[eDebate] Reply to Tom Meagher

JP Lacy lacyjp
Sun Apr 27 23:33:19 CDT 2008


Tom,

"I argued that a reparations topic would be good...I have not made a 
claim for avoiding Russia."

This makes perfect sense, except: We're about to choose topic areas.

The choice is zero sum.

On each ballot, every voter decides which topic is better.

If you think reparations is better than Russia, I'm willing to listen. 
If you're explaining how coloniality relates to many topics, I'm 
listening. Then again, I'm not really the ultimate arbiter of anything.

If you think one topic area is a better way to improve debate research 
about coloniality, which do you prefer?

--JP

ps-I disagree that debaters wouldn't delve into coloniality if Russia 
were the topic. As Stephen Weil put it, arguments about the "nature" of 
Russia, their history, their politics, their thinking, all determine 
"determine the answer to other questions like "how will US offers of 
cooperation impact Russian behavior."" If coloniality is so central to 
that relationship, then we will gain a unique understanding of the subject.






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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20080428/241a1701/attachment.htm 



More information about the Mailman mailing list