NNTP-Posting-Host: garnet.engin.swarthmore.edu
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL2]
Kronos Traveller ([email protected]) wrote:
> [email protected] (Omar Haneef '96) writes:
> >> Sure, I realize that
> >> you're trying to come to some kind of conclusion about what dystopia is. More
> >> power to you. But, while we all discuss what's what and what's not, we are in
> >> effect giving the dystopics the opening they need. The recent elections of '94
> >> placed the republicans in charge of congress with a mere 20% of the populace
> >> giving them that mandate. 20%. That's pathetic. And I am not insinuating that
> >> nobody in this group voted. I am sure that proportionally this group had a high
> >> turn out. But the apathy of this population is mirrored by the group
> >> disscussion of what dystopia is and is not. I also hope that the current
> >> oppressiveness fails. But, history is replete with revolutions that relpace
> >> oppressive regimes with more oppressive regimes. In short, let's talk and work
> >> towards a utopia rather than discussing what makes (and who's responsible) for
> >> dystopia.
> >> KT
> >I'm sorry. I guess I failed to make myself clear to. I shall now argue for
> >the importance of arguing about what dystopia is.
> >Imagine a person, S, who believes that the world is a bad place. You and I
> >both agree its a bad place so there is no argument there.
> >Now this person, S, also believes that 'the system' - in this case a
> >capitalist republic like the United States - is at fault in that the
> >political and cultural system is what keeps it a bad place (TM).
> >Furthermore this person, S, also believes that in order to make the world a
> >Better Place (tm) the system itself needs to be removed (this is curiously
> >close to Marxism but there is no call for revolution here).
> >Finally this person, S, believes that the system will collapse precisely because
> >it has made the world such a terrible place that things will cease to work.
> >To take your example, it is exactly because the Republicans got mandate with
> >a pathetic 20% that people will be disgruntled with Congress or the election
> >process.
> >This final step, the collape of the system, will allow us to then make the
> >world a Truly (tm) Better Place says S.
> >When I argue that the world is a horrible place and the system is breaking
> >down so that we are headed to a Dystopia, S tells me not to worry because
> >the dystopia is exactly what will save us.
> >After understanding his point, it is easier to counter. Mine lies elsewhere;
> >what is yours?
> > -Omar Haneef
> My point is this Omar: I don't agree with Sourcerer.
Well I myself am not sold on his opinion either but it does two things:
(1) It begs the question whether his view IS in fact better
(2) It further requires that I assert contrary arguments
That is to say that when Sourcerer says: but this Dystopia is a good thing
in the long run (sort of like this Utopia is a bad thing in the long run)
then I have to wonder why I am fighting against it and produce counter
arguments.
Firstly, it is not clear to me that EITHER side is at all clearly better
thought out.
Secondly, I think Sourcerer does not provide a clear picture of
alternatives. To claim it would be better but not HOW it would be better is
to obscure to believe in.
However, if HE doesn't know how it will be better, that does not free ME of
the burden of thinking about it because I am responsible for MY actions so
if I ignore an entire line of thought, I may be committing my resources to a
goal that, upon deliberation, I am opposed to.
> When the walls come
> tumblin' down the oppressed will become the oppressor. Paolo Freire (bad
> spelling I think but don't have his book in front of me), an educator from
> Brazil, postulated that once the oppressed are freed from tyrrany, they know
> no other life and oppress their former oppressors. This can be seen all over
> the world, Israel and Palestine, the Soviet bloc (before with the czar and after
> the fall of communism), even here in America where the white man is angry
> because he believes the minorities are discriminating against him. OK. So now
> you know part of my point.
This is an excellent point and I agree with you to a large extent but then
the solution surely is not to keep the walls up but bring them down another
way. That the Isreal oppresses the Palestenians does not seem to indicate
that the Jews should have been allowed to suffer Nazi attrocities. Rather it
was the re-institution of another nation-state which allowed attrocities to
continue. Statehood itself seems implicated in these attrocities and it is
exactly this - and aspect of 'the system' - that would collapse.
I don't pretend to forward the opinion that the collapse of a state is
necessarily liberating but I do want to argue that it could be.
> The second part of my point is that apathy is the
> great killer of freedom.
And who is being apathetic? Inactive perhaps but hardly apathetic. Surely
you want to make sure that the actions you are taking will result in the
outcomes you desire before you take the actions.
> Understanding his point makes it easier to counter his
> but that does nothing. You'll not likely change his views and he will not
> likely change yours.
Nobody wants to 'change' views. We engage in debate to enrich out points of
view and sensitize ourselves to the widest range of issues. That he has
indicated the possibilities of social redemption in systematic oppression
and the collapse of the social structure is valuable in and of itself.
> Now what? We just sit here debating what's going to
> happen? I'm not. That's the rest of my point. Nightfly seemed to think that
> I had the potential to be a despot in the making. Perhaps, but he also missed
> the point that you have to go out and work for your view of the future. In my
> case that means teaching science. It also means working against the agenda of
> groups like the NRA and the Christian Coalition. Whether or not you, or Source
> or Nightfly agree with me or the groups I just named or even others is im-
> material. Get out and fight for what you believe in.
We need to discover HOW to fight for what we believe in and - more
importantly - figure out exactly what it is that we believe in.
> In the end democracy will
> find a path that is tolerable for all. And in the end that is what it will take
> to beat the coming dystopia. In short, understanding doesn't cut it unless you
> do something about it.
I think that argument you have to counter - and until you do so you, you
avoid engaging in this debate except at a rhetorical level - is that it is
precisely the way democracy is practiced in the US that is leading 'us' to
Dystopia.
-Omar
[Next appendix] | [Return to index for Appendix A4] | [Return to index for Appendix A]