"However, even Modern India was born in
the midst of the Pakistan/India split, so it is hard to say how successful
India would be as a democracy if the split had not occurred."
India is home to the second largest Muslim community (with many denominations)
after Indonesia. So by partition India did not have less to do with Muslims
since India's Muslim population is larger than Pakistan's.
Again, one may refer to India's Moghul history, particularly under the rule of
Akbar, about the plurality and democratic nature of Indian society. Democracy
is not just a modern institution.
Anthony
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Anthony P. D'Costa, Professor Currently
Comparative International Development Senior Visiting Research Fellow
University of Washington Asia Research Institute
1900 Commerce Street National University of Singapore
Tacoma, WA 98402, USA 469 A Tower Block
Phone: (253) 692-4462 Bukit Timah Road #10-01
Fax : (253) 692-5718 Singapore 259770
http://tinyurl.com/yhjzrm Ph: (65) 6516 8785
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On Wed, 12 Sep 2007, David B. Shemano wrote:
Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2007 09:45:45 -0700
From: David B. Shemano <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: PEN-L list <[email protected]>
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [PEN-L] Ethnic nationalism
Michael Perelman writes:
I have to say that I am disappointed by David's behavior here. He is usually an
intelligent libertarian, whom I enjoy and respect. I don't think that people
getting bullied by loosing their jobs or having their publishers coerced into
withdrawing materials.
You used the example of powerless minorities defending themselves, but the
Israel
lobby is hardly powerless. Can you imagine if Middle Easterners demanded
comparable
power.
I apologize to you Michael. I try and behave myself. In my defense, my
serious points are getting lost in transalation.
Responses to Devine, Oncu, Raghu, Sartesian:
Jim Devine writes:
As far as I can tell, you interpret people as being crybabies if they either
1) disagree with your opinions (or, alternatively, with only your
opinions on Israel), or
2) follow deviation from from the official Party Line on Israel by
actually daring to defend themselves against the shit-storm of
criticism that such deviance evokes -- rather than surrendering to the
Alan Dershowitzes of the world.
Absolutely not. The crybabies are people like Carter and Mearsheimer and Walt
who complain how you can't criticize Israel in the United States, but are
really complaining that you can't criticize Israel in the US without receiving
criticism back. I am making a very specific point, so don't misinterpet it. I
will give you one example. Here is the NY Times article on the controversy of
Mearsheimer and Walt's book tour:
http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/08/16/3220/. If you read the article,
what was the controversy? Some Jewish organizations refused to invite the
authors to pitch the books or worse, insisted that the presentations be
balanced by an opposing view. Crybabies.
Jim Devine writes further:
How do you know what's reasonable for me to assume? You may share the so-called
"libertarian" opinions on Thalidomide sketched above, but it
is wrong for me to assume that you do.
No, it would not be wrong to do so. If I were to accept the libertarian label,
it would be reasonable for you to make judgments and assumptions. You are a
Lefty. Is it unreasonable for me to assume that you think Fidel Casto is more
admirable than George Bush? That health-care should be guaranteed by the
government and/or provided through a single-payer system? Give me enough time,
I could make dozens of predictions about your views and be right on just about
every one. And you could probably do the same about me. We both have quirks,
but on balance, we would both be pretty accurate about the other.
Sabri Oncu references the Ottoman Empire. My post referenced "democratic"
multi-ethinic states as generally failures and the US as the exception. Successful
multi-ethnic states are almost always empires, monarchies, etc., for reasons we can
discuss if you wish. Modern India is a very interesting example, miraculous in many
ways. However, even Modern India was born in the midst of the Pakistan/India split, so
it is hard to say how successful India would be as a democracy if the split had not
occurred. On a related note, Raghu references Bosnia, which I think supports my point --
Bosnia was successully multi-ethnic as long everybody was ruled by an outsider (Ottomans,
Communist Party). Bosnia exploded when democracy became a reality.
Sartesian writes:
Now David, nobody objects to criticism-- its censorship, suppression, financial
retaliation, deliberate distortion, that are the issues. I would think such a
true believer in the the true belief of individual freedom would be sensitive
to those issues. Well, maybe I don't think that.
I am sensitive to all of that. I also think that most Israel critics who
complain about their inability to criticize are really saying that want to
criticize without receiving criticism back. See above response to Devine.
Disagree if you wish.
Sartesian writes further:
"As for the Nazi analogy-- when a state practices collective punishment in
response to acts of resistance-- when it enforces deprivation and immiseration on
another people because of their claims to property from which they've been
expelled-- well if the foo shits wear it-- those are things Nazi's practiced.
Hey, Prof. Devine, still think my reading was unreasonable?
David Shemano
