Mickey Z

Cool Observer

Thursday, February 17, 2005

Lessons learned from those 102 minutes...

Posted by Mickey Z on 02/17 at 05:39 AM

this is what popped into my head as i read your post, for whatever reason: I go to a meditation center in Cambridge often to meditate and always hope for a bit of community; the problem is that most of the people who go there are middle class or higher, and in getting to know them I have found that they are clueless and even unforgiving towards poor people - even with a buddhist practice, most of them are so fully indoctrinated. The problem for me as a poor person is that i know they will make decisions politically that will impact my life negatively - not because they are awful people, but because they don’t “see” why some are poor, some are wealthy - there is a belief, often erroneous, that people “earn” their way.

The animal rights movement is also quite white middle class and therefore have the time and money to go to conferences or whatever. My question or desire is: to have more people question their own “beliefs”, to challenge them, and to the best of their abilities, “see” other human beings’ worth (and animals, too).

Posted by Rich G. on from Boston, Ma 02/17 at 07:00 AM

One of the best, if not the best, post I’ve read on this site. I’ll try to pick up the book.

I defend Churchill’s right to be wrong, just like I would defend those on the right to speak their opinions. However, in this defense, I think it’s necessary to challenge the sloppy opinions and analysis proposed by Churchill. While I do agree with several points of his essay, his overall argument is counterproductive and disappointing.

On one hand, it is a pity that this essay by Churchill has made it into the spotlight, and not some of his other essays which have demonstrated his ability to provide critical insight. On the other hand, I believe his essay should be used as an example for those who question the traditional view of American history found in textbooks and elsewhere. Knee-jerk and ridiculous claims against traditional views should be questioned, even if the right for them to be expressed should be defended. It’s alarming to see how many don’t want to question general claims, be they claims in favor of traditional views, or against them.

In response to the first post above. Lukacs described how socially advantaged groups are blinded to the conditions of those who are marginalized or exploited. For example, American slave owners did not make themselves aware of the conditions of those enslaved. At the same time, slaves had to become knowledgeable of the white culture of the time, in order to survive. You can apply this pattern to several examples. This observation led him to the conclusion that those on the margins, those most exploited, are able to give the most insightful views of their society. Those who benefit from the hardships of others blinker, or “don’t see”, the hardships of those below them. This is due to both institutional and individual actions. To relate it back to Churchill, I believe this is where he is most influential. He forces people to see what happened, and continues to happen, to people living in the States prior to the arrival of Europeans.

Posted by Mike on from dublin 02/17 at 11:30 AM

I agree with Mike, one of your best posts, well said.

Posted by James on from Puerto Rico 02/17 at 02:35 PM

Thanks for the great feedback. Perhaps I will expand this into an article...when I return from visiting family for a week.

Posted by Mickey Z. on from 02/17 at 02:43 PM

Are we all “little Eichmann’s”? The answer to that question depends upon what we mean when we say Eichmann. I think Churchill’s meaning when he used the phrase was that like Eichmann, many of the people working inside the WTC were functionaries in the operations of U.S. imperialism, whether they were in recognition of their role or not. Ardnt, writing about the trial of Eichmann, noted how banal he seemed - hardly the epitome of evil one would hope for in a participant in one of history’s greatest crimes. Eichmann was a bureaucrat. He was involved in the chilling complexities of attempting to wage war and eliminate entire peoples off the face of the Earth. The degrees of separation between him and the killing floor was minimal, but it was there. And so, he remains guilty of war crimes.

The degree of separation between the “technocrats” operating as high-level brokers in the WTC and the death and destruction wrought by the U.S. around the world is greater. Yet, they too are guilty of war crimes. Despite possible obliviousness to their role in displacement, occupation and genocide, the role remains. They absolutely ARE Eichmanns.

I think a recent Robert Jensen article on Churchill titled “Churchill has rights and he’s right” deals very well with the topic. He criticizes Churchill’s blanket use of the term “little Eichmanns” noting that if we blame everyone for global crimes committed by the U.S., then those who directly co-ordinate Empire’s reach are somewhat let off the hook. However, he also agrees with Churchill’s assessment that to a degree all of us who enjoy some of the opulence that American’s imperalism brings back to the homeland share in the guilt for their crimes. Churchill has included himself among the guilty.

However, this where the largest problem with Churchill’s article comes in, as pointed out by Jensen, as well as Anthony Lappé of GNN, and others, with the following: “If there was a better, more effective, or in fact any other way of visiting some penalty befitting their participation upon the little Eichmanns inhabiting the sterile sanctuary of the twin towers, I’d really be interested in hearing about it.”

This coldly, brutal condemnation of those people to death is chilling. It is here that Churchill should be questioned. He has since said that he feels for the victims of the 9-11 attacks. This seems to contradict the earlier statement and I think it is here that he should consider apologizing to victims’ families. Jensen deals well with this matter, as well.

Finally, your last sentence I think is your best, “no one deserves to die. Not even Eichmann.”

Regardless of their status within the Empire and their participation in economic crimes, those working in the WTC that day did not deserve to die. It was not fitting justice for their crimes, death never is.

Posted by Troy on from Ottawa, Ontario 02/17 at 03:58 PM

I agree we are all complicit in one way or another...but most of us are not guilty in the Eichmann sense. We could probably go nuts creating categories but some ARE more guilty than others. Then the gray area: A broker who did such work just long enough to cash out and do something for the world vs. a fireman who literally saved hundreds in the towers but in his personal life was a racist and sexist and militarist. It’s easiest to lump them all together but it’s crucial not to because calling all of them “Little Eichmanns” essentially removes any possibility of solidarity with such people.

Anecdote: Just three months prior to 9/11, my wife set up a meeting with many mainstream folks in the hope of getting them interested in activism. She asked me to come along to stir things up and I brought a woman who works as an abortion clinic volunteer escort. She guides young women through the gauntlet of anti-abortion activists.

The meeting--surprise, surprise--was in the WTC. If the planes hit that day, I’m dead and Ward is judging me, my wife, and the escort?

Posted by Mickey Z. on from 02/17 at 04:23 PM

I’ve been following the Ward Churchill thing for a while now, as it is a local story as well as national. Having read a number of his writings and those of many others concerning him, it is obvious that he has been and will continue to be a lightning rod for controversy. One issue that has been a focal point has been his essay about the 1837 Indian Smallpox epidemic, where he claims the US Army committed genocide but doesn’t substantiate his claim with valid facts. So, for this and his other opinions, he gets attacked by the political “right.” My concern is this. Who amongst writers has never been guilty of creating theory, which I believe he has done. To go so far as to call the man a liar in this one instance begs to question of gravity of the significance of his transgressions.

On one hand, he’s been accused of incompetence by the Governor of Colorado and many television “Talking Heads”, but in the same breath they refuse to recognize the same in the President of the United States, who has lied to the entire country, and used his lies to justify the invasion of another nation, the killing of thousands and thousands of humans.
Ward Churchill, for all he is worth, is not contributing to the death of thousands of humans for the sake of lies and then blowing them off as inconsequential mistakes. In fact, he is doing the exact opposite. He is exposing the rest of the world to an alternate reality from that which George Bush would have you subscribe to.

Posted by G. Gray on from Denver, Colorado 02/17 at 06:46 PM

Well said, Mickey.
More than thirty years ago, a much travelled friend of mine was telling me all about the Indian Caste system. I exclaimed “Why do they all put up with it?” He then explained that though each level got kicked in the head by the higher level, each level got to kick the one below. Except, that is, for the untouchables (Dalits) on the bottom but who had the weight of the whole population bearing down on them. As you point out, Mickey, the Dalits have the most realistic view of the way that society works and the rest are in self interest denial about everthing i.e. deluded. And every society based on exploitation (competition) is the same - which means us. The hardest thing in the world is to go looking for and face the truth about ourselves (as individuals and as a society) as a previous commenter rightly points out. Truth can be very frightening.

Posted by Jim Shanahan on from 02/17 at 07:13 PM

These are all thoughtful and intelligent comments but I respecfully disagree with some of the conclusions. I believe that we ALL share in the guilt to varying degrees. I don’t mean that in just a religious sense but I think that accepting the guilt, or maybe “responsibility” is a better word, would be the first step to bringing about change. If WE are not responsible for all of the hundreds of thousands of deaths, then who is? I don’t believe that willful ignorance exonerates anyone.

