Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community  

Go Back   Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community > Chatter > General Discussion


 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
Old 06-19-2008, 07:35 PM   #1 (permalink)
All important elusive independent swing voter...
 
jorgelito's Avatar
 
Location: People's Republic of KKKalifornia
Free Tibet! Free Palestine! Free Hawaii?

So it has been quite fashionable for a time to support foreign causes of which we actually know very little about. It has been trendy to look abroad for a cause and ignore those closer to home. With all the yammering about freeing Tibet and freeing Palestine, I always wonder why those two? Why not Darfur, or Kurdistan or why not Kashmir? Why not Cyprus? Why not any one of the numerous Balkan States (with names I can't spell or pronounce) and former USSR states that are vying for their independence? Trans-Dnieper anyone?

Are we selective? Is there a criteria? How do you choose which state you'd like to see free? Is there a timeline cut-off? Referendum? Type of prosposed government?

How about Hawaii? I thought this was interesting and kind of made me rethink a bit about all these independence issues and how we decide who gets to be free or who gets some support.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080619/...alace_takeover

Quote:
Hawaiian group demands restoration of the monarchy

By MARK NIESSE, Associated Press Writer 1 hour, 38 minutes ago

HONOLULU - Surrounded by royal guards and the occasional tourist, Her Majesty Mahealani Kahau and her government ministers hold court every day in a tent outside the palace of Hawaii's last monarch, passing laws and discussing how to secure reparations for the Native Hawaiian people.

Kahau and her followers are members of the self-proclaimed Hawaiian Kingdom Government, which is devoted to restoring the Hawaiian monarchy overthrown in 1893. Nearly two months ago, they stormed the gates of the old Iolani Palace, and they have politely occupied the grounds ever since, operating like a government-in-exile.

"We're here to assume and resume what is already ours and what has always been ours," said Kahau, who is a descendant of Hawaii's last king and was elected "head of state" by the group.

The Hawaiian Kingdom Government, which was founded seven years ago and claims 1,000 followers, uses its own license plates and maintains its own judicial system. In recent years, members have voted to dissolve the state of Hawaii, its land titles, welfare programs and public schools. They also claim the right to confiscate all bank assets in Hawaii.

The organization's actions do not carry the force of law, and the state has mostly taken a hands-off approach. It has not confiscated any of the license plates, for example, or arrested anyone for using them.

Hawaii has about 200,000 Native Hawaiians out of a population of 1.3 million. The Hawaiian Kingdom Government is just one of several native organizations that claim sovereignty over the islands, tapping into a strong sense among Native Hawaiians that they were wronged by history.

More than a century ago, a group of sugar planters and other businessmen, most of them Americans, overthrew the Hawaiian monarchy with the support of U.S. military forces. Queen Liliuokalani was imprisoned at the ornate Iolani Palace, built in 1882 by her brother, King Kalakaua. Hawaii was annexed by the United States in 1898 and became a state in 1959.

"We are definitely trying to correct a wrong that we feel has been done to us as a people," said Hawaiian Kingdom Government spokesman Orrin Kupau.

On April 30, members of the Hawaiian Kingdom Government trooped onto the palace grounds in the heart of Honolulu and shut the gates behind them, leading to a few tense hours before they finally reopened the entrance.

Every day, Kahau and about a dozen of her government officials meet in the tent. Every evening their fold up their tent and go home, returning in the morning.

State officials have largely ignored them, and police have made no arrests. The Hawaiian Kingdom Government has said it has no intention of resorting to violence.

Every week, the Hawaiian Kingdom Government obtains a public-assembly permit that allows it to occupy the grounds of the palace, a museum and popular tourist attraction next door to the state Capitol.

As far as the state is concerned, the Hawaiian Kingdom Government is treated the same as any other group that wants to conduct activities on public ground, said Deborah Ward, spokeswoman for the Department of Land and Natural Resources.

"As long as they comply with the permit conditions, they may continue to request permits to meet," she said.

Those conditions prohibit the Hawaiian Kingdom Government from interfering with access to the palace, harassing pedestrians, collecting money, posting banners or entering several government buildings. State authorities gave Kahau a warning when she went inside one of the buildings to collect her mail.

