This is a cross posting to both lists 'green' and 'grey youth'. Reflecting on the discussion which happened in green youth, I am raising some points which I have already felt and mentioned in a previous letter. Congrats to Geedha for creating a new group, but let me put my general apprehensions below.
Again to Christie and Ranjith 1 I donot think Kancha Ilaiah is applicable the context. I laiah's 'violence' is not destructive, but creative ; it is dare. Let me explain it in this way. When some one engages in a debate, with respect to the other, the other person is just saying no, labelling the argument and branding the person knowing that the other is no enemy. Will you do the same polemics, with your own university where you work, or with your theories, or with academics in general. It is impossible because any one who work with an academy agrees with certain rules, even when they are unfair. Which means, the use of violence or violent language -in a context which is altogether different, a debate which is entirely different- to break the possibility of a discussion is dangerous. To do that is a Brahminic patriarchal logic. Which also mean that the 'virtual identity' who raises the question of Dalit can qualitatively be on the same level as of a Sangh Swayam Sevak. I see deviating a discussion from the thread by posting a flood of emails and branding others as destructive. To Ranjith and Sanil 2 Even the latest letter from Ranjith, gives advice to the Athirappilly movement. Here, when some one assumes such a power position, to express that he know the movement and issue enough to give them advises, raises the question of 'locus standi'. 'Locus standi' is important here, because the letter is not even written as an outsider's opinion. What does Ranjith or Sanil who equates Athirappilly struggle with ENVIRONMENTAL MOVEMENT in large know about the issue at Athirappilly? Let me ask how many of us were ready even to enquire about the 'condemnation letter' which Dilipraj was asking Aryan to prepare, which never happened. Where is our support? The people of Chalakudi river have been struggling for almost 20 years and they know how to save the struggle from any 'mafia' In general 3. Mafia- Sugathakumari suddenly became the symbol of all decadence, hypocrisy and corruption. An ideal figure for 'savarna, mallu, environmental, romantic, anti-women, antidevelopment, woman. How easy things are. Let us pray 'Schwarzenegger' to come and kill the 'tiger' and save kerala. This is another weakness of polemics. It doesn't engage, and without engagement it cannot violate, disturb. (Well, there would be some voyeuristic pleasure in reading what Velayudhan nair says about his wife). 4. The 'weapon box' of Pavanai( Captain Raju's villain character in Nadodikkattu) is handed over to some of us. And whatever the enemy (a preconceived enemy who should be countered at any cost) says this weapon box is throwing different weapons. Let's stop throwing mud and arms, let's talk, care and engage. With lot of love and respect Ahmed Rafeek Ps. Unfortunately / Ironically the first mail in grey youth, a spam, makes me wonder whether little bit of moderation is needed! On 10/1/07, geedha geedha <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > happy news to all .................... > > A new uncensored non moderated Google Group .......... grey youth > movement is created as a protest to moderation in cyber space ...... > > Here are the essentials: > > * Group name: grey youth movement > * Group home page: > http://groups.google.com/group/grey-youth-movement?hl=en-GB > > * Group email address [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > geedha > > > > The polemicist , on the other hand, proceeds encased in privileges that he > possesses in advance and will never agree to question. On principle, he > possesses rights authorizing him to wage war and making that struggle a just > undertaking; the person he confronts is not a partner in search for the > truth but an adversary, an enemy who is wrong, who is armful, and whose very > existence constitutes a threat. For him, then the game consists not of > recognizing this person as a subject having the right to speak but of > abolishing him as interlocutor, from any possible dialogue; and his final > objective will be not to come as close as possible to a difficult truth but > to bring about the triumph of the just cause he has been manifestly > upholding from the beginning. The polemicist relies on a legitimacy that his > adversary is by definition denied.- Foucault- > http://foucault.info/foucault/interview.html > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
