“Does Ideology Matter? - ZNet” plus 4 more |
- Does Ideology Matter? - ZNet
- Greek film awards axed - Variety
- O'Reilly cites dubious MRC report on alleged anti-Palin bias in the ... - Media Matters
- Radio Gaga - POLLSTAR
- Wolverines still angry at Boren - Toledo Blade
| Posted: 17 Nov 2009 08:31 PM PST "There has been a systematic failure in giving tribals a stake in the modern economic system—the alienation built over decades is taking a dangerous toll". . . "The systemic exploitation of our tribal communities. . .can no longer be tolerated." (Prime Minister, Manmohan Singh, Hindustan Times, 14/11/09, p.10)
I
A government report just released on the situation of India's tribals blames the government itself and companies like the Tatas and Essar for the disquiet in the tribal "hinterlands." As you would expect, the latter have righteously washed their distinguished hands of the insinuation.
Brought out by the Ministry of Rural Development, the report (some tribute to aspects of Indian democracy) in a chapter titled "State-connived land alienation" speaks forthrightly of how land grabs in India's mineral rich states—Orissa, Chattisgarh, Jharkhand—happen with "direct and indirect participation of revenue officials." To those must be added the more notorious segments of the political class, now most strikingly represented by the erstwhile chief minister of Jharkhand, Madhu Koda, who, by all accounts, is alleged to have made a pile of some Rs.4000/-crores over a span of five or six years of 'rule.' That Mr.Koda is himself a tribal leader must suggest how enticing and promising the dominant paradigms of 'development' are.
That the debate around the issue has penetrated the solid bastions of capitalist theorists is rather hearteningly evidenced by the following sub-heading in the editorial of Hindustan Times of Nov.,16: "'Tribal land grabs' aren't just an 'NGO' theory."
Conceding that some 40% of all lands used for "development" belongs to tribals, the report characterises the circumstance as "the biggest grab of tribal lands after Columbus."
I may recall that in an earlier column this writer had drawn attention to the significant coincidence that Naxalism afflicts precisely those regions which are richest in mineral wealth, where grabbers are the most active, and where poverty is the most abysmal (see "India's Left-Wing Extremism," Znet, 14/11/09).
So you might well ask where ideology factors into the matter.
Look at the epigraph closely, and you would conclude that the statement may well have come from a Maoist ideologue, whereas infact it comes from the Prime Minister of India.
Caveat: where the Maoist ideologue may have deduced from the language of the epigraph that exploitation and immiseration clearly identify themselves as India's chiefest "internal danger," the Prime Minister, having used those words, concludes—and repeatedly—that the greatest "internal danger" is Naxalism rather than that which breeds it.
Thus it is that ideologues who represent differing class interests interpret one and the same words differingly.
And, doing so, they unleash differing orders of praxis upon the republic, fraught with commensurate consequence for millions of citizens.
II
Having gotten thus far in acknowledgement, the state now demands that it is willing to discuss issues with the Maoists provided they put an end to violence—a stipulation that is made even as unprecedented mobilization of central and state forces in underway to launch on the Maoists in their forested hideouts.
As a confirmed pacifist, this writer endorses every call, whoever makes it, for a world without violence. I am on record as having more than once suggested to the Maoists that however righteous their armed struggle, violence is the wrong way to go about it. (see my "India, Nepal, and Left Praxis", Znet, June, 10,2006).
Yet, we must all alike countenance the question as to what it is that constitutes violence. Why is it that what is violence to some is often mere administrative fall-out or collateral damage to others, if not just retribution? And are the likes of the Maoists alone in making excuses?
At the extreme philosophical level, Gandhi never failed to underscore his conviction that violence is first born in a violent thought, so that even some of the kindest seeming acts of mankind can sometimes be vitiated by their origins in minds tainted with violence in other spheres of interest and activity. Or that an act of kindness born out of a self-regarding consideration is in itself evidence of a mind still unfree of violence. Often, as Marx was to point out, our charitable acts are ultimately meant only to keep in place disequilibriums of social and economic power. Something that the poet, Blake, was to formulate searingly in the couplet "Pity would be no more/If we did not make somebody poor."
