sa1z+@andrew.cmu.edu (Sudheer Apte) (03/03/90)
The following is the talk.politics.south-asia discussion from 23-Feb-90 to date, in digest form. It looks like the group has a lot of support, since there's a deafening silence about it! (The "algorithm" I'd outlined said to keep quiet until the call for votes if one liked the charter.) Those who have responded seem very interested, too. Many people are saying they like "subcontinent" better than "south-asia", so this may be changed in the next version of the charter. But this is still open for discussion. How do people feel about this? As usual, followups have been set to news.groups. Thanks, Sudheer. ------------------ Digest-Date: 2-Mar-90 -------------------------------------------- From: dorai@titan.rice.edu (Dorai Sitaram) Message-ID: <5231@brazos.Rice.edu> 1. South Asia is too much of a superset if you're only going to discuss politics in the subcontinent. Why not call the group talk.politics.subcontinent or .subcont? (Of course, people _could_ confuse that with the other subcontinent, Greenland (where a lot of politics takes place!), and "Indian subcontinent" fails your neutrality test.) How about talk.politics.gondwanaland? :-] 2. The anguish expressed in s.c.i. has been more over politics than over culture. So what is a common _politics_ group going to solve? If we're combatting acrimony in newsgroups, why is shifting it from soc. to talk. such a win? 3. I find it hard to believe that postings by non-Indians "have been suppressed in s.c.i." S.c.i. is an unmoderated group. The presence of acrimony doesn't imply suppression of views, rather the opposite. 4. The almost ritual song of deprecation by Indians about other Indians in order to prevent s.c.i.-splintering seems out of place. The most one can hope for is non-moderation, and that is already the case. 5. If you're trying to halt the splintering of s.c.i. into national subgroups, the battle appears to have been lost. Let's not be so deeply sensitive that some folks want to start their own group. It is their prerogative. And if you're trying to banish acrimony from a newsgroup, a newsgroup is not a pleasant soiree where everyone is expected to be nice over tea and crumpets, and it is unrealistic to hope for that. --dorai -- -------------------------------------------- Message-ID: <kZtN2=y00Uzx41L41v@andrew.cmu.edu> From: Shehryar Burney <sb3q+@andrew.cmu.edu> Talk.politics.south-asia seems to be a good name to me. One advantage is that it is informative- many people will not understand what SAARC or Subcontinent stand for. Shehryar Burney -------------------------------------------- From: Dorai Sitaram <dorai@rice.edu> Message-Id: <9002231711.AA06376@titan.rice.edu> I meant "splintering" in the sense of along national lines. I.e., as opposed to splitting along the lines of soc/talk which doesn't divide the readers, just gives them two groups to read without feeling like an outsider in either, and I recognize this intent behind t.p.s-a. My reference was of course to the presence of s.c.sl. and the quest for s.c.p., and the sense of having to do something about it that is expressed by many noted Indian s.c.i.'ers. A politics group is fine, but I confess a tendency to cringe when someone calls for a group not because s/he particularly likes to have it, but because it is a convenient place to pack all the undesirables into. :-] --dorai ps: South Asia? If s.c.indian is a misnomer, t.p.south-asia seems so too, if in the opposite direction. plus) There are only two subcontinents on this planet, and Greenland is not exactly a politically active subcontinent. minus) Outside of Asia and Europe, the term "_the_ subcontinent" to refer to India/Pak/Nepal/BD/SL probably causes some puzzlement. Should that matter? -------------------------------------------- Message-ID: <MZtRsCm00WB9AWJ0go@andrew.cmu.edu> From: Sudheer Apte <sa1z+@andrew.cmu.edu> > A politics group is fine, but I confess a tendency to cringe when > someone calls for a group not because s/he particularly likes to have > it, but because it is a convenient place to pack all the undesirables > into. :-] :-) Actually this seems to happen pretty often in other groups---some subtopic not of general interest grows with a certain following, and soon becomes big enough to warrant a group of its own... (can't think of examples off-hand, but I'm sure you must've noticed this too). Maybe