> > in many countries, including the US and here in australia, there
is little in the way of _any_ action that brings together the issues of
border controls beyond this or that particular policy or this or that
particular infringment of freemovement. the cross the border camp looks
to me like an advance. <<
you asked:
> an advance compared to what?
compared to protests which focus only on "this or that particular policy or this or that particular infringment of free movement", as i wrote above.
> does normally any practical changes come up
> after protest actions like this? or is the aim to at least engage
> public attention?
i expect the latter. how does change happen? in many unpredictable ways... i hope it changes; i'm usually too cynical to think that any action will; and i nonetheless think that change is always possible, but not open to planning or guarantees that it will be effective.
> i ask because things here seem a bit different; maybe, because the
30+older> people have been trained to attend meetings, demonstrations,
etc from a very > fragile age (school years). So, in a way, we are not
very inventive. There > have been sitting, lying or hungry strikes, yet
the preferred form of mass> protest are meetings (gatherings?) or
walking demonstration.<
are you saying then the problem with the camp is that it's not inventive enough as a form of protest? perhaps. but a check on their site shows they've been doing many different and i think rather inventive things. what would you suggest instead then?
>A unique form > of revolution that brought down the socialist
government back in 1997 was, > as I call it, the "jumping revolution".
People literally had to jump > (possible explanation is that it was cold
winter), and the mantra to shout > was "They Who Don't Jump Are Red".
Serious, too. Concerts by pop groups, > performing artists, etc are
engaged mainly as a by-attraction and > predominantly during election
campaigns.<
there are a range of activities during the camp. check the website.
but i'm interested in how you think this jumping was effective. was it that it organised a 'community' on the basis of isolating those who would not 'jump'? doesn't this already imply that, well before the jumping began, to be 'red' was seen as bad? how did that come about? was the govt no longer able to deliver the goods (compared to come version of what could be attained by no longer being 'red')?
much of the difficulty on migration issues comes from beginning from a situation where migrants are seen as a threat to 'economic security'. this makes it quite different to toppling a govt which has little or no popular support, is unable to buy that support (including the support of the army and police), and it's only then a matter of fortifying the opposition against some stray 'reds' who refuse to jump.
> The problem is that East European countries (or Bulgaria at least), in
> search of "European/civilised identity" start from the position that
the > only desirable possibility to acquire such identity is to follow
suit, to > copy, to get into Europe, and in effect breeding a national
inferiority > complex ("bad Europeans") enhanced by politics of
Eurofetishism. Europe, > European are magic words - and a winning tramp
card for the right in > government.
does this have something to do with an alliance 'east' no longer implying 'economic security'? so the eurofetishism comes from a very real assessment of the dismal character of the russian economy, even though i suspect bulgaria will only 'get included' in 'europe' with a whole lot of conditions which will make for a worsening of the standard of living in bulgaria.
>On the other hand, joining NATO, or at least supporting while >
waiting, is another facet of the civilising process. Those who question
> government policy are "red trash". Although there are no practical >
consequences for criticising government in public (none that I know of,
at > least), you get this qualification. Altogether, we are far from a
culture of > tolerance yet - beats me why there seems little progress,
it's been 10!!! > years. It's always a binary opposition - either or, or
against; no shades, > no pluralism.<
perhaps that had something to do with the 'jumping revolution'? the kind of community that was consitited then? is this what you were implying?
> Potential violators: Infringement of rights starts even before you
cross the > border - the moment you apply for a visa. You may get a
refusal simply > because the embassy official decides that you are a
POTENTIAL immigrant (I > had such an occasion myself). You need to
supply really good reasons > (tourism and family often don't count good
enough reasons) and documents > (like ownership of a flat, acar, a note
from your workplace that you are on > holiday and they expect you to
return); you have to travel alone, or with a > family member staying in
the country - to prove, in all possible ways, that > you will be
returning. To say nothing about the corruption of embassy >
officials...<
yes. the same happens with visas here. embassy officials have discretionary powers (which makes for serious corruption), and yet they are encouraged to determine that certain groups are 'at risk' of overstaying their visas by a list supplied by the dept of immigration. countries which are involved in conflicts or have experienced financial crises/poverty top the list of 'suspects', whilst, in reality, those who tend to overstay visas are well down the list. british and new zealand tourists tend to overstay more than eastern europeans, but the latter are regarded as 'at risk'.
> So in what way are the hack the border group trying to change the
> status-quo?
as i said, border restrictions make possible certain benefits for capitalism -- those which flow from exclusion, segmentation, informal work and national bonding. challenging this seems to me central to today's political landscape. the hack the border camp is one important
way of doing this.
> Regarding "red (trash)", it's surprising that 10 years have not been
enough > to change significantly the image of the party, on the one
hand, and we have > remained, or become even more, intolerant. In the Bg
discussion forum on > Kossovo, guys call me Simply Red, while on the Bad
list Fred would probably > label this as petit bourg .<
there must have been a very tight equation made between the previous 'red' govt and communism/socialism for it to be so. is there no history of the different factions within bulgarian communist/socialist history that would loosen this equation a little? or tendencies which offered a glimpse of a different path? it's likely of course that much of this history will have been buried under official history, but there surely must be a thread that can be picked up as offering a way in which to transform the politics/image of the party?
Angela _________