| |
|
I know nothing about this other than what I've read in the Guardian, so if anyone is more informed I'd be v grateful if s/he shared... I'm also not great on postcolonial theory/history, so ditto there. This is as far as I've got. Please correct/expand.
There seems to be a problem of representation in the UK reportage, in the constant use of "white farmers" ("violence against white farmers", etc). According to the Guardian whites (under 1% of the population) own something like 75% of the good land in Zimbabwe, and 65% of the black population is employed by whites. Using terms like "violence against white farmers" seems to me to allow white farmers to *stand for* (represent) all the black employees and others who live and work on the land, in a very paternalistic way - it reminds me of the Roman model of the 'paterfamilias' who had rights over children, slaves, freedmen and the others who made up the 'familia'. Obviously reporting in this way covers over an enormous number of racial, gendered and classed differences in the way the violence is operating.
Often a particular term such as "woman" or "black" is used as 'representative' of a community ("Speaking as a woman... Speaking as a black person...") but this tends to cover over differences *within* a group already constituted by power differentials, ideology, whatever & etc. This use of a white head of household to 'represent' a group of people very differently constituted in terms of race, class, gender, etc, seems to be different to me.
Is this type of 'representation' common? Where else does it operate? What can be done about it? |
|
|
