File spoon-archives/postcolonial.archive/postcolonial_2001/postcolonial.0110, message 34


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 ---

   

Driftline Main Page

 

Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005