Yoshie Furuhashi wrote:
>Sara Pursley, "Unveiling the Bushes," _LGNY (Lesbian & Gay New
>York)_ No. 173 (7-20 December 2001), at
><http://www.lgny.com/0173web/Pursley173.html>. The same article,
>under the title "Unveiling Afghanistan: The Bush Administration
>Cares about Women's Rights (as Long as There Aren't Any Pesky
Women
>Around)," is also available at
><http://www.workingforchange.com/article.cfm?ItemId=12507>.
<snip>
>Smiley's no-risk analysis only works if Afghan women exist outside
>of history. In reality, the few women who have removed their burkas
>are brave not only because doing so could signify resistance to
>their countrymen, but also because it could signify allegiance to
>the foreign invaders who claim to be rescuing them - at a cost that
>is not only enormous, but also non-consensual and non-negotiable.
>The vast majority of Afghan women have declined the invite.
>But the Taliban - many of whom were not Afghans, and of those who
were, were from an ethnic group representing well under half the
population - forced women to wear the damn things. It's not like they
were spontaneous expressions of home-grown patriarchy. So who the
colonizers are, under those circs, gets very murky.
>Doug
well, but come at it the other way . . . not wanting to use flag stamps apparently makes you a taliban-lover at best and a possible terrorist, at worst. but if you actually use the flag stamps, you're taken to be endorsing a whole set of actions you may or may not.
is it possible to distinguish, under the circumstances, the anti-taliban from the pro-american (i.e., pro-imperial)? for burkas or for american flags/stamps? theoretically, absolutely it is. on the street, that's another matter.
no?
jeff
-------------------------------------------------------------------- mail2web - Check your email from the web at http://mail2web.com/ .