|Progressive Calendar 10.04.09||<– Date –> <– Thread –>|
|From: David Shove (shove001tc.umn.edu)|
|Date: Sun, 4 Oct 2009 04:06:41 -0700 (PDT)|
P R O G R E S S I V E C A L E N D A R 10.04.09 1. Stillwater vigil 10.04 1pm 2. Barter market 10.04 1pm 3. Bob Kuttner 10.04 2:30pm 4. Faith/rights 10.04 2:30pm 5. Kip Sullivan/950AM 10.04 3pm 6. Progressive Mag 10.04 4pm 7. Peace walk 10.04 6pm RiverFalls WI 8. Harvest moon walk 10.04 7pm 9. Palestine 10.05 6:30pm 10. NWN4P vigil 10.06 4:45pm 11. Afghanistan 10.06 6:30pm 12. Brazil/sustain/f 10.06 7pm 13. Amnesty Intl 10.06 7pm StCloud MN 14. Postville raid/f 10.06 7pm 15. Esther Iverem - Bombing capitalism 16. Russell Mokhiber - Welcome back, Michael Moore 17. Greg Grandin - There is much to do: an interview with Hugo Chavez 18. Bruce Robbins - Against literary imperialism: storming the canon 19. ed - Ha f pric haikus (hai u) --------1 of 19-------- From: scot b <earthmannow [at] comcast.net> Subject: Stillwater vigil 10.04 1pm A weekly Vigil for Peace Every Sunday, at the Stillwater bridge from 1- 2 p.m. Come after Church or after brunch ! All are invited to join in song and witness to the human desire for peace in our world. Signs need to be positive. Sponsored by the St. Croix Valley Peacemakers. If you have a United Nations flag or a United States flag please bring it. Be sure to dress for the weather . For more information go to <http://www.stcroixvalleypeacemakers.com/>http://www.stcroixvalleypeacemakers.com/ For more information you could call 651 275 0247 or 651 999 - 9560 --------2 of 19-------- From: Eric Angell <eric-angell [at] riseup.net> Subject: Barter market 10.04 1pm The Midway Barter Market, every Sunday, 1-3 pm, boulevard in front of 1724 Englewood Ave. Barter Market on Wednesdays at SuperUSA are cancelled. Community Gathering and Exchange at the "Midway Barter Market"! Bring something to share if you can; we've seen CSA and urban farm produce, jam, bread, fruits, homemade candles and soap, jewelry, cassette tapes, clothes, anything that's in good condition that someone else may want. Labor exchanges are good too (i.e. I will fix your bike if you make me lunch). It's an informal gathering that's lots of fun, and you get to take home stuff you want that someone else has too much of. A folding chair and maybe a folding table are good to bring, or even just a blanket for the boulevard. Contact Nine at mightymidway [at] gmail.com or 651.319.2241 with questions, or Kathy at kathysphotos [at] mindspring.com or 651.645.1492. --------3 of 19-------- From: Shirley Whiting <sgwhitin [at] pressenter.com> From: Don Fraser <dfled [at] goldengate.net> Subject: Bob Kuttner 10.04 2:30pm On Sunday October 4 Bob Kuttner, co-editor of American Prospect, will speak at the Aloft Hotel, 900 S. Washington Avenue, Minneapolis, at 2:30 p.m. The speech is free and open to the public. Kuttner is often seen and heard on TV and radio. In Minneapolis, he will give an update on his 2008 book, Obama's Challenge: America's Economic Crisis the Power of a Transformative Presidency. Mr. Kuttner's appearance is co-sponsored by the DFL Education Foundation and Growth & Justice. [Hmmm.. -ed] --------4 of 19-------- From: Stephanie Bates <Stephanie.Bates [at] americas.org> Subject: Faith/rights 10.04 2:30pm Faith Action at Ramsey County Adult Detention Center October 4, 2009 2:30-3:00 PM 425 Groveland Street Saint Paul, MN "A Harvest of Prayers and Statements from our Faith Traditions" for the detainees and their families for human rights and due process for our elected officials to end the raids and deportations for just and humane immigration reform Faith Actions are planned for the first Sunday of every month at the end of visiting hours. Faith and community groups are invited to lead or sponsor a Sunday Faith Actions For more information contact the Interfaith Coalition on Immigration at interfaithonimmigration [at] gmail.com --------5 of 19-------- From: "Of the People" <info [at] jamesmayer.org> Subject: Kip Sullivan/950AM 10.04 3pm The health of our nation & health care: Where does it stand now and where do you stand? Is Congress doing its job or is it doing a job on us? What should we do? James Mayer Of the People with James Mayer Sunday at 3:00 P.M. AM950 KTNF or www.am950ktnf.com You are cordially invited to direct these and any other questions or ideas you have to Minnesota health care expert, author, researcher and member of the Board of Directors for the MN branch of Physicians for a National Health Program, Kip Sullivan. Sullivan, the author of The Health Care Mess: How We Got Into It and How We'll Get Out of It and an authority on the state of health care legislation nationally and in Minnesota, will be with us to respond to your questions or ideas tomorrow (or today, depending on when you get this) on Of the People with James Mayer this Sunday, October 4th, 2009 at 3 p.m. on AM950 KTNF. If out of the broadcast area, you can stream us at http://www.am950ktnf.com/listen. Again, locally, you can join us by tuning your radio to 950 on the AM dial in your car, and in your home, and, again, if you're not local, you can stream us :http://www.am950ktnf.com/listen (You will be asked to put in a MN zip code). Off-air, you can reach us by calling James Mayer at 651-238-3740, by e-mail at info [at] jamesmayer.org, or by U.S. mail: James Mayer, 970 Raymond Ave., St. Paul, MN Zip Code 55114. --------6 of 19-------- From: Tori Johnston <tori_j [at] msn.com> Subject: Progressive Mag 10.04 4pm You are cordially invited to celebrate The Progressive Magazine's 100th anniversary with editor Matt Rothschild. George Mitchie of the Catonsville Nine will speak, as will former FBI agent Coleen Rowley and Mark Davidov of the Honeywell Project. Mr. Rothschild will speak starting at 5:30 with a light buffet supper to follow. Sunday, October 4, from 4:00 - 8:00 p.m. at the Purcell & Elmslie-designed home of Phil Willkie 2625 Newton Ave. South, Minneapolis 55405 off West Lake of the Isles Parkway - third house on right Phil has generously offered to match your tax-deductible donation dollar for dollar. Please RSVP. Philwillkie [at] earthlink.net<mailto:Philwillkie [at] earthlink.net> 612-822-0522 Preferred minimum: $50 or $100. [The PM is "moderate", non-radical, Dem-supporting. Not radical enuf for me, but perhaps just right for some others. Especially those who can spend $50-100. -ed] --------7 of 19-------- From: Nancy Holden <d.n.holden [at] comcast.net> Subject: Peace walk 10.04 6pm RiverFalls WI River Falls Peace and Justice Walkers. We meet every Monday from 6-7 pm on the UWRF campus at Cascade Ave. and 2nd Street, immediately across from "Journey" House. We walk through the downtown of River Falls. Contact: d.n.holden [at] comcast.net. Douglas H Holden 1004 Morgan Road River Falls, Wisconsin 54022 --------8 of 19-------- From: Sue Ann <seasnun [at] gmail.com> Subject: Harvest moon walk 10.04 7pm Shine On Harvest Full Moon Walk at Coldwater Spring Sunday, October 4, 2009 at 7 PM The annual Sing A-Long harvest moon walk. We provide the song sheets: Shine On Harvest Moon, Blue Moon, Moon River, Moonlight Bay, and By the Light of the Silvery Moon. Traditional group howl! Directions: Coldwater is south of Minnehaha Park, in Minneapolis. From Hwy 55/Hiawatha, turn East (toward the Mississippi) at 54th Street, take an immediate right, & drive South on the frontage road for ½-mile past the parking meters, through the cul-de-sac & the gates. Follow the curvy road left & then right down to the pond, next to the great willow tree. Sunset 6:47 PM-Moonrise 6:35 PM Info: www.friendsofcoldwater.org --------9 of 19-------- From: Women Against Military Madness <wamm [at] mtn.org> Subject: Palestine 10.05 6:30pm Report Back from Conference: U.S. Campaign to End the Israeli Occupation Monday, October 5, 6.30 