Posted by alexbradshaw (Msg) on 2009-11-18 12:01:28:
On Fort Hood
Reflecting on Tragedy and Anti-Muslim Sentiment
Originally posted at http://comradshaw.wordpress.com
By no means should anyone make light of the Ford Hood tragedy; it was certainly a heinous occurrence.
It presents a complex problem, however; fear-mongers are using this as an opportunity to continue to bash Islam and Muslims, and equate them with extremists, or terrorists. I assume that’s what the mainstream media means when they refer to Nidal Malik Hasan, the individual who shot and killed 13 fellow military officials, as “radical” (historically, the word has been used, as a term of endearment by many instead of a pejorative, as someone who tries to get to the root of the problem, following the classical etymology of the term).
There is, of course, the allegation that he said “God is great” before he went on his rampage or, to be sure, “Allahu Akbar.” Why someone’s personal faith would be drawn into question when a violent act is committed is known; it is convenient to concoct boogey-men who happen to live in regions in which we have troops on the ground, and are participating in imperialism.
A recent domestic terrorist incident came from a far-right wing Christian known as Scott Roeder. Roeder murdered a doctor who performed late-term abortions, and was highly influenced by his, albeit skewed, Christian beliefs. Now anyone who assumes that Christianity has something to do with Christ himself will of course object to the fact that Roeder killed because of an accurate reading of Christian beliefs, as would someone who studied the teachings of the prophet Mohammed vis-à-vis the actions of Hasan. But there were entire articles and news exposes for which Roeder’s Christianity was not mentioned, whereas one of the first aspects of the Fort Hood tragedy mentioned is the faith of Hasan.
One must also question the term “terrorism” in general. Terrorism usually involves the slaughter of innocents in the name of some belief system, i.e., the religion of some church, or that of the state. It is doubtful that Hasan’s actions were political, or that they should be treated any differently than a school shooting. This was a man who unraveled with the unfortunate, devastating consequence of 13 people being murdered.
Religion itself, in its most organized form, has a very tumultuous and violent history. Associating Hasan’s actions with Islam is as absurd as associating Christianity with the Spanish Inquisition, which was the tribunal that oversaw the burning at the stake of thousands of those who wouldn’t conform to Catholicism. For that matter, since JFK, every American president has claimed to be a god-fearing Christian. This is worth mentioning since our military has killed millions of civilians since Kennedy took office in the ‘60’s. Is this reason to reach conclusions about all Christians? After all, Bush II said he consulted with his god on a daily basis, all the while sanctioning the slaughter of innocent Iraqi civilians. The notion is, of course, absurd.
Further, why is it that when a brown person who worships a different god than a majority of U.S. believers kills someone, they are immediately called “terrorists”? Shouldn’t the word “murderer” be applied? Rarely have we heard the term “terrorist” used to describe serial killers like Jeffrey Dahmer or Ted Bundy. And when middle-aged white men, Christians in suits and ties, order the bombing of pharmaceutical factories in third world countries like the Sudan (Bill Clinton), or command death squads in Latin America to commit murder (Ronald Reagan), they’re called presidents instead of terrorists, when in actuality their actions fit the definition of “terrorism” in a much more accurate sense than the acts of Hasan or any other murderer.
To be fair, the Oxford Dictionary defines “terrorist” as “a person who uses violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims.” The Nicaraguan Contras, who were used as a proxy by the Reagan administration to stand as a counter to the left-wing government that the American empire did not approve of, participated in the murder, kidnapping, and rape of innocent civilians, as well as the assassinations of health care workers. The Reagan administration’s funding and approval of such actions, to use one example in thousands, sounds much closer to the definition of terrorism than Hasan’s act. Also, Scott Roeder’s act stands as a much closer example to the definition than a man who indiscriminately shot individuals at his place of work.
Of course the difference between these brown people that live far away is that, numerically, they cannot hold a candle to these heads of state in regards to the devastation they commit. Heads of state have always been the most violent actors, from Stalin and Hitler to Roosevelt and Hoover. For it is easy to, from the comfort of the White House, or presidential palace de jour, command the “strategic” bombing of so-called enemy targets. What is so easy to forget is that the World Trade Center certainly represented an enemy target for so many thousands of Arabs who have seen their country’s infrastructure destroyed by western superpowers, particularly the United States. In scholar and activist Ward Churchill’s now infamous essay entitled “Some People Push Back: On the Justice of Roosting Chickens,” he wrote the following:
“The building and those inside comprised military targets, pure and simple. As to those in the World Trade Center . . .
Well, really. Let’s get a grip here, shall we? True enough, they were civilians of a sort. But innocent? Gimme a break. They formed a technocratic corps at the very heart of America’s global financial empire – the “mighty engine of profit” to which the military dimension of U.S. policy has always been enslaved – and they did so both willingly and knowingly. Recourse to “ignorance” – a derivative, after all, of the word “ignore” – counts as less than an excuse among this relatively well-educated elite. To the extent that any of them were unaware of the costs and consequences to others of what they were involved in – and in many cases excelling at – it was because of their absolute refusal to see.”
