[Reader-list] 'Going Muslim' - America after Fort Hood.

Fri Nov 20 00:23:52 IST 2009

1.

"No Freedom is absolute and no Space is unfenced"
the above from text by dear kshmendra

if  all the spaces are fenced then how to understand freedom

do we need to break the fences to realize freedom? or we recognize the
obvious and salute it.

it is perhaps like that, if there is no freedom, because of fences
around all of us, trapped individuals, closed communites, boardered
States?

what to do? Art and culture ( its radical thought even) too becomes
then the property of 'fenced spaces'

disrespecting spaces, as we know in the past has gifted us positive
changes. Its good or bad is another mttter,  but changes do occur as
when people begin to  feel stifled by a system of over guarded fences.

2.

The disucssion on religon and its relationship with violence is
grounded here because West Orchastrated it over the period of time,
and now countries like India are imitating those tunes, and so we see
'Islamization' as something which only produces hate for the other.
saying that "  the Present might not agree with the Past in content or
in attitude"  also means that Americanization of the world is more
lethal to the earth than islamic terrorism is.

just read, that Cars are more dangerous than AIDS. which is not a good
news for American ( whatever ) economy

with love
IS

On Thu, Nov 19, 2009 at 8:03 PM, Kshmendra Kaul <kshmendra2005 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> Dear Shuddha
>
> The history and Present of human conflict is from two critical factors. One of Space and the other of Freedoms. This is true for conflict between individuals, or institutions, or the progressively larger social sets of families, societies, countries. It also holds true for conflicts within an individual.
>
> No Freedom is absolute and no Space is unfenced. Disrespect that and you will get conflict.
>
> You are right. Nobody should be left out. Be it Hindu, Muslim, Christian, Sikh, Buddhist, Atheist, Agnostic, Leftist, Rightist ...... whoever. Certainly bash them all if they are disrespecting Freedoms and Spaces.
>
> It should be done whenever Religion/Ideology are so propagated and used to instigate or provoke violence. Irrespective of whether it touches upon inter-religion/ideology or intra-religion/ideology, it should be done when one set of adherents of a particular Religion/Ideology declare their pre-eminence over all the others by some or the other diktat of a notional Divine or it's Regent.
>
> The conversations that were taking place might not help you understand violence or religion. It does not mean that others might not get some inklings from it. You might have (if you have) already formulated your understanding of violence and religion. That does not mean others have too and that they should not converse and make their own formulations. What might be "utterly utterly pointless" for you might not be so for others.
>
> Let me for a moment grant your dismissal as being valid. Let me agree for the moment that the enlightenment of some degree of understanding could not be found in the conversations.
>
> It is equally important to speak and speak out against the obviousness of Religion/Ideology being used to instigate or provoke violence or being used for declaring the pre-eminence of one set of adherents of a particular Religion/Ideology over all the others.
>
> That the discussion was on "relative proximity of particular religions to violence" is your phrasing. To categorise it as Islamophobic is your interpretation.
>
> By your logic if there is a discussion on how Hindus are using Hinduism to instigate or provoke violence or for declaring the pre-eminence of one set of adherents of Hinduism over all the others then it should be seen as Hinduphobia.
>
> Your Wellsian reach back to picking a Tilak here a Buddhist there to make your points on the pointlessness of the discussion is a flawed argument.
>
> The role Religions played in instigating or provoking conflicts, in the Past is well known. Krishna did it, Mohammed did it, Gobind did it. You say Tilak did it. Jinnah did it. Some opine that the "apostle of peace' Gandhi did it.
>
> The Present has reflections from the Past but the Present might not agree with the Past in content or in attitude.
>
> Whether it is concerning Hindus or Muslims, discussions (in the context referred to above) are needed. Whether you or someone else sees that as Hinduphobia or Islamophobia does not invalidate the need for such discussions.
>
> Kshmendra
>
>
> --- On Wed, 11/18/09, Shuddhabrata Sengupta <shuddha at sarai.net> wrote:
>
>
> From: Shuddhabrata Sengupta <shuddha at sarai.net>
> Subject: Re: [Reader-list] 'Going Muslim' - America after Fort Hood.
> To: "yasir ~يا سر" <yasir.media at gmail.com>
> Cc: "Sarai Reader-list" <reader-list at sarai.net>
> Date: Wednesday, November 18, 2009, 10:18 PM
>
>
> Dear all,
>
> The last that I remember, Bal Gangadhar Tilak, who openly supported
> nationalist terrorism in British India, also wrote a commentary on
> the Bhagavad Gita. You might find his thoughts on the cult of the
> bomb, quite interesting. In his day, he was as reviled as Osama Bin
> Laden by people writing editorials in London.
>
> Many of those who opposed British Rule in India, did so with the
> message of the holy war, ordained by their understanding of the Gita,
> as their inspiration. Naturally, we should assume, following
> Kshmendra;s logic, ( - 'the best (or worst) thing about stereotypes
