The problems are with the latter: what does the US get out of the deal? Apparently the potential ability to strong-arm India into going along with its foreign policy in the future. At least that's what the Indian Left seems to think.
Must have been a tough call for the Indian Left, when the Imperialists are trying to shove a reasonable principle (nonproliferation) down their country's throats - but they've come down unambiguously on the side of supporting India's right to a nuclear arsenal... long live the revolution!
9 | Dr. Anonymous (not verified) | 25 Aug 2007 at 4:29 am:
If there’s a lot going on, why are you bored? ;)
Okay, you caught me, bored was poor word choice ;) It's because I like talking, not just living in isolation and having a 100 things bounce around my head.
10 | halah (not verified) | 31 Aug 2007 at 6:23 am:
Did anyone come across a recent thread on Sepia Mutiny where this British Tamil Sri-Lankan commenter had a verbal ruckus with one of the bloggers, cicatrix, over her use of the term 'terrorist conflict' to describe the conflict in Sri-Lanka? I know Vivek made a comment there. I found the way Priya was handled way too harsh and it made me quite upset but I couldn't leave a comment because the thread is now closed. Was wondering if anyone else has any thoughts on it. The post is titled On Wing and Snicker and was posted a few days ago.
I was a bit too busy moving and driving across the country to actually sit down and write a comment (these things always take me far too long). I completely agree with you - I don't know why that comment Priya wrote was deleted. Cicatrix's use of the term "terrorist conflict" to describe what's happening in Sri Lanka is obviously problematic, and it seemed that if she had wanted to keep the comment thread focused on the new airline, she should have either defended her use of the term or just deleted it from her original post - neither, I think, happened before the thread was closed.
I think Ananthan, Priya T, and alex pretty well covered why use of the term "terrorist conflict" is more than just a matter of semantics.
14 | Dr. Anonymous (not verified) | 31 Aug 2007 at 7:04 pm:
Take as an assumption that I know next to nothing about Sri Lanka for the remainder of what I say. I just skimmed the original post and read a lot of the comments and didn't read any of the other posts by cicatrix that were referenced.
I agree that the word choice of "terrorist" is loaded, even if you take it literally to apply ot the "conflict." At the same time, I thought that some, though not all, of Priya's comments objecting were as disingenous in arguing that the root cause is "racism" and thereby claiming that her perspective is neutral. I also would have appreciated a response to the repeated calls for an example of "tamil resistance" in Sri Lanka that does not involve the LTTE (I'm not saying it doesn't exist--i'm just saying that no one answered) and some of the complexities she raised in terms of the diversity that exists. I think the argument claiming that it was ludicrous, but then I'm biased.
But to sum: can of worms opened; worms present; attempts to squash worms by yelling fails (obviously). If the debate was not wanted, the word choice should have been clearer; if the word choice was problematic, the arguments against should have been stronger, more specific, and from a larger framework than Tamil nationalism.
A pox upon both your houses! The story of Sri Lanka.
15 | Dr. Anonymous (not verified) | 02 Sep 2007 at 3:07 pm:
hey dr.a - i think this was especially misleading to impartial observers in that forum - cicatrix is regarded as the sri-lankan voice on sm - even if it’s not stated explicitly - and for me, at least, this was simply the straw that broke the camel’s back. in any case, it provided an ample opportunity to address the issue. however, even if you take the discussion that out of that context, “terrorist” isn’t simply just a word. later on the discussion, someone’s use of the term “house negro” was dismissed as despicable or ugly i think, i can’t remember which, by the sm admin. i don’t understand the arbitrary nature of determining which words are hurtful or not, but at this juncture, it has to be evident that terrorist is a horribly loaded term. i’d challenge anyone traveling in a major international airport to use that word as clumsily, and then see if it’s simply just a word.
Hi Alex. No, my point, which I unfortunately added in a clarification in the second comment, is that it's a waste of time to argue such matters on SM because of the issues with arbitrariness that you point out and the range of politics that get a fair hearing on that space. It would be like going up to the New York Times and trying to convince them that their American nationalism is fucked up.
In contexts like these, I think it makes more sense to hash out what you need to in places like this, which more likely allow you to do that (well, sometimes, anyway)--the same way that you might write an article very differently for The Nation than you would for The Times.
I also think it would be more useful for those of you who agreed with priya or who disagreed but in a way that raised valid points to have a conversation among yourselves, because I think you probbaly come from different places but the points of contention and commonality don't get aired out because you have to be too busy dealing with random things like someone deleting coments. For example, why was it not obvious that some of you who were on the same side in that argument were arguing more from a human rights framework and others were arguing from a tamil nationalist framework? It doesn't really matter that much, but it's probably would feel more fruitful.
Anyway, I understand where you're coming from in terms of having a breaking point, and, like I said, I've only read this post on Sri Lanka (and that at the prompting of another). I don't know what it's like to have read all the other posts that have been written and respond in that vein. I just don't think it's worth that much of your time :) Make your point, maybe send one response, and then roll your eyes and move on :)
also, i hope i wasn’t one of the “defenders” you were referring to, but i guess i made myself fair game if you were.
I don't remember your comments and I should write more clearly :) I was referring primarily to the people who were defending cicatrix (who doesn't really need defending--she's perfectly capable on her own) and because I was ignoring them, I tried to ignore you guys.
in regards to tamil nationalism, i don’t even understand why this is an issue. demanding proof of the existence of like-minded groups is simply saying that all objective parties in the conflict should support GoSL until some non-violent party to support tamil nationalism rears its head. (i don’t understand how such a group could even exist under the house rules that this is a black and white issue.) i can remain objective on the issue and still believe that separate states are a good idea, can’t i?