It is unclear how the organization's members intend to oust the state government. They also want reparations in the form of housing, low-cost health care and cash. The kingdom slapped a $7 trillion fine on the Hawaii state government in 2007.

A professor of international law who favors Hawaiian independence, Francis Boyle, said he believes the Hawaiian Kingdom Government has a valid claim.

"The essence of sovereignty under international law is people living on their land and asserting their rights, and that's what the Native Hawaiians are doing. They've made a lot of progress," said Boyle, a professor at the University of Illinois. "This is the way to go."

A state agency, the Office of Hawaiian Affairs, is pursuing something far short of a restoration of the monarchy. It is pressing for federal legislation that would give Native Hawaiians a degree of self-government similar to what many American Indian tribes have. The hope is that Native Hawaiians will also regain some of their ancestral land.

The legislation has passed the U.S. House and is pending in the Senate.

"There's got to be a legal way in which to try to get these issues resolved," said OHA Administrator Clyde Namuo.
This case seems interesting to me because there appears to be some political mechanism in place to actually find a compromise and make it happen perhaps.

Do you think the Beastie Boys and Bjork will come and give their support? Maybe Sharon Stone and Richard Gere can fix their karma by supporting the poor native Hawaiian's cause.
jorgelito is offline  
Old 06-19-2008, 10:23 PM   #2 (permalink)
Crazy
 
I'd like to see how long this group of 1,000 people survives when they try to confiscate 1.3 million people's bank accounts.

They're only outnumbered by, like, 1,300:1...
The Faba is offline  
Old 06-19-2008, 10:37 PM   #3 (permalink)
... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.
 
Willravel's Avatar
 
If you can get Brian Williams to say Kamehameha, I'm all for it.

But seriously, if there was a large movement in Hawaii, say well more than half the voting public, then I could see them attempting to secede. Of course I'm still not 100% sure about whether a state has a right to secede after joining the US.
Willravel is offline  
Old 06-19-2008, 11:32 PM   #4 (permalink)
Currently sour but formerly Dlishs
 
dlish's Avatar
 
Super Moderator
Location: Australia/UAE
maybe its got to do with the human rights abuses that china and israel commit again civilian pupulations.

no one likes oppressing nations. its probably why the US is on the wrong side of most people nowadays.

i know it sounds simplistic..but i think it rings true
__________________
An injustice anywhere, is an injustice everywhere

I always sign my facebook comments with ()()===========(}. Does that make me gay?
- Filthy
dlish is offline  
Old 06-20-2008, 12:33 AM   #5 (permalink)
immoral minority
 
ASU2003's Avatar
 
Location: Back in Ohio
This isn't a new thing, it just happened to be a slow news day I guess.

The best outcome I bet would be for them to get one small island to run. Kind of like the native america reservations.

I wonder where they would be if they weren't a US state?
ASU2003 is offline  
Old 06-20-2008, 02:14 AM   #6 (permalink)
Minion of Joss
 
levite's Avatar
 
Location: The Windy City
Yeah, I'm not a fan of "trendy" political causes, either-- especially supporting one side or another in foreign conflicts that have nothing to do with the US, and whose arguments and meanings are generally either barely discerned or grossly misunderstood by the majority of the "activists" who are involved.

Leaving aside the Israel-Palestinian conflict, which I think is too complex to get into here, people essentially support Tibet, I think, because they like the Dalai Lama, not because they actually feel strongly about Tibetan nationalism. Not that I am opposed to Tibetan nationalism, or that I favor China's conquest of Tibet! I'm just saying I think that's what most people are motivated by, right or wrong.

But as for Hawaii...I think they have a pretty good case. The US annexed Hawaii without so much as a by-your-leave from the Hawaiian populace, and I think that since the transition from US Territory to State was conducted under the auspices of a Territorial and Federal government that included no native Hawaiians (as far as I can tell), at the very least, Hawaii ought to be given the same Federal semi-autonomous district status as Native American reservations and tribal lands in the Continental US, and Native Hawaiians ought to have at least partial self-government....