Posted by rosemarie jackowski on from USA 02/17 at 07:24 PM

Thanks one and all for these great comments. I really must expand this into an article when I get time. I just interviewed an American Conscientious Objector and I’m in the middle of writing a book and blah, blah, blah. When I get back from Texas, I will get to this.

Rosemarie, let me clarify: I never meant to exonerate anyone. I was mostly challenging the “Eichmann” label. It’s historically inaccurate and, I believe, potentially damaging to those espousing radical viewpoints.

BTW, Rosemarie...I believe you and I will be in a book together soon. I’m proud to be alongside you.

Posted by Mickey Z. on from 02/17 at 07:39 PM

Churchill often paints his similes with too wide a brush. By describing the collateral damage victims of the 911 attacks as “little Eichmanns” he made an otherwise very effective argument a lot messier. This is often a problem with Churchill’s writing. In an essay called “A Government of Laws” in his book “On the Justice of Roosting Chickens” he does a similar thing with a quite important point he was making about the inequality of sentencing between minorities and whites. He compares the punishments given to George Jackson and Michael Milken. The problem is that Jackson’s case is so different from the “white collar” crime of Milken. This brings a ton of other issues into his argument. There are no doubt many examples where some white son of a sherriff’s best buddy received a suspended sentence in an identical case to George Jackson (who received life!). Milken might well have deserved a much stiffer sentence, but his “stock fraud” case simply does not make a good comparison to Jackson. I think Churchill is brilliant and I usually agree with his basic premises, but he is too careless with his language, too loose with his use of figures of speech, therefore blurring his contentions with other issues that he fails to address. Of course, his fast and loose approach also sometimes pisses people off who might otherwise be listening to the very important things he has to say.

Posted by Glen Thrasher on from Atlanta, GA 02/18 at 08:26 AM

Very interesting discussion, but there are a few specific points I would like to disagree with. First, in the post by Rosemarie, I believe your language clouds your analysis. I posted elsewhere on this site that the use of “we” should be avoided in political discourses. It veils both the position of the speaker, as well as the differences between the individuals and groups described. When you must use more specific and accurate terms than “we”, you already begin to present a more honest picture than the one produced by relying upon words such as “we”, or “Americans”, etc.

I’m still amazed that so many writers feel comfortable coming to such a sloppy conclusion about the people that died in those buildings. Surely you must concede that a significant difference between those killed in those buildings on September 11 and Eichmann is that Eichmann got a trial. People in the WTC didn’t. A label like “Eichmann” should not be tossed about lightly.

Without knowing many individual stories, I would feel safe assuming that many of those killed benefited from American imperialism. Just like the people in the planes contributed to global warming. The universal and absolute punishment delivered that day to those individuals completely ignores their location in all of this.

That being said, I agree that it is important to discuss how day to day actions can harm other people. It is also important to highlight how these consequences are hidden from many people. I haven’t decided yet if Churchill’s article has helped or hindered that from happening.

Posted by Mike on from dublin 02/18 at 08:49 AM

Mike, thanks for the comments. I purposely used the word “we” because that is exactly what I meant. I wanted to be all inclusive. The war machine is ubiquitous. We all support it, to varying degrees, just by leading very ordinary lives. The US economy is a big part of the war machine..... This morning Ward Churchill was on Democracy Now. He again made his position very clear. He said that he did not support the killing of those in the WTC but that US military policy did. The US bombed civilians in Bagdad and justified it by saying that Saddam had placed military operations in civilian areas. WC pointed out that the WTC housed military and CIA operations and therefore it was US military policy which would justify it, NOT WC......Also, Mike,it is not that “Americans benefit from imperialism”, my point would be that imperialism benefits from Americans and therefore we all must accept the responsibility for the result.

Posted by rosemarie jackowski on from 02/18 at 10:07 AM

The WTC held offices of both Raytheon and Boeing (manufacturers of the apache helicopter which has caused such misery in Palestine and elsewhere).

By America’s standards, the WTC was an entirely legitimate military target.

Humanity is faced with a choice between a world terrorized into submission by the United States and a world in which America no longer exists.

Posted by marburg on from 02/18 at 11:05 AM

Adhering to “America’s standards” hardly appears like a valid response if one judges those standards as criminal. To me, it’s sort of like executing the convicted murderer.

Posted by Mickey Z. on from 02/18 at 11:36 AM

Hi Mickey...no argument there.

9/11 violated the sacrosanct order of the world: collective punishment for everyone else. No collective punishment for God’s chosen, the Americans. I think that is an important precedent and alas, the only one I can at this point imagine eventually halting America’s aggression, which to date has left millions of people all over the world disfigured, destroyed or murdered.

I look at it this way:

What is the best case scenario? Here we can agree I think. The best case scenario would be no one murdering or oppressing anyone.

OK--what is the worst case scenario? Here we may differ. To me, the worst case scenario is an omnipotent power killing and abusing the defenseless with impunity. This seems the most morally objectionable state of affairs--the most unjust. Further, it is a situation which can continue indefinitely. There is simply no disincentive to the great power’s abominable behavior.

Without credible threat of destruction, I view the chances of rehabilitating America as essentially nil. Our contempt for any effort to impose legal restraint on this nation’s murder spree is no secret and pre-dated Bush’s arrival on the scene by decades.

Paraphrasing Jensen’s article on Churchill I’d say: “Bin Laden has a right and he IS right.” Indeed, I think the lanky Saudi cave dweller expressed himself far more eloquently and persuasively than Mr. Churchill did.

If we have a standard of morality..a standard of international justice--let us apply it equally and fairly. If it is permissible to drag Iraqis from their homes and cart them off to torture centers, the same should be permissible for the Americans. If any country harboring or contributing to terrorism is marked for attack without warning and the victims judged a matter of indifference, then America has absolutely no grounds to even mention the victims of 9/11.

Posted by marburg on from 02/18 at 12:02 PM

Rosemarie, I think I understand your general perspective, but I don’t know if I’m explaining my own very clearly. Let me give it another go.

When George Bush makes comments like, “the American public”, “the American people”, or “we”, he doesn’t disclose his own location in relation to those he di��&k�&kp; This is also true in other instances where terms like “we” are used. He speaks for a group when, obviously, his own actions and social location are very different from many members of this group. You could say the same about rosemarie jackowski. These two individuals are speaking from much different vantage points, and I can say that confidently without knowing anything about you. I would argue that both of these individuals have very different relationships with the idea of “we”, and this becomes very significant when analysing their intended uses of the word.

I have a similar problem with justifying “we” to be “all inclusive”. I appreciate the fact that many actions taken can support the war machine, but how about all of those actions that fight against this machine? If you were to flip the subject of your analysis, and instead discuss how individuals fight against the war machine, what happens when you use the word “we”? I’d argue that it blurs more than what it makes clear. You state that “we all must accept the responsibility for the result.” I disagree. To use a local example, the United States uses Shannon Airport (located in the West of Ireland), as a stopover on the way to Iraq and other areas. The Irish government, and others, have allowed this. There have been many actions taken against this, ranging from direct action: (http://www.geocities.com/pwdyson/pitsupport.html
to a high court case, to one of the largest demonstrations in Irish history, to name a few. I think it would ignore the work of so many activists to say that “the Irish people are responsible for planes arriving in Iraq”. Likewise, it would be ignorant for an individual in Ireland to say “WE are against the war”, as sections of the public and politicians have supported the war effort.

To say “imperialism benefits from Americans”, I don’t know how this is justified. You include people ranging from John Walker Lindh to Mumia Abu Jamal. How can this be argued? Should every Muslim accept responsibility for the actions of a few?

As for collective responsibility, here’s another question. When does it begin? At what age? 5 years old? 10 years old? When, or if, does it end?

Overall, it’s the same reason why I personally disagree with the habit of certain people in Ireland rooting against English teams. I accept that many individuals in England have gained (and continue to gain) from the English relationship to Ireland. But, on many different levels. So, I feel I have more in common (shared interests, values, etc.) with many “English” people than I would with certain “Irish” people. I extend the idea by saying that I have more in common with groups in America, than I do with certain Irish people.

