The Question of Civilization

Originally posted at the Hampton Institute


Civilized. It is a word that has come to mean cultural norms, the manner in which governments rule, and how people act in our interactions with one another. However, there are levels within our civilization and it is interesting to see how some groups and people are included in this idea while others are excluded and ignored.

When regarding ideas of what is civilized, it usually turns into discussions of white culture and how whites are superior to every other ethnicity. European-based ideas of what art, music, and literature are consistently touted in society as being of the highest quality. One only needs to look at what the US considers classical literature and they will see that the overwhelming amount of work is by white men, as are all the movies and art. A counterargument to this may be that the majority of the people at the time were white, thus what was one to expect? Yet, this does not stand as times change and with it so do our views of what is important and what is not. While some may cite that there are entire studies based solely on minority groups, this still ignores the fact that white culture is still viewed today as superior to all others and that view is consistently reinforced in our society. To this day, we still see that the white male dominated arts is considered American classics and part of ‘civilized’ culture whereas the likes of James Baldwin is left out.

However, it is not just in the arts where groups of people are left out, but in everyday dialogue. Minorities, especially black people, are viewed as ‘uncivilized,’ from our music, which has been accused of contributing to violence[1], to our hairstyles which have been portrayed as barbaric in some instances.[2] This consistent view of non-European people as an ‘other’ and as being uncivilized results in stereotypes that have very real consequences, such as not feeling the need to learn about other cultures. For example, “if a person believes all Arab Americans are terrorists, that person need not learn anything more about Arab culture or people.”[3] Besides contributing to ignorance, it allows for the horrors that were perpetuated by white Americans, such as the genocide of Native Americans, slavery, and the internment of Japanese-Americans is mentioned, however those past transgressions are largely ignored as they are not spoken of often, rather being largely eclipsed by discussions praising white culture.

While it is rather obvious that the frequent praise of whites as being the leading figures in American culture ignores minorities, such admiration also harms whites as they hold these ideas as being the standard and are reluctant to seek out and explore other cultures and groups that are different from their own. A potential result of such reluctance is to have a rather narrow view of the world, such as white Americans believing that they are victims of reverse racism, despite the fact that “statistically, African-Americans have far less opportunities handed to them, they generate less income than white Americans, own less homes, and have a much higher chance of living in poverty than non-black Americans.”[4] Programs such as affirmative action are often cited, however, the fact is that white women are the biggest beneficiaries of affirmative action, not racial minorities as “study after study shows that affirmative action helps white women as much or even more than it helps men and women of color.”[5]

Yet, this idea of the white man being superior and the most civilized does not just extend to the United States, but to the world at large. It can easily be found in our language. Just examine the terms ‘Western civilization’ and ‘the Western world.’ When we say these phrases, we are in actuality referring to western Europe, the United States, Canada, and Australia. Such terminology in both everyday language and in history books ignores the cultures and viewpoints of Latin American and indigenous peoples. It effectively erases them and renders them nothing but side characters and extras in the great drama that is the story of humanity.

Such attitudes also carry over the other parts of the world, especially with regards to Africa and the Middle East. With regards to Africa, we still view the entire continent as nothing but lions and jungles for the most part, save South Africa. There is a knowledge that the continent is racked by political, ethnic, and economic turmoil, which often turns into violent conflicts. However, certain facts are ignored, such as that the legacy of colonialism and the continuation of neo-colonialism are major contributors to Africa’s current situation. The neo-colonialism can be seen in the form of the global land grab and its affect on Africans[6] and the intervention of France in the ongoing conflict in Mali.[7] The same goes for the Middle East, where it is, for the most part, viewed as a region of nothing but Islamic religious fanatics that do nothing but fight.

