I cannot call the article excellent, just for the fact that the writer hesitated to state his prescription to cure the malady as evident in the concluding line of the article, "In attempting to correct the ideologically misdirected people, Bush and Blair have imposed their stamp of righteousness upon a world that could do well with some other choices."
The writer uses the phrase, " ideologically misdirected people". Who misdirected them? Shouldn't the directors be held responsible for the misdirection? Since these directors and the misdirected people cause major damage to everyday life of the common citizen, the leaders of the common citizens have a responsibility to stop them. The writer talks about "some other choices". Couldn't the writer continue his article and tell us what the other choices are? Does he know what they are?
Dilip Deka
Chan Mahanta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Chan Mahanta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
**** Yours truly has been attempting to explain just that to our net friends whose propensity for misusing the words 'terror, terrorism, terrorists' and so forth has taken on ridiculous proportions.I would have called it an excellent perspective on things, had it not been for the hilarious example he chose to illustrate the point with: ULFA calling the 'sate' terrorists,--"haati sur kori aage aage jai, bengena swrok dhore' -- while the most grotesque example staring him in the face is none other than the press who pays for his efforts.In that it appears so much like the pot calling the kettle black.At 5:49 PM -0700 9/7/05, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:Content-type: text/html
Content-language: en
Content-disposition: inline
The following article featured in today's The Sentinel, any comment?KJD.Ideology and the Human Face of Terror
Achintya HatibaruaT he demonization of villains is one of the most common aspects in the good/evil construction that we engage in in seeking to understand the ethical dimension of human actions. Myths and legends in different cultures through the ages have customarily structured heroism and villainy along elaborately worked out ethical lines. Such a process entails, among other things, the exaggerated hagiographical exercise for the wonder-guys and the demonization of the baddies and with time, other details accumulate to enhance the preset images of such figures. In spite of the fact that it is not overtly admitted or recognized, ideological assumptions constitute one of the major factors determining our preference of either of the good/evil options. In the post 9/11 scenario and more recently after the 7/7 London bombings, the focus has once again shifted to the question of ideology and its role in the circulation and manifestation of terror. History, as one wise guy once said, is written by the power-brokers. So today the Bush-Blair combo may try to put up a brave face and marshal all their rhetorical resources to justify the us/them structure, but in the light of increasingly damaging developments such postures appear extremely hypocritical. Two immediate instances can be provided here to enhance the role played by ideology in projecting the idea of terror upon individuals sought to be represented as villains. Take the case of the "murder" of the hapless Brazilian young man, Jean-Charles de Menezes, shot dead by the British police last July. The British police initially used the clichéd modes of demonizing the "devil" but the foisting of an ideological structure upon Menezes eventually fell flat. In today's world, at least in highly commercial and fast-moving cultures, image-management plays a crucial role in the processing of people and in the marketing of ideologies. Menezes' killing exemplifies such an attempt to project the good/bad structure with the image of the victorious triumphing over the vanquished repeatedly moving across tv screens. While this is one example of the machinery failing to function, there is another instance of a questioning of the ideology behind the very project of the us/them scenario orchestrated by a commoner, Cindy Sheehan. Cindy is the mother of a son killed in Iraq during the US occupation of that country and in spite of the fact that her question is quite straight and simple - what's the price of freedom - Bush refuses to offer an answer. For Cindy, the priority of life is not the same as Bush's, the so-called war on terror has robbed her of her son. It is not whether either of them is right - both of them are in their own ways - but the changing circumstances in which we view our antagonists in the contemporary world. Terrorism is now a hackneyed term serving different purposes for different people: the ULFA, for instance, consider the "Indian state" as the primary threat to their struggle for "freedom" and it is commonplace to call them terrorists. The change in viewing positions has robbed any event, even something so horrific as the 9/11 or the 7/7 bombings of the absoluteness, of the properties ordinary crime-punishment equations have been associated with. There are many problems involved in these now well-documented cases such as identity, cultural politics and of course ideological affiliation. The suicide-bombers who orchestrated the 7/7 London bombings were integral to the multicultural fabric of contemporary British society. They were motivated by ideologies that convinced them of the importance of their acts and they are not rarities but represent an increasing number of people who believe in the legitimacy of violence. No price is dearer to them then the conviction that their ideologies are valid. On the other hand, these suicide-bombers represent a new class of people, who live ordinary lives among people that consider them as just the guys-next-door. It is no wonder that the phrase "human bombs" is applied to such people. In other aspects of life, they are like any other member of the group they come from: in terms of looks and images, there is nothing demonic about them.Let us look at the other side of the spectrum and consider the Cindy Sheehan case. For Cindy, George Bush's campaign against Iraq is not meaningful any longer. Bush may project himself and his band of merrymen as agents of righteousness but for Sheehan the questions raised by her son's death remain unanswered. In effect, the ethical dimension associated with the terror question has changed considerably. While Bush has his loyal followers, the number in the anti-war groups is increasing all the time. The right/wrong structure projected by Bush and Blair is viewed by some as a more sophisticated form of imperialism - a perspective that sees them as the principal wrongdoers in a unipolar world. Bush may have all the lollies which he doles out to the weaker nations from time to time, but does it grant him the right to determine their priorities and necessities? In trying to become superhuman, people like Bush and Blair have ended up revising the idea of being human. In spite of their assertions that they are the terror-checkers in a terrorist-prone world, Bush and Blair now have too much blood on their hands. And try as much as they may, the "humane" faces of the leading statesmen of the world are stained beyond repair. In attempting to correct the ideologically misdirected people, Bush and Blair have imposed their stamp of righteousness upon a world that could do well with some other choices.Recommend this pageRecommend this page
_______________________________________________
assam mailing list
[email protected]
http://assamnet.org/mailman/listinfo/assam_assamnet.org_______________________________________________
assam mailing list
[email protected]
http://assamnet.org/mailman/listinfo/assam_assamnet.org
_______________________________________________ assam mailing list [email protected] http://assamnet.org/mailman/listinfo/assam_assamnet.org