Posted by Mike on from dublin 02/18 at 12:23 PM

Mike, your points are well made. When I say that we all must accept responsibility, I mean that anyone who in any way, ever supported the economy or any other part of the war machine. I do not lay the same amount of responsibility on everyone. Each individual’s degree of responsibility is equal to his/her amount of participation and inversly proportional to his/her resistance to the war machine. I sort of look at it like a math equation.I think that looking at it this way, inspires some to resist thereby nullifying some of their guilt. Your question about, when does it begin, is a good one that I think about a lot. Of course a baby would not be guilty but what about an uninformed adult who has chosen to be willfully ignorant. I am not as forgiving in the case of willful ignorance. You ask if every Muslim should be responsible for the deeds of a few. That case is a little different because you are comparing the deeds of a few to the deeds of a government. Supposedly we have some say in the actions done in our names by our government. It is up to us to get our government under control. If we do not raise loud voices in opposition, then we are complicit.

Posted by rosemarie jackowski on from 02/18 at 02:04 PM

On the culpability front, no one is permitted to ask how many of the Trade Tower victims were Bush supporters. Given the nature of most businessmen, one might expect a fairly high percentage---surely well over half.

Those who have empowered this monster,supported his aggressive wars and consistently proclaimed his victims unworthy of consideration can not be viewed as innocent bystanders, by any reasonable standard.

Without question, innocent Americans were slaughtered on 9/11, (though the number may actually be in the hundreds, rather than the thousands).

Posted by marburg on from 02/18 at 02:27 PM

I didn’t hear the Democracy Now! interview, but if he did say that he didn’t support the killing of the WTC victims then what did the paragraph quoted by Troy above mean?:

“If there was a better, more effective, or in fact any other way of visiting some penalty befitting their participation upon the little Eichmanns inhabiting the sterile sanctuary of the twin towers, I’d really be interested in hearing about it.”

Has he now thought of or heard “a better, more effective...way of visiting some penalty upon the little Eichmanns” who perished on 9-11 and the ones who are alive and working at this hour or does being a “little Eichmann” deserve no punishment?

I will go no further than the defense of Churchill’s academic freedom because I believe not only was this comment stupidly cruel and incorrect, but it has also been a gift to the, uh , agents of repression who will use it to rally support from people we need on our side against dissidents and critics of the empire. One way to make sure that the peace and justice movement becomes irrelevant is to tell our neighbors that the 9-11 victims were little different than Nazis and so are they...but we’d love to have them join our march against the invasion of Iran and Syria.

Marburg, I don’t want to distort what you wrote and maybe I’ve misunderstood, but the same applies to your comment as well. Bin Laden was NOT right, he is a mass killer with an agenda that if enacted would be FAR worse for most human beings than the horrendous system we (by which I mean people like Mickey, Albert, Chomsky, and hopefully you) have now and are trying to change for the better. I don’t see how the “credible threat of destruction” such as events similar to 9-11 will “rehabilitate” America. If that were the case, than why hasn’t America changed for the better instead of becoming more jingoistic and militaristic? Are the people of Iraq and Afghanistan better off because of 9-11?

Posted by Matt on from Boston 02/18 at 02:50 PM

I wish I had the time to do so...but I simply can’t keep up with this interesting discussion (not that you need me to). However, I do want to say one thing: I second Matt’s assertion that Osama was not even close to right.

As the last line of my original post states: No one deserves to die.

Posted by Mickey Z. on from 02/18 at 03:03 PM

Hi Matt

I have to go by what Bin Laden actually says, rather than the predictably distorted, hyperbolic characterization provided by the Bush thugs and swallowed uncritically by a rotten society which ought to have been destroyed with high explosives a long time ago.

I could do without the religious underpinnings and will acknowledge that at his worst, Bin Laden sounds like our former serpent-handling Attorney General--a textbook psychotic who plainly belongs in a nut house. Thankfully, such occasions with Bin Laden are few and far between. A little “allah be praised” rhetoric is endurable when the rest of his platform is cogently argued.

Our cave-friendly nemesis did NOT demand a single penny in restitution for the trillions of dollars damage caused by United States. He did not demand the release of a single prisoner. He did not demand that our women cloak themselves in burkahs or that we put the Koran on our night time reading table.

He said very clearly ‘stop murdering innocent people in Arab lands and we have no beef with you.’ If the United States insists this was no more than a cynical ploy on Bin Laden’s part, let them prove it by calling his bluff and conducting themselves with a modicum of decency for a change.

There is no question that in the short term, events of 9/11 have been a disaster for all and an excuse for intensifying America’s 200 year war on humankind. As an act of defiance, it was probably too little too late.

For the record, the achivements of the non-violent anti-war movement are nothing to write home about either. It takes more than being morally unimpeachable. The millions all over the world who courageously protested the war deserve unqualified support for their efforts but let’s not delude ourselves---they failed to save a single child from being ripped to pieces in Bush’s Mesopotamian massacre, (which is but the latest instance in an uninterrupted global campaign of torture and mass murder claiming millions of innocent lives). If there was any justification for demolishing germany--a country with a 12 year history of racist genocide which in the meantime had produced the most spectacular achievements in literature, science and music the world has ever seen, then how much more justification is there to demolish a nuclear equipped menace to humanity, with a 200 year history of racist genocide, which has never produced a Bach or Goethe and never will?

This Frankenstein experiment called America will end when American citizens understand---in the way Europeans understand--the true horror of violence and war. That understanding seems only to come through bitter first hand experience, of the sort our pampered country has long been shielded from.

That is the tragedy of our time.

Posted by marburg on from 02/18 at 03:22 PM

“Am I a little Eichmann, too?” What a great question to start an honest journey of self-inquiry with. And what a great thread that has evolved from positing that question. I enjoyed reading this thread immensely.

All violence issues forth from the basic premise that I am not connected with the recipient of my violent act, I have discovered for myself. The illusion of my separateness from another person permits me to believe that when I hurt him, I am not hurting myself.

Once I give up believing in the illusion that we are all separate and APART from each other, but that we are all connected and A PART of each other, I will no longer have the desire to hurt another human being… because he or she is me and
I am him or her.

Which means, then, that Eichmann and his ilk ARE like me and I am like him.

Your mileage, re. this perspective, may vary, of course… and probably will.

Great post and great thread.

Posted by Nader Rider on from 02/18 at 06:26 PM

Yes, these comments today are out of the ordinary. We, all, are doing a good job today. Here is a question...what should a group of people or a country do, if they are being attacked by another country that uses the deaths of civilians as a strategic tool of war? What would be the appropriate way to push back under those circumstances? We condemn those who caused 9/11, rightly so, but what were their options?

Posted by rosemarie on from 02/18 at 06:44 PM

The sense I’m getting from some is that Churchill’s sin was not in applying the designation “little Eichmanns” too broadly, but rather, not broadly enough. I agree.

While I pride myself on militant anti-Americanism and miss no opportunity to direct my venom at everything this vile country represents, I nevertheless dutifully fork over my yearly taxes---money I know will be used for the worst sort of oppression in the world. Indeed, without our financial acquiescence, Bush’s holocaust would not be possible. In that sense, we are all essential ingredients, with the notable exception of the Danial Berrigans of the world who will suffer lengthy prison sentences for the honor of being innocent. Innocence COSTS something..it requires sacrifice--more sacrifice than I have made. (This of course in no way diminishes rosemarie’s essential point that there are degrees of culpability. Bush supporters for example, are clearly legitimate targets for violent attack. )

Posted by marburg on from 02/18 at 07:22 PM

Marburg...you make really important points. I keep rereading your #22 comment. That kind of says it all. The comment that the US needs to stop killing them is right on. How can we make that happen? I suppose that it is hopeless and that no change will come any time soon but I am not ready to give up yet. Is there any reason to hope or will the killing go on indefinately? Think about this...can we in any way get the Europeans to take any action. They are probably better informed through their media. If we could only get them to get the US to remove its 480 nuclear weapons from Europe....and is that report accurate...Are there 480 US nuclear weapons in Europe? and yes, I agree with your other point, I think Churchill is a moderate...others of us, say that we are ALL to blame. Churchill excluded the restaurant workers etc.