Come to that, the Inuit probably have a fairly good claim on Alaska, too....
__________________
Dull sublunary lovers love,
Whose soul is sense, cannot admit
Absence, because it doth remove
That thing which elemented it.

(From "A Valediction: Forbidding Mourning" by John Donne)
levite is offline  
Old 06-20-2008, 03:49 AM   #7 (permalink)
Junkie
 
Location: Melbourne, Australia
I'm sure that everything is fine in Tibet, that's why it's open to reporters eh?

Quite simply - I support democracy. If the people of Tibet want to be a separate country, well fair enough. The same goes for Tasmania (a part of Australia), or any other group/state/region.

Independence is a major change though, so I think you'd need more than a simple majority. Perhaps 2/3?
Nimetic is offline  
Old 06-20-2008, 03:54 AM   #8 (permalink)
Tilted Cat Head
 
Cynthetiq's Avatar
 
Administrator
Location: Manhattan, NY
Quote:
Every week, the Hawaiian Kingdom Government obtains a public-assembly permit that allows it to occupy the grounds of the palace, a museum and popular tourist attraction next door to the state Capitol.

As far as the state is concerned, the Hawaiian Kingdom Government is treated the same as any other group that wants to conduct activities on public ground, said Deborah Ward, spokeswoman for the Department of Land and Natural Resources.

"As long as they comply with the permit conditions, they may continue to request permits to meet," she said.
I'm confused... they get permission to go to the land that they claim as rightfully theirs, and they only occupy it during the day time?
__________________
I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not.
Cynthetiq is offline  
Old 06-20-2008, 02:09 PM   #9 (permalink)
Currently sour but formerly Dlishs
 
dlish's Avatar
 
Super Moderator
Location: Australia/UAE
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nimetic
I'm sure that everything is fine in Tibet, that's why it's open to reporters eh?

Quite simply - I support democracy. If the people of Tibet want to be a separate country, well fair enough. The same goes for Tasmania (a part of Australia), or any other group/state/region.

Independence is a major change though, so I think you'd need more than a simple majority. Perhaps 2/3?

i agree nim.

give the tassies to the kiwis cos i dont see them lasting on their own! nah seriously though,...

any country that wants/needs democracy has a right of self rule if they can show enough reason and resolve to want and know how to rule themselves.

chechnya is a classic example where russias meddling screwed a fine working specimen of democratically elected leaders and turned them into 'religious rebels'.
__________________
An injustice anywhere, is an injustice everywhere

I always sign my facebook comments with ()()===========(}. Does that make me gay?
- Filthy
dlish is offline  
Old 06-20-2008, 04:51 PM   #10 (permalink)
<3 TFP
 
xepherys's Avatar
 
Location: 17TLH2445607250
Quote:
Originally Posted by levite
But as for Hawaii...I think they have a pretty good case. The US annexed Hawaii without so much as a by-your-leave from the Hawaiian populace, and I think that since the transition from US Territory to State was conducted under the auspices of a Territorial and Federal government that included no native Hawaiians (as far as I can tell), at the very least, Hawaii ought to be given the same Federal semi-autonomous district status as Native American reservations and tribal lands in the Continental US, and Native Hawaiians ought to have at least partial self-government....

Come to that, the Inuit probably have a fairly good claim on Alaska, too....
I disagree with what native Americans have to begin with. Frankly I think that reservations should be abolished. They haven't proven very good for the native folk. People living on reservation tend to live poorly, don't really live in the culture of their ancestors (many young Indians do not speak their peoples native tongue, even if they grow up on reservations). With the exception of casino money, the reservations have actually been pretty BAD for native Americans.
__________________
The prospect of achieving a peace agreement with the extremist group of MILF is almost impossible...
-- Emmanuel Pinol, Governor of Cotobato


My Homepage
xepherys is offline  
Old 06-20-2008, 05:07 PM   #11 (permalink)
All important elusive independent swing voter...
 
jorgelito's Avatar
 
Location: People's Republic of KKKalifornia
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cynthetiq
I'm confused... they get permission to go to the land that they claim as rightfully theirs, and they only occupy it during the day time?
I think that's it pretty much in a nut shell.