p.m. Mayday Books, 301 Cedar Avenue South (just south of Riverside on the West Bank), Minneapolis. Sanna Towns, Elisabeth Geschiere, Susanne Waldorf, and Flo Razowsky of the Coalition for Palestinian Rights (CPR), Minnesota Break the Bonds Campaign (MN BBC) and the International Jewish anti-Zionist Network (IJAN) attended the 8th annual U.S. Campaign to End the Israeli Occupation conference on September 12 and 13. These women say, "There were many exciting BDS proposals passed, many networking opportunities achieved and a new, deeper understanding offered of Palestinian civil society demands. We want to share all we learned with you, so please join us for this report back. We will tell you of what we learned and talk collectively about next steps for Twin Cities organizing in solidarity with Palestinian civil society." Endorsed by: WAMM. --------10 of 19-------- From: Carole Rydberg <carydberg [at] comcast.net> Subject: NWN4P vigil 10.06 4:45pm NWN4P vigil every Tuesday. Corner of Winnetka and 42nd Avenues in New Hope. 4:45 to 5:45 PM. All welcome; bring your own or use our signs. --------11 of 19-------- From: Women Against Military Madness <wamm [at] mtn.org> Subject: Afghanistan 10.06 6:30pm Film Screening: "Rethink Afghanistan" Tuesday, October 6, 6:30 p.m. University of Minnesota, West Bank, Blegen Hall, Room 105, 269 19th Avenue South, Minneapolis. October 7th marks the 8th anniversary of the U.S. invasion and occupation of Afghanistan. The U.S. now has 68,000 troops there (up from 34,000 at the beginning of the year), and the Obama administration is strongly considering the military's request to send tens of thousands more. Meanwhile, Afghan civilians continue to be routinely killed by U.S. airstrikes and U.S. troop casualties in July and August reached their highest yet. And for what? "Rethink Afghanistan" is a new hour-long documentary by Robert Greenwald (maker of "Wal-Mart: The High Cost of Low Price," "Iraq for Sale," and "Outfoxed") that examines the reality behind the war in Afghanistan. The six parts of the documentary examine the impact of military escalation in Afghanistan, the staggering costs of the war, the horrifying civilian casualties from U.S. and NATO airstrikes, the war's impact on Afghan women, and the ultimate futility of U.S. war efforts in Afghanistan, "the graveyard of empires." Sponsored by Socialist Alternative. Endorsed by: WAMM. --------12 of 19-------- From: Curt McNamara <mcnam025 [at] tc.umn.edu> Subject: Brazil/sustain/f 10.06 7pm Tues Oct 6 7pm at the Minneapolis College of Art and Design, 2501 Stevens Av S Please come to the first screening in this semester's Celebrate Sustainability Film Series! A Convenient Truth: Urban Solutions from Curitiba, Brazil is an informative, inspirational documentary aimed at sharing ideas to provoke environment-friendly and cost-effective changes in cities worldwide The screening begins at 7 p.m. in the College Center, located on the second floor of MCAD's Main Building. --------13 of 19-------- From: Gabe Ormsby <gabeo [at] bitstream.net> Subject: Amnesty Intl 10.06 7pm StCloud MN Saint Cloud Area Amnesty International meets on Tuesday, October 6th, from 7:00 to 8:00 p.m. at the St. Cloud Public Library, 1300 W. St. Germain, Saint Cloud. For more information contact Jerry Dirks, 320-251-6491 or jerry.dirks [at] gmail.com. --------14 of 19-------- From: Stephanie Bates <Stephanie.Bates [at] americas.org> Subject: Postville raid/f 10.06 7pm abUSed: The Postville Raid Minnesota Premier Showing Tuesday, October 6th 7:00pm St. Paul JCC Free and open to the Community Guatemalan filmmakers Luis Argueta and Vivian Rivas present clips from their new documentary "abUSed: The Postville Raid" which examines issues surrounding undocumented workers and the aftermath of the 2008 immigration raid both in Postville and Guatemala, the home country of many of the workers. A panel discussion will follow the filmmakers' presentation For more information, contact Rabbi Sharon Stiefel, Jewish Education Director, at 651-255-4737 or sstiefel [at] stpauljcc.org --------15 of 19-------- Bombing Capitalism By Esther Iverem SeeingBlack.com Editor and Film Critic Seeing Black October 2, 2009 http://www.seeingblack.com/article_701.shtml On a throwback vibe, you could say that "Capitalism: A Love Story" is the bomb. By exploring the economic system of capitalism as an evil, Moore sends a salvo into the heart of America's economic machine. Along the way, he explodes some serious myths: Myth #1: that the economic system of capitalism is the same as or tied to the political system of democracy. Myth #2: That be an American is to be a capitalist and that to be anti-capitalist is to be anti-American. Myth #3: That poor, people of color with bad credit, who bought houses that they couldn't afford, caused the financial meltdown in the United States. Myth #4: That mainly Blacks and Hispanics are losing their homes to foreclosure. He also drops other bombshells, such as the internal Citigroup memo declaring that the United States is no longer a democracy but is, rather, a plutocracy, where the richest 1 percent of the country is in charge of the rest of us peasants, and where the system of government have been warped in the past 30 years to serve the rich. Then there is the relatively unknown Congresswoman Marcy Kaptur from Ohio - not one of the usual suspects on talking head news shows - calling the bailout of Wall Street a financial coup d'etat and telling Americans who have lost their homes to become a "squatter" in their homes and not leave. There is the laundry list of Washington insiders who received sweet V.I.P. mortgages from Countrywide, which was a leader in dispensing high-interest "sub prime" loans to homeowners. The explosions go on and on. Moore's documentaries, exposing the smelly underbelly of American society, have always included poignancy, comedy and a smart-assed attitude. In "Capitalism: A Love Story," he outdoes all his previous efforts in a magnum opus that ties together all that he has covered in the past, beginning with "Roger and Me," a funky exploration of General Motors, released 20 year ago, followed by documentaries on America's gun culture, post-9/11 realities and the warped health care system. This exploration of ideology provides a convenient framework for Moore to organize his attitudes toward the world and life. So we see those Chicago workers from Republic Windows and Doors staging the factory takeover that gained international news. We see again the shameful aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. We see, most poignantly, the frustration of a nation that helped to elect a Black man who promised change. Moore is bold and minces no words in this project. He goes for broke, betting that he can bring the American public - or at least a sizable gang-to join him, or to at least stop drinking the fantasy Kool-Aid that we, too, might make it into realm of the magical 1 percent. His success in that effort will not change the fact that he has produced his documentary masterpiece. --------16 of 19-------- Time to Get Reckless? Welcome Back, Michael Moore By RUSSELL MOKHIBER CounterPunch October 2-4, 2009 With pictures of Ralph Nader surrounding him, Michael Moore this week threatened Congressional Democrats with defeat at the polls in 2010. Moore was a Nader for President supporter in 2000, aiding and abetting the consumer advocate in his quest for the Presidency. Moore returned to the Democratic fold in 2004 and 2008 - throwing his support to John Kerry and Barack Obama. But earlier this week, Moore returned to Nader territory - the press room at Public Citizen on DuPont Circle in Washington, D.C. - and with pictures of the consumer advocate on the wall surrounding him - Moore announced that he intended to launch a campaign against