On 2008-05-07 22:26 +0100, nada allegedly wrote:
> On May 7, 10:46 am, Daniele Futtorovic
> <da.futt.newsLOVELYS...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>> On 2008-05-07 00:31 +0100, Vngelis allegedly wrote:
>>
>>> The racialist Walters who originally argued there were no
>>> settlers then argued there were using as a point of reference
>>> what I stated about the PAC in S Africa (in other words
>>> backpeddling like a slimy politician) seems to assume that what
>>> characterises a settler is what others believe they are. In other
>>> words when I stated that despite the whites being in S Africa
>>> for 3 centuries makes them no more African than an Albanian
>>> becomes Greek because he is in Greece for one and a half decades.
>>> The whites in Bolivia consider the indigenous to be Indian and
>>> seek to distance themselves from them in a racialist manner. Why
>>> shouldn't they be expelled by the indigenous Indian
>>> nationalists?
>> Because it would be their (the indigenous nationalists') undoing.
>>
>> A racist with a gun is dangerous. A racist without a gun is just a
>> pathetic loonie.
>>
>> Racism is an ideology. You should know as well as I do that
>> ideologies don't drive the world. Economics (and their more
>> sophisticated form, class struggle) do. A racist ideology can at
>> best ever be a tool to provide moral justification for an existing
>> social inequality. Remove the inequality (expropriation), the
>> ideology will fart itself out.
>>
>> -- DF.
>
> DF, you are trying to give a rational(ist) argument with a
> fundementally irrational person, someone who isn't even political.
> For example, he *projects* onto the PAC a "throw the settlers out"
> position they never had. The irrationality of his view...that
> "settlers" (as only defined by himself) have to leave every country
> they reside in even if the m***** don't call for this shows how such
> irrationality (and a bizzare form of racialism) he's sunk to.
>
> Further he delibertly falsifies my position by a false reductionist
> argument "The racialist Walters who originally argued there were no
> settlers..." rather a pathedic lie. He further lies when he writes
> "...what characterises a settler is what others believe they are." He
> refuses to look at the totality of a discussion to draw conclusions.
> That the PAC defines what a settlers is is good enough for me. For
> V, who now casts himself as the consiousness (I know, a joke if there
> ever was one) of the PAC (and other BC groups I suppose) by seeking
> to be the arbritor of "settlerism". Irrational.
>
> I accept the PLO Charter version as well: Jews who accept Palestinian
> rule and stop seeking Jewish exclusiveness can stay, those that
> percist in Zionist practices are to leave.
>
> So...DF, "settlerism" is not what they say, but the way they ACT.
> (something I've stated about a dozen times now).
>
> An Albanian who lives in Greece for 15 years (or a Greek who lives in
> Albania for the same period) is still Albanian, but he's part of the
> Greek working class, whether British and Greek Citizen Vngelis
> believes it or not. Same is true for the Polish worker in London.
> Niether are "Settlers" because they are not trying to colonize the
> country to the exclusion of the "native" populations. That ****tends a
> "settler state" mentality.
>
David,
I pretty much agree with the definition of "settler" you have elaborated
throughout this thread, that the decisive criteria is whether they
consider themselves part of a foreign nation, or instead of the nation
they're dwelling in. I don't necessarily agree with the practical
consequences you've spoken of, but neither do I disagree -- in my view
they're essentially dependent on the specific situations and my
knowledge of those which were discussed is too limited for me to take
any specific position.
At any rate, in my opinion the aspect of settler or not is mostly
irrelevant, or rather ought to be from a point of view of class
struggle. What in this context matters is not whither some person came
but whether his an exploiteur or not. In the same way, while I hold the
view that control of immigration (meaning, in practice, a stop to
immigration) would be in the interest of workers in developed industrial
countries, I hold it that such a policy should involve accepting,
integrating those who've already immigrated into such a country.
I also agree that Vngelis' posts, in this thread as well as in the "MIA"
thread, are a far cry from rational for the most of them, and that he
seems to be frantically aiming, or should I say "throwing dirt" at you
personally. I've been off a while, but reading up some of the post of
the last months, I found myself more often than not wondering, and not
being able to decide, whether I was drunk or the posters (not limited to
Vngelis).
Still, there have been enough situations where I was agreeing with
Vngelis, seeing more truth/sense in his positions than in his
contendents', for me to know that he is not "fundementally irrational",
even least "not even political". So I could probably spend my time
pondering whether he popped a fuse or got replaced by an MI6 bot -- only
that I won't, simply taking what's written as it is written, regardless
of the author, to some extent at least.
In that sense, please allow me to counter rationally (according to your
qualification) such arguments as I deem fit to be countered. After all,
there isn't like an oversupply of rationality in our world, so it
shouldn't hurt too much.
--
DF.
|
