tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5657459.post110059302834940367..comments2023-09-09T17:41:33.146+03:00Comments on HISTOLOGION: taloshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13680864841710474232noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5657459.post-1104160002142111372004-12-27T17:06:00.000+02:002004-12-27T17:06:00.000+02:00old comments
Doug Muir:
Putting aside the rac...<B>old comments</B> <br /><br /><br />Doug Muir:<br /><br />Putting aside the racism and so forth, there's still a mouth-breathing Yellow Peril aspect to this, which Engels uses to gloss over some unfortunate inaccuracies.<br /><br />Frex, overseas Chinese were not much affected by Chinese nationalism. (Very broadly speaking, they never have been, excepting a brief period around the turn of the last century.) And Singapore was not "held down by main force and vigilance" in 1857, or indeed at any time under British rule. It was a peaceful (and highly lucrative) trading post.<br /><br />Presumably Engels is talking about Singapore's decadence and crime. Which was notorious; in the 19th and early 20th century, it was known as Sin-galore. The post-colonial leadership cleaned it up a lot — wiped out the gangs, the drug trade, the human trafficking, and most of the brothels, legalized or wiped out the gambling and the smuggling, and cut crime by something like 98%, to the point where Singapore is safer (and cleaner) than Switzerland. Although there are still a few skiffy bits if you know just where to look. And then of course there's Johor Baru…<br /><br />…Ahem. Point is, it looks like Engels is (almost certainly deliberately) conflating several completely unrelated things together. He takes Singapore's deserved reputation as a nest of crime, sleaze, and dirty fun, plus a couple of well-publicized episodes of Chinese coolies rioting on dangerous, overcrowded transport ships, plus the completely unrelated Chinese uprising on Sarawak (a protest against Brooke's favoring of the Malays, with no connection to anything happening in China at the time), and he throws it all into the mix as part of the — breathe heavily through mouth, here — /general uprising of the Chinaman!!/<br /><br />He did that sort of thing a lot, which is why you have to read him really carefully. Though he's a better and more interesting writer than Marx any day of any week of any year, no question. But, well, it's a bit like reading Thomas Friedman. If Engels were alive today, he'd be talking to imaginary taxi drivers all the damn time, I suspect.<br /><br />Oh yeah: if I were an Iraqi, I would not find this an encouraging analogy, at all. "Hey guys, only eighty more years of foreign occupation!"<br /><br />Doug M.<br /><br />2004-11-16 10:51<br />talos:<br /><br />Heh! one of the nice things about having a blog, is the chance you get to learn stuff from people vastly more knowledgable on various issues than you are… Thanks Doug.<br /><br />Though, c'mon, Thomas Friedman?! apart from the mixed metaphors, the poor logic etc. the guy is one of the dullest writers in any language (something Engels was not).<br /><br />Marx on the other hand was less prone to writing about stuff he didn't know… I wouldn't say he was a boring writer though… And he had a sarcastic streak which is still delightful to read.<br /><br />2004-11-16 12:35<br />Doug Muir:<br /><br />Mm, point. As I think about it, the Thomas Friedman analogy would apply to Marx better than Engels. (Hey, they both liked inappropriate metaphors. They both had their thinking permanently kinked by close exposure to revolutionary violence — Marx to Paris 1848-9, Friedman to Lebanon in the '80s. And Friedman /wants/ to have the sarcasm.)<br /><br />Engels… umm. Young William Safire? Wait, no, I have it: Nicholas Kristof. Bingo. Just without the cute wife.<br /><br />Or, in the blogosphere: Brad deLong and John Holbo. Yessss.<br /><br />Doug M.<br /><br />2004-11-16 13:22taloshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13680864841710474232noreply@blogger.com