Re: [weisbrot-columns] (fwd)
This discussion is of no interest to the list. How do you know that?
Re: Re: [weisbrot-columns] (fwd)
I am not going to rise to your bait. Your love of stirring up controversy keeps you from being able to be a positive contributor to the list. Ricardo Duchesne wrote: This discussion is of no interest to the list. How do you know that? -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [weisbrot-columns] (fwd)
Simulating activism is not the only way to be positive...guess I blew it again. I'll be on my periodical unsub anytime soon, anyways. I am not going to rise to your bait. Your love of stirring up controversy keeps you from being able to be a positive contributor to the list. Ricardo Duchesne wrote: This discussion is of no interest to the list. How do you know that? -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [weisbrot-columns] (fwd)
Mine, Am only trying to argue that one cannot take on such a huge moral burden as "liberation of third world from western oppression", or from capitalism, without examining one's social position within the West. There's a real moral dilemma when a person living in it up in the West demands that the TW refrain from western consumerism/technologies, or when a TW immigrant who is really westernized though still pretends to be from the TW, receives a hundred thousand or more salary, collects large research grants, has a lot of time off from teaching, as well as many opportunities for travel and lecturing around the world - like going to Vienna, the old capital of the Austro-Hungarian empire, criticizing the West, or pretending to speak for the "peasant class" or believing that their "radical" writing is a form of political engagement with "popular struggle". Be honest with yourself (and I don't me you personally, Mine, nor anyone here: you are carrying an argument with other cultural elites. Nothing wrong with that.
Re: [weisbrot-columns] (fwd)
Mine wrote: Besides the problems with the article (which i have not read in details), the fact that Indians make "commercial movies" should not lead you to normalize the brutality of western imperialism and epidemic violence done to third world people. did you ever attempt to think why Indian directors shift to producing commercial movies? Actually, you don't need to go to third world.Indians were killed here. African Americans were used as slave labor, and they are still treated as non-humans. Criticizing this has nothing to do with "returning to the innocence and purity" of the third world. On the contrary, white men wanted to create this "purity" by _actually_ eliminating people. It was not so long ago-- eugenic laws were practiced here till 1965. Now you are getting high on pity which is another trait of third worldists who think that suffering is the defining characteristic of the Third World and who, with a sense of "survivors guilt", draw the inaccurate conclusion that the West is solely (or at least primarily) responsible for the poverty of the TW. Yet when TW people start building industries, attending university or consuming Western movies, third wordists view it as a sign that these countries are being corrupted by Western influence - which brings us back to that other trait, getting high on paradise; yes, Jameson really has the best of both worlds: the joys of a high paying academic salary combined with the innocence and purity of the TW!
Re: Re: [weisbrot-columns] (fwd)
Ricardo, you keep skating close to the edge. You say that you do not intend to provoke, but you seem to poke and poke -- maybe just to get a reaction. We do not need that here. Ricardo Duchesne wrote: Now you are getting high on pity which is another trait of third worldists who think that suffering is the defining characteristic of the Third World and who, with a sense of "survivors guilt", draw the inaccurate conclusion that the West is solely (or at least primarily) responsible for the poverty of the TW. Yet when TW people start building industries, attending university or consuming Western movies, third wordists view it as a sign that these countries are being corrupted by Western influence - which brings us back to that other trait, getting high on paradise; yes, Jameson really has the best of both worlds: the joys of a high paying academic salary combined with the innocence and purity of the TW! -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University [EMAIL PROTECTED] Chico, CA 95929 530-898-5321 fax 530-898-5901
Re: [weisbrot-columns] (fwd)
Besides the problems with the article (which i have not read in details), the fact that Indians make "commercial movies" should not lead you to normalize the brutality of western imperialism and epidemic violence done to third world people. did you ever attempt to think why Indian directors shift to producing commercial movies? Actually, you don't need to go to third world.Indians were killed here. African Americans were used as slave labor, and they are still treated as non-humans. Criticizing this has nothing to do with "returning to the innocence and purity" of the third world. On the contrary, white men wanted to create this "purity" by _actually_ eliminating people. It was not so long ago-- eugenic laws were practiced here till 1965. Mine Why this extraordinary desire to keep Africa from exporting textiles to the U.S.--to keep Africa poor and keep Roger Milliken rich? Someone calls this attitude "getting high on paradise": that the West may find redemption by returning to the innocence and purity of the past and that this past may be found in the Third World; which is why I heard once that Jameson was rather upset when Indian movie directors he admired wanted to make more "commercial" films, he opined against it and insisted they keep making movies for people like him, which even if they make no money, he can always write about it; not that he had planned to cash on that! But now I may be half teasing.
Re: Re: [weisbrot-columns] (fwd)
Besides the problems with the article (which i have not read in details), the fact that Indians make "commercial movies" should not lead you to normalize the brutality of western imperialism and epidemic violence done to third world people. did you ever attempt to think why Indian directors shift to producing commercial movies? Actually, you don't need to go to third world.Indians were killed here. African Americans were used as slave labor, and they are still treated as non-humans. Criticizing this has nothing to do with "returning to the innocence and purity" of the third world. On the contrary, white men wanted to create this "purity" by _actually_ eliminating people. It was not so long ago-- eugenic laws were practiced here till 1965. Mine Why this extraordinary desire to keep Africa from exporting textiles to the U.S.--to keep Africa poor and keep Roger Milliken rich? If I understand what you are saying, it is that (a) eugenic laws were practiced here in the U.S. until 1965, and so (b) African textile businesses should be prohibited from exporting more than a narrowly-limited quota of goods to the U.S. I'm missing something here... Brad DeLong
Re: Re: Re: [weisbrot-columns] (fwd)
Brad, this sentence does not belong to me. My post was a reply to Ricardo's post about Indian film producers. please, read Ricardo's entire response, then you will make the connection. merci, Mine I did not write: Why this extraordinary desire to keep Africa from exporting textiles to the U.S.--to keep Africa poor and keep Roger Milliken rich? Brad De Long wrote: I wrote: Besides the problems with the article (which i have not read in details), the fact that Indians make "commercial movies" should not lead you to normalize the brutality of western imperialism and epidemic violence done to third world people. did you ever attempt to think why Indian directors shift to producing commercial movies? Actually, you don't need to go to third world.Indians were killed here. African Americans were used as slave labor, and they are still treated as non-humans. Criticizing this has nothing to do with "returning to the innocence and purity" of the third world. On the contrary, white men wanted to create this "purity" by _actually_ eliminating people. It was not so long ago-- eugenic laws were practiced here till 1965. Mine Somebody wrote (NOT ME) Why this extraordinary desire to keep Africa from exporting textiles to the U.S.--to keep Africa poor and keep Roger Milliken rich? Brad replied: If I understand what you are saying, it is that (a) eugenic laws were practiced here in the U.S. until 1965, and so (b) African textile businesses should be prohibited from exporting more than a narrowly-limited quota of goods to the U.S. I'm missing something here... Brad DeLong -- Mine Aysen Doyran PhD Student Department of Political Science SUNY at Albany Nelson A. Rockefeller College 135 Western Ave.; Milne 102 Albany, NY 1
