It is rather curious that this group falls apart each time over the issue of moderation/censorship! On an average it functions simply as a site for posting links to articles available in the morning's paper. The very few times there is an attempt at a discussion on an underlying issue, it is scotched. Ranjit, to my mind, is one of the few members here who initiates a discussion (and given the atmosphere, may I add, at great personal risk!) and instantly one has to contend with the diktat that such views (any views?) ought not to be expressed! The last time the brouhaha was over obscenity - funnily - it took a long time before anyone responded to the initial issue, and when the nuances of the matter were being worked out, it was quickly scuppered. Also, there were various morally upright people who wished to unsubscribe as they felt such interventions dilettantish and vitiating the environmentally correct purpose of greenyouth's existence! One wonders when that will begin to happen....maybe soon after this post...
Regarding Sugathakumari and Arundhati Roy - one can reverse the logic of the assumptions - it was strategically important for NBA to have as many luminaries associated with them; NBA itself has never been coy about this, and to my mind has utilized, to great strategic effect, their association with the movement. Possibly the activists in Athirapally might feel the same about SK visiting them? That does not dilute their political positions or understanding; currently that might be one of the many ways that their cause gets publicity (look at how much discussion it has generated here!); equally, it gives "personalities" a feeling that their effect extends beyond personal aura and engages more meaningfully in the public sphere. Many people prefer Roy's polemical writing (despite the exaggeration and stylistic bombast) over GOST precisely for this reason. About the "noted economist Surjit B's" views....the lesser said the better! The only response (and this isn't original by any means) is that surely rehabilitation is not a numbers game; the politics and economics of big dams go way beyond all that. On 9/25/07, sanil v <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > On this list, the revolutionary Che Guevera was once > called a mass murderer. The brilliant Nobel laureate > Economist Milton Friedman was called an agent of > predatory capitalism. None of these constituted hate > speech and invited moderation. Everything is allowed > until you touch some holier- than- cows. > > How do those who support the poet's intervention > substantiate their claim? Is their support based on > some clarity about any significant relationship > between the literary works of the poet and her > eco-political interventions? No. She is a famous > personality and her presence could be of > media/instrumental value. So the supporters too count > on the "personality" of the poet and degrade her by > reducing her to mere use value. Some environmental > activists tried to use Arundhati Roy too for her > instrumental value. But she was a clever writer. She > turned the table back on those activists! > > Even if Renjit were to substantiate his views, we > wouldn't know what to do with them. During the Narmada > days noted economist Surjit Bhalla argued - > convincingly, I think - that Arundhati Roy's data on > the number of oustees were grossly exaggerated. (she > did respond to his criticism.) What could we do in > front of such devastating evidence? Should we dismiss > Surjit as a right wing economist? Or, should we call > Arundhati a liar? Or should we ignore the data saying > that we do not care about the content of Arundhati's > writing and all that matters is the use value of her > support? I think all these are unacceptable. Instead, > we should take a critical look at the complex > relationship Eco-politics has with science on the one > hand, and, art on the other. ( Many 'scientific' > claims in support of the environmental movement have > turned out to be hugely exaggerated, if not false - > eg: the Club of Rome report). In the absence of such > foundational thinking, all activist rhetoric for and > against Arundhati or Sugatha is of dubious value. > > Anivar Aravind wrote: > > > > Hope the moderator will not come up with a > > semantic > > > distinction between moderation and censorship. > > That > > > would be the sure sign of an immoderate censor. > > > > > > > Both are different. Anyway thanks for the branding > > > I was warning you about the possible misuse of a valid > distinction. By calling my criticism "branding" you > are not escaping the charge of misuse. > > sanil > > > > > ____________________________________________________________________________________ > Take the Internet to Go: Yahoo!Go puts the Internet in your pocket: mail, > news, photos & more. > http://mobile.yahoo.com/go?refer=1GNXIC > > > > -- G. Arunima Associate Professor Women's Studies Programme School of Social Sciences Jawaharlal Nehru University New Delhi 110067 Tel: 01126704178 (dir) 01126704166(off) Email:[EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Green Youth Movement" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/greenyouth?hl=en-GB -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
