Mickey Z
Cool Observer
Tuesday, July 03, 2007
"Put Away The Flags"
MZ, you’re right about that Zinn article. I saw it on CD, along with the spectacularly lame “To The Courts, Then, On Behalf Of The Constitution” by a Nation writer. (the subtitle of that article is “So My Grandkids Can Be Disappointed, After Someone Explains What The Constitution Was.")
There is no use in having such articles in circulation, other than helping The Progressive maintain circulation after its knifing of Norm Finkelstein. The larger problem is that the massive inequality that is the centerpiece of American dysfunction is replicated on the so-called Left. This has been demonstrated dozens of times since the mid-1990’s, but can be condensed into a bullet point: the notion of people taking matters into their own hands, so popular when reading about/discussing/cheerleading for the Third World, cannot work in the US. The institutional analyzers, sorta-muckrakers, and legion of namby-pamby types flee in horror when confronted with the gross criminality and disintegration of American life, something that has been gnawing at lesser souls for more than a generation. [I have written this before.]
Here’s a scandalously frightening prospect: the idea of violence against those in power has gained some currency and makes the rare, timid appearance on popular political websites. Were some sizeable group to take such organized action, in order to re-connect reality to incessant bleating about social justice, the logical place to start would be the avenue least likely to further inflame the already-psychotic national security state, while simultaneously serving as a dead-wood bonfire. Theoretically, scheduling an awards dinner for a few dozen Suits Of The Left would be a more appropriate place to start. The promise of verbal fellation, plaques, and grant money would be irresistible, and bring out the most tawdry, useless, and sheltered mouthpieces that have retarded the possibility of change for far too long...Frederick Douglass’ famous quote about submitting to injustice now applies to the Left, as does his other famous quote about struggle and progress.
Oh, and Scooter Libby walks today. Way to go, team! I wonder if he was smart enough to let HQ know “If I spend one day in jail, all of you swing.” Oh, and watch for articles by expatriate Brits explaining why this pardon doesn’t matter.
I’m spent. Good day, all.
Posted by Zen Prole on from Urth 07/03 at 09:48 AMHi Mickey...I like the Zinn article because it is simple and written in a way that could maybe change the way some in the masses view patriotism. But, you are right, what difference would it make if a few hundred NASCAR minds were changed. I remember an old article that you wrote a year or 2 ago. It addressed the same issue and I think that one of the people you quoted said that the only way to bring about change would be to get the Zinns and Mickeys of the world on Oprah. I have been saying that all along. We continue to talk to each other and no one else is listening.
Hi Zen...About Scooter Libbey. I believe that his sentence was commuted, instead of a Pardon, so that he did not lose his 5th amendment privilege...just a strategy to keep his lips sealed. Also, from the beginning of the whole fiasco, I sort of disagreed with the Right and the Left. A question: Wouldn’t the outing of any CIA agent save lives? Bush will soon be gone but the CIA is here to stay. It would be against the law to advocate the outing of an agent, so I won’t do that BUT, wouldn’t it be a good thing if ALL of them were outed? Just a question.
Posted by RMJ on from Churchill 4 Prez Hdqts 07/03 at 12:03 PMWhat are the long and/or short term goals of such articles?
Well, I don’t think that writing should necessarily have to be a strategic act in order to have communicative value, but it sounds like you have less of a problem with the content of Zinn’s article than where he chose to publish it.
Zinn writes: “we would do well to renounce nationalism and all its symbols ... Is not nationalism—that devotion to a flag, an anthem, a boundary so fierce it engenders mass murder—one of the great evils of our time, along with racism, along with religious hatred?” This is actually pretty radical stuff (considering that 99% of Americans would vehemently disagree with its sentiment) so, even on a strategic level, I think it’s an argument that needs to be made—over and over again (but perhaps in new, more effective ways). The great value of Zinn’s writing, as I’m sure you already know, is his plain-spoken, accessible style and his authority of lesser-known historical facts.
