I think the usage of "we" needs to be attended to. "We" should never be used in a way that links in _objective_ solidarity the population and "The State." We did not invade Vietnam. The U.S. _State_ invaded Vietnam, dragging a majority of 'us' in its wake, but that does not justify using "We" to describe the u.s. activity abroad.
Carrol Sandwichman wrote: > > On 3/21/08, Robert Naiman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Nope. I sure don't. > > > > And even if I did, somehow other countries manage to survive without > > doing this, at least not on the same scale, and I don't see their > > governments collapsing. If we could get down to say, British or > > Canadian incarceration rates, that would be a big step forward. > > I meant useful to the state (not to folks) and to perpetuating the > distinctive kind of "national security" regime that prevails in the > USA. Sure, Canada and the UK have lower incarceration rates but how > many overseas military garrisons do they maintain? Perhaps I could sum > up my point with the slogan: "occupation begins at home". > > -- > Sandwichman > _______________________________________________ > pen-l mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