It's an issue precisely because of what you argue. From the standpoint of conflict resolution or human rights or socialism something else, you would prioritize the individual people that are getting killed, on both sides. From the standpoint of Tamil nationalism, your take would likely be different, even if you're a pacifist. It's the same in every conflict right?--Iran, Palestine, opposition to the Iraq War, etc. People on the "same side" often have differing perspectives, views, strategies, tactics--sometimes vastly differing.
So of course you can do all the things that you're saying...I'm just pointing out that not everyone who agrees with you in the narrow confines of that conversation is doing that.
Thanks for the comments, Vivek and Dr Anonymous, both were useful for me to make up my mind on how I feel about it. Sri-Lanka is a real mess. I'm sick of the war and I'm sick of the hate. I feel like I'm one of the very few Sri-Lankans (well half-Sinhalese) who try to make an effort to stay neutral on the conflict and so I did agree with Priya's objections. I don't think Priya was in a position to describe Tamil Resistance minus the LTTE and was trying to figure that out for herself, which is good enough for me.
I felt the thread turned very ugly and heated and the bloggers were in a position to change that and didn't. Instead they didn't want to give her the time of day even when she was backed up by others, which is wrong IMO! I don't read Sepia Mutiny all that often but I was a bit put off after reading that. The blog should be open to dissenting voices and deal with it calmly. I really felt for Priya, a fellow Brit and Sri-Lankan about the same age as myself, getting battered on that thread for expressing her opinions. Deleting the comment was totally OTT and ridiculous. I mean, are these people aware or choosing to ignore how strongly many people in Priya's position (ie Tamil refugees) feel about the situation?
Are Americans overly paranoid about terrorism? That's the word on the street here.
But anyway, enough about that. What happened to that reading list on Sri-Lanka? I'm fed up with reading other people's opinions on the matter and want to read up on Sri-Lankan history, analyze analyse some of the events and try and make sense of why things are so bad there for myself. So far I've ordered this one: Sumantra Bose's 'States, Nations, Sovereignty: Sri Lanka, India and the Tamil Eelam Movement' (New Delhi: Sage, 1994).
At the same time, I thought that some, though not all, of Priya’s comments objecting were as disingenous in arguing that the root cause is “racism” and thereby claiming that her perspective is neutral.
I don't think this is an accurate characterization of her comments at all - where did she claim that her perspective is neutral? I think everything about her comments indicated her personal investment.
If the debate was not wanted, the word choice should have been clearer; if the word choice was problematic, the arguments against should have been stronger, more specific, and from a larger framework than Tamil nationalism.
Eh? What's Tamil nationalism here? Also, I don't know how much clearer it could be than this, from Ananthan:
But this is the key issue - the word terrorism carries a certain weight that a synonym wouldn't - that's why this isn't simply about semantics. Both sides have used the method of terrorism and all Sri Lankan's have been victimized. However, calling it a terrorist war is an oversimplification that shouldn't be accepted. I accept that the reaction might have been excessive, but I won't apologize for criticizing your choice of words.
20 | alex (not verified) | 02 Sep 2007 at 4:46 am:
hey guys, i was directed over here by your master of ceremonies, vivek. i'd waste time with an introduction but i'm far too lazy.
But simultaneously, i feel like saying “choose your battles, yo!” to people who take one word in a sentence, pounce on it, and turn it into a major conflagration. As well as people who do to the response.
hey dr.a - i think this was especially misleading to impartial observers in that forum - cicatrix is regarded as the sri-lankan voice on sm - even if it's not stated explicitly - and for me, at least, this was simply the straw that broke the camel's back. in any case, it provided an ample opportunity to address the issue. however, even if you take the discussion that out of that context, "terrorist" isn't simply just a word. later on the discussion, someone's use of the term "house negro" was dismissed as despicable or ugly i think, i can't remember which, by the sm admin. i don't understand the arbitrary nature of determining which words are hurtful or not, but at this juncture, it has to be evident that terrorist is a horribly loaded term. i'd challenge anyone traveling in a major international airport to use that word as clumsily, and then see if it's simply just a word.
in regards to tamil nationalism, i don't even understand why this is an issue. demanding proof of the existence of like-minded groups is simply saying that all objective parties in the conflict should support GoSL until some non-violent party to support tamil nationalism rears its head. (i don't understand how such a group could even exist under the house rules that this is a black and white issue.) i can remain objective on the issue and still believe that separate states are a good idea, can't i?
also, i hope i wasn't one of the "defenders" you were referring to, but i guess i made myself fair game if you were.
as for calvin and hobbes, the complete version is so huge! it's probably cheaper to pick up that version than purchasing all the smaller books, but thumbing through the pages of that huge hardcover seems like such an academic maneuver. the flimsier versions lend themselves much better to just flopping on the ground and laughing hysterically.
I'm on the phone with a bookstore trying to obtain a copy of The Complete Calvin & Hobbes. He asks me to repeat myself. I comply. He puts me on hold. 30 seconds he comes back on the line: "Did you say The Complete Hulk?"
What the hell are they teaching kids these days? COME BACK BILL WATTERSON!!!!
22 | Dr. Anonymous (not verified) | 01 Sep 2007 at 6:28 pm:
I don’t think this is an accurate characterization of her comments at all - where did she claim that her perspective is neutral? I think everything about her comments indicated her personal investment.
You're right vivek. That wasn't a good characterization of her comments. I should have said something like "correct" rather than "neutral."
