I'm *somewhat perplexed* by Tim's statement that:
Why are they [the Mirror] so
> thin-skinned at a democratic (there are, so far at least, very few
> reported problems in voting) outcome?
Pexplexed in the sence that the statement's hard to rectify with the
position of someone claiming allegiance to the social model,
"somewhat" in that it is less hard to fathom when seen in the
context of it being said by an American.
AT least, the impression I got of the social model -- someone
please correct me if I'm wrong -- is that the political is never
divorced from the social. The two are seen as connected. Yet the
impression I get of your statement, Tim, is quite the opposite: that
what happens in the U.S. only matters. That, for you, the human
(social) consequences of the U.S. (political) elections is only to be
interpreted within the confines of the U.S. state, divorced from its
impact on the rest of the world. What you label, the "democatric
outcome" for the U.S. should supercede all other concerns.
Not that I imagine most citizens outside the U.S would in principle
be against this idea. The notion of the American people/America
being content solely with their own democratic outcomes would for
most be a welcome breath of fresh air...surely, something to make
Osama ecstatic about, that is, of course, if it were indeed the
pattern. Alas, this couldn't be further from the usual method of
comportment of the U.S state. The fact is today, a few wealthy
states, lead by the U.S. as self annointed "leader of the free world",
makes decisions which generally affect the rest of the world
citizens, the majority in fact, in a negative way.
Take Iraq, for example. Since the U.S., along with the British et al.,
first turned against Saddam Hussein (formerly a client of your
country) an estimated 1.6 mllion Iraqis have been killed. They have
died b/c of 10 years of vicious, brutal sanctions imposed on them
under the reign of the father of your currently-elected president,
sanctions which were then enthusiastly tightened under your
subsequent president's (Clinton's) watch. And, in case you forgot,
since Bush junior's took the decision to invade and occupy Iraq,
countless more Iraqi people have died.
More generally, billions of human beings are affected each an every
day by decisions taken on your country's behalf -- from as far
away regions as South America all the way to the far east. For
example, the farmers of India forced off their land by your -GMO
multinationals;
; The millions of Africans brutalized by military dictatorships or
leadership supported by your government (often by way of the CIA),
people who, in their state of suffering, have been denied basic
resources such as shelter and medicine, i.e., resources which
western countries, but, more recently, cheifly your own
government., either refuse to share with Africans or forcefully steal
from them under the cloak of corporate "exporting" to the west.
There are many more examples to list.
What I would argue is that as long as the world continues to be
affected adversely by the policies carried in the name of the U.S
state, it seems only uncumbent upon us, as our democratic duty
as citizens outside the U.S. (as well as for Americans who oppose
the system) to communicate, by whatever means possible, our
discontent toward your country's cherised "democratic outcomes".
DOQ
Date sent: Thu, 4 Nov 2004 08:58:23 -0500
Send reply to: "Lillie,Timothy H" <[log in to unmask]>
From: "Lillie,Timothy H" <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: The Shakespeare Tragedy
To: [log in to unmask]
> I'm standing a bit outside all this, since my connection to the British
> world of disability studies has recently been weaker than it once was
> but it seems to me that the discussion is likely a good one if it
> results in a bit more civility in discussion of competing views. Of
> course, it likely will not seem that way to the person or persons who
> are personally savaged and I *know* that many diversity-sensitive and
> inclusionary folks are VERY thin skinned when they feel they are being
> criticized. Their immediate response, in my view, has been to cry victim
> and demand an apology...while feeling that their critiques, regardless
> of how personal they are are somehow justified.
>
> Why do I mention this here? Because of the headline Bob refers to in
> the Daily Mirror figuratively weeping over the "dumbness" of fifty-nine
> million Americans in choosing someone not acceptable, apparently, to the
> Daily Mirror. I don't know the Mirror's politics but from the reported
> headline they are obviously left of center..... Why are they so
> thin-skinned at a democratic (there are, so far at least, very few
> reported problems in voting) outcome? The answer might be: because they
> think that people who don't share their view, like those attacking
> Shakespeare personally, are simply stupid and evil. Tell that often
> enough to someone and that person stops listening to you.
>
> So be careful of how critiques are framed: even righteous liberals (and
> conservatives, for that matter, who in my view are similarly
> constructed) can be vicious and bigoted when *their* precious views are
> critiqued.
>
> Timothy Lillie, PhD
> Associate Professor
> The University of Akron
> Zook Hall 322
> Akron OH 55325-4205
> 330-972-6746 (voice)
> 330-972-5209 (fax
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: The Disability-Research Discussion List
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Bob
> Williams-Findlay
> Sent: Thursday, November 04, 2004 6:45 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: The Shakespeare Tragedy
>
>
> I find myself strangely caught between Shirley's world and Havor's.
>
> Early this week Tom and I had an exchange of words; my posting on the
> List concerning his Ouch article was detailed and reasoned, I felt. On
> Ouch itself, I admit I reacted from the gut and penned off a short,
> journalistic style sound-bite response.
>
> Tom characterised this as "personal abuse" and suggested I should've
> focused on his "views"; my retort was that I believe a person's style of
> delivery is as much a part of the debate as are the views the individual
> expresses. I, therefore, stood by my decision to characterise Tom as
> behaving like a Victorian Headmaster when he addresses the Disabled
> People's Movement.
>
> The problem is where do you draw the line? I hear what Shirley is
> saying; but am I being hypocritical by saying that I think she was
> unwise to voice it in the manner that she has?
>
> Today, the British newspaper, the Daily Mirror, ran the headline
> something
> like:
> Are 59,000 Americans that Dumb?
>
> I believe this is no different; my thought processes went there, yet the
> price of liberty requires us to accept the challenge of the unthinkable.
>
> Personally, I have distanced myself from Tom's views because many
> contradiction some of the core values I have; no doubt what I do and say
> outrage some people also.
>
> It's hard not to be outraged and to want to scrap with those who you
> feel threaten or undermine what you hold dear. I'm not saint in this
> field and I've been attacked several times for my outspoken bluntness
> during a counter-attack.
>
> This said, I believe there's a great deal of validity in what Havor was
> saying. Anger is a poor companion in a battle for people's attention.
>
> Bob Williams-Findlay
>
>
>
> ________________End of message______________________
>
> Archives and tools for the Disability-Research Discussion List are now
> located at:
>
> www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/disability-research.html
>
> You can JOIN or LEAVE the list from this web page.
>
> ________________End of message______________________
>
> Archives and tools for the Disability-Research Discussion List
> are now located at:
>
> www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/disability-research.html
>
> You can JOIN or LEAVE the list from this web page.
________________End of message______________________
Archives and tools for the Disability-Research Discussion List
are now located at:
www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/disability-research.html
You can JOIN or LEAVE the list from this web page.
|