I want to lead this post with the fact
that I am enjoying Annapurna. Herzog
is much more likeable than I expected when reading Devies’s fanboy preface. The
imagery of the landscape and insight into what it means to have this kind of
expedition are quite moving, and the fortitude of the group is inspiring. That
being said, Herzog and I still have some issues to work through.
The foremost issue and topic of this
post is his confidence in the ethnographic area of the Expedition. His sweeping
statements regarding what reputations certain ethnic groups hold and his ease
in playing the role of the foreign superior before the porters. He more than
once assumes the mantle of the “dignified and lordly” before the locals and
porters, only to feel “a bit ashamed” for behaving so highhandedly (36).
Despite his shame, the experience is repeated, with Herzog using the classic
colonial style superiority to “deal” with the Tibetans and Nepalese.
The note of cultural superiority that
weaves through the narrative strikes a different sort of discord from that
created by the challenges presented by the extremes of the mountains. Herzog is
unafraid to label the Nepalese culture and people as primitive, and goes so far
as to wonder if a group of locals in Manangbhot are cannibals (48). For a man
enlightened enough, or perhaps condescending enough, to call Buddhism “one of
the wisest and most beautiful of all religions,” Herzog shows a remarkable
capacity to fall into the same cultural assumptions of European explorers of
centuries past.
When they encounter the Tibetan
dancers, Herzog gives this analysis: “Its beauty was rough and primitive, for a
dance always reflects the spirit of a people” (19). It is this careless
reflection of an assumed hierarchy of peoples that disrupted my voyage up
Annapurna.
No comments:
Post a Comment