The poster literally says “Expose the murderers of Sivaram Dharmaratnam” and claims to be the voice of the Sun (Hiru) Group. The blue text at the bottom is not linked to Sivaram’s poster.

My my…Sanjana, what strange places you show up in :)

When I read the article by Dayan Jayatilleke I agreed with him when he said that journalists in Sri lanka are often too closely affiliated with militant organisations like Siva was with the LTTE – it’s NO reason to kill him, but I think it would be better off if all journalists took a more neutral stance personally, no matter what they write.

Neutral stance! There is nothing like that. NEUTRAL(Pathola-in Sinhala) is also politically motivated stance which has its class origins.

Neutral = not ever been funded by / ever joined forces with / ever been trumpeteer for a militant organisation. It’s just journalistically unethical.

Like Jayatilleke said, I think it is almost impossible to be ‘neutral’ in Sri Lanka.

All Sri Lankan journalists, are unfortunately, politically far too involved and affiliated, some with extremist organisations, others with established parties.

A lot of what I’ve (only recently) read by Taraki were columns that read more like an opiniated blog than anything. He was a well-informed and connected person with a transparent bias, and he spoke out. I personally prefer transparent bias to illusory neutrality.

Again, this wasn’t my point. I wasn’t speaking about neutrality in his writing, in fact that’s impossible – what I said was personal neutrality, or rather independence. Siva if I’m not mistaken was closely associated with the LTTE when he was younger. This puts him in a precarious situtation to become an advocate or a critic; no doubt he was well-connected and one of the brilliant minds of his generation. But given the choice of two writers – both pro-JVP (for example): one a former JVP-member / militant and the other unconnected – I would place more gravitas on the one with no connexion at all, but read both and not dismiss either. I say it because it’s truth with no strings attached. It is also more dangerous to be connected to militant organisations for the obvious reasons – if you decide to jump ship halfway through it presents personal security problems – but not ones that you should be executed for.

Not very knowledgeable on this, but I’m pretty sure he was a member of PLOTE when he was younger, not the LTTE. I’m actually not even clear what PLOTE stands for. As to your example, I dunno about gravitas, but I would read the guy that had connections and experience with the militant organization. Given the political situation around my parents time, I’d say that anyone who wasn’t some sort of activist was either comatose or borderline retarded – not especially qualified to be a journalist.

Sri Lanka has State TV, State Newspapers, and Wijeya is effectively UNP controlled. TamilNet is LTTE affiliated, dunno about Veerakesari or others. I’m unclear where a ‘neutral’ journalist can even get employment.

So your point then, Indi, is that one must abandon all attempts at impartiality and trumpet one’s bias in order to succeed as a journalist in Sri Lanka. And since no one can get a job otherwise, that makes it ok ?

That sure works for Fox News, does it not ? Perhaps we can take even stretch that example into other fields and see if it can be so charitably described. (Sorry if I sound combative, that’s not my intention at all, but I see a distinction between a journalist and the term below).

He was a paid (or unpaid) shill. He certainly didn’t deserve to die for it and I share your outrage at the fact… but he did make a choice somewhere down the line about his choice of affiliation. Who shed a tear when this guy lost his job ? I triple guarantee no one did.

Taraki was by no means a shill. Baghdad Bob was a ‘Information’ Minister, Taraki was a journalist and an intellectual. I think we are looking at different aspects of journalism. Writing biased coverage is one thing, but that’s not what Taraki really wrote. He wrote columns, as do Paul Krugman, David Brooks, William Saletan, etc. I consider those people journalists and intellectuals, and they are chock full of opinion. If you take the opinion out of the editorial page then you take the heart out of journalism. Columnists are not shills because they’re opinionated and take sides, they’re just columnists. They’re important.

Taraki was also an editor for TamilNet, and in that capacity he had tens of journalists under him, filing traditional, ‘neutral’ reports. But that wasn’t Taraki. Nobody read Taraki for a report on how many Tigers were killed in Batticaloa. It was a column.

Sivaram’s Taraki articles … combined a dispassionately, ironic style with accurate, inside information, and took care to explain in crystal clear prose the military, political, strategic and tactical assumptions of all sides in Sri Lanka’s complex conflict. Moreover, Sivaram’s wide reading in military science and political philosophy (especially in Marxism and post-structuralism) allowed him to bring intellectual tools to his articles that soon made them more powerful than mere punditry. (TamilNet Bio

He wrote an editorial column, and that has a legitimate, valued place in journalism. I guess that’s what I mean by transparent bias. You can get all the AP Wire Reports you want, but we still need people to synthesize, digest and articulate the general themes and trends going on, and that’s what Taraki did. It was a great service to the country especially because I don’t agree with him. The LTTE speaks through bombs and murder, but Tiraki raised the level of debate by using words and debate. If we’re talking we’re not killing each other. However you feel about his opinion, he was talking. Calling him a shill is straight bullshit. Every columnist, editorial writer, or blogger is important. Not only do they not deserve to be killed, they deserve respect.

Indi, you begin your post with “Not very knowledgeable about this…”. A giant step my fine feathered friend. But more on that later.

Hatts, where the hell have you been you bugger? Thanks for pointing out that the National Library Auditorium had nothing to do with the dastardly slaying of the poor propoganda pamphlateer.

Ru – you have touched on an area which, if reconcilable, would be the first step in regaining Sri Lanka’s democracy. Having functioned as a journalist for the last decade (almost), albeit in not a very prominent capacity, I am privy to the workings of newrooms and the actual motivation behind output. I’ve had CEO’s and MD’s walk into the newsroom and tell me not air a story. I’ve had scripts mangled and spun beyond recognition by wary Mangers and Editors who are just trying to hold onto their 9 – 5′s. I’ve met journalists who would prostitute print space for their own personal gain just because there was no other way.

Journalists, proper professional journalists in our country, make little or nothing. Yet they perform an invaluable service. It’s almost like free advertising. Cricketers have their cronies. I know this for a fact. Give the poor bastard a kick back, a few tickets, a bottle of imported booze and the Daily Noise will proclaim your batting prowess to the world even though you’re averaging 3.5.

Journalism is not a vocation or calling as it is to people like Christiane Amanpour. In our country it’s a job – a means to get food on the table. If I was in a well paid job (relatively), and I didn’t like my boss or his policies, I would think very long and very hard before telling him to go to hell. Some people don’t even have the option of thinking about it because they’ve got mouths to feed and bills to pay.

