Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2003 23:21:38 -0700 (PDT)
From: Ben <neuronengesang-AT-yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: Thoughts on Said's "A Stupid War"


Hullo all  :)  Does anyone have any reaction to the
"intelligence" that the majority of looters in Baghdad
were actually non-Iraqis recruited by Saddam?  Part of
his 'non-convential weapons' or something.

Hi Mohammed!

I don't think that my "hate speech theory" can or
should be left aside from the discussion of the
relevance of personal opinion to
theoretical/ideological discussion.  

>In my old fashion poco understanding
> political militancy, commitment, advocacy and the
> like was inseparable from academic and intellectual
> concern.

Well, I am coming at poco theory from the
"new-fangled" (to oppose your "old fashion")
theoretical stance of contemporary postmodern
gender/queer/cultural theory, stemming from among many
others Foucault and Derrida and concerned with the
exclusionary assumptions played out and reinforced in
everyday linguistic and other discourse.  

In this theoretical framework, there is a marked
separation between theory and praxis/political
activism.  So while praxis is an academic and
intellectual concern, it is ostensibly only an
application of the as-objective-as-possible theory,
which [always] tries to allow for other points of
view, and tries to disallow for the unconscious
influence of personal morals/values of the theorist.  

> your attack on Said wasn't
> purely academic nor purely accidental. This is an
> interesting subject.

I agree: I don't think any attack/[analysis] of a
piece of discourse can ever be purely academic or
accidental.  Our language system is inherently colored
by assumptions and values (ostensibly socially
constructed ones), and so is our agency--our act of
response to discourse and the choice of which
discourse to respond to.  If Said's article had been
much less well-written but still made the same points,
I doubt I would have responded to it; I wouldn't have
felt it worth my time as an agent, and/or I would not
have found it as provoking.  However, I try to attempt
to minimize these personal (dis)colorations in my
as-objective-as-possible analysis by constantly
questioning my own and others' word choices and
linguistic assumptions/exclusions.  And I totally
agree, it's a very interesting subject  :)  

To tie that in to hate speech, I think that any
intentionally or consciously exclusionary or
assumptive speech (eg 'amerikkka' or intentionally and
unannotatedly editing quotations to change their
meaning) are forms of hate speech.  Hm, that can
perhaps boil down to the over-simplified reduction,
"hate is ignorance."

-

I would question your statement that only a few
believe that Iraq was a real threat to the US. 
Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't Saddam attempt to
stir up religious zealousness by declaring Jihads
against the West?  Zealousness that easily leads to
more suicide bombings?  I will definitely look for the
Chomsky, Walzer and Habermas articles you mentioned in
the list archives; they must have been posted before I
joined.


>You admit you
> doubt the war was about "offensive defense". You
> admit it was about regime change and "colonialist
> action". You admit what everybody knew, what the
> Administration declared before starting its war,
> that it was no longer only about WMD, nor about
> Saddam and his sons, but about regime change in
> Iraq, and soon in the whole region.

Hmm, leaving aside the generalizations of the singular
'war is about' and "what everybody knew," yes I do
realize that one of the likely outcomes of the US
military action will be a regime change in Iraq and
the attempt at establishing a democratic government. 
Very colonial.  

> 
> To you, this war consists in some two gradual stages
> or two simultaneous aspects (?), an "offensive
> defense" launched by some "idealists" and then some
> colonialism pursued by the more "realists". 

That's an excellent summation of my current feeling
towards this war, though 'realist' is almost too nice
a term; I might would go with something like
"opportunist" or even "conquistador," heh (I think
envalued terminology is okay when discussing personal
moral opinion--the positing of a norm--as long as its
biased connotation/valence is recognized).  I don't
think a defensive manoeuver to prevent harm to one's
country should be an opportunity to actually change
the ways of thinking in another country; it's the
blurry line between "offensive defense" and proactive
defense via assimilation, the latter of which would
supposedly ensure the prevention of any and all future
threats by removing the allegedly-threatening mindset,
rather than just removing the means to cause mass
destruction when coupled with the desire to do so (as
I think is more than likely [or should be] the case
here with Saddam/Iraq).  Bush Sr. refrained in the
first Gulf War from colonizing Iraq; I don't know if
Bush Jr. will do the same.


>Now
> you're hesitating. and worse even, you're taking
> risks, throwing yourself blindly in support for the
> war, before having any certitudes as to to the
> aspect which will prevail or the stage at which the
> process will stop. Hoping for the best naturally.
> Probably, willing to apologize in case of tragic
> turnouts. 

> But
> true too, some Iraqi exiles take a stance similar to
> yours actually; they believe the US would help them
> and then leave.

Is it better to outright oppose the war, a
politically-activist stance that will most likely not
be realized (especially now that the war has begun),
or is it better to advocate the offensive defense
stance outlined above, which has a far greater
probability of being realized?  Idealism vs. realism,
again; I guess when you referred to me as idealist
above, it was in relation to the ['realist']
war-mongers, and not to the far more idealist anti-war
proponents.  I admit I find myself a little shaken to
realize that I am not as idealistic as I could be, as
I've always considered myself an optimist, but there
you have it.  To sum up with a somewhat over-the-top
analogy: if someone was about to punch me in the face,
I wouldn't stand there with the idealist belief that
at the last minute he would be overcome with love for
his fellow human; I would duck.

Ben

__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo
http://search.yahoo.com


     --- from list postcolonial-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---