Dear DP, Actually I began with taking offence to your rider that we are not living in a 19th century Europe, just immediate to the publishing of Darwin's Origin of Spicies. I propose that unfortunately, there is a strong case for defending Darwin against the bullshit of Grand Design trying to gain re-entry with a vengeance, perhaps in similar ways as Idylic Village Communities and Gramaswaraj do ride here on a new wave of Gandhism ,Manuvad,etc . But the subsequent part my post happened to be in relation to Dileep's earlier post....his accusation of using ''jargon",when somebody wanted to raise questions of caste and gender in relation to Gandhism. My apologies for mixing up these two,which was quite unintentional, though I had addressed neither of you personally. Thanks for having pointed out the anomaly in my post. I also acknowledge having noticed categorical acceptance of "varied and multiple universalism" in your earlier post. Regards, Venu.
On Oct 5, 1:56 pm, "damodar prasad" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Dear Venu, > > Were you responding to me? or what I have written? > > Beneath your mail there lies my text. :-) > > If you are responding to me, I wonder how you presumed such things from this > text or the two previous mails about Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi or who > fathered the Nation. > > *It would be good if you are not inclined in scoring a point or settling a > score, it is high time one introspects how a discussion takes a character of > personalized aggression with a specific intervention. It is not bcoz of > raising questions on gender or caste. But it is absolutely personal. > > And gender or caste or class, have a cultural SEZ opened for specific > "investors" only to talk about? Is there any specific criteria including the > birth criteria on talking specific concerns? **eh? **Bcoz if so I like to > bring some related issue- personal as well. > * > Do you have any guidelines which topic should be debated and how? if so pls. > list the topics and methodology. So that I can decide whether to continue > here or not. > > When I joined Green Youth, I didn't see any such specification. > > PS: I don't hold the same view on Jenny's & Dileep's comments regarding the > first higlighted portion. > > On Sun, Oct 5, 2008 at 2:04 PM, venukm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Again, I am tempted to comment that you keep every kind of bias > > against egalitarian thoughts originated in the 19th century and at > > the same time , find absolutely nothing bad with obscurantist visions > > of panchayat, Gramaswaraj,etc, which have been largely instrumental > > in institutionalizing a Manuite concept of governance through the > > compulsory observance of Sanathanadharma by all the subjects. Just > > change the prefix from 'pre' to 'post'(modern)! > > It works wonders in appearing to be brand new ; the moment one starts > > asking the obvious questions about caste, gender, etc, call it > > 'jargon' as though you didn't understand! > > May be you are getting bored with same line of contention being > > raised. > > But others also have aright to get bored, or rather offended, by > > attempts of imposition of Gandhi as the darling of all Indians! > > Regards, > > Venu. > > > On 5 Oct, 11:53, "damodar prasad" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Venu, > > > > Stock taking, tagging, labelling and finally couriering is not my kinda > > job. > > > > Just one point: I am not opposed to Universalism in a relativist sense by > > > highlighting some traditional as well as localisms I would only like to > > > imagine or think of varied and multiple Universalism. > > > > Academic/ Metropolitan-Traveling Theorists, my point is we are not living > > in > > > 19th century Europe. Perhaps just immediate to the publishing of Darwin's > > > Origin of Species!!!! > > > > On Sun, Oct 5, 2008 at 12:11 PM, venukm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > Dear DP and others, > > > > Labeling is convenient and problematic at the same time. > > > > I'm not afraid of being labeled as a postmodernist,though I didn't > > > > think myself of that sort. > > > > I would've been more happy ,if you gave me a label as a supporter of > > > > Modernism; > > > > Post-modernism , Buddhism and Ambedkarism and Marxism and other > > > > isms apart. > > > > Please, allow me to call the Neo-Gandhians Pre-Modernist rather than" > > > > Post.", if you don't mind.. > > > > I mean labeling is basically meant more for the convenience of people > > > > who do it, and it is irrespective of how the 'victims' themselves like > > > > to accept... > > > > I know your problem of not having a stock label, to call certain > > > > lines of responses, and it is understandable..... > > > > Same way, I may not be having one either, to call you other than the > > > > stock label at my disposal.. > > > > So long as our relationship remains in discursive terms, I believe it > > > > is all right. > > > > Regards, > > > > Venu. > > > > > On 5 Oct, 11:14, "damodar prasad" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > What is implied in both Jenny's reading or in a subtle way KMVenu's > > new > > > > mail > > > > > is that there is normative procedure , which is pre-given applicable > > to > > > > all > > > > > context and which fundamentally locates on a universalistic ethic as > > in > > > > > universalistic US's rational human rights concept and hence > > > > unchallengable. > > > > > > KM Venu has a name for it, which helps his easy to muster support > > from > > > > all > > > > > quarters - from the traditional Left to active thinkers