Kumar Sangakkara said something very scathing to me once. He said (and thankfully he was talking TO me and not ABOUT me),that we “don’t have journalists, we have reporters”. And when I go to a rugby match and see these clueless numpties trying to string together a sentence without knowing the difference between a scrum and a line out it makes me cringe.

But journalism has never been for the (as Indi puts it) ‘more balanced individuals’. They have to power business and industry don’t they Indi? The rest of us go to free University. Heh heh. Would you or I ever write for the papers all our lives. Every journalist has an agenda. Mine is to free the world of Brian Thomas (lovey man though he is). So don’t even start about ‘neutral’ or more appropriately ‘independent’ because it just never will be. Never ever. If it can be achieved I’ll be the first to take my hat off to whoever did, but as long as financial consideration exists in our part of the world, no news story will ever be unbiased.

I think the man deserved respect. I think that the people who bumped him off are low cowards. Now I’ve made that aspect of what I thought about him clearer than in my previous comment. If I mislead you about that previously, then I apologize but as far as I can see, the tail end of your reply isn’t relevant. It wasn’t about respect.

But …

I don’t call the hacks who fawn over the politicians and report on their asswipes and foundation laying ceremonies “journalists”. I call them shills because that is the function they are performing. It doesn’t mean that they don’t do the work of legitimate journalists ever, it just means that they’ve set aside their journalistic integrity to write something blatantly biased. In this case, you call what he did an editorial column. I respectfully disagree. I call it the work of an idealogue with an agenda. If I am being charitable, I’d say he did it with the strength of his own conviction. If I’m not in a charitable mood, I’ll call him a shill. Are you going to offer conclusive evidence that he wasn’t one ?

For someone who professes to value opinions even though you may disagree with them, it sounds mighty strange to hear you dismiss my definition out of hand as bullshit. Or is it only not bullshit if it fits with your own world view ? I’m prepared to hear how what he did specifically on TamilNet didn’t sometimes cross the boundary into slanted propaganda. I’m even prepared to change my mind on this.. but from what I do know at this point in time, I call him a shill. Are you prepared, Indi, to formulate your opinion based on what the man actually said and wrote instead of quoting a bio on his own website ?

Aziz “disseminated” information. So did the late Mr. Dharmetram. Are you saying that if someone is the “information” minister, then the premise of a “transparent bias” and “talking instead of fighting” doesn’t apply ?

I’m sad that a man was killed by thugs. If anyone wants to rail about how fucked up our system is, that’s just cause right there. But I honestly do not agree with your assessment (Indi) that he was such a paragon of journalistic integrity. All the same, no one deserves to be shot in the head for what they said or did.

Thimal, each day I like you more and more…

How on earth could one be neutral as a proson AND AT THE SAME TIME not neutral as a writer? If you go to realistic grounds there are motivations. There are political, social and economic forces that enable or diable a person to write, speak or even think. Well that is the exact reason for the diversity of ideas even on this very web page. Several people express several opinions. JOURNALISM is also like that. I’m trying to put it in a simple manner. Journalism is a politically motivated practice. That doesn’t undervalue the job. If you are a journalist you know it from your experience. There are owners of your company. Their agenda is there. There can be organizations that are funding your paper. Your hunger is there. And of course, you are also not a machine but a man or a women. Why on earth shouldn’t you bear your political viewpoints? The practice called journalism is not done in a vacuum and that means these things are interelated. It is a social practice.
This is the reality for all the journalist, from Sivaram to Ivan; from Martin Wickramasinghe to Ratnatunge. From Ravaya to New Yourk Times. No one works in a vacuum.

Okay, sorry I buggered off, am not a student anymore and was celebrating. To make my point a little clearer this is what I feel like – editorial balance is important – it guides the direction of media and Siva provided that. His execution is a crime beyond all crimes because people couldn’t bear to face their truth on paper. I have a couple of journalists in the family, who’ve been journalists for about 30 years (this doesn’t make me an authority – it gives me an understanding of the profession that I would not have had otherwise).

I’m of the school of thought: when you’re not a player, you get to see the whole game. And this is the value of good journalism and the responsibility that intellectuals and journalists have to society, in my opinion – They are our wide-angle lens; they get to step back and pause which is a luxury and then comment – which is sacred.

To have close ties be it financial – like Shanaka speaks of, or political like Lohan brings up distort the value of that opinion in my view, even if it is slight. If you’re going to go from propelling the cause to commenting on it, it makes me a). understand your sympathies, obtain a deeper knowledge of your cause and b). value your opinion less than someone who’s removed from the emotive ties of the struggle. That’s my feeling, it really is very personal because it delves into what i value in truth, media and expression and at the end of the day we all care about motives.

In Sri Lanka freedom of expression is a myth. Freedom of conscience is a myth, we do not even go so far as to pretend these rights are protected. To gather knowledge and information, sythesize it, draw accurate and slightly more interesting, slightly more provocative conclusions and NOT turn it into a national therapy session requires a lot of talent and there are a handful of people who can do it. Once allegiances are formed, in my view, that very objectiveness of purpose, and some of the nobility of purpose is tainted.

This is Fun.

I am slightly drunk.

Teehee.

[...] Who Was Taraki?

The comments on the original Taraki article are diverse and interesting. It also has a picture. Tar [...]

[...] Who Was Taraki?

The comments on the original Taraki article are diverse and interesting. It also has a picture. Tar [...]

Hi. Happy to see blogging culture making inroads to Sri Lanka. Keep at it – we need people like U (a tiny component of the silent majority) to make your voices heard. Otherwise, we have to pack our bags and leave the country soon.

To add zest to your discussion, this is Taraki’s last article in the daily mirror. What do u say………

Note: I won’t edit what anybody says, but I edited this article for length, indi

April 27, 2005 – http://www.dailymirror.lk
(copied as its a subscription based newspaper)

JVP’s war on NGOs and fears of neo colonialism

The JVP propaganda secretary recently urged his party members, supporters and all Sinhala patriots to spit on NGO activists. No one, I am sure, would have taken this lightly as rhetoric meant for popular political consumption. The public antagonism that the JVP is attempting to stir up against NGOs is deeply rooted in its anti-imperialist ideology.

