Saturday, March 06, 2004
Ah, Academia
A Lefty hottie wrote this:
"My emphasis in graduate school was post-colonial literature, and Edward Said is and always will be the theorist to whom I adhere the most. The fact that he is pro-Palestinian does not make him an advocate of violent terrorist organizations that use Islam as an excuse for their brutality. (Do you blame the Catholic Church for the violence committed by the IRA, as well? I mean, there is plenty for which to blame the Church, but I don't think anyone could make a logical argument that the IRA is a "militant Catholic" organization.
Most of Said's work, for example, explored the ideological, cultural, and social consequences of colonialism. The importance of his analysis and progress in this field of this study cannot be overrated -- he has shed light on oppression of women under colonialism, postcolonial self-mutilation committed by the colonized on themselves, and the cultural loss of identity experienced by colonized societies in the aftermath of Occidental translations of the cultures they invaded.
So, I don't think you would want to talk to me about any of this. I think the Israeli government bullies and manipulates, which I am sure boils your blood. The United States is in bed with the Israelis, the Saudis, and others who are responsible for the letting of American blood, but then again if American government and military officials were so concerned about violence committed against Americans, they probably wouldn't have trained bin Ladin or installed Saddam Hussein.
So, while I am in NO way offended by your articles, it is obvious that we might be at odds, even as buddies. I am morally center and politically left, and I don't think you would be able to stand me! I would rather drink something on Fear Factor than vote for George W. Bush. With all of that said, it was refreshing to read your opinions because, after all, you are set apart from the majority by the fact that you have such strong ideas and beliefs about which you are doing something (peacefully and intelligently). I respect that immensely."
To which I reply:
Release the Hounds!
Appreciate your note. Yeah, I would have to agree we are probably not compatible; I'm afraid I just care too much about the things I care about to ever be able to "look on the bright side" with regards to Edward Said and his legacy. I appreciate his work on Jane Austen and Conrad and am the first to defend his real eloquence and command, but I wholly and utterly reject post-colonial theory as a political construct, both in practice and even the fundamental premise that the West is by definition racist and flawed. Post-colonial theory is nothing more than scapegoating writ large, a grand excuse for passing the buck and accepting no cultural responsibility for social decline. Did tyranny and imperialism hurt those countries? Of course. Eastern Europe was under Communist tyranny, and had no democratic legacy or history - yet when they were freed (by America) they chose democracy - and even fought and died under Soviet tanks for it.
You are quite correct that the IRA is not militant Christianity, it is a militant wing of a political movement, and I do not blame the Catholic church for Sinn Fein. I can most certainly - as Said might do - blame the Catholic church for the Inquisition. I can most certainly blame the Catholic church for the Crusades (or jihad, if you will) and I can most certainly call these things 'militant, or fascist Christianity'. These things occurred in Christianity's 15th century, and took courageous geniuses like Luther and Erasemus to challenge that monolithic teaching. We are now in the 15th century of Islam and we see the same corruption of the doctrine and same militancy and same need for brave geniuses. Where will they come from? There have been 12 highly educated Palestinian leaders, all brilliant, all statesmen, who rose to challenge Palestinian radicalism, and all, each one were assassinated by militant Islamic groups. When Luther challenged the Pope - 300 German dukes supported him. Where are the state actors who will support democracy in Palestine? America and Israel are the only state actors requiring democracy in Palestine. No Arab state. No Muslim group. Not the U.N.
Israel bullies and manipulates. Not to be dismissive but imagine for a second how the U.S. changed after 9/11 - those first few weeks. Imagine if we had had another attack the next week. Then another. Then another. Imagine the level of anger and sense of revenge that would permeate the country. Bush would have had carte blanche to nuke anything he wanted by Christmas. Whatever you might think of Israeli bullying - they do not sit and plan and organize military attacks on women and children, something Hamas and PIJ do every day. All day, in every school, in Palestine children are taught to honor those who target civilians, women and children, for random indiscriminate murder. Anti-Semitism is taught as fact to every Muslim child in the Arab world. Every day. In every school. Children taught to hate, and kill Jews because they are Jews.
Friend told me this:
"I had a great poli sci prof who the first day of class walked in and wrote on a piece of paper. He then told a story: there was a British colonel in India touring with his regiment. He stumbled on to a funeral of a man. The funeral pyre was prepared and the man's body was on it. Then a trussed woman, the man's still living wife was brought out to be burned with him. The prof then asked, "Does the colonel have the right to interfere with the woman's death?" Everyone started talking and saying yes, he has to - it's the moral imperative. Others said no, its against their culture to stop it and not immoral to those practicing it. The conversation got heated quickly. Then one student spoke up and said, "The British shouldn't have been there in the first place." My professor handed her the piece of paper. "That is the answer I wrote down, and it is perhaps true. But it doesn't answer the question at hand. It is a dodge. The British colonel has no such luxury of non-consequential action. He must make a decision, and act in his moral interests."
Many judges of Israel's behavior utterly forget that this is day to day life for Israel and they are quite desperate to find a solution that will allow them to live in peace.