Congressional Democrats who didn't at least support a strong public option in the health care legislation currently barreling through the Congress. Moore is a supporter of a single payer system but - unlike many in the single payer movement - he's willing to compromise down to a strong public option. But it's clear that Democrats in Congress are in no mood even for a strong public option. And Michael is in no mood to compromise further. "To the Democrats in Congress who don't quite get it, I want to offer a personal pledge," Moore said. "I - and a lot of other people - have every intention of removing you from Congress in the next election if you stand in the way of health care legislation that the people want". "That is not a hollow or idle threat," Moore said. "We will come to your districts and work against you. First in the primary. And - if we have to in the general election. You don't think so? You don't think so? You think we are just going to go along with you because you are Democrats? You should think again. We will organize the thousands of people in your district who have suffered as a result of this cruel health care system we have. We will organize them. We will come after you and we will remove you from office". Moore didn't clearly define the standard he would use in deciding whether to challenge a Democrat. First he said that he organize against Democrats "who stand in the way of health care legislation that the people want". Then he said he would organize against Democrats if they didn't "get behind the President". (Question: Michael - You mean get behind the dirty deal Obama cut with the drug and health insurance industries - Obama takes single payer off the table and the criminal corporations support Obamacare?) Then he said that the legislation would have to "at the minimum have a public option available to all people who can buy into this - at the very least it has to have this". Moore then accused the 2000 Naderistas - and by implication himself - of being activists who are "reckless in politics" who "don't really care". "Let me just say - there are some people in this room - if you remember back to the election of 2000 - that are fairly reckless individuals when it comes to politics," Moore said. "They don't really care. When they see a hypocrite, when they see somebody who has turned their back on the people who put them in office, they will be relentless in working against you. Even if it means that the Democrat doesn't win." Even if it means the Democrat doesn't win. [*] Welcome back Michael. Onward to single payer. Russell Mokhiber is editor of Corporate Crime Reporter and founder of singlepayeraction.org * [I'll believe it when I see it. Moore has a habit of moving left just *after* an election, trying to gather followers, and then moving right a few months *before* an election, and trying to take a large crowd of progressives with him. Whatever election it is will be "too important" to "waste your vote on a third party" or to "try to enforce purism in the most important election of our lifetime". Since each and every election is "the most important election of our lifetime", it is NEVER the time to raise the bar on Dems, and the Dems can and will do anything they want to us. It's not just Moore, it's most of us - we're gutless and lacking in courage. They will do to us whatever we don't fight and forbid. -ed] --------17 of 19-------- There Is Much to Do: An Interview With Hugo Chavez By Greg Grandin The Nation September 27, 2009 http://www.thenation.com/doc/20091012/grandin Three years ago, Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez caused a stir when, in a speech to the United Nations General Assembly, he called then-US President George W. Bush a "devil." "I can still smell the sulfur," he said, standing at the same podium where, a day earlier, Bush had given his own address. Last week, Chavez once again followed a US president in the UN podium, but this time he caught a whiff of something different - "the smell of hope." In the following interview - conducted at Venezuela's mission to the United Nations in New York - Hugo Chavez talks about his relationship with Barack Obama and what his election could mean for the United States, as well as about the Honduran crisis, plans to extend the Pentagon's presence in Colombia, domestic successes and challenges, and the legacy of Brazilian president Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva. Greg Grandin: I'd like first to ask you about the Honduran crisis. Manuel Zelaya - the president overthrown in a coup on June 28 - is currently in the Brazilian embassy in Tegucigalpa, having returned to the country in secret. What happens next? What can be done to force those who carried out the coup to negotiate? Hugo Chavez: It's not for me to decide what the next step is. Zelaya has called for dialogue. That was the first thing he did as soon as he entered the Brazilian embassy. The coup-plotters have responded with repression, death and terror. I believe that the brutal nature of this coup will lead to its failure. GG: But how do you explain the intransigence of Roberto Micheletti, the president installed by the coup? There is about a month to go before the scheduled November 29 presidential elections, and whether Zelaya is returned to office or not, we know that one of two candidates from either the National or Liberal parties - both conservatives - is going to win. So why wouldn't the de facto government want a negotiated solution, allowing a symbolic return of Zelaya to the presidency for a short period in order to legitimate the outcome of the election? HC: Noam Chomsky has a book, which I read for the first time when I was in Spain, called Fear of Democracy. There is your answer. Fear of democracy. In Honduras, they had a sham democracy. It was run by elites, what was called a liberal democracy but in reality was a false democracy. Honduras has been governed by a small group that for a long time has been supported by the United States, which used Honduras as a military base against other countries of Central America, against Cuba, turning the country into a colony. Manuel Zelaya came from the ranks of the Liberal Party, he entered the government as an intelligent young man, breathing in the new winds blowing from South America, the winds of change, I would say even winds of revolution. It is different from the revolution of the 1970s. This one is carried out not with rifles but by a peaceful people, it is a democratic revolution. Montesquieu said that men needed to be able to ride the wave of events. And that's what Zelaya did. With his cowboy hat he climbed up and rode the wave. And as soon as he broached the question of convening a constitutional assembly to consult with the people about refounding the republic, the political class that has governed all this time, the Honduran bourgeoisie, became frightened. That is the fear of democracy. GG: What is the importance of events in Honduras for the rest of the continent? There are signs that the right, the transnational right, is regrouping, and that it sees Honduras as the first battle in a larger struggle to roll back the left. HC: They are going to fail. Of course, it is important not to underestimate the continental right. It has gone on the offensive in many places. They attacked Venezuela, hard, with the support of Bush, as you know. They attacked in Brazil, trying to destabilize Lula so the Workers Party couldn't govern. They failed. They attacked Bolivia, hard, with all the venom of a serpent, in an effort to overthrow Evo Morales. They failed. They attacked Ecuador, and Rafael Correa is still there. Then, in Honduras, they attacked what they believed to be - and in a way was - the weakest flank. But they were in for a surprise. For three months, the Honduran