Hard News: Scuffling and screaming on The Left
245 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 … 3 4 5 6 7 … 10 Newer→ Last
-
Are we really seriously considering that NZ's anarchists, who from my experience are at worst politically incompetent and confused (not to mention very angry with someone) and at best really lovely human beings who have some good ideas about how we can live together better (in peace I should point out), are somehow in the same abhorrent political category as neo-Nazis?
Anarchists are a convenient whipping group for those of a more mainstream political bent. I don't share their views. I do respect some of them (as I respect some in Labour, even a few in National) for living their values. I could never ever say the same about neo-Nazis.
(And as an aside, has this thread now been Godwin-ed?)
-
I walked into the conference having 'shame' and 'scab' yelled at me, and then went straight into a meeting where we discussed what mechanisms to implement to help improve the lot of low paid workers like myself and my workmates.
Yeah, I have some sympathy with that but I don't think my partner will - let's just say he's seen enough of the really nasty treatment some union folks hand out to non-union members in his industry that the phrase 'karmic debt' may come up before long. Not for the first time recently, it's really, really difficult to feel over much sympathy for either side.
-
(A massive digression from the topic - sorry Russell :-)
I think Churchill's prime achievement in WW2 was to lead a government that delivered total mobilisation to win the war. Like the North in the American Civil War, the allies didn't win because they had clever generals and braver troops - they won through application of a preponderance in men and material. Plus, equally, the immense sacrifice made by the people of the Soviet Union.
The problem with criticism of strategic bombing is that it generally doesn't consider what would have happened if there had been no such activity:
- the Luftwaffe would not have been required to retaliate by bombing Britain and would have been able to concentrate on support for ground operations- German war production would have undoubtedly been greater without the damage and disruption caused by bombing
- British civilian morale would not have had the consolation that we were at least retaliating against Germany in one sphere of operations
Plus, although Churchill's peripheralist strategies have been widely criticised, the North African/Italian campaign, which one could regard as another example of peripheralism, was a success both in taking German controlled territory and in providing Stalin with a concrete piece of allied combat involvement.
-
Are we really seriously considering that NZ's anarchists ... are somehow in the same abhorrent political category as neo-Nazis?
No, I think they're supposed to be Churchill, and Tame Iti et al are the Nazis. Or something like that. The original quote was just supposed to show that some people will have sympathy for other people they disagree with if they're being attacked by a common enemy.
I'm no military historian, so from my point of view Churchill's greatest achievement was to get a cuvee of Pol Roger named after him.
-
I'm no military historian, so from my point of view Churchill's greatest achievement was to get a cuvee of Pol Roger named after him.
According to legend, he'd drink a quart of the stuff before getting out of bed in the morning. That's the way to win a war.
-
RB, I haven't read all the blog today, and I know it's mainly about scuffling etc but this article on ADSL speeds perked me up when I read it. Do you have a comment? Looks promising.
-
RIch
Most of the strategic bombing criticism seems to focus on the moraility of it rather than the objective of destroying means of production ie it wasn't accurate enough and so there were bound to be civilian casualties.
The counter to that is, the war was a total one and relied on civilians to be prosecuted, so such casualties were acceptable as part of total war.
-
Tom S " In WWII, he loathed Ghandi and was utterly opposed to home rule for India, rightly seeing it as the end of his beloved British Empire."
I was wondering where the Churchill quote would go & I think a comparison with Churchill as Clark and Ghandi as Iti could be done as a question of home rule applies to both.
These are loose comparisons - same game different leagues.
-
re: churchill - what tom and rich said.
the man was a giant of this time, but utterly fallible, and a worthless strategist. most his "wins" were slick with the blood of commonwealth soldiers.
it'd be more accurate to say hitler lost the war than churchill won it.
-
I was wondering where the Churchill quote would go & I think a comparison with Churchill as Clark and Ghandi as Iti could be done as a question of home rule applies to both.
Are you making a concerted effort to make each and every post more fatuous than the last, or does it just come naturally? What on earth would be gained from such a comparison other than a realisation that the situations are totally unrelated?
Tame Iti as Ghandi? He's even further from being Ghandi than he is from being Michael Collins...
-
Woo! Serious derailment!
Carry on folks -- I have to go and talk to some students about Teh Internets.
-
Are we really seriously considering that NZ's anarchists... are somehow in the same abhorrent political category as neo-Nazis?
No, we're not. We're attempting to figure out the alliance between them and Tame Iti's crowd, an alliance which certainly baffles me. Follow the quote trail:
Tom Semmens:
I have a wider question for the lefty-left - why do people who profess such anarchistic and revolutionary views make such a knee jerk alliance with a bunch of reactionary, patriarchal tribalists with a fixation on the 19th century?
Rich of Observationz:
I think Winston Churchill gave one answer to this after the German invasion of Russia:
If Hitler invaded hell, I would at least make a favourable reference to the DevilMe:
So, if anarchists are happy to ally themselves with Tame Iti on the basis of "My enemy's enemy is my friend," does the same principle apply to allying themselves with neo-Nazis?
In what sense is it not a fair question, given the preceding discussion?
