scottdisco
rip this joint please
economic reductionism
i know this thread ain't forgotten but i for one haven't got anything to say yet, so just a couple of questions before i gather thoughts, one woefully OT.
i have a feeling things in this thread and the humanitarian intervention thread will get lively and entwined when it gets sticky again.
Jambo mentioned dispelling economically reductionist views in his first post and i just want to ask does anyone think that the economic incentives angle of things like mineral extraction is moving from a symptom to a more central plank of the motives of some parties? after all, if the goods are still able to be taken from the ground and can therefore only help sustain power.. etc. self-fulfilling prophecy.
the elephant in the room when discussing specifically this is that from a wealthy western pov that this board is fortunate to enjoy is that so much mainstream journalism assessment takes as its cornerstone the self-flagellating THE MOBILE PHONE IN YOUR POCKET-type narratives. (i realise one does not take cues from those sources for a full view but i wanted to mention it.)
why is it the case with non-specialists in the mainstream (or relatively popular, if not mainstream) that do this? OT question but i just want to ask. eg Hari in the Independent, LENIN'S TOMB etc.
is it purely of a piece with the navel-gazing 'my fault before you' style you tend to find at these places, or is it something deeper?
tbf Jambo's concisely put 'complex motives' does explain it in a nutshell and i think i'm just being mischievous
(apart from obv but tbc a hook into a journalist tale being 'yr cell phone' etc etc, drum up empathy thru "little" things)
i know this thread ain't forgotten but i for one haven't got anything to say yet, so just a couple of questions before i gather thoughts, one woefully OT.
i have a feeling things in this thread and the humanitarian intervention thread will get lively and entwined when it gets sticky again.
Since then, the Tutsi dominated government (under Paul Kagame) in Rwanda has systemically involved itself in the politics across the border in Eastern DRC. While claiming 'national interest' in seeking to weed out the remnants of the Hutu militias, it motives are complex and definitely involve economic incentives - i.e the extraction of mineral wealth.
Jambo mentioned dispelling economically reductionist views in his first post and i just want to ask does anyone think that the economic incentives angle of things like mineral extraction is moving from a symptom to a more central plank of the motives of some parties? after all, if the goods are still able to be taken from the ground and can therefore only help sustain power.. etc. self-fulfilling prophecy.
the elephant in the room when discussing specifically this is that from a wealthy western pov that this board is fortunate to enjoy is that so much mainstream journalism assessment takes as its cornerstone the self-flagellating THE MOBILE PHONE IN YOUR POCKET-type narratives. (i realise one does not take cues from those sources for a full view but i wanted to mention it.)
why is it the case with non-specialists in the mainstream (or relatively popular, if not mainstream) that do this? OT question but i just want to ask. eg Hari in the Independent, LENIN'S TOMB etc.
is it purely of a piece with the navel-gazing 'my fault before you' style you tend to find at these places, or is it something deeper?
tbf Jambo's concisely put 'complex motives' does explain it in a nutshell and i think i'm just being mischievous
(apart from obv but tbc a hook into a journalist tale being 'yr cell phone' etc etc, drum up empathy thru "little" things)
Last edited: