From: ahmed-shakil@CS.YALE.EDU (Shakil Waiz Ahmed)
Subject: Re: Prejudiced eyes (was: london and the mai'm)
Organization: Yale University, Department of Computer Science
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 1992 19:15:48 GMT


In article <1992Apr17.090651.6667@cs.yale.edu>, mahmud-mehdi@CS.YALE.EDU (Mehdi Mahmud) writes:
> 
> In article <1992Apr16.203122.873@cs.yale.edu>, ahmed-shakil@CS.YALE.EDU (Shakil Waiz Ahmed) writes:

> >I don't think you're being fair on Zeeshan by accusing him of looking
> >at London through "prejudiced eyes."  To begin with, his comments were
> >directed at someone who was relating his superlative expectations of
> >London, the capital of the "glorious" British empire.  
> 
> 	That would be the article by Mr. Abdur Khan. I have reproduced
> it below, and I would be enlightened if you would point out the references
> to the ** glorious ** British empire. Personally, I could find none!
> 
> 	For someone who is vehemently opposed to misquoting (re: Debates
> on Islam), selective quoting, and misrepresentation (intentional or not),
> you seem to be blissfully unaware of your own peccadillos regarding
> unethical methods of debate.

Turning *this* into a flame war is completely unnecessary.  Regarding
misquoting, I didn't quote Abdur Khan, but was quoting a favorite term
of the British.

> >Like Zeeshan, I
> >do not understand the continuous insistence of South Asians to look
> >upon the British as something more than human, and to expect the
> >onetime seat of the British empire to be the Utopian capital that the
> >Brits liked to portray as they toured the world during their
> >systematic economical rape of various colonies.  At times it does seem
> >like the attempts of the British to teach all their "subjects" that
> >they were inferior to the colonizers left permanent damage in South
> >Asia.
> 
> 	Where is all this psychological evaluation, reminiscent of 
> Mr. Anil Trivedi's notions of "mental slavery", coming from? 
> If you begin with the premise that Mr. Khan was "relating his 
> superlative expectations of London, the capital of the "glorious" 
> British empire" (as you put it), then perhaps your thoughts, inferences, 
> and conclusions might lead somewhere. However, since your premise 
> is incorrect... 

I don't think this requires further elaboration.  Abdur Khan's article
said:

Khan>Landing in london was like a dream come true, i have finally landed in 
Khan>the capiol of the british empire it is like going to pilgrimage. An 
Khan>awesome expierence !!!!!!!!

If you're honest about it, I think we'll agree that many South Asians
still suffer from this attitude.

> 	Hmmm...I wonder where you got that one from! I'll quote it again:
> 
>      "...homeless people roaming the streets in numbers that are 
>       unparalleled anywhere else in Europe."
>       ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> 	Would you be able to provide some figures? I think perhaps Spain,
> Poland, or Ireland would be heading that list.

Just for the record, Spain has had one of the two highest growth rates
in Europe for many years now, and the economy has been booming.
"Homelessness" is not the first thing that crosses my mind when
thinking of Spain.  Almost every other country in Europe has a more
reliable welfare system than the UK, which is why you are likely to
see more homeless on the streets of London.  Having lived in Europe
for my whole life, I had much opportunity to see the various
countries, and I maintain that the image of homelessness is not as
dominant anywhere as in London.  Unemployment need not lead to
homelessness -- that's where the welfare system steps in, which is why
many European countries have high unemployment rates, but low
homelessness.

> >One really has to get to know London well before one
> >begins appreciating what "wonderfulness" it may have to offer.  To a
> >visitor, the impression Zeeshan relates above is inevitable and is not
>  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> >indicative of "prejudiced eyes."
> 
> 	Well, since Mr. Abdur Khan (from arkay@leland.stanford.edu), 
> Mr. Swaminathan Sureshchandran (from suresh@fred.cis.udel.edu), 
> Mr. Shahriar Khan (from s0k5099@zeus.tamu.edu), and myself (forgive me 
> if I missed anyone else who contributed to this topic) were obviously 
> *visitors* in London, surely the impressions of Zeeshan are not 
> *inevitable*?

I don't think anyone could deny that there *are* dark and gloomy
buildings in London and that there are a large number of homeless.
Neither Zeeshan nor I said that there is nothing else London can
offer.  Indeed, as a bustling metropolis, there is something to just
about anyone's liking in the city.

> 	As you put it, "London is a beautiful city in many ways," and I think 
> it is unfortunate that Mr. Zeeshan should choose to remember the squalor
> of the place rather than its beauty. Whatever the case, it is my opinion that
> he has not retained a fair or accurate idea of London, and I stand by my 
> statement that his is a "prejudiced" point of view.

Since Zeeshan did not make any statements on any of the other
characteristics of the city, I felt you demonstrated an unnecessary
urge to flame by unfairly picking on his stating the superficial
first impressions that London inevitably leaves upon a visitor.

> 	Indeed, Mr Swaminathan Sureshchandran said it best:
> 
> >You [Z] seem to imply that we should not admire London because the British
> >were colonialists. This is a very narrow minded approach. There are
> >people who subscribe to this, and it is logical in its own way, but then
> >what is past is past. People still visit the old monuments in Rome, even
> >though the slave labour on which they were built is illegal now. People
> >still admire the Taj Mahal, even though it may have been the product of
> >a Muslim rule which imposed taxes on Hindus for the sin of being non-
> >Muslim. Great achievements of the past must be judged by themselves, not
> >ridiculed because our views have evolved with time.

It's interesting that you should pick this particular quote which says
that Muslims "imposed taxes on Hindus for the sin of being
non-Muslim."  The tax had nothing to do with "sin."  At any rate, I
don't think anyone claimed that London should *not* be admired.  The
point of the matter is that it is ridiculous for South Asians to look
upon the British as being more than human and to thus expect London to
be a superlative city.  It is one thing to appreciate London for what
it is, and to enjoy the wealth of attractions that it offers.  It is
something totally different to *assume* that it should be a city of
magnificence simply because of an inferiority complex that many South
Asians still have not gotten over.

Asif, I know you have been practicing hard, but if you're going to
flame, do it in style -- picking pointless arguments for the sake of
arguing is un-PC. ;)

-- Shakil