https://media.giphy.com/media/kGirnWjxLimje/giphy.gif

On Sun, Nov 13, 2016 at 10:58:21AM -0500, Raju J Das wrote:
> Let’s argue and counter-argue. Let’s agree and disagree. *But is it a nice
> thing to say* to people with whom we disagree to ‘shut up’ or to say that
> their view is ‘shit’, or similar such things? That attitude expressed in
> some of the recent emails is in line with the right-wing culture of
> authoritarianism that we are supposed to be critical of.
> 
> *I register my protest* against such an attitude, on behalf of myself and
> others who believe in the principle of the right to speak freely and to
> politely express dissenting views. I am hoping that those who manage the
> site/s will take note of this.
> 
> Apparently, my email about the US election outcome hurt some people’s
> feelings (and that email and/or some emails from others appeared to be a
> view from the ivory tower), implying, therefore, that the content of such
> emails is problematic. This is *‘moral’ policing* of sorts.
> The**epistemological status of a statement hardly depends on* whether it
> causes emotional trauma or soothes one’s heart. *If that were the case,
> geographers and others would long stop talking about the theory of
> capitalist and imperialist *exploitation or of racial oppression*, because
> that theory must be causing trauma to the American and international
> bourgeoisie and their middle class spokespersons, and to the racists. And a
> view cannot be automatically dismissed *because it asks people to think/act
> differently*. In fact, for many of us, our aim is to understand the world
> from the standpoint of changing it, and the latter presupposes *a systemic
> critique of the world and of existing views about it*.
> 
> Please, please, please, *let us not use impolite and rude language* if a
> view is presented that goes against our own views. Let us not try to curtail
> freedom of speech through moral policing of sorts or by other means. There
> are theoretical and political differences among us. Let's not create another
> layer of difference, one that is created by the use of rude words. *Words
> matter*.
> 
> One is*entitled* to a view which sees the fundamental division in society as
> one that is based on race, gender and sexuality-based identities (and
> associated politics of recognition) rather than on class relations of
> capitalism which use and thus reinforce, divisions based on these
> identities. One is entitled to a view which sees the US election result
> dominantly on the basis of the race, gender and sexuality lens. One is also
> entitled to the idea that the fate of the majority of people permanently
> lies in the hands of a bourgeois party – the Democratic Party -- that might
> give small concessions now and then, while it not only facilitates the
> transfer of millions of dollars into the hands of *the top 1%* causing
> massive immiserization of millions of Americans (men and women, whites and
> non-whites), but also kills thousands of people in *imperialist wars* in
> weaker countries.  But please have the patience to hear the views that
> counter the above views. Such counter-views were expressed in my original
> post and in many other emails by other members of our geography community.
> *Politics is **/ultimately/**about class politics, *one that is deeply
> mindful of the attack of the system on workers who are socially oppressed on
> the basis of race, gender, sexual orientation, etc.
> 
> 
> It is interesting to see what some Democrats /are/ saying about the
> underlying class dynamics of the election result: ‘*Class anger won*’ says
> Hank Sheinkopf who is a Democrat consultant, and ‘members [of trade unions]
> just don’t trust Democrats anymore’, says Yarmuth, a Democratic party
> politician from Louisville (NYT, Nov 10).
> 
> 
> Those who are inclined to view the Democratic party favourably may wish to
> note that in the last three elections, while the votes for the Republican
> party have stayed more or less constant (approx. 60 million), *the votes for
> the Democratic party have been shrinking*. One prominent reason is this:
> anger of ordinary (working class) people against the attack on their
> livelihood is being expressed (mistakenly, yes) in their support for a
> right-wing party. Perhaps *if Sanders was not crushed* by the Wall Street
> lady, Trump would not get the support he did. Interestingly, a larger % of
> lower-income people voted for Republicans in 2016 than in 2012, and a larger
> % of higher-income people voted for Democrats this time than last time.
> 
> 
> It is interesting that when we are showing our disagreements among us here,
> and some listserv members unfortunately show their disagreements
> *impolitely*, people including in the Democratic establishment (e.g. Obama,
> Sanders, and trade union bureaucrats, etc.) are ‘uniting’ with (i.e.
> promising support to) Trump, *politely *saying that they will all work with
> him and that they are ‘all on one team’ (these are the words of Mr. Obama,
> who had declared a few days ago that Trump was unfit to be the President).
> And with the Trump win, Wall Street is celebrating and salivating (with its
> high *DOW numbers* which have now surpassed the numbers from August). Trump
> is, of course, putting together a transition team that is stuffed not only
> with his family members but also with the representatives of big business
> and with right-wing bigots (who are known for their reactionary stance on
> abortion and other social issues).
> 
> 
> Here is the good news though. Mr. Trump, who is the President-elect *without
> winning a popular vote* (this is happening for the fifth time in the last
> 240 years) and who received the least votes of any candidate from either of
> the parties since 2000, is already facing *grassroots demonstrations against
> him*. Some of us will hope that it is partly on the basis of those
> grassroots actions and similar other actions that the collective
> consciousness of American society, with a long history of popular struggles
> against injustice, will move to the Left of the current *two-party bourgeois
> system*. Note: *99 million did* not vote at all or voted for a third party
> (each of the two main parties got roughly 60 million).
> 
> 
> Once again: what is truly needed is a mass movement, guided by a
> democratically-organized party, that demand that society’s resources be
> placed under the democratic control of the masses, that champions the
> interest of skilled and unskilled workers and small-scale producers,
> including the right to a decent living, that unconditionally defends the
> democratic rights of men and women, of immigrants and native-born people,
> and of people of different races, and that absolutely protects women and
> other socially oppressed groups from bodily and other forms of violence, and
> that immediately stops American imperialist interventions on weaker
> nations.*The question to ask is*, once again: to what extent is critical and
> left human geography consistent with such a vision or a similar vision?
> 
> 
> Raju
> 
> Raju J Das, York University
> 
>