Posted by rosemarie on from 02/18 at 08:09 PM

bush is a member of the skull and bones templar order, which uses the exact same skull and bones insignia as the totenkopf ss, which provided security for the i g farben medical experimentation camps such as auschwitz

kerry is also a member

since they are big eichmanns, being more than less members of the ss, one could surmise that makes the rest of us little eichmanns

ein volk, ein reich, ein eichmann

or, at least, we might as well be

Posted by necramericanomicon on from 02/18 at 08:38 PM

I think Rosemarie raised some important questions: “what should a group of people or a country do, if they are being attacked by another country that uses the deaths of civilians as a strategic tool of war? What would be the appropriate way to push back under those circumstances? We condemn those who caused 9/11, rightly so, but what were their options?”

Those who live where the tentacles of Empire are extending, grasping and clutching are often left lashing out at these individual extensions. Occasionally they’ll deal a decisive blow and destroy the tentacle, but the body of the beast remains unharmed and it simply extends anew, often with greater force than before.

I think North American activists need to consider this when we determine what sort of actions we should undertake - we live where those who weild power operate. The corporate, government and military elites who are the functionaries and beneficiaries of this system are our neighbours inside Fortress North America.

That provides us opportunities those who suffer the most under Imperialism and Capitalism do not have. We can confront power on its doorstep.

This effort to be the Resistance Inside Fortress North America has led three groups in Ottawa, Montreal and Toronto to launch a campaign against a single, particularily insidious war profiteer, SNC-Lavalin. Anyone who would like more information can go to http://www.catapultcollective.org

Posted by Troy on from Ottawa 02/19 at 09:37 AM

Thanks for the comment Troy...I could not get to the link that you suggest but I get your point. Part of the problem is that the media in th US has had a big influence on the global views of most in this country. Others, all around the world are going to have to become more involved. I believe that those in other countries are better informed. Is the report true that says that the US has 480 nuclear weapons in Europe? If it is accurate, that would be a good issue to rally around.

Posted by rosemarie on from 02/20 at 09:42 AM

Read the essay for yourselves one more time, for if you do, you will clearly see that Churchill makes a sharp distinction between the “technicians of empire” and all others who worked in the WTC. Further, he explicates exactly why and in what sense he employs the term “little Eichmans” immediately after the rediculously “parsed” excerpt we are all, by now, unfortunately familiar with.

Why fall in line with all those handed the MSM talking points you are literate?

BTW, the maker of Tomohawk cruise missiles was also leasing space in the WTC.

Posted by C'mon Folks... on from 02/21 at 03:24 AM

To C’mon folks...I think that most of us have read, and do understand Churhill’s essay. He did make a sharp distinction between the technicians and the other workers. The Churchill position is very moderate. There is another position that would say that we ALL must take some of the responsibility because we ALL are participating in the War Machine by our participation in the economy. Do you have a list of all of the military related tenants in the WTC?

Posted by rosemarie on from 02/21 at 09:21 AM

Marburg,
just to highlight some of your previous points:

“Humanity is faced with a choice between a world terrorized into submission by the United States and a world in which America no longer exists.”

By this, are you therefore arguing for the destruction of America and all Americans?

“Without credible threat of destruction, I view the chances of rehabilitating America as essentially nil.”

I disagree. Are you saying that individuals involved in activism should not be optimistic, unless they’re armed with nuclear weapons, or similar items? What has history taught about you about social movements?

“I think the lanky Saudi cave dweller expressed himself far more eloquently and persuasively than Mr. Churchill did.”

Through his involvment in acts of mass murder?

“miss no opportunity to direct my venom at everything this vile country represents
He said very clearly ‘stop murdering innocent people in Arab lands and we have no beef with you.’
Do you include some of the great arts and literature produced in the United States? Is that all that Bin Laden has ever said? And, I’d be interested in reading the source of the quote, I’d appreciate it if you would pass it on.

Roseanne, I have a few other questions, just so that I can be sure I understand your view. If you do consider responsibility as a mathematical equation, then it would seem to me some people would be able to fall into the “positive”, for lack of a better term. Or, at the very least, there is that possibility?

Some other points:
“Supposedly we have some say in the actions done in our names by our government.”
Would it not be fair to say that this is not completely accurate? For example, you might be allowed to vote, but would an individual recently convicted of a felony be allowed to vote? Have certain groups in the United States faced intimidation when they became politically active?
Basically, would you agree that different groups face different obstacles when entering political movements? Does the use of “we” hide this?

Lastly, I’d suggest considering the end uses of terms like “we”. Consider, “infidels”. Churchill might have assigned different responsibility for individuals in the WTC, but those that flew the planes certainly did not. Consider racist terms and names. How do they affect political discourse?

Posted by Mike on from dublin 02/21 at 10:14 AM

Hi Mike

I repeat---the overblown nonsense disseminated in our vile and sickening country notwithstanding, Bin Laden has been a veritable voice of reason and common sense. He has repeatedly offered a cessation of all hostilities, requesting only that the United States obey internaional law and exercise a bare minimum of respect for the human rights of others.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3966817.stm

Naturally, he is arrogantly rebuffed by the world’s last superpower, just as the ICJ the UN the EU and the entire international human rights community have been rebuffed by the United States for decades.

Obviously, this sort of lawlessness and total disregard for human life and the suffering of others must be responded to. Hence, 9/11. Those deploring this act bear the responsibility of pointing to other PLAUSIBLE means of halting U.S. aggression and lawlessness which are clearly a FAR more potent threat to human existence than the Nazis were. (While America has murdered a comparable number of people in comparably sadistic circumstances, the Nazis were not a nuclear power, were not intent on the militarization of space and had numerous worthy military adversaries.)

On the creative front, America recognized early on that it could not possibly compete with the music, art and literature produced in Europe and elsewhere. It instead set its sights on being the world leader in destructive capacity. Our Renaissance was the Manhattan Project; the atomic bomb, our Pieta.

As to what to do with this intolerable threat to peace and security as well as the earth’s fragile ecology, we ought to be clear about what we are up against. The last election ought to have been enough to alleviate any remaining doubt. We have AT MINIMUM, 59 million hard core Nazi scum in this country. You don’t clean out a rat nest like that with a positive attitude and letters to the editor.

30 years after our unspeakable massacres in Indochina, the country is more racist, militarist and utterly beyond redemption than at any other time.

One is nostalgic for Nixon.

So the inevitable question arises: should mankind and all its spectacular achievements be flushed down the sewer for the sake of this rotten, upstart country which has contributed exactly zero to civilization other than stupidity, religious psychosis, pain and misery?

Personally, I’d prefer 1000 September 11ths. This Frankenstein experiment called America must be drastically weakened or terminated altogether, perhaps through economic ashixiation or terror or a combination of the two. The rest is a very dangerous delusion.

Posted by marburg on from 02/21 at 11:14 AM

Hi Marburg,
Taking one of Bin Laden’s broadcasts to summarize his outlooks on how societies should operate is more than a little questionable. Would you state that you would prefer to live in a society led by Bin Laden, or any of the people that work with him?

A plausible means to halting US aggression is certainly necessary, and that obviously applies to other acts of international aggression. Empire has existed for much longer than the United States has, and simply “eliminating” the United States does nothing meaningful for the end of brutal empires. Plausible means, in my opinion, does not require violence.

It’s hard to follow you when you speak about America recognizing it could not compete with European art. Obviously, you’re entitled to enjoy whatever art you want, but how do you make such a general claim? You’re saying that all musicians, writers, painters, etc. feel that they cannot compete with Europeans. How does one make such a claim?

It’s also difficult to accept that at least 59 million people in the States are “hard core Nazi scum”. What’s even more difficult to understand is that it seems that you want to solve the situation with something other than positive discourse.

One positive comment it seems in your last post is that mankind produced spectacular achievements. Have any of these achievements been produced in the States? If not, where did they all come from? What do you consider spectacular achievements? Would you argue that Bin Laden’s utopian society would lead to many spectacular achievements?

To provide yourself with two options, either violence or violence, will obviously only lead you to believe that only a violent solution exists. To me, that’s a dangerous delusion.

