On 9/30/07, Ranjit Ranjit <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > The tragic disposition of the people who rule greenyouth has been that > "personal attacks" divert attention from "discussion". They have maintained > it, though at times succumbing to the very logic they pretend to serve. > Anivar, dileep, etc. hav shown at times to "personally attack in order to > prove their point and ideologically position against their opponent, > difference is that anivar does it immaturely, and dileep, very cunningly. > However, I look at all these positions (including mine) not as attempt to > tarnish any one.
what is urs? that of manipulation?Let's all have more deep introspection. rather the personality tangential drawn will help to pose > question to the individual dispensations of ideology and how , by means of > its public display make persuading rhetoric. > > Many scholars have done such an attempt, of course not within the > limitations of digitally-safe-guarded sacred place of listservs and its > hegemonically moderated caste/religious/gender spheres. > > Martha Nussbum on Judith butler, > > Ambedkar on Gandhi etc could be sited as some such attempts..... > > > > Ajitha's piece "DILIP RAJINTE FEMINIST JADAKAL" really exposed the kinda > patronizing agency narrative he tends to dispense at the expense of sex > working community. What Ajitha did was looking at dilip and his position > vis-à-vis the issues of sex workers, and ideologically posing questions to > it. Though I disagree with her ideologically, her posing of question can't > at any cost be branded as "personal attack". > > The kinda of impact ajitha's article created could not have been possible > with a similar but a politically correct analytical piece in a journal. So, > with all my difference, I appreciate her. > > At this moment, I would like also to appreciate the effort taken by anivar > (read his post-motrem mail on me in the previous discussion).. but would > like to remind him tht , the very effort itself indicate the "ideological" > positioning of anivar against that of mine... and I ve only referred this > in one of my MODERATED MAILS. and that was not bz of "hate" at all. The > effort anivar took was against his ideological opponent. He never attempted > to do the same for others (equally culprit of being diverting)..bz they > never position ideologically against him. > > > On the allegation of "diverting discussion" in chitralekhs issue:. > I look at chitralekha issue not as an isolated incident happened in kerala. > There is a whole lot of hisorical,political,social,cultural > elements that leads to such an incident. As such, my critique of the > invisibility of issues of the discussion of caste in the cultural spheres > dominated by the avowed cultural leaders demanded a complex and detailed > interrogation than an issue-based alliance formation. People who argue for > alliances tend to underplay the deeper concerns, sometimes immaturely and > many times very cleverly. This is the theoretical limitation of Dilip raj > and his positioning as well....not much to mention abt Anivar and his > tantrums.... > -- > Ranjit > > > -- I eat meat."It was not that I felt myself turning into evil, but that an enormous physical indifference, as vast as the whole abyss of light at my feel, came to me: an indifference not only to the other man's body scrambling and kicking on the ground with an arrow through it, but also to mine" --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