many of them get voted out by the indignant majority, too? Actually in this case, for me politics is *not* always an undesirable topic, and I really do feel like having a group where no one complains if there's a lot of political talk. So there's a very positive component to this thing, too, although I'm sure the majority of s.c.i. support for this is going to be of the negative kind you mention. > ps: South Asia? If s.c.indian is a misnomer, t.p.south-asia seems so > too, if in the opposite direction. > > plus) There are only two subcontinents on this planet, and Greenland > is not exactly a politically active subcontinent. > > minus) Outside of Asia and Europe, the term "_the_ subcontinent" to > refer to India/Pak/Nepal/BD/SL probably causes some puzzlement. > Should that matter? Hmm. Others have objected to "subcontinent" on the basis that it won't make sense to outsiders, but the more I think about this the more reasonable it seems---after all, the group's not going to affect outsiders. I'm leaning in this direction currently... I think I'll put this name in the next copy of the CFD. We can take it from there, what? Thanks, Sudheer. ----------------- -------------------------------------------- From: singh@sierra.Stanford.EDU (Harinder J. Singh) Message-ID: <527@sierra.stanford.edu> In article <5231@brazos.Rice.edu> dorai@titan.rice.edu (Dorai Sitaram) writes: > >3. I find it hard to believe that postings by non-Indians "have been >suppressed in s.c.i." S.c.i. is an unmoderated group. The presence >of acrimony doesn't imply suppression of views, rather the opposite. > Picking on the term `suppression', above, is mere semantics. The key point is that non-Indians have been variously told that their concerns/responses do not belong in s.c.i. Does Dorai wish to suggest that there has been no unfairness and unwarranted abuse towards non-Indians on s.c.i. in recent days? Come on, Dorai, just the facts, remember? >4. The almost ritual song of deprecation by Indians about other >Indians in order to prevent s.c.i.-splintering seems out of place. > I, for one, greatly support the free expression of distaste by some Indians on s.c.i. towards other Indians who've been going un-challenged in spewing their venomous invective. Censure of this sort has a number of sound reasons to validate it - prevention of a splintering of s.c.i. is only one of them and may well have been a moot point by the time the opposing viewpoints were posted. Dorai, you will surely agree that those who dish it out so freely should be able to take a little bit coming back! Si?? Why then these squawks about ``[blah blah blah] by Indians about other Indians...seems out of place??'' If you're so thin-skinned even about other people's [mildly stated] opinions against something you (or someone else) has said, why, that oughta give you pause to ponder before you sling it next time :-) Cheers, Inder -------------------------------------------- From: srinath@unix.cis.pitt.edu (Srinath Viswanathan) Message-ID: <22527@unix.cis.pitt.edu> In article <0ZtK56e00WB90MQJJ8@andrew.cmu.edu> sa1z+@andrew.cmu.edu (Sudheer Apte) writes: >dorai@titan.rice.edu (Dorai Sitaram) makes some good points: > >The idea is to *separate* political debates from the rest, because >political debates >1) tend to be especially acrimonious, >2) are disliked by a good subset of s.c.i.-ers, I would venture to say that most of the acrimony has involved Kashmir, which in turn has involved religion and in some sense culture, since it seems about to spawn soc.culture.pakistan. I am not at all sure that another group is warranted, a solution to acrimony in s.c.i., or even that acrimony is such a bad thing. If the passion that gives vent to the acrimony were tempered with a little reason, we might one day have some understanding. Srinath srinath@unix.cis.pitt.edu -------------------------------------------- From: sa1z+@andrew.cmu.edu (Sudheer Apte) Message-ID: <QZtzVeW00WB9I2mlAo@andrew.cmu.edu> srinath@unix.cis.pitt.edu (Srinath Viswanathan) writes: > In article <0ZtK56e00WB90MQJJ8@andrew.cmu.edu> sa1z+@andrew.cmu.edu > (Sudheer Apte) writes: > >The idea is to *separate* political debates from the rest, because > >political debates > >1) tend to be especially acrimonious, > >2) are disliked by a good subset of s.c.i.