(no subject)
The other day anarchist protestors at the New School interrupted a speech by Tom Ridge in protest to U.S. imperialism. The New School listserv apparently lit up, with at least 15 different people decrying the actions of the protestors. My old roommate/bromantic lover had this to say in response:
even try to argue that it belongs in a civil dialogue, like we're in
some Greek debate about the best way to run the state...'>
The ICC is the only appropriate place for a dialogue with Ridge and his DHS cronies.
I don't care if they're departing from Bush orthodoxies, they are
perpetrators of Bagram, Guantanamo, Marion IL Prison (for US
"eco-terrorists" and suspicious-looking Muslims alike (see DemNow Andy
Stepanian-), and these are merely typical Progressive issues. Wanna
talk about liberation of still-colonized people? Wanna talk about our
little mini-colonies of urban poverty in the US? NO! At the New
School it's Newt Gingrich (on his plan for poverty reduction), John
McCain (on national security and all the WMDs in Iraq-oops!), Tom
Ridge...
The "right to speak and be heard" is repeatedly the theme of arguments
on this list serve, and it's the biggest load of excreta that gets
pushed around every time there's another neocon invited by our
war-friendly administration. This "right" is reserved for white male
heads of state and successful business leaders. Poor people never
have this "right to speak." Colonized people never have the
opportunity to speak, except when they're tokenized by liberals or
coopted into the political project of whiteness. Any speech act must
be attained by fighting, and even then, is completely mediated and
often ignored, interpreted through corporate media. Check out
people"speaking" through protests after Iranian elections. So then
people with privilege at the New School stand up against propagators
of militarism, and their colleagues attack them for not accepting the
privileges of whiteness: university loans, "safety," the right to
engage in serious intellectual debate, an internship and maybe a job
later.
I can't believe my "colleagues" are shamelessly defending the
spokespeople of US imperialist power. How many books must be written
on imperialism, postcolonialism, the US corporate machine,
exploitation of indigenous peoples, state massacres, corporate
property theft, civil repression...before we are critical of
ourselves, our position in the state, in this administration, before
we stand up? How many lives? And this email thread is about
listening to this guy? "Securing the nation"? How can WE be safe
again"? Everything, everything is wrong with that! It's the exact
same discourse of nationalism, patriotism, wartime fear politics,
...if grad students at an international affairs program can't see
that, then we need to go back and do a lot of reading, cuz we soundin
ignorant.
And the parodies of resistance that occurred in this thread use
language like Glen Beck, marginalizing, infantilizing. We don't even
need Rush Limbaugh; we have his chatter right here in our student
body! Thanks folks! Has our program become the new Graduate Program
in International Security for Global Corporate Exploitation? A couple
years ago when I was still doing coursework, we talked a lot about
human rights, not Tom Ridge rights; human security, not corporate
security; the US war on Islam, not "their" war on "us."
I'm disappointed, GPIA. I'm really disappointed. I must say I'm
considering a divorce if you keep cheating on me.
-Matt
i responded with:
I am having a hell of a time at Columbia right now; I'm working for a think tank, the Climate Center (part of the Earth Institute, Jeff Sach's thing) and it's just overwhelmingly establishmentarian. I was speaking with my director about a panel she threw a while ago that was infiltrated by climate protestors -- and she was decrying the disruption of the event. Quietly, I couldn't help but think that those disruptions are necessary. The Climate Center is apparently in favor of the mineralization of carbon outputs from coal-fired power plants for storage; the young engineering professor (a young woman) who pursued this research was denounced as a lackey of Big Coal by the protestors, when her work was specifically "scientific" and not funded by coal industries. I thought of how the vivisection of animals in labs is defended as the advancement of science and that critics of vivisection are often seen as inhibiting progress.
Of course, I sympathize even more strongly with your arguments; the sequestration and storage of carbon outputs (even if it ultimately allows coal-fired plants to continue operation) has at least some limited good. What "good" Tom Ridge might defend in the protection of "national security" is 100% ultimately and forever premised on the oppression and exploitation of all the people you mentioned in your email. It is entirely premised on the use of state-legitimized violence on people (as opposed to the burning of coal-fired plants, which is state-legitimized violence on nature, though storage of carbon at least mitigates some of that violence (though the storage of the mineralized carbon is questionable)).
I think where you depart from your "colleagues" is that they have internalized the whole idea of a "fair exchange of ideas" which is actually "the fair exchange of ideas which legitimize the state and state's oppression". Thats the point you're getting at when you talk about the right to discourse being limited to those that have privilege, or those that are permitted to speak by the privileged.
So then I think what is really important is to take away that shroud of legitimization of oppression-through-dialogue and take strong moral and ethical standpoints. Any person operating ethically, or morally, should have no tolerance for any oppression, or the legitimization of that oppression through whatever media -- including "civil dialogue." Tom Ridge does not belong to civil society; he belongs to state society. Power theoretically rests in civil society and if we choose not to disallow those that violate the powers and legitimate moralities of civil society, then we have entirely failed in the protection of our own rights and humanity and those elsewhere who are oppressed by state, capital, imperialism, etc.
