Date: Wed, 03 Oct 2001 19:00:22 -0400 From: Malini Schueller <mschuell-AT-english.ufl.edu> Subject: Intellectuals' responses to Sept 11 I have appreciated being able to get to websites to read the responses of intellectuals--Chomsky, Roy etc--to Sept 11. Please continue to provide these. Does anyone know what the responses of prominent African-American intellectuals--bell hooks, Henry Louis Gates, Cornel West etc--have been? If anyone has articles etc, could they please share it? Thanks, Malini At 02:13 PM 10/3/01 -0400, you wrote: > > >what a middle class, reactionary polemic in support of the West, salman has >become an american nationalist patriot. he has become indistinguishable >from all the other western liberal patriotic intellectuals and politicians >who are buying into Bush's " war on terrorism". >i particularly liked his attacks on the US Left for anti-americanism because >in a time of racist war hysteria it dares to point out the real roots of >terrorism in the world today: US imperialism and its genocidal policies. > his abandonment of the oppressed masses of th islamic world is papered over >with feeble appeals to the US not to bomb any more pill factories, and >praise for their wise decision not to bomb innocent civilians in >afghanistan!!!??? but even then he makes the sudan bombing sound comical! >salman, ensconced in his comfortable digs in Manhattan finds it easy to >forget that the prvileged western world wages economic war on the 3rd world >evry day, and then when it meets resistance it periodically commits >terrorist bombings of its own. what were iraq and vietnam if not an attempt >to terrorize these nations into submission to the US? Salman defines the >struggle today as being between the visible and the invisible; indeed the >image is revealing, because for the West , particularly ordinary white >americans the 3rd world has been invisible, and Rushdie 's piece has just >made it invisible again. what rubbish he writes about american "freedom", he >sounds like the US chamber of Commerce. the taliban and all the other >fundi's west and east are a profoundly reactionary phenomena , but no more >so than US imperialism, this is what salman ignores bob brown >-- >"solidarity means sharing the same risks" - Che >( la solidarita significa correre gli stessi rischi) > >---------- >>From: Salil Tripathi <salil61-AT-hotmail.com> >>To: postcolonial-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu >>Subject: Salman Rushdie on terrorism, middle east, blaming America, and much >else.... >>Date: Wed, Oct 3, 2001, 9:24 AM >> > >> >> Fighting the Forces of Invisibility >> By Salman Rushdie >> >> Tuesday, October 2, 2001; Page A25 >> >> NEW YORK -- In January 2000 I wrote in a newspaper >> column that "the defining struggle of the new age >> would be between Terrorism and Security," and fretted >> that to live by the security experts' worst-case >> scenarios might be to surrender too many of our >> liberties to the invisible shadow-warriors of the >> secret world. Democracy requires visibility, I argued, >> and in the struggle between security and freedom we >> must always err on the side of freedom. On Tuesday, >> Sept. 11, however, the worst-case scenario came true. >> >> They broke our city. I'm among the newest of New >> Yorkers, but even people who have never set foot in >> Manhattan have felt its wounds deeply, because New >> York is the beating heart of the visible world, >> tough-talking, spirit-dazzling, Walt Whitman's "city >> of orgies, walks and joys," his "proud and passionate >> city -- mettlesome, mad, extravagant city!" To this >> bright capital of the visible, the forces of >> invisibility have dealt a dreadful blow. No need to >> say how dreadful; we all saw it, are all changed by >> it. Now we must ensure that the wound is not mortal, >> that the world of what is seen triumphs over what is >> cloaked, what is perceptible only through the effects >> of its awful deeds. >> >> In making free societies safe -- safer -- from >> terrorism, our civil liberties will inevitably be >> compromised. But in return for freedom's partial >> erosion, we have a right to expect that our cities, >> water, planes and children really will be better >> protected than they have been. The West's response to >> the Sept. 11 attacks will be judged in large measure >> by whether people begin to feel safe once again in >> their homes, their workplaces, their daily lives. This >> is the confidence we have lost, and must regain. >> >> Next: the question of the counterattack. Yes, we must >> send our shadow-warriors against theirs, and hope that >> ours prevail. But this secret war alone cannot