>Besides the problems with the article (which i have not read in details),
>the fact that Indians make "commercial movies" should not lead you to
>normalize the brutality of western imperialism and epidemic violence done
>to third world people. did you ever attempt to think why Indian directors
>shift to producing commercial movies?
>
>Actually, you don't need to go to third world.Indians were killed here.
>African Americans were used as slave labor, and they are still treated as
>non-humans. Criticizing this has nothing to do with "returning to the
>innocence and purity" of the third world. On the contrary, white
>men wanted to create this "purity" by _actually_ eliminating people. It
>was not so long ago-- eugenic laws were practiced here till 1965.
>
>
>Mine
>
>>> Why this extraordinary desire to keep Africa from exporting textiles
> >> to the U.S.--to keep Africa poor and keep Roger Milliken rich?
If I understand what you are saying, it is that (a) eugenic laws were
practiced here in the U.S. until 1965, and so (b) African textile
businesses should be prohibited from exporting more than a
narrowly-limited quota of goods to the U.S.
I'm missing something here...
Brad DeLong