The JVP is politically mature today because it has become very flexible in its tactics. It will meet [Assisitante Secretary of State] Rocca, or for that matter even the worst enemy of the working class, if it serves the party’s tactical objective, which, right now, is to stop the SLFP from agreeing to the proposed joint mechanism for Tsunami aid. The JVP’s political philosophy is still fundamentally posited on anti-imperialism. As I pointed out in these columns earlier, the JVP is opposed to the Eelam movement because it is convinced that the US is covertly stoking Sri Lanka’s ethnic conflict to gain a foothold here. The JVP-Patriotic National Movement campaign against Non Governmental Organizations is based on the premise that NGOs are one of the chief instruments by which the US and its strategic allies undermine the sovereign political will of countries which they want to subject to neo colonial domination…

Last week, a very committed JVP sympathizer, an intellectual of sorts, confronted me with a question. “Why do you think USAID is basing itself in Trincomalee in a big way?” he asked me. And before I could gulp down my nasty dram of Gal arrack and soda, the man had begun his expatiation, his voice rising above the cacophonous din of that seedy bar. My pro JVP friend praised India’s example and how that country had exercised its sovereign power by shutting the door on all the tsunami NGOs that were rearing to
get a piece of the action there.

USAID was involved in a big way in the US backed ouster of President Aristide in Haiti he said. Opposing US imperialism today means defeating the designs of international NGOs such as USAID, he argued, explaining the JVP’s stand: And by the time the barman unkindly imposed his inflexible curfew on us, I was able to acquire a fairly clear idea of his party’s perspective on the question of foreign NGOs. The next morning I found an email from him with a link to a USAID report on Sri Lanka dated November 4, 2003. This is what I found on that page

[after much cutting]“Aid is a potent leveraging instrument that can keep countries allied with U.S. policy. It also helps them in their own battles against terrorism. Our tasks today however, are broader and more demanding than just winning the allegiance of key leaders around the world”.

[cut stuff on Haiti, interesting but long]

In recent years the US military too has begun to realize that NGOs could be useful in dealing with conflict situations in a manner that could serve American interests. In 1998 the US army’s Deputy Chief of Staff for Intelligence sponsored a study on the role of NGOs in the Zapatista rebellion in Mexico’s Chiapas region. I will quote briefly from the study’s conclusion – “The Mexican case suggests that the US army should continue to improve its understanding of the growing roles of NGOs in environments affected by SSCs.” (Small Scale Contingencies formerly known as Low Intensity Conflicts). Where feasible, it may be increasingly advisable to improve US and allied skills for communication and even coordination with NGOs that can affect the course and conduct of a netwar” (pp. 128-29, The Zapatista Social Netwar in Mexico by David Ronfeldt et al. prepared for US army by Rand Arroyo Center. 1998)

The JVP is wielding its ideological cudgels against globally powerful foes indeed. The battle lines have been drawn. Weerawansa has fired the first shot. But the JVP knows it can achieve a swift victory in this battle only when its captures state power.

gah, Indi, your site always fucks with me when I comment!

typed a huge long thing, but of course it crashed my crappy ISPnet connection. I swear they are run by monkeys in a shack who hold phone wires together–when they feel like it.

the point was: political affiliations, and strength thereof, are a minor issue. everyone knows which papers are run by whom. (except the Island–is that run by Martians, or what?) the major issue is content, and its relative worth. Sri Lankan print journalism is almost devoid of content: from prizegivings to bullshit speeches to nature-worshipping paeans, all the big papers have about 5% actual meaningful reporting.

I’m sure that the journalists in the room can explain this as the strong arm of the owners and their political bosses. if that’s so, well, that’s something we can argue about elsewhere. but all this n-degrees-of-personal-affiliation, it’s a bogeyman; the problem is not slanted coverage, but NO coverage. with no useful description or analysis of actual events and ideas, we are going to have thirty years of the same old real-politik ruts in this country.

no doubt I’m about to get blasted for this. well: I’m in Colombo this weekend. anyone wants to meet in real time and get a beer and have a fistfight, or a talk…

I thought Baghdad Bob was Tariq Aziz, but they’re different people. Replaced those instances

Shanaka: To take your own advice, you might want to preface your opinions on me with, “Not very knowledgeable about this…” If my parents or friends take issue with my attitude I’ll change, but if I listened to every little bitch on the Internet I wouldn’t have much personality left.

Thimal: I’m not debating your other points, but comparing Taraki to Baghdad Bob is bullshit. Your comparing a controversial journalist to the voice of Sadaam Hussein. If you got any examples of Taraki being psychotically delusional I’d love to see them.

Baghdad Bob: “We are surrounding them and pounding them. The whole trend has changed and we are going to finalize this very soon.”

“After we finish defeating all of those animals we will disclose that with facts and figures.”

“They think we are retarded – they are retarded.”

Taraki: Norway’s Special Peace Envoy Eric Solheim often comes here. There is excitement in Tamil media circles whenever this happens. This in turn creates expectations amongst the public that something might come of his visits. But Mr Solheim then returns, whereupon all the excitement then fades and life returns to normal. On each occasion Solheim tells us that a change for the good is about to happen soon…

The joint mechanism in relation to the Tsunami damage also relates to the destruction of dwellings, displacement and refugees. Therefore no one can prevent the same basic stumbling blocks appearing again. The Tsunami joint-mechanism is not just to do with receiving funds. It is also concerned with land. It further concerns the provision of facilities such as electricity and water for the resettling people. The Tsunami joint mechanism especially concerns the power do these things. That is why the government of Sri Lanka is astutely wasting time on this matter – Solheim’s visits and statements contribute to this smokescreen (his last article)

Taraki was a lot of things, but he was not a shill. There’s an archive of his writings here if you’d like to find examples of him shilling. His thing on the legacy of Prabahkaran is a good place to start if you want to be pissed, but even that is well researched and reasoned. I don’t agree with the conclusion, but what he says isn’t propaganda. Propaganda simply states facts, it’s not an argument. Taraki, however, lists his assumptions, which are all falsifiable. By falsifiably I can say that I disagree with his point about Prabahkaran being influenced by the Chelvanayagam and Navaratnam Schools of the Tamil movement, which he discusses. I can say that Praba has betrayed those ideals and we can have an interesting conversation. With Baghdad Bob all you get is a blank stare and the same party line.