But the criticism of his choice for where to publish the article, and the relatively speaking-to-the-choir audience that his article will reach, is a good one, I think, although we don’t know anything about his efforts to publish the article elsewhere. As a Z-mag article, it largely functions as a piece of cheerleading, which is probably a useful, albeit extremely limited, function of political writing, but admittedly is probably not the best use of Mr. Zinn’s time. As an article in something like Newsweek, however, it would almost cause a national scandal (and probably result in a resignation or two, which is why it would probably never happen).
If it wouldn’t be possible for Zinn’s article to be published in a more mainstream publication, then maybe it’s a question of being more subversive. That is, how can we approach radical subject matter while still maintaining a mainstream audience? Mickey had a good idea when he tried a similar project at DailyKos, although I think his approach was far too combative, aggressive, and generally dismissive, to have any lasting effect there (indeed, most of the comments that resulted from his posts there were filled with ‘troll’ allegations).
I don’t mean to argue that radical writers should censor themselves in order to reach a wider audience, but that political writers (and artists, in my case) should, at the very least (and as Mickey suggests with his above question), be more thoughtful about the context in which their work will appear. Zinn’s relatively benign article may well have been successful at gaining entry to a more widely read publication if he had tried (maybe he didn’t even consider it?), and yet, conversely, there are those who would want to approach a larger public with their political ideas, but cut off the possibility for communication through the use of exclusive jargon and high-minded sermons (I’m specifically thinking of my neck of the art-world-woods, whose politically-aware dimension is largely overpopulated with abstruse Marxists). Both approaches are problematic.
Posted by jason on from greenpoint, brooklyn 07/03 at 12:25 PMHi Jason...I think that too many “radical” writers do censor themselves sometimes in an attempt to appeal to a wider audience and not “offend”. Look at what happened to Ward Churchill. He offended some with the truth and the rest of the lefties went running. Churchill should have received a groundswell of support. Instead the Left was silent. This country needs a good dose of “Truth”. I don’t know how to make that happen, but we have to somehow break through the Oprahization of the media.
Posted by RMJ on from Churchill 4 Prez Hdqts 07/03 at 12:40 PMThe article states facts, facts that are perhaps known and understood by the politically informed and aware. However to the vast majority these are unknown facts but should be known. How else can you get history out there if it is not written, broadcast and spread by what ever means available. Perhaps the failing is in the area where it is published, if so why can’t we make it more widespread. Attitudes won’t change if people don’t have the facts, all anyone can do is put the information out there and let those who find it make up their own minds. I maintain that the body of people that I sometimes refer to as that great apolitical apathetic horde, would cease to be apolitical and apathetic if they had all the facts and information necessary to make informed decisions.
False history, false information, false reality.
ann arky http://www.radicalglasgow.me.ukPosted by John on from Glasgow UK 07/03 at 02:59 PMHi Mickey and everyone. It seems like we don’t need anymore reminders of how sick this society is and how saturated with corruption it is.
Yet, I am reminded of various activists, I know, who I feel don’t understand the real problems. Sometimes I think some activists are still rebelling against ‘daddy’ via male dominated politics and female politicians who aspire to behaving as dumb as their male colleagues!
I guess Zinn’s article could spark some insight for someone who needs a spark of insight to bring clarity about what kind of society we really live in. Socio-economic words don’t describe this slaughterhouse system driven by the wealthy and for the sake of the wealthy!
So in the mean time and for now...I must meditate and gain more insight into myself so I can get through this day without letting all of the social insanity drive my blood pressure up and also be able to make better decisions to be more effective at where ever I focus my attention…
Posted by joe of maine on from 07/03 at 03:01 PMJohn..."Ann Arky”, I like that. I agree that if everyone had the facts it would change things, but there is something else that is needed, not just the facts. I don’t think that the average usa’r gives a rat’s behind about all of the innocent victims of our foreign policy. Hell, we don’t even care about the 18,000 of our own who die every year from lack of medical care. The important fact that must be taught to the average person is how usa policy is endangering and screwing them. A New Jersey non-partisan environmentalist that I knew a long time ago said something after he had just lost an election. He had run on an environmental platform. He said, “Most people don’t care about anything outside of their own skin”. I think my friend was right. The average usa’r has to be taught about “Blowback”. That’s exactly what Ward Churchill tried to do when he used the “E” word.
joe...I agree. I don’t think that female politicians are any better than their male counterparts. You are rebelling against “the system”. I agree. For one thing the usa is just way too big to ever function in a healthy way...too big, too corrupt, too capitalistic, too militarized, to industrialized, too prisonized, on and on. Maybe your idea of starting “a community” is the only way to go.