I’ll bring up another example from Ireland. I personally want the English to get out of Ireland. I also want them to stop dumping nuclear waste in the Irish Sea. The English certainly have a lot to answer for, and I’ve heard a few people make remarks similar to yours. It’s interesting to see where these attitudes can lead people. Many people who were involved in violence against English people are now using violence against Irish people, in the form of vigilante beatings, intimidation, and murder. People claiming to be on the left want to ignore this. There are many others, who have wanted to continue a meaningful dialogue with England, and this has led to significant progress in the peace process. Recent events have certainly threatened this, but many Irish people have accepted that this process takes time (the English have been here for more than 800 years).
I don’t consider myself a pacifist, but I would certainly argue that the current path towards a united Ireland does not require violence. Just as I believe halting U.S. aggression does not require people flying planes into skyscrapers.

Posted by mike on from Dublin 02/22 at 06:00 AM

Very thoughtful and intelligent comments but the question remains, HOW DO WE STOP U.S. AGGRESSION?

Posted by ROSEMARIE on from 02/22 at 03:07 PM

“What’s even more difficult to understand is that it seems that you want to solve the situation with something other than positive discourse. “

What reasonable soul could ever favor violence over positive discourse?

But positive discourse is a tremendous luxury, one not afforded America’s victims in Vietnam or Cambodia..much less, the Laotians pulverized with napalm and high explosives day after day, year after year in one of the most sadistic mass slaughters in human history. For the people of Indochina, positive discourse had to yeild to more pragmatic concerns--namely, killing as many of the invading American bacteria as was humanly possible, (just as later generations of this same bacterial strain must me wiped out in Iraq. This is a fundamental issue of survival).

I think the model of Ireland is misleading. As Chomsky and others have pointed out, there you had a willingness on both sides for detente and at least some dialogue and recognition of legitimate grievances, leading to improvement. One finds no analogue for negotiations or compromise of any sort on the part of the U.S. Quite the opposite.

I think it’s interesting that 9/11 is universally condemned on the right and left in this country though many on the left support the Iraqi resistance and the Palestinian resistance to Israeli occupation, both of which often involve violence which kills civilians. I think we’re dealing with varied manifestations of the same thing..people monstrously oppressed with overwhelming force, to the relative indifference of the entire world, finally responding in the only possible manner.

Non-violent civil disobediance? Tell it to Rachel Corrie. Or the unarmed protestors shot by the Israelis during Sharon’s Temple Mount visit. Or the unarmed Iraqi protestors shot dead by American GIs. All without consequences of any kind for the perpetrators.

Ghandi was able, through nonviolence, to shame the British into compliance with minimum standards of decency and law. It’s been suggested the tactic would not have worked against the Nazis, (nor, I would add, against the Americans).

Suppose we had an enlightened leadership in office, rather than a “perverse idiot” (as Carlos Fuentes accurately described Mr. Bush). Suppose this leadership decided after 9/11 that America’s criminal and murderous foreign policy wasn’t worth losing another 3000 lives over, vowing at once to reverse the imperialist mindset which had characterized this dreadful country since the pioneer days. Then, we’d be forced to admit that 9/11, while tragic, had changed the whole world for the better to an almost unimaginable degree. We’d be wishing that America had been attacked sooner.

I believe on November 2nd we crossed a sort of event horizon. I am extremely pessimistic and fearful for all life on earth. If it is possible to save the planet from the virus called America, it will require a complete revision of our approach, which---30 years after America’s extermination jamboree in S.E. Asia---has achieved nothing or very close to nothing.

There is no law of nature which says that Americans should have nothing more weighty to worry about than hair loss and dieting, while the rest of the world suffers the tortures of the damned. I see virulent anti-Americanism as an absolute moral imperative. Let us hope for and work toward a world free of this ghastly pandemic. The alternatives are too awful to consider.

Posted by marburg on from 02/22 at 05:15 PM

Marburg,
You seem to agree with Churchill when he said this:

If there was a better, more effective, or in fact any other way of visiting some penalty befitting their participation upon the little Eichmanns ... I’d really be interested in hearing about it.

Pardon me, if I’ve misinterpreted your comments. Here’s a response from someone who has confronted and endured Empire for about as long as anyone, Fidel Castro:

The unanimous anger caused by the human and psychological damage inflicted on the American people by the unexpected and shocking deaths of thousands of innocent people, whose images have shaken the world, is perfectly understandable. But who have been the beneficiaries? The extreme right, the most backward and right–wing forces, those in favor of crushing the growing world rebellion and sweeping away everything progressive that is still left on the planet. It was an enormous error, a huge injustice, and a great crime, whoever they are who organized or are responsible for this action.

The struggle against U.S. imperialism will require a diversity of tactics. I said above and I will repeat: It will require an uprising by those who live inside Fortress North America. What will this require? Deciding that will require discourse among all who whole a stake in the matter.

Posted by Troy on from Ottawa 02/22 at 05:52 PM

Hi Troy

Actually, I prefer Bin Laden’s take to Churchill’s. Bin Laden doesn’t consider the Trade Tower victims to be “little Eichmanns.” He sees them as completely innocent civilians, no different from the civilians America has been in the business of murdering in enormous numbers for a very long time. ‘Let us stop this insanity right now’ he proclaims, thusfar to no avail.

I respect Castro’s views along with everyone else who believes that nothing is to be gained from attacking the United States. I think there are strong arguments on both sides.

Israel has ONLY withdrawn from areas where it was attacked and forcibly driven out. America had to be beaten and driven out of Indochina. I simply do not believe that the American government or the American people can be reasoned with.

I think 9/11 established that America is vulnerable..it can, in principle, be terrorized into a non-functioning state. IF that could be accomplished, I can’t imagine any reasonable person’s objection to it, given the all-but-unimaginable destruction and suffering this terrible country has already caused.

Destroying America before it destroys the earth is unquestionably a longshot. On the other hand, hoping that America will miraculously transform itself through some sort of righteous uprising strikes me as utterly implausible at this point.

As to international law, this is what every decent person who is not completely insane should wish for as a mediating body in world affairs. But international law applied to America is completely broken...it is in a totally non-working state. In the absence of functioning law that protects both weak and strong, those seeking the life and liberty denied them must experiment with all available means, mass violence included. the onus is on powerful states like the U.S. and Israel, who have tremendous options at their disposal. By contrast, their victims have almost none at all.

Posted by marburg on from 02/22 at 06:22 PM

a fine discussion...two quick points:

I think we can broadly define the issue as involving two competing world orders, one pre-9/11 one post 9/11.

The pre-9/11 world order says “We bomb your country and you suffer in silence.”

The post-9/11 world order says “we bomb your country and you bomb us back---the suffering is mutual” (even if far from equal in magnitude).

Admittedly, both of these world orders stinks to high heaven, though I think the latter represents a significant improvement over the former.

Secondly, we should admit that nearly all cases of resistance by the weak against the strong result, at least for a time, in worse conditions for those resisting, (whether in the Warsaw Ghetto, the streets of Fallujah or the slums of Khan Younis). The strong will always seize on resistence as grounds for increased oppression and violence. I don’t think resistence is thereby invalidated.

In the case of Palestine, this is a bitter argument right now, with reasonable and decent people arguing the intifada has been a disaster for the Palestinians and others who insist that without resistence there is absolutely no hope whatever.

I think we just really don’t know at this point.

Posted by marburg on from 02/22 at 07:07 PM

What reasonable soul could ever favor violence over positive discourse?

A soul who thinks that there is a promised land for those who sacrifice their lives to advance their religious cause, to name just one group.

You make a great point by highlighting the limited options available to those staring down the barrel of a gun. My objection to this is that this is not necessarily the case for those living in the United States. Surely, you’ll concede that the options are more diverse for many of those living in the United States?

In the past, Chomsky has offered somewhat romantic, and inaccurate, views of Ireland. This is true with his past descriptions of Irish media, as well as British reactions to Irish resistence. If you’d like me to respond to the claim you refer to, send a link, and I will.

As a sidenote, there are still more British soldiers in Ireland than in Iraq. They are obviously not killing nowhere near as many here as in Iraq, but England has transformed the Irish Sea into what many have called the most radioactive body of water in the world. That being said, I don’t see either group of them as a bacterial strain.

Many people used similar language about gloom and doom after reagan was put back in office. These are certainly dangerous times, but I fail to see how rooting for the annihilation of the United States does anything productive.

I agree with some of your views of the effects of violence throughout history. It has certainly aided certain groups, most specifically ruling elites. However, I think you make a series of generalizations about the necessity of violence, and in doing so, you ignore very significant factors that have influenced military retreats.