But let that be.
Only a month or so ago, the Save the Children NGO brought home to us the following facts:
--one fifth of the children dying in the world are Indian;
--a total of 2 million die before their 5th birthday;
--one child dies every 15 seconds due to neo-natal diseases;
--more than 400,000 newborns die every year within a day of birth;
--one in three malnourished children worldwide is an Indian.
And a great deal more.
Ask yourself whether these are mere statistics or unconscionably violent consequences of state policy?
Whether some Malthusian order of nature can happily absolve the state of this violence?
Whether these and a plethora of other like exterminations—wrought upon Dalits, Women, and Minorities, in addition to the Tribals—on a daily basis since India's Independence can or cannot be attributed to the active/selective intent of coordinates of governance, of the acquisition and distribution of wealth, in effect to the particular and concrete ways in which the democratic system in India has received guidance?
Whatever be your conclusions will will-nilly trace back to ideological suppositions with regard to what it means to be "human" and to act as "human" subjects. Try it.
For now, the question that begs itself is why is it that some forms of violence are never endorsed by the classes as qualifying to be called violence, and if called, duly remedied in lasting ways?
Let me offer just the most obvious reference (as we now consider forms of violence that are obviously active and gruesome, and involve killing and maiming on the instant).
By anybody's reckoning, more numbers in Independent India have been killed and maimed in religiously-driven frenzies and pogroms and in industrial disasters than in Maoist shenanigans. The Delhi Sikh killings of 1984 and anti-Muslim Gujarat pogrom of 2002 alone between them may have vented more gruesome fury upon more numbers than the Naxals have killed since 1967 when peasant uprisings of post-Independent India first took shape in violent form.
And consider that the Bhopal Gas Tragedy of December 3, 1984 at the then Union Carbide factory from leaking Methyl Isocyanate has to date involved, by official account, close to 20,000 deaths. All of India's many insurgencies may not equal that number.
Yet we have never heard the state to say that such matters constitute any great "internal danger," have we? Or known the state to pursue the agents with any great resolve.
The reason is not far to seek, and the reason is, like it or not embedded in ideology.
Forms of violence that originate from the tactical or strategic requirements of the classes may evince moral outrage from the media, or sections of it, and sections of the citizenry, they are understood cannily, after all, to keep in place forms of social and cultural dominance needed to prop patterns of possession and distribution. Just as they are also useful in ploughing wage workers and other disgruntled lumpen sections of the population back from class issues to helpfully divisive considerations of identity.
Just as the devastation in Hiroshima and Nagasaki on a more impressive scale was intended after all to keep the godly races safe from the evil ones.
Must there not be a reason why whether in India or abroad, violence thus perpetrated by class affiliates rarely draws either justice or retribution upon known and powerful perpetrators? Justice and retribution are inevitably reserved for those whose violence after all proved insufficient and defeatable by greater violence. Examples will suggest themselves dime a dozen.
There is clear understanding, therefore, that whereas the occasional religious pogrom, caste atrocity, state-driven excess can be used to good purpose on the one hand and shamed by pious hand-wringing on the other, what the Maoists are up to seeks fundamentally to overturn the benign dispensations along which India's political economy thrives for the haves.
Far from "development" being an ideology-neutral issue, it is understood everywhere to be driven by the existing and projected interests of the classes; and all opposition to it equally by the "anti-national" resistance of the masses.
And no greater ideological tactic than to say that in India all resistance to current patterns of "development" is ideological, and thus tainted.
III
We may then be excused for our inability to subsribe to sermons about this, that, or the other in the abstract, including about what constitutes violence.
What is clear to me is that nothing suits the Indian state as well as being opposed with the force of arms, just as nothing would have suited the colonial British to have been opposed likewise by the machete and the occasional bomb blast.
A reality that Gandhi understood to perfection.
It is the "naked newborn babe" that draws the most force from mankind, just as it did in that first of fascist exterminators, Macbeth.
How often is humane intelligence defeated by doctrine is a text worth the pondering.
At a time when from the lowliest to the Prime Minister and the Hindustan Times (and what it represents) acknowledges the force of the resistors' argument, what a pity that the Maoists should be unwilling or unable to forge more imaginative and fruitful forms of engagement than peddling arms in hinterland hideouts.