Quote:
Originally Posted by dlish
i agree nim.

give the tassies to the kiwis cos i dont see them lasting on their own! nah seriously though,...

any country that wants/needs democracy has a right of self rule if they can show enough reason and resolve to want and know how to rule themselves.

chechnya is a classic example where russias meddling screwed a fine working specimen of democratically elected leaders and turned them into 'religious rebels'.
Good point here. But does that mean you are in favor of independence for the Maoris (is that what you meant?). I think this comes back to right of self-determination. Which to me, is where the discussion/conversation gets more interesting. How would you compare/contrast New Zealand with Chechnya?

Quote:
Originally Posted by levite
Yeah, I'm not a fan of "trendy" political causes, either-- especially supporting one side or another in foreign conflicts that have nothing to do with the US, and whose arguments and meanings are generally either barely discerned or grossly misunderstood by the majority of the "activists" who are involved.

Leaving aside the Israel-Palestinian conflict, which I think is too complex to get into here, people essentially support Tibet, I think, because they like the Dalai Lama, not because they actually feel strongly about Tibetan nationalism. Not that I am opposed to Tibetan nationalism, or that I favor China's conquest of Tibet! I'm just saying I think that's what most people are motivated by, right or wrong.
Ah, but I think we're gonna have to visit this sooner or later (or even open up another thread). I agree that the Dalai Lama is a very charismatic person (having seen him twice, I find him very likable), much more MTV friendly than say, Yasser Arafat or Mahmoud Abbas. (Good G*d, if the Palestinians ever get a leader of that caliber (MLK, Dalai Lama, JFK, Obama), they might just achieve what they want). But more to the point, I think it is easier to support Tibet because of it's distance and exotic quality. Plus, China is the 'it' bogey man these days. It is very popular and trendy to bash China (and Arabs, Muslims, North Korea etc). As such, having a face to the enemy as it were, it makes it very easy to bash the Chinese and root for anyone against the Chinese. Look how muted the response to the Chinese earthquakes were. This forum had more discussion about a little tremor in Iceland versus NONE about the big one in China. Some people even feel China deserved that earthquake out of sheer ignorance and malice (Sharon Stone).

Quote:
Originally Posted by levite
But as for Hawaii...I think they have a pretty good case. The US annexed Hawaii without so much as a by-your-leave from the Hawaiian populace, and I think that since the transition from US Territory to State was conducted under the auspices of a Territorial and Federal government that included no native Hawaiians (as far as I can tell), at the very least, Hawaii ought to be given the same Federal semi-autonomous district status as Native American reservations and tribal lands in the Continental US, and Native Hawaiians ought to have at least partial self-government....

Come to that, the Inuit probably have a fairly good claim on Alaska, too....
Ok, let's roll with this. You have good summary here, but isn't this a slippery slope of sorts? Where does it begin and end? Will all sorts of claimants start coming out of the woodwork (other indigenous tribes etc.). Another thing to consider is what do "they" want? If the Hawaii group is relatively small then their claim does not have "mandate of the people" right? But what if a referendum showed 85% or some crazy number of Hawaiians wanting independence? Is that legitimate then? I think there would be a good case (though I don't know the legal structures for this).

As for the Inuit, are they clamoring for independence? I haven't heard anything, does anyone know? If so, then Canada will have some problems with them too I would assume.

Quote:
Originally Posted by dlish
maybe its got to do with the human rights abuses that china and israel commit again civilian pupulations.

no one likes oppressing nations. its probably why the US is on the wrong side of most people nowadays.

i know it sounds simplistic..but i think it rings true
I think you're onto something here but it needs more parsing out.. Human rights is a tricky thing. I don't think the Israelis and Chinese feel like they are human rights abusers. I think it also depends on who you ask too. I think there are plenty of Americans who feel like they have had their human rights abused right here in America (or at the very least, civil rights). As an American who traveled through Israel and China, I caught an earful from their people about how we Americans are hypocritical about human rights etc. It was harsh to say the least.

