tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5360814020056871156.post3608216844488753735..comments2024-03-03T13:55:46.243-08:00Comments on Ambling Along the Aqueduct: A post-WisCon reportTimmi Duchamphttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00673465487533328661noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5360814020056871156.post-75473004332585359882007-06-04T10:07:00.000-07:002007-06-04T10:07:00.000-07:00Coming to this late, and for what it's worth, I wa...Coming to this late, and for what it's worth, I wasn't saying that colonial powers 'allowed' revolutions to happen, but that some debilitation in their power, usually though not always economic, meant that they were not in a position to fight the revolution with anything like the overwhelming power they might otherwise have employed. In South Africa, for example, factors such as international isolation had reached the stage where, for the rulers, it no longer even seemed worth while to oppose the ANC.<BR/><BR/>And I raised this not because I wanted to take anything away from the revolutionaries. But all the discussion to that point had been exclusively about the revolutionaries - and, particularly from those recalling the 1960s, from a remarkably romantic perspective. I wanted to point out that simply having a revolution was not, in and of itself, sufficient to sweep all before it. In appraising how revolutions succeed or fail, you have to take cognizance of the state being revolted against. India (or, rather, portions of Indian society) had risen up against British colonialism countless times from the early 19th century onwards, but these attempts at revolution always failed, until Britain itself was too exhausted by war and economically weakened by the withdrawal of US loans to put up any resistance.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5360814020056871156.post-36281253406215714722007-06-02T01:19:00.000-07:002007-06-02T01:19:00.000-07:00I was one of the loud, pushy voices from the audie...I was one of the loud, pushy voices from the audience . . .<BR/>For those who weren't there -- there was a lot of comment and conversation from the audience, to the point where few people got to speak more than once. Probably most of it from people who have known each other for a long time.<BR/><BR/>There was one comment from the back, from an Asian woman, asking about non-European revolutions. I found her and a friend later at the parties, and am encouraging them to push for more focussed panel topics next year! I'm already encouraged to expand my collection of archetypes beyond Washington and Jefferson.<BR/><BR/>(I'm terrible with names, but both women are on LiveJournal. I think this is from the friend: <A ADD_DATE="1180771548" HREF="http://oyceter.livejournal.com/602227.html" REL="nofollow">Oyce's LJ - Wiscon 31: Romance of the Revolution</A>. The other is (if I get this right) <A HREF="http://vito-excalibur.livejournal.com/" REL="nofollow"><B>vito_Excalibur</B></A>.)<BR/><BR/>NeilRest-at-rcn-dot-comAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5360814020056871156.post-32462606157566782802007-06-01T20:17:00.000-07:002007-06-01T20:17:00.000-07:00FWIW, my take on Paul Kincaid's Indian revolution ...FWIW, my take on Paul Kincaid's Indian revolution comment was that England would still be <I>fighting</I> to be a colonial power in India, not that they would be ruling, per se. The nuance is, I think, important, because the one suggests that there was no action on the part of the Indian population; but my understanding was that he wasn't commenting on Indian resistance, but on British willingness for their occupation to be increasingly bloody/obviously unjust. <BR/><BR/>His larger point seemed to me that superior force will win unless something else turns the tide: nonviolent civil disobedience, external economic factors, etc. That may be the case, but I'm not sure that it's the right assessment for that struggle, because fighting for your homeland, against a smaller number of occupying forces, can turn the tide despite "superior" weaponry. The <A HREF="http://wiki.feministsf.net/index.php?title=Privilege_of_the_Sword_Denied_%28WisCon_31_panel%29" REL="nofollow">Privilege of the Sword, Denied</A> panel hit some of the same ground -- it may be worth reading for those interested in the issue.laura quilterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10381260620328688152noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5360814020056871156.post-42770044688205662342007-05-31T12:29:00.000-07:002007-05-31T12:29:00.000-07:00I wasn't at the panel, but when I read your accoun...I wasn't at the panel, but when I read your account of Chris's Pol Pot remark, my first thought was of a quote attributed to Max Planck: "Science advances one funeral at a time." Underlying that statement is a despair about the possibility of changing people's minds. Combine this attitude with a disregard for human life, and violent revolution follows.Tedhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00799259633965559067noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5360814020056871156.post-72645646338712387662007-05-30T20:51:00.000-07:002007-05-30T20:51:00.000-07:00The Pol Pot comment has drawn some criticism elsew...The Pol Pot comment has drawn some criticism elsewhere as well, apparently.<BR/><BR/>http://coffeeandink.livejournal.com/703545.htmlRachel Swirskyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00939668760298612130noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5360814020056871156.post-39087213277525878192007-05-30T20:31:00.000-07:002007-05-30T20:31:00.000-07:00Thanks for mentioning this intentionally provocati...Thanks for mentioning this intentionally provocative comment of mine. My point was that, if the purpose of a movement's revolution is to completely expunge all traces of the former society, the literal approach to accomplishing that implemented by the Khmer Rouge has a certain sick logic. One that is self-evidently evil, devoid of any trace of humanism, and inherently doomed to failure. But also one that merits intellectual vetting as an extreme example of how one might actually try to accomplish a utopian aspiration of creating social conditions in which the better nature of humankind might more explicitly manifest itself. Please let me know if that gives you a better idea of where I was (am) coming from. Thanks!Christopher Brownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11102514167871372993noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5360814020056871156.post-29120523087814019072007-05-30T19:58:00.000-07:002007-05-30T19:58:00.000-07:00Interesting report, thanks.As to this, and how to ...Interesting report, thanks.<BR/><BR/>As to this, and how to read it:<BR/><BR/><I>Chris remarked that the most effective way to change the way people think is the Paul Pot method—killing every adult in sight and starting with a blank slate with the children remaining.</I><BR/><BR/>I wasn't there, and I'm worried I'm missing some context or nuance that is self-evident to you and everyone else who was there, but ... isn't that just a statement about how horrific totalitarian regimes can be? I mean, yes, if you can kill all the adults and indoctrinate the children, I imagine that probably *is* going to be an extremely effective way of changing how a population thinks. (Hard to implement, probably, but ultimately effective.) It's just that it's also self-evidently abhorrent. I can't imagine he was <I>advocating</I> such a course of action, certainly.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com