Churchill is of course not referring here to the civilians walking past the twin towers, or the janitors and waiters in the restaurants; he is making a point that as the U.S. has strategic targets in the Middle East, so did these men. In fact it’s hard to deny that September 11, 2001 did not represent an act of war. If we equate these acts with terrorism, which I certainly do (as does Churchill later in his essay), we much reach the conclusion that war is terrorism. This writer has no qualms with telling you that he has reached this conclusion.
And of course, the strategic attack of this enemy target did lead to the heinous killing of thousands of civilians. We should see the obvious parallel with this atrocious terrorist act, and the kind committed by our federal government via unmanned drones in Afghanistan and Pakistan, or the over 1,000,000 reported dead civilians due to U.S. military presence in Iraq. Many of us, unfortunately, do not make this connection, and continue to believe that there is a dangerous “other” abroad that will terrorize us, and perhaps implement Islamic law in our country if successful.
September 11, 2001 had probably very little to do with a fanatic view of Islam; it is likely these desperate young men felt as though they were doing their people a service by attacking an impervious empire that has inflicted a century of suffering upon them. It is likely that Hasan felt the same kind of alienation.
Let us be the radicals. Let us attempt to get to the root of the problem, instead of pandering to the fear-mongers. There is no boogey-man. Forget al Qaeda. If we think that neo-liberal economic policies that prey upon the rest of the world, considering it the empire’s personal sweat-shop will have no consequences, we’re dead wrong. The fact is that as long as these policies are perpetuated, periodically chickens will come home to roost. In other words, as long as the U.S. contributes to these ominous practices, there will always be the possibility of a sequel to September 11, 2001.
How rational is it to fear a rag-tag quasi-organization (al Qaeda) when our own government could get us involved in a nuclear war? Equally ominous to the notion of nuclear war is of course climate crisis, which will most certainly, if we do not act dramatically, change geography due to polar ice caps melting, causing sea-levels to rise, and the spread of diseases that flourish in warm weather. But this of course has no boogey-man to blame; it is the all-encompassing economic system known as capitalism that could send us into environmental devastation.
And it is nearly impossible to deny that capitalism is an economic model that, if successful, actually warms the planet. Absurd is the notion that we can use this vitriolic system much longer. It’s nearly as absurd as the fact that we as a nation seem to be more worried about religious fundamentalists. And I’m not even speaking of the religious right in our own country, for whom this writer is much more frightened by than Osama bin laden.
What Hasan’s atrocity has to do with this is very simple; it makes us ask these questions. Do we really think the problem is al Qaeda and fanatic Islam, that we are this vulnerable altruistic nation that does nothing to deserve to be attacked? Or do we believe that, like Hasan, others are alienated by the all encompassing affects of capitalism and imperialism to the point of acting? Further, is Hasan a sick individual suffering from mental illness, or is he the product of a sick society that fetishizes violence in the form of militarization and the commodification of everything in our lives?
It seems that a large consequence of capitalism is that it stresses competition, and pits us against each other; the idea of cooperation and solidarity is anathema to the unsustainable economic model. Perhaps capitalism is to blame for the notion that there always seems to be a perceived “other” (at least according to governments and corporate media, its propaganda wing). In Israel, the “other” are confined behind walls, and kept away from the rest of the population, like the U.S south prior to the civil rights movement in the ‘60’s in regard to people of color. In America, it is the labor organizer, the LGBTQ community, or the Muslim. This “other,” we’re told, wants to abolish the so-called precious way of life for the majority of god-fearing, white Americans. How they will do this none of the reactionaries can tell us.
What we have done is missed the ball here. Instead of questioning all-encompassing social relations that prevent communities from making directly democratic systems like capitalism, and our current system of government, we rush to blame religious fundamentalism. Karl Marx referred to religion as the “opiate of the masses.” He wasn’t referring to religion being analogous to a euphoric drug, but to a pain-killer. In Marx’s day, opiates were commonly used as pain-relievers. He was referring to society under capitalism, and how it alienated and reduced the person to her or his lowest common denominator, i.e., “wage-slavery,” as it was commonly referred to in the 19th century. Perhaps a fundamentalist interpretation of Islam was Hasan’s opiate, which no longer dulled the pain or softened the alienation of 21st century American society.
Hopefully our communities can reflect on such a tragedy as that which occurred at Fort Hood in a compassionate and mature way, instead of resorting to trite generalizations about Muslims. We do not reach the same conclusions about white males (who are the majority of the culprits) when one has a break-down and commits murder in the halls of his school, and hopefully we in the states will not be judged by the actions of our “leaders.” One would hope that hatred and ignorance will not prevail in these most interesting times.
