Message-ID: <970201180754_1994783549@emout02.mail.aol.com> Date: Sat, 1 Feb 1997 18:07:55 -0500 From: mailto:EUNSteve@AOL.COM> Subject: Re: THEORY: Shall I accept this consulting assignment? To: mailto:DEVEL-L@AMERICAN.EDU
In a message dated 97-02-01 13:18:28 EST, mailto:astingsh@ksu.edu (kerry miller) writes:<< Whether the present moment is the one on which to make a stand is the only 'ambiguity.'
Consider this instead of your absolute: it's the only ambiguity you see. I see others, and other observers will see ambiguities that elude me.
> If I refuse to help, am I not one version of the Ugly American trying to
tell > the natives what to do with their country?
That's a pretty strange interpretation, if I may say so!>>
You may of course say so.
You of course might consider that you might be wrong. Possible?
One of the points of my message is the ambiguity of a notion which many here find transparently clear: listen to the indigenous and "develop" as they propose, see they know what is best for them and their culture.
I am suggesting that listening to the locals may conflict with other "imperatives" proposed here, like safeguarding the local culture against "modernization" and "capitalism".
If the authorized and legal representatives of a nation and a culture ask for my help and I refuse it as you propose I can be considered as much of an interventionist, as much of a rejection of local wishes as the Ugly American who brings into the country Colonel Sanders and begins the process of Cocoa Colaization.
More so, perhaps.
That is: refusing to serve as the indigenous propose is also a form of patronizing and thwarting the locals. It says, I the educated intellectual know better than you what's best for your country and authentic culture, and you've got it all wrong, so I won't go along with you.
Is that interpretation too ambiguous?
Steve Eskow >>