[eDebate] Reply to Tom Meagher

Tom Meagher meagher.tom
Sun Apr 27 23:10:35 CDT 2008


Like I said in my first response to Calum, I am not arguing against a Russia
topic. I argued that a reparations topic would be good. I'm pretty sure I
have not made a claim for avoiding Russia debates.

And I don't think it follows from my arguments that debaters *would*
research coloniality per se on a topic about US military cooperation with
Russia. That is my motivation for arguing for a reparations topic.

I'm glad if my posts elucidate the reasons that coloniality is salient on a
Russia topic. It's not my goal to see a reparations topic, it is my goal to
improve the quality of debate research.


On Sun, Apr 27, 2008 at 9:02 PM, JP Lacy <lacyjp at wfu.edu> wrote:

>  Why not study US-Russian relations if coloniality is so central to
> understanding them?
> If coloniality is "at the core of US-Russia relations," "the engine of the
> entire Cold War," if it  "influences everything about US-Russia relations,"
> and is "the only historical phenomenon that could possibly have caused the
> Cold War," then why should we avoid debating Russia-US relations?
> The more you explain the importance of coloniality, the more you elucidate
> ways it could be explored *very* productively if the topic were Russia.
> --JP Lacy
> lacyjp at wfu.edu
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20080427/ea41459e/attachment.htm 

More information about the Mailman mailing list