Send private message to alexbradshaw (in new window)
Posted by freethinker on 2009-11-20 12:56:36:
I don't think it's just an allegation that Major Hasan shouted, "God is Great". Reports he did are truly believable.
Yes, the Right-Wingers will make use of this rampage, spin it, etc. However, the Left is playing into their hands by downplaying the significance of the event, and the fact that Islam has a violent and virulent strain like nothing Christianity has seen in centuries. Major Hasan was both disturbed AND an extremist. Yes, it does meet the definition of terrorism. The army would have been in the right to have shown him the door after his talk to medical students about his views. I'm an atheist, but I'd be OK with the College of Cardinals showing the door to anyone at their table talking about atheism.
As for US presence in Afghanistan being imperialism . . 911 was born there, opium comes from there . . how could we stay away? China is investing in Latin America and Africa, and some say that is akin to imperialism. Cuba sent troops to Angola. The USSR kept its boot on locations surrounding it. So, how do we define imperialism?
The Left is alienated from working Americans because of a number of stances and conditions: It appears anti-American. Many of its memes are generated by Marxists and not other activists. It wastes energy trying to replace capitalism and stop globalization. It is led more often by elites than working people. Heck, most working people have relatives in the armed services, so their ears are acutely tuned to whether or not something sounds anti-American, or not.
I'd rather keep capitalism and make it more humane. I think our chances of creating a Scandinavian-style system more likely than making the USA socialist and halting globalization. I think working people would rather hear about keeping the cops from being brutal; improving schools; creating a better system of public defenders; etc., than what's going on in Central America (What the Left harped on during the 80's.). Most working Americans have relatives in uniform. Most working Americans are rightly worried about terrorism. Careful not to play into the hands of the Right. Don't give them things that easily spin.
Posted by alexbradshaw on 2009-11-20 15:59:25:
Hey freethinker. I just wrote an incredibly long response to what you've said, and lost the entire response thanks to my ancient p.c. I'll try to recapture the same sentiment.
First, let me say this: I think people like you and I are precisely the kind of people who should be having dialogue. If we do see the world so differently, why? Not to psychologize too much, but what about our life experience forms these worldviews, etc. ? If you're anything like me, you're probably surrounded too often with those who share a great deal of your beliefs. There's nothing wrong with this, but if we're ever to develop an intimate human solidarity with one another, overcoming social problems of our time, we need to have this dialogue.
Now I'll get to the disagreements, for which I had many.
"I don't think it's just an allegation that Major Hasan shouted, "God is Great". Reports he did are truly believable."
It's irrelevant to me. The point is not whether Islam is good or bad, or Christianity is worse; the point is that we cannot scapegoat a group of people, which often resorts to the worst kind of xenophobia, ethnocentrism, and, to be frank, racism.
"However, the Left is playing into their hands by downplaying the significance of the event, and the fact that Islam has a violent and virulent strain like nothing Christianity has seen in centuries."
First, I started this article by stating that I don't believe anyone should make light of such tragedies. The latter part of the above statement hasn't the slightest resemblance of truth. If you want to discuss acts committed by Christians in the last century vis-a-vis the acts of Muslims, it's hardly comparable. Take Truman. Would we make blanket assumptions or statements about Christians if we discovered that Truman prayed to his god before sanctioning the bombing of Hiroshima/Nagasaki, which I believe to be one of the most heinous crimes against humanity to occur in the last 100 years(I'll discuss later why this was an act of terroism)? It would be as absurd as assuming Islam per se, or doctrine de jour, is responsible for heinous crimes and terrorist acts. It's a straw man and a scapegoat.
Major Hasan was both disturbed AND an extremist.
I certainly never said otherwise. My concern is that we avoid the important questions: is Hasan a person with mental illness, or is he the product of a society with mental illness? I don't think you, nor I, can answer this question objectively. But it's worth pondering instead of assuming he's another crazy, violent Muslim.If the worldview that "those people", whatever the perceived, en vogue "other" is of the epoch, are so violent and evil, then why not concentration camps? internment camps? I think this is the kind of horrendous (un)logic xenophobia can produce.
Yes, it does meet the definition of terrorism.
Here it seems we will agree to disagree. I think a more objective act of terrorism is to be seen in that of the Clinton administration vis-a-vis the Iraqi sanctions of the '90's; they gave rise to children dying en masse due to the prohibition of medical supplies (some estimate one million children, approx., died due to the sanctions imposed by the United States). Terrorism concerns intimidation of a population to force political will upon people, a la 9/11, I might add. Another good example is the Bay of Pigs in regards to the poor, defenseless country of Cuba. Also, the 2002 coup attempt do oust Hugo Chavez with the Bush administration's support fits the bill. Hasan's actions simply do not fit the bill any more so than the Colombine tragedy, Virginia Tech, or any other workplace shooting. Are they horrible? Yes. Do they meet the criteria for the definition of terrorism? It's doubtful.As for US presence in Afghanistan being imperialism . . 911 was born there, opium comes from there . . how could we stay away? China is investing in Latin America and Africa, and some say that is akin to imperialism. Cuba sent troops to Angola. The USSR kept its boot on locations surrounding it. So, how do we define imperialism?