All I learn from Baghdad Bob is how crazy and delusional people can be. I learn a lot from Taraki. To dismiss him as a shill without any evidence is bullshit. I’m not saying you’re bullshit, Thimal, but I won’t let that Baghdad Bob comparison stand. Seriously, Taraki was chock full of information. If he was around I could do research and pick apart his assumptions line by line, and I’m sure he could bite back. I respect him more and more and he I wish he was still around. Jesus, he could even pick through the alphabet soup of Tamil resistance groups. Honestly, his writing is way to dense to be effective propaganda. It’s academic, it’s professional and yes, he does have journalistic integrity.

TRUE FACTS ABOUT TARAKI SIVARAM

No murders can be justified. Therefore I strongly condemn Sivarams assasination. However freedom of information act entitle people to be informed the right facts. The facts that , in Sri Lanka we never had truth commission like the one of South Africa means a lot of people who committed crimes against humanity will never be brought Justice. Sivaram origins can be traced back from PLOTE a movement phenomenally notorious for its in-party- massacres. Its leader Uma Maheswaran was an extremely paranoid man. It is Sivaram who is instrumental in the assasination of Ahilan and Selvam, two members of PLOTE. It is a widely accepted/known fact among the cardres of PLOTE. Sivaram also rose to the hierachy of PLOTE by keeping a blind eye on the atrocities of Uma Maheswaran forces of PLOTE. Check it with former PLOTE members.

PLOTE means people liberation organisation of Tamil Eelam, a breakaway faction from the old Tamil Tigers. Uma maheswaran was forced to leave the Tamil Tigers simply because he was having an affair with a woman. For information U guys indi ,shanaka,Thimal Iyo ets please read the following books guys
1. Indian intervention in Sri Lanka by Rohan Gunaratna

2. Tigers of Lanka by Narayan Swamy

3. Broken palmyrah BY Rajini thiranagama et .al

4. Inside an Elusive Mind : Comprehensive and critical Biography of Prabhakaran by Narayan Swamy.

Just for the record, PLOTE stands for People’s Liberation Organisation of Tamil Eelam. They were the group Sivaram was with.

Moving on…

I agree completely with Lohan when he says there is no such thing as an objective journalist. We all come with a distinct socipolitical context and that affects what we do. We are not able to remove our writing from that context.

There are only shades of bias…some stronger than others…

Morquendi, I’ve been following your blog and the thrust and parry of wit (and the odd expletive …) with Indica with interest for some time :) Hope things are well with you.

My own comments on Taraki can be found at http://unspun.mithuro.com/content/view/87/43/

Thimal,
There is no such thing as a 100% objective journalist. Even the best columnists have their political slants (if not affiliations). However, I do agree on one thing – Taraki was more slanted than others. At the same time, he gave voice to a under-represented Tamil community. Thus, you can’t really dismiss him as a shill. He certainly isn’t in the same boat as Aziz. (Perhaps I’ll do a more in depth post on this later).

Read Orwell

Seelan – thanks mate. I’ve got Inside and Elusive Mind with me right here but rigours of my course decree that I can’t get round to it. Rohan Gunaratna is a bloody genius although I haven’t read that particular work. I would also recommend most of you blokes read his ‘The Lost Revolution’. Puts perspective on our JVP discussions.

Mate I take no umbrage with you that I need to educate myself on these matters especially to understand were Siva was coming from. However, my post was a pathetic attempt to point out to Ru why objectivity and impartiality are values that we will definitely not be able to achieve at least in our journalistic lifetimes. Nothing else. I don’t want to get involved in the specifics of Siva’s writings as I haven’t read enough of them.

Indi check out http://www.ebay.co.uk/senseofhumour/immediatepurchase

Heh. And I jumped headlong over the cliff, lemming like, and made a non existent link between Tariq Aziz and Baghdad Bob myself. Yes, I intended Baghdad Bob (and made a subsequent mistaken reference or two to Aziz). I’ll explain why. I’ll lump together your response (Indi) and one other reaction together in my reply. Mahangu first.

I don’t dismiss him as a shill, but I personally attached the same credence to his conclusions and opinions that I would attach to an employee of a popular dishwashing liquid company asserting “our product is the bestest ever. really!“. I understand the distinction between op-ed and news just fine. I judged his writing on merit and I expressed my personal opinion, I called him a shill. Does that stop me reading what he wrote ? Of course not. It just means that I treat his writing like I would treat dodgy advertising. Glean what facts I can verify from other sources but bearing in mind that like companies pay for advertising, this guy was stringing along a series of facts (this piece, for instance) to promote his ideology and world view.

From the same wikipedia link:

Reporter must avoid conflicts of interest — incentives to report a story with a given slant. This includes not taking bribes and not reporting on stories which affect the reporter’s personal, economic, or political interests.

In my opinion, he failed it. Yes, I know we’re not referring to news. But I personally hold credible journalists to that standard regardless of op-ed, news or anything else. Someone else had much the same opinion, so take that as an indication, if you like. Do me a favour, Mahangu, and don’t be so quick to assume ignorance by outsiders of the holy rites and processes of journalism and media organizations. If I wanted a term for what he did and if people insist that he was, in fact, operating as a a journalist in the writings to which I refer, then I’d say he practiced advocacy journalism.

Oh, the ultimate vanity. I’m going to quote myself:

He was a paid (or unpaid) shill. He certainly didn’t deserve to die for it and I share your outrage at the fact… but he did make a choice somewhere down the line about his choice of affiliation

Ok. Indi now :) Baghdad Bob was way over the top. I completely agree with that and that was also my point. You wanted someone with a “transparent bias instead of illusory neutrality”. You also wanted someone to “talk instead of [fight]“. On that basis (and that basis alone, mind you) Baghdad Bob and S.D had 100% commonality. Of course S.D. sounds loads smarter. Never knew him, so I can’t tell. But my example was intended to highlight the fact that where I was concerned, both those individuals were biased (or slanted) mouthpieces for regimes or groups that I didn’t particularly care for. Was the comparison bullshit ? Why, of course it was. That’s the point :) Speaking for myself, if I chose to advocate someone’s work, I’d pick better reasons than waving a flag of allegiance and spending time in debate instead of hurling bombs as defining criteria.

but thanks for keeping it civil and going to some lengths to explain the “bullshit” term. Based on some earlier … arguments … I expected things to go pearshaped a lot earlier. And please, get a darn comment preview plugin installed already!

some kids on Tamil Avenue mirrored this discussion. They added this quote from Sivaram on the similar death of his friend Richard de Soyza. It’s now his own epitaph:

“I salute a friend and fellow journalist most gruesomely murdered by those who dare not show their faces nor advance or protect their interests as honourable and brave men do. In the land where people were proud of the Sinhala lion, desperate jackals roam, seeking out their defenceless prey. Richard and many more have been brutally murdered; who or what is to be blamed? The collective psyche of the Sinhala people? Enough of this silent impotence. The terrorists have to be resisted. Extreme cowardice and a gnawing lack of self esteem as usual seem to be at the source of this faceless terrorism. Therefore it should be collectively resisted before it starts to knock on every door looking for victims to torture and kill, thereby to reassure itself of its existence.”