people have been in the street, with unprecedented strength. That's what they found on the supposed weak flank. So I think the continental right should well consider its next step. They haven't even been able to consolidate their power in Honduras, notwithstanding that they enjoy the monolithic unity of the Honduran bourgeoisie and the support of the military, so if they decide to attack again in South America, they will fail. It is a battle, a game of chess, that we are fighting everyday. But the continental right has lost its way, it doesn't have a project for governance. In the United States, the government is bailing out banks, intervening in the economy, yet in Latin America, the right continues to talk about "free markets." It's totally outdated, they don't have arguments, they don't have any sense. GG: But they will have seven US military bases in Colombia. HC: It seems as if there are two Barack Obamas. And hopefully, the Obama who spoke today at the United Nations will win out in the end. But it was Obama who also approved the seven military bases in Colombia. Nobody can think otherwise, because who is the president, who is the commander-in-chief of the military if not Obama? If Venezuela decided to send troops to another country, or to set up a military base in Puerto Rico, it would be me, as president, making the decision. So Obama is full of contradictions, and hopefully the people of the United States, you, the thinking public, need to push your president. If I were I New Yorker, I would say, Mr. President, why are you putting military bases in Colombia? I said to Obama in Trinidad [at the Summit of the Americas in April] what I said to Bill Clinton ten years ago - one could at least talk to Clinton - and the same I told George W. Bush - only one time, because one couldn't talk about anything with him - "let's look for peace in Colombia." Hopefully the people of the United States will demand from its president, and its government, and its congress, to stop with the politics of war throughout the world. Obama said some troublesome things today, veiled threats. I have the phrase here, if I am not mistaken, that the US "will know how to defend the interests of all." Does this mean that tomorrow Obama is going to be able to say that he has invaded Iran in order to defend the interests of Venezuela, or of Mexico, or of Algeria? No, Venezuelan interests are to be defended by Venezuela. The US should defend the interests of the US. Where are the US people, where are the intellectuals, who could put limits on their government? GG: Since President Obama has taken office, has US policy toward Venezuela changed since the Bush years? HC: Yes, for the worst. GG: For the worst? HC: Yes, for the worst. The seven Colombian military bases. They are a threat to Venezuela. Why hasn't Obama - and today at the UN he listed all the steps he has taken [to improve relations with the rest of the world] - eliminated the Fourth Fleet? It was Bush that re-established the Fourth Fleet, a threat to all of Latin America, with the commander of the fleet saying that its purpose was to patrol South America's rivers. We are all worried about this in Latin America, and each country has expressed concern in its own way, Venezuela, Bolivia, even Brazil. Now with these seven military bases, the Colombian conflict is going to be spilling out across South America. Hopefully Obama will listen to other voices, and not just repeat what the Pentagon says, those same advisers of Bush, the war makers. GG: Do you think it ironic that the Right in the US now uses the same tactics and rhetoric to attack Obama that the Venezuelan right uses against your government? Did you follow what happened just two weeks ago, with Obama's planned address to schoolchildren, when they attacked him in terms very similar to the criticism used against your education reform? HC: Ah, yes, I read about that, that it was socialist indoctrination. GG: Exactly. HC: If only it were socialism! I believe they are scared. And this fear is dangerous. Because independent of whatever reasoned criticism we might have of Obama - such as that concerning the Fourth Fleet, which is an effort to make his actions be coherent with his words - here within the United States, the recalcitrant right is scared. And they hate him. First, because he is black... GG: This is a debate now within the United States... HC: Jimmy Carter is saying it. And hopefully Obama won't be assassinated because of it. But Obama has also taken up the theme of social reform almost as if it were a point of honor, because he made the pledge during the campaign. And also, as Obama knows, out of necessity. Everyday there is more poverty in the United States, everyday there is more uncared-for people who don't have medicine, doctors, or even education. This country is eating itself from the inside. What's happening to the American, how do you say it, Dream [in English]. I believe in the American Dream, but the dream of Martin Luther King Jr., not the dream of consumerism, unbridled capitalism or individualism, that craziness, that's not a dream it's a nightmare. Now, the recalcitrant right attacks Obama hard, calling him a socialist... GG: Even a Nazi. HC: Yes, a Nazi! When we met in Trinidad and shook hands, the right roasted him here for doing so: "Chavez! Why are you greeting Chavez?!" Imagine the craziness just for saying hello. It's irrational. The right here is scared that Obama is awakening a popular current in the people of the US, and they are trying to stop it. Where it is going to wind up, who knows? But I have a question, where is the US people? Where are the people, when their leader tries to propose something in benefit of the people? The people need to go out into the streets, not just to vote but to passionately protest, to support the president, so he can fulfill his promise. Where are the people? GG: It is the right that is in the street. HC: Yes, the right has taken over the street. There is much to do. Those who represent progressive thought - and I include you - need to know that without the people, there is no democracy. The people of the United States need to wake up, wake up and help construct a new country, a great nation, a true democracy. Obama can be an opportunity, and you need to support him with great force, in order to contain those that ferociously oppose whatever change. Like in Honduras. It's the same situation. The progressive community of the United States needs to support Obama to achieve change, and then it has to demand more change, and more change, and more change. GG: There is a sense among progressives in the US that the Bolivarian Revolution has reached its limits, at least domestically. They have heard much about your anti-imperialism and your efforts to form a multipolar world, but they know less about what is happening in the country, the successes and failures in advancing a "protagonist democracy." HC: Many political analysts - the majority of them spokespeople for the right - along with the media - also dominated by the right - go around creating the idea that the government of the Bolivarian Revolution is on the point of collapse. The fall of the price of oil affected us in a way, but not fundamentally, not at the roots or the base of the process. We are passing through stages. We are starting the second decade of the revolution, and are now approaching a new political horizon. The communal councils for example, continue to extend, continue to grow, and they have evolved into a more ambitious project, a socialist commune. We are leaving behind - slowly, but steadily, not in a day, a year or five years - oil dependency, advancing the industrialization of the country. If some people here believe - people of good faith, readers of The Nation - that the Bolivarian