Wikipedia Free Speech Zones

SouceWatch Free Speech Zones

Well, I’m not the True Believer in Non-Violence and my Own Innate Morality, after all. Yep, seriously. Don’t tend (or pretend) to meet bad faith arguments in, erm, anything resembling good faith.

Seriously? Seriously?! You pull this shit and then immediately after accuse *PG* of deliberately misreading comments? Is this some sort of satire where you deliberately misread her comments to mock her misreading of yours as racist? Or did you just decide to engage in the exact same bullshit?

You think noose imagery and cross-burnings are “hilarious” in a Southern context? Wow… Just… Um… I don’t know where we go from here, in that case. I pointed that out because you kept saying stupid shit like, “You obviously know nothing about satyagraha…”, not because I think I, um, win the oppression olympics? Again, you deliberately misread my CLEAR statement about that. You kept suggesting that you had superior wisdom and morality to well, lots of people, but notably me in this case, and, well, anybody who assumes that kind of preachy posturing with me gets the shit kicked out of them in comments. Well, at least when I have the energy. End of story. I wasn’t trying to initiate a competition for most oppressed. I was noting that I actually grew up in one of the major sites of non-violent resistance, and who the fuck are you to go around making assumptions like “Obviously, you know nothing about blah blah blah…” You are projecting the HELL out of this thread because YOU are the one who’s been making assumptions and deliberately (because I don’t think you could possibly be that stupid), and I have merely suggested that your words are self-righteous, dismissive of contexts outside your own, ignorant of US foreign relations, etc. The only assumption I made was that… Well, I think deliberate dishonesty makes one kind of an asshole (epecially when one is a subject of the Imperial State talking down about the “inappropriate” Arab who threw the shoe. You did that.). But that’s just my own personal opinion. Not any kind of assumption about your life history.

I also suggested that your display of calls for “civility” displayed both racism and a level of privilege that you are not being honest about. You are privileged by virtue of being a US citizen or permanent resident. You display ignorance over and over about the context of US-ME relations. I do not need to know anything about your life story to read the subtext of what you’ve been saying. You like the word “civility” a lot. I am being “uncivil.” That’s fine, I don’t care what you think of me. But, so was the journalist, on my reading of your words, and frankly… Citizens/Long Time Residents who watch the fall-out of occupation from afar–people like you and me–we would do better not to adopt “civilizational” discourse such as this. It’s a tool of imperial powers that betrays the shallowness of your commitment to postcolonial resistance. And, again, I don’t need to know your life story in order to draw this conclusion.

“I said: “universally achievable virtue of peacefulness.””

You said this in the context of a long thread derail wherein you argued that what the journalist did was not peaceful. Further, you insinuated over and over that non-violent resistance is the only way to acheive this “virtue of peacefulness.” You cannot get around the fact that you have been prescribing a universal formula here. You provided no basis for this claim beyond, “I mean, it’s assault under US law.” Well… Yeah, and? I do not agree that it’s violent protest. Throwing a bomb is violent protest. Throwing a shoe is a symbolic gesture that, at worst, gives someone a bruise. I guess my confusion is that it becomes harder and harder to parse your actual position since you keep shifting the goalposts.

I said: “universally achievable virtue of peacefulness.”

I would characterize what you advocate as “passive resistance.”

What do you think I advocate, since you’ve decided, with no basis in my words that I can find, that I’m not advocating the strategies employed by Gandhi and MLK Jr.?

I grew up in the US South and saw people have crosses burned on their lawns and nooses hung at their doorsteps, and I know plenty about non-violent resistance, you self-superior fuck.

That’s particularly hilarious. I am a woman who grew up in a small town in East Texas where my family was the first one of our race and religion to settle in our town. We’ve had people throw rocks and smash the window of our car. My mother once had a message on her phone at work from a man who threatened my father’s life. Kids made fun of me for not being a Christian. My high school was still under a desegregation court order when I graduated 10 years ago.

You know so little about me, and assume you know so much, that I finally realize how stupid I am to talk to someone who thinks she can tell my life story from what I say about whether Zaidi’s actions should be considered simply as speech or also as assault, and whether Iraqis are better off using satyagraha or violence. Good for you, you win the thread by sheer arrogance.

