[lbo-talk] specious generalizations...

ravi lbo at kreise.org
Mon Jul 18 08:57:26 PDT 2005


On 07/17/05 06:33, Chris Doss wrote:
> In this view, in conflicts between
> groups of people, the participants are divided into
> "oppressor" and "oppressed" groups (or it is an
> "interimperialist" struggle), with the "oppressor"
> group -- which usually means which of the two groups
> happens to be stronger -- being at fault, any violence
> generated by the "oppressed" group being merely an
> epiphenomenon, an understandable reaction to the
> violence of the "oppressor."
>
> For example, in the case of the British bombers, we
> have people assuming that they must have been
> motivated by the Iraq War, because, since they are
> Muslims (weak group vs. stronger group), they are in
> the "oppressed" class and their violence must
> therefore be an epiphenomenon upon the violence of the
> "oppressor."
>
> Just about any article in Z Magazine on any conflict
> going on in the world will provide illustration of
> this, with the partial exceptions of Taiwan and Tibet
> (since people haven't decided yet whether China is an
> oppressor or an oppressed country). Turkey/the Kurds
> is all the fault of the Turks, India/Kashmir is all
> the fault of India, Israel/Palestine is all Israel's
> fault, Russia is 100% to blame for Chechnya, etc.
>

the objection i would have to the above categorization is in the use of the phrase "all the fault". setting aside Zmag for a second (i have my own set of problems with them), is there enough evidence to support the use of this phrase? chomsky, for example, has suggested that he mostly restricts his criticism to the US since that's what he can change/influence/etc.

in a general sense, i see nothing wrong with the logic of the first paragraph. conflicts (especially those that involve violence) are often indeed about power struggles and there is, in the majority case, an imbalance in power. as a leftist, i see it as part of my job, to speak for the less powerful voice. further, as a rational person, i believe it is important to understand the structural and fundamental reasons, issues, causes, for conflicts. even purely from tactical considerations, it does not help my side to permit the debate to be shifted to individual acts of terrorism. etc. the right uses this all the time -- what about joe wilson's claim that he was sent to niger? why do you (the left) paint him as some hero? what about the BBC's bad reporting? (which turned out to be accurate, and though the head of the BBC took the fall, the ultimate criminal, tony blair, is still in power). similarly for dan rather, newsweek, etc.

w.r.t the london bombing: those who have talked about the iraq connection seem to have taken some trouble to document this. if pointers to the archives (of posts that provide links to news articles that establish the iraq factor) are required, i can provide them. OTOH, those who may want to do nothing but [the trivial act of] condemn[ing] the perpetrators have shown little to support their criticism of the iraq connection. w.r.t other contributions (i am unaware of their exact positions): luke weigler, i think, took umbrage at the use of "surely" in connection with the iraq connection, preferring instead "possible plausibility" -- or was it "plausible possibility"? james heartfield [sp?] conflated "causing" and "do"ing thus: What caused the bombings? The bombers. Did Tony Blair do it? No.

so, let us start from scratch: what caused the london bombing? why did these guys go out and do this? an irrational ideology that feeds on minor discontent? where did that ideology arise from? how did it take root? perhaps gain power? should we classify this incident as the acting out of "teenage angst" (columbine) that is inevitable in the complex human society of today? or are there steps we can take to avoid future incidents? if there are, what are these steps? crackdown on muslims? the "radical" muslims? is that sufficient? and is it even legitimate to start one's analysis by plucking out one event and making it central?

there is some validity to the above [quoted] criticism of the western left. however, it does not negate the basic argument of the theoretical (by which i mean the position of identifying the oppressed group in a conflict and providing them a voice) left:

take the example of india/kashmir you cite above. clever proponents of the indian position (among them many leftists (*), who are quick enough to criticize western nationalism and oppression, while retaining a knee-jerk defense of indian action) try to recast the issue into one of india v pakistan. i have provided multiple links on this list for the history of the problem and india's central role in the suppression of the voice of the kashmiris. the issue is one of self-determination or autonomy, in some sense, for the kashmiris. that the movement turned militant, to be aided then by pakistan, is not a correct or honest device with which to analyse the problem.

w.r.t the larger picture, any attempt to gloss over indian treatment of the muslim minority is at best a diversion. if such attempts include finger-pointing at muslim violence, it borders on echoing the [il]logic of the western right.

now, without any inconsistency, a valid leftist position would still defend india against western mischief-mongering (almost always from rightist/centrist power positions) masked as criticism of indian atrocities.

western leftists need to be cautious in criticizing other cultures. i don't want to get all PKF here since he says that stuff much better than

i could paraphrase. but the flip side of that coin is that members of those cultures (whether left, right, centre) have to provide more than just "go back to your country" style arguments, if they disagree with the criticism.

--ravi

(*) when talking about indian leftists who are defensive about indian actions, i am referring to anecdotal/personal interactions.



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list