To repeat an earlier point. Destroying the U.S. does not end empire. It does not even come close. Follow the path that Europe is now taking, along with other areas of the world. If the States fell off the map tomorrow, there would be many others waiting to fill its shoes.

Posted by mike on from Dublin 02/23 at 09:40 AM

a caution against being too cool an observer, from the master counterpuncher cockburn himself:

“As Abbey nastily put it, “Jack Kerouac, like a sick refrigerator, worked too hard at keeping cool and died on his mama’s lap from alcohol and infantilism.”

Posted by necramericanomicon on from 02/23 at 03:04 PM

I agree that rooting for the annihilation of America is of limited value.

Actually annihilating America however, would be the single most positive development the world could hope for.

In one single motion, we’d have a planet more or less on board to address climate change, germ and chemical warfare, the fate of our seas, the spread of small arms, nuclear proliferation, global hunger and disease and other issues of dire concern to our survival as a species.

The Israel-Palestine disaster would be instantaneously solved along the lines of the very international laws unilaterally blocked for decades by the United States. Similarly, the legitimate grievances of Arab peoples could be heard in an intelligent and constructive forum geared toward meaningful progress, improvement of conditions and lessening of hostilities. Terror would be largely a thing of the past. All of this is impossible so long as America exists as a reigning power.

Latin America could begin to restore itself after being preyed upon by U.S. goons and consigned to poverty and misery.

Lost to the world would be many hours of god awful music, a mountain of disgusting and unreadable books, several hundred miles of crappy films and a culture which ought to have been consigned to history’s garbage can 100 years ago.

I have no sympathy for the United States at this point. No other country in history has shown itself more deserving of being bombed into rubble, America having long since forfeited its right to exist.

I also think that comparing our condition to past phases of horror and debauchery is a dangerous enterprise. We are facing very new issues, particularly environmentally. The United States has put us on a collision course with extinction.

I also question whether endless cycles of tyranny are an inevitable human condition for all time. America is a violent and dangerous anachronism in the modern world. Most people have moved beyond our archaic, arrogant and pathological way of thinking.

Posted by marburg on from 02/23 at 03:27 PM

Tyranny needs co-operation to survive. Even a max security prison needs co-operation to function. Tyrants use fear to get co-operation. When the fear no longer works, as in Iraq, Tyranny is on the way out, albeit, creating destruction as it retreats. The US forces are creating ever more appalling war crimes in an effort to re-install fear into the population but I doubt it will succeed.
On the home front, the most effective tool is non co-operation and fear is the chief huddle to overcome. Next comes an effective strategy that is plnned in EXACTLY the same way as a military/guerrilla operation. I suggest googling “Gene Sharp” and reading up om Ghandi’s tactics for inspiration.

Posted by Jim Shanahan on from 02/23 at 06:58 PM

I’m not sure why I am bothering to add my one cents worth of opinion here, but the last few missives by Marburg simply will not let me not respond. Does anyone really believe that getting rid of the neighborhood bully is anything more than a temporary solution? When a power vacuum occurs something/somebody will always come along to fill it. In the arena of global politics this process would take about two minutes. To my mind, more important than that fact that annihilation of the United States would not solve any of the problems that Marburg lists is the little matter of what we like to call collatoral damage. Call me selfish, but since this particular example of collatoral damage would include me and all my beautiful friends, I am not the least bit in favor of this “solution.” The really weird thing about my reaction to Marburg’s comments is that I am most offended by his blanket dismissal of American culture. Along with this mountain of “god awful music” and “unreadable books”, said culture also includes much of the music and books that I love most. What about Duke Ellington, Louis Armstrong, John Coltrane, Miles Davis, Charlie Parker, Charles Mingus, Captain Beefheart, the Velvet Underground, the Stooges, Sonic Youth, etc. etc. etc. ? What about Raymond Chandler, Hart Crane, William Gaddis, Thomas Pynchon, Joseph Mitchell, M.F.K. Fisher, Percival Everett, Cynthia Ozick, Paul Auster, etc. etc. etc.? I could go on, but it occurs to me how silly this whole argument really is. None of us has much say in the annihilation or not of the United States, so lets say we look elsewhere for our solutions and leave the business of annihilation to the bad guys. You know countries like the United States?

Posted by Glen Thrasher on from Atlanta, GA 02/24 at 06:55 AM

Marburg,
At this point, I think it’s safe to say we’re just talking past each other. I’ll just reply to some of your last points, and leave it at that.

It’s hard to understand how someone could justify that any serious conflict would be resolved “in one single motion”. To apply your argument to the N. Ireland situation, if England was “annihilated”, would the problems just go away? Of course not. The same is true with the list of other conflicts in your last post.

Your hatred of America leads you to a gullible optimism of other areas of the world. As I stated previously, examine the path taken by other areas of the world, and you’ll find that they would take America’s crown if they had the chance.

You are also not being honest in your description of current international laws. Do you truly believe the current structure of the United Nations is a just one? Do you think the United States is the only thing the Arab world has to worry about?

“Terror would be largely a thing of the past.”
Even if I agreed with your advocacy of violence, I wouldn’t make this claim. You sound like a typical politician making promises that cannot be delivered.

The rest of your post makes it difficult for me to believe that you are being serious.
Sine.(that’s it).

Posted by mike on from Dublin 02/24 at 07:43 AM

Mike, please allow me to cut in. I appreciate your argument and agree with part of it but your last comment seems to me to be saying that no one should ever be prosecuted for murder because there will always be another murderer out there. I know that that is an over simplification of what you say but non-violence is just not working, meanwhile people are dying. I don’t know what the answer is, but I do know what the answer is not.

Posted by rosemarie on from 02/24 at 09:47 AM

hi Rosemarie,
I’m not entirely sure which comment you are referring to. Maybe I could give a general reply now, and if you tell me which part of my post you’re not in agreement with, I’ll give a more specific response.

I wouldn’t say that communities should not punish murderers. I wouldn’t agree with capital punishment (I would never give state that much power), but I would agree with punishment. Bringing that back to a larger situation, I earlier argued that I wouldn’t propose the destruction of all of England. I do agree with forcing them to stop polluting the Irish sea, removing their army from Northern Ireland, and many other retreats. For their pollution, the government should be punished. We still don’t know what the damage is. For their collusion with paramilitary forces in the North that murdered Irish citizens (i.e. Pat Finucane), they should certainly be punished. These instances, as well as many others, should certainly be addressed. But, should all of England be decimated? Of course not.

There are many reasons for this. First, it’s not just a nationalist issue. If England left, I still gotta pay my Irish landlord the rent. I still have to worry about abuses performed by the Irish police, as well as many other groups. I still answer to my Irish boss. It’s also interesting to see how the issue is splintered along class in the Republic of Ireland, showing the internal differences on the issues.

So, it’s obviously not select one person (or country) and hang em. I agree that certain individual examples should be condemned, but not disappeared.

What options remain, is what I’m assuming your question is. I’d relate that to what I tried stating earlier. Just as I am unable to communicate in a term that masks the social positions of all individuals (we), I am unable to propose a universal action to be undertaken by all individuals, which would equally mask the social positions of these individuals. On a related not, I do my best to avoid telling others what to do.

I would offer suggestions though. The strength of communicative practices, of whatever form or style, is something that I do not underestimate.
This does not ignore material conditions, but I believe communication has been simultaneously opened and closed in recent times. I would need more space to explain that, but to refer back to my Irish boss, I gotta go. apologies for the general response, maybe you would point out a specific point you disagreed with?

Posted by mike on from Dublin 02/24 at 11:21 AM

I’ll try to make these my final two points:

1) I think the following words by a great American thinker can help guide us in what will be needed to help create a better world:

“Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did and it never will. Find out just what any people will quietly submit to and you have found out the exact measure of injustice and wrong which will be imposed upon them, and these will continue till they are resisted with either words or blows, or with both.” -Frederick Douglass

Ultimately, we allow what happens to happen. Without our acquiescence, it could not. The American Empire has been so successful because it has managed to make itself arms-length from those who most actively resist. Those within the borders of North America - particularily within the borders of the U.S. and Canada - who benefit so much from that Empire, must stand-up or they have little right to claim innocence. The exact degree to which we refuse, is the degree to which we can profess to be innocent of the crimes of the states in which we live.