Last edited by jorgelito; 06-20-2008 at 05:23 PM.. Reason: Automerged Doublepost
jorgelito is offline  
Old 06-20-2008, 05:47 PM   #12 (permalink)
immoral minority
 
ASU2003's Avatar
 
Location: Back in Ohio
Quote:
As for the Inuit, are they clamoring for independence? I haven't heard anything, does anyone know? If so, then Canada will have some problems with them too I would assume.
http://www.dizzler.com/music/Three_D...ls_In_A_Baggie

Look for the Nunavut song.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nunavut

They just made a new territory, not a new country, but they have a lot more control over the local government. And they probably could quietly become their own country and nobody would really notice. I mean who ever goes up there?
ASU2003 is offline  
Old 06-21-2008, 02:09 AM   #13 (permalink)
Junkie
 
Location: Melbourne, Australia
I agree - it is actually rather more complex in practice.

Where/if a state wants to be independent, that is simple (I say let them).

Where the original landowners claim property though - to descendants of colonists who have been born to the "new" country. That is real difficult to resolve.

Last edited by Nimetic; 06-21-2008 at 02:10 AM.. Reason: Incomplete sentence...
Nimetic is offline  
Old 06-21-2008, 07:09 AM   #14 (permalink)
MSD
The sky calls to us ...
 
MSD's Avatar
 
Super Moderator
Location: CT
Quote:
Originally Posted by Willravel
Of course I'm still not 100% sure about whether a state has a right to secede after joining the US.
There was a pretty big debate about that between 1861 and 1865, and "no" won decisively.

Texas has that secession clause in the annexation treaty, but it's never going to happen unless there are drastic changes.
MSD is offline  
Old 06-21-2008, 07:15 AM   #15 (permalink)
comfortably numb...
 
uncle phil's Avatar
 
Super Moderator
Location: upstate
Quote:
Originally Posted by MSD
There was a pretty big debate about that between 1861 and 1865, and "no" won decisively.

Texas has that secession clause in the annexation treaty, but it's never going to happen unless there are drastic changes.
good ol' south carolina...
__________________
"We were wrong, terribly wrong. (We) should not have tried to fight a guerrilla war with conventional military tactics against a foe willing to absorb enormous casualties...in a country lacking the fundamental political stability necessary to conduct effective military and pacification operations. It could not be done and it was not done."
- Robert S. McNamara
-----------------------------------------
"We will take our napalm and flame throwers out of the land that scarcely knows the use of matches...
We will leave you your small joys and smaller troubles."
- Eugene McCarthy in "Vietnam Message"
-----------------------------------------
never wrestle with a pig.
you both get dirty;
the pig likes it.
uncle phil is offline  
Old 06-21-2008, 07:21 AM   #16 (permalink)
Baltimoron
 
djtestudo's Avatar
 
Location: Beeeeeautiful Bel Air, MD
Quote:
Originally Posted by MSD
There was a pretty big debate about that between 1861 and 1865, and "no" won decisively.

Texas has that secession clause in the annexation treaty, but it's never going to happen unless there are drastic changes.
They were one of the states that tried it during that little disagreement, so my guess is it's a moot point.

Though honestly, if Texas and California were to secede, would the US be able to stop them?
__________________
"Final thought: I just rented Michael Moore's Bowling for Columbine. Frankly, it was the worst sports movie I've ever seen."
--Peter Schmuck, The (Baltimore) Sun
djtestudo is offline  
Old 06-21-2008, 09:50 AM   #17 (permalink)
Currently sour but formerly Dlishs
 
dlish's Avatar
 
Super Moderator
Location: Australia/UAE
Quote:
Originally Posted by jorgelito
I think that's it pretty much in a nut shell.

Good point here. But does that mean you are in favor of independence for the Maoris (is that what you meant?). I think this comes back to right of self-determination. Which to me, is where the discussion/conversation gets more interesting. How would you compare/contrast New Zealand with Chechnya?



