Date: Tue, 02 Oct 2001 09:52:36 -0400 From: Malini Schueller <mschuell-AT-english.ufl.edu> Subject: Re: arundhati roy in the guardian I have read at least two articles which state that Bush authorized $43 million to the Taliban in April 2001 for the Taliban's war against drugs. Can anyone verify this ie give some sources? Malini At 10:21 PM 10/1/01 +0000, you wrote: >No Margaret, I'm afraid Malini is right. The issue is of intention. Did >Union Carbide intend to kill the people who lived around its plant in >Bhopal? No. Did the extremists who hijacked the plane and crashed it into >the WTC intend to kill civilians? Yes. And who valued the lives of Indians >as cheaper? Was it the pesticide expert you cite alone, or also the Indian >Government, which filed a brief before Judge Keenan, and argued that the >case against UCC must be heard in an Indian court, which was competent to >handle the case? It was the persuasive argument of India's lawyer, Nani >Palkhivala, ex-Indian ambassador to the US, which Keenan cited, when it >supported UCC's claim of forum non conveniens. Some employee of UCC may feel >that the economic value of the life of a poor Indian is less than that of an >American in the US. But that doesn't mean that UCC wants to kill those >people. In contrast, irrespective of calculations made by the hijackers, >their intent was to kill civilians. > >That distinction is at the heart of this issue, which Ms. Roy skilfully >chooses to ignore. Since Ms. Roy feels free to speculate motives of >everyone, from Bush, bin Laden to multinationals' executives, let me >speculate her motives: to remain at the forefront of one of the hottest >issues, viz. globalization. A great contemporary Gujarati poet, Sitanshu >Yashaschandra, had said once: "Aag lage tyaare kuvo khodvanu kam kavi nu >nathi", meaning, when there's a fire, it is not the job of a poet to start >digging a well. His point was that writers do not have to respond to a >crisis. (He said this in response to a question put to him at a reading -- I >add this lest it is taken literally, that it is not the job of a poet to >provide succour, but perhaps to fan flames! Yashaschandra didn't mean that. >I know; I was present at the reading where he made these remarks and know >the context). > >Salil > > >>From: Margaret Trawick <trawick-AT-clear.net.nz> >>Reply-To: postcolonial-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu >>To: postcolonial-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu >>Subject: Re: arundhati roy in the guardian >>Date: Tue, 2 Oct 2001 09:47:42 +1200 >> >>Malini - United States law differentiates between criminal negligence and >>premeditated murder, and regards the latter as more heinous than the >>former. >>But this is just United States law. I can imagine other points of view. >> >>The mass slaughter that happened at the WTC has been called horrifying >>because of the perpetrators' (apparent) "callous disregard for human life," >>or some such. >> >>I would guess, however, that the people who planned and executed the >>destruction of the WTC were very mindful of the high value of (American) >>human lives to Americans, and that is exactly why they intentionally >>destroyed so many lives. >> >>Shortly after the Union Carbide disaster, I had a conversation with a >>pesticide expert, who probably had some connections with Union Carbide. He >>argued that the Government of India was demanding too much money from Union >>Carbide to compensate the victims and the families of victims of the >>chemical spill, because, as he put it, "those people's lives were not worth >>ten dollars each." What I think he meant was that the victims were so poor >>that their deaths did not result in a significant (from an American point >>of >>view) loss of income to their families. >> >>This man displayed what I would call a callous disregard for human life. I >>would not call him, or the head of Union Carbide, reasonable in any but the >>narrowest of senses. Union Carbide follows the dictates of capitalism. >>The >>Taliban follows some other dictates. Both sets of rules not only permit >>but >>mandate the destruction of human life. So, is one more reasonable than the >>other? I don't know. But I do think that Union Carbide and the Taliban >>are >>comparable in many ways. >> >>MT >> >> >> >> > While I liked a lot of Arundhati Roy's article, I also found it >>disturbing >> > in many ways. Can we really compare the head of Union Carbide to the >> > Taliban even though the former caused the death of so many? (and I do >>think >> > the Union Carbide survivors got a horrible deal) Is intentionality not >>an >> > issue at all? And how can we call the Taliban reasonable? Are public >> > executions in football stadiums reasonable? >> > Malini >> >> >> >> >> --- from list postcolonial-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu --- > > >_________________________________________________________________ >Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp > > > > --- from list postcolonial-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu --- > --- from list postcolonial-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005