Dig human history where you will, and no social forces have ever succeeded in obtaining all; on the other hand, they have often settled for nothing after great losses of life.
Contrarily, any state that thinks that arguments however potent and acknowledged can be obliterated by the force of superior arms has little cause to think that it embodies the fine principles of republicanism.
And the time to weigh these matters on either side is now.
If indeed the "systemic exploitation of our tribals cannot be tolerated," as the Prime Minister has said, does it not follow that the system needs to be revisited?
badri.raina@gmail.com
This content has passed through fivefilters.org. |
| Greek film awards axed - Variety Posted: 17 Nov 2009 07:34 PM PST Industryites protest at outdated film law hits eventGreek industryites who pulled their pics from the Thessaloniki Film Festival in a dispute over the country's outdated film funding laws have forced the cancellation of next Monday's Greek State Film Awards.More than 200 directors, producers and screenwriters withdrew 52 films from the fest, undermining the state awards, which selects winners from Greek films that unspool at the fest. The current law, introduced more than 20 years ago, should provide around $4.5 million in public funding from a levy on cinema ticket sales and on public and commercial TV stations. The Filmmakers of Greece (FoG) -- a group of younger industryites formed in March -- claim the money is not being fully channeled to them. They accuse the government of a lack of transparency and failing to introduce production tax incentives of the sort common across the European Union. FoG's decision to pull 18 features, six documentaries and 28 shorts from Thessaloniki, left the organizers of Greek's leading international film showcase with a scant selection of the past year's 65 local productions in a year it was celebrating its 50th anniversary. Instead, FoG staged a week of screenings that drew audiences of more than 5,000 at the Elli Cinema in Athens just before the Thessaloniki fest opened on Friday. A new national film law is "crucial for the survival and evolution of the Greek film industry and its position in Europe and the rest of the world," the group said. Its action comes at a time when Greek cinema has received public interest and international acclaim in Cannes, Berlin and Locarno this year for films that include "Dogtooth" by Yorgos Lanthimos, "Strella" by Panos Koutras and Filipos Tsitos' "Plato's Academy." Political wrangling over updating and revising the film law began five years ago but has failed to produce a consensus. A new Ministry of Culture initiative set up last year and headed by director Costa Gavras identified a need for reform of public film funding and the introduction of tax incentives. It foundered when early elections brought about a change of government this year. Speaking at the fest's opening, new culture and tourism minister Pavlos Geroulanos pledged to work on a film law. But protestors are unimpressed. "There is a lack of a general cinema culture or understanding of its importance as a cultural product and export in Greece," says FoG member Alexis Alexiou, whose first film, "Tale 52," screened at the Rotterdam and Toronto fests last year. The attention has done little to give Alexiou's next project much of a domestic boost. He has received around $300,000 from the Greek Film Center for "Fade," a Danish co-production, but is struggling to find enough money to begin shooting. "We do not understand films, see films or show films in Greece," Alexiou said. Part of the problem may be that the country seems intent on resting on its historic cultural laurels, relying on ancient archaeology and what Alexiou calls a "Parthenon complex" to project an international cultural image. What that means, Alexiou says, is that the modern issues of Greek society and politics fail to find a film voice in a Europe where countries, such as Romania, with much weaker economies than Greece, have created their own film culture. Konstantinos Kontovrakis, head of the Greek film program at Thessaloniki, said it would have been "disastrous" had the State Film Awards gone ahead based on the handful local films shown at the fest. He is critical of FoG, which failed to send any official representation to the fest although individual members like Alexiou were present. "It is very sad that the filmmakers who are protesting were not here to support their cause. We have international press and television reporters at the festival keen to cover Greek cinema and current issues. Greek filmmakers cannot afford to close a window on the outside world at this time." The fest did make its own effort to highlight the issues that confront Greek filmmakers. In a panel discussion hosted by the fest's Agora market, French, German and British industryites outlined the public funding systems in their own countries. Yorgos Papalios, president of the Greek Film Center, said the wealth of public funding for films in France and Germany left him feeling "sick." "Greece must have a film law that represents its culture," Papalios said, noting that the country almost lost location filming of "Mamma Mia!" to Malta when petty bureaucracy threatened to scupper shooting on a Greek island.
