 |
 |
> > I suggest that the term 'social cleansing' should be used or such policies. It > > puts the issue where it belongs: in social philosophy and ethics. The > > displacement of a social class should receive the same moral analysis, as the > > displacement of an ethnic group. > > Absolutely. The spatial displacement of an exploited class is > perhaps even a more serious matter, morally and otherwise, than > that of an ethnic group. If an ethnic _group_ which is an > exploitative _class_ is displaced, maybe it's ok. (Of course, I don't > its members to get killed!). I have to admit that I have a problem with what we are suggesting here. While I would not want to debate whether ethnic or social cleansing is worse than the other I would be inclined to argue that as far as social cleansing is concerned we should not be using the term 'cleansing'. What is being cleansed? I accept that from the point of view of the city planners, the landowners and capitalist interests the spatial displacement of lower-income, working class people is a 'cleansing' of the urban environment but I don't think that's reason enough for us to view it that way. Clearances, yes. Cleansing no. I just have reservations about using a term that has been thrown about so much by NATO, for example, to justify barbaric acts of terror against the people of Serbia. Maybe I'm wrong but at least we should be considering whether the term cleansing is appropriate. Alistair Alistair Fraser 1st Year MA Student Geography Department Ohio State University [log in to unmask] %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%