this article in ny times kinda chimes with k-punk's take
here's the link = http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/31/in...rtner=homepage
really? mercedes-driving, cricket-playing guys by most accounts. question: is 'british-raised South Asian' a good description? NYT says britain hasn't evolved towards hyphenates like 'african-american'. but how useful or indeed accurate is 'african-american'? it too has problems.Mr. Khan, Mr. Tanweer and Mr. Hussain were part of a larger clique of young British-raised South Asian men in Beeston, a neighborhood of Leeds, who turned their backs on what they came to see as a decadent, demoralizing Western culture.
woah. never forget america banned alcohol in the last century.In many ways, the transformation [to Islam] has had positive elements: the men live healthier and more constructive lives than many of their peers here, Asian or white, who have fallen prey to drugs, alcohol or petty crime.
again, these bombers were 'Westerners'. and those million 15 feb marchers felt a deep sense of injustice.Many here see answers in the sense of injustice at events both at home and abroad that is far more widespread among Muslims than many Westerners recognize
basically, there is nothing 'structural' about these psychologistic attempts to explain the 'motivation' of the bombers. the bombers themselves were marks. you will never explain the attacks in terms of subjective motivation. it's very un-k-punk really.
i wasn't suggesting that the ny times undertook a "structural" analysis of the mindset of the bombers
merely said that the findings of the article were consistent w/ k-punk's take
what term would you suggest?Originally Posted by henrymiller
and despite the injustice and oppression that african-americans have faced and continue to face, they see themselves as "belonging" to american society in ways that SE asians don't see themselves as belonging to britain
save for the black panthers in the late 60s/early 70s, african americans have been markedly non-violent in their organized actions
and black violence, in its discrete instances, is for the most directed against other blacks, not whites or the upper classes
the NYT remark reflects the prevailing american ideology of "health" and "adjustment" to demands of the capitalist economy -- i.e., be productive, make a contribution, etcOriginally Posted by henry miller
however, your response is a bit overblown = "never forget america banned alcohol"
in fact for k-punk these people replaced one mode of self-destruction (drugs, alcohol, hedonism) with another mode of self-destruction (suicide attacks)
i think their position is more ambiguous -- they're neither the one (se asian muslims) or the other (post-religious westerners)Originally Posted by henry miller
yes, this is the point that BOTH k-punk and the ny times article make -- which is why i said the two "chimed," not that the structure of the analyses was the sameOriginally Posted by henry miller
i'm not sure why you keep saying 'SE asians'. the families of 3 of the 4 came from pakistan, the 4th from africa (or w. indies? can't remember). the 21/7 bombers mostly from africa.
yes, but the historical circumstances are very different. many americans, white and black, identify along 'ethnic' lines you won't find in britain. and of course the process of post-colonial immigration into britain has an entirely different history than the history of black america. the injustice is different in both cases; historically the oppression in america was far worse.and despite the injustice and oppression that african-americans have faced and continue to face, they see themselves as "belonging" to american society in ways that SE asians don't see themselves as belonging to britain
well, i suppose that all depends on whether you think drink and drugs = hedonism, and whether pleasure-seeking = self-destruction. i'm no puritan, so i don't recognize this in my own use of alcohol. of course i *have* used it self-destructively, but that's my bidnizz.for k-punk these people replaced one mode of self-destruction (drugs, alcohol, hedonism) with another mode of self-destruction (suicide attacks)
k-punk is now saying something else, that in it's not cultural repulsion but the presence of western troops in the mid-east that is sole explanation. whatever. the explanation 'western society is decadent on booze and drugs' is shared by norman tebbit. minoritarian religious cults which justify mass murder worry me more than drug-addled youth.
'Sole' explanation? I think not. _Some_ explanation; well, yes...Originally Posted by henrymiller
In any case why would cultural repulsion be _opposed_ to a horror of the Western occupation of the middle-East?
Many views are shared by these two groups... doesn't mean they are wrong though (this is a version of what I call the Daily Mail fallacy, i.e. if the Daily Mail says it, it must be wrong, so if, for instance, the DM castigate Tracy Emin she must be a great artist)Originally Posted by henrymiller
Yes, but it would be nice not to have to put up with either - and drugs obviously cause FAR more death and destruction that al Qaeda could ever hope to.minoritarian religious cults which justify mass murder worry me more than drug-addled youth.
i meant "south asians," but said "se asians" -- i of course realize that se asia is thailand/vietnam/laos, but for whatever reason that's what i typedOriginally Posted by henrymiller
i'm not sure what my position is on this question -- let's say my position here is contradictory, incoherent, inarticulate, indefensible, etc -- i.e., i see myself as pretty committed to party culture, it's the one thing i believe in to the extent that i believe in anything (more than money, more than justice, more than education, more than wisdom or its pursuit, more than family or -- at least to this point in my life -- love) -- and yet i certainly wouldn't dismiss k-punk's criticisms of late capitalist hedonism, or leo strauss's criticisms, or any other serious criticismsOriginally Posted by henrymiller
This was another good thread I inexplicably failed to comment on at the time, when I would have expected to be full-throated. I haven't re-read it in detail yet, but was interested by Matt's opening salvo, and how we would respond ten years on when, to say the least, this issue hasn't gone away.
interesting to see k punk sold on that alex jones/prison planet article