“Your point all over the thread is that it is *violent* and thus immoral.”

Again, well, I guess the main comment will eventually come through. Sorry if this goes through first and makes no sense.

“Even in India, I would argue that it had a lot more to do with strategic power politics than with moral concern or even a more self-interested worry about “looking immoral” on the world stage.”

By “it,” I am referring to the British reaction to Indian resistance. I do not believe that it was moral but strategic.

Apologies to all if this gets through the mod queue before my other, longer comment that remains in the mod queue.

“If you think what Gandhi and (using Gandhi’s example) MLK Jr. did was a “diplomatic letter writing campaign,” or “dispassionate,” you know nothing about satyagraha or nonviolent resistance generally. Gandhi disliked the term “passive resistance” precisely because it implied that the person using it must be weak, whereas in actuality his efforts depended on emphasizing the moral strength of the oppressed in opposition to the moral weakness of those engaged in oppression.”

Nope, I’m not suggesting that Gandhi said this. I’m talking about your words. I would characterize what you advocate as “passive resistance.” I grew up in the US South and saw people have crosses burned on their lawns and nooses hung at their doorsteps, and I know plenty about non-violent resistance, you self-superior fuck. I don’t have a problem with it altogether. I have a problem with its prescription as a “universal virtue” that all oppressed groups everywhere should practice. Jesus.

You are being dishonest when you say that you are promoting mere strategic non-violence since, just upthread, you called it a “universal virtue.”

You said:

“Where did I say that? You quote me saying something about LAW, and then you say something about MORALITY that has no connection whatsoever to what you just quoted. Whereas I, quoting exactly what you said, am labeled as employing “shameless racial dishonesty.”

I did not call it “shameless racial dishonesty,” though I’d agree that what Kai said there is pretty much right on the money.

In fact, just a few comments prior to this one, you do precisely what you claim you did not do. This part:

“My only point in this thread has been that what this guy did would be considered assault under U.S. law, and would be punished (albeit hopefully not with 8th-Amendment-violating-beatings) accordingly had he done it in the U.S. Every time I noted this, someone would say, “Oh no, it was speech, it was expression, it was an insult” but whatever it was, it wasn’t anything that we should regard as assault — not violent or criminal. I don’t agree with that. I feel sympathy for this man’s anger, but I’m not going to say that the appropriate way to express anger is to throw things at people.”

You move from the action being illegal under US law to the action being “inappropriate” to it being insufficiently non-violent. Your point all over the thread is that it is non-violent and thus immoral. So, there you have it. The illegality under US law was not at all your major point. Did you forget your statement that satyagraha is a universal human virtue? Major point of dishonesty number two. And merely in your responses to me. If you are not using the fact that this is a misdemeanor under US law to justify your point, then I am very, very confused as to why you bring it up. Yeah, it’s illegal under US law. So fucking what? It doesn’t follow that it’s immoral. It doesn’t bolster your view unless you believe that all of the dictates of US law are moral.

As for your hard and fast distinction between formal colonial powers (who, you claim, must be met with nonviolent resistance) and fascist/genocidal powers (which you claim can justifiably be met with violence): First of all, I disagree with such a hard and fast distinction. The US is both a colonizing power in Iraq (with a moral superiority complex and a civic religion of “American values” that’s bigger than god) and a state that has instantiated a fascist political culture to an extent unprecedented by an industrialized liberal democratic state (Okay, no, Weimar Germany was not a liberal democratic state.). Does Bush personally want to “believe in his own morality?” I don’t know. I don’t think it matters or necessarily affects the material consequences for people on the ground. Same goes for the rest who stand at the helm. One can justify an awful lot of oppression and violence on the basis of one’s “belief in one’s own morality.” See: the American history of lynchings, for fuck’s sake, and the cries about “morality” that surrounded those.

In any case, who decides whether or not a power “wants to believe in its own morality”? You? Who the fuck are you, and on what basis are you entitled to make such a distinction? Are you claiming to know the hearts and minds of every repressive political regime since the beginning of time? Could you maybe make a checklist to make it simpler for the rest of us? How do you feel about the ancient Athenians, pray tell? Pre-revolution(s) France? The Portuguese in Angola? What about the Portuguese in Brazil? Which regimes held morality close to their hearts, and which didn’t? You are obviously far clearer on this matter than the rest of us.

