Re: Demo....cracy, Demo....crazy and World System Theory (???)

The comments further down in this posting are the first ones that help
explicate why I included the Pine Ridge Reservation as one of the many other
additional examples in the original message on 'demo...crazy' and U.S. 
bombings. Incidentally, for people who do not see the interconnectedness or
want to define the bombings as internal matters they might review the first
attack at the Reservation, .g., Wounded Knee[Creek] e, 1890, North America.
Then, turn to the 'bombings' again on the Reservation, i.e., Wounded Knee II,
1973.  Russell Thorton's American Indian Holocaust and Survival, and Vine
Deloria, Jr.'s God is Red provide essential insights into the issues,
especially those related to 'democracy,' self-determination and/or
sovereignty.

In essence, world system scholars who try to separate such events as either
internal or not related to WWIII might reconsider their global perspective.
Some world system's scholars view the events in and around Kosovo as possibily
leading to WWIII.  Yet they can not see how death and destruction in
reservations, barrios, ghettos, and everywhere that poor and opppressed
people are trying to live---might be relevant to WWIII.  It seems to me that
such scholars still are viewing the world from an international perspective
rather than a global one. 


On Fri, 30 Apr 1999, Dr. R.J. Barendse wrote:

> 
> Add the state of Israel - but what's India got to do with it ? In my modest
> opinion India was an ally of the USSR and Pakistan - which is not a
> particularly vibrant democracy - of the USA.  Maybe Walsh is talking here
> of the supposed British nuclear umbrella for Indian democracy - principally
> against China - which British politicians were vaunting themselves on, until
> 1968 - but I don't think anybody in India would even have accepted the
> existence of that umbrella. Though I suspect India developing nuclear
> weapons after 1967 has a lot to do with the factual disappearence of that
> `umbrella'.
> 
> However, the two states which have been most forcefully protected - and most
> helped -by the USA were certainly not shining examples of democracy: namely
> the kingdom of Saudi Arabia and Iran under the shah. Nor would I class the
> great anti-communist military bastion in Africa, Apartheid South Africa, as
> a shining example of democratic majority rule. And - lest we forget -
> generals Stroessner and Pinochet were also great friends and pupils of the
> USA. Very, very long ago - some people were very angry at the US helping
> Pinochet and South Africa, can't recall any names.
> 
> The US is willing to help democracy - if and as long as democracy does not
> conflict with US vital national interests, meaning first and foremost, those
> of US transnational companies. - For the US is the hegemonic power of the
> CAPITALIST world-system ... sounds vaguely familiar somehow  ...
> 
> And as for the US-allies, France in particular, I'm not even so sure about
> that. I have the feeling - but I never researched it - that in its African
> and Pacific `sphere of interest' the Foreign Legion and the French secret
> service are more in favour of  a kind of presidential authoritarian rule
> assisted by experts - kind of a global Gaulisme - than of Westminster or
> Washington type democracy.
> 
> You can't be a sovereign democracy if most of your economy is controled by
> foreign companies - ask the people of Jamaica -  or if your budget has to
> confirm to World Bank diktats - ask the people of Ghana - or if another
> country constantly interfers in your internal affairs - ask the people of
> Suriname -. That is if your country is at the periphery of the capitalist
> world-system, if you have a 'lumpen' development, you have a 'lumpen'
> democracy - where did I hear that before??? ....
> 
> And ... as to the NIC democracies being an example  I don't think courageous
> people need any foreign example trying to revolt against an inapt, military,
> cleptocracy (a government of highway-robbers) the like of Mobutu's Zaire,
> Duvaliers Haiti or the Nigerian generals, most of whom are stooges of the US
> or US-transnational companies and of a `lumpen bourgeoisie' - am I just
> inventing this now or ... did n't I I hear that somewhere before (???) ...
> 
> Let me relate some further very ancient history. Once upon a time - not even
> so long ago - ... the State Department, World Bank and the IMF were strongly
> in favour of authoritarian rule to `jumpstart the economy' (democracy not
> being fitted to the Third World) ... as had been shown in Taiwan and South
> Korea ... And people who were crying out for more popular participation in
> governments in the Third World were then ridiculed as hopeless defenders of
> utopian ideas ... for, as South Korea, Singapore or Taiwan had shown ...
> democracy would only come after `economic modernisation'.
> 
> SOME people - to relate more ancient history - objected to this that
> modernisation in a capitalist world-system did not necessarily mean more
> popular participation ... for example, you can't have a meaningful democracy
> if the revenues of the state are entirely  dependent on a single export-crop
> or product the price of which is fixed 6.000 km from your country (ask the
> people of forementioned countries again.) That is if your country is at the
> periphery of the capitalist world-system - now, didn't I hear that before,
> somewhere ...
> 
> But what was that World-system theory again ??? - World System Network
> readers?  Twenty-five - odd years is a long time is n't it ?
> 
> R.J. Barendse
> International Institute Asian Studies
> r.barendse@worldonline.nl
> 
> 
> 
>