Julian Cope presents Head Heritage

Head To Head
Log In
U-Know! Forum »
barack's nuts
Log In to post a reply

155 messages
Topic View: Flat | Threaded
2148 posts

Re: barack's nuts
Jul 27, 2008, 11:09
Nigel, I've been using 'you' in the generalised sense; the points of Tinky's I was responding to are a generalised defence of American overconsumption, a belief that it's good and right and an implication that if it were to increase that would be a good thing.

(There's a rich irony in Tinky crying foul because we don't know about his/her levels of consumption, given that on two different occasions Tinky attacked Dave in precisely those terms earlier in this thread and has yet to apologise.)

Living in the West locks you into greater consumption patterns but there is much we can do personally to reduce our own consumption, and much we can do to change society. The issue is whether we believe and acts on that, or whther we revel in and venerate overconsumption.

I was taking issue with Tinky's view that America should not relinquish its place as the world's greatest overconsumer. Tinky's variously described it as 'at the top of the ladder' or 'the top of the food chain', like it's a victory and something to be proud of.

American troops killed in Iraq are, apparently, not invaders murderously taking the resources of another nation but 'heroes for maintaining our way of life'.

That 'way of life' that is worth millions of peoples deaths (unlike Tinky, I count non-Americans in my body count) is not a good and glorious thing.

What it actually means is forcing a far greater number of people into lives of misery and taking far more of the world's resources than can be sustained, making monstrous contribution to climate change. (As well as the world's highest rate of death from obesity).

Nor is it, despite what Tinky's said, an inevitability. But Tinky says that people who don't like it should not work for greater justice but should leave the country.

The clear implication is that America is only for those who are happy with overconsumption, and that it is probably a great thing, but certainly and explicitly it is not a bad thing.

I have tried over and over again to get Tinky to engage with these ideas. I asked three straightforward questions about it and requested they be answered I'd guess about 15 times here.


Do you think that everyone has an equal right to the world's resources?

Is it wrong that some people should vastly overconsume luxury even though it takes the essentials of life away from a great many more?

If you don't answer an instant straight yes to both of those, can you please explain what you mean when you say you are Green?


You see why the only conclusion I can draw is that Tinky answers 'no' to the first two, realises how indefensible that is and how it makes a mockery of any claims to be Green, so decides to adopt a fingers in ears approach.
Topic Outline:

U-Know! Forum Index