The Nazis believed that maintaining the purity of the Aryan race was a morally laudable aim. One might argue that they believed it was justifiable to use immoral means to acheive their goals. But “didn’t believe in their own morality”? This is one more instance in which the Indian comparison to all coercive situations does not hold. At all. My read here is that you’re suggesting that those who believe in their own morality can necessarily be shamed into living up to their ideals because it worked in India. My take: It had some moral resonance for a limited time in the US South, but it is no kind of foolproof way of distinguishing the “appropriate” course of resistance. Even in India, I would argue that it had a lot more to do with strategic power politics than with moral concern or even a more self-interested worry about “looking immoral” on the world stage.

So, that’s my first point–your binary distinction holds no water. It’s not even really all that useful in understanding the Indian context.

Second, Gandhi wrote and acted in a specific context. Gandhi’s teachings cannot be helpful on a universal level simply because the Indian context is not the *only* context of oppression. No one context can be generalized in such a facile and fucking offensive way. And don’t even bother to claim that you weren’t doing that when “universal virtue” is your phrase and not mine. And anyway, hardline distinctions between colonizers and genocidal fascists simply do not hold anymore (Are you fucking claiming that Nazi Germany was not ALSO a colonizing state? Imperial Japan? Or that they didn’t cling to some beliefs about their own morality? Maybe these beliefs were different from mine–or yours–but nevertheless… Not a useful generalization that you make there.).

Again, context is important. Resistance is messy. It’s dangerous. There is no catchall theoretical or spiritual solution. It is what it is, and people fight and strategize within their own constrained circumstances.

And, Ben, as for your comment here:

“It’s depressing to see so many people personally attack an individual for advocating a stance of civility. I don’t agree with PG, Bush deserved that shoe to the head, but I’m not going to berate and belittle PG for disagreeing.”

Well, Ben, I’m sorry this hurts your feelings. PG is not disagreeing. PG is ramming what he believes to be a “universal virtue” down our fucking throats. There’s a big, big difference disagreement and proselytizing. I’m not berating PG for disagreeing. I’m berating PG, to be clear, for his stupidity and utter disregard for humans outside the one context which he seems to know relatively well. Also, for his resolute demonstration of “not getting it” despite reasoned, kind, and very clear explanations from multiple people with multiple angles. I’m berating him for suggesting in one comment that satyagraha is universalizable and then parsing words in an embarrassingly facile way in order to save face and suggest that he never said that. I’m berating him for his ignorance of this particular context of US aggression against Iraq and for thinking he is appropriately to make judgments about the journalist’s action from afar. I’m berating him for doing the very same thing Hugo et. al. do when they jump on PoC for having an “angry tone.” But instead of hiding behind a veil of enlightened Christian pacifism as Hugo does, he hides behind Gandhi in an intellectually dishonest way: “Wait, I can map what I’m saying in a simplistic and watered-down way on to something a non-white said! So, I proved you wrong!” No, no, I’m pretty sure Gandhi didn’t make the calls for, um, the sort of “civility” that PG seems to champion, seeing as how he (Gandhi) was a citizen of a colonized state that had been marked by the British as “uncivil.” And if he did, well, well done Ben and PG, for successfully appropriating Gandhi’s racist discourse. I’m berating PG for DOING IT RONG even by Gandhi’s standards, even if he really and truly believes that Gandhi is an unproblematic example to hold out to the world.

That is all. As for disagreeing… I think PG is being willfully otbuse and that he keeps shifting the goalposts to avoid losing face. I have not seen PG once defend a position. Rather, he keeps pulling random things out of his arsenal that make no sense (“But… But… This is assault under US law!”) in the context of the position he’s attempting to defend. Then, he denies that he said them just a few comments upthread. I can’t make sense of it, other than… Maybe he’s hoping that something will catch on and convince everyone to follow the One True Path. I don’t think he’s engaging in honest argumetation by any stretch of the imagination, and as such, I don’t think he’s entitled to, well… Freedom from berating. Honest disagreement is another matter altogether. See: me disagreeing with Lauren’s take on the other post about this.