Well, I'm not a Leninist, so you won't find me defending the Soviet Union. I think the USSR's involvement in Afghanistan was unequivocally imperialism. The USSR wanted to install their own puppet regime, and make their own rules (more than analogous to the U.S. involvement at present, I might add). I'll give you the full disclaimer that I'm anti-war. I simply think the people of Afghanistan should be free to determine their own destiny, since a majority view the U.S. and Britain unfavorably at the moment as shown here.
The Left is alienated from working Americans because of a number of stances and conditions: It appears anti-American.
I never understood the term "anti-American". Sounds more like residual McCarthyism propaganda than anything. It's Orwellian at best, and I wouldn't expect to hear the term from someone who calls her/himself freeminds :-). If "anti-American" means being opposed to nationalistic hubris, military adventurism, blind patriotism, and the policies of the federal government which have been miles behind the population, then count me in as an "anti-American". If it means a distaste for "Americans" (hard to say who "we" are since a majority of us are the descendents of genocidists who came here and systematically wiped the Native American population off of the face of the earth, speaking of terrorists), then count me out.
Many of its memes are generated by Marxists and not other activists.
He he. You create this false dichotomy between activists and Marxists, as if the Marxists are this small clique perpetuating, and trickling down their propaganda to the "activists". I actually know some Marxists (mighty fine people, I might add) that are also activists, believe it or not. And none of them have Phds; don't worry.
It wastes energy trying to replace capitalism and stop globalization.
So you think for people like myself who think capitalism is one of the ominous examples of domination and oppression, an unsustainable system that will lead to environmental catastrophe, and simply produces chaos on its own, should just shut up, even if we think there are more humane and just, and smarter, alternatives?
It is led more often by elites than working people.
I suppose we need to define "elites". If you mean people with privilege, I would certainly agree. Working-class people rarely have time for such disputes, and historically this has been the case since Marx.
Also, I think you're simply omitting history if you're saying that class struggle, and anticapitalist ideas haven't come from working-class people. A brief history of the U.S. alone would show healthy doses of struggle against capitalism. And most of it didn't come from the pointy-headed Marxist college professor. Sorry, but this right-wing talk-show host fantasy world hardly exists.
I'd rather keep capitalism and make it more humane.
Humane capitalism? C'mon, freethinker. This is an absurd oxy-moron.
I think our chances of creating a Scandinavian-style system more likely than making the USA socialist and halting globalization. I think working people would rather hear about keeping the cops from being brutal; improving schools; creating a better system of public defenders; etc., than what's going on in Central America (What the Left harped on during the 80's.)
Well, you're talking about the concept of social democracy. It's a less-worse model, but reformist models ultimately show allegiance to capitalism, and the social spending gets cut when the big firms fail and need to be bailed out. Also, the intelligencia in this country shows no support for social democracy. This is a point I try to make to most well-meaning liberals: for even the modest reforms that they want, it would probably take revolution in America.
Most working Americans have relatives in uniform.
When you have a mercenary army it's quite predictable who you'll attract: the working poor.
Most working Americans are rightly worried about terrorism.
I must paraphrase Noam Chomsky here. There's an easy way to stop terrorism: stop participating in it.
Also, this whole "Right/Left" paradigm thing you're talking about,and perhaps implying that I would like a "socialist USA": it depends on what you mean by "socialism". It's really simple what I think would be a better way to go about doing things in life: self-management, in the workplace and the community, ie, neighborhoods and cities, connected through federations. If this sounds like Marxism or dogmatic leftism, then so be it. I'd like to think my vision for communities making decisions in proportion to how they're affected by such decisions isn't terribly ideological, though. Perhaps it is.
Posted by freethinker on 2009-11-21 01:07:46:
Freethought isn't in contradiction to capitalism. They're born of the same mama. Free marketplace and free marketplace of ideas. I'm for regulated capitalism, and know well the history of abuses by the business class. I dislike the culture of the American business community. However, control freaks and narcissists thrive equally well in socialist systems. Ever visited a commune? Control freaks aren't hard to spot.
US imperialism? In 1900 most of the planet was ruled by royalty of one sort or another. Had I been a US President, I'd have wanted a presence in the Philippines and elsewhere, too. Alfred Thayer Mahan's famous book about sea power and history, influenced the likes of Theodore Roosevelt. Better we get to it all than Bismark, Japan's emperor, etc. It paid off when Hitler was exterminating people.
