It has real consequences inside their own coalition
Nimrod now!
L
Karibu sana.
Greek names of this kind remain absolutely undefeated
And there’s some advantage to hearing it all told from one informed observer’s POV.
Lonsdale’s essays add up to a quite complete story of the period: “The Conquest State”, “The Politics of Conquest” “The Development of the Colonial State” in Vol I; “Colonial Administration & the origins of the Emergency”, and “Wealth, Poverty and Civic Virtue in Kikuyu Political Thought” in Vol II.
Volume I and II of Lonsdale and Berman’s “Unhappy Valley”
Hi
luke edwards an obvious example, but there is a culture in british journalism running all the way to westminster politics that the job is to repeat the thing the source told you, not to critically engage and figure out the truth.
Not complicity. Joint commission.
Full text of the International Association of Genocide Scholars Resolution on the Situation in Gaza: genocidescholars.org/wp-content/u...
This isn’t just good writing, it’s exactly *right*. I look at 600-and-more-year-old cathedrals and think how the fuck would you do that now, let alone then?
i get why this is not something foreign governments would do easily, but they ought to consider X to be a subversion operation and ban it
True. Also suggests that Appiah’s distinction between racialists (race: real, basic) and racists (race: real, basic, important, supports moral distinctions & justifies animus) still has work to do: American progressives take beatings for attitudes closer to the first.
Thread
anyway if you want to find out more about empire, migration and British culture, BUY MY BOOK
Thread
BREAKING: Anas Sarwar has appeared to have called the onslaught in Gaza a genocide for the first time publicly after he was confronted by a protester during a speech The Scottish Labour leader was interrupted by an activist during a press event in Glasgow
“As a visitor to the States, you can work a very inexpensive piece of magic: buy a newspaper and watch your own country disappear.”
An American life 🧵
Edinburgh O'Clock - 3 minutes to every hour. - we run fast so you don't miss your train. A new hourly image to brighten your day taken in #Scotland very often #Edinburgh and shared with love by Tom Duffin @tomduffinphotos.bsky.social. Please repost with your own caption.
I reviewed a book on Cold War era UK human rights activism and I found it fascinating that neither the actors in the text not the author mention Northern Ireland at all. Just a completely different thing that is not relevant to human rights politics for all involved.
Thread
Coercive citation. Figures there would be a word for it and that I would not know it. #hps #philsci share.google/AVUjcTHNjodC...
Diana Week was extraordinary - a brief window into the popular hagiology of the Middle Ages, complete with institutions trying to encourage and profit from it. The only thing that came close to it was the Queen's death - another exercise in vernacular religiosity, but one that felt less weird.
Remembering that I once dreamt I’d beaten Pazzagli from the penalty spot and got up euphoric.
Remembering that we once turned down Arnautović because character.
Something to be said for the brevity and directness of Somali naming too
Diogenes, Diokles, Diomedes, Herakles, Heraklitus &c are pretty good, especially if you just keep making your first-born son after his parental grandfather
The last method makes Cain, Tiglath Pileser, Hophra (or some other Pharaoh) or Sennacherib all possible AFAICT. Lots of villains in the OT.
One of my more vain frustrations as a pundit is that the rise of an incredibly straightforward and psychologically transparent politics of hierarchy & domination is boring to write about week after week. There are not exactly *developments* of MAGA ideology so much as repeated *iterations.*
If you’re a feminist you can spend your whole life grappling with the inadequacy of narrative to convey reality or summon enough political will to enact change. But if you’re a fascist you can just use narrative as a hammer to claim ownership of reality and beat material conditions into conformity.
Right. That’s enough internet for now.
That looks a lot like an invitation to vote for a genocidaire because they’re a genocidaire (if also a slightly less bad one than an actual or hypothetical other one).
some other good stuff they might do while committing a slightly smaller genocide than might be expected; rather, the invitation is to vote for them because they’ll perpetrate the smaller one.
Seems to under-describe what’s being asked for. You should vote for them *because* their perpetration of the killing makes a worse killing less likely. The vote isn’t just for
coalition, I think there’s enough evidence of ideological conflict to justify us in turning down your interpretation of that sentence.
He then points to Mboya’s ideological line (the social democrat who disdained “socialist adventurists”). Since Mboya was the right’s main weapon against the KANU left, and since he was ideologically motivated by Nyong’o’s own admission, and on two of the central issues that split the nationalist
Earlier, he gives two examples of two consequential ideological differences: land (what to do with it? How to distribute it?) and the point of the state (where should accumulation happen?)
I think we were told that we had to actively help the perpetrators in committing the acts if that cut net deaths. But presumably if you can faultlessly help someone do something, you can usually do it yourself (if I can help someone cross the road, fill their tax forms, or donate money to a charity)
I don’t think you have to do much more than write it out to see why it can’t hope to persuade many (perhaps any).
(I think your view is even stronger: that you have a weak obligation to help him.)
view is that it’s not just fine to let him do it: it’s *obviously* fine.
Yes. I think this is a consequence of your view. If Théoneste Bagosora laid out a plan to kill a million Tutsi in 100 days, and then added a causal rider—something like “if you let me kill a million innocents, you will have prevented the death by other causes of a million and one innocents”—your
The Rwandan-denier reasoning tends to be a little more direct: they’ll just say that that since it wasn’t as bad as Germany, it isn’t really a genocide, or it’s partly excusable &c
I thought your story (one of many, AFAICT) was that if there was some worse instance of a kind of wrongdoing, then the less bad ones were at least possibly permissible (if only to stop the worst one happening, say).
be saved by killing and eating one of your children. I’d still recommend against intra-family cannibalism.
