Friday, February 02, 2007

Questions to Accompany a Reading of Chapter Four of Nick's Book, #7

Q30. Nick writes, p.115: “The theorists may have been obscure scribblers, but middle-class arts students heard their ideas before moving on to journalism, publishing, teaching and politics.” Do you think that “the theorists” dominate Humanities education in the United Kingdom in the way in which Nick suggests here? Do you think Nick provides any reason to think that they do? Do you think it would have been helpful if Nick had named the courses and the universities that are most badly afflicted by "the theorists", to help sixth-form readers of his book who might be thinking about their applications to university?

Q31. Nick writes, p.115: “For the sexually voracious it had the further advantage of suiting those who enjoyed to excess the permissive freedoms the Sixties and Seventies had brought, and most definitely did not want others to think that they could be “judgemental” about their behaviour.” How judgmental do you think Nick wants to be about other people’s sexual behaviour?

Q32. Do you think Nick’s view that “What fuelled the anti-globalization movement was a passionate and often well-merited hatred of the rich world in which its supporters lived” [p.116] is well supported?

Q33. Why do you think Nick ignores the contribution that organisations in the developing world – many of them quite large – make and have made, to the anti-globalization movement?

Q34. When Nick mentions [p.117] that anti-globalisation protestors don’t often protest at Chinese Embassies, do you think he is ignoring the fact that one of the constituent parts of the anti-globalisation movement are the Free Tibet people, and that they often seem to be doing this?

Q35. Anti-globalization groups in the “no sweat” line of business often target the Western firms that manufacture goods in appalling conditions abroad. Do you think this is because they think they may be mistakenly thinking that practically effective actions are more important that ineffective displays of "solidarity", or for a different reason?

Q37. When Nick writes [still p.117] that the anti-globalizers “shamefully refused to demonstrate against… the rape of Zimbabwe by Robert Mugabe”, do you think he is ignoring the work of groups like the Crisis in Zimbabwe coalition, who are very much connected to the wider anti-globalization movement, and which is doing a great deal of useful work, especially with regard to the welfare of over a million refugees from Mugabe’s Zimbabwe? Do you think one reason why passages like this in Nick's book particularly piss off this reader is that he might have friends who are active in the anti-globalisation movement, and who have also been politically active in the Zimbabwean opposition at considerable personal risk? Do you think readers like me are really likely to be reading this bit of Nick's book, and nodding along, saying, “Yup, he’s really on to something here”?


Blogger ejh said...

It is not also both reasonable and bleeding obvious to observe that among the points of political demonstrations are:

1. to alert people to injustices of which they are not aware ; and

2. to attempt to change the position of one's own government?

Therefore, isn't it clear that there is rather more purpose in protesting about something which is not well-known (as Mugabe's abuses are, in the UK) and/or against governments which are supported by one's own (as the Mugabe government is not, in the UK)?

2/02/2007 02:48:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

thanks for acknowledging our work at your mention and concern is admirable. stay consciuos.

6/05/2007 09:38:00 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home