2) “If there is no struggle there is no progress.” Frederick Douglass

I would not choose for the U.S. to disappear tomorrow because in the struggle itself we learn and grow and build. The struggle breeds the structures and organizations that can support a better tomorrow. Mexican struggle against NAFTA brought about the Zapatista Autonomous Zones and has had a hugely positive influence on organizers and resisters throughout the world. We will win when we learn what is needed to win, and I wouldn’t want “victory” a second before that.

Posted by Troy on from Ottawa 02/24 at 01:43 PM

Mike and Glen, you both seem to argue that getting rid of the U.S. would not accomplish much because some other country would just come in and fill the void. Marburg seems to argue that the world would be improved if the U.S. was stripped of its power. So Mike and Glen seem to be saying that it does little good to remove a murdered from society because there will be other evil-doers left. Marburg seems to be arguing for a more permanent solution to ending some of the global problems that have been created by the U.S. Is the recent report that says that the U.S. has 480 nuclear weapons stashed away in Europe correct? If that report is true, it shows once more how far the U.S. is outside of the norm. No other nation has nukes scattered and hidden all over....no other nation has military bases all over the globe. How many other nations endanger the planet as much as the U.S. does?

Posted by rosemarie on from 02/24 at 06:57 PM

Rosemarie: I am not so much arguing that murderers should not be removed from society, but that we should not kill them. So I guess mine is an arguement against capital punishment on a global scale, though I did not really think it through until you put it this way.

Posted by Glen Thrasher on from Atlanta, GA 02/24 at 07:53 PM

Not a day goes by, maybe not an hour, that I do not despair over the terrible direction our world is going. Of course, I am well aware of the litany of crime perpetuated by the United States in the name of what? I do not know. However, the sitting president and his administration seems even worse than what has come before, capable of any evil, that I am not sure this country, this planet can survive these next few years. If there is indeed “not a dimes worth of difference” between the Bush administration and the minority party then the nine cents difference is enough to scare the hell out of me. Nevertheless, that does not mean I want to help with the rush toward destruction, calling for military annihilation. Could this really be any sane person’s idea of global justice? Violence cannot be the answer. Can it? I’ve always loved the slogan “try to survie causing the least suffering possible”. I’ve always tried to live my life that way. Though I know I have caused plenty of suffering for plenty of people in my life, but I keep trying to do the right things. Twice this week I’ve read from separate sources that the Buddha said there are two kinds of suffering: the kind that leads to more suffering and the kind that brings an end to suffering. No one can convince me that the military end of the United States is the kind of suffering that brings an end to suffering. Obviously, I do not know how to save humankind from humankind, much less from the United States of America. Lately I have been reading the 911 books by David Ray Griffin and Thierry Meyssan. Only a few months ago I would have laughed about these books, and suddenly I am not so sure. Is there anything this government is not capable of? What is the death of a few thousand American citizens to advance their nightmare agenda? In an interview on Mike Malloy’s Air America show, Ward Churchill said it seemed racist to assume that brown people were not able to accomplish these attacks without the help of powerful white men, but the point is not that they could not have done it alone. The point is did they do it alone. I am certainly hoping they did this one to the United States and not unwittingly with the United States. I suppose it is a minor thing in the shadow of all the other terrible things Bush and company are doing every day, but these little things still matter to me. The good thing is almost everyone I know hates Bush and all he stands for and hates the terrible 200 year plus history of this country, and I live in a fucking “red state”. The fact that we are even talking about all this has to be a good thing. No?

Posted by Glen Thrasher on from Atlanta, GA 02/24 at 10:22 PM

“Beware the leader who bangs the drums of war in order to whip the citizenry into a patriotic fervor, for patriotism is indeed a double-edged sword. It both emboldens the blood, just as it narrows the mind. And when the drums of war have reached a fever pitch and the blood boils with hate and the mind has closed, the leader will have no need in seizing the rights of the citizenry. Rather, the citizenry, infused with fear and blinded by patriotism, will offer up all of their rights unto the leader and gladly so. How do I know? For this is what I have done. And I am Caesar.” -Julius Caesar (b. 100 BC)

It’s a lot easier to condemn someone who successfully manipulates our feelings (i.e. fear) to serve their purposes, then it is to hold the easily manipulatable accountable for allowing feelings to rule their reasoning processes. But until you do the latter, the buttons will be always be there to be pushed. I don’t hold the drumbeater as responsible as I do those who yearn to hark his call.

Posted by Nader Rider on from 02/25 at 02:03 AM

Rosemarie,
I still don’t feel confident that I understand how you are interpreting my posts.
Without replying to anything too specific, I guess my question to you would be why you are so determined to categorize these problems in the frame of nations? I tried to argue this point in a previous post.
When I consider the problem of an individual crime (i.e. murder), I would not focus all of my attention on one individual, and burn him/her at a stake. I would also look at the conditions that can influence crime, and I would aim to
alter those conditions. The United States was created from a European mindset, just look at all of the major philosophical influences of the “founding fathers”. This trend applies to aspects of culture as well. I personally would argue that the origins of consumer culture are European, not American.
Many of the crimes committed by the United States were learned from this tradition. Would you not agree? To be stubborn, the phrase “We the People” is born directly from this tradition.

Since the founding of the U.S., the tables have turned so to speak, particularly after WWII. What hasn’t changed, however, are the influences that helped created the U.S. Many of those philosophical tenets remain. There is, of course, an opportunity to revise these beliefs, and I think this has certainly been done, in some ways, since the founding of your country. And, I believe activists in the U.S. should be proud of those achievements. (The Civil Rights movement in the U.S. not only improved the United States, it had a global effect)

Basically, genocide and empire was not created by the U.S., but, that being said, I would still work to see that the U.S. ends these actions and aspirations.

And if that does happen, then what? Would you not agree that the idea of the powerful nation-state has been seriously challenged? There are now international financial institutions and treaties that can veto the decisions of a nation. Transnational corporations wield more power than many countries. I therefore think the greater problems lie with this international system, rather than with just one country. Admitting this does not condone the actions by the United States. Just as understanding socioeconomic conditions would not condone individual criminal acts. I would argue that it gives a more meaningful perspective. Lastly, I’m not sure where I stated that I believe the United States should be allowed to do whatever criminal act it feels like.

Posted by mike on from Dublin 02/25 at 06:34 AM

Mike in your answer to Marburg you say..."Your hatred of America leads you to a gullible optimism of other areas of the world. As I stated previously, examine the path taken by other areas of the world, and you’ll find that they would take America’s crown if they had the chance....” I basically agree with what you say, but I think that maybe you trivialize the negative impact of the U.S. on the rest of the world. I also agree with you that it is not only the government of the U.S. I don’t have the statisic in front of me now, but John Perkins (author of Confessions of an Economic Hit Man) says that roughly 50 of the the top 100 economies of the world are NOT countries at all, but they are corporations. They are the greatest threat that is now faced by the people of this planet. Part of the problem is that the corporations and the government of the U.S. have morphed into each other. I see Capitalism as a big part of the problem. The corporations are just doing what corporations do. For the most part they function within the law, because they are now writing the laws. Capitalism has created the conditions that make wars necessary in order to increase corporate profits. The 100 Orders imposed on Iraq by the US is evidence of this. The corporate media can’t tell the people that the purpose of the war was to increase the bottom line for corporations so we have the big lies about liberty and freedom. Wars, death and destruction are very important exports of the US. The corporations are addicted to the profits of wars. The beast has 2 heads...government and business.

Posted by rosemarie on from 02/25 at 08:48 AM

“Modern fascism should be properly called corporatism, since it is the merger of state, military and corporate power.” - Benito Mussolini

Posted by Nader Rider on from 02/25 at 02:37 PM

This is from http://www.americanempireproject.com ---Speaking with Chalmers Johnson....”...The only hope for the planet is the isolation and neutralization of the United States by the international community. Policies to do so are underway in every democratic country on earth in quiet, unobtrusive ways. If the United States is not checkmated and nuclear war ensues, civilization as we know it will disappear and the United States will go into the history books along with the Huns and the Nazis as a scourge of human life itself.” ------- THANK YOU CANADA for refusing to go along with the US and the weaponization of space.....and O’Reilly thought that he only had to worry about Ward Churchill.

