I get the feeling that some people do not seem to understand that
'criticism' must be able to be universal or it is meaningless. As a
British academic I spend a lot of time criticising my country of origin,
its government and its power structures. I fully expect academics of
other nations to criticise what 'Britain' does too. If those who claim
to be speaking 'for China' cannot accept ciriticism, I suggest that they
are probably unable to be Critical Geographers (or indeed Critical
scholars of any kind). If Tibet had invaded China and oppressed its
people, I would be the first person to be critical of Tibet. Your
country of origin is irrelevent.
David.
>-----Original Message-----
>From: A forum for critical and radical geographers
>[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of A M Law
>Sent: 07 April 2008 15:13
>To: [log in to unmask]
>Subject: Feeling Ashamed
>
>Dear Jimmy Li
>
>Thank you for your message. I acknowledge that the Western
>Media certainly has a role in producing negative images of the
>Chinese government and also the present crisis in Tibet. I am
>also very sure that at times papers, and other forms of
>Western media make your government and its actions look worse
>than it actually is for the sake of making the news.
>
>However, I believe that very strong issues and human rights
>abuses remain. To be honest with you I could spend a long
>time dragging through layers of historical evidence and
>ongoing issues but I cannot be bothered to debate with you;
>anyway to look at some of the 'evidence'
>that might have shaped my own interpretations check out
>Amnesty international for details.
>
>http://www.amnesty.org.uk/search.asp?q=+tibet&submitted=-1
>
>
>I also think that you did not read my email. Like an email
>posted by Dr Larch Maxey recently I was merely signing up to
>join a collective petition... I.e. the Tibetan Olympic Team.
>However, rather than acknowledging this, you have simply
>decided to be critically of me personally. In this list when
>disagreement occurs - and thankfully it is often - there is
>usually a way of talking to one another critically without
>resorting to 'shaming' one another, or calling one another
>'ignorant'. I have felt that that it is the discussion of one
>another's ideas critically - as opposed to discussing them
>through aggressive and shaming words - that results in this
>'loose' and often blurry thing we call academic discussion.
>In this regard if you wish to be critical of my decision to
>support Team Tibet I would appreciate it if you would do this
>without aggressive confrontation and or intimidation tactics
>towards myself or other list members
>
>Yours
>
>Dr Andy Law
>
|