Revolution is exhausted, tell them that it isn't. You can tell them to come and see for themselves. Venezuela is of course a country that has problems, and its revolutionary government has failures, and has made mistakes, but it is an ongoing process. GG: Venezuela has impressively reduced poverty, inequality, unemployment... HC: We have achieved nearly all of the Millennium Development Goals. I was here almost ten years ago, in the Millennium Summit, and they even assigned me the task - I wasn't yet considered the devil, though they were undoubtedly still evaluating me - to coordinate one of the roundtables. I was there for a few days, day after day working and talking with Clinton, Fidel was there too. I remember the day Fidel shook Clinton's hand, Clinton and Fidel, and I was witness to their short conversation. We had meetings with delegates from Africa, Asia, from China, Russia. Now, we proposed some goals [to reduce poverty]. But today, at the global level, we are poorer than ten years ago. And not only in absolute numbers but relative numbers. But in Venezuela, poverty continues to go down. Unemployment continues to go down. The minimum wage is the highest in Latin America. Social security continues to reach more and more people. The standard of living has risen in Venezuela and according to the measures used by the United Nations Development Program we are in the top rank of human development. We are far from our goals, but we have left the inferno. Attention to the excluded, literacy, Venezuela is now a territory free of illiteracy. Poverty has been halved from it was ten years ago, which was one of the Millennium Goals. Access to potable water, we passed that Millennium goal a long time ago. In education, we have doubled the number of children going to school. It is possible to leave poverty, it is possibly to pull people out of misery. We call this socialism. In Obama's reflections - the ones I have heard - there are elements of this thought. We don't call it socialist, but it is a revindication of public policy. GG: What you have achieved inspires many. But can you talk about the failures, or the concrete plans you have to address ongoing problems, such as inflation, crime and insecurity? HC: On every front, there are failures and still much work to be done. Right now we are in the process of what we call the three Rs: revision, rectification and re-starting. In health care, in education, improving services, correcting mistakes. We are increasing participatory democracy, protagonist democracy. Delinquency is a global problem, not an exclusive Venezuelan one. Corruption is hurting us. I believe Obama talked this morning of the problem of corruption in developing countries. But here, in the US, there is a lot of corruption. In Europe there is corruption. Capitalism is the reign of corruption. Everything that happened with the big corporations, the big banks, the big insurance companies. What is it? Corruption. Corruption of values, fraud against the people, theft from the citizenry. Now, when I mentioned earlier about a new stage, 2010 to 2020, I was talking about above all a project that had to solve these problems, this weakness. GG: But how, exactly? Can you give some concrete examples, say, in reference to violence and public security? One recent report identifies Caracas - in terms of homicide rates - as the second most violent city in the world, after Ciudad Jurez. HC: Ciudad Jurez? GG: Ciudad Jurez. HC: I think there are cities in the United States that are more violent. I don't want to minimize the problem. Look, we are attacking the problem with a lot of energy, with distinct programs. For example, a little while ago we enacted legislation restructuring the National Police, because historically, going back many years, the police department was penetrated by delinquents. So we are trying to cleanse the police. But at the bottom of this is a cultural problem. Out-of-control crime, in all these countries, is part of a moral crisis. Ask yourself, how many children right at this moment are watching violence on TV, on the Internet? Music that encourages drug use and irresponsible sex? This is a product of the capitalist model, the culture of capitalism, hyper-individualism. It's part of the great crisis of the time. It requires a new world, with new values. As Jesus Christ says, "love others as yourself." If you love others as yourself, you are incapable of hurting others. GG: One last question. Since 2003, the relationship between you and Brazilian president Luiz Incio Lula da Silva has been fascinating. Working together in the field of international relations, you have led what some have described as South America's second independence, or at least have brought about the end of the Monroe Doctrine. But in about a year, that relationship is going to end, when Lula's second, and last, presidential term expires. We are going to be in a "post-Lula" world. Have you given any thought how this is going to affect your foreign policy, since you have worked together in a very... HC: Closely. GG: Yes, closely. HC: Coordinated. GG: Yes, coordinated. HC: Lula is a great person, a great companero. They tried to create a rift between us, but it failed. I have the hope that after Lula comes someone who will continue along the same path. Lula has managed to put his own stamp on Brazil. Brazil had lost its way, it had fallen into the hands of, well, neoliberal governments. It lacked leadership. About four or five years ago, Brazil was at the point of losing its petroleum reserves. But no longer. Lula rescued [the state oil company] Petrobras, he invested resources, and recovered the independence of Brazil. The country no longer depends on the International Monetary Fund. Brazil's monetary reserve has grown exorbitant due to exports. The attitude of Brazil toward its small neighbors has greatly changed, toward Paraguay, Ecuador, Bolivia, the smallest and weakest countries, and above all because of Lula. This is Lula's great legacy, and it is going to be difficult to change. Many things will change. Someone will take office with his or her own stamp, own style. But Brazil is now standing. With Venezuela, there will be changes, in the relationship we have, in the strategic alliance. But I have much faith that the person who comes next will be a man or woman of the left, from the Workers Party, who will continue to try to meet the challenge presented by Lula at his inauguration. Remember, the 2002 coup in Venezuela was not just against me but against Lula, who was a presidential candidate at the time. It was meant as a demonstration effect. They were telling the Brazilian people, look, if you elect Lula, this is what could happen to you. So, when Lula was inaugurated on January 1, 2003, I went. I'll never forget it. We were in a terrible battle at home, of destabilization, economic and petroleum sabotage, terrorism, threats of more coups. But I wanted to go to Brasilia. There, Lula told us that we needed a project that covered all of South America. He knew that this challenge needed to go beyond Lula, beyond Chavez, and beyond Evo. When each of us are gone, the people are left standing, and South America is South America, with its own voice. Greg Grandin, a professor of history at New York University, is the author, most recently, of Fordlandia: The Rise and Fall of Henry Ford's Forgotten Jungle City (Metropolitan). He serves on the editorial committee of the North American Congress on Latin America (NACLA). --------18 of 19-------- Against Literary Imperialism: Storming the Barricades of the Canon Bruce Robbins Monthly Review Sept 2009 Bruce Robbins is professor of English and Comparative Literature at Columbia University and author of The Servant's Hand (1986). This is the foreword to a new edition of Jonah Raskin's