I was in one of my graduate seminar classes the other day, and we were discussing the last half of a book called The Birth of the Modern World, 1780-1914, by C. A. Bayly. It is an ambitious work, in which the author argues that globalization should not be looked at as a Eurocentric idea, but as something that all the peoples of the world participated in (although some may have done so reluctantly).
If I have identified his thesis correctly, then I must conclude that he did a pretty good job at supporting his argument.
However, everyone has their own agendas when reading books, which may not always be the same as the author's agenda for writing it. Bayly wanted to prove that everyone, world powers and native peoples alike, all participated in some way in this globalization of the world. But my agenda in reading his book was to see how he portrayed native peoples, specifically Hawaiians.
And in that, he did not fare well.
In our class discussion, most agreed that he did prove his argument. (I can't say that everyone agreed, because some simply did not speak up...is a blank vote equivalent to a "no"?) However, I argued that his book is actually supporting the Eurocentric view. He focuses on the world powers and their movements and motivations, and inserts comments here and there about the native communities, as a way of showing the reader, "hey, look at me! I know a little bit about everything!"
The thing is, I wouldn't have had such questionable thoughts about his work if he hadn't made any comments about Hawaiʻi. But he did, and they were wrong. Because of that, I absolutely had to start questioning all of the other statements he made about native peoples. How many of those comments are wrong, and I just don't know enough about those cultures to realize it?
The comment that we used as an example for class discussion is on page 438, and reads: "...well-placed chieftain families were able to make fortunes from the sale of sandalwood and other exotic produce which was bound for both European and Chinese consumer markets. These notables spent their wealth on exaggerated versions of feasting and royal consumption, with which they had traditionally marked themselves out from the commoners."
While technicalities make parts of this statement correct, the overall sense that a reader gets from this is that our chiefs were greedy and selfish.
Well, if your entire realm of understanding comes from what you know about European kings, then I guess you would think that about ours.
Oh, and by the way, the author does not cite where he got this information from.
I mention this last point because, after pointing out to the class how this statement about Hawaiʻi was very misleading, about half the class proceeded to excuse the author, believing that he simply didn't know that he was quoting erroneous information. They further explained that, because he didn't know it was wrong, we shouldn't fault him for it.
But I believe that it is his fault. That's why historians use footnotes in the first place! If you're going to use information that you got from someone else, then you tell the reader where you got it from. And, if the information is wrong, only then can the reader excuse the author for using it.
What I focused on, however, is the fact that irresponsible authors have been publishing things about us for 200 years now, and unknowing readers have been accepting all of these untruths as fact. Those few who find out about the errors have done the same thing that this class did - excuse the author for his mistake, claiming that he simply didn't know any better.
Well, 200 years of excuses has only led to the continued misinterpretation and misrepresentation of all native peoples and their cultures.
No more excuses.
We need more authoritative works by people of our own cultures. Hawaiians, hurry up and write!
No comments:
Post a Comment