Also, I don’t know how much clearer it could be than this, from Ananthan
I was, I guess unfairly, responding to the narrow question about whether or not Priya's comments had been treated fairly. But even on that, I think halah, you put it really well when you say, "I don’t think Priya was in a position to describe Tamil Resistance minus the LTTE and was trying to figure that out for herself, which is good enough for me," and I think I generally agree with that. Generally speaking, though, I avoided the "defenders," who sound like idiots, and so avoided the "defenders" of Priya. Poor strategy.
But simultaneously, i feel like saying "choose your battles, yo!" to people who take one word in a sentence, pounce on it, and turn it into a major conflagration. As well as people who do to the response.
Eh? What’s Tamil nationalism here?
snippets from comments from priya that make me think this:
The Sri-Lankan Tamil pro-independence movement will always have sympthisers from Sri-Lankan Tamils and non Sri-Lankans alike, regardless of the LTTE, because it is a noble cause.
a Civil War that ultimately started because of racial discrimination. Moreover, I'm aware that Tamils are indecently represented and it's up to individuals like myself to stick to our (proverbial) guns and fight the terrorism tag whenever it is uncalled for.
And guess what? I stand by it that campaigning for Eelam is a noble cause, without having to throw any weight behind the LTTE or supporting any form of war.
I do hold the view that the Sri-Lankan government are not to be trusted and cannot fairly govern the Tamils as much as I despise the present-day LTTE. Why did the LTTE exist in the first place? I am a pacifist but I don’t see much hope in a united Sri-Lanka.
I have felt that I lashed out at Cicatrix because she was purely Sinhalese and I feel stupid for that for a variety of reasons.
23 | Dr. Anonymous (not verified) | 01 Sep 2007 at 6:30 pm:
But simultaneously, i feel like saying “choose your battles, yo!” to people who take one word in a sentence, pounce on it, and turn it into a major conflagration. As well as people who do to the response.
Sorry--to clarify, added to that should be: on spaces like SM.
I think SM really screwed up and sent out a poor message to their impressionable readers and those with no opinions on or ties with Sri-Lanka - they inadvertantly outlined an unnecessary editorial line about what is and isn't acceptable concerning opinions on the conflict in Sri-Lanka and rigidly used the excuse of not dealing with her objections as being off-topic. I agree with you, vivek, that the use of the term was flawed from the outset.
Priya T was dismissed, ridiculed and cornered into answering something she was unable to even though she had apologized and explained herself, as well as the evident presence of commenters who shared her view. The responses to her were very personal and the bloggers were huffing about the lack of appreciation into how much effort they personally put into creating their blog. They couldn't see pass the fact that that doesn't mean shit to most people. They came across as egotistical, domineering and, overall, highly unpleasant. Perhaps they need to catch some sunlight from time to time!
I like this blog and 'pickled politics'. I've just started working as a researcher for an organization that represents indivduals in the media from ethnic minority backgrounds in Britain and aim to encourage more activity in the media from people who are not from convential white middle-class backgrounds. We are looking to set up a blog within an online magazine.
25 | alex (not verified) | 02 Sep 2007 at 9:50 pm:
Hi Alex. No, my point, which I unfortunately added in a clarification in the second comment, is that it’s a waste of time to argue such matters on SM because of the issues with arbitrariness that you point out and the range of politics that get a fair hearing on that space. It would be like going up to the New York Times and trying to convince them that their American nationalism is fucked up.
haha, i guess i found that out the hard way. i think i expected this version of events to play out differently - a naive proposition, in retrospect - because previously these things degenerate into negative politics and personal attacks. that's why i was trying to keep backstories and ideologies out of it - i don't think priya was necessarily wrong for bringing in her point of view, but all it did was provide them with a target to strike back at. i much preferred simply standing back and pointing out that cicatrix was wrong, but that's a moot point now. you're right though, arguing matters like these is fruitless on sm - ultimately i mistook my naivete in that regard as a surge of optimism.
For example, why was it not obvious that some of you who were on the same side in that argument were arguing more from a human rights framework and others were arguing from a tamil nationalist framework? It doesn’t really matter that much, but it’s probably would feel more fruitful.
see, that's precisely what i was trying to avoid. if we were to argue from no framework at all - impossible in real life i know, but plausible within the "narrow confines of that conversation" - then i think we would have had more leeway, simply because you don't provide a target for them to strike back at and question the legitimacy of your argument.
as for the tamil nationalism point, i've always thought that healthy debate provides a vacuum where you shouldn't have to authenticate your views. cicatrix repeatedly points out - and correctly - that the ltte have violently and brutally silenced any other voices of resistance. however, saying that any voices supporting separation - or any voices that contend that this may not simply be a "terrorist conflict" - are automatically ltte supporters is conceding that point to them (the ltte), isn't it? anyway, i aree that everyone on "my side" might have been coming from different frameworks, and it would most likely be a fascinating discussion if we were to air those thoughts out; i just thought that bringing that up during that conversation was a tactic to avoid taking responsibility for a very obvious prejudice.
26 | Dr. Anonymous (not verified) | 03 Sep 2007 at 6:45 am:
as for the tamil nationalism point, i’ve always thought that healthy debate provides a vacuum where you shouldn’t have to authenticate your views. cicatrix repeatedly points out - and correctly - that the ltte have violently and brutally silenced any other voices of resistance. however, saying that any voices supporting separation - or any voices that contend that this may not simply be a “terrorist conflict” - are automatically ltte supporters is conceding that point to them (the ltte), isn’t it? anyway, i aree that everyone on “my side” might have been coming from different frameworks, and it would most likely be a fascinating discussion if we were to air those thoughts out; i just thought that bringing that up during that conversation was a tactic to avoid taking responsibility for a very obvious prejudice.
