The intimacies of four continents by Lisa Lowe and a small place by Jamaica Kincaid

The intimacies of four continents by Lisa Lowe and a small place by Jamaica Kincaid

I perceived Kincaid as a contrasting reading to Lowe because of its very different style. Kincaid’s story can function as an example Lowe uses to prove her arguments; therefore, overlaps are obvious. Lowe investigates the bigger picture though. She examines the connections of the global power structures cross-culturally, based on historical development and events. Colonialism, slavery, imperial trades and Western liberalism within Europe, Africa, Asia, and the Americas in the late eighteenth, and early nineteenth centuries are being connected.

Kincaid one the other hand is the voice of one of the victims of these political mechanisms. I think Lowe is as enlightening as Kincaid, but also very dense and theoretical. Kincaid appealed more to my emotions. Especially Kincaids descriptions of the treatment after the British arrived on Antiqua are shocking, but the very grounded, almost childish perspective Kincaid uses to narrate about her experiences makes you automatically ask the following key questions, questions that are similar to what Lowe brings up.

Lowe shows that freedom and liberalism are constructed on exclusiveness, and are therefore only available to selected people. Ideas like citizenship are created to accomplish differentiation based on inequalities and hierarchy. Kincaid is a particular case showing how these exact mechanisms where executed.

Lowe’s word choice to describe these intercultural interweaving as intimacies is especially interesting, as the usage of the word is rather common in private spheres. Her word choice therefore emphasizes how close these international connections are. She frames her claims in a larger, global picture, which has not been done before in this format. Some definitions and word choices did not became clear to me, but Lowe made me understand how individual experiences are just the outcome of international politics based on differentiation and exclusiveness, which would be the main point to my understanding.

She therefore encourages me to open my eyes to read more between the lines. This point brings me back to Kincaids introduction, which was the only part of the read that I had problems to deal with. The typical tourist is described with features of ignorance and narrow-mindedness. Even though Kincaid managed to raise my interest for the book, I felt offended because I in particular do not travel like that. So who does she exactly address? Her remarks are in the end based on stereotypes, generalizations and assumptions. This is especially problematic, as this is one of her critiques towards the British. A general statement that can be made is that prejudices towards anybody will never have any positive impact.