Re: not Foucault and kosovo

<bold>dealt with in terms of a differentiated problem.

</bold>could you please explain? thanks





At 10:23 PM 5/15/1999 -0500, you wrote:

>The decisions made by the United States and a select few of other NATO

>nations in terms of Kosovo obviously aren't made in a vacuum,
independent of

>the complex biases, knowledges, motives and rationalities which go into
such

>choices. The strategy employed in Yugoslavia isn't simply a product of
an

>overall regime that can be uniformly spotted for a certain era. Nor is
it a

>new phenomenon. The situation is of course conditioned by time/place,
but

>is also a culmination of assumptions and political techniques which can
be

>traced back since nation-states have taken on the humanist notions of

>self-determination and post-enlightenment soveirgnty. I believe the

>appropriate action by way of criticism is to strip NATO's actions of
their

>legitimacy and glory--to retrieve whats lurking behind the banner of
"global

>security" and a "safe place for democracy." A good point was made as to
how

>Yugoslavia must first be otherized and seperated, then dealt with in
terms

>of a differentiated problem.

>

>Loren

>

>

>

>

>

>>This is a partial analysis. Why limit the analysis to the past ten
years.

>>We need to understand why the US is involved in the Kosovo region. The
US

>>did not step into

>>Mexico or Guatemala in the past 40 years of death squads. The US did
not

>>step into any of the many genocidal wars of Africa. The Iritrean and
Rwandan

>>atrocities stand out in my mind just as much as do Idi Amin's. We
never

>>considered for even an instant of stopping the Khmer Rouge. The only
reason

>>is the type of President we have.

>>

>>Fred Welfare

>>

>>

>

>"Animals consider man as a being like themselves that has lost in a
most

>dangerious way its sound animal common sense; they consider him the
insane

>animal, the laughing animal, the weeping animal, the miserable
animal."

> -Nietzsche, _The Gay Science_

>

>

>"[H]umanism...presents a certain form of our ethics as a universal model
for

>any kind of freedom...[T]here are more secrets, more possible freedoms,
and

>more inventions in our future than we can imagine in humanism as it is

>dogmatically represented on every side of the political rainbow: the
Left,

>the Center, the Right."

> -M.F., TECHNOLOGIES OF THE SELF, 1982

>

>

<bold><italic>The foucaldien ethos has already reached his/her eternal
utopia in the "present". No need for further move!

</italic></bold>



Partial thread listing: