Being of very modest income in India you can still afford "servants", in
fact one to wash your clothes, another to clean house, and depending
on circumstances one to grind spices and cook. The last one is of special
significance, especially of orthodox Hindus, albeit much less so today.
Cheers, Anthony
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Anthony P. D'Costa
Associate Professor Ph: (253) 692-4462
Comparative International Development Fax: (253) 692-5718
University of Washington Box Number: 358436
1900 Commerce Street
Tacoma, WA 98402, USA
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On Thu, 24 May 2001, Doug Henwood wrote:
> Date: Thu, 24 May 2001 13:29:27 -0400
> From: Doug Henwood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: [PEN-L:12125] Re: Re: A reply to Ellen Meiksins Wood
>
> Yoshie Furuhashi wrote:
>
> >Ricardo is implying that if you are born rich in the Third World,
> >you are of necessity forever trapped in the aristocratic ideology of
> >enjoying leisure & dependence upon servants, moreover endorsing the
> >social relations that give you many servants who wait upon you,
> >whatever your political commitment (to Marxism, feminism, world
> >systems theory, etc.).
>
> At a talk in NYC last year, Spivak said she did not come from a rich
> family, and thought that people who said so were trying to undermine
> her reputation. She hypothesized that it was ok when she was focusing
> on Third World women, but when she started talking about political
> economy, she was stepping on the toes of the Big Boys, who resented
> her for the transgression, and so started spreading rumors.
>
> Doug
>
>