Yes, I agree with you. I don't believe, however, in vacuums :) Moreover, I'm not saying that Tamil nationalism is an inherently destructive thing--sometimes lots of things--nationalism, concern for people, anti-colonialism, anti-racism etc.,etc. can be tied up together. My point was simply that it would have been easier to have a fruitful discussion in a different context. It's hard to so when you're being attacked for either a) not writing about an airline b) being misread.
27 | Dr Anonymous (not verified) | 21 Sep 2007 at 6:07 am:
I’d love to read this blog every day, and not be afraid that I’ll encounter ridicule– for me or the group blog that I am part of…but I am thin-skinned. I’ve never denied it. And because of that, as a measure of self-protection (because really, there’s only so much shit a girl can take), I avoid valuable, edifying discussions like the one which is constantly occurring on PTR– no worries, I get it. That’s my choice too and my loss. It’s not your job to be nice to me or SM, but it sure would be refreshing if, unlike our parents, we could be co-conspirators about this community instead of competitors. Peace.
Look, we could be nicer, admittedly. Or at least I could (I think vivek and raghu are perfectly civil and others range in between, probably closer to civil than not). But it goes around...we've all been lynched at some point here. Anyway, the point being the thin-skinned part. If you don't want to be ridiculed, then stop doing things that provoke ridicule! And if you think you haven't and it's unfair, then call people out on it, as you did here. All that happens is conversation.
I'm really sorry that someone said something like that to you, and it makes sense to close a blog post at that point, but how the f@#k is someone else supposed to know that if you don't tell us? A little transparency goes a long way (which is why I like that even the bloggers fight with each other here even if it goes a little too far sometimes--though others may disagree with me, which is why we can have a fairly vibrant discussion sometimes).
28 | A N N A (not verified) | 21 Sep 2007 at 4:08 am:
You know, every time I surf over here and ask myself why I don't read more often, I get a gem like this:
The responses to her were very personal and the bloggers were huffing about the lack of appreciation into how much effort they personally put into creating their blog. They couldn’t see pass the fact that that doesn’t mean shit to most people. They came across as egotistical, domineering and, overall, highly unpleasant. Perhaps they need to catch some sunlight from time to time!
Now I get that it's my choice to devote every fucking waking hour to keeping SM asshole-free, and that I whined about it on comment threads in the past and I have no one to blame but myself. I'm human, I do very stupid things. I only regretted my "transparency" after much reflection about how it wasn't productive or healthy. I won't do it again. But you've already written me off, right? Too late for me.
What I can't stand is how smug and sure people are-- of situations like this one, where once again, SM is the clueless, shitty, unfair, "randomly-administered and therefore unjust" blog that everyone looooves to pile on, even though we've repeatedly said that we admit and regret that moderating is imperfect due to a whopping one of us being able to scan stuff at any given time.
Do you know why that thread was closed? It was because someone with "Priya"'s IP turned on me and unleashed one of the most hateful, misogynistic, abusive tirades I've ever been subjected to, and then when that IP was banned, they emailed their hatred to our tip line. Nothing like having someone say, "I'm glad you got raped, you fucking bitch" to make me see their point of view.
But hey, carry on. Mutineers are egotistical, domineering and highly unpleasant. And I get it, you don't give a shit about the time I devote to a space I do my flawed best to nurture. I may need to catch some sunlight, but some of you might want to consider compassion, if you don't know the entire situation or story you are judging.
I'd love to read this blog every day, and not be afraid that I'll encounter ridicule-- for me or the group blog that I am part of...but I am thin-skinned. I've never denied it. And because of that, as a measure of self-protection (because really, there's only so much shit a girl can take), I avoid valuable, edifying discussions like the one which is constantly occurring on PTR-- no worries, I get it. That's my choice too and my loss. It's not your job to be nice to me or SM, but it sure would be refreshing if, unlike our parents, we could be co-conspirators about this community instead of competitors. Peace.
Nothing like having someone say, “I’m glad you got raped, you fucking bitch” to make me see their point of view.
That was completely FUBAR and I'm sorry you had to deal with it.
it sure would be refreshing if, unlike our parents, we could be co-conspirators about this community instead of competitors.
This whole thing is my fault for having written that post about your blogging without explaining why I wrote it. There were three reasons, two of which I still stand by:
1) I was angry because I felt like I'd done your homework for you. If I'd cooled off and then written, it wouldn't have been as snarky, and might have found a more receptive audience. For this I sincerely apologize.
2) Many blogs don't seem to put a great deal of stress on fact-checking. They'll quote a source - two, if you're lucky - and treat it as fact without digging deeper to try and verify it, etc. It's an easy way for misinformation to spread. My post wasn't targeting you specifically, but rather a larger problem I see with new media. I should have made this more explicit.
3) I take issue with your reliance on the SM comment threads to come to solid, informed answers to the questions which you sometimes raise. It takes a certain amount of digging and coming up with sources, etc. to do this, and most people aren't willing/able to put in the time. If they do, it doesn't happen very often. In this case, I did, and while I could have tacked on what I'd found as comment #whatever in that thread, I didn't think there was any point after all that effort.
Since then I've been posting trackbacks and links in comments on Sepia Mutiny quite a bit, and while I can fully understand why you might have thought this was competitive, this wasn't at all my intention. I was just trying to provide more information without putting a lot of time into writing a comment (like this one - it's taking me forever).
