Comments inserted:
----- Original Message -----
From: <kjkhoo@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <foucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Wednesday, May 12, 1999 4:03 PM
Subject: Re: Kosova
> At 2:17 PM +0800 12/5/99, Christopher Chase wrote:
>
> >Regardless of the intention, his own argument says that
> >since we can only ask one question at a time and not every
> >situation can be addressed at once, then no situations can be
> >addressed at all. Since every country is culpable no country
> >at all can take action. Since Spain historically has an
> >egregious human rights record under Franco, they have no
> >legitimate basis to prosecute Pinochet for his human rights record
> >in Chile.
> >
> >Absurd. How can anyone think this argument holds any water
> >at all? It's just too bad that someone as insightful as
> >Chomsky argued for this kind of absurdity.
>
> I'm just a lurker ignoramus shooting off his mouth -- but surely,
> given that this is the foucault list, the issue isn't about
> addressing every situation at once or none at all, but why some are
> addressed and others not? Who chooses who to address, or to bomb, or
> not at all; just as when Chinese students demonstrate in China
> against US-Nato, the media casts it as orchestrated, etc. but when
> they demonstrate against the Chinese government, it's in aid of
> freedom and democracy.
I think these are certainly good questions, especially the one about why
some issues are addressed while others aren't. But it's possible to ask
these questions and want answers to them and and even raise them in a
critical way and *still* think that the bombing campaign is the right thing
to do. There's no logical contradiction involved in having the questions
that you mention and supporting the bombing. I endorse your criticism of
much of the media: I've been a bit shocked how willingly the media has
rather self-consciously adopted the role of apologist. Certainly there's a
'sentimental' or 'sympathetic' resonance (a sort of purring!) among the
following attitudes:
1 criticism of the war
2 criticism of media coverage
3 suspicion concerning NATO's intentions
4 the quality and consistency of Clinton's commitment to human rights
and so on. But in fact it's possible to worry about items 2-4 without
including 1.
The problem that I have with these arguments is that they're not arguments
at all but rather speech-acts that rely on a too-naive attitude toward power
structures. "Why, how awful that we help some people but *not others*!
That's just *not fair*." But what this speech-act relies on for its affect
is the naive belief that American imperialism (or whatever you want to call
it) *is* fair and good. And thus it only really worked way back when in the
60s. Today, the argument gets a kind of specious intellectual veneer through
its accidental association with logic -- forever the first refuge of
scoundrels.
--John
>
> And, I may be wrong, isn't that Chomsky's point, both specifically
> and generally? A point that he has repeated ad nauseam over the
> years, because it won't go away, and because it seems so difficult to
> get across?
>
> By the way, US-England did some bombing in Iraq again today, in case
> no one noticed.
>
> KJ Khoo
>
>
----- Original Message -----
From: <kjkhoo@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <foucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Wednesday, May 12, 1999 4:03 PM
Subject: Re: Kosova
> At 2:17 PM +0800 12/5/99, Christopher Chase wrote:
>
> >Regardless of the intention, his own argument says that
> >since we can only ask one question at a time and not every
> >situation can be addressed at once, then no situations can be
> >addressed at all. Since every country is culpable no country
> >at all can take action. Since Spain historically has an
> >egregious human rights record under Franco, they have no
> >legitimate basis to prosecute Pinochet for his human rights record
> >in Chile.
> >
> >Absurd. How can anyone think this argument holds any water
> >at all? It's just too bad that someone as insightful as
> >Chomsky argued for this kind of absurdity.
>
> I'm just a lurker ignoramus shooting off his mouth -- but surely,
> given that this is the foucault list, the issue isn't about
> addressing every situation at once or none at all, but why some are
> addressed and others not? Who chooses who to address, or to bomb, or
> not at all; just as when Chinese students demonstrate in China
> against US-Nato, the media casts it as orchestrated, etc. but when
> they demonstrate against the Chinese government, it's in aid of
> freedom and democracy.
I think these are certainly good questions, especially the one about why
some issues are addressed while others aren't. But it's possible to ask
these questions and want answers to them and and even raise them in a
critical way and *still* think that the bombing campaign is the right thing
to do. There's no logical contradiction involved in having the questions
that you mention and supporting the bombing. I endorse your criticism of
much of the media: I've been a bit shocked how willingly the media has
rather self-consciously adopted the role of apologist. Certainly there's a
'sentimental' or 'sympathetic' resonance (a sort of purring!) among the
following attitudes:
1 criticism of the war
2 criticism of media coverage
3 suspicion concerning NATO's intentions
4 the quality and consistency of Clinton's commitment to human rights
and so on. But in fact it's possible to worry about items 2-4 without
including 1.
The problem that I have with these arguments is that they're not arguments
at all but rather speech-acts that rely on a too-naive attitude toward power
structures. "Why, how awful that we help some people but *not others*!
That's just *not fair*." But what this speech-act relies on for its affect
is the naive belief that American imperialism (or whatever you want to call
it) *is* fair and good. And thus it only really worked way back when in the
60s. Today, the argument gets a kind of specious intellectual veneer through
its accidental association with logic -- forever the first refuge of
scoundrels.
--John
>
> And, I may be wrong, isn't that Chomsky's point, both specifically
> and generally? A point that he has repeated ad nauseam over the
> years, because it won't go away, and because it seems so difficult to
> get across?
>
> By the way, US-England did some bombing in Iraq again today, in case
> no one noticed.
>
> KJ Khoo
>
>