Smallpox did most of the wiping out of Native Americans. Who were themselves xenophobic at times. You used the adjective "systematic" extermination. No. For an example of that, look at German eugenics. When 2 very different civilizations go bump, some on each side are going to do bad things.
Should the Europeans have stayed home? Wasn't going to happen. Europe would have stayed politically degenerate. Better they came here and experimented with the things we now take for granted.
Hiroshima and Nagasaki. While it is debatable whether or not they should have been dropped, it is certain that at that point in time, The Axis had pushed The Allies to total war. FDR worried someone akin to Charles Manson was going to overrun Eurasia, exterminating millions along the way. Wouldn't you pull out all the stops? Japan's Emperor could have surrendered after the first one, and chose not to. (I once saw pilot Tibbots, here in Louisville.)
Letting the Afghans determine their own destiny? They're still tribal (Almost as bad as racism). The Taliban kills school principals for teaching female students. I say stay there, but to a limited degree.
Marxism is a godless religion. As an atheist, I see it as being as repugnant as most organized religions. Historically, it has done more harm than good.
By opposing capitalism, some in the American Left have in effect decided they can't participate in the system (which by definition is capitalist; the USA; elections). So, all that portion of the the Left can do is negative and futile. It sucks votes away from any group working against the control freaks in the USA (some business interests; religion, etc.) Better to sit down at the table and get what you can.
Would you really want to nationalize Detroit? Then, they'd really start making crappy cars.
OK. Time for me to go shopping!!!! A wondrous experience provided by amoral business people with no sense of community! Well, some business people aren't like that, and some socialist bureaucrats are.
Posted by alexbradshaw on 2009-11-21 12:38:33:
Freethought isn't in contradiction to capitalism. They're born of the same mama. Free marketplace and free marketplace of ideas.
This is a little on the banal side, no? Sounds more like p.r. and cliche catch-phrase than critical thought.
This idea that freedom is synonymous with capitalism is incredible to me; I don't think Orwell could have come up with something better than this. Heard of Cuba pre-1959 (not to say it's a great place to live under Brother's Castro)? You know: the ruthless dictatorship of Batista? Heard of the coup in '73 in Chile? Does the name Pinochet mean anything to you? In fact, most Latin American countries throughout the 20th century were lead by brutal military dictatorships, for which the economies were much more capitalist than our own. Journalist Naomi Klein wrote a book exposing this called The Shock Doctrine. If you read the book, which is nothing but top-notch, non-ideological investigative journalism and scholarship, you'll see that the University of Chicago intellectuals like Milton Friedman and others, ie, the poster boys of "free" market ideology, were the economic advisers, whether de facto or through individuals trained at the University of Chicago, for these military dictatorships throughout Latin America. The idea that the "free" market is synonymous with freedom is about as safe as your assumption that there was no genocide in North America.
This too is an orthodoxy amongst intellectuals in the west. I understand your view because it is what we're taught from an early age. Many scholars have done work on this subject, and believe that in every sense of the definition of genocide, there certainly was such a thing in North America in regards to Native peoples.
I'm not just throwing around buzz words, nor am I pioneering an idea here. Ward Churchill's book A Little Matter of Genocide is a collection of essays, for which he produces no groundbreaking assumptions about the genocide that occurred in North America; it is a collection of the scholarly work that has been conducted on the subject.
You're correct that many Native Americans were killed by disease brought by the Europeans; this does not mean that there wasn't a systematic extermination of these people. Again, I'm not just espousing hot-air here. In depth scholarship on the subject has been done. Here's a link to the entire book I mentioned.
narcissists thrive equally well in socialist systems.
I struggle to understand what you mean by "socialist systems". You mean like the Zapatistas in Mexico? the CNT/FAI workers' control movement during the Spanish Civil War? the Paris Commune? the "Autogestion" movement in Argentina, for which workers are successfully self-managing firms? the early days of the Israeli kibbutz movement? the Russian Revolution pre-Lenin,ie, the workers' councils, or Soviets?
I'm thinking you're most likely referring to systems that bare no resemblance to "socialism" whatsoever, ie, USSR, Mao's China, Cuba, etc. If you're referring to some of the directly democratic movements of past and present I mentioned, I would say, due to the horizontal structure of decision-making, it would be more difficult for narcissists to thrive. After all, that is the point of trying to dismantle hierarchy.
If you're referring to the latter, what I would call systems of state capitalism, I would agree with you. The "strong man" or "caudillo" or dictator thrives in such a system of centralized power. It's pure anathema to me, and I'd never defend such a system.
US imperialism? In 1900 most of the planet was ruled by royalty of one sort or another. Had I been a US President, I'd have wanted a presence in the Philippines and elsewhere, too. Alfred Thayer Mahan's famous book about sea power and history, influenced the likes of Theodore Roosevelt. Better we get to it all than Bismark, Japan's emperor, etc. It paid off when Hitler was exterminating people.