Anyway, going back to this:
but it sure would be refreshing if, unlike our parents, we could be co-conspirators about this community instead of competitors.
As far as co-conspirators goes, I'm not exactly clear on what the conspiracy is. This probably has to do with being unclear on what exactly the "community" is.
A N N A, if you'd like to define the conspiracy, I'll more than gladly participate in a discussion about it. If there's a post on SM that already deals with this, maybe we can open it up again? Or here, if you'd prefer. We dealt with it a bit on this thread.
30 | Desi Italiana (not verified) | 21 Sep 2007 at 12:29 pm:
anna:
You know, every time I surf over here and ask myself why I don’t read more often, I get a gem like this
Um, you know that the person who wrote what you quoted is a commentator and not a PTR blogger? I don't understand how a commentator's comment is connected to why you don't surf on over here; you say it as if it's something that the PTR bloggers are writing (you guys being egotistical, etc). If commentators' comments are largely indicative of the bloggers themselves, then by the same logic I would not go to SM due to the right wingers that you guys permit to post, and thinking that by the same extension, you guys are too.
I am thin-skinned.
Look, I'm right there with you about irrevelant comments that assholes make which are sexist, disgusting, vile, and just plain insulting. But bitching and getting hyper defensive because someone (PTR blogger) called you out on a topic like Sri Lanka? Come on! You seriously can't play the victim here. You publicly published something on SL which was inaccurate, and every reader and/on blogger has the right to point this out publicly. Since when did criticizing publicly published inaccuracies have to be made in private just so the bloggers don't get offended?
it sure would be refreshing if, unlike our parents, we could be co-conspirators about this community instead of competitors.
anna, not to be mean or anything, but I'm hearing the world's smallest violin playing for you as I'm reading this tidbit of yours. Who said anything about competition and why are you playing the victim and accusing PTR of being "competitive"?
You guys publish things whereby you call out media. Does this mean you are in competition with, say, the NYT?
You seem to think that calling out inaccuracies is 1)akin to someone who is trying to hunt you down and massacre your blog personality for absolutely no reason and 2) that it should be done in private (where you won't be embarrassed public.)
BTW, don't say "our parents," please. It gets on my nerves when people use "community" stereotypes when making a point- ie "I published something totally off, but now I'm pissed that someone published a take on it, and oh, please, don't be mean to me like this, come on... like, don't be competitive like our parents, because you know, the stereotype is that Indian Americans are all really competitive... just next time I publish something else that's inaccurate, send me an e-mail.
Don't pull the race card in a discussion like this.
I'm sorry to have upset ANNA because i didn't have her in my mind when I passed judgement on how the situation on that thread was handled: it was others there whose names don't need mentioning. At the same time I don't for one second believe that Priya verbally abused her like that and I think the reactions to her were just heavy-handed and OTT when she simply made a valid point about the ill-used phrase 'terrorist conflict' which many others objected to as well. For the most part I do believe SM reacted poorly and that Alex, Priya and Ananthan were stupidly disregarded. Sorry, but it's my opinion and I only hope that SM will learn from their actions and not take it out on you guys.
Lal Salaam !
I dunno... still trying to figure out the whole nuclear deal.
So here's the 123 Agreement all the fuss is about:
http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2007/aug/90050.htm
And here's the original Hyde Act:
indianembassy.org/newsite/press_release/2006/July/hr5682072706.pdf
The problems are with the latter: what does the US get out of the deal? Apparently the potential ability to strong-arm India into going along with its foreign policy in the future. At least that's what the Indian Left seems to think.
Must have been a tough call for the Indian Left, when the Imperialists are trying to shove a reasonable principle (nonproliferation) down their country's throats - but they've come down unambiguously on the side of supporting India's right to a nuclear arsenal... long live the revolution!
Also, curfew in Dhaka.
Is that link button above not working for anyone else?
which link button?
the one above this box into which I'm currently typing as we speak
i'm so confused, v.
Abhay, tell us more about the Naxals!
If there's a lot going on, why are you bored? ;)
Okay, you caught me, bored was poor word choice ;) It's because I like talking, not just living in isolation and having a 100 things bounce around my head.
Did anyone come across a recent thread on Sepia Mutiny where this British Tamil Sri-Lankan commenter had a verbal ruckus with one of the bloggers, cicatrix, over her use of the term 'terrorist conflict' to describe the conflict in Sri-Lanka? I know Vivek made a comment there. I found the way Priya was handled way too harsh and it made me quite upset but I couldn't leave a comment because the thread is now closed. Was wondering if anyone else has any thoughts on it. The post is titled On Wing and Snicker and was posted a few days ago.
can you provide a link for the lazy, halah? :)
http://www.sepiamutiny.com/sepia/archives/004681.html
there you go lazy
Hey halah,
I was a bit too busy moving and driving across the country to actually sit down and write a comment (these things always take me far too long). I completely agree with you - I don't know why that comment Priya wrote was deleted. Cicatrix's use of the term "terrorist conflict" to describe what's happening in Sri Lanka is obviously problematic, and it seemed that if she had wanted to keep the comment thread focused on the new airline, she should have either defended her use of the term or just deleted it from her original post - neither, I think, happened before the thread was closed.
I think Ananthan, Priya T, and alex pretty well covered why use of the term "terrorist conflict" is more than just a matter of semantics.
Take as an assumption that I know next to nothing about Sri Lanka for the remainder of what I say. I just skimmed the original post and read a lot of the comments and didn't read any of the other posts by cicatrix that were referenced.
