<< 1 >>
Rating: 
Summary: Not the book I thought it was going to be...
Review: Dean's book examines the ambiguity of symbols inherent in the colonial experience. I often wondered-as with most historical reconstructions of "culture" and interpretations of practices long lost from memory-if there was enough "evidence" to make the claims she makes about the representation of sub-alterity. On the one hand, the Indian appears to constructing a colonial self through his/her dress, decoration, mannerisms, artistic expressive forms (such as dance or architecture), etc. But on the other hand, s/he is engaged in the hegemonic forces of "being Indian" within the dominant colonialist ideology. The question is, to what extent did the Indian have the freedom to make choices about dress, dance, decoration, etc. and to what extent was the image of the Indian under the control and creation of the colonialist/church?I think the pressing need for an academic to take a "politically correct" stance in this day and age must sadly override the ability to present the honest truth in the case of colonial subjectivity. Allowing the indigenous people to speak for themselves is questionable in the case of iconic representation. For instance, where are the depictions of the Indians who carried the massive saints--where are these dark bodies in the paintings Dean examines. And if they are missing, why doesn't the author seem troubled by this? Read the book and decide for yourself.
Rating:
Summary: Not the book I thought it was going to be...
Review: Dean's book examines the ambiguity of symbols inherent in the colonial experience. I often wondered-as with most historical reconstructions of "culture" and interpretations of practices long lost from memory-if there was enough "evidence" to make the claims she makes about the representation of sub-alterity. On the one hand, the Indian appears to constructing a colonial self through his/her dress, decoration, mannerisms, artistic expressive forms (such as dance or architecture), etc. But on the other hand, s/he is engaged in the hegemonic forces of "being Indian" within the dominant colonialist ideology. The question is, to what extent did the Indian have the freedom to make choices about dress, dance, decoration, etc. and to what extent was the image of the Indian under the control and creation of the colonialist/church? I think the pressing need for an academic to take a "politically correct" stance in this day and age must sadly override the ability to present the honest truth in the case of colonial subjectivity. Allowing the indigenous people to speak for themselves is questionable in the case of iconic representation. For instance, where are the depictions of the Indians who carried the massive saints--where are these dark bodies in the paintings Dean examines. And if they are missing, why doesn't the author seem troubled by this? Read the book and decide for yourself.
<< 1 >>
| 