JUST A FEW THOUGHTS I LOVE YOU BABY
i am curious to hear other opinions/disagreements on this, especially from an ethical analysis.
even try to argue that it belongs in a civil dialogue, like we're in
some Greek debate about the best way to run the state...'>
The ICC is the only appropriate place for a dialogue with Ridge and his DHS cronies.
I don't care if they're departing from Bush orthodoxies, they are
perpetrators of Bagram, Guantanamo, Marion IL Prison (for US
"eco-terrorists" and suspicious-looking Muslims alike (see DemNow Andy
Stepanian-), and these are merely typical Progressive issues. Wanna
talk about liberation of still-colonized people? Wanna talk about our
little mini-colonies of urban poverty in the US? NO! At the New
School it's Newt Gingrich (on his plan for poverty reduction), John
McCain (on national security and all the WMDs in Iraq-oops!), Tom
Ridge...
The "right to speak and be heard" is repeatedly the theme of arguments
on this list serve, and it's the biggest load of excreta that gets
pushed around every time there's another neocon invited by our
war-friendly administration. This "right" is reserved for white male
heads of state and successful business leaders. Poor people never
have this "right to speak." Colonized people never have the
opportunity to speak, except when they're tokenized by liberals or
coopted into the political project of whiteness. Any speech act must
be attained by fighting, and even then, is completely mediated and
often ignored, interpreted through corporate media. Check out
people"speaking" through protests after Iranian elections. So then
people with privilege at the New School stand up against propagators
of militarism, and their colleagues attack them for not accepting the
privileges of whiteness: university loans, "safety," the right to
engage in serious intellectual debate, an internship and maybe a job
later.
I can't believe my "colleagues" are shamelessly defending the
spokespeople of US imperialist power. How many books must be written
on imperialism, postcolonialism, the US corporate machine,
exploitation of indigenous peoples, state massacres, corporate
property theft, civil repression...before we are critical of
ourselves, our position in the state, in this administration, before
we stand up? How many lives? And this email thread is about
listening to this guy? "Securing the nation"? How can WE be safe
again"? Everything, everything is wrong with that! It's the exact
same discourse of nationalism, patriotism, wartime fear politics,
...if grad students at an international affairs program can't see
that, then we need to go back and do a lot of reading, cuz we soundin
ignorant.
And the parodies of resistance that occurred in this thread use
language like Glen Beck, marginalizing, infantilizing. We don't even
need Rush Limbaugh; we have his chatter right here in our student
body! Thanks folks! Has our program become the new Graduate Program
in International Security for Global Corporate Exploitation? A couple
years ago when I was still doing coursework, we talked a lot about
human rights, not Tom Ridge rights; human security, not corporate
security; the US war on Islam, not "their" war on "us."
I'm disappointed, GPIA. I'm really disappointed. I must say I'm
considering a divorce if you keep cheating on me.
-Matt
i responded with:
I am having a hell of a time at Columbia right now; I'm working for a think tank, the Climate Center (part of the Earth Institute, Jeff Sach's thing) and it's just overwhelmingly establishmentarian. I was speaking with my director about a panel she threw a while ago that was infiltrated by climate protestors -- and she was decrying the disruption of the event. Quietly, I couldn't help but think that those disruptions are necessary. The Climate Center is apparently in favor of the mineralization of carbon outputs from coal-fired power plants for storage; the young engineering professor (a young woman) who pursued this research was denounced as a lackey of Big Coal by the protestors, when her work was specifically "scientific" and not funded by coal industries. I thought of how the vivisection of animals in labs is defended as the advancement of science and that critics of vivisection are often seen as inhibiting progress.
Of course, I sympathize even more strongly with your arguments; the sequestration and storage of carbon outputs (even if it ultimately allows coal-fired plants to continue operation) has at least some limited good. What "good" Tom Ridge might defend in the protection of "national security" is 100% ultimately and forever premised on the oppression and exploitation of all the people you mentioned in your email. It is entirely premised on the use of state-legitimized violence on people (as opposed to the burning of coal-fired plants, which is state-legitimized violence on nature, though storage of carbon at least mitigates some of that violence (though the storage of the mineralized carbon is questionable)).
I think where you depart from your "colleagues" is that they have internalized the whole idea of a "fair exchange of ideas" which is actually "the fair exchange of ideas which legitimize the state and state's oppression". Thats the point you're getting at when you talk about the right to discourse being limited to those that have privilege, or those that are permitted to speak by the privileged.
So then I think what is really important is to take away that shroud of legitimization of oppression-through-dialogue and take strong moral and ethical standpoints. Any person operating ethically, or morally, should have no tolerance for any oppression, or the legitimization of that oppression through whatever media -- including "civil dialogue." Tom Ridge does not belong to civil society; he belongs to state society. Power theoretically rests in civil society and if we choose not to disallow those that violate the powers and legitimate moralities of civil society, then we have entirely failed in the protection of our own rights and humanity and those elsewhere who are oppressed by state, capital, imperialism, etc.
JUST A FEW THOUGHTS I LOVE YOU BABY
i am curious to hear other opinions/disagreements on this, especially from an ethical analysis.