The British were bullies in India - a harsh and extreme imperial presence, controlling finance, police, economy, everything. Gandhi defeated this with a national non-violent movement that was largely secular and humanist. Why has there never been a non-violent movement in Palestine? Israel, Sharon, there would be no possible defense against this. If every Palestinian gave up violence today, there would be no more violence. They would have a democratic state in a year with Jerusalem a split capital. They would get nearly all of their demands. The outcry against any violence by Israel in the face of this would be overwhelming. Now think for a moment if every Israel laid down their weapons today. In a few months there would be no more Israel, and the Palestinians would never get a state. It would be divided among warring Islamic factions of Hamas and PIJ and Hizbullah, and probably Syria. The Saidians of the world would lay the entire catastrophe at the feet of America, for not being involved, for not stopping the violence, for letting it all fall apart. Yet, if the U.S. got involved and stopped the violence we would then be imperialists and hegemonic. Everyone wants the police to help them, and nobody likes the cops. The CIA trained bin Laden and a host of others to fight Communists in Afghanistan, because the Nixon doctrine stated that we would support any non-Communist over a Communist. Saddam was a DEPARTURE from this plan initiated by a DEMOCRATIC President Carter, deciding that fascist Islam was actually worse than Communism. Was he right? What would a Saidian say to that? I'll tell you what they would say - "America shouldn't have been there in the first place." Perhaps true, but it doesn't answer the question. It's a dodge, sometimes a crafty eloquent dodge but a dodge nonetheless.
The Saudis are indeed sleeping with us and if they weren't Saddam Hussien would today control the entire Middle East, and 1/3 of the world's oil supply in a nuclear armed fascist Ba'athist Empire. Both the Kurds and the Jews would have been nuked in the mid nineties, Turkey would have gone Islamist, and gas would be $10 a gallon, and terrorism against Western nations would be an everyday event. America is the only reason this is not the world we live in. Imagine ANY other nation that would do more good in the world with the power we have. France? Germany? China? Even England can't deal with its rascisms in real ways.
And I voted for Gore, incidently, based mainly on the environment. I think an anti-gay ammedment is just that, anti-gay, as well as stupid, malicious and un-Christian. Civil unions are obviously protected under the 1964 Civil Rights Act. But I wholeheartedly agree with the claim by Republicans that activist judges are wrecking the system. The Massachusettes ruling was miscarriage of justice and undemocratic.
Any Democratic candidate who convinces me that they will do whatever it takes to defend the U.S. from the Islamic crusaders and their inquisitors both abroad and in our midst, that they will wake up each day looking for new ways to take the battle to the enemy, I will gladly vote for him or her.
Comments: ozymandias_1@hotmail.com
A Lefty hottie wrote this:
"My emphasis in graduate school was post-colonial literature, and Edward Said is and always will be the theorist to whom I adhere the most. The fact that he is pro-Palestinian does not make him an advocate of violent terrorist organizations that use Islam as an excuse for their brutality. (Do you blame the Catholic Church for the violence committed by the IRA, as well? I mean, there is plenty for which to blame the Church, but I don't think anyone could make a logical argument that the IRA is a "militant Catholic" organization.
Most of Said's work, for example, explored the ideological, cultural, and social consequences of colonialism. The importance of his analysis and progress in this field of this study cannot be overrated -- he has shed light on oppression of women under colonialism, postcolonial self-mutilation committed by the colonized on themselves, and the cultural loss of identity experienced by colonized societies in the aftermath of Occidental translations of the cultures they invaded.
So, I don't think you would want to talk to me about any of this. I think the Israeli government bullies and manipulates, which I am sure boils your blood. The United States is in bed with the Israelis, the Saudis, and others who are responsible for the letting of American blood, but then again if American government and military officials were so concerned about violence committed against Americans, they probably wouldn't have trained bin Ladin or installed Saddam Hussein.
So, while I am in NO way offended by your articles, it is obvious that we might be at odds, even as buddies. I am morally center and politically left, and I don't think you would be able to stand me! I would rather drink something on Fear Factor than vote for George W. Bush. With all of that said, it was refreshing to read your opinions because, after all, you are set apart from the majority by the fact that you have such strong ideas and beliefs about which you are doing something (peacefully and intelligently). I respect that immensely."
To which I reply:
Release the Hounds!
Appreciate your note. Yeah, I would have to agree we are probably not compatible; I'm afraid I just care too much about the things I care about to ever be able to "look on the bright side" with regards to Edward Said and his legacy. I appreciate his work on Jane Austen and Conrad and am the first to defend his real eloquence and command, but I wholly and utterly reject post-colonial theory as a political construct, both in practice and even the fundamental premise that the West is by definition racist and flawed. Post-colonial theory is nothing more than scapegoating writ large, a grand excuse for passing the buck and accepting no cultural responsibility for social decline. Did tyranny and imperialism hurt those countries? Of course. Eastern Europe was under Communist tyranny, and had no democratic legacy or history - yet when they were freed (by America) they chose democracy - and even fought and died under Soviet tanks for it.