Christ Sanjana, don’t call him Indica. That’s a stupid little car manufactured by TATA :)

Thimal, yes we’ve all heard the ‘journalists need to impartial and balanced’ lecture. But the reality is that journalists are human and all humans are prone to bias. When Namini Wijedasa and Shamindra Fernando trash the peace process and the LTTE in the Island they show their pro-Sinhala nationalist side. But the Sinhala nationalists who read the Island think it’s the truth. Would you call them partisan?

When Dayan Jayatileke writes something (I am surprised by his peice on Taraki) his anti-LTTE bias is generally very clear or thinly veiled. Is he partisan?

When Fredrica Jansz writes one of her big stories in the Leader her anti-everything (sounds better in Sinhala Sarva Asubhawadhee) bias is very clear. She doesn’t want to break a story. She wants to get people into trouble. Is she partisan?

In Ravaya, Victor Ivan’s anti-JVP bias is very clear. Is he partisan?

Let me assume: When you read something that slants opposite to what you believe, then it becomes partisan. As long as the slant is in your direction then you’re ok with it.

That is something a lot of journalists, including Taraki, had to deal with. The people who agree with your politics like you and the people who don’t don’t. So Taraki would not have had any problem with you calling him a shill. He had no problem with the JVP calling him a Maha Kotiya.

To me, you calling Taraki a shill is only a reflection of your political bias.

I don’t agree with Dayan Jayatileke’s politics, but I will defend the right he has to say it. I think Namini Wijedasa is a crap journalist, but I will defend her right to say what she does.

And why, of all the words you could have used, a shill?

Of course they are partisan.. Since we were discussing the writing and legacy of S.D, I added my personal opinion. If you want to call me biased (or anything else), go right ahead. Here’s the deal. I don’t want to influence anyone else. Thanks for your liberal (egad, I mentioned Morquendi and liberal in the same sentence. Do I get the Character Assassination special now ?) interpretation that if I disagree with the news and bias and affiliations of “one side”, that automatically means I am pro-nationalist and pro Sinhala-Buddhist (and whatever else is the tag du jour you guys toss around these days). It’s not true. Where do I make the statement that S.D should have been “banned from the intarweb” or stopped from writing ? I don’t. Thanks again for jumping to a conclusion that I never made. He (and even you or anyone else) can write about whatever they want… But as a reader, I make my own judgement about their credibility and speaking for myself, I found his wanting.

I don’t require 100% neutrality. There is no such animal. But to my mind, S.D was not sufficiently detached for me (and me alone. anyone reading his work can make up their own minds) to find his points credible. Or to even make a token assumption of balance. Of the 3 journalists youve mentioned, I’ve read only a few articles by each (far less than I’ve read S.D’s) and I don’t like what I’ve seen of those either. But we weren’t talking about them, were we ? I’m an equal opportunity hater of “journos” who wrap themself in their particular flag of allegiance and expect people to march along to their politics or ideology.

The guy who writes those phony “editorials” in the Daily Noise is just as biased, just as much a shill as I think S.D was.. the difference is that he (or she) is much less literate and articulate.. and probably too lazy to do sufficient research.

If S.D was as big a man as you say (never knew him, so I don’t know), then I don’t doubt he would have argued me point for point on the basis of calling him a shill. If I had known him, I may have changed my opinion. Too bad I’ll never get that chance now, huh ? I don’t have a problem with people debating me point for point and saying I’m wrong. More often than I would like, I am wrong. But please don’t waste your time by making assumptions about my position which are inherently faulty.

The guy was a shill, a terrorist supporter who advocated violence and murder.

Behold, I come from the mount bearing stone tablets! Taraki was a shill!

Someone, Inside – Grow a fucking vertebrae and put your name down next to what you write. S.D. did it. – Ruwani H.

No need to get your pussy in a knot, Ruwani. Is this how you respond to the truth?

And women must wear burqas!

Oooh, Big words – are you compensating for something? Not truth though. Opinion – ’tis muchos different.

watch it Inside.

Anyone claiming direct access to ‘the truth’ should please include at least a minor miracle. Burning bushes, archangels, and wire transfers are all accepted. At the very minimum an argument.

Taraki was a lot of things, but he at least offered reasoned and informative arguments. Not random and anonymous claims to truth.

As for ‘advocating violence’, I think Wimal Weerawansa advocates and encourages more violence in one of his speeches, than Taraki did in his whole lifetime. Particularly the May Day one and the Maharagama anti-NGO meeting organised by the Patriotic National Movement, where Wimal’s comments and finger-pointing in my direction almost got me lynched after the meeting.

That’s pretty much what Wimal and the JVP’s rags Lanka and Muragala did to Taraki. You whip up a mob against Kotiyas (Tigers), and then you point your finger at someone and say anna maha Kotiya (There’s a big Tiger).

And if cold hard stats matter, don’t forget that in a period of 4 years the JVP killed more people than the LTTE killed in 20. Having 39 seats in Parliament doesn’t make them saints.

Morquendi, I know full well what you went through at the PNM meeting ! You’ll also note that a recent issue of ‘Lanka’ tore the likes of Dayan to shreds, displaying in abundance the very fascism and intolerance for diversity that they claim the LTTE has.

The matter, however, might be more complex? Would love you to engage with thoughts I’ve penned here – http://www.theacademic.org/feature/115544901079193/index.shtml

Sanjana, I enjoyed reading this article of yours:

Swansong of unity
>>> http://www.himalmag.com/2003/june/perspective.html

“In Sri Lanka, the anthem embodies the perverse tragedies of the past – every time it is sung it is an inadvertent recognition of the politics that have plagued the country for over half a century”

“Listening to the ‘national’ anthem, you could be forgiven if you believed that Sri Lanka was a mono-ethnic, Sinhala Buddhist nation-state.”

