Three days ago Mary Beard mused aloud on Twitter.
Of course one can’t condone the (alleged) behaviour of Oxfam staff in Haiti and elsewhere. But I do wonder how hard it must be to sustain “civilised” values in a disaster zone. And overall I still respect those who go in to help out, where most of us wd not tread.
— mary beard (@wmarybeard) February 16, 2018
And lo, there was a pile-on. (I read Jon Ronson’s So You’ve Been Publicly Shamed a couple of months ago. I recommend it.) There are currently 828 replies.
She attempted to clarify her point many times but most of the pilers weren’t listening.
Goodnight all. I am amazed that after decades of Lord of the Flies being a gcse English set book we haven’t got the point about the breakdown of morality in danger zones!! Just saying and this is NOT to condone the actions of a few aid workers.
— mary beard (@wmarybeard) February 16, 2018
It’s surely a genuine issue. In one reply she said: “I do not like the tone of some of the criticism here which suggests an overwhelming confidence that our own morality would survive through thick and thin.” Her point was about what happens to people in desperate situations, and about judging such people from a safe and comfortable distance. It’s the kind of issue Orwell liked to take on. But it was taken as something much cruder, something that could be summed up with lashings of “white feminist” and “colonialism.”
Later she tried again.
Let me give a less fraught example. I once asked a class of students what they wd have done if they had lived in occupied France. They all said they wd have joined the Resistance. The logic of statistics suggests the majority wd have been collaborators or kept their heads down.
— mary beard (@wmarybeard) February 17, 2018
Ah yes, just as students asked about the Milgram experiment all confidently say they would have stopped pushing the button, when in fact only a minority did stop. The students can’t all be right.
The truth is we don’t know how we would behave in emergencies we’ve never had to deal with. Judging harshly from a very great distance is easy but not all that fair.
Some got it, which is reassuring.
I've thought about that in a similar context: what would I have done to fight against slavery if I lived in pre-Civil War USA? Well, there's still slavery now, so presumably what I'm doing now.
— Graeme Edgeler (@GraemeEdgeler) February 17, 2018
Primo Levi in The Drowned & the Saved is v good on distance between modern well-fed, clothed & unfrightened students accustomed to democracy & people dismantled in the past by accretion via law & fear.
— Professor Amanda Vickery (@Amanda_Vickery) February 17, 2018
But many simply put the boot in, and one of the bootiest was another (less well-known) Cambridge academic, Priyamvada Gopal. She created a pretty intense pile-on all by herself, with lashings of extra venom.
Predictably enough, now we have the Innocent White Feminist Trying Hard to be Nuanced and Reasonable only to be Shut Down by Foaming Snowflake Unreasonable Crude People of Colour and Allies who are All About Howwid Howwid Rectitude. @wmarybeard thanks. I'll respond in due course.
— Priyamvada Gopal © (@PriyamvadaGopal) February 17, 2018
I’ve written a few posts about Gopal over the years, starting all the way back in 2007, when she was sticking the boot in Salman Rushdie, with equal venom and lack of accuracy. June 18th 2007:
Sir Salman, on the other hand, is partly the creation of the fatwa…The Sir Salman recognised for his services to literature is certainly no neocon but is iconic of a more pernicous trend: liberal literati who have assented to the notion that humane values, tolerance and freedom are fundamentally western ideas that have to be defended as such.
No he isn’t, no he doesn’t, no they haven’t. That’s crap. What they’ve assented to (the liberal ones – if they haven’t they’re not liberal) is the opposite: that humane values, tolerance and freedom are universal ideas that have to be defended as such, and that claiming they are a monopoly of any one region or nation or ethnic group is highly illiberal as well as dangerous.
Lisa Appignanesi gives Priyamvada Gopal one in the eye though.
During the dark years of the Fatwa, Rushdie lent his fame to help less well-known writers around the world who suffered similar fates or found themselves persecuted either by states or religious hierarchies for their work. As a vice-president of English Pen, the world association of writers, and for some years president of American Pen, he worked indefatigably for the cause of free expression, joining with us here to combat the worst excesses of the government’s “religious hatred” legislation. Perhaps in awarding him this honour, the government has also come to recognise the crucial importance of a freedom which underpins so many others. Rushdie’s “services to literature” also extend to a singular generosity in helping young, and particularly Asian, writers make their way in what is often a difficult literary marketplace.
Universal values, universal liberal values, not western, not European, not white. Universal. Think about it, Priyamvada Gopal.
Nearly 11 years later she’s still not thinking about it.