 |
 |
It's the demagogue's ploy to bring into question the motives of his accuser rather than to evaluate his argument. To be sure, I'm not projecting my "jealously" of your country in my criticising of Bush -- the typical American seige mentality. That is absolute caricature of reality. Do you project jealously of Iraq for criticizing Saddam? It's more like I'm embarrassed for your country. Embarrassed for the minority of Americans who don't support the genocide that has been carried out by the U.S. army in various parts of the world, on a daily basis, in your country's name. Just as I don't support the U.S. state, I don't for a second defend the Canadian state or, for that matter, our system of governance. For the record, our politcal system is riddled by similar corruption and lackyism to big business interests as your own. We have also (*always* happily supported your military adventures abroad. In doing so, we bare a great of responsibility for the deaths and destruction that has resulted. Certainly nothing I'm proud of in terms of being Canadian. > Do you really believe all that?>>> Do I really believe what? At least try to make a half arsed attempt to adress the substance of my argument. Your education would have enabled you that. I've seen nothing so far. After all, a quick look at the internal > politics of Canada (where your email address appears to place you > physically) does not exactly present an elightened view of democracy to > the world either, does it?>>> Again your resort to vaguish statements and cliches. Still don't know where exactly you stand on the matters that you boldly claim make you "shake [your] head in disbelief" , though I imagine, given some of your previous e-mails on this list in defence of Bush and conversatism, that you are not far detached from republican values. David Subject: RE: The Shakespeare Tragedy Date sent: Mon, 8 Nov 2004 07:39:27 -0500 From: "Lillie,Timothy H" <[log in to unmask]> To: "David Quarter" <[log in to unmask]> Copies to: <[log in to unmask]> > I wish I could respond in some fashion to your reply, below, other than > to simply shake my head in disbelief. > > Do you really believe all that? I know it is a type of analysis that > some people use but a part of me can't help but think that there is rage > and jealousy going on here. After all, a quick look at the internal > politics of Canada (where your email address appears to place you > physically) does not exactly present an elightened view of democracy to > the world either, does it? > > And gratuitiously throwing around slogans is only going to get you > further marginalized, though not by me. > > 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: David Quarter [mailto:[log in to unmask]] > Sent: Saturday, November 06, 2004 3:06 AM > To: Lillie,Timothy H; [log in to unmask] > Cc: [log in to unmask] > Subject: RE: The Shakespeare Tragedy > > > > Tim writes: > > "you read more into my comments than I would think > supportable.". > > I would say, in fact, that your response below indicates exactly > what I suggested: That you think primarily in terms of how the > elections impacts *America*, in the narrow, middle class, > eurocentric sense of the word. > > <<<<However, I *will* say that regardless of > > your political outlook, the USA presidential election was > conducted and > > peacefully settled according to democratic principles.>>> > > Your so-called "democratic" principles are grounded in a system > that priviledges the rich AND/OR the politically connected at the > expense of the rest. By rich I mean having Scrooge McDuck like > pockets. Poltical connectness in the U.S. requires the type of clout > that would enable someone to rise from a ragged upbringing in > Arkansas to being elected President of the United States. The > latter *only* occurs by being attached to one of the "two" main > political parties., both of which are deeply entwined with the 5 % or > so of the population who controls the economy. > > What happens for virtually all "independent" candidate in the U.S. > lacking in the funds to support their campaign is that they are > barred from the TV and radio airwaves. This since the TV stations > are controlled by big business or rich people who aren't interested > in supporting candidates not alligned to the "two" main > representatives of the rich. > > Lacking in money or political connectsion leaves one without the > funds necessary to get a message across to the voting public - > exactly what a third candidate like Nader -- by no stretch of the > imagination a poor guy -- faced in this recent election and exactly > why a system, such as this, precludes any real possibility of > actual "choices" between candidates. > > Your beloved racist, classist so-called "democratic" system also > either prohibits by law, or makes it virtually impossible for, a nice > chunk of your population to even vote. > > What a pathetic excuse for a democracy! > > > > Communicate your discontent about USA politics and foreign > policy all > > you like; that is or ought to be your privilege. > > > > Translation: You can criticize my country but it means you're my > enemy. > > So typical of the seige mentality that afflicts the majority of > Americans. > > > > > > Subject: RE: The Shakespeare Tragedy > Date sent: Fri, 5 Nov 2004 09:03:37 -0500 > From: "Lillie,Timothy H" <[log in to unmask]> > To: "David Quarter" <[log in to unmask]>, > <[log in to unmask]> > > > Well, all I can say is that I think you have read more into my comment > > than I would think supportable. However, I *will* say that regardless > of > > your political outlook, the USA presidential election was conducted > and > > peacefully settled according to democratic principles. In my book, if > an > > election is democratically held and an outcome then occurs as the will > > of the people (whether or not I might agree with that outcome), then > > that settles it. > > > > Communicate your discontent about USA politics and foreign policy all > > you like; that is or ought to be your privilege. > > > > Tim > > > > 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: David Quarter [mailto:[log in to unmask]] > > Sent: Friday, November 05, 2004 12:31 AM > > To: Lillie,Timothy H; [log in to unmask] > > Cc: [log in to unmask] > > Subject: Re: The Shakespeare Tragedy > > > > > > > > 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.