The Mythology of Imperialism: A Revolutionary Critique of British Literature and Society in the Modern Age (Monthly Review Press, 2009). My copy of The Mythology of Imperialism, the 1973 paperback that sold for $2.75, has lots of notes in the margins. They're excited notes, not always comprehensible now, from the first course I ever taught, a small unofficial seminar on literature and imperialism. I've lost the syllabus, but I remember that we read Raskin's books: Kipling, Conrad, Forster, and Orwell. I'm not sure I would have had the idea, or the courage, to follow that syllabus in my second or third year of graduate school teaching if The Mythology of Imperialism hadn't made its miraculous, incandescent appearance. I certainly wouldn't have known which writers to teach, or for that matter how to start talking about them. This was before Edward W. Said's Orientalism appeared in 1978, before the academic field of postcolonial studies had been invented. There must have been more advanced people out there - it sometimes seemed to me that everybody at Harvard was more advanced than I was - but if they had figured out why and how imperialism mattered to us, they weren't raising their hands and making speeches about it in any of the classes I took. Many of us students seemed to be leading more or less schizophrenic lives, marching for civil rights or against the war in Vietnam one day and the rest of the time dutifully soaking up the books and ideas we were presented with, more or less in the form in which they were presented. I for one had not yet imagined that there might be some connection between the world of books and ideas, on the one hand, and on the other, the scorching passion my friends and I felt about America's various military aggressions and its support for the world's petty tyrants and human rights abusers. Without Jonah Raskin's help, I don't know when or if the possibility of such a connection might have hit homewhen - or if I would imagine that it was possible not just to become an academic (which already seemed a bit of a stretch) but to become that more glorious thing I had read about in Saul Bellow, an intellectual. Raskin himself urged his readers to aim higher. In his introduction he describes the book as "a weapon for the revolution". On the last page he suggests that the goal is "to be a writer and a political and cultural revolutionary". What I took from him was a target somewhat more modest, but only somewhat. To be an intellectual, as I understand it, means to live the life of the mind as fully as possible in your own historical moment, and in relation to that moment. It means that when you think, you are not just thinking about certain concepts or problems or authors, you are also trying to satisfy the most urgent ethical and political demands your own historical moment makes upon you. Which means that while you're reading and thinking, you also have to be listening carefully to your time. For Raskin, there was no doubt about what the demands of our time were. The word for our moment was imperialism. "I decided to write about imperialism," he declares, "because it is the total reality of our time". Our responsibility was to reconsider everything we knew, or thought we knew, in the light of that reality. To call imperialism a total reality, as if there were nothing about anyone's life that was not permeated by it and given its definitive meaning by imperialism, was to make a large and, to my mind, controversial claim. (It suggests that no good thing is untaintedthat - no good thing is really, finally, good.) But as a first move, it was brilliant. Among the various names for injustice, were there any that legitimately linked with so much of the history in play at that moment? Various movements of national liberation had of course triumphed by 1971, when the hardback edition of Raskin's book came out, but others were still ongoing. The recent emergence of black militancy at home seemed to resonate with anti-colonial struggles abroad. The United States was still at war in Vietnam. Behind the excuse of containing communism, it was enthusiastically supporting military dictatorships, armed insurgencies, and death squads around the world. It was also arranging, not coincidentally, for as much as possible of the world's wealth to be enjoyed within our borders and, as far as possible, for the major inconveniences of the capitalist system to be experienced at a distance by non-citizens. In short, the United States was directly and indirectly responsible, through its policies and through its consumerist life style, for incalculable human suffering, especially (this was important) outside its borders. Meanwhile, in the American universities, where the Western cultural heritage was preserved, transmitted, and interpreted, there had been little if any systematic re-interpretation of that heritage from the perspective of a world that was suddenly much larger and less obviously centered in Europe and the European settler colonies. As Raskin put it, "To date, literary and cultural historians have not reckoned with imperialism". If imperialism is indeed a total reality that touches everything and contaminates everything it touches, one might imagine that Raskin's reckoning with it would be utterly merciless. Under inspection, how could the Western cultural heritage look anything but, well, imperialist? Cowardly academics could be expected to stop short of this conclusion; by undermining the customary rationale for preserving and transmitting the Western cultural heritage, they could risk getting put out of a job. Raskin, however, sounds happy not to have an academic job. He presents himself as an escapee from the prison-like classroom who is now participating enthusiastically in what he calls, after D. H. Lawrence, "life". He has no institutional motive to pull his punches. And as the word mythology in the title suggests, he doesn't. All of these writers are shown in one way or another to have supported the project of imperialism. Yet for Raskin, that's not the end of the story. Somehow he manages to make his case without giving up his respect for the Western cultural heritage. One of the book's many surprises, and a reason why it has stood up so well over four decades, is the extraordinary generosity shown to the works discussed. In his first-edition introduction, titled "Bombard the Critics," Raskin does just that. He blasts critics like F. R. Leavis and Lionel Trilling for building modern literature into a great tradition that ignores imperialism and encourages political passivity. Even Raymond Williams, who is clearly a more positive inspiration here, is criticized for being too Eurocentric. But by attacking the critics, Raskin pulls off a neat trick: he spares the works themselves, or at least deflects political anger away from them. Thus he can use those same works, or equally canonical ones, to set up a counter-tradition. Before the period of 1880 to 1920 "the Victorians were conscious of their empire," but the empire remained peripheral to the Victorian novel. "In Victorian novels the colonies are usually places to transfer burned-out characters, or from which to retrieve characters when they were needed. . . . The plot began - or flagging interest was revived - when a character returned from abroad, and the action terminated when the characters left for the colonies. For the Victorians existence meant existence in England". Raskin observes that those English writers who did talk about empire, and who are his primary subjects - Joseph Conrad, Rudyard Kipling, E. M. Forster, George Orwell, and Joyce Cary - did a pretty unsatisfactory job of it. And yet he finds a good deal to celebrate in what they managed to say. This is all the more surprising because Raskin's standards of judgment are very