Yup.I don't trust "justice." (I remember how annoyed I was when we played at a conference in '99 or so and used the phrase "anti-globalization movement," and the activist dweeb who spoke afterwards took a swipe at us: "We don't like that term; we like to call ourselves the Global Justice Movement." As if we weren't part of that movement. I like negativity, buddy, and would rather people get to eat than that they get "justice." Too multi-use a concept for me).Amazing how many papers are talking about Pino's "twin legacies:" "on the one hand, he was a brutal dictator; on the other, he defended Chile from Communism." As if those weren't, you know, the same project. If you're interested in a long, fact-heavy song about the guy, ours is at:http://www.princemyshkins.com/songs/pinochet.mp3
I’m glad you agree with me on this – most of my activism took place in the post-Seattle demonstrations but I never found a good name for that movement in regular parlance. Shakespeare plays in Trinidad are globalization, and I’m not anti- that. As A. Cockburn said, ‘globalization’ gets in the way of what it’s trying to describe. I always thought ‘Global Justice’ was silly. Corn, health care, free speech, education, clean rivers, these are things that are possible and benign. Justice is a more elusive sport, attainable in belief-systems only. Whatever you call the movement, the EU constitution has been derailed, South America is unified against secretive trade agreements, and every US Senate campaign between an anti-FTAA and a pro-FTAA in 06 was a win for the anti-FTAA. So the ‘end of history’ is now officially ‘history.’ The movement didn’t need leaders, relying on their adversaries’ leaders to become so corrupt it couldn’t be ignored anymore.
Post a Comment