On 11/18/06, Jim Devine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 11/18/06, Yoshie Furuhashi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Were Omar Mukhtar alive today and leading resistance anywhere, it
> would be unlikely for him to receive much sympathy in the West. That
> he was a Muslim religious teacher alone would stand in the way.
>
> Truth be told, there are some in the Iraqi resistance with whom one
> cannot possibly sympathize, given their treatment of their POWs and
> hostages, which stands in stark contrast with the film's portrayal of
> Mukhtar's stance toward his prisoners (whether that's truth or
> idealization, I do not know):
there's no reason why the "West" should sympathize with him. What's
worth sympathizing with is the _struggle_ against colonialism and
imperialism, not the _individuals_ who may temporarily lead that
struggle.
Struggles are composed of individuals who lead and join struggles in
various capacities. It seems to me to be impossible to separate the
two in the sympathy department, though it is possible to do so in the
analysis department. While one can never base politics on feelings
alone, feelings are part of politics. Abstractions minus feelings --
including feelings about individuals involved in struggles -- seldom
move people.
People make errors, believe in conflicting ideals, etc.
Yes, but errors, contradictory ideas, etc. don't necessarily
contradict sympathy for people who make them.
(If you remember, I believe that monuments, special days, etc., should
not be named after living persons (the Mayor Tom Bradley International
Terminal at the Los Angeles Airport -- though now he's dead. so it's
OK; Anita Hill Day; etc.) The US has a good rule: not putting any
living person's name or face on stamps, money, etc. The rule against
having cults of personality should be made general.)
Except "In God We Trust." :->
--
Yoshie
<http://montages.blogspot.com/>
<http://mrzine.org>
<http://monthlyreview.org/>
