On this list, the revolutionary Che Guevera was once
called a mass murderer. The brilliant Nobel laureate
Economist Milton Friedman was called an agent of
predatory capitalism. None of these constituted hate
speech and invited moderation. Everything is allowed
until you touch some holier- than- cows.
How do those who support the poet's intervention
substantiate their claim? Is their support based on
some clarity about any significant relationship
between the literary works of the poet and her
eco-political interventions? No. She is a famous
personality and her presence could be of
media/instrumental value. So the supporters too count
on the "personality" of the poet and degrade her by
reducing her to mere use value. Some environmental
activists tried to use Arundhati Roy too for her
instrumental value. But she was a clever writer. She
turned the table back on those activists!
Even if Renjit were to substantiate his views, we
wouldn't know what to do with them. During the Narmada
days noted economist Surjit Bhalla argued -
convincingly, I think - that Arundhati Roy's data on
the number of oustees were grossly exaggerated. (she
did respond to his criticism.) What could we do in
front of such devastating evidence? Should we dismiss
Surjit as a right wing economist? Or, should we call
Arundhati a liar? Or should we ignore the data saying
that we do not care about the content of Arundhati's
writing and all that matters is the use value of her
support? I think all these are unacceptable. Instead,
we should take a critical look at the complex
relationship Eco-politics has with science on the one
hand, and, art on the other. ( Many 'scientific'
claims in support of the environmental movement have
turned out to be hugely exaggerated, if not false -
eg: the Club of Rome report). In the absence of such
foundational thinking, all activist rhetoric for and
against Arundhati or Sugatha is of dubious value.
Anivar Aravind wrote:
> > Hope the moderator will not come up with a
> semantic
> > distinction between moderation and censorship.
> That
> > would be the sure sign of an immoderate censor.
> >
>
> Both are different. Anyway thanks for the branding
>
I was warning you about the possible misuse of a valid
distinction. By calling my criticism "branding" you
are not escaping the charge of misuse.
sanil
____________________________________________________________________________________
Take the Internet to Go: Yahoo!Go puts the Internet in your pocket: mail, news,
photos & more.
http://mobile.yahoo.com/go?refer=1GNXIC
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Green Youth Movement" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/greenyouth?hl=en-GB
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
