10-01-2003, 05:55 PM
For a man whose harangue against stereotyping against Arabs, in Orientalism, I find his careless stereotyping pretty hypocritical.
The sheer number of people in the southwestern United States who think like Delay is an imposing 60-70 million and, it should be noted, included among them is none other than George W Bush who is also an inspired born-again Christian for whom everything in the Bible is meant to be taken literally.
But they represent a language of power that is not easily opposed in America, where so many citizens believe themselves to be guided directly by God in what they see and believe and sometimes do.
Right. As a resident of that Southwest, I find his stereotype offensive -- I am not a big Rep Delay fan, nor do I accept his pronouncements on foreigh policy to be anything I'd write into stone -- and I find Said's assertion of what a born again Christian is to be no deeper than a soundbyte. He makes the same mistake that he accuses of Delay of within the first two paragraphs of his article.
Nice open mind, Ed: not.
http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2003/652/op1.htm
On the other hand, I generally agree with his critique of rhetoric Rep Delay presented. The assumption that a Palestinian state will be de facto a terrorist state strikes me as Chomsky-esque hypberbole, without any of Chomsky's wit.
Would a Palestinian state established, presumably on the West Bank, be just another place in the Arab world, or, and this is what some Israeli's suspect, would it become an enclave that harbored terorrists as every other Arab state does? And if so, would a Palestinian state adopt as policy part of the rhetoric and amis of _some_ Arabs: Israel, all of it, must go? That is an unknown, and any protestation of innocence must be balanced against both present efforts and the black marks of history since 1948, indeed, since about 1919.
Delay makes an assumption, Said disagrees, and in general, I'd have to say, for slightly different reasoning, that I agree with Mr Said on that score. The fact that a prominent U.S official makes such an utterance strikes me as bad form, and quite possibly at odds with what the State Department is trying to achieve. Last I checked, the Executive Branch set policy, in the office of the Secretary of State, and is of course subject to question by the House and Senate Foreign relations committes.
So what's with this rhetoric? It strikes me as being akin to the "Axis of Evil" bit from a year ago: rhetoric that was counterproductive, but "played well in Peoria."
Anyone who is as passionate on a particular subject as Mr Said was will be bound to fall into the demonization trap, as he does vis a vis the United States and Americans who don't see things his way. That's OK: it's human, but not admirable. Looking at his CV, I see an interesting fusion of the Ivory Tower and some real life experiences, which make some of the articles he wrote, that I read on the net, very compelling, and certainly worth reading.
He was not one to go softly into that dark night, so a tip of the cap to Mr Said on that score. :)
RIP.
The sheer number of people in the southwestern United States who think like Delay is an imposing 60-70 million and, it should be noted, included among them is none other than George W Bush who is also an inspired born-again Christian for whom everything in the Bible is meant to be taken literally.
But they represent a language of power that is not easily opposed in America, where so many citizens believe themselves to be guided directly by God in what they see and believe and sometimes do.
Right. As a resident of that Southwest, I find his stereotype offensive -- I am not a big Rep Delay fan, nor do I accept his pronouncements on foreigh policy to be anything I'd write into stone -- and I find Said's assertion of what a born again Christian is to be no deeper than a soundbyte. He makes the same mistake that he accuses of Delay of within the first two paragraphs of his article.
Nice open mind, Ed: not.
http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2003/652/op1.htm
On the other hand, I generally agree with his critique of rhetoric Rep Delay presented. The assumption that a Palestinian state will be de facto a terrorist state strikes me as Chomsky-esque hypberbole, without any of Chomsky's wit.
Would a Palestinian state established, presumably on the West Bank, be just another place in the Arab world, or, and this is what some Israeli's suspect, would it become an enclave that harbored terorrists as every other Arab state does? And if so, would a Palestinian state adopt as policy part of the rhetoric and amis of _some_ Arabs: Israel, all of it, must go? That is an unknown, and any protestation of innocence must be balanced against both present efforts and the black marks of history since 1948, indeed, since about 1919.
Delay makes an assumption, Said disagrees, and in general, I'd have to say, for slightly different reasoning, that I agree with Mr Said on that score. The fact that a prominent U.S official makes such an utterance strikes me as bad form, and quite possibly at odds with what the State Department is trying to achieve. Last I checked, the Executive Branch set policy, in the office of the Secretary of State, and is of course subject to question by the House and Senate Foreign relations committes.
So what's with this rhetoric? It strikes me as being akin to the "Axis of Evil" bit from a year ago: rhetoric that was counterproductive, but "played well in Peoria."
Anyone who is as passionate on a particular subject as Mr Said was will be bound to fall into the demonization trap, as he does vis a vis the United States and Americans who don't see things his way. That's OK: it's human, but not admirable. Looking at his CV, I see an interesting fusion of the Ivory Tower and some real life experiences, which make some of the articles he wrote, that I read on the net, very compelling, and certainly worth reading.
He was not one to go softly into that dark night, so a tip of the cap to Mr Said on that score. :)
RIP.
Cry 'Havoc' and let slip the Men 'O War!
In War, the outcome is never final. --Carl von Clausewitz--
Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum
John 11:35 - consider why.
In Memory of Pete
In War, the outcome is never final. --Carl von Clausewitz--
Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum
John 11:35 - consider why.
In Memory of Pete