina Dossier

Suicide Bombing Dossier

Iraqi Resistance Dossier

Haiti Dossier

Christopher Hitchens Dossier

Organic Intellectuals

Michael Rosen

Left Flank

Necessary Agitation

China Miéville

Je Est Un Autre

Verso

Doug Henwood

Michael Lavalette

Entschindet und Vergeht

The Mustard Seed

Solomon's Minefield

3arabawy

Sursock

Left Now

Le Poireau Rouge

Complex System of Pipes

Le Colonel Chabert [see archives]

K-Punk

Faithful to the Line

Jews Sans Frontieres

Institute for Conjunctural Research

The Proles

Infinite Thought

Critical Montages

A Gauche

Histologion

Wat Tyler

Ken McLeod

Unrepentant Marxist

John Molyneux

Rastî

Obsolete

Bureau of Counterpropaganda

Prisoner of Starvation

Kotaji

Through The Scary Door

Historical Materialism

1820

General, Your Tank is a Powerful Vehicle

Fruits of our Labour

Left I on the News

Organized Rage

Another Green World

Climate and Capitalism

The View From Steeltown

Long Sunday

Anti-dialectics

Empire Watch [archives]

Killing Time [archives]

Ob Fusc [archives]

Apostate Windbag [archives]

Alphonse [archives]

Dead Men Left [dead, man left]

Bat [archives]

Bionic Octopus [archives]

Keeping the Rabble in Line [archives]

Cliffism [archives]

Antiwar

Antiwar.com

Antiwar.blog

Osama Saeed

Dahr Jamail

Angry Arab

Desert Peace

Abu Aardvark

Juan Cole

Baghdad Burning

Collective Lounge

Iraqi Democrats Against the Occupation

Unfair Witness [archive]

Iraq Occupation & Resistance Report [archive]

Socialism

Socialist Workers Party

Socialist Aotearoa

Globalise Resistance

Red Pepper

Marxists

New Left Review

Socialist Review

Socialist Worker

World Socialist Website

Left Turn

Noam Chomsky

South Africa Keep Left

Monthly Review

Morning Star

Radical Philosophy

Blogger
blog comments powered by Disqus