Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post - Was HS Teacher Suspended For Telling Untruths To His Students?

roachboy · 03-07-2006, 09:42 AM

the problem being run into across positions here is obvious:

at issue is the definition of "terror" or "terrorism" as posited within the shallow waters of bushworld since 9/12/2001----you know the drill, i assume---everything about this "definition" was predicated on stripping away any possible political motivation for the attacks and substituting for them arbitrary, useless attributions as to motive (evil, jealousy, blah blah blah)--all in the interest of sliding this referent under the aegis of the Persecuting Other, which i am increasingly seeing as a central motivating signifier in conservative ideology.

this move was self-evidently false on 9/12/2001. i remember doing a presentation that day (or on the 13th) to a class that had a number of students who were still unsure of whether relatives and/or friends were still alive--- the function of the presentation was to show that a political choice was being made across the construction of this "explanatory" signifier and that the students should consider what they were watching unfold before them as rooted in a political choice---not a rational response to the attacks--but a political response.
and i outlined what the effects of it could be--and it turned out that it has functioned as i thought it would.

then, as now, i considered this point to be essential:

laying out a plausible rationale for the attacks is not the same thing as condoning them.

since i have no faith in the apprehension of subtlety on the part of the far right, i'll paste it again:

laying out a plausible rationale for the attacks is not the same thing as condoning them.

another way:
to say that the atttacks of 9/11/2001 were political is to say the obvious.

it is obvious that the processes that comprise "globalizing capitalism" played a significant role in shaping the attacks.
it is also obvious that globalization is seen elsewhere--with cause--as americanization--and that within this the trade center and pentagon acquired significant symbolic value.
that most folk on the right appear at least to operate with no understanding whatsoever of globalizing capitalism simply indicates that their politics do not enable them to function rationally in this context.

so the attacks made sense as political actions.
they do not, and have never made sense as acts of "evil" or "jealous people" etc.

this seems so obvious that i am surprised that there is even a debate about it, here or anywhere else.

in the context of a political geography class that is heading toward a unit on globalization, these matters are completely germaine.

i think the folk who raised a hue and cry about it are, quite simply, idiots.

03-07-2006, 09:42 AM	#53 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	the problem being run into across positions here is obvious: at issue is the definition of "terror" or "terrorism" as posited within the shallow waters of bushworld since 9/12/2001----you know the drill, i assume---everything about this "definition" was predicated on stripping away any possible political motivation for the attacks and substituting for them arbitrary, useless attributions as to motive (evil, jealousy, blah blah blah)--all in the interest of sliding this referent under the aegis of the Persecuting Other, which i am increasingly seeing as a central motivating signifier in conservative ideology. this move was self-evidently false on 9/12/2001. i remember doing a presentation that day (or on the 13th) to a class that had a number of students who were still unsure of whether relatives and/or friends were still alive--- the function of the presentation was to show that a political choice was being made across the construction of this "explanatory" signifier and that the students should consider what they were watching unfold before them as rooted in a political choice---not a rational response to the attacks--but a political response. and i outlined what the effects of it could be--and it turned out that it has functioned as i thought it would. then, as now, i considered this point to be essential: laying out a plausible rationale for the attacks is not the same thing as condoning them. since i have no faith in the apprehension of subtlety on the part of the far right, i'll paste it again: laying out a plausible rationale for the attacks is not the same thing as condoning them. another way: to say that the atttacks of 9/11/2001 were political is to say the obvious. it is obvious that the processes that comprise "globalizing capitalism" played a significant role in shaping the attacks. it is also obvious that globalization is seen elsewhere--with cause--as americanization--and that within this the trade center and pentagon acquired significant symbolic value. that most folk on the right appear at least to operate with no understanding whatsoever of globalizing capitalism simply indicates that their politics do not enable them to function rationally in this context. so the attacks made sense as political actions. they do not, and have never made sense as acts of "evil" or "jealous people" etc. this seems so obvious that i am surprised that there is even a debate about it, here or anywhere else. in the context of a political geography class that is heading toward a unit on globalization, these matters are completely germaine. i think the folk who raised a hue and cry about it are, quite simply, idiots. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite Last edited by roachboy; 03-07-2006 at 09:46 AM..