I agree that the word choice of "terrorist" is loaded, even if you take it literally to apply ot the "conflict." At the same time, I thought that some, though not all, of Priya's comments objecting were as disingenous in arguing that the root cause is "racism" and thereby claiming that her perspective is neutral. I also would have appreciated a response to the repeated calls for an example of "tamil resistance" in Sri Lanka that does not involve the LTTE (I'm not saying it doesn't exist--i'm just saying that no one answered) and some of the complexities she raised in terms of the diversity that exists. I think the argument claiming that it was ludicrous, but then I'm biased.
But to sum: can of worms opened; worms present; attempts to squash worms by yelling fails (obviously). If the debate was not wanted, the word choice should have been clearer; if the word choice was problematic, the arguments against should have been stronger, more specific, and from a larger framework than Tamil nationalism.
A pox upon both your houses! The story of Sri Lanka.
Hi Alex. No, my point, which I unfortunately added in a clarification in the second comment, is that it's a waste of time to argue such matters on SM because of the issues with arbitrariness that you point out and the range of politics that get a fair hearing on that space. It would be like going up to the New York Times and trying to convince them that their American nationalism is fucked up.
In contexts like these, I think it makes more sense to hash out what you need to in places like this, which more likely allow you to do that (well, sometimes, anyway)--the same way that you might write an article very differently for The Nation than you would for The Times.
I also think it would be more useful for those of you who agreed with priya or who disagreed but in a way that raised valid points to have a conversation among yourselves, because I think you probbaly come from different places but the points of contention and commonality don't get aired out because you have to be too busy dealing with random things like someone deleting coments. For example, why was it not obvious that some of you who were on the same side in that argument were arguing more from a human rights framework and others were arguing from a tamil nationalist framework? It doesn't really matter that much, but it's probably would feel more fruitful.
Anyway, I understand where you're coming from in terms of having a breaking point, and, like I said, I've only read this post on Sri Lanka (and that at the prompting of another). I don't know what it's like to have read all the other posts that have been written and respond in that vein. I just don't think it's worth that much of your time :) Make your point, maybe send one response, and then roll your eyes and move on :)
I don't remember your comments and I should write more clearly :) I was referring primarily to the people who were defending cicatrix (who doesn't really need defending--she's perfectly capable on her own) and because I was ignoring them, I tried to ignore you guys.
It's an issue precisely because of what you argue. From the standpoint of conflict resolution or human rights or socialism something else, you would prioritize the individual people that are getting killed, on both sides. From the standpoint of Tamil nationalism, your take would likely be different, even if you're a pacifist. It's the same in every conflict right?--Iran, Palestine, opposition to the Iraq War, etc. People on the "same side" often have differing perspectives, views, strategies, tactics--sometimes vastly differing.
So of course you can do all the things that you're saying...I'm just pointing out that not everyone who agrees with you in the narrow confines of that conversation is doing that.
Thanks for the comments, Vivek and Dr Anonymous, both were useful for me to make up my mind on how I feel about it. Sri-Lanka is a real mess. I'm sick of the war and I'm sick of the hate. I feel like I'm one of the very few Sri-Lankans (well half-Sinhalese) who try to make an effort to stay neutral on the conflict and so I did agree with Priya's objections. I don't think Priya was in a position to describe Tamil Resistance minus the LTTE and was trying to figure that out for herself, which is good enough for me.
I felt the thread turned very ugly and heated and the bloggers were in a position to change that and didn't. Instead they didn't want to give her the time of day even when she was backed up by others, which is wrong IMO! I don't read Sepia Mutiny all that often but I was a bit put off after reading that. The blog should be open to dissenting voices and deal with it calmly. I really felt for Priya, a fellow Brit and Sri-Lankan about the same age as myself, getting battered on that thread for expressing her opinions. Deleting the comment was totally OTT and ridiculous. I mean, are these people aware or choosing to ignore how strongly many people in Priya's position (ie Tamil refugees) feel about the situation?
Are Americans overly paranoid about terrorism? That's the word on the street here.
But anyway, enough about that. What happened to that reading list on Sri-Lanka? I'm fed up with reading other people's opinions on the matter and want to read up on Sri-Lankan history, analyze analyse some of the events and try and make sense of why things are so bad there for myself. So far I've ordered this one: Sumantra Bose's 'States, Nations, Sovereignty: Sri Lanka, India and the Tamil Eelam Movement' (New Delhi: Sage, 1994).
Dr. A:
I don't think this is an accurate characterization of her comments at all - where did she claim that her perspective is neutral? I think everything about her comments indicated her personal investment.
Eh? What's Tamil nationalism here? Also, I don't know how much clearer it could be than this, from Ananthan:
they're American, they'd be unpatriotic if they didn't. :)
that should probably be something like "viable non-violent party that supports tamil nationalism..."
hey guys, i was directed over here by your master of ceremonies, vivek. i'd waste time with an introduction but i'm far too lazy.
hey dr.a - i think this was especially misleading to impartial observers in that forum - cicatrix is regarded as the sri-lankan voice on sm - even if it's not stated explicitly - and for me, at least, this was simply the straw that broke the camel's back. in any case, it provided an ample opportunity to address the issue. however, even if you take the discussion that out of that context, "terrorist" isn't simply just a word. later on the discussion, someone's use of the term "house negro" was dismissed as despicable or ugly i think, i can't remember which, by the sm admin. i don't understand the arbitrary nature of determining which words are hurtful or not, but at this juncture, it has to be evident that terrorist is a horribly loaded term. i'd challenge anyone traveling in a major international airport to use that word as clumsily, and then see if it's simply just a word.
in regards to tamil nationalism, i don't even understand why this is an issue. demanding proof of the existence of like-minded groups is simply saying that all objective parties in the conflict should support GoSL until some non-violent party to support tamil nationalism rears its head. (i don't understand how such a group could even exist under the house rules that this is a black and white issue.) i can remain objective on the issue and still believe that separate states are a good idea, can't i?
also, i hope i wasn't one of the "defenders" you were referring to, but i guess i made myself fair game if you were.
as for calvin and hobbes, the complete version is so huge! it's probably cheaper to pick up that version than purchasing all the smaller books, but thumbing through the pages of that huge hardcover seems like such an academic maneuver. the flimsier versions lend themselves much better to just flopping on the ground and laughing hysterically.
