 |
 |
John and Nick, Perhaps itıs time to take what has now become pretty much a private argument off the list. LDB On 26/07/08 10:48 AM, "John Jackson" <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > 1. Consistency was valued in days when one's character was predicated on > responsbility rather than what is fashionable. I am sure that we cannot > homogenise 10 year olds and some operate at vastly superior levels. Obviously > your scion is one of them. Congratulations! Perhaps she can help write your > responses? > > 2. Your anecdote involved a bunch of yobbos abusing you for unspecified > (racial?) reasons. I am not sure how that contributes to the discussion. My > empirical evidence is based on the initial posts to this very thread and > previous threads. Look at comments made by Plug and Edensor on 2 July for a > typical example. > > 3. One must not take a utilitarian approach otherwise one cannot be > consistent. It is not a question of engagement but of disengagement that will > transcend the power inequalities between man and state. > > On Mon, Jul 21, 2008 at 10:32 AM, <[log in to unmask]> wrote: >> 1. Okay, fair enough but nevertheless in the tread of the discussion >> ten-year olds were getting put down, so I was trying to suggest that they are >> more sophisticated than the thread of discussion was suggesting. What days >> were they, when consistency was valued? Did you imagine it? >> 2. I am sorry that you are not interested in my anecdotes or empirical >> evidence. I could say the same about your repeated rather vague theoretical >> argument. If you recall, I asked you for references so that we could all >> follow-up the argument that you were making - about mainstream and banality >> and the evilness of the state. Discourse development can make things more >> mainstream, yes. Do we love bio fuels any more? >> 3. Ok, I will concede that the state has significantly more power than >> corporations. Therefore more opportunity for oppression and so on. However, >> are there not many different forms of state? The decision to invade Iraq was >> based on flawed political decision by those in government at the time. Had >> the state engaged more closely with public opinion then it would not have >> happened. That was my point about the type of state. I am curious to know >> what political economy we would be under today without the formulation of >> state health system, education, welfare, transport and so on. I am not saying >> that it's wonderful but without it in the 20th C, then what? My added example >> on the baobab fruit is one that most readers will dismiss as a quirky >> curiosity. However, the naive excitement by the BBC, readers in general >> forgets to see more deeply that this is part of the ongoing damage by >> corporations, small and big. Trade in these fruits will be excellent for the >> super-foods industry and some African communities will get a little >> income. In the meantime the full-power commodification of this produce >> will wrench it completely out of the hands of the African children, who >> gain food and enjoyment out of the fruit. No longer, it seems. But that does >> not matter does it? >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: John Jackson <[log in to unmask]> >> To: [log in to unmask] >> Sent: Sun, 20 Jul 2008 23:21 >> Subject: Re: Guardian Poll on Thatcher State Funeral >> >> 1. I do not have a "thing" for 10 year olds. It is a reference to Miss >> Zaloznik's 's comments about 10 year olds. Back in the day consistency was >> valued. No longer. >> >> 2. I am not interested in trendy pubs (whatever they are) or drunken yobbos. >> My point was that many people think they are cool, daring ,and are >> challenging the government or corporations or whatever structural (or >> post-structural) inequalities they feel exist and, by doing so, they are >> brave and sophisticated when, since everyone is doing it, they are banal and >> mainstream. >> >> 3. I am not disputing that corporations do damage. However, my point is that >> whatever a company does that is negative, a government can do a million times >> worse. McDonalds did not invade Iraq. Tesco did not pass legislation that >> demands ID cards. Marks and Spencers does not arrest people for thought >> crimes. I find it perplexing when people see the state (government plus its >> appendages in the media, corporate world, etc) as benign but are quite happy >> to demand sanctions against evil company X or predatory company Y. Why do >> they have this fallacy? >> >> On Fri, Jul 18, 2008 at 7:52 AM, <[log in to unmask]> wrote: >>> 1. What's your thing with 10 year olds? My daughter recently entered a >>> 'readathon' and got through Gombrich, Adichie, Harper Lee, Durrell and many >>> others to raise funds for a school in Uganda. She's just turned eleven, >>> oops! >>> >>> 2. I do not understand your second point. Earlier this year we, including >>> kids sat outside a so-called trendy pub, catching the sun and having a pint. >>> To cut a long story short after a brief conversation about Zimbabwe and >>> Africa several drunk blokes overheard us and uncontrollably began to tell us >>> to go back there and never come back! So, perhaps you're right, I don't >>> know. >>> >>> 3. Yes but TNCs (trans-national corporations) and the like are directly >>> responsible for cutting down significant areas of forest and therefore >>> contributing to climate change. The list of the direct and indirect damage, >>> exploitation and degradation caused by multi-nationals is too long. Someone >>> could explain succinctly how they take over land, say in Kenya or Nigeria, >>> this forces people into cities or into relatively marginal lands. That then >>> contributes to conflict and further exploitation. What happened recently in >>> Kenya? What happened to Ken Saro-Wiwa and twelve others when they protested >>> about Shell's involvement in Ogoniland? I realise that