Posted by RMJ on from Churchill 4 Prez Hdqts 07/03 at 03:27 PMI think that too many “radical” writers do censor themselves sometimes in an attempt to appeal to a wider audience and not “offend”.
Hi RMJ; it’s a fine line, to be sure, that marks the difference between inclusive communication and self-censorship. But maybe the distinction I’m trying to make is not between whether or not one puts forth certain radical ideas in their writing, but how one does it. And I’m not simply talking about improving a writer’s “tone,” but a thorough evaluation of how one’s motives affect one’s reception (especially concerning an intent to persuade versus an intent to impart Truth).
Perhaps it’s unwise for me to direct this towards someone with the moniker “Churchill 4 Prez,” but in Churchill’s case, it seems obvious that he was a target for derision because of two words he chose to use—“little Eichmanns.” It was meant as an attack, it was meant to piss people off, and it worked—but did Mr. Churchill really mean to convince anyone that didn’t already agree with him? I’m not so sure, and I doubt its effectiveness if it was.
Further, I don’t know that his characterization of the WTC workers in this case is even True (the WTC worker’s role in global oppression, which really could be said of almost all of us, was much less self-aware, much less direct, and much less obvious, whether or not, like Eichmann, they were merely “doing their jobs"). It reminds me of intelligent people who continually refer to Bush as “Hitler” or a “Fascist,” when clearly he’s not. In some ways Bush is actually more dangerous than Hitler, in that he actually has more power to shape the world than Hitler did (and because many of the disastrous effects of his leadership are not yet obvious). But these kinds of things need to be pointed out thoughtfully and convincingly (as opposed to merely shouting “Bush is worse than Hitler!"), so as to effectively challenge the dominant paradigm of ideas, rather than making lame, emotional attacks of name-calling that are sure to convince nobody.
The problem I see with giving someone a dose of “Truth” is that it’s a one-way street, from imparter to impartee, and therefore assumes infallibility on the part of the Truth-sayer. While I’d obviously rather be told facts than lies, I have no use for those who impart the so-called Truth. I prefer an exchange of ideas motivated by the assumption that both sides have something to learn from each other, not the imposition of one’s ideological will on another. Perhaps the way this is reflected in one’s writing is a somewhat subtle difference, but I think it’s what is missing from much of the radical political writing that I’m aware of (although not in the case of Mr. Zinn, who I think has a special talent for inclusive, but radical, writing).
Posted by jason on from greenpoint, brooklyn 07/03 at 03:48 PMJason...8...What you say evokes a thought...communication...what is it? Is it reporting only facts void of emotion? Is it possible to report only facts without the reporters personal experiences, emotions effecting how the facts are reported?
Is it possible to know all the facts and is it necessary? If not why not?
Bush and the slaughterhouse gang could be called many unpleasant names based on the emotions, background of the name caller...their sensitivities or lack of, their fear threshold.
I wonder if we could get to any ‘truth’ if we exchange how we feel, instead of exchanging facts?
And this might be simply juggling semantics to some people...until it’s actually experienced. Feelings will be facts, they might even be universal truths depending on what is expressed...i.e., I am cold, I am hungry, I feel frightened, I felt rejected, I feel oppressed and have no answers or insight to change this, I feel subservient to my husband and I am frightened of him...Richard Hoggart, in ‘Of Culture and Communication’ stated, if we don’t communicate in a way to establish a fellow feeling from a common denominator of being human, anything else said is insignificant...so maybe communications, facts, truths, are what connects people as people first, not just people in relationship to socio-economic-political systems...I think this is almost non-existent in america.