This content has passed through fivefilters.org. |
| O'Reilly cites dubious MRC report on alleged anti-Palin bias in the ... - Media Matters Posted: 17 Nov 2009 08:31 PM PST On the November 17 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor, host Bill O'Reilly referenced a 2008 report by the Media Research Center's Culture & Media Institute, which claims that out of 69 stories on network news about Sarah Palin in the two-week period examined, 37 were negative, 30 were neutral and only two were positive. O'Reilly further complained, citing the report: "Twenty-one of the stories portrayed Sarah Palin as unintelligent and unqualified. Eight stories used clips from Saturday Night Live to ridicule her." O'Reilly added: "Is that kind of presentation an accident? No." But the report O'Reilly cited was more a function of the MRC's shilling for Palin than any serious media research. The tone of the report is more about complaining that anything negative was reported about Palin at all, what was reported didn't reflect the McCain campaign's talking points, and (channeling Stephen Colbert) facts and reality have a well-known liberal bias. The report's scope was carefully limited to only the broadcast news networks -- no Fox News -- and only to coverage in "the two weeks beginning September 29 and ending October 12," thus avoiding having to discuss the period immediately following Palin's nomination and Republican National Convention speech, when news coverage of her was largely -- and perhaps disproportionately -- positive. The report conflated negative coverage with bias, scoring stories by "negative," "positive" and "neutral," then deciding that the network that ran the most "negative" stories versus "neutral" or "positive" ones was the "most biased." Despite suggesting that the "negative" stories were not factual or fair, no evidence is offered to support it. The report's basic premise is that all news about Palin must be balanced or positive, whether or not the facts call for it. The report complained: "Most observers agree that Palin did not perform well in the [Katie] Couric interview, but the network coverage dwelled on the worst moments, making Palin look as unprepared and inexperienced as possible." After noting the focus on Palin's refusal to give a straight answer to Couric's question about what magazines and newspapers she read, the report further stated:
The report doesn't mention the fact that Palin could have avoided that kind of focus by simply giving a straight answer to the question. The report then baselessly asserted that "Palin's strong performance during the October 2 vice-presidential debate sucked the oxygen out of the attacks on her qualifications and intellect," failing to note that polls taken immediately after the debate found that a majority of viewers thought that Joe Biden won. The report also complained that Tina Fey's dead-on Saturday Night Live impression of Palin got media attention, calling the impression "demeaning" and adding: "Funny stuff, but is it news?" After lamenting that the networks reported "criticism of Palin from a handful of conservative writers," the report added, "The networks failed to mention that Palin enjoyed the enthusiastic support of far more influential conservative pundits, including premier talk show hosts Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Laura Ingraham and Mark Levin." So a guy who said, as Levin did, "It's not the National Organization of Liberal Women. It's the National Organization of Ugly Women," is a "premier" conservative radio host in the eyes of the MRC? The report went on to express annoyance that the networks were "depicting Palin as nothing more than GOP presidential nominee John McCain's attack dog. ... Rather than investigate the substance of Palin's accusations against Obama, the media suggested the criticism was somehow improper." In fact, Palin was the McCain campaign's attack dog, substantive allegations or no. Finally, the report arrived at its key bit of annoyance: "The networks failed to acknowledge adequately that Palin was doing more during her speeches than attacking Obama. She was also talking about issues, McCain's plans for the nation, and her own qualifications." In other words, the networks weren't mindlessly repeating McCain campaign talking points to the MRC's satisfaction. This is a study that simply can't be taken seriously and must be seen through the MRC's pro-Palin, anti-media agenda. This content has passed through fivefilters.org. |