May I ask: do you still have the views contained in that article, or have they changed over the past two years? For example, do you conciously make an effort not to sing the national anthem or stand when it is being played because, according to you, it is a symbol of Sinhalese chauvinism?

And how could one come to the conclusion that Sri Lanka was a Sinhala-Buddhist nation state by listening to the national anthem if the anthem itself does not mention any religion at all – and especially considering that it was penned by one Ananda Samarakone who was a member of the Sinhalese community who followed the Christian tradition?

And also, adding my perspective here, was this piece of writing perhaps motivated by the editorial line of the Centre For Policy Alternatives which right or wrongly is rather notorious for its critique of the state, and for its attacks on members of the Sinhalese community who follow the Buddhist tradition?

Just wondering….

PS Your article in the The Academic sounds to me much more moderate and less like an attack on a particular community and was, I felt, thoughtful and analytical.

Dear Heshan,

Thanks for your comments, which were asked in a language devoid of the bitter invective that usually prefaces such comments.

I think I was 25 when I wrote that article on the National Anthem! :) And yes, I would write it differently now.

The larger question of state symbols and the lack of representation of SL’s social fabric remains a problem. Take for instance, the names under the pictures of former Vice-Chancellor’s of the University of Colombo – they are in English / Sinhala but not in Tamil. This, I would submit, is a problem. Further, our ‘national’ anthem is in Sinhala, which is one of two languages used in Sri Lanka by our fellow citizens. Sri Lanka may be the fecund, and the land of the bountiful in our anthem, but to have those who have been marginalised by the State sing it, in the full knowledge that historically, they have been excluded for the properity of Mother Lanka, is a continuation of the historical injustice we have meted out to our fellow countrymen.

As I state in that article “There is not a single reference to the multiple ethnicities in the island. No hint of the complex socio-political matrix that has coloured communal relations, the richness of religions or the multiplicity languages, a shared past.”

I am not in a position to further or defend CPA’s editorial line. My article was not an expression of the editorial line as you have defined it, nor do I wish to repudiate your understanding of CPA’s work, to which you are fully entitled to.

I would however be glad (time permitting) for you to email me a substantiation of your comments on CPA lest we appropriate this forum for a debate that is of little or no interest to others who participate.

Thanks again for your valuable input – I sincerely appreciate it.

In peace,

Sanjana

Dammit, and there I was finding comfort in my anonimity. Who told you Sanjana?

And no, I don’t sing the national anthem either, and I’m bloody proud of it!

Dude, Heshan, the anthem might not have anything direct about Sri Lanka being Buddhist but if all that ‘Namo Namo Namo’ stuff ain’t not-so-subtle hints at religion I don’t know what is! When I was a kid I used to feel like an old lady going up Adam’s Peak whenever the ‘Namo Namo’. part came along… :)

Thanks for the reply Sanjana, appreciate it. I actually think that it is a good thing that the national anthem doesn’t mention ethnicities. For example, the Indian anthem refers to the main ethnic groups but completely leaves out all the other minorities. For example, the Punjabis, Gujaratis, Marathis etc get a mention but all the South Indians get lumped under “Dravidian,” which I think is unfair on them, not to mention all the other hundreds of minority groups that aren’t given a mention . It is much better to have a national anthem that doesnt mention ethnicities at all. Well that’s what I think anyway :)

Morquendi, “namo,” correct me if I am wrong, signifies a salutation in the Sinhalese language. Supposing it is “religious” – paying homage to Mother Lanka – I still do not see how it relates to Buddhism at all (as is implied in Sanjana’s article). The national anthem was penned by a member of the Sinhalese community who followed the Christian tradition. If anything, then, shouldn’t it have Christian connotations? ;-) [Personally I don't think it has any religious connotations at all, I think it is an extremely evocative and beautiful peace of prose by Ananda Samarakone, certainly a very gifted man].

Namo is a salutation generally associated with buddhist worship. Like Amen. Like if we had an Amen at the end of the anthem things would be very clear right? It’s the same as having a Namo Namo at the beginning.

I don’t mean to be picky bro, but would that mean Kithu Dahama is combining a “Christian word” and a “Buddhist word” – the “Christian word” being Kithu (Sinhalised, or more accurately Elu-fied “Christ”) and Dahama (doctrine)? Because, correct me if I’m wrong, the term “Dahama” is generally associated with Buddhist teaching.

In your opinion, what would be a proper word in the Sinhalese language for “salutation” if we were not to use the term “namo”? And also, is saluting Mother Lanka – a personification of Sri Lanka the country – part of Buddhist teaching or practice (assuming you are familiar with Buddhism,that is), and if so, how so?

Please add this at the end of the first paragraph of my post above :)

Or, is it that the Sinhalese vocabulary has been availed of to describe various articles in our environment, our world? Where would one draw the line between what words in the Sinhalese language are and are not associated with Buddhism or Christianity or any other religious tradition, especially when they are verbs or adjectives?

Hatts it’s good to see you in print. And I echo your point well made that Heshan has the courtesy and ability to disagree in civility. I refer you lot to another strand of discussion begun by ‘Glib’. You gentlemen are far more informed in the matters of conflict and resolution to perhaps take on Glib’s rather emotional, if somewhat justified, tirade against the Sinhalese.

Far too often have the worlds Sinhala, and Buddhist been used in tandem. Morquendi’s confusion is understandable. Being a Sinhalese Christian, sometimes I too find it difficult to find my print in the mosaic.

I hate studying. Who said that stuff about knowledge being lost in information? Damn right.

Shanaka machang, good to touch base again!

Hope things are going well.

The almost exact same argument Heshan makes, though expanded and with far less finesse, is made here – http://www.theacademic.org/feature/115608493031206/index.shtml – where I am branded as an ‘NGOlogist’. My response to this endearing epithet can be found here http://www.theacademic.org/feature/115636208059154/index.shtml.

As for studies, don’t even start. 25,000 words due this month, in 3 seperate assigments. Not to mention a couple of journal articles I’ve, for some sado-masochistic reason, have agreed to write. I hate academic papers – too far removed from thoughts closer to my heart.

And information is vastly over-rated methinks.

Stay well,

Sanjana

Dear Heshan,

You’ve given food for thought – many thanks.

My own opinion is one that celebrates difference. Just like a good arrack and some baila can be a wonderful leveller of class, caste and ethnic difference in a joyous and drunken chorus of diversity, the anthem, as the supreme celebration of Sri Lanka’s social fabric, should I think, make reference to our rich multi-cultural histories.

