focus on personalities may also harm any movemnt
and when such celebrations happen one may protest
none here looked at sugatakumari's personal choices
but criticed her positions pointng various issues (environmntls to sex
racket to feminsm)
personalities r complex specimens. u cant pick one moment and comment.
but an array of such moments may provide some insights into the
positions and when such positions (along with personalities) are
celebrted, one may resort to question it. i hope it may furhter the
debate and give an opportunity of self critique for any movemnt.
moderation and censorship r diffrent. and whne some one decides wht is
spam and wht is not, s/he has the responsiblty to keep transparency
which unfortunately was not seen in anivar.
for a TAmil brahmin proffessor Bama, tamil dalit wrter's book was
rubbish (read spam)
here for anivar, geedha and my mails were spam (read rubbish)
this shows the politics of moderation
thnaks
Dalit is not a cry for uplift; It is a vision for change
Violence against the violence of non-violence
On 2 Oct, 20:25, "ahmed rafeek j" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> ...
>
> read more >>
>
>
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: ahmed rafeek j <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: Oct 2, 2007 8:55 PM
> Subject: Re: {greenyouth} Re: A cross posting to green grey youths.
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> Dear Sanil,
>
> I was trying to raise some points on the 'locusstandi' and the problems of
> polemics. I welcome your reply that you will try to engage more with
> Athirappilly. Infact I read Ranjith's and yours and many other's mails with
> lot of spirit and solidarity. And I feel that we should engage with each
> other more irrespective of our differences. Also I am quite intrigued by the
> failure of identity politics to deal with cyberspaces. And as I am doing a
> small part time, leisure study on moderation rules in various groups, I also
> see that Anivar has a point. This is not to deny that Ranjith's arguments
> are invalid. I know that Kancha Illaiah is not considered enough for a
> reference on caste by many academics. But as Illaiah, or Nalini Jameela,
> created a history we are also in the make. The only thing which bothers me
> is the attitude to kill discussions and focus it on personalities.
> personally I don't like Sugathakumari, but at the same time, I would
> appreciate or call it revolutionary if some one does a queer critique of
> 'rathrimazha'. Or critiquing her articles or positions.
>
> Also I was personally disturbed by the way Ranjith broke the discussion by
> focusing it on Sugathakumari. I expect much better than that from him, he
> has the potential and very few Dalit concerns were raised in Green youth
> apart from Ajay's postings. But without engagement how do we move forward. I
> donot like the guilt politics, to be guilty of Muslim/ Brahmin/ dalit/
> woman/ Gay/ Urban or any.. What I am hoping is that we will be able to
> disagree and fight with a spirit which leads to somethong new. And as a
> person who is critical of left/right/and all religious fundamentalism, I
> feel very sad when I see the same logic in this group.
>
> All my letter is not addressed to you, but I am responding to all. And I
> hope we will be able to talk more with a spirit for change.
>
> Thanks
> rafeek ahmed
>
> On 10/1/07, sanil v <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > What does Ranjith or
> > > Sanil who equates Athirappilly struggle with
> > > ENVIRONMENTAL MOVEMENT in
> > > large know about the issue at Athirappilly?
>
> > My knowledge about Athirappilly is limited to media.
> > However, in none of my postings have I said anything
> > about Athirappilly. I wrote about a possible - and
> > much needed - distinction between Environmental
> > movements - aimed at survival and other emancipotory
> > movements - aimed at ending suffering. I also
> > suggested that the quest for survival may not mesh
> > with the assertion of self determination. Now whether
> > a particular struggle falls on which side is matter of
> > further research. My other comment was about the use
> > of data in environmental activism. Here I took the
> > specific case of the arundhti-Bhalla debate on
> > calculating the number of displaced people in narmada.
>
> > I would try my best to learn about Athirappilly. But
> > my present arguments do not invoke any specific claims
> > about it. However, my suggested distinction, if
> > validated, might help both of us to throw more light
> > on your question :is Athirappilly an enviormental
> > movement or not.
>
> > best
>
> > sanil
>
> > --- ahmed rafeek j <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > > 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
>
> >
> > ___________________________________________________________________________-_________
> > Check out the hottest 2008 models today at Yahoo! Autos.
> >http://autos.yahoo.com/new_cars.html
>
> --
> 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
>
> --
> 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-
> Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Green Youth Movement" group.
To post to this group, send email to greenyouth@googlegroups.com
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
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
