[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
[Date Index] [Thread Index] [Author Index]
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page

What SE Asia is, Human Rights, and intent/practice.

On Thu, 1 May 1997, STACEY K SOWARDS wrote:

> My point was that SE Asia is not just about nuke war; there are plenty of
> other very important _civil rights_ related issues.  For example, see the
> entire section on human rights in the original topic paper.

My only point is that is the advocacy of those who believe that SE Asia
would be a cool topic.  Read the archives.  That is what it looks like to
me.

> And my point again is that there is no reason why fans of the civil rights
> topic shouldn't have some interest in SE Asia, because there is ground for
> discussion of civil rights in SE Asia.  There is room for discussion of
> both!  I am not saying it has to be your favorite topic, but that these
> issues need to be considered. 

I don't think that the civil rights topic is wanting to be just about
civil rights -- but about civil rights in the UNITED STATES!!!  People are
consistently concerned with the rights of others, in other nations.  Yet,
when it comes to Americans, we turn a deaf ear, we scoff and say "that
doesn't happen here, does it?"

> NO, NO, NO, NO!!!!  China, Japan, the Koreas ARE part of the negative
> ground!!!!!  They are not usually considered to be part of SE Asia.  And,
> if SE Asia were to be the topic for next year, I hope that the resolutions
> committee would include the ASEAN countries (just to refresh everyone's
> memory):  Indonesia, Malaysia, Singapore, Brunei, Myanmar, Cambodia,
> Vietnam, Laos, the Phillipines, and Thailand.  Furthermore, in our topic
> paper, we examine ways to limit the resolutions (certainly could be
> further limited) to:  human rights, democracy, trade, regional security,
> and cultural hegemony.  There are lots of ways the final resolution can be
> limited so that the negative has adequate ground.

Ok...perm my own argument (if I can do that; I am kinda new to
this entire policy debate thing, I have been known to make a few
mistakes with the jargon that you all use)...there is still an ENORMOUS
amount of research burdens for ALL involved.  Not only, then, do you have
to be concerned with the region that is "considered" to be SE Asia (i.e.
Asean nations), but also nations like China, Japan, both North and South
Korea, and many others.  I find it difficult to think that such a
situation would be beneficial to work loads.

> Please see above answer - lots of negative ground!

See answer above -- lots of ground, period.  Too much research.  If
too much research bad, then well...that has to apply as well.

> The argument on ground is different for Civil Rights (at least from what I
> have read) than it is for other topics.  Your argument here is that SE
> Asia is such a big topic that the neg can't possibly research everything.
> One ground argument for CR is that there isn't any viable ground because
> no one wants to defend "racism good."  I don't know if this is true or
> not, but this ground argument is different, especially considering the neg
> ground of China, India, Japan, etc. on SE Asia.  I think the links to
> these positions could be quite good.

So when people are unusual (that is because they are not talking about
NUKE WAR, yeah, yeah!!!  Fire!!!) and only claim a racism advantage in
their case, the other teams have plenty of ground, right?  I mean, instead
of having to say that racism in America is great, why not in Asia?  The
same neg. burden exists.  What to do, then?  Cut ev, right?  Write some
disads, right?  Write some Japan or China or North Korea C/Ps, right?
Brush up on some Orientalism or Myth of the Other???  Why can't you do
that (i.e. do some work) with a case from a Civil Rights (in the US) topic
again?

People, the reasons for SE Asia being important are compelling.  However,
I find it really strange that people seem to ignore the arguments they use
to indict a topic area (or even the same sort of arguments), but not
another.  The reason people should choose human rights in the US is
because there are many racial tensions that are being acted out in this
nation -- today.  There has been for many years.  Policy-makers cannot
just stand around and do nothing, can they?  Of course not!!!  It is time
for this community to take a stand on an issue that has a local impact.  

Yeah, you won't be able to discuss the big nuke war implications of
pissing off Asean (which I have heard is true), or even the human rights
concerns for other people in other places, but in order to resolve what a
nation can do elsewhere, it has to have its own house in order.  The house
we all live in called the US doesn't have its shit in gear, especially in
terms of race, sex, and other national civil rights interests.  But, you
can run a PIC that would do the plan on an international level with an
international solvency net benefit (so you can avert nuke war), but we
won't choose the civil rights topic.  No need to talk strat.

As bitter, if not more bitter, as Matt, 

Michelin Massey.
References:
Archive created by Jonathan Stanton (jonathan@cs.jhu.edu)
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page