So, when we all......then there will be fewer words and more sentences????
Posted by joe of maine on from 07/03 at 04:52 PMWell said, Jason. Yes, a dialogue is usually better than a monolog. There are gray areas where people might not agree on what the truth is. BUT, there are some widely accepted but little known facts, widely accepted by those who have been paying attention, but little known by the majority of the people.
You bring up “a writer’s tone”. Well, you have a point. No one ever accused me of having gone to charm school. It seems that the “tone” is important and in my opinion is one reason for the dastardly state of affairs. The mild tone of too many writers is responsible for the trivialization of the slaughters that the usa has all too often imposed on the rest of the world. I believe that Chalmers Johnson (Blowback) and many other writers said basically the same thing that Churchill did. Those writers were all but ignored. It took Churchill’s “tone” and the “E” word to shed some light on the fact that 9/11 was the result of usa policies. What is the correct “tone” during a slaughter? I think that while people are being killed, it is permissable to set normal rules of courtesy aside. That might offend some, but referring to the deaths of humans as collateral damage (as in usa policy) is even more offensive. I advocate a total exposure of all usa war crimes - with the moral/legal connection being made to individual responsibility of all who participate in the usa war economy. I would like to see every usa taxpayer hit with a big bill for reparations to the people of Iraq and elsewhere for the harm that we have done. When pleas for peace, justice, and human rights fail, hit ‘em in their wallets.
Posted by RMJ on from Churchill 4 Prez Hdqts 07/03 at 05:11 PMJust one more comment about “tone”. Many people remember Churchill’s “E” word. Very few remember his gentle poetry below.
“…What I want is for civilization to stop killing my people’s children. If that can be accomplished peacefully, I will be glad. If signing a petition will get those in power to stop killing Indian children, I will put my name at the top of the list. If marching in a protest will do it, I’ll walk as far as you want. If holding a candle will do it, I’ll hold two. If singing protest songs will do it, I’ll sing whatever songs you want me to sing. If living simply will do it, I will live extremely simply. If voting will do it, I’ll vote. But all of those things are allowed by those in power, and none of those things will ever stop those in power from killing Indian children. They never have, and they never will. Given that my people’s children are being killed, you have no grounds to complain at whatever means I use to protect the lives of my people’s children. And I will do whatever it takes…” -Ward Churchill
Posted by RMJ on from Churchill 4 Prez Hdqts 07/03 at 05:44 PMif we workers take a notion we can stop all speeding trians every ship upon the ocean .we can tie with mighty chains every wheel in the creation every mine and every mill fleets and armies of all nations will at our command stand still.
Posted by mike conner on from rockland 07/03 at 06:53 PMThanks for the link, Mickey - unfortunately Mr and Mrs Helga are off to Melbourne very shortly, so I won’t be able to read Zinn’s article for two days. Will tell you and the other expendables about my thoughts then.
Hello from a very wet Daylesford to Zen Prole, Rosemarie, Joe of Maine, Jason, John and Mike Conner.
All best to all of you,
HelgaPosted by Helga Fremlin on from Daylesford, Australia 07/03 at 07:52 PMHello Expendables. Another great weather day here in Astoria.
Thanks for the comments above. I still wonder if there has ever been an article that’s appeared on Z Net, Counterpunch, The Nation, or Mother Jones that’s had a tangible impact in the struggle for peace, justice, and solidarity. If the answer is “no” then I must wonder: Why are these articles written?
Posted by Mickey Z. on from Astoria 07/03 at 09:01 PMPerhaps the articles are written by people trying to express themselves, now that can’t be bad???
ann arky http://www.radicalglasgow.me.ukPosted by John on from Glasgow UK. 07/04 at 04:59 AMJust by dicking around on the world wide web, I have found many interesting articles, sites etc… Perhaps this is why he keeps on going with the same old, same old. Or maybe he just has a huge ego?
Posted by Graeme on from Fargo 07/07 at 04:39 AM
Next entry: 4th of July, Asbury Park (Sandy)
Previous entry: Henry picks a winner
Copyright © 2005-2007 Mickey Z.
