Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2004 08:27:33 -0800 (PST)
From: none none <heytravil_nomad-AT-yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: [postanarchism] Katsiaficas: "Coexistence With Islamic Fundamentalism?"


"it is our duty oppose all fundamentalsts" this statement to me sounds fundementalist and dogmatic,who am i to tell people what their duty is? and what is fundalmantalism?how can we call people that we barely understand that?isnt that the states job?you miss the point i see with this statement of what katsiaficas is saying,he pointing to a "diffrance" and is could be interpeted as being "multicultural"what ever that means im not sure-nomad

JessEcoh-AT-cs.com wrote:folks --

i had a bad impression of katsiaficas before this (from the way he chewed 
on michael albert's leg for daring to make even a teeny-weenie criticism of 
black bloc tactics after seattle '99), but this really takes the cake. the man 
seems to mean well (after all, he "values life"), but he doesn't seem to have 
given much thought to the ethical problems raised by "tolerance" and 
"intolerance." i don't much care whether western imperialism and islamic fundamentalism 
are, respectively, chicken and egg or vice versa -- obviously, they both 
suck. only a doctrinaire has to insist that we have to prioritize (which do we 
oppose FIRST?), then turn that priority into a value hierarchy (what it is our 
duty to oppose first, we oppose MORE!), then turn that value hierarchy -- 
dialectically! -- into an antithesis (we will stand AGAINST what we oppose more by 
siding WITH what we oppose less!) in order to arrive at the reductio ad 
absurdum: if you're opposed to western imperialism (like "many Koreans"), you are 
invited to see bin laden as "a 21st Century Che Guevara" who "makes the world's 
sole superpower appear weak."

granted, katsiaficas never comes out and _says_ this directly; he puts 
these words in others' mouths and hides behind caveats. still, he implies it in 
his one-sided criticism of western liberals' and leftists' "intolerance" of 
fundamentalist islam. the resulting rhetoric reminds me of the worst excesses 
of U.S. sixties "third worldism."

it's our duty to oppose _all_ forms of "fundamentalist" thinking, whether 
religious or political, western or eastern, not because it is "extremist" 
(deviating from a "moderate" norm), nor because it is "atavistic" (deviating from 
a "modern" norm), but because it is systematically blind -- and thus 
insatiably hostile -- to other possibilities, whether in the text of the holy book or 
the text of life. it's our duty _not_ to "choose sides" in a war supposedly 
being fought on behalf of people who, like ourselves, will lose no matter which 
"side" wins.


--jesse.

In a message dated 2/10/04 2:22:53 AM Central Standard Time, 
ringfingers-AT-yahoo.com writes: 
> In the case of Islamic fundamentalism,nearly all
> Western commentators view it as purely reactionary—as
> a misguided response to American cultural imperialism
> and military intervention. Such a view denies Islamic
> fundamentalism agency in its own right. Once again it
> is we who are the creators and they the mud we mold.
> Scarcely anyone has even bothered to glance at Islam’s
> history or to undertake a cursory glimpse of its
> philosophy. If they did, they would immediately see
> that unlike the Torah or the Bible, the entire Koran
> is thought to be the word of God, not of mere men. I
> mention this not to privilege one religion above
> another but to indicate an autonomous motivation for
> Islamic fundamentalism. For those fundamentalists who
> take their holy book literally, god’s commandments
> about everyday life are loud and clear. As far back 
> as the 12thCentury—during the time Averroes was
> writing and the West was in a backward state—Islamic
> fundamentalism reared its head. How then can it be
> reduced to a response to Western modernization? 
> 
> Nowhere in our universe of discourse is recognition of
> the piety and dignity of millions of Moslem
> fundamentalists. They are a minority of Moslems, and
> their recent destruction of Buddhist statues, like the
> Taliban/Saudi treatment of women, are actions that I
> detest. Nonetheless, I simply cannot devalue their
> lives and disregard their struggles. I value life—all
> life—a value trampled upon by nearly all the world’s 
> organized religions with respect to non-believers. For
> that reason (and others) religious states for me are
> inherently problematic. No doubt many people will find
> it difficult to regard Islamic fundamentalism as
> having any positive attributes. That is all the more 
> reason why peaceful coexistence is vitally needed. 
> Thanks to the internet, I’ve been able to tune in to
> many American Leftists’ thinking 
> since September 11. 
> 
> In almost all cases, intolerance and black/white
> categories animate discussion of the “enemy.” Writing
> in The Nation on November 5, Katha Pollitt observed
> that unlike the Vietnam War, “This time, our own
> country has been attacked, and the enemies are
> deranged fanatics.” On October 14, Nation editor and
> LA Weekly columnist Marc Cooper called them
> “atavistic, religious fascists whose world view is 
> diametrically opposed to all humanitarian and
> progressive morality.” Another respected commentator
> (whom I shall not name because her comments were
> circulated on a private listserve) maintained that
> fundamentalism’s “doctrine of intolerance simply 
> cannot stand in contemporary society if we are to
> evolve towards peace and cooperation.” Intolerance of
> intolerance? 
> 
> These examples flow from an inability to respect
> difference and a notion that there is only one just
> way of life. If the Left continues to impose a
> monocentric notion of justice, a concept most
> articulately expressed in the work of Jurgen Habermas
> and noted feminist theorist Seyla Benhabib, peace will
> never be realized. Alternative views can be found
> coming from Nelson Mandela, who endorsed limited
> autonomy for white homelands, and Fred Hampton (leader
> of the Black Panthers murdered by the FBI and 
> Chicago police in 1969) who insisted that white power
> should belong to white people.


--- StripMime Warning -- MIME attachments removed ---
This message may have contained attachments which were removed.

Sorry, we do not allow attachments on this list.

--- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts ---
multipart/alternative
text/plain (text body -- kept)
text/html
---


---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Finance: Get your refund fast by filing online

--- StripMime Warning --  MIME attachments removed --- 
This message may have contained attachments which were removed.

Sorry, we do not allow attachments on this list.

--- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- 
multipart/alternative
  text/plain (text body -- kept)
  text/html
---