[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index ][Thread Index ]

Thoughts for Sir Peter U to ponder



--=====================_826174842==_
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"



--=====================_826174842==_
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

This lovely and generous analysis was posted by    
tai <tai@xxxxxxxxx> 
to Newsgroups: soc.culture.burma 

Re: Sir Ustinov's "Burmese Joan Of Arc"
Chao-Tzang Yawnghwe     
Tel/Fax: (604) 525 6924
     
Judging from the interviews of Sir Peter by Ralph Bachoe, I
am sure that Sir Peter has both his brain and heart in the right
places.

It is hoped that Sir Peter's "Joan of Arc" piece is but a prelude
to a more balanced assessment of things in Slorc-land.
Nonetheless, attention must be drawn to Sir Peter's inference
that Slorc's interest equals "national interest", and a further
inference made that outsiders should therefore not judge Slorc
harshly for what it does, no matter how mean spirited its action
are. Logically, this amounts to saying that Slorc is doing all the
terrible things against the people for the good of the people and
the country. 

Does this make sense, Sir Peter?

Sir Peter has apparently fallen into a fallacy of equating
powerholders with the country and the people they rule over
(or, as the case may be, govern). Although the name of the a
country is commonly used -- as a convenient short hand -- for
governments and power - holders, such as "Cuba shoots down
American aircrafts", for example, sophisticated people like Sir
Peter should be more discriminating.

The point of the matter is that only in established democracies
where rulers posses a clear, albeit temporary ( generally, four
years ) mandate, is it valid or possible to say that what the
government do or say is in the "national interest". Even then, it
must be noted that governments sometimes assert their
autonomy from society -- as in the case of nuclear tests by the
French government ( The tests were certainly not carried out
by "France" i.e., by the French people as a whole).

It is all easy for outsiders, especially for those living in places
where their rights and dignity, vis-a-vis the state and its agents,
are inviolable, to be tolerant of acts by despotic rulers,
dismissing them as the "national" or "cultural" quirks of "those
quirky people" (who, being backward and poor, don't know
any better, or are different from "us").

The kind of attitude is , at the bottom, a racist one. It
dehumanize those who are having their lives and dignity
violated by powerholders (who, as it happens, are mainly
non-white, sadly), and trivialize such principles as "popular
sovereignty or will", human worth and dignity, and so forth.

The above does not imply that Sir Peter is a racist. It is , rather,
a case of unwittingly becoming one from trying to be non -
judgmental of injustices, terror, despotism, etc., perpetrated by
Black, Brown, and Yellow powerholders against Black,
Brown, and Yellow peoples.


--=====================_826174842==_--