PS - yes, the thread has been thoroughly Godwined. Everyone loves WW2.
-
Finn I clearly qualified the the question and still think it is valid.
It has been compared to the sacking of Parihaka & so not unreasonable to explore other comparisons. Here's a little bit that draws on that too.
"Parihaka historian Te Miringa Hohaia has studied the life and writings about the man of mana. "Te Whiti was one of those great leaders. We had Mahatma Gandhi, Martin Luther-King, Nelson Mandela and Te Whiti o Rongomai.
"Te Whiti was the forerunner of them all."
Te Miringa Hohaia: Beside Te Whiti's memorial at Parihaka.Te Miringa says Gandhi knew about Te Whiti. "He learnt about Te Whiti from an Irish delegation that visited Parihaka and then had a meeting with Gandhi. Although Gandhi was already committed to non-violence, the impact of finding out about Te Whiti must have been startling."
http://www.pukeariki.com/en/stories/conflict/pacifistofparihaka.htm
-
That's nice Michael, and I'm sure that most people would be happy to compare Gandhi to Te Whiti.
However your original post (below) linked Ghandi and Iti, who, I think we'll all agree, isn't really Te Whiti at all.
I was wondering where the Churchill quote would go & I think a comparison with Churchill as Clark and Ghandi as Iti could be done as a question of home rule applies to both.
-
a comparison with Churchill as Clark and Ghandi as Iti could be done
Who do you think would be most flattered by the comparison?
-
Tom B - Iti would be clearly.
Clarks favourite leader from history is Cromwell. Churchill needed a war to continue to hold power & Clark has done extremely well without a threat of war in/on NZ - well almost. -
Come on Kyle - Te Whiti was widely despised at the time.
Ghandi did sleep with the daughters/wives of his followers, to test himself. hmm -
No, we're not. We're attempting to figure out the alliance between them and Tame Iti's crowd, an alliance which certainly baffles me.
Participation is not the same as an alliance. It certainly appears to me that there were some wananga being held in Tuhoe with a kaupapa of bushcraft, survival skills and possibly some firearms use/training (perhaps for hunting purposes, who knows ?).
Clearly, any participants thought they would gain something out of attending, even if they weren't given a full programme of what to expect.
So, some members of Tuhoe held a wananga and some non-Tuhoe activists attended. Where's the alliance ?
I spoke with Keith Locke over the weekend and he said he tried to get some trousers to Rongomai Bailey (he was arrested in his camo pants), and the list of bullshit and runaround he got from the prison service agrees with Margaret B's assertion about the hassles the Urewera 17 have been facing.
That being said, I watched TV3s footage and thought the police were generally restrained, although towards the end of the footage they started pushing people around for no apparent reason. Not that I think anyone needed to be arrested, apart from megaphone-guy (even the dude on the roof of the police van could have been warned instead of arrested).
-
"Where's the alliance?"
Quite. This is begging the question. Speculation about why the anarcho-hippies and Tuhoe are allied only make sense if we already believe there is some sort of plot.
-
Jared Phillips won't lay charges, but won't accept an apology:
Mr Phillips today said he was disappointed Mr Richards and his wife, Service and Food Workers Union delegate Jill Ovens, had not boycotted Labour's conference over the police raids issue.
"While I won't lay charges, I won't let Len absolve himself by accepting his apology," he said in a statement.
He said the pair - former Alliance supporters - had moved to the right after the collapse of the party and accused them of abandoning wider left-wing causes.
Gawd. Spare me from Left-wing infighting. Really.
-
Quite. This is begging the question. Speculation about why the anarcho-hippies and Tuhoe are allied only make sense if we already believe there is some sort of plot.
A virtual chocolate fish for a correct use of the phrase "begging the question"!
You're right: "alliance" has a shade of meaning that isn't supported by available facts.
-
"...Participation is not the same as an alliance. .."
Hmmm. With that sort of tortured logic I can understand why so many of the arrested think they are innocent:
".Your honour, my client submits participation in terrorism is not the same as being an ally of terrorists..."
I am afraid the subtleness of the argument dissolves in the face of common sense.
-
That being said, I watched TV3s footage and thought the police were generally restrained, although towards the end of the footage they started pushing people around for no apparent reason.
The guy trying to put his shoe on? Yeah, they could have let him put his shoe on, but even that got a bit farcical when the other guy leaned over him and started falling on him: it was a sort of like a game of protester Twister. He could equally have walked 5 metres and put his shoe on there though ...
But like I said, I don't think I'd have been that calm if I'd had people screaming and swearing at me and calling me fascist scum for the past two hours ...
I'm reminded of something I wrote on another thread about some activists' tendency to dehumanise people they disagree with, to see them solely as symbols of the state or the Labour Party or whatever.
There was one post on the Indymedia thread where the poster was on the verge of sympathising with the Maori cop who had that stupid kid spit in his face -- but then said something like "it's just a shame he didn't put down his helmet and join the protest". It's just not realistic ...
-
"participation in terrorism"
Oh Tom, why are we wasting million on the criminal justice system when we could just engage your common sense?
-
Stephen J, I was just exploring a potential line of defence.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.