demanding, at least by comparison with the standards that have become habitual in academic criticism. Since the culture wars of the 1990s, academic critics have taken a certain amount of flak in the press over their supposed lack of reverence for the great works of the past. They are supposed to spend their time brutally interrogating the classics in the name of recently erected standards of which past authors could have had no inkling: gender, race, class, and other politically correct preoccupations. Like so much of what the press says, this turns out not to be true. Modern university departments don't waterboard their authors. But Raskin, who is proud to say that his book was written "outside the sterile atmosphere of academia," takes an even harder line than the one that is imaginatively projected onto academics today. His book is dedicated to Ho Chi Minh. The epigraph is from Fidel Castro. What he wants from literature is solidarity with the Revolution. Gazing back on 1971 a decade or so into the twenty-first century, this seems a lot to stipulate. What if the revolutionary movements aren't there? (I leave aside the tricky but significant question of what "revolutionary" meant back then - how much overlap there was and was not between anti-imperialist struggles for national independence and genuine movements of social revolution.) If the standard is Revolution, then very little literature would seem to measure up. That includes Raskin's own favorite writers. He likes Gulley Jimson, protagonist of Joyce Cary's The Horse's Mouth, a colorful institution-hating anarchist. "But," we are told, Jimson "is not quite a revolutionary.... Cary's people are cut off from revolutionary movements". E. M. Forster also fails this test. "It is Forster's crippling defect," Raskin concludes, "that he is unable to imagine revolutionary alternatives". The inability to imagine revolutionary alternatives, at least alternatives that are not subject to lengthy utopian delay, seems to be a general failing, now as then. The novel as a genre doesn't much like revolutions. "If Conrad could have looked ahead a bit further than his own times," Raskin writes, "he would have seen that Decoud's descendant is Regis Debray.... The alienated intellectual becomes an engage, an enrage, a guerrilla". Well, okay. But if Raskin could have looked ahead a bit further, he would have seen Debray's transformation from a militant Third Worldist to a defender of the French Republic. Despite the ongoing travails of so much of what used to be called the Third World, Third Worldism now is not what it was. That's why Che could become, as he is for many today, an unthreatening object of nostalgia. Raskin can be intellectually magnanimous in part because, much as he might have liked his authors to gaze prophetically beyond their moments, he is willing to give them credit for merely getting deep into their moments. Temporarily suspending the standard of revolution, he applies another criterion that is a bit easier to meet. He asks what these authors managed to say about the contradictions of their time, including contradictions or paradoxes they themselves were unable to overcome in their own lives: "The Conrad paradox is that he detests both empire and revolution". This paradoxdetesting - the status quo, but being unready to embrace the political means necessary to change the status quogoes - to the heart of Conrad's work, but it also speaks directly to a condition that has obviously persisted. As does Forster's pithy analysis of his own Victorian background: "In came the nice fat dividends, up went the lofty thoughts". Like Forster, Raskin has a great eye for passing instants and tableaux that suddenly sum up a life or a social situation. In Carlyle, for example, he discovers the perfect rationale for imperialism in a simple invocation of Third World raw materials: "noble elements of cinnamon, sugar, coffee, pepper black and grey, lying all asleep, awaiting the white enchanter who should say to them, Awake!" On Kipling, he writes: "Every morning before he awoke his face was shaven clean by an Indian.... Only the comforting illusion that Indians loved the English could free him from the continual fear of the barber's razor". Haunted houses in India are said to contain "the bodies of dead Englishmen murdered by their servants". The year after I read The Mythology of Imperialism I started writing my doctoral dissertation, which was about servants in the novel. My point of departure was a comic passage in Thackeray's Vanity Fair where a servant, asked to shave his master, thinks for a moment that the master has gone crazy and wants him to slit his throat. I suppose I'll never know whether Raskin was the origin of my dissertation, hence of my whole academic career. It does not seem at all improbable. In those days other critics were not talking about servants with razors. Like Raymond Williams in Culture and Society, Raskin arranges his authors by date of birth and pays loving attention to their biographies. (Though the book doesn't use footnotes and generally wears its learning lightly, it knows a lot more than it absolutely needs to. For example, Raskin has scrutinized the drafts that various works went through, watching as the politics are pulled in different directions. This is something you don't bother to do if you are convinced in advance of your political conclusions.) He makes us see his authors as people in historical context. But he also admits that in historical context they rarely look very attractive. Their political opinions, for example, tend to be severely limited, at least by the standards of the 1970s Left. In order to be generous to them, Raskin sometimes has to take them out of context again, to separate the art from the artist. In this he follows the excellent advice of D. H. Lawrence, one of his favorites: never trust the teller, trust the tale. As it happens, this is also the advice of the central tradition of Marxist literary criticism from Marx and Engels through Georg Lukacs and Fredric Jameson. You can't deduce the politics of a work from the politics of its author. At the same time, Raskin also implicitly argues with the Lukacs tradition, which has never accepted that "the principal contradiction in the world" is, in Raskin's words, the contradiction "between the revolutionary peoples of Africa, Asia, and Latin America and the imperial powers". Nor has it asked that writers be revolutionaries. Inconsistently but entertainingly, Raskin celebrates D. H. Lawrence for any number of virtues, some of them personal rather than literary and all of them falling well short of an ideal solidarity with revolution. Lawrence is praised for revealing the true chaos that defenders of the social order try to hide. He is praised for imagining hopefully, sometime in the future, "a great united Europe of productive working people". And he is praised for leaving England in search of something he could not find there, perhaps the causal link between the deadness of English life and "life" in the strong sense, as it is lived in Italy or Mexico. Exile, an important modernist theme, is crucial to Raskin's underlying argument for his authors. It might look as if the modernists had given up on the nineteenth-century realist project of bringing out the underlying dynamics of their society - the project that is astonishingly renewed, for example, in what Season 2 of the HBO series The Wire says about the history of Baltimore longshoremen. Marxist criticism has often leveled this charge against the writers of Raskin's period: too much exploration of subjectivity, too much art for art's sake, too much exoticism. But for Raskin, the novelist's personal experience of life outside Europe is one wayperhaps - even the only way.of giving the novel the materials needed to