> At 11:13 PM 11/30/01 -0500, ravi wrote:
>
>> aren't we really nitpicking here? mina kumar provides a fair
>> reinterpretation of the sentence... can't we work with that? the
>> crux of the point - that bush acts in a manner that subverts
>> democratic processes and hence his act resemble those of a
>> dictator - remains worthy of being addressed wouldnt you agree?
>>
>
> no, since you miss daniel's point, a point mina made quite well not too
> long ago:
>
> <...>
>
> He's speaking as an American, I'll give you that. (mina)
>
i went back and read dd's response and you are right: i did not respond to his suspicion that the original poster (whom dd does not mention by name and i am too tired to look up) demonstrated a sort of "knee-jerk anti-americanism". however i have addressed this to some extent elsewhere in the "selective pacifism" thread:
> additionally i think these labels of "anti-americanism" etc that are
> flying about on the list, to characterize certain positions that have
> been identified as "pacifist" or "american leftist", are misdirected.
> the reasons for focusing on the errors in govt action (or american
> action) etc are, i believe, pragmatic, and the same reasons why chomsky
> addresses US excesses (to relate to an earlier thread). there are a
> large number of voices, with significantly better reach, that are daily
> publicising the sin of alQ, the taliban, the islamic faith, etc etc. it
> should not be necessary for everyone, especially on a list such as this,
> to have to constantly append sympathetic noises to their messages to
> make it clear that they see no excuse for 9/11 etc etc.
i can add a couple of things to that:
as the mina kumar post you forwarded (and the related thread) illustrate, it is possible that there might be exaggerations in the claims, and i will gladly concede the validity of the critique of such exaggerations serving as modifiers. further it is possible that these are not just exaggerations but are entirely invalid, but i am not sure that was demonstrated.
whether the poster that dd was responding to was acting out of "anti-americanism" does not and should not impact the content of his argument, which is what i stuck to in my response, and which is what i believed mina kumar rescued in her restatement of the controversial description.
of course one can take a moral stand against "anti-americanism" as one sees it, and oppose it when it appears, irrespective of the message conveyed within (such as one might oppose the words of a nazi). and perhaps historical evidence on this list has given you strong reason to believe that such moral indignation is called for in response to the post in question. missing out on this history, i am/was inclined to trust that anyone on this list is rational and shares a "left" notion of critiquing the powers they happen to live under, and arguably emotional and exaggerated or unclear statements are the side-effects of the frustrations that left minority positions yield.
--ravi