I would be interested in hearing people's comments on the assumptions that go into the concept of 'nation' in the context it is used below, who is
included in this category, and who is excluded?
The Australian dominant discourse currently seems quite keen on drawing sharp boundaries about who can be considered part of their 'nation',
illustrated by the treatment of asylum seekers. The UK too is now threatening to take the children of failed asylum seekers into care - a significant
breach from the principle that a child should only be taken away from their family if it is clearly 'in the best interests of the child'.
It strikes me that once they can do this to the children of asylum seekers, they can do it to anybody who becomes seen by the dominant
discourse/political establishment as a 'problem'.
'First they came for the children of asylum seekers, but I did not speak out because I am not an asylum seeker...' (apologies to Niemoller)
"We speak and the word goes beyond us to consequences and ends which we had not conceived of" Gadamer
---------- Original Message -----------
From: "Lionel Boxer" <lboxer@xxxxxxxxxxx>
To: foucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Tue, 09 Dec 2003 12:42:24 +1100
Subject: Re: Acronyms and Republicanism
> You are right, vacuous because I was pissed and emotive when I typed
> it; I had just returned from a drinking session with some
> monarchists !-) I am surprised the spelling was so accurate!
>
> Having said that, what remains if a nation's heritage is dumped.
> The risk is that whatever is the most appealing to the widest
> population becomes adopted for as long as it remains in vogue. Or
> am I still intoxicated with an out of date discourse?
>
> >From: "Mark Kelly" <mgekelly@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> >
> >I would have thought an important lesson of Foucault is that there is no
> >sharp disjuncture between 'controlled misinformation' and 'natural
> >evolution' - indeed, the latter phrase seems pretty vacuous to me.
> >
> > > Are these the result of controlled misinformation or natural evolution
> >of
> >a
> > > society? If these are the result of controlled misinformation then why
> >has
> > > no viable alternative been put forth and if the republican movement were
> >to
> > > be taken seriously should it be expected to provide a viable
> >alternative?
> > > Or, perhaps is Australia to be denuded of meaningful national symbolism
> >and
> > > clothed in the latest fashionable accessory?
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Hot chart ringtones and polyphonics. Go to
> http://ninemsn.com.au/mobilemania/default.asp
------- End of Original Message -------
included in this category, and who is excluded?
The Australian dominant discourse currently seems quite keen on drawing sharp boundaries about who can be considered part of their 'nation',
illustrated by the treatment of asylum seekers. The UK too is now threatening to take the children of failed asylum seekers into care - a significant
breach from the principle that a child should only be taken away from their family if it is clearly 'in the best interests of the child'.
It strikes me that once they can do this to the children of asylum seekers, they can do it to anybody who becomes seen by the dominant
discourse/political establishment as a 'problem'.
'First they came for the children of asylum seekers, but I did not speak out because I am not an asylum seeker...' (apologies to Niemoller)
"We speak and the word goes beyond us to consequences and ends which we had not conceived of" Gadamer
---------- Original Message -----------
From: "Lionel Boxer" <lboxer@xxxxxxxxxxx>
To: foucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Tue, 09 Dec 2003 12:42:24 +1100
Subject: Re: Acronyms and Republicanism
> You are right, vacuous because I was pissed and emotive when I typed
> it; I had just returned from a drinking session with some
> monarchists !-) I am surprised the spelling was so accurate!
>
> Having said that, what remains if a nation's heritage is dumped.
> The risk is that whatever is the most appealing to the widest
> population becomes adopted for as long as it remains in vogue. Or
> am I still intoxicated with an out of date discourse?
>
> >From: "Mark Kelly" <mgekelly@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> >
> >I would have thought an important lesson of Foucault is that there is no
> >sharp disjuncture between 'controlled misinformation' and 'natural
> >evolution' - indeed, the latter phrase seems pretty vacuous to me.
> >
> > > Are these the result of controlled misinformation or natural evolution
> >of
> >a
> > > society? If these are the result of controlled misinformation then why
> >has
> > > no viable alternative been put forth and if the republican movement were
> >to
> > > be taken seriously should it be expected to provide a viable
> >alternative?
> > > Or, perhaps is Australia to be denuded of meaningful national symbolism
> >and
> > > clothed in the latest fashionable accessory?
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Hot chart ringtones and polyphonics. Go to
> http://ninemsn.com.au/mobilemania/default.asp
------- End of Original Message -------