On Wed, 21 May 1997 [log in to unmask] wrote:
> And even if he finds he still
> disagrees with them, at least some form of connection has been established
> which might begin to displace the aggressive policing of absolute,
> territorialised difference.
I am in favour of absolute territorialised difference. See especially
Post Democratic Space at:
http://web.inter.NL.net/users/Paul.Treanor/post.dem.space.html
Your work and the work of many of your colleagues favours syncretism
over separation. There is no logical basis for the claim that fusion is
superior, the syncretic fallacy. In practice, academics and others are
inconsistent in their use of these arguments: they favour a global
ethics but oppose "interference by Brussels" in British sovereignty, and
so on.
There is no point in a long discussion about this: the point is that the
session illustrated very well the defects of the deconstructive approach
to nationalism, it ends up as a catalogue of identities and their
contestation. Sometimes that is interesting - take a look at the
pan-Turkish and genocide sites at Nationalism Links
http://web.inter.NL.net/users/Paul.Treanor/nationalism.links.2.html
I could not resisit including the site selling Michael Collins Beer
Glasses either. But I would never claim that is an analysis or criticism
of nationalism.
PT
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|