This is not to negate your point, but rather one that engages with the problems of creating a ‘Sri Lankan’ identity instead of the Sinhala / Tamil / Muslim identities that we have all grown up with. Ideally, having a Sri Lankan identity does not erase (or diminish) one’s identity as a member of a particular group or community, but instead reflects a shared (and larger) committment to the inviolable ideals of democracy, sustainable and pro-poor development et al, which under-gird any sustainable and just peace in SL.

Stay well,

Sanjana

good woks

Sanjana: Thank you for the comments bro, I agree with them :)

It’s just that after I read your Swansong of Unity article I came to the conclusion that I disagreed with it (not with it all, but with some sections). And then I asked myself whether my disagreement had a rational and justified basis, but I had trouble deciding whether it did. And when I saw your post here (strangely enough after reading the said article recently), I just couldn’t resist asking you about it, and consequently taking this thread really off-topic :)

I have to be honest and say that I am somewhat of a nationalist. A nationalist of what kind of nationalism you might ask? I would have to say both of Sri Lankan nationalism and Sinhalese nationalism. I suppose this won’t gel well with many people here who seem to me to follow other strands of thought, but diversity of opinion is what makes the world an interesting place, right? :)

I find that the Sinhalese community, compared to say the Tamil community, is not as united or committed to any sort of goal. Neither do I find a sense of community comparable to that which (as it appears to me) exists within the Tamil community. Rightly or wrongly Sanjana, I found that article of yours, as trying to divide the Sinhalese community along religious lines, and place blame and judgement upon a rather large section of the Sinhalese community. But I am glad that I have managed to discourse with you over this and gain an understanding of your ideas and thoughts. As I said, I found your latest article “Compassion in a Time of Hatred” a really great read and well thought out, and I appreciate how you didn’t attack any particular group of people. I feel that division along any lines is what the Sinhalese community needs least.

Shanaka: I agree with you bro. I believe that the Sinhalese community consists of people who are ethnically (or at least identify themselves as) Sinhalese. It follows that members of this community can follow any religious tradition, whether it be Buddhism or Christianity or any another tradition, but whatever religious tradition they do follow does not deprive them of membership in the Sinhalese community. For example, I would identify myself as a member of the Sinhalese community who, through birth or practice, follows the Buddhist tradition. I believe that religion is the biggest faultline dividing the Sinhalese people (the other is party politics) and all members of the community should make a concious effort to seal up these faultlines, bridge any gaps and unify the community from all sides. This does not mean that there should be no self critique within the community, but that any self-critique is not emotional and has in its aims the improvement of the Sinhalese community in someway. Uh oh I think I’m starting to preach here :)

Can I ask you guys one more thing: Do you consider it chauvinistic for Dayan Jayatillaka to use the term “we Sinhalese” in his articles, or is it without cause for criticism? For example in his recent article “Joint Mechanism: The Bigger Picture” Dayan says:

“If we Sinhalese have any brains we would imitate the big boys, the USA and the USSR during the Cold war, the Indians and Pakistanis today, and adopt a multi-track policy of containing the enemy by engaging and enmeshing it in negotiated agreements while undermining it at the periphery through low intensity proxy war, and building up the military strength of the state. We would (a) sign the joint mechanism while (b) training and equipping our military so as to defeat any LTTE threat, and (c)covertly supporting, or at the least, not selling out and suppressing, the increasingly effective armed resistance by the Karuna forces.”

http://theacademic.org/feature/115545451080368/index.shtml

Anyway, apologies for taking this thread off-topic. And thanks for listening to my rambles :)

I’m onto a hiding for nothing by replying again to this thread, but oh well.. :) Note: my opinions. You don’t like them, that’s fine. I can deal with that. I’d like argument on points and I’ll try replying.

Heshan, the main reason I distrust nationalists of any sort is their air of “what I say is right” and “what you say is wrong and you’re dividing the community”. Communities gel together in these circumstances by a sense of common purpose or a sense of common fear. In my opinion (I’m going to sprinkle that phrase liberally throughout this reply), if the Tamil community is united, then part of it is due to their fear that the Sinhalese are going to have another go at imitating Attila the Hun on them. A lot (I generalize, somewhat) of the Sinhalese nationalists have a rallying cry of “omg. they’re giving away our land” or “we’re negotiating with terrorists. That’s so wrong”. Fear or common purpose ? I think fear. I’d prefer not to go down that route. It might also explain how even though I may agree with the substance of some opinions, I myself fear rhetoric and an attempt to appeal to a wider audience will have “the community” make decisions that I don’t agree with and/or I can’t live with.

Critique by anyone is going to be taken with a degree of emotion. I know I am certainly no diplomat… How will someone separate emotion about “your view is just plain wrong” from objective fact ? Sri Lankans (again, I am generalizing) aren’t the most cold blooded of people… and decades of party politics have inured people into automatic assumptions that detractors have a hidden agenda.

I don’t think it’s chauvinistic of D.J to use the phrase. But I personally think that paragraph you quoted is a good example of what I illustrated earlier about not agreeing with the approaches, even though I may agree with the overall opinion. He (D.J) advocates a war by proxy. Does no one remember the Montagnards of Vietnam or the Afghan mujaheddin of the 80s ? One proxy army wiped off the face of the map and the other… well, Osama bin Laden and the Taliban. Worked out well for the US, huh ? Today’s proxy army is tomorrow’s problem. Now, could I honestly say that I think his idea sucks without having to listen to nutjobs screaming at me and calling me a LTTE sympathizer ? I leave you to decide.

Dear Heshan,

There is no need for you to cringe from your self-description as a nationalist. Nationalism is unfortunately a perjorative term in Sri Lanka, used for all manner of parochial purposes, precisely because of a lack of debate of what it can mean for Sri Lanka. On the other hand, the selective and restrictive interpretations of histories and communal hagiography also give rise to and underpins regressive expressions of nationalism, which in some texts is called a ‘garrison nationalism’. There are many other ways in which to think of nationalism, but I won’t go into that here. Suffice to say that I respect and encourage your participation in this and other debates as a progressive and articulate nationalist, which is rare in our country.