I'm on the phone with a bookstore trying to obtain a copy of The Complete Calvin & Hobbes. He asks me to repeat myself. I comply. He puts me on hold. 30 seconds he comes back on the line: "Did you say The Complete Hulk?"
What the hell are they teaching kids these days? COME BACK BILL WATTERSON!!!!
You're right vivek. That wasn't a good characterization of her comments. I should have said something like "correct" rather than "neutral."
I was, I guess unfairly, responding to the narrow question about whether or not Priya's comments had been treated fairly. But even on that, I think halah, you put it really well when you say, "I don’t think Priya was in a position to describe Tamil Resistance minus the LTTE and was trying to figure that out for herself, which is good enough for me," and I think I generally agree with that. Generally speaking, though, I avoided the "defenders," who sound like idiots, and so avoided the "defenders" of Priya. Poor strategy.
But simultaneously, i feel like saying "choose your battles, yo!" to people who take one word in a sentence, pounce on it, and turn it into a major conflagration. As well as people who do to the response.
snippets from comments from priya that make me think this:
Sorry--to clarify, added to that should be: on spaces like SM.
I think SM really screwed up and sent out a poor message to their impressionable readers and those with no opinions on or ties with Sri-Lanka - they inadvertantly outlined an unnecessary editorial line about what is and isn't acceptable concerning opinions on the conflict in Sri-Lanka and rigidly used the excuse of not dealing with her objections as being off-topic. I agree with you, vivek, that the use of the term was flawed from the outset.
Priya T was dismissed, ridiculed and cornered into answering something she was unable to even though she had apologized and explained herself, as well as the evident presence of commenters who shared her view. The responses to her were very personal and the bloggers were huffing about the lack of appreciation into how much effort they personally put into creating their blog. They couldn't see pass the fact that that doesn't mean shit to most people. They came across as egotistical, domineering and, overall, highly unpleasant. Perhaps they need to catch some sunlight from time to time!
I like this blog and 'pickled politics'. I've just started working as a researcher for an organization that represents indivduals in the media from ethnic minority backgrounds in Britain and aim to encourage more activity in the media from people who are not from convential white middle-class backgrounds. We are looking to set up a blog within an online magazine.
Wish me luck ;)
haha, i guess i found that out the hard way. i think i expected this version of events to play out differently - a naive proposition, in retrospect - because previously these things degenerate into negative politics and personal attacks. that's why i was trying to keep backstories and ideologies out of it - i don't think priya was necessarily wrong for bringing in her point of view, but all it did was provide them with a target to strike back at. i much preferred simply standing back and pointing out that cicatrix was wrong, but that's a moot point now. you're right though, arguing matters like these is fruitless on sm - ultimately i mistook my naivete in that regard as a surge of optimism.
see, that's precisely what i was trying to avoid. if we were to argue from no framework at all - impossible in real life i know, but plausible within the "narrow confines of that conversation" - then i think we would have had more leeway, simply because you don't provide a target for them to strike back at and question the legitimacy of your argument.
as for the tamil nationalism point, i've always thought that healthy debate provides a vacuum where you shouldn't have to authenticate your views. cicatrix repeatedly points out - and correctly - that the ltte have violently and brutally silenced any other voices of resistance. however, saying that any voices supporting separation - or any voices that contend that this may not simply be a "terrorist conflict" - are automatically ltte supporters is conceding that point to them (the ltte), isn't it? anyway, i aree that everyone on "my side" might have been coming from different frameworks, and it would most likely be a fascinating discussion if we were to air those thoughts out; i just thought that bringing that up during that conversation was a tactic to avoid taking responsibility for a very obvious prejudice.
Yes, I agree with you. I don't believe, however, in vacuums :) Moreover, I'm not saying that Tamil nationalism is an inherently destructive thing--sometimes lots of things--nationalism, concern for people, anti-colonialism, anti-racism etc.,etc. can be tied up together. My point was simply that it would have been easier to have a fruitful discussion in a different context. It's hard to so when you're being attacked for either a) not writing about an airline b) being misread.
Look, we could be nicer, admittedly. Or at least I could (I think vivek and raghu are perfectly civil and others range in between, probably closer to civil than not). But it goes around...we've all been lynched at some point here. Anyway, the point being the thin-skinned part. If you don't want to be ridiculed, then stop doing things that provoke ridicule! And if you think you haven't and it's unfair, then call people out on it, as you did here. All that happens is conversation.
I'm really sorry that someone said something like that to you, and it makes sense to close a blog post at that point, but how the f@#k is someone else supposed to know that if you don't tell us? A little transparency goes a long way (which is why I like that even the bloggers fight with each other here even if it goes a little too far sometimes--though others may disagree with me, which is why we can have a fairly vibrant discussion sometimes).