You are quite correct that the IRA is not militant Christianity, it is a militant wing of a political movement, and I do not blame the Catholic church for Sinn Fein. I can most certainly - as Said might do - blame the Catholic church for the Inquisition. I can most certainly blame the Catholic church for the Crusades (or jihad, if you will) and I can most certainly call these things 'militant, or fascist Christianity'. These things occurred in Christianity's 15th century, and took courageous geniuses like Luther and Erasemus to challenge that monolithic teaching. We are now in the 15th century of Islam and we see the same corruption of the doctrine and same militancy and same need for brave geniuses. Where will they come from? There have been 12 highly educated Palestinian leaders, all brilliant, all statesmen, who rose to challenge Palestinian radicalism, and all, each one were assassinated by militant Islamic groups. When Luther challenged the Pope - 300 German dukes supported him. Where are the state actors who will support democracy in Palestine? America and Israel are the only state actors requiring democracy in Palestine. No Arab state. No Muslim group. Not the U.N.
Israel bullies and manipulates. Not to be dismissive but imagine for a second how the U.S. changed after 9/11 - those first few weeks. Imagine if we had had another attack the next week. Then another. Then another. Imagine the level of anger and sense of revenge that would permeate the country. Bush would have had carte blanche to nuke anything he wanted by Christmas. Whatever you might think of Israeli bullying - they do not sit and plan and organize military attacks on women and children, something Hamas and PIJ do every day. All day, in every school, in Palestine children are taught to honor those who target civilians, women and children, for random indiscriminate murder. Anti-Semitism is taught as fact to every Muslim child in the Arab world. Every day. In every school. Children taught to hate, and kill Jews because they are Jews.
Friend told me this:
"I had a great poli sci prof who the first day of class walked in and wrote on a piece of paper. He then told a story: there was a British colonel in India touring with his regiment. He stumbled on to a funeral of a man. The funeral pyre was prepared and the man's body was on it. Then a trussed woman, the man's still living wife was brought out to be burned with him. The prof then asked, "Does the colonel have the right to interfere with the woman's death?" Everyone started talking and saying yes, he has to - it's the moral imperative. Others said no, its against their culture to stop it and not immoral to those practicing it. The conversation got heated quickly. Then one student spoke up and said, "The British shouldn't have been there in the first place." My professor handed her the piece of paper. "That is the answer I wrote down, and it is perhaps true. But it doesn't answer the question at hand. It is a dodge. The British colonel has no such luxury of non-consequential action. He must make a decision, and act in his moral interests."
Many judges of Israel's behavior utterly forget that this is day to day life for Israel and they are quite desperate to find a solution that will allow them to live in peace.
The British were bullies in India - a harsh and extreme imperial presence, controlling finance, police, economy, everything. Gandhi defeated this with a national non-violent movement that was largely secular and humanist. Why has there never been a non-violent movement in Palestine? Israel, Sharon, there would be no possible defense against this. If every Palestinian gave up violence today, there would be no more violence. They would have a democratic state in a year with Jerusalem a split capital. They would get nearly all of their demands. The outcry against any violence by Israel in the face of this would be overwhelming. Now think for a moment if every Israel laid down their weapons today. In a few months there would be no more Israel, and the Palestinians would never get a state. It would be divided among warring Islamic factions of Hamas and PIJ and Hizbullah, and probably Syria. The Saidians of the world would lay the entire catastrophe at the feet of America, for not being involved, for not stopping the violence, for letting it all fall apart. Yet, if the U.S. got involved and stopped the violence we would then be imperialists and hegemonic. Everyone wants the police to help them, and nobody likes the cops. The CIA trained bin Laden and a host of others to fight Communists in Afghanistan, because the Nixon doctrine stated that we would support any non-Communist over a Communist. Saddam was a DEPARTURE from this plan initiated by a DEMOCRATIC President Carter, deciding that fascist Islam was actually worse than Communism. Was he right? What would a Saidian say to that? I'll tell you what they would say - "America shouldn't have been there in the first place." Perhaps true, but it doesn't answer the question. It's a dodge, sometimes a crafty eloquent dodge but a dodge nonetheless.
The Saudis are indeed sleeping with us and if they weren't Saddam Hussien would today control the entire Middle East, and 1/3 of the world's oil supply in a nuclear armed fascist Ba'athist Empire. Both the Kurds and the Jews would have been nuked in the mid nineties, Turkey would have gone Islamist, and gas would be $10 a gallon, and terrorism against Western nations would be an everyday event. America is the only reason this is not the world we live in. Imagine ANY other nation that would do more good in the world with the power we have. France? Germany? China? Even England can't deal with its rascisms in real ways.
And I voted for Gore, incidently, based mainly on the environment. I think an anti-gay ammedment is just that, anti-gay, as well as stupid, malicious and un-Christian. Civil unions are obviously protected under the 1964 Civil Rights Act. But I wholeheartedly agree with the claim by Republicans that activist judges are wrecking the system. The Massachusettes ruling was miscarriage of justice and undemocratic.
Any Democratic candidate who convinces me that they will do whatever it takes to defend the U.S. from the Islamic crusaders and their inquisitors both abroad and in our midst, that they will wake up each day looking for new ways to take the battle to the enemy, I will gladly vote for him or her.
Comments: ozymandias_1@hotmail.com