Posted by rosemarie on from 02/25 at 07:14 PM

Rosemarie,

I agree with your point on the synergy between political and business interests, and in general, I think there is more agreement than disagreement in this discussion.

While many of the most powerful corporations in the world would be considered based in the US, I would point out that the corporation was not an American invention, and as I’m sure you already know, corporate crime today is not exclusively set in America.

There are issues that make me focus more on the U.S., such as the militarization of space, and I do believe that this cannot be ignored. However, I have always felt it more productive to begin discussions at a structural level. For example, I wouldn’t encourage a person to begin a discussion in a bar in New York by saying that the world would be better off with more attacks on the United States, because I don’t think it would be a sensible method in talking about politics with people, amongst other reasons.
I’m sure there are many people who have personal connections to September 11 in New York who would be interested in progressive politics. I can’t see how advocating more attacks on the U.S. would encourage these individuals in becoming involved in progressive movements. Is this a naive assumption?

From my own experience in political organizing and debate, I wouldn’t begin by attacking a person’s political party, or the area they live, etc. I would instead offer my argument, and, if needed, work my way to a criticism of their party/location/group etc. I don’t see how actual improvements can be made if you begin with a very general verbal attack on an entire country. Maybe conditions are much different over there, but I don’t think I’d have as many teeth if that was my modus operandi here.

Posted by mike on from Dublin 02/27 at 10:17 AM

Mike… I admire your gentle spirit and agree with much of what you say. If I was sitting in a bar next to a big Nascar dude, who was wrapped in the flag and yellow ribbons, I would not challenge him to a duel. I believe that discretion is the greater part of valor. On the other hand, when dealing with the government or with people in power, I think that it is important to stand strong. Any other stance is perceived as weakness. The government will never change unless it is forced to. Why would it?....Also verbal attacks on an entire country would be justified if the entire counry was responsible for horrific war crimes. I believe that the last election in the US shows wide citizen support for this country’s foreign policy.

Posted by rosemarie on from 02/27 at 04:25 PM

Something to toss into the mix:

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2005/feb2005/chur-f28.shtml

Posted by Mickey Z. on from 02/28 at 06:31 AM

I’ve met a lot of Nascar dudes over here, as well as many people that would call themselves Irish Americans. You’d be amazed at what they have to say. Many of these people support Irish independence at any cost. Many of these people argue that the Irish government should provide state subsidies to support Irish language, sport, music, etc.

Think about that in more general terms. These people are supporting the rights of a smaller country. (They love to joke about how bad the English are.) They are supporting the use of tax dollars to support cultural forms. And, many of them had traditionally voted Republican in the United States. (not all, but let’s be honest, voting Democrat doesn’t say much more) Sinn Fein is able to get incredible amounts of money from conservative Americans, yet many of their policies in the Republic of Ireland support the working classes.

Interesting then to ask why. Might be something to consider bringing up next time you’re talking to a conservative. or liberal for that matter.

That being said, if you look at some of Clinton’s moves in Ireland, you’d be amazed.

Posted by mike on from Dublin 02/28 at 11:29 AM

From the wsws link in comment#59 “... The working population in America is objectively counterposed to the Bush administration and the entire ruling elite. That is determined not by what each individual industrial or professional worker thinks at any given moment, but by the objective position of the working class within capitalist society....” I found a lot to disagree with in that article. The quote above is just one that I have a problem with. That kind of reasoning would exonerate anyone who works.

Posted by rosemarie on from 02/28 at 02:04 PM

That quote is also ignorant of history. For example, Frankfurt School researchers clearly demonstrated the strong support for nazism in Germany that came from the working classes. I think their work questioned the validity of “vulgar” Marxism. Class is certainly an issue, but not the only issue.

Posted by mike on from Dublin 03/01 at 05:22 AM

Mike, I agree. The sad fact is that 100,000+ lives could have been saved if the people in the US had opposed the war, or if the “troops” had refused to invade and occupy another country. Now, most citizens in the US refuse to accept responsibility for the part that their support or silence played in this holocaust. We are truly a Nation in Denial. Ward Churchill tried to wake us up by connecting the dots for us but most in this country are too stupid and/or too devoid of any compassion to care. Not one lawmaker in Washinngton is willing to bring up an Impeachment Inquiry, NOT EVEN ONE, meanwhile the war crimes pile up and the dead bodies pile up.

Posted by rosemarie on from 03/01 at 09:21 AM

I have read all these comment with great interest.
Ward churchill made me look at stuff that I did not understand. For that I am grateful. I searched out his other works. It was quite “current” as a I attended a public meeting in my town which was about a native society putting a group home in a white “hobby farm” community. It is the thing here to be a professional and live in the country and write off whatever you are doing. I was so impressed with the first nations people who would not get into the shit they have endured and used white man’s laws to get what they needed. The white professionals looked like fools, as the first nations people used all the “political correct words”. The whites came across as property rights for whites, but not for natives. What got me the most was that a native women was sitting beside me and gave off a hostile sense to me. By the end of the meeting, I think because I clapped for what the first nations’ people were saying, she smiled at me, which I returned. On the other side of me were white people who were in favour of what the “hobby farmers” were saying.
Halfway through the meeting, they were not clapping anymore. I just hope they saw what was going on, but, I am a cynic. This is ongoing. In my province, we did not do treaties, we took. As a white person, I know I am on Indian land. The fact that they are willing to use our laws to get what they need is the amazing. Not too many white folks would do that. We need to correct this injustice. The little Eichmann analogy is correct in the fact that we are ignorant of history. That we did not know this is our shame. I felt with great emotion the fate of the people at the world trade center. It could have been me. What I do not agree with is that we should all know this. People come to understanding in their own time.

Posted by Rhondda on from Canada 03/03 at 08:31 PM

I am reading two good books on the American Indian struggle for freedom and independence: Vine Deloria Jr.’s “Behind the Trail of Broken Treaties: An Indian Declaration of Independence” (University of Texas Press, 2000) and Russell Means’ “Where White Men Fear to Tread” (St Martins, 1995). I highly recommend either or both to anyone who has read Ward Churhill’s books on Native American struggles and wants to pursue these issues further.

Posted by Glen Thrasher on from Atlanta, GA 03/04 at 04:27 AM

Always coming late to the party…
I believe there to be a miscommunication going on. And to the point that language choice has furthered this breach I lend support. However, I would also like to point out the bridges that exist, questioning the various demands as to who must walk and which.
An organism is more than its individual cells. Behaviour emerges that is greater than the sum of each individual action. Indeed behaviour emerges which is not conceived by any one of the constituent elements. Mickey Z has pointed to the elements, while Ward Churchill insists that actions of the whole must have moral relevance. In so far as the any individual becomes aware of the aggregate consequence of individual action that individual actor bears moral responsibility. Still further, the greater the freedom of action, the heavier the burden. It’s the Spiderman principle, and it’s no great mystery: If I choose to wear sweatshop shoes so that I can winter in the Alps, I bear more responsibility than the store clerk who shoes his children at WalMart.
I hope that some are interested to understand how the Churchill-chosen words have been heard by me. I was touched by the force and power of the statements. So many of us who watch the daily devastation raining upon children weep quietly. To hear a leader speak out loudly in support of the children and of the parents and of the families and of the communities and of the friends of these children—this touched me, because it is not the daily bread our culture feeds us. I perceive great latitude in society for orthodox condemnation; I see the words of Ward Churchill as no more strident.
“We have the right to life.” Even Eichmann has the right to life. And Churchill demands that the lives of Iraqi children carry the same meaning as the lives of NYC working professionals.
The fact is clear to me: Dismissing the words of Ward Churchill cannot assuage the choices we make regarding how we spend our brief time on this planet. What brand of SUV would Jesus of Nazareth purchase with his corporate windfalls? The answer, like the facts, is clear to those who see.

Posted by mickleby on from San Francisco 07/14 at 01:28 PM

Next entry: American Conscientious Objector needs your support

Previous entry: Pennsylvania's Indian Fighter

<< Back to main

Mickey Z

Cool Observer

Thursday, February 17, 2005

Lessons learned from those 102 minutes...

Books By Mickey Z.

About

Monthly Archives

Most Recent Entries

Links

Sites I Write For

Syndicate

Search