I think you have some valuable thoughts there, though unfortunately, this might not be the place to continue this exchange of ideas. However, some thoughts spring to mind in your response to Shanaka. One, the recent article of mine which you refer to (http://www.theacademic.org/feature/115544901079193/index.shtml) is actually quite critical of, inter alia, the LTTE, the JVP and JHU. Though I would abhor creating divisions, I also believe we must stand up against those who, by their venemous rhetoric, create such faultlines, within and between communities. We have to ask ourselves whether silence in the face of such statements and actions is better for a semblence of unity, or actively challenging them, creating dialogues and discourses that offer alternatives to what is oftentimes paraded as a single ‘Truth’.

Two, we possibly need to explore what the ‘unity’ as you see it in the Tamil community means? Does it mean unity behind a hegemon, unity behind a full recognition of their rights as equal citizens of SL, unity behind the violent struggle for their rights, unity behind the idea of a seperate state, unity behind the notion of the LTTE, however unpalatable their methods, will be able to deliver what parliamentary politics couldn’t etc etc? I look at the Tamil community, and just as with the Sinhala and Muslim communities, see a rich texture and diversity of opinion, that oftentimes, isn’t explored in articles or statements that pidgeonhole entire communities into a single idea.

Self-critique that is not emotional within the Sinhalese community might be nigh impossible. Given the anonymous responses to my recent critiques (see my post above) and recognising that this is tame in comparison with what Morquendi for instance has gone through, it is difficult to think of ways of engaging the community is dialogues that question and critically analyse the role of the Sangha, Buddhism, the nature of the State, the Tamil national question etc in a manner that doesn’t inflame the misguided passions of zealots.

Difficult, but perhaps not impossible. What may be required is the infusion of fresh ideas, such as many which are reflected in the comments in this blog, to processes that inform and shape public opinion in Sri Lanka – the media through op-eds, letters to the editor, submissions to online magazines, written contributions, spending time with communities outside of Colombo, speaking to women in border villages, engaging with those who work with children, using art & theatre, creatively adopting and using technology, showing non-violent but unequivocal opposition to the flames of intolerance paraded by anyone (in the NE, Colombo or Vanni) fighting against the Hobbesian cudgel and club politics that seem to have taken over our country.

As I state in my response to the Asian Tribune rejoinder on The Lanka Academic, we need to “acknowledge the errors of one’s own ways, assess self-critically one’s actions and interventions, retrospectively look at the inequalities that have given rise to the Sri Lanka we know now and finally, the sincerity to commit ourselves to a vision that takes us from narrow, bitter and personal diatribes to a fight for larger ideals of democracy and pluralism.”

This then is our shared challenge.

Stay well,

Sanjana

Hilarious disection of blogger types – http://redwing.hutman.net/~mreed/index.htm.

I think I an Evil Clown. Such is my lot in life.

DBS Jeyaraj on the latest Sunday leader confirms Sivaram did ordered to kill two of his fellow PLOTE rs. He is a murderer like Prabhakaran, Jeyawardene, Premadasa and Rohana Wijayaweera

Uh, I fail to understand how a guy I’ve never heard of in a paper I don’t trust confirms anything. Shit, I don’t even trust the spelling in the papers, let alone the writers. Is there any, how do you say, evidence?

[...] 8217;s Killers

from the march on World Press Freedom Day This is from a comment Sanjana left. This letter was ‘sent out to several leading figures in civil society [...]

[...] 8217;s Killers

from the march on World Press Freedom Day This is from a comment Sanjana left. This letter was ‘sent out to several leading figures in civil society [...]

Text of letter recently sent out to several leading figures in civil society (and media activists). This is very disturbing.

Announcement No. 1

THERAPUTHTHABHAYA BALAKAYA
(Therapuththabhaya brigade)

THE ANNOUNCEMENT TO THE ENEMIES OF THE MOTHERLAND !

The attempt by the world imperialists, started in the far off past to take Sri Lanka under their command has not been given up despite the vigorous protest of the anti imperialist patriotic forces.

These infamous imperialist forces that are shuddering in the face of the revolutionary economic uprising of China, Malaysia, Thailand and India, have united themselves with the traitorous Wanni Tigers who are engaged in dividing this country under the guise of a national liberation struggle, taking the shelter of peace and are advancing step by step to set up a Tamil Ealam. For this purpose the Norwegian white Tigers and UNP green Tigers have got together and showing their dollar bags are building up a flock of Blue Tigers by deceiving the eunuchs in the United Peoples Freedom Alliance. And also a set of traitors in the guise of scholars, intellectuals and artists are acting as the directors of this heinous sin. The Tiger called Dharmaratnam Sivaram who call himself a journalist is only one among these enemies of the motherland, engaged in this traitorous conspiracy of destroying the motherland.

It is with a heart full of joy that we are informing the patriotic people of this country that we had to put an end on 28th April2005, at 11.20 p m, to the infamous traitorous operation he carried out, defacing and darkening the international face of Sri Lanka, with the help, encouragement and sponsorship of a sinful, traitorous herd, calling themselves mediamen, born of Sinhala parents. What the traitorous imperialist wanni Tigers –green –white –blue Tigers and those traitorous demons who have joined them licking their dollar bags should know from this is that we are looking at them- eyes wide open, day and night.

It is hereby informed with a strong sense of responsibility that all those who are doing harm to the motherland, while being nourished by the motherland, should be ready to become manure to the motherland very soon.

Senpathi Mayadunne
(Commander Mayadunne)
THERAPUTHTHABHAYA BALAKAYA
Western province Division
On 2nd May 2005, in Colombo.

And they say Sri Lanka missed it’s renaissance.

Sanjana – this is well and truly traumatising. I expect it will cause a spike in traffic as well.

This hammered home a few things to me. Like, this is why Sri Lanka will never join the league of extraodinary nations.
This is why we will always be entrenched in our own mediocrity and psychosis. This is why we raise generation upon generation of alarmists not visionaries, and this is why we are so deep in our very own cave of faecal depravity that we can only spout crap. We’re amputated by feckless authority and then silenced by each other. That’s what we’ll be:
A compost heap of mute paralytics.

I failed to mention that this is a (loose) English translation of the Sinhala original. I’ve emailed a scanned copy of the original letter to Indi in the hope that he includes a link to it from http://indi.ca/2005/05/note-from-tarakis-killers/. Reading the Sinhala original, one notes the dilution of the malevolent invective, which is really quite disturbing.

Indi, the Sinhala scanned copy does not print very well. Any advice?

Here’s a link to a site with information about the historical Mayadunne, read 1521 onwards.

http://www.spur.asn.au/450_years_of_colonialism_Part_3.htm