This is a multi-part message in MIME format. From: "rc-am" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Fw: [PEN-L:4731] Saving lives in Kosovo Date: Fri, 2 Apr 1999 18:09:38 +1000 can you forward this to pen-l? I've put my sub on postpone. thanks, angela -----Original Message----- From: rc-am <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Friday, 2 April 1999 5:53 Subject: Re: [PEN-L:4731] Saving lives in Kosovo carrol wrote: >>It is April 1. Is Gar having his little joke? it is not a joke to focus on the contradictions of NATO countries and those who now use the refugees as little more than ammunition for escalating this war. nor is it a joke to refuse the only other option being presented here: that of averting our eyes from the refugees, or worse, repositioning them as fake, as the only way of refusing the lies of NATO. a simple question: do you or not support this as a demand? whom do we address any of our demands to? we address them to the suits to be sure, as we do any demand, but more importantly, we address them to each other. that the left finds such a demand unthinkable, as distinct from any other set of demands, only tells me that there are sections of the left who are unwilling to let go of either (a) the demonisation of 'other people's' nationalism but not our own; or (b) the substitution of proletarian internationalism with attachment to national projects. in most cases, I suspect it's a combination of both of these, since both enable the continuing protection of one's own implicit nationalism (the protection of one's own borders). in the first instance, we can claim that our nationalism is more civilized than that of others (and I have shown time and again why this is not so); in the second case, we can pretend that we are not really nationalistic because, well, we support some other nationalism over our own. the latter is really not true though is it? which is why the demand for open borders sticks in some people's throats. angela >
