[ilds] Retirement Age during the British Raj

Bruce Redwine bredwine1968 at earthlink.net
Thu Oct 22 16:34:53 PDT 2015


I’m not saying you do, David, but some do indeed find Durrell’s representations of Greeks patronizing, even caricatures.  I heard a talk on that very subject in Vancouver.  On the other hand, using that same criteria, one might call Zorba the Greek, Kazantzakis’s well-known creation, a caricature of Greeks, but I don’t see that comparison being raised.  Nor with Jules Dassin’s Never on Sunday.  Like Kazantzakis, Dassin and Mercouri were also famous Greeks.  So I think Durrell should be given a break:  the kind of break Edward Said does not give Lawrence Durrell.

Bruce



> On Oct 22, 2015, at 3:40 PM, Denise Tart & David Green <dtart at bigpond.net.au> wrote:
> 
> although born in India, Durrell doesn't, to my knowledge write about the orient much at all. And by orient I mean India and Asia, not the Middle East or Egypt. Said, I imagine, disliked Durrell's comments about Egypt and possibly his lack of academic credentials. Others find Durrell's portrayal of Greeks as patronising, comic characters or stock in trade figures. Although he is critical of the colonial administration on Cyprus, one can argue that Durrell sometimes sees the world through a privileged western lens, coloured with a colonial tinge. Certainly he was seen as an imperialists on Cyprus. 
> 
> David
> 
> Sent from my iPad
> 
> On 23 Oct 2015, at 7:48 am, Bruce Redwine <bredwine1968 at earthlink.net <mailto:bredwine1968 at earthlink.net>> wrote:
> 
>> My sense is that normal retirement age in the U.S. has (always?) been age sixty-five.  But I may be wrong.  The U.S. Social Security Act of 1934 set retirement at sixty-five.  Dunno about the UK.  Edward Said’s point is quite tendentious.  It has nothing to do with average lifespan.  His main point is that “Orientalism,” by his definition, is an attitude, concept, or policy that enforces the will of the strong on the weak and that it illustrates Western/Occidental prejudices about Eastern/Oriental subjects.  It is also inhumane.  In short, the British governments retirement age of fifty-five is an aspect of Western imperialism, political and cultural, as Said’s statement shows.  By the way, Said was extremely hostile to Durrell, so much so that he refused to even discuss him in any serious way.
>> 
>> Bruce
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> On Oct 22, 2015, at 12:15 PM, William Apt <billyapt at gmail.com <mailto:billyapt at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>> 
>>> In the States the typical retirement age used to be 55 not that long ago, as late as the 1960s or 70s. Its likely a simple answer: people didn't used to live as long. And because people also didn't used to be as health conscious and exercise regularly, they aged or degenerated faster. 
>>> 
>>> On Thu, Oct 22, 2015 at 1:23 PM, Bruce Redwine <bredwine1968 at earthlink.net <mailto:bredwine1968 at earthlink.net>> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Does anyone have an opinion why the Brits made fifty-five the retirement age for their civil servants in India during the nineteenth century?  In Orientalism (1978), Edward W. Said claims they did this so that, “no Oriental was ever allowed see a Westerner as he aged and degenerated” (p. 42).  Said cites as a source V. G. Kiernan, The Lords of Human Kind:  Black Man, Yellow Man, and White Man in the Age of Empire (1969).  In a website, Sinn Fein makes the same claim in the same language.
>>> 
>>> My sense, however, based on my experiences in Singapore (which followed the Brit tradition of retirement at fifty-five), was that Brits (on the average) did not fare well in tropical climates and had high mortality rates due to heat, disease, and too much gin.  So, they retired at fifty-five because they didn’t have many years left.  By fifty-five, they were on their “last legs” and already “degenerate” in Said’s sense.
>>> 
>>> Compare Dane Kennedy’s The Magic Mountains:  Hill Stations of the British Raj (Berkeley, U of California P, 1996).  Kennedy writes, “That British sojourners had ample reason to fear for their lives is borne out by mortality statistics; the cost of entry into these new and rich disease environments was high” (p. 19).  I lean towards Kennedy’s statement as an explanation.  Does Durrell discuss this issue anywhere?
>>> 
>>> There must be a definitive and authoritative answer to this question somewhere in the record.
>>> 
>>> Bruce
>>> 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.uvic.ca/pipermail/ilds/attachments/20151022/f7717fd4/attachment.html>


More information about the ILDS mailing list