On 10/25/06, raghu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 10/25/06, Michael Perelman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> This discussion now seems to be between Yoshie & Lou. Time to take it off
list?
I hope not. It has been a reasonably informative discussion so far.
Louis' original objection to Yoshie's use of the term "Western
lefties" seems like nitpicking. Without denying the diversity of
opinion within such a group, it seems pretty clear who Yoshie refers
to by that term: for instance most of us on PEN-L would qualify as
"Western lefties" irrespective of our other differences. Just because
such a classification is not precise and homogenous does not mean it
is not useful.
That said, Louis got to the crux of the matter by citing several
reports of disaffection against the Chinese regime that seemed to
originate partly from "Chinese leftists". This would appear to
contradict Yoshie's assertion that the "oppressions" that Western
lefties see in many "Eastern" governments may be seen differently by
the local populations.
While Louis is surely correct in pointing out the reality of the
"oppressions" in China and elsewhere, it is also true that the level
of popular discontent is easily exaggerated in Western leftist forums
like PEN-L. I cannot speak for China, but the very negative view of
the economic reforms in India presented here does not seem to match
the opinions of people in India from what I can tell. Partly of course
this is because the oppressed (by definition) do not have anyone to
speak for them and their voices remain unheard. Still it seems to me
that Yoshie might have a point..
-raghu.
I don't think I have ever said that there is no oppression of any sort
in the rest of the world. But despite many oppressions and protests
against them, the governments I have mentioned and others like it do
enjoy the consent of a majority of the governed, who are not about to
overthrow them; and the reason for their consent, first and foremost,
is that their governments deliver many things to their peoples, from
education to infrastructure, basically the same reason why a majority
of the governed consent to their governments in the West.
But Western leftists typically fail to clarify what functioning
non-Western governments deliver to their peoples, enough to enjoy the
support of a majority; needless to say, they don't make a distinction
between what, e.g., the Sudanese government, which has been wracked by
civil wars for decades, does for the Sudanese and what, e.g., the
Chinese government does for the Chinese.
All governments out there outside the West are all oppressive all the
time in typical Western descriptions. If you question Western
leftists why then peoples under such unremittingly oppressive
governments that do nothing for their citizens haven't been overthrown
yesterday, their answer boils down to, "force." It's a
one-dimensional picture of the rest of the world.
If the Western public, hearing the rest of the world being described
in such a manner, come to think that, while wars may be going too far,
"color revolutions," economic sanctions, covert actions, etc. would be
perfectly decent means for "regime changes" and that such peaceful
"regime changes" would be welcomed by non-Western peoples groaning
under their authoritarian, do-nothing governments, they may be
forgiven for thinking so, given information they get from much of both
the dominant and leftist media.
--
Yoshie
<http://montages.blogspot.com/>
<http://mrzine.org>
<http://monthlyreview.org/>
