In this week's readings, we have Michael Peter Smith’s “Can You Imagine? Transnational Migration and the Globalization of Grassroots Politics” that had focused on this concept of “transnational grassroots politics,” which he created to have an overarching term to explain the complexities of cross borders and multicultural people in a nation-state. By the end of Smith’s article, they include cases in history that exemplify the concepts of “grassroots politics” that would help one understands this concept of moving beyond the global-local duality. One of which was the Guatemalan refugee return and auto-coup failure with an internationally meditated discussion of political return and credit claiming between the repressive Guatemalan government and the rebel National Revolutionary Unity Front. These targeted folks that are "returning/relocating/reconstituting" refugees are not given a voice in politics. Their negotiations with the Guatemalan government ended with the rebel group, ironically, joining forces with the government in order to control and combat the type of media attention that these refugees are receiving.
Question: why do people choose to use such long-winded explanations in publishing articles? The Smith piece was overly confusing especially in an explanation of a theory while attempting to combat counterarguments.
No comments:
Post a Comment