<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:georss="http://www.georss.org/georss" xmlns:geo="http://www.w3.org/2003/01/geo/wgs84_pos#" xmlns:media="http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Obama in power (10): Cairo &#8211; brilliant speech but that awkward question persists</title>
	<atom:link href="http://dansmithsblog.com/2009/06/06/obama-in-power-10-cairo-brilliant-speech-but-that-awkward-question-persists/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://dansmithsblog.com/2009/06/06/obama-in-power-10-cairo-brilliant-speech-but-that-awkward-question-persists/</link>
	<description>Analysis &#38; commentary on world issues</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 04 May 2012 15:02:32 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.com/</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Dan Smith</title>
		<link>http://dansmithsblog.com/2009/06/06/obama-in-power-10-cairo-brilliant-speech-but-that-awkward-question-persists/#comment-161</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Dan Smith]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 07 Jun 2009 08:40:44 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://dansmithsblog.com/?p=429#comment-161</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Thanks for the link and comment. What Obama said on non-violence was, &quot;Resistance through violence and killing is wrong and does not succeed.&quot; He want on to back up the second part of that point by saying black people in the US did not get &quot;full and equal rights&quot; through violence, adding, &quot;This same story can be told by people from South Africa to South Asia; from Eastern Europe to Indonesia.&quot; 

I wouldn&#039;t say this is empty words but it is, to put it no higher than, a convenient argument. As an account of black people getting equal rights, it conveniently omits the Civil War. As an argument based on what works, it ignores the times non-violence did not work. As a moral stance, he doesn&#039;t apply it to America&#039;s response to 9/11. 

But whatever one thuinks of Obama&#039;s raising of it in this speech, there is an important discussion to be had about doing politics non-violently, not in Palestine and in some other Middle Eastern contexts, as well as more widely.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Thanks for the link and comment. What Obama said on non-violence was, &#8220;Resistance through violence and killing is wrong and does not succeed.&#8221; He want on to back up the second part of that point by saying black people in the US did not get &#8220;full and equal rights&#8221; through violence, adding, &#8220;This same story can be told by people from South Africa to South Asia; from Eastern Europe to Indonesia.&#8221; </p>
<p>I wouldn&#8217;t say this is empty words but it is, to put it no higher than, a convenient argument. As an account of black people getting equal rights, it conveniently omits the Civil War. As an argument based on what works, it ignores the times non-violence did not work. As a moral stance, he doesn&#8217;t apply it to America&#8217;s response to 9/11. </p>
<p>But whatever one thuinks of Obama&#8217;s raising of it in this speech, there is an important discussion to be had about doing politics non-violently, not in Palestine and in some other Middle Eastern contexts, as well as more widely.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Stephen Brown</title>
		<link>http://dansmithsblog.com/2009/06/06/obama-in-power-10-cairo-brilliant-speech-but-that-awkward-question-persists/#comment-157</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Stephen Brown]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 06 Jun 2009 18:59:11 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://dansmithsblog.com/?p=429#comment-157</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[There was an interesting debate on the BBC Today programme discussing the parallels and differences between Obama&#039;s speech, and Tony Blair&#039;s &quot;intervention&quot; speech ten years ago in Chicago. 
http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_8086000/8086786.stm
The other interesting aspect of Obama&#039;s speech was his affirmation of non-violent civil disobedience as a motor for change. Rhetoric flourish perhaps?]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>There was an interesting debate on the BBC Today programme discussing the parallels and differences between Obama&#8217;s speech, and Tony Blair&#8217;s &#8220;intervention&#8221; speech ten years ago in Chicago.<br />
<a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_8086000/8086786.stm" rel="nofollow">http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_8086000/8086786.stm</a><br />
The other interesting aspect of Obama&#8217;s speech was his affirmation of non-violent civil disobedience as a motor for change. Rhetoric flourish perhaps?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