> (and cliches) is that they fit so often') that the image of the
> fanatical Hindu terrorist with a bomb in one hand and the Gita in
> another is an arresting and authentic way for us to understand Hinduism.
>
> I don't think that this is the most intelligent way to talk about the
> Hindu ways of life, but if you subscribe to an Islamophobic view of
> the world, then, you might as well also subscribe to a Hindu-hating,
> Christian-bashing, Jew-baiting view of the world as well.
>
> And of course, if you take into account the well documented
> complicity of Zen Buddhist orders in war crimes committed by the
> Japanese military in the second world war, then you might even be a
> Buddha-basher as well. Why leave anyone out?
>
> I find this entire discussion on the relative proximity of particular
> religions to violence, utterly, utterly pointless. It neither helps
> us understand violence, nor does it help us understand religion.
>
> regards,
>
> Shuddha
>
>
>
> On 15-Nov-09, at 5:00 PM, yasir ~يا سر wrote:
>
>> Dear KK,
>>
>> Following your logic, I have al-qaeda connections, which i have.
>> nice fit.
>> needless to say, I say allah ho akbar quite often.
>>
>> secondly it wasn't important what Mc Veigh was saying. It was
>> announced on
>> the media channels that middle eastern folk had brought down the  FBI
>> building. whether McVeigh liked shish kabob or got trained by
>> christian
>> militias in lebanon, i dont know. but certainly he was against the US
>> government, like the other christian militias in the US at the
>> time, and FBI
>> and its operations against religious groups in particular, among
>> which the
>> Waco, Texas massacre stood out.
>>
>> so certainly by pointing out that he was agnostic, one can overlook
>> at why
>> the FBI got bombed in the first place. so US actions in Iraq should
>> justify
>> al-qaeda and this killing spree in Fort Hodd, but no.
>>
>> there's also this very american rant:
>> http://www.theonion.com/content/news_briefs/american_muslims_to_fort
>>
>> this is the wrong discussion to have. What is the US doing in
>> Afghanistan
>> and Iraq is the right discussion.
>>
>> best
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sat, Nov 14, 2009 at 6:59 PM, Kshmendra Kaul
>> <kshmendra2005 at yahoo.com>wrote:
>>
>>>  Dear Yasir
>>>
>>> The best (or worst) thing about stereotypes (and cliches) is that
>>> they fit
>>> so often.
>>>
>>> It is easy to dismiss with a "bs" (presumably Bullshit) without
>>> pondering
>>> over possibilities. It shows being in a state of denial and not a
>>> plausible
>>> one at that.
>>>
>>> It is early days and we now have reports of Hasan having been in
>>> touch with
>>> Radical Islamists; of Hasan having financial transactions with
>>> Pakistan; of
>>> Hasan  in his business card calling himself "SoA" (Soldier of
>>> Allah). Media
>>> concoctions? Dont know. But certainly are bits and pieces that
>>> might just be
>>> innocent coincidences but makes you wonder.
>>>
>>> Then of course, all this might be an American-Israeli-Indian
>>> conspiracy.
>>>
>>> It is interesting that you should mention Tim McVeigh and the
>>> Oklahoma
>>> Bombing. As far as I know, McVeigh did not claim it as a strike by a
>>> Christian (if McVeigh was one) against Non-Christians.
>>>
>>> As per one report McVeigh proclaimed himself an agnostic. See:
>>> http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2001/jun/11/mcveigh.usa4
>>>
>>>
>>> Kshmendra
>>>
>>>
>>> --- On *Fri, 11/13/09, yasir ~يا سر <yasir.media at gmail.com>*
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> From: yasir ~يا سر <yasir.media at gmail.com>
>>>
>>> Subject: Re: [Reader-list] 'Going Muslim' - America after Fort Hood.
>>> To: "sarai list" <reader-list at sarai.net>
>>> Date: Friday, November 13, 2009, 12:46 PM
>>>
>>> what a stinking piece of hate this article is.
>>> an exercise in how to make full use of the worst stereotypes.
>>>
>>> this is just postal. rest is bs. pc or no pc.
>>>
>>> the FBI building in Oklahoma wasnt bombed by postal workers
>>> I'll take it as a sorting mistake.
>>>
>>> best
>>>
>>>
>> _________________________________________
>> reader-list: an open discussion list on media and the city.
>> Critiques & Collaborations
>> To subscribe: send an email to reader-list-request at sarai.net with
>> subscribe in the subject header.
>> To unsubscribe: https://mail.sarai.net/mailman/listinfo/reader-list
>> List archive: <https://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/reader-list/>
>
> Shuddhabrata Sengupta
> The Sarai Programme at CSDS
> Raqs Media Collective
> shuddha at sarai.net
> www.sarai.net
> www.raqsmediacollective.net
>
>
> _________________________________________
> reader-list: an open discussion list on media and the city.
> Critiques & Collaborations
> To subscribe: send an email to reader-list-request at sarai.net with subscribe in the subject header.
> To unsubscribe: https://mail.sarai.net/mailman/listinfo/reader-list
> List archive: <https://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/reader-list/>
>
>
>
> _________________________________________
> reader-list: an open discussion list on media and the city.
> Critiques & Collaborations
> To subscribe: send an email to reader-list-request at sarai.net with subscribe in the subject header.
> To unsubscribe: https://mail.sarai.net/mailman/listinfo/reader-list
> List archive: <https://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/reader-list/>

-- 

http://indersalim.livejournal.com