Another Postmodern Cover (was Re: Subject)

[Yoshie Furuhashi]

>Jim wrote:
>
>> I think strictly speaking the absence of foreign troops does mean that
>> it was not colonised, just as the presence of foreign troops may
>> indicate that is has been colonised.
>
>i'm pretty sure the definition of whether troops are 'foreign' or not is a
>highly contested issue in a lot of places.   troops acting as civil guards
>are generally seen as an occupying force by most populations, not least
>because it transforms the space into one in which rules of war apply, in
>which the enemy is regarded as akin to being 'foreign' and in which the
>external border 'comes home'.  the troops on the streets in LA after the
>riots, being an example perhaps.
>
>Angela
>_________

Another postmodern cover for Gitlin's 'Yes.'  'Deconstruction' of this sort
is nothing but obscurantist, when what we are discussing is the NATO
occupation of Yugoslavia.  You are so busy 'problematizing the nation
state' from a micro-political angle that you forget the point for us was
and is to oppose the NATO expansion, to oppose imperialism, period.

In this sense, despite your occasional insertion of Marxist jargon, you are
much more obscurantist than Derrida, who at least opposed the war without
bothering to bring in 'the streets of LA,' if I remember correctly the
joint statement he signed.

Yoshie