-ers, > > I would venture to say that most of the acrimony has involved > Kashmir, which in turn has involved religion and in some sense culture, > since it seems about to spawn soc.culture.pakistan. Yes, and before Kashmir it was the elections, and before that it was the Nepal embargo, and before that it was the '71 war... in what sense are these topics "cultural" by any stretch of the imagination? We're not saying, "don't discuss these problems," or that they're not important---only that they deserve to be discussed on another newsgroup, not on s.c.i. You left out that part of my posting where I pointed out that the soc hierarchy is not meant for such debate, and that the talk tree is. Or are you denying that many s.c.i.-ers don't want to read long political debates? And that they are justified? And that those who want to will also be better served by their own group? > I am not at all sure that another group is warranted, a solution to > acrimony in s.c.i., or even that acrimony is such a bad thing. If > the passion that gives vent to the acrimony were tempered with a > little reason, we might one day have some understanding. This group is not meant to be a "solution" to acrimony! Quite the opposite---it will encourage people to debate these issues. Only the forum won't be s.c.i.: it will be our own newsgroup, a talk newsgroup, where heated debates have their place. I'd be the first to agree that acrimony is not a bad thing, especially, as you point out, if done with a little reason. What is bad is that plenty of uninterested people have to wade through it every day searching for a scrap of news or an interesting tidbit. And that the interested debators don't have their own newsgroup and are forced to use s.c.i. to reach their audience, and get flamed for doing it. I hope I've been able to explain the idea a little better. Do you think the charter needs to be modified to clarify this point? Thanks, Sudheer. ----------------- -------------------------------------------- From: srinath@unix.cis.pitt.edu (Srinath Viswanathan) Message-ID: <22561@unix.cis.pitt.edu> >> I would venture to say that most of the acrimony has involved >> Kashmir, which in turn has involved religion and in some sense culture, >> since it seems about to spawn soc.culture.pakistan. > >Yes, and before Kashmir it was the elections, and before that it was >the Nepal embargo, and before that it was the '71 war... in what sense >are these topics "cultural" by any stretch of the imagination? We're >not saying, "don't discuss these problems," or that they're not >important---only that they deserve to be discussed on another >newsgroup, not on s.c.i. You left out that part of my posting where I >pointed out that the soc hierarchy is not meant for such debate, and >that the talk tree is. Or are you denying that many s.c.i.-ers don't >want to read long political debates? And that they are justified? >And that those who want to will also be better served by their own >group? It may be that your memory is better than mine, but I don't remember as much acrimony in the Indo-Nepal embargo debate as in the Kashmir debate or the cricket debate, for example. Also, would discussions of Indian elections really be the place for t.p.sa. It would seem to me that t.p.sa should confine itself to discussions of political developments that affect more than one country in the region. My response was mainly prompted by your reiteration that t.p.sa would address the acrimony in s.c.i. I fully believe that that is the wrong reason to form a new group. Good reasons might be a) political discussion is beginning to so overwhelm s.c.i. that other topics are becoming impossible to discuss, b) certain discussions don't fall within the charter. I do not believe that the discussions that have contributed the most to the acrimony are purely political in nature. On the other hand, they have almost always been India vs. Pakistan. The discussions on cricket are a good example. Thus, I do not believe that forming a new group, especially one that claims to legitimize India or Pakistan bashing (which is what most of the acrimony in s.c.i. consists of), is healthy, or a solution. >I hope I've been able to explain the idea a little better. Do you >think the charter needs to be modified to clarify this point? IMHO, yes. I think it would be better to state the objectives as what it will do within the confines of t.p.sa, rather than what it will do for s.c.i. Regards, Srinath srinath@unix.cis.pitt.edu