Below I respond to references to me in the LBO archive. I address posts by Arash, Sujeet, Wojtek, Mike Larkin, Chris Doss, Joanna, Doug Henwood:
Sujeet writes responding to Joanna's fwd'ing of my quotes from Sen:
>
> Sounds suspiciously "patriotic" coming from an Internationalist of
> Ravi's impeccable credentials.
>
;-) But you failed to really read the text I quoted from Sen. His point (and mine) is not to lionize India, but to question the Western conceit about rationality, liberalism, etc.
I present Sen once again:
>
> It is very important to avoid the twin pitfalls of (1) taking democracy
> to be just a gift of the Western world that India simply accepted when
> it became independent, and (2) assuming that there is something unique
> in Indian history that makes the country singularly suited to democracy.
> The point, rather, is that democracy is intimately connected with public
> discussion and interactive reasoning. Traditions of public discussion
> exist across the world, not just in the West.
>
Arash writes:
>
> I also want to point out Pinker is not an AEI speaker as Ravi claimed, he
> only participated in an AEI panel discussion on ethics and neuroscience
>
The AEI website says:
Events: Oct 7, 2003, 5:30PM. The Blank Slate. Lecture: Steven Pinker. Introduction: Charles Murray.
No mention of a panel.
The web site also says that Pinker was the Keynote speaker at an AEI conference (June 1, 2005), where he was kind enough to touch upon the importance of "personal responsibility" (the poor man was terrified that science may be used to eliminate the notion of personal responsibility).
Now this does not mean that Pinker is wrong, or a right-winger, but only that one must read him with caution. In particular, with deep suspicion towards his non-scientific reasoning, which as Fodor points out (quoted in my previous post to this list) can be a sort of false tough-mindedness or bullying (such as in the Larry Summers affair and Summers' comments themselves).
Wojtek writes:
>
> No disagreement here, but otoh I do not think that the
> US is much worse than other nations in their ritual
> invocations of their national virtues. Europeans do
> pretty much the same, albeit with less bombast and
> drama. The Latin Americans are heavy flag wavers, and
> the Canadians do not leave home without their maple
> leaf either. AFIK, the Chinese and the Africans are
> quite good at patting themselves on their backs, and I
> suspect the Indians are not far behind (Ulhas? Ravi?).
>
Sure, Indians can get pretty self-congratulatory and are good at finding nebulous associations between India and events/discoveries of [at times modest] importance. The jingoism etc., that I see in the USA is, however, somewhat different (and of course, as Doug pointed out, is more dangerous).
Mike Larkin writes:
> ravi <gadfly at exitleft.org> wrote:
> Yes indeed! The reality based world is such a bummer ;-). As President
> Bush has said, someone just has to report the good stuff that is
> happening in Iraq and we will win the war overnight. The pesky
> Kashmiris, Muslims, suicidal farmers would all vanish as so much pollen
> in a Claritin ad!
>
> --ravi
>
> Hardy har har. The difference is that there's very little good stuff
> happening in Iraq but there's lots of good stuff happening in India
> (including a thriving left) along with the bad.
>
Right, and the NYT (Tom Friedman), and other outlets, are teeming with newsbits, analysis and paeans to the glorious good stuff you mention. Of course there are more people suffering more abject misery (perhaps even as a percentage) in India, than even the Iraq of today.
Chris Doss asks about Indian Govt and Kashmir:
> To what extent does the Indian government have the
> realistic ability to curtail abuses committed by
> troops on the ground?
I would estimate, as much as any other nation with a sophisticated military structure. But it is not what the Indian government cannot do (controlling troops) but what it actively does to limit the choices and abilities of groups (Kashmiris, Muslims, Dalits, others) that leads to the situation on the ground. The admission by Singh, that I forwarded, therefore is almost a diversion!
Doug writes:
> joanna wrote:
>
>>Well, ravi lives in New Jersey, which would make anyone miss their
>>mother country.
>
> Hey, I was born in Joisey & spent my first 17 years there. I'm not
> eager to return, but to be fair: 1) it's now one of the most
> "progressive" states in the country, and one of the most
> gay-friendly, and 2) it's one of the funniest states in the country.
>
Plus NJ includes the greatest city in the USA (NYC). Anyone who doesn't get Jersey should watch "Harold and Kumar go to White Castle" (rather than "New Jersey"). Joanna can get away with her comment because she happens to live in perhaps the only other state worth living in, in the USA (in terms of politics, people, and culture). <flame suit on>
Joanna writes:
> Actually, Jersey is OK. It's kinda flat and mellow and terminally
> unpretentious, but ravi lives in a yuppie condo complex, so.......
>
Eh Wot? Yuppie condo complex? My humble 1970s flat on a busy state route? If only it were true... I could use a swimming pool, tennis courts, lawns that are actually maintained... all that other stuff of yuppie paradise. We did get a Whole Foods within walking distance, recently. ;-)
--ravi
-- Support something better than yourself: ;-) PeTA: http://www.peta.org/ GreenPeace: http://www.greenpeace.org/