....I think you're onto something here but it needs more parsing out.. Human rights is a tricky thing. I don't think the Israelis and Chinese feel like they are human rights abusers. I think it also depends on who you ask too. I think there are plenty of Americans who feel like they have had their human rights abused right here in America (or at the very least, civil rights). As an American who traveled through Israel and China, I caught an earful from their people about how we Americans are hypocritical about human rights etc. It was harsh to say the least.

jorge

i think theres a difference between nz and chechnya. firsly nz, like australia is still part of the commonwealth, so they are still answerable to the Governor general whos the queens representative. now i dont know how things would work in terms of politics and law when it comes to these things, but id assume that in order for the moari's to gain independance from nz the bonds of being part of th commonwealth will need to be broken. secondly the moaris must show enough in terms of self rule and autonomy and demonstrate that they wont just run into the ground. east timor is a classic example. though they have a right for autonomy, i think their independance was premature and the choas weve seen lately is a result of that. granted there will be growing pains, but easttimor has been in serious strife and wouldnt be able to stand on its own without australias intervention.

in terms of chechnya, it is an autocratic nation that has run itself for years. its part of the soviet union, but has had self rule since stanlins time if i recall. their independance is hindered due to oil reserves in the caspian sea, and those oil lines need to run through chechnya. so russia wouldnt be willing to give chechnya up without a fight ( or two)

other ex soviet nations have demonstrated their breakaway rather cleanly. i dont see why checnya would be an exception. mashkadov was democratically elected and was widely seen across the world as the legitimate leader of checnya. installing puppet giverments like kadyrov and his men only add imbalance to an unsteady equation.

chechnya also had prescedents in other nations claiming indepedance after thefall of the soviet union. new zealand has no such neighbours. tasmanians would probably call out independance if one part of nz does. although it wouldnt be on race lines as in nz moaris.
__________________
An injustice anywhere, is an injustice everywhere

I always sign my facebook comments with ()()===========(}. Does that make me gay?
- Filthy
dlish is offline  
Old 06-23-2008, 03:50 PM   #18 (permalink)
Minion of the scaléd ones
 
Tophat665's Avatar
 
Location: Northeast Jesusland
When the Turks get out of Anatolia, then I will pay attention to this stuff. As it is, let me advance the modest proposal that one culture being conquered and subjugated by another is just one of those things that happens from time to time, and so long as it doesn't sink to the level of wholesale genocidal butchery it'll still be better that nearly all the times this has happened in the history of the world.

Not that it doesn't suck, but I'd rather spend my time trying to improve the lot of myself, my family, my friends, and my country in that order.
__________________
Light a man a fire, and he will be warm while it burns.
Set a man on fire, and he will be warm for the rest of his life.
Tophat665 is offline  
Old 06-23-2008, 03:54 PM   #19 (permalink)
comfortably numb...
 
uncle phil's Avatar
 
Super Moderator
Location: upstate
my grandfather used to say, "when the fighting stops in ireland..." and he was a polish cavalry officer who came over here prior to the outbreak of WWI...
__________________
"We were wrong, terribly wrong. (We) should not have tried to fight a guerrilla war with conventional military tactics against a foe willing to absorb enormous casualties...in a country lacking the fundamental political stability necessary to conduct effective military and pacification operations. It could not be done and it was not done."
- Robert S. McNamara
-----------------------------------------
"We will take our napalm and flame throwers out of the land that scarcely knows the use of matches...
We will leave you your small joys and smaller troubles."
- Eugene McCarthy in "Vietnam Message"
-----------------------------------------
never wrestle with a pig.
you both get dirty;
the pig likes it.
uncle phil is offline  
Old 06-23-2008, 04:41 PM   #20 (permalink)
 
roachboy's Avatar
 
Super Moderator
Location: essex ma
what i gather so far is that there is no particular impulse that would cause you to imagine that freedom for others is a way of extending such freedom as you do or do not enjoy where you are---so having dispensed with any actual rationale that might come from the usual suspects in terms of political commitment--like say ethics or a political inclination to oppose oppression of others because you see in them human beings not a whole lot unlike yourself--the entire issue becomes more of less arbitrary and the processes whereby one factoid/problem (is there a difference?) acquires weight and another doesn't also becomes more or less arbitrary.

so we can blame the hipsters for harshing our collective mellow. or signifiers like the dalai lama.

but there are interesting and to my mind disturbing problems underneath all this.