bring >> victory. We will also need a public, political and >> diplomatic offensive whose aim must be the early >> resolution of some of the world's thorniest problems: >> above all the battle between Israel and the >> Palestinian people for space, dignity, recognition and >> survival. Better judgment will be required on all >> sides in future. No more Sudanese aspirin factories to >> be bombed, please. And now that wise American heads >> appear to have understood that it would be wrong to >> bomb the impoverished, oppressed Afghan people in >> retaliation for their tyrannous masters' misdeeds, >> they might apply that wisdom, retrospectively, to what >> was done to the impoverished, oppressed people of >> Iraq. It's time to stop making enemies and start >> making friends. >> >> To say this is in no way to join in the savaging of >> America by sections of the left that has been among >> the most unpleasant consequences of the terrorists' >> attacks on the United States. "The problem with >> Americans is . . . " -- "What America needs to >> understand . . . " There has been a lot of >> sanctimonious moral relativism around lately, usually >> prefaced by such phrases as these. A country which has >> just suffered the most devastating terrorist attack in >> history, a country in a state of deep mourning and >> horrible grief, is being told, heartlessly, that it is >> to blame for its own citizens' deaths. ("Did we >> deserve this, sir?" a bewildered worker at "ground >> zero" asked a visiting British journalist recently. I >> find the grave courtesy of that "sir" quite >> astonishing.) >> >> Let's be clear about why this bien-pensant >> anti-American onslaught is such appalling rubbish. >> Terrorism is the murder of the innocent; this time, it >> was mass murder. To excuse such an atrocity by blaming >> U.S. government policies is to deny the basic idea of >> all morality: that individuals are responsible for >> their actions. Furthermore, terrorism is not the >> pursuit of legitimate complaints by illegitimate >> means. The terrorist wraps himself in the world's >> grievances to cloak his true motives. Whatever the >> killers were trying to achieve, it seems improbable >> that building a better world was part of it. >> >> The fundamentalist seeks to bring down a great deal >> more than buildings. Such people are against, to offer >> just a brief list, freedom of speech, a multi-party >> political system, universal adult suffrage, >> accountable government, Jews, homosexuals, women's >> rights, pluralism, secularism, short skirts, dancing, >> beardlessness, evolution theory, sex. These are >> tyrants, not Muslims. (Islam is tough on suicides, who >> are doomed to repeat their deaths through all >> eternity. However, there needs to be a thorough >> examination, by Muslims everywhere, of why it is that >> the faith they love breeds so many violent mutant >> strains. If the West needs to understand its >> Unabombers and McVeighs, Islam needs to face up to its >> bin Ladens.) United Nations Secretary General Kofi >> Annan has said that we should now define ourselves not >> only by what we are for but by what we are against. I >> would reverse that proposition, because in the present >> instance what we are against is a no-brainer. >> >> Suicidist assassins ram wide-bodied aircraft into the >> World Trade Center and Pentagon and kill thousands of >> people: um, I'm against that. But what are we for? >> What will we risk our lives to defend? Can we >> unanimously concur that all the items in the above >> list -- yes, even the short skirts and dancing -- are >> worth dying for? >> >> The fundamentalist believes that we believe in >> nothing. In his world-view, he has his absolute >> certainties, while we are sunk in sybaritic >> indulgences. To prove him wrong, we must first know >> that he is wrong. We must agree on what matters: >> kissing in public places, bacon sandwiches, >> disagreement, cutting-edge fashion, literature, >> generosity, water, a more equitable distribution of >> the world's resources, movies, music, freedom of >> thought, beauty, love. These will be our weapons. Not >> by making war but by the unafraid way we choose to >> live shall we defeat them. >> >> How to defeat terrorism? Don't be terrorized. Don't >> let fear rule your life. Even if you are scared. >> >> Salman Rushdie is a British novelist and essayist. >> Distributed by NYT Special Features >> >> >> >> >> >> >> _________________________________________________________________ >> 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 --- > --- from list postcolonial-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005