focus on the global contradiction between colonized and colonizer. Nothing that can be said about England itself, not even the most probing exploration of class conflict, will sufficiently illuminate conflict on the global scale. As a big fan of Victorian novels, even the stay-at-home kind, I'm tempted to object that some of what Raskin says about the Victorians (not all of which is negative - he does see important virtues in Dickens, Emily Bronte, and even George Eliot) is tendentiously arranged to make the contrasting case for the modernists who came afterward. Is there too much resolution in the endings of Victorian novels? Well, maybe, but it depends on how good you are at recognizing loose ends, so to speak, that carry the logic of the novel beyond its final distribution of reward and punishment. These novels invest a lot of energy in issues that they cannot finally resolve, and that they all but admit they cannot resolve. In this sense, they do what Raskin's book also does: teach readers to recognize the contradictions in their lives by following out the contradictions lived by literary characters, even if no one can imagine any immediate or likely resolution to those contradictions. The writer Raskin feels closest to is probably Conrad. Conrad "is most representative of his time," Raskin says, "because he stands in sharpest opposition to it". But Raskin writes less like the perpetually agonized Conrad and more like the crowd-pleasing Kipling, perpetually at home with himself, who "untiringly carved out sharp, broad areas of contrast". There is something of a tradition here: various figures of the left, from George Orwell and Edmund Wilson to Edward W. Said, have had admiring things to say about this active champion of imperialism. Raskin may not quite make Kipling into a rebel (he tries), but he does have insightful things to say about him. He places Kim and the lama on the road in the utopian tradition of cross-racial buddies (Huck and Jim on the raft, Ishmael and Queequeg, or for that matter, The Wire again). "Kipling arranges the plot so that there is no conflict between Kim's commitment to imperialism and his love for the lama". Freedom in Kim doesn't mean colonial liberation; it means - wandering - freedom from material things". Nonetheless, there's something attractive about that freedom. For Raskin as for Said, this ascetic, all-male, socially utopian freedom seems to transcend the imperial context in which it emerges. Imperialism has its sneaky backdoor pleasures. As it turned out, the writers to whom Raskin is so generous belonged to a dying canon. It's not that readers have lost interest in them. With the possible exception of Joyce Cary, these writers have held up quite well. But for anyone who cares about literature and imperialism, it has become unthinkable to teach a course (as I did in the 1970s) that deals with these writers alone. Raskin describes Nazim Hikmet's poem "Pierre Loti," which he includes as another epigraph to the book, as "A Voice from the Third World". The phrase now sounds quaint. In 1971 voices from the Third World were not yet part of the Euro-American canon. Many of the texts that are now on the most-taught list of world literature or postcolonial literature courses in the United States had not yet been written. It is something of an understatement to say that in the decades that followed, the canon was dramatically reshaped. Achebe, Soyinka, Mahfouz, Salih, Djebar, Habibi, Faiz, Rushdie, Naipaul, C. L. R. James, Walcott, Lamming, Emicheta, Dangarembga, Cesaire, Garcia Marquez, Fuentes, Cortazar - these are only a few of the dozens and dozens of top-flight writers from former colonies who were suddenly recognized, in the years after Raskin's book came out, recognized not only for their literary virtues but as having something indispensable to say about the meaning of imperialism. From this point forth it was clear to all concerned that the Third World was now representing itself. If you teach Conrad's Heart of Darkness today, you have every reason to pair it with Season of Migration to the North, by the great Sudanese novelist Tayeb Salih, which both mimics and reverses Conrad by sending its African protagonist up the Thames and into the heart of an English darkness. Raskin's good guys are writers like George Washington Cable and D. H. Lawrence: First World authors who did a more respectable job with racism or colonialism than most of those around them. But now that white First World authors are no longer being discussed exclusively, it is not plausible to commend them in quite the same tone. Standards have changed. The other great change over the past forty years is of course a change in the horizon of political expectations. There seemed almost no limit to those expectations in 1971. Now, ten years into the new millennium, it's hard to find in our (financially threatened) newspapers news of flourishing social movements on which hopes like Raskin's could plausibly alight. "I am writing this now," Raskin says, "with the certainty that the oppressed will triumph over their oppressors. Imperialism, the American death machine, will surely die". In the original edition, American was spelled Amerikan. Readers even then differed over the politics of that k. So soon after the inauguration of the country's first African-American president, the gesture seems to have outlived whatever usefulness it once had. But optimists, which is to say those who have decided to scale back their hopes, still have some obligation to show that what they are making their uneasy peace with is something better than a death machine. George Orwell's failure, Raskin says, was "his failure to become a rebel.... He, unlike Kipling, knows that the empire is 'despotism with theft,' but he does not commit his life to toppling the despot from the throne". Those of us who have not committed our lives to toppling despots from the throne, despite all we know of despotism, may feel a bit defensive about the smaller things to which we have committed ourselves. Thinking back on how I've spent the decades since first reading The Mythology of Imperialism, I can see it's all too possible to tell a sad story of institutionalization. In this not unfamiliar telling, the political energies of the 1960s would have gotten channeled into universities and other existing institutions which, for all their lofty humanistic and humanitarian aspirations, are not in the despot-toppling business, and certainly not in the business of toppling themselves. Still, there are other stories to tell. What initially turned me on in this book was the sweet prospect of putting together political commitment with the life of the mind. Rereading it now makes me feel that this prospect is still very much alive. Commenting on Heart of Darkness, Raskin finds the discovery "that behind your affluence lies another man's poverty, that behind your ease lies another man's exploitation, that behind your life lies another man's death, that your fate is inextricably connected with the fate of millions of Black men and women whose existence you had denied". Thanks to the timely reissue of Jonah Raskin's classic, many new readers will be encouraged to make this discovery, and discoveries like it. --------19 of 19-------- Factory damaged haikus - sixteen syllables - yours for half price. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- - David Shove shove001 [at] tc.umn.edu rhymes with clove Progressive Calendar over 2225 subscribers as of 12.19.02 please send all messages in plain text no attachments vote third party for president for congress now and forever Socialism YES Capitalism NO To GO DIRECTLY to an item, eg --------8 of x-------- do a find on --8
- (no other messages in thread)
Results generated by Tiger Technologies Web hosting using MHonArc.