absence of a political message that shapes or gives direction to opposition to a colonial occupation, for example, does tend to efface the fact of occupation, yes?
if the people who are under occupation are adequately pulverized, political mobilization is a problem.
for example: there hasn't been a whole lot of political mobilization amongst the native american population in radical opposition to the entire american order since, o i dont know, wounded knee, except for the aim of the early 1970s. and even that you probably wouldn't know about unless you read "in the spirit of crazy horse" or some such.

but there is alot of political activity, particularly around questions of winning recognition of "tribal" status from states around the country...
recognition of status entails recognition of claims to exist.
but it is a problem--if everything is the same as everything else, really, then even being informed about some of the conflicts happening in various states around the country about this kind of issue is unnecessary, unless you happen to stumble across something in print or on the radio...in those few pockets of "alternative" information that still function in this increasingly homogenize infotainment wasteland we live in...
information is a problem.


on the other hand, it seems to make some sense that one's sense of solidarity, if it exists, would be shaped by the demands of the folk with whom you express solidarity, yes?
otherwise, you'd just be telling them what their situation "really means" and that's not a whole lot different from being colonized, is it?


what links the two is lack of information about political situations around the world--hell, even within the united states--not only about basic challenges to the existing order (and they're out there)--but even about groups or movements that work in the trenches of ordinary politics.

why is that? you'd think with 24/7 cable "news" outlets that you'd see and hear a whole range of stuff about all kinds of situations, that 24/7 would be enough time to provide actual context and a sense of history and grain to those situations. you would think that knowing something about , say, the costs entailed by the "american way of life"---to make things "local"---would be important.
but apparently this isn't the case.
apparently, you don't see or hear much.

i see alot of the thread so far (not all of it) as reproducing the effects of a sanitized information context that simply does not provide anything remotely like coherent coverage of movements that challenge what exists.
what's curious to me really is not that this reproduction happens--it happens all the time, all around, not just here--but that so few folk seem to notice that there's anything strange about it.
__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite
roachboy is offline  
Old 06-23-2008, 04:50 PM   #21 (permalink)
All important elusive independent swing voter...
 
jorgelito's Avatar
 
Location: People's Republic of KKKalifornia
Quote:
Originally Posted by roachboy
what i gather so far is that there is no particular impulse that would cause you to imagine that freedom for others is a way of extending such freedom as you do or do not enjoy where you are---so having dispensed with any actual rationale that might come from the usual suspects in terms of political commitment--like say ethics or a political inclination to oppose oppression of others because you see in them human beings not a whole lot unlike yourself--the entire issue becomes more of less arbitrary and the processes whereby one factoid/problem (is there a difference?) acquires weight and another doesn't also becomes more or less arbitrary.

so we can blame the hipsters for harshing our collective mellow. or signifiers like the dalai lama.

but there are interesting and to my mind disturbing problems underneath all this.

absence of a political message that shapes or gives direction to opposition to a colonial occupation, for example, does tend to efface the fact of occupation, yes?
if the people who are under occupation are adequately pulverized, political mobilization is a problem.
for example: there hasn't been a whole lot of political mobilization amongst the native american population in radical opposition to the entire american order since, o i dont know, wounded knee, except for the aim of the early 1970s. and even that you probably wouldn't know about unless you read "in the spirit of crazy horse" or some such.

but there is alot of political activity, particularly around questions of winning recognition of "tribal" status from states around the country...
recognition of status entails recognition of claims to exist.
but it is a problem--if everything is the same as everything else, really, then even being informed about some of the conflicts happening in various states around the country about this kind of issue is unnecessary, unless you happen to stumble across something in print or on the radio...in those few pockets of "alternative" information that still function in this increasingly homogenize infotainment wasteland we live in...
information is a problem.


on the other hand, it seems to make some sense that one's sense of solidarity, if it exists, would be shaped by the demands of the folk with whom you express solidarity, yes?
otherwise, you'd just be telling them what their situation "really means" and that's not a whole lot different from being colonized, is it?


what links the two is lack of information about political situations around the world--hell, even within the united states--not only about basic challenges to the existing order (and they're out there)--but even about groups or movements that work in the trenches of ordinary politics.