the state and >>> companies are in cahoots; perhaps that has only changed a little in history. >>> I try not to mix up the state and government; maybe in my rose-tinted >>> glasses I assume that the state is by the people and for the people. Is the >>> state like a corporation? So, by that reasoning they're all as bad as each >>> other. Are you suggesting that the state is a bad and evil corporation but >>> all the others are benign and quietly doing their business? >>> >>> >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: John Jackson <[log in to unmask]> >>> To: [log in to unmask] >>> Sent: Fri, 18 Jul 2008 0:08 >>> Subject: Re: Guardian Poll on Thatcher State Funeral >>> >>> 1. It was an attempt at humor - clearly infantile (maybe at the level of a >>> 10 year old). >>> >>> 2. What I meant was that it is very easy to blame anyone and to think one is >>> sophisticated and provocative when actually such statements are mainstream. >>> We saw this a few weeks ago when certain people attacked someone who dared >>> to ask a question about race. Presumably they felt they were challenging >>> the ideological foundations of Western society whereas they were simply >>> hopping on a bandwagon that has been rolling for decades. There is nothing >>> brave about accusing people of racism - it's virtually demanded these days. >>> What non-socialist is a non-racist? >>> >>> 4. The point is this: people complain about multinationals, etc. But >>> multinationals do not go to war and kill millions of people, nor do they >>> introduce ID cards, etc. The state does that and it can do it because it is >>> a monopoly and the essence of all monopolies is to expand. Private >>> companies these days work for the state (hence Halliburton for example is >>> really a US government organisation). >>> >>> It concerns me that you are fearful of companies and the market but not the >>> biggest "firm" of them all: the government. Why is this? >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: [log in to unmask] >>> To: [log in to unmask] >>> Sent: Thu, 17 Jul 2008 9:19 >>> Subject: Re: Guardian Poll on Thatcher State Funeral >>> >>> Dear John, >>> I like your provocative approach, and perhaps there's now room for clearer >>> discussion on Thatcher and her legacy. >>> >>> 1. I do not understand your first point on capitals; this is an Email >>> arena, not for publication and obsessive scrutiny by proofreaders! >>> >>> 2. I think that the "thread" was beginning to offer opportunity for >>> critical discussion but as with my previous message things got a bit >>> personal and silly, in my view. I don't recall anyone blaming Thatcher for >>> all the world's ills. It was a profound shift from a more state-led >>> Keynesian-style economy to a Neo liberal 'monetarist' approach. >>> >>> 3. As far as I understand there was not any political party focus in the >>> discussions , no overt love for Labour or Blair. I would imagine quite the >>> opposite, especially in regard to the Iraq e.g. that you provide for us. No >>> one suggested that the critical geography forum is necessarily >>> "progressive", whatever that means. Did they? We could also ask ourselves >>> how "right-wing" Thatcher was, in herself and in her policies. >>> >>> 4. How can you equate the State with "evil"? Perhaps we can have some >>> references for where this analysis is made clear and justified. I quite like >>> the state: looking after me and my kids, and moreover, I fear and have daily >>> suspicion when it comes to the market (firms, businesses, companies and >>> corporations). I=2 0think the more power a state has the better so long as >>> it's in response to the demands of civil society and not the flippin market! >>> Everyone's panicking now! Now that the North's inflation is beginning to >>> catch-up with Zimbabwe's! >>> >>> Nick >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: John Jackson <[log in to unmask]> >>> To: [log in to unmask] >>> Sent: Wed, 16 Jul 2008 23:17 >>> Subject: Re: Guardian Poll on Thatcher State Funeral >>> >>> - Hide quoted text - >>> 1. The whole point of public requests for removal w as to express >>> dissatisfaction with the unedifying nature of mocking someone's predicted >>> death. A ten year old would have understood that and also would know how to >>> use capitals (are you Gloria Watkins)? >>> >>> 2. I wonder just how "critical" this whole thread is? It is almost de >>> rigeur and therefore mainstream to blame Thatcher for the world's ills. >>> >>> 3.When certain Labour party politicians are octogenarians, will there be >>> the same criticism? We can all agree that Blair has done tremendous damage >>> to this country especially regarding the Iraq War and civil liberties. Or >>> is it only progressive to criticise the "right," not that Thatcher was >>> especially right-wing. >>> >>> 4. The major perpetrator of evil is the State (taking a broad Gramscian >>> definition). Surely anyone who reduces its power (however minimally) must >>> be supported? >>> >>> >>> AOL Email goes Mobile! You can now read your AOL Emails whilst on the move. >>> Sign up <http://info.aol.co.uk/email1> for a free AOL Email account with >>> unlimited storage today. >> >> >> >> AOL Email goes Mobile! You can now read your AOL Emails whilst on the move. >> Sign up <http://info.aol.co.uk/email1> for a free AOL Email account with >> unlimited storage today. > > -- Lawrence D. Berg, D.Phil. Co-Director, The Centre for Social, Spatial & Economic Justice http://www.chrdi.org/CSSEJ/cssejsite/Welcome.html Community, Culture and Global Studies University of British Columbia 3333 University Way Kelowna, BC, Canada, V1V 1V7 Voice: +1 250.807.9392, Fax: +1 250.807.8001 Email: [log in to unmask] WEB: http://www.chrdi.org/ldb/index.html Editor: ACME: An International E-Journal for Critical Geographies http://www.acme-journal.org Co-Leader: BC Disabilities Health Research Network http://www.dhrn.ca