I think the thing to notice is that some act doesn’t have to be the worst ever to be of a kind which you shouldn’t do or be complicit in. Maybe killing and eating one of your children will save 5 children elsewhere. Maybe, just maybe, you can think up a case where a very large number of children may
Rwanda is less bad than Nazi Germany. A frequent talking point was that since it wasn’t as bad as Germany, it was excusable, or understandable—that those who had done it were in some way excused or justified by some causally independent event that happened to be worse.
Every good wish.
A good reason (sufficient, IHMO) not to carry Biden’s water for the genocide was the foreseeable corruption that would follow. You’ll eventually talk yourself into the take that even if it was genocide, *ours was better* or at least less bad.
Sophie’s Choice II: the *only* moral move (and an easy one too) is to send both kids to the gas chamber and to forget who imposed the choice in the first place.
This reminds me of the great Mary Midgley’s observation (in her critique of social contract theory) that justice is most pressing when it concerns the weak & vulnerable. The concept loses its meaning if it only serves the powerful. We learn a lot about Trump’s regime from this.
*they’ll
Worth taking into account, since there’ll end up corrupting folk (so we have reason to pay attention even apart from their being annoying).
Whatever you think of that view, it has the consequence that the nationalist coalition wasn’t simply an elite arrangement: it was responsive to popular demand for land, representation, and a national programme; and its responsiveness to that demand for a national programme was a cause of its fall.
deep trouble.
His reasoning seems to be that the popular pressure for a plan once independence was won made intra-coalition ideological differences very difficult to hide. And once they were out in the open, and couldn’t be deferred because independence had actually been secured, the nationalist coalition was in
No. He thinks that both parties included and represented ordinary people who badly needed land; that the handling of land was a cause of the breakup of the nationalist coalition; and that the mass expectation of a clear plan for independence was a *cause* of the coalition crackup.
For extra drama, the genocidaire possible world is probably actual: there are plausible cases (here: Rwandan) of genocidaires who saved as many as they killed. It seems to follow, on the story we’re offered, that they should be treated as we would treat those who killed no one at all.
Roughly: what matters is net deaths, not how they come about. But then we have no reason to choose between the agent in A (world with 0 net deaths where a genocidaire kills as many as they save) and in B (no genocidaire, 0 net deaths).
Maybe I misunderstood this, but the reasoning here seems to be that, for example, Rwandans who both helped in the killing and saved some victims (in this case two each) acted at least as well as those who didn’t kill anyone.
And yet even he thinks there *was* a strong coalition here.
In a previous life before he was the father of a very successful actress, Nyong’o was a v good political theorist. His take is probably the academic read of the history closest to your view:
That African nationalists divided once power was won is not strong evidence that they lacked the relevant agreement before their ends were achieved.
That’s slightly orthogonal to the point at issue, which is that the left-liberal coalition contra fascism is weak b/c it lacks strong agreement about ends or means; and, incidentally, that African nationalists had broad agreement about ends, and more agreement about means than this coalition.
The Kant Car
BREAKING: At least 78 Palestinians, including 32 aid seekers, have been killed in Israeli attacks across Gaza since dawn on Sunday, medical sources have told Al Jazeera. 🔴 LIVE updates: aje.io/7i3qdp
That coalition was able to hold together very different people, and it had a fairly strongly held common view of the desired end. The left-liberal coalition lacks that clarity of purpose.
You have two quite different personalities—one quite ideological and a bit of a leftish puritan; the other decidedly not—who found agreement about ends (the end of the colonial state) and means (at least: both willing to turn to violence). They also found places in KANU and eventually in cabinet
Yeah, he certainly went bad. But the fact that both he and Kaggia were accommodated in an African-nationalist coalition is strong evidence that it was much tighter than the liberal-leftist one against the fascists
Assistant minister in the first African government in independent Kenya. Again, it’s just hard to deny that African nationalists (at least this set) had a community of aims which the left-liberal alliance against the fascists entirely lacks.
Hard to sustain the claims that only an elite deal was struck, or that Mau Mau were simply locked out.
Resettlement was a core component of the 1962 deal from which independence followed.
Quick intro to Ngei’s part in Mau Mau here:
Ngei and his wife had oathed several hundred people.
Kaggia was a member of Muhimu.
Even KADU wanted Kenyatta released, and the price of their cooperation with the New Kenya Party (the SPV for relatively liberal settlers) was African control of government.
You might notice a relevant difference: the liberal in OP was not even pretending to fight.
The African-nationalist coalition was much stronger than the left-liberal one, at least as far as agreement on ends and willingness to fight go—there are liberals (see OP) who struggle to see the authoritarian threat at all, and can’t be persuaded to fight it.
All those you’ve named were jailed for opposing the colonial order; Obote was in trouble in both Uganda and Kenya for it.
Quite a lot of liberals don’t seem to understand the severity of the authoritarian threat; share the authoritarian’s cultural preferences, political ends, and attitudes to the left; and genuinely struggle to see what the fuss is about.
Not sure hat examples you have in mind, but there was, for example, broad agreement among African nationalists on ends and the necessity of ending the colonial order.
James Milner is now the 2nd youngest goal scorer in League history and the 2nd oldest goal scorer in League history. From prodigy to icon.
