So... Glen why do you think that a large US think-tank might be prepared
to pay for your services in undermining the idea that there is such (a)
phenomenom(a) as 'globalisation'?
Nothing to do with the US being the latest and possibly most powerful
ever imperialistic state who is largely responsible for the current
distribution of power, influence and economic prosperity on the
globe?...
Gavin Parker
----------
From: Glen Segell
To: Paul.Treanor
Cc: Adrian Smith; [log in to unmask]; [log in to unmask];
[log in to unmask]; [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: The politics of Globalization, State and Violence
Date: 05 February 1998 13:18
Dear Paul
I agree totally with you. I had submitted a proposal which was actually
turned down. This was actually to my favour. I had given the same
proposal
to a large US think-tank who has invited me to spend 6 weeks giving
seminars and workshops. They were of the opinion that my proposal was of
such significance that it was worth over ten thosand US dollars to fly
me
across the pond etc, etc. If Sussex had accepted my proposal I would
have
had to return to England to participate in a hoax ! Bottom line is that
my
time spent in the US will actually be doing what you have considered
important - getting crucial decision-makers, academics and other
people together and getting rid of the word "globalisation".
-- Glen Segell
On Thu, 5 Feb 1998, Paul.Treanor wrote:
> Date: Thu, 5 Feb 1998 13:24:39 +0100 (MET)
> From: "Paul.Treanor" <[log in to unmask]>
> To: Adrian Smith <[log in to unmask]>, [log in to unmask]
> Cc: [log in to unmask], [log in to unmask],
> [log in to unmask]
> Subject: The politics of Globalization, State and Violence
>
> > CONFERENCE: GLOBALIZATION, STATE AND VIOLENCE
>
> This conference has an impressive list of big names in globalisation.
> I am prepared (for free) to attend as keynote speaker, and deliver this
> keynote address: "There is no globalisation". But of course that is not
> allowed. I think there is a serious point, which recurs in every
> conference announcement or course announcement on globalisation. So far
> as I know, every single conference and course on globalisation,
> everywhere in the world, starts from the assumption that there is
> globalisation. Certainly total denial of its existence, is unacceptable
> behaviour at such conferences: it implies the conference is a hoax.
>
> Most globalisation researchers have never had any professional contact
> with any academic who denies the existence of globalisation. Some
> globalisation researchers have never read any text denying the existence
> of globalisation.
>
> It is obviously not possible in such a climate to question the
> hype-turned-lobby. Just as the catholic Church is the last place where
> you can deny the resurrection of Christ, globalisation research is the
> last place to talk about globalisation. And the catholic Church has been
> going for 2000 years: I fear the worst.
>
> pt
>
> > Martin ALBROW, Roehampton Institute
> > Michael COX, Aberystwyth
> > James DER DERIAN, Michigan
> > Stephen GILL, York CA
> > Eric HOBSBAWM, London
> > John LOVERING
> > Robin LUCKHAM, Sussex
> > Philip McMICHAEL, Cornell
> > Kate MANZO, Newcastle
> > Margit MAYER, Freie Universitaet, Berlin
> > Jan Nederveen PIETERSE, ISS The Hague
> > Sol PICCIOTTO, Lancaster
> > Peter TAYLOR, Loughborough
> > Kees VAN DER PILJ, Universiteit Amsterdam
> > Gillian YOUNGS, Leicester
>
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|