This statement represents what I believe to be the cancer of nationalism, the cult of patriotism. You're statements aren't false, but it begs the question: should heads of state, so-called representatives, be determining what land belongs to whom? Shouldn't native populations decide such things? Further, are borders a good idea? nation states?
And what this historical perspective has to do with the United States military intervention in the Middle East is all too connected. Do you believe we should still control resources, and have political control in other nations? Certainly some Muslims would like to have a piece of the United States, or would like to have political control over the U.S. And certainly some third world dictators would give anything to control, say, some financial market in the U.S.
Of course, if a third world head of state, or Muslim leader or cleric, made such aspirations public, it is likely that their country would be turned into a pile of rubble. Why is it OK for the U.S.? Certainly logistically we know it's acceptable for the U.S. because it assumes ownership of the planet. Morally, how's it justified, though?
Better they came here and experimented with the things we now take for granted.
For someone who was criticizing the roll of "elites", this sounds like a pretty elitist assumption. "Ahh, thank god those Europeans ventured abroad to liberate the savage nations."
Hiroshima and Nagasaki. While it is debatable whether or not they should have been dropped, it is certain that at that point in time, The Axis had pushed The Allies to total war. FDR worried someone akin to Charles Manson was going to overrun Eurasia, exterminating millions along the way. Wouldn't you pull out all the stops? Japan's Emperor could have surrendered after the first one, and chose not to. (I once saw pilot Tibbots, here in Louisville.)
I'd have to disagree that the slaughter of thousands of innocents, like the Native Americans who had the misfortune of living on the continent of America, justifies any means. Again, this is the classic, textbook assumption that the U.S. is a force for good in the world, that we take part in a humanitarian imperialism. Every so often we have to kill 100,000 innocent people and smash up a country's infrastructure, but trust us: it's for the well-being of the nation. I've certainly heard these ideas before.
Letting the Afghans determine their own destiny? They're still tribal (Almost as bad as racism). The Taliban kills school principals for teaching female students. I say stay there, but to a limited degree.
The assumption you're making is that the Taliban is a democratic movement that the majority favors. This is a falsehood. Certainly your statements are true in regard to the Taliban, but the majority of Afghan people loathe the Taliban. Again, from the link I provided on my first response:
Hostility to the Taleban remains very strong throughout the country, with only 4% wanting them back, 58% saying the Taleban are the biggest danger to Afghanistan, 90% saying they are opposed to the Taleban and 84% saying that the Taleban are weak or non-existent in their own areas.
Marxism is a godless religion.
Certainly. But militant atheism can be every bit as dogmatic. See Christopher Hitchens.By opposing capitalism, some in the American Left have in effect decided they can't participate in the system (which by definition is capitalist; the USA; elections). So, all that portion of the the Left can do is negative and futile. It sucks votes away from any group working against the control freaks in the USA (some business interests; religion, etc.) Better to sit down at the table and get what you can.
Seems you're suggesting the only way a dissident can change things is by going to a voting booth. There are thousands upon thousands of ways we can attempt to transform society, or our communities without ever stepping in a voting booth.
Would you really want to nationalize Detroit? Then, they'd really start making crappy cars.
HE HE. I missed the part where we discussed the socialization of the auto industry. Didn't that already happen :-)?
Posted by freethinker on 2009-11-22 00:14:24:
With all due respect,
You started out saying the American Right demonized Islam. Are you not demonizing the USA?
Why paint yourself into a corner, from which it is difficult to communicate with working America? Why refuse to participate in a participatory democracy? (Pity the radical who goes to a blue collar area dissing the US. And, don't say they're brainwashed.)
The majority of Americans will immediately sense where you are coming from: a position which sees the US as bad. A position whose first knee jerk reaction is to conclude that if the US did it, it must be wrong.
It all springs from a dislike of the nation state. And you won't acknowledge the good they do and can do. Sounds like Utopian thinking to me. By being -above- it all, you render yourself incapable of facilitating much change. And, you're being every anti-American dictator's model/ideal US citizen. Be thankful there are 18 year olds willing to tote guns and stand in harm's way, supporting this nation state, because they will keep you free to say such things - long before the right and proper world you dream of will materialize. First things first.
Not that I see nations as bad. Just go to a high school pep rally to see that homo sapiens will always divide itself into groups rather than be one big loving whole.
Any country where "comrade" is commonly used would not tolerate your degree of dissent. I'm OK with it, because this is the US. So, think and be appreciative of the place. People had to die so you and I could have this debate. That's just a fact and I don't say it to be preachy.
Posted by alexbradshaw on 2009-11-22 23:12:53:
You started out saying the American Right demonized Islam.
Actually, what's called "the Left" in America,ie, "liberalism", is equally as reactionary vis-a-vis Islam. The limited American political spectrum has always condoned profit-over-people and has been equally pro-war.