You know, every time I surf over here and ask myself why I don't read more often, I get a gem like this:
Now I get that it's my choice to devote every fucking waking hour to keeping SM asshole-free, and that I whined about it on comment threads in the past and I have no one to blame but myself. I'm human, I do very stupid things. I only regretted my "transparency" after much reflection about how it wasn't productive or healthy. I won't do it again. But you've already written me off, right? Too late for me.
What I can't stand is how smug and sure people are-- of situations like this one, where once again, SM is the clueless, shitty, unfair, "randomly-administered and therefore unjust" blog that everyone looooves to pile on, even though we've repeatedly said that we admit and regret that moderating is imperfect due to a whopping one of us being able to scan stuff at any given time.
Do you know why that thread was closed? It was because someone with "Priya"'s IP turned on me and unleashed one of the most hateful, misogynistic, abusive tirades I've ever been subjected to, and then when that IP was banned, they emailed their hatred to our tip line. Nothing like having someone say, "I'm glad you got raped, you fucking bitch" to make me see their point of view.
But hey, carry on. Mutineers are egotistical, domineering and highly unpleasant. And I get it, you don't give a shit about the time I devote to a space I do my flawed best to nurture. I may need to catch some sunlight, but some of you might want to consider compassion, if you don't know the entire situation or story you are judging.
I'd love to read this blog every day, and not be afraid that I'll encounter ridicule-- for me or the group blog that I am part of...but I am thin-skinned. I've never denied it. And because of that, as a measure of self-protection (because really, there's only so much shit a girl can take), I avoid valuable, edifying discussions like the one which is constantly occurring on PTR-- no worries, I get it. That's my choice too and my loss. It's not your job to be nice to me or SM, but it sure would be refreshing if, unlike our parents, we could be co-conspirators about this community instead of competitors. Peace.
That was completely FUBAR and I'm sorry you had to deal with it.
This whole thing is my fault for having written that post about your blogging without explaining why I wrote it. There were three reasons, two of which I still stand by:
1) I was angry because I felt like I'd done your homework for you. If I'd cooled off and then written, it wouldn't have been as snarky, and might have found a more receptive audience. For this I sincerely apologize.
2) Many blogs don't seem to put a great deal of stress on fact-checking. They'll quote a source - two, if you're lucky - and treat it as fact without digging deeper to try and verify it, etc. It's an easy way for misinformation to spread. My post wasn't targeting you specifically, but rather a larger problem I see with new media. I should have made this more explicit.
3) I take issue with your reliance on the SM comment threads to come to solid, informed answers to the questions which you sometimes raise. It takes a certain amount of digging and coming up with sources, etc. to do this, and most people aren't willing/able to put in the time. If they do, it doesn't happen very often. In this case, I did, and while I could have tacked on what I'd found as comment #whatever in that thread, I didn't think there was any point after all that effort.
Since then I've been posting trackbacks and links in comments on Sepia Mutiny quite a bit, and while I can fully understand why you might have thought this was competitive, this wasn't at all my intention. I was just trying to provide more information without putting a lot of time into writing a comment (like this one - it's taking me forever).
Anyway, going back to this:
As far as co-conspirators goes, I'm not exactly clear on what the conspiracy is. This probably has to do with being unclear on what exactly the "community" is.
A N N A, if you'd like to define the conspiracy, I'll more than gladly participate in a discussion about it. If there's a post on SM that already deals with this, maybe we can open it up again? Or here, if you'd prefer. We dealt with it a bit on this thread.
anna:
Um, you know that the person who wrote what you quoted is a commentator and not a PTR blogger? I don't understand how a commentator's comment is connected to why you don't surf on over here; you say it as if it's something that the PTR bloggers are writing (you guys being egotistical, etc). If commentators' comments are largely indicative of the bloggers themselves, then by the same logic I would not go to SM due to the right wingers that you guys permit to post, and thinking that by the same extension, you guys are too.
Look, I'm right there with you about irrevelant comments that assholes make which are sexist, disgusting, vile, and just plain insulting. But bitching and getting hyper defensive because someone (PTR blogger) called you out on a topic like Sri Lanka? Come on! You seriously can't play the victim here. You publicly published something on SL which was inaccurate, and every reader and/on blogger has the right to point this out publicly. Since when did criticizing publicly published inaccuracies have to be made in private just so the bloggers don't get offended?
anna, not to be mean or anything, but I'm hearing the world's smallest violin playing for you as I'm reading this tidbit of yours. Who said anything about competition and why are you playing the victim and accusing PTR of being "competitive"?
You guys publish things whereby you call out media. Does this mean you are in competition with, say, the NYT?
You seem to think that calling out inaccuracies is 1)akin to someone who is trying to hunt you down and massacre your blog personality for absolutely no reason and 2) that it should be done in private (where you won't be embarrassed public.)
BTW, don't say "our parents," please. It gets on my nerves when people use "community" stereotypes when making a point- ie "I published something totally off, but now I'm pissed that someone published a take on it, and oh, please, don't be mean to me like this, come on... like, don't be competitive like our parents, because you know, the stereotype is that Indian Americans are all really competitive... just next time I publish something else that's inaccurate, send me an e-mail.
Don't pull the race card in a discussion like this.
I'm sorry to have upset ANNA because i didn't have her in my mind when I passed judgement on how the situation on that thread was handled: it was others there whose names don't need mentioning. At the same time I don't for one second believe that Priya verbally abused her like that and I think the reactions to her were just heavy-handed and OTT when she simply made a valid point about the ill-used phrase 'terrorist conflict' which many others objected to as well. For the most part I do believe SM reacted poorly and that Alex, Priya and Ananthan were stupidly disregarded. Sorry, but it's my opinion and I only hope that SM will learn from their actions and not take it out on you guys.