| Posted: 17 Nov 2009 08:24 PM PST Let's do this good news, bad news, good news. First up is a chance for Gaga fans to "get close" to the singer when she kicks off the U.S. portion of her "Monster Ball" tour at the Citi Performing Arts Center in Boston next month. Winners of MySpace Music's latest contest will be flown in for the evening, kitted out with video equipment, allowed to sit in on rehearsal, interview the lady herself and film the show. At the end of the night, footage shot by the budding cinematographers will be turned in to be edited together into a "comprehensive concert piece shot by her biggest fans." Hopeful Gaga-maniacs should submit a video explaining why they're worthy for the honor to the singer's MySpace page. Lady G will choose the three lucky fans from among the thousands who will no doubt apply. Now for that bad news: It seems a pesky rule will keep Gaga out of the running for best new artist at the 52nd annual Grammy Awards. Ironic isn't it? As Variety points out, Lady G has "captured the pop culture zeitgeist like no other act since Madonna" and "scored multiple No. 1 singles and sold more than 1.53 million copies of her Cherry Tree/Interscope debut." However, because her single "Just Dance" was nominated for best dance recording at the 51st annual Grammys, she's not eligible for the new artist award this time out. That's probably music to the ears of acts like Zac Brown Band, Keri Hilson, Kevin Rudolf, Owl City, MGMT, Diane Birch, Cage the Elephant, 3Oh!3, Carolina Liar, David Cook, Kristina De Barge, Ingrid Michaelson, Asher Roth and Silversun Pickups, all of whom Variety places in the running for the trophy. Okay Gaga fans, take a deep breath and let's move on to happier topics. "Video Phone," the highly-anticipated and much-talked-about collaboration between Beyoncé and Lady Gaga hit MTV at midnight. While the five-minute-plus video is fashion forward, definitely eye-catching and unquestionably smoking hot (Beyoncé as Bettie Page? Fierce indeed!), what's most remarkable about it is the simplicity of Gaga's appearance. There are no masks, hats, outer space wigs or elaborate dresses in sight. During her segment in the clip, the singer is clad in a simple white dress with her blonde hair in sexy curls and her face in high-fashion makeup. But don't take my word for it. Check it out for yourself. Apparently the change was Gaga's choice. The singer told MTV her look was a nod to Beyoncé's style. "I said, 'I want to do you in your video, and I want to tribute you. I want to dress up like you,'" she explained. "And Hype Williams … was so excited." Speaking of Gaga's sometimes, ahem, unique sense of style, it seems she's caught the imagination of more than just the record buying public. At last weekend's 30th anniversary gala for the Los Angeles Museum of Contemporary Art, where she performed her new song "Speechless" while clad in an outfit that looked like a cross between a wedding cake and something Marie Antoinette would have been at home in, celebs couldn't wait to offer their opinions on her. "I don't know about everybody else, but I just love the fact that she's like, 'Yes, this is what I'm wearing, and yes, this is how I'll be performing,'" Christina Ricci told MTV News. "And anyone who has that sort of self-confidence and the balls to sort of be like, 'I'm a fantastic creature. You'd better love me.' is OK in my book." Marilyn Manson's former gal Rose McGowan gave the singer props for bringing showmanship back to the musical stage, saying, "I love what she wears. Performers are performers for a reason. Give me a show." And former Garbage vocalist Shirley Manson, who's no slouch herself in the image department, complimented Gaga's courage. "I love that she's out there doing what she's doing and taking chances and sort of living outside the mainstream in some way but still managing to infiltrate it," she told MTV. "I'm so grateful to her for being out there and not being afraid to be laughed at and taking chances and risks." For complete info on MySpace Music's "Get Close to Lady Gaga" contest, click here. This content has passed through fivefilters.org. |
| Wolverines still angry at Boren - Toledo Blade Posted: 17 Nov 2009 08:31 PM PST ANN ARBOR - David Moosman has started all 11 games on the offensive line for the University of Michigan football team, and it's beginning to feel stale. Boren, a junior who started every game for UM in 2007, offered some harsh words about the program and coach Rich Rodriguez in the wake of his transfer. Absent under Rodriguez, according to Boren, was a family atmosphere built on mutual respect. rautullo@theblade.com or 419-724-6160 This content has passed through fivefilters.org. |
| You are subscribed to email updates from cultural - Bing News To stop receiving these emails, you may unsubscribe now. | Email delivery powered by Google |
| Google Inc., 20 West Kinzie, Chicago IL USA 60610 | |
0 comments:
Post a Comment