And what is called "liberal" media is almost just as repulsive as Glenn Beck and co., in my opinion.
What I said in the article is that reactionaries and fear-mongers will capitalize on the Fort Hood tragedy; this is not excluded to conservative reactionaries. I certainly think there's at least just as many liberal pundits out there for whom the label "reactionary" and "fear-monger" is appropriate.
Are you not demonizing the USA?
Depends on what you mean by the "USA". It's almost an ambiguous concept. Again, if you mean the population, I'm certainly not "demonizing the USA". If you mean the policies of the federal government, then yes: I'm "demonizing the USA".
However, I'm usually in the mainstream in regards to not caring for things that the government does.
If I were you, I'd be careful not to pander to the idea of super-patriotism, which is an ominous concept IMO. You'd be correct if you thought I don't feel like I have any allegiance to what's known as the USA, any more so than I have allegiance with Mexico, Canada, Sweden, Pakistan, etc. Ultimately, these are all arbitrary geographic shapes. I'm not a nationalist, and I think the idea of patriotism is flawed. My allegiance is to fellow human beings. I think the idea of human solidarity is much more important than having allegiance to nation-state x. If anything, I think this kind of flag-waving hubris only divides people.
Why paint yourself into a corner, from which it is difficult to communicate with working America?
"[W]orkng America" is, what I assume, you're referring to the working-class as. The working-class, i.e., those people who work for a wage, are a very diverse group. I'm a part of this group, as I would assume you are. There's this notion that what's called "blue collar" (really more of a divisive sociological label than an economic one) represents the entire working-class. Not true. The working-class represents immigrant workers, plumbers, doctors, nurses, food-servers, cashiers, auto mechanics, teachers, etc., etc. If you think I would be out of touch with this group, as if it were homogeneous, I would disagree.
Poll after poll shows "working America" is quite decent on the issue of international relations and domestic issues. You know, I'd completely agree with you that if an "activist" plays the role of a vanguard, and tries to inoculate working-class communities via pamphlets and propaganda, ie, try to enlighten the commoners, that working-class people would, rightfully so, reject this kind of nonsense. But I think if you talk to most people about basic human decency, eg, should we have an economic system that stands to gain from children dying daily from malnourishment, and pits people against each other? or should the U.S. act as if it owns the planet, and destroy other country's infrastructure? I'd extrapolate that a majority of "working America" would roundly condemn these things.
Let us not forget that "working America" served as a counter to capitalism in the country up until the '80's, when a great many of them were in unions and demanded better conditions for themselves (which is synonymous with the capitalist class accumulating less capital). I think you speak of "working America" as a homogeneous group of out-of-touch fools, who are more akin to Larry the Cable Guy than intelligent, creative individuals. I beg to differ. Are they/we over-worked and complacent? Sure.
Why refuse to participate in a participatory democracy?
This is interesting. I would love to hear your definition of a participatory democracy.
To me a participatory democracy would be self-governance, in which communities/ neighborhoods would actually make decisions for themselves, in proportion to how those decisions affect people in said community/neighborhood. Our current system is a democracy for large corporations: they have representatives in Washington who act in their favor. Lobbyists are the middlemen, or conduit, for the large firms. I think the idea of "representative democracy" is an oxy-moron, and that legislative bodies are actually a deterrent to real democracy.
Also, I'm pretty sure even the most conservative pundit would agree with me that we do not live in a democracy; I'm pretty sure that's a misnomer. Isn't it a republic?
(Pity the radical who goes to a blue collar area dissing the US. And, don't say they're brainwashed.)
So you think poor black/brown neighborhoods wouldn't be sympathetic to the idea that communities should have more say in their own affairs, that the U.S. federal government has done horrendous things? Many people of color can remember apartheid in the South. Or do these neighborhoods not meet the criteria for "blue collar"? If you're speaking of white, Christian, conservative neighborhoods that primarily work in manual labor, then: you could be correct. I still don't necessarily think so, though. I recently moved from a mixed working-class neighborhood, with housing projects to my right and a 75 year old white man (retired carpenter) to my left. I didn't really find the reactionaries that you speak of. Yes, due to a lack of education, and exposure, sometimes they would have backwards ideas about the LGBT community, or other races. But, generally speaking, the idea that they're a bunch of flag-wavers that swallow all of the bullshit they're fed from corporate media/the federal government is not true (at least in my experience).
Be thankful there are 18 year olds willing to tote guns and stand in harm's way, supporting this nation state, because they will keep you free to say such things - long before the right and proper world you dream of will materialize. First things first.
False dichotomy/appeal to emotion. I'm 27 years old. Name one war that was fought to defend my liberty to say what I want during my lifetime. Wars are never fought to protect the citizenry. This is basically the cliche and hackneyed "Love it or leave it" argument. And go where? I was born here, my family and friends live here, and the same problems I have with "leaders" of this nation exist everywhere.