why is that? you'd think with 24/7 cable "news" outlets that you'd see and hear a whole range of stuff about all kinds of situations, that 24/7 would be enough time to provide actual context and a sense of history and grain to those situations. you would think that knowing something about , say, the costs entailed by the "american way of life"---to make things "local"---would be important.
but apparently this isn't the case.
apparently, you don't see or hear much.

i see alot of the thread so far (not all of it) as reproducing the effects of a sanitized information context that simply does not provide anything remotely like coherent coverage of movements that challenge what exists.
what's curious to me really is not that this reproduction happens--it happens all the time, all around, not just here--but that so few folk seem to notice that there's anything strange about it.
So RB, do you think then, that:

1. it becomes a matter of a biased lens in which we view the world and how we decide which "cause: to latch on to? And:

2. likewise, for the contrarians and apathetics, could it be construde that the notion of "other" acts like a veil and obfuscates and dulls our perceptions?
jorgelito is offline  
Old 06-23-2008, 05:19 PM   #22 (permalink)
 
roachboy's Avatar
 
Super Moderator
Location: essex ma
1. probably. at a certain level, obviously: but you can add texture or weight to a predisposition through information, yes? but there's always a sense in which you look for features that you are predisposed to look for. but it's not therefore the case that those features are just functions of your predispositions. well, they could be if you don't have any information.


2. the "other" is a metaphysical category.
what else can it do but dull?
the trick is that it's inverse dulls even more.

maybe there's only particularities.
but that makes people tired, thinking that way.
obliges you to look at stuff.
but what do you look at?
see (1) above.
__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite
roachboy is offline  
Old 06-23-2008, 05:27 PM   #23 (permalink)
Minion of the scaléd ones
 
Tophat665's Avatar
 
Location: Northeast Jesusland
Quote:
Originally Posted by jorgelito
2. likewise, for the contrarians and apathetics, could it be construde that the notion of "other" acts like a veil and obfuscates and dulls our perceptions?
Speaking for myself and no one else, as a person who finds this problem to be something to be fixed well after many other more pressing issues, if not written off as one of those unpleasant things people do now and again regardless, I subscribe to the monkeysphere theory. I can give a good goddamn about 150 people, give or take, maybe twice that on a good day. Now that's not to say that it's always the same hundred fifty, and it's not to say that I have no empathy. It is to say that I define Other as those I do not know personally. I do not feel that it is an effective use of my time and energy to agonize over the plight of folks on the other side of the planet (or the other side of the state for that matter) who I will never speak to.

I particularly think it's a waste of time to agonize over distant problems of exceptionally long standing with no prospect of solution. Sorry, Levantine Arabs, but so far as I can tell the problem is Never going to go away.

Is the Dalai lama a wise, sweet, brilliant old man? Absolutely. Is it terribly unfortunate that China has decided it needs Tibet for it's strategic position or whatever? Absolutely. Am I gong to spend another minute worrying about it when I could be determining whether my kids go to a good school?

Nope.

Face it, if everyone would just mind their own business then this wouldn't be a problem. (Until the resources run low, but that's a whole other kettle of fish for my kids to boil.)
__________________
Light a man a fire, and he will be warm while it burns.
Set a man on fire, and he will be warm for the rest of his life.
Tophat665 is offline  
Old 06-24-2008, 08:38 AM   #24 (permalink)
Insane
 
Herk's Avatar
 
Location: Kansas City, MO
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tophat665
Is the Dalai lama a wise, sweet, brilliant old man? Absolutely. Is it terribly unfortunate that China has decided it needs Tibet for it's strategic position or whatever? Absolutely. Am I gong to spend another minute worrying about it when I could be determining whether my kids go to a good school?

Nope.

Face it, if everyone would just mind their own business then this wouldn't be a problem. (Until the resources run low, but that's a whole other kettle of fish for my kids to boil.)
Well put. It isn't a lack of empathy to admit a lack of control. I'm not sure if I agree completely, but I have mixed emotions so I appreciate this outlook.
__________________
-Blind faith runs into things!-
Herk is offline  
 

Tags
free, hawaii, palestine, tibet


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 02:53 PM.

Tilted Forum Project

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0 PL2
© 2002-2012 Tilted Forum Project

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360