TBOTSS and colonialism

Alice K. Turner · 25 May 2002, 00:08 · from urth-v0205.mbox · original

This is the message as the crawl holds it, before anything here touched it. What the conversation shows has been through ingest: transfer encodings decoded, attachments dropped, quote markers repaired, and the archiver’s ? resolved into quotation marks and dashes. Those repairs are judgements and some of them are wrong, which is what this page is for. Email addresses are obscured here as they are everywhere else on the site, so it is before our repairs rather than byte for byte.

From: "Alice K. Turner" <aturner6 at nyc.rr.com>
Subject: Re: (urth) TBOTSS and colonialism
Date: Fri, 24 May 2002 20:08:49 -0400
Message-ID: <urth-v0205-1080 at digest.urth.net>
X-Urthmirror-Source: http://www.urth.net/urth/archives/v0205/1080.txt.shtml
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

> Alga wrote:
>
> > > At the least, I'd say the inhumi are evil in the sense that a thing
> > > might be called evil (atom bombs, torture devices, pornographic
movies,
> > > crack coccaine, a computer virus)...
>
> and Matthew Malthouse replied:
>
> > I don't agree with you.  This suggest that evil can be inherant
> > in an object.  I don't believe that it can: evil may in the
> > intent of those who created such things or those wo employ them
> > but not in the inanimate and unaware.
>
> Matthew: while I may (and in fact do) disagree with one or more of
> the items in Alga's list, she's using a perfectly reasonable sense
> of the word "evil" -- If you will consult your Funk&Wagnall ...
> well, all right, make it your online Merriam-Webster (conveniently
> located at http://www.m-w.com/netdict.htm), you will find the
> following (slightly edited by me to save space and improve
> format):
[snip, sorry, but you can look it up]

That wasn't my list and the current format of the Urth list makes it too
difficult to go back to find who it was. I insisted on the paradigm of the
scorpion and the frog, that the inhumu cannot help his nature and thus is
arguably *not* "evil," as a lion who kills an antelope is not evil. I said
that I would enjoy, in a debate, taking the position that they are not evil.
We get to know four of them very well: Quetzal, Krait, Fava and Jahlee, All
of them struggle against their nature. (I can't help thinking of Quetzal wrt
the current brouhaha re Catholic priests, has this struck anyone else? But I
remind you that he tried very hard to stick to beef tea.) These are vivid
characters; Wolfe was interested in them.

-alga

--=20

An unofficial mirror of a public mailing list · about & removal requests · download the archive · before the list · original archive at urth.net