of the > > Identity > > > > > politics. And the name is "postmodernism". Wow!! wow!! > > > > > > These assumptions displays on its over determining moments how > > > > > fundamentalist it is. > > > > > > On modes of protest, an unlikely theoretically engagement as indeed > > posed > > > > by > > > > > Nizar kinda buji, is immediately forestalled to make way for what is > > > > being > > > > > a very normal assessment. And amusingly, this assessment , which > > > > implicates > > > > > all other assessments and approaches as hierarchal in turn is > > ruthlessly > > > > > dictatorial and intolerant and conformist to the extent that it wants > > to > > > > > cancel out all "separatist" discourses as untoward instances because > > it > > > > has > > > > > interrogated the integrity of a "sedimented conviction", > > "precipitated > > > > idea" > > > > > and in some cases "monolithic formations like groups perhaps located > > in > > > > > dispersed way where a little dissent is even discouraged". > > > > > > My best wishes for integrated the wholeness of thinking. But no need > > to > > > > > appear as a dissenting inquiry or knowledge. > > > > > > On Sun, Oct 5, 2008 at 11:08 AM, Dileep Raj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > wrote: > > > > > > Dear Jenny, > > > > > > > You ignore certain critical traditions and go on talking about > > > > Sathyagraha > > > > > > and Panchayathi Raj, which is a talk that started some sixty years > > > > ago.. > > > > > > > Dear Jenny, > > > > > > This is the place where you are totally guided by prejudices. > > > > > > Just when you see words like satyagraha and panchayati Raj, you > > > > > > simply judge that nothing new is said.( and if somebody were to use > > > > > > gender/caste sort > > > > > > of jargons and go on establishing conservative positins on gandhi, > > you > > > > will > > > > > > be happy. > > > > > > that shows you share certain values with certain other peple and > > you > > > > form > > > > > > an academic community. ya, I am one who refuse to be part of such > > > > community > > > > > > norms.) > > > > > > > You are trying to stipulate the terms of discussion. Sorry, I won't > > > > comply. > > > > > > You simply don't have any respect to others like you. You believe > > you > > > > are > > > > > > the only champions of all poilitcal radicalism in this country. > > > > > > > Otherwise why this sort of branding? > > > > > > > Who are you to brand and judge evrything based on your > > > > > > assumptions and prejudices? > > > > > > > the attempt was to engage with the texts oof gandhi in a critical > > way. > > > > > > > Your attempt was not o engage with report/text but the individuals. > > > > > > > I do respond to Luisa's response as that took the text seriously. > > > > > > > Ranju, > > > > > > Nizar kinda bujis and Dileeps of the world...:) > > > > > > Ya..that is the trap you want everybody to fall na? > > > > > > Why are you so afraid to engage with any text? > > > > > > I don't think the report I have posted is beyong criticism. i > > rrefuse > > > > to > > > > > > take up personal attacks. > > > > > > > and please don't speak on behalf of all dlaits.. At least K K > > baburaj > > > > was > > > > > > present and he was happy to enage with the text.. > > > > > > > On Sun, Oct 5, 2008 at 7:17 AM, ranju radha <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > >> dilip, > > > > > >> chengara struggle is gandhian? This is the worst statement one can > > > > ever > > > > > >> make and I request NIzar Ahmed to apologise for humiliating the > > > > struggle of > > > > > >> chengara. > > > > > >> this s like saying: just bz all the struggles waged by Dalits > > under > > > > the > > > > > >> leadership of AYou ignore certain critical traditions and go on > > > > talking > > > > > >> about Sathyagraha > > > > > >> and Panchayathi Raj, which is a talk that started some sixty years > > > > > >> ago..mbedkar were peaceful and non-violent, it s gandhian. how > > > > horrible the > > > > > >> logic !! > > > > > >> People of chengara have rejected GAndhi and EMS . Why should NIzar > > > > kinda > > > > > >> bujis want to impose it on them? > > > > > > >> and abt ur take on "modern", i agree. but would like to point out > > that > > > > > >> modern could be as traditional as tradition. these days postmodern > > > > gandhi s > > > > > >> also availble on sale. > > > > > >> when talking from dalit perspective i would defenitly attach a > > > > 'positive' > > > > > >> and 'emancipatory' value to 'modernity' knowing clearly that it > > need > > > > to be > > > > > >> problematically looked at. for a Dalit the scope that modernity > > > > > >> offered would never be possible with 'tradition'. Gandhian > > modernsim > > > > was > > > > > >> rooted in the tradtion of caste heirarchy and savarna values. > > DAlits > > > > > >> could never become citizens in that imagination. the possibility > > (at > > > > least a > > > > > >> minutest) is outside that. That is why Ambedkar asked Dalits to > > "Come > > > > out of > > > > > >> Gandhian villages and go to cities. it s a spiritual and political > > > > call. it > > > > > >> chaged the Dalit world. the project is not finished yet. and to > > remind > > > > u > > > > > >> that city is not an end in itself. > > > > > >> Gandhi would never be the path for Dalits. it can;\'t be, even > > if > > > > NIzars > > > > > >> and dilips try to impose it on them. > > > > > >> DALITS HAVE OUTRIGhTLY REJECTED GANDHI. > > > > > >> regards > > > > > > >> On Sun, Oct 5, 2008 at 2:36 AM, jenny rowena < > > ... > > read more » --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