Any country where "comrade" is commonly used would not tolerate your degree of dissent.
Actually, "comrade" was used as a term of endearment amongst the Spanish working-class that organized a general strike when a fascist dictator took over the nation.
The significance of the term used during the Spanish Civil War in the mid '30's was to challenge hierarchy on every level, and stress cooperation over competition. "Comrade" was used instead of "Sir" or "Madame". "Comrade" connotes a friend, an ally, and an equal, instead of using formalities that connote superiority. It's basically the equivalent of saying "Buddy".
Did the USSR and Cuba and others capitalize on that? You bethca. Many of these countries were called "People's Democracies" too, speaking of Orwellian.
Amongst anarchists, the word is often used as a term of endearment to describe one who shares your world view, as well.
People had to die so you and I could have this debate.
Another appeal to emotion. Are you referring to the American Revolution? Whatever participants thought they were dying for enabled a minority of affluent white men to perpetuate slavery and the protection of property for the rich. Adam Smith wrote in The Wealth of Nations (to paraphrase) that civil government is necessary to protect property rights, and protect the poor from the rich; this was most certainly the framers worldview.Posted by freethinker on 2009-11-22 13:41:05:
Alex, you wrote:
"Name one war that was fought to defend my liberty to say what I want."
Are you ignorant of history? Or, are you ignoring it?
What you see as an arbitrary boundary called the USA is something that upholds certain values. Oh, yea, any war has economic aspects to go along with the political and cultural ones (and religious and ethnic). SO, you may focus on the economic to dismiss the other aspects if you wish.
I wasn't appealing to emotion when I said people had to die so we could have this debate. Actually, it could even be seen as a coldly rational appraisal of the situation. Were it not for the US service people who've sacrificed, some other power would have imposed their way. This is what pacifists, anarchists, and other idealists always miss. That idealism and pacifism are doomed to failure.
Blue collar folk usually have relatives in the military. Plus, most people, regardless of class, think differently than anarchists, pacifists, etc. They see the USA is not worthy of demonization.
Frankly, much of what you say is starting to strike me as repugnant. I'm OK with addressing the mistakes and sins of the USA. I'm not OK with demonizing it. I'm not OK with saying it has nothing to offer to the world that's unique; that free trade is evil; that every war we've fought has been cynically fought for mere money and domination, etc.
(Oh, the American Revolution did nothing to perpetuate slavery. Slavery preceded the government created, and some at the creation wished to end slavery, but knew doing so was not possible at the time.)
Posted by alexbradshaw on 2009-11-22 23:17:22:
Frankly, much of what you say is starting to strike me as repugnant
Oh, c'mon. You seem to be having fun. There's no need to play dirty :-).
Posted by freethinker on 2009-11-23 14:56:10:
Time we wind this down, don't you think? Not that I'm pissed. We'll probably debate some other topic on a future thread.
To conclude: I fear anarchism, Marxism, and America-hating will serve as a Pied Piper. Playing into the rich man's hands. Keeping people from countering the Right, with it's excellent organization and funding.
Why I see the USA as unique and like it:
There is no pic of the Queen on my money and postage!!!
I can say anything, even outlandish things, such as "the Holocaust is a hoax" and not be sent to court or jail, as one may in Canada.
Unlike in Germany, I can have a kid and give it any name I want, not having to choose from the government's list of acceptable names.
I'm pretty much free of the stifling qualities, and pressure to conform, found in collectivist societies.
I can own firearms, as Australians and Britts cannot.
I'm not gay, but if I were, I'd rather be here than Russia which is far behind in gay rights.
Europe, Africa, Asia, all have a higher degree of clannishness and tribalism. In Southern Italy, it's so bad, there hasn't developed an abstract sense of society, hence, the graft and corruption.
I and others can go off in the woods and found a commune, running our own businesses, and acting as counter-culture as we want. Not even China or Cuba would allow that, as it'd be seen as something the Party couldn't control.
If anyone messes with me, I can get a lawyer and sue, grabbing all their money! (Wal-Mart is the most sued place, here.) Thank heavens for a legal system and free press. In Russia and elsewhere, people shoot the press and laws are not as solid.
My taxes don't go to churches, as happens in Germany, England, and other supposedly progressive places. Separation of church and state had never been tried anywhere on Earth before the founding of the US.
Enough. I won't rub it in.
Happy Thanksgiving, and try to give some thinks for the USA. No one has to see you do it. (Even if you don't like nation states, admit the benefits this one bestows, the worse governments it has warded off, and beware demonization.)
That's all.
Posted by alexbradshaw on 2009-11-23 17:14:12:
I'll try to make sure none of my comrades see me saluting my shrine to the U.S. empire, after I gorge myself with genetically-modified foodstuffs at the dinner table:-).