By viewing such regions as ‘uncivilized,’ just as with viewing minorities in the US through a stereotypical lens, one of the effects are that such thinking allows the horrors committed by whites to be ignored. The violent history of colonialism and imperialism on the African and Middle East regions are washed away and the people are blamed for their current predicament rather than acknowledging that the situation is much more complex. We view Africa as a grossly underdeveloped continent where people live in huts, but never ask questions such as these: Which is more uncivilized, living in a hut or committing genocide and cutting off people’s hands to get at the resources near those huts?[8] For the latter is precisely what was done in the Congo by Belgium. The views of ‘uncivilized’ societies are in many cases detached from reality as they ignore other factors, yet it reveals the fact that in order for ‘the west’ to be viewed as superior, it requires a suspension of factoring in the political and economic histories into the overall narrative.

Overall, by focusing solely on whites as being ‘civilized’ it has the effect of not only minimizing other cultures and groups, but delegitimizes them as well. This is dangerous as it allows stereotypes and ignorance to flourish, rather than encouraging inquiry and diversity. In order to actually begin to view the world as it is, rather than through a race-based lens, we need to begin to deconstruct these notions of the ‘superiority’ of ‘western civilization’ in ourselves and those around us, for only then can be start to see the world through a different lens.


Endnotes

1: Dan Frosch, “Colorado Police Link Rise in Violence to Music,” New York Times, September 3, 2007 (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/03/us/03hiphop.html?_r=0)

2: Tiffany Hsu, “Nivea's 're-civilize' ad called racist; company apologizes,” Los Angeles Times, August 19, 2011 (http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/money_co/2011/08/nivea-re-civilize-ad.html)

3: Kevin Lause, Jack Nachbar, Popular Culture: An Introductory Text (Bowling Green, Ohio:  Bowling Green University Popular Press, 1992), pg 244

4: Nichole Jaworski, “Racism In America: White Americans Believe They Are Victims Of Reverse Racism,” CBS Charlotte, April 17, 2013 (http://charlotte.cbslocal.com/2013/04/17/racism-in-america-white-americans-believe-they-are-victims-of-reverse-racism/)

5: Sally Kohn, “Affirmative Action Has Helped White Women More Than Anyone,” Time, June 17, 2013 (http://ideas.time.com/2013/06/17/affirmative-action-has-helped-white-women-more-than-anyone/)

6: Richard Schiffman, Hunger, Food Security, and the African Land Grab, Ethics and International Affairs, http://www.ethicsandinternationalaffairs.org/2013/hunger-food-security-and-the-african-land-grab-full-text/ (September 13, 2013)

7: Devon Douglas-Bowers, Rebels, Resources and Refugees: The Conflict in Mali, The Hampton Institute, http://www.hamptoninstitution.org/mali.html#.Ulib4FBwrgw (August 21, 2013)

8: Yale University Genocide Studies Program, Congo Free State, 1885-1908, http://www.yale.edu/gsp/colonial/belgian_congo/index.html

The Cruel Irony of Austerity

Given the current government shutdown, impending battle over the debt ceiling, and the horrible effects of sequestration, I thought that it would be relevant to publish an article I wrote two years ago in regards to the irony of austerity measures as the issues are still very much with us.

For quite some time now the United States has had a mountain of debt which has grown to the point where it is now unpayable. Only recently, (since Obama came into office and the Tea Party came about) has the federal government been paying attention to its spending rates. The main solution that has been pushed by the Republicans is austerity. Those in power act as if these cuts will suddenly cure all the nation’s economic woes, while ignoring the massive ‘defense’ budget. It seems that our representatives either are not aware of or are ignoring just how inhumane and ironic austerity is.


Education

Recently, Providence, the capital of Rhode Island, sent a message to all of its public teachers telling them that they could potentially be laid off by year’s end. The local government reasoned that it was necessary “because of the dire fiscal straits that both Providence and its school system are in.”[1] This puts the education of many school children at risk. The effects of these cuts will most likely be larger class sizes and a lower quality of education for attendees of public schools

Also, the federal government is planning to cut Pell Grants, which aid many low-income college students in paying for their education. This proposal is actually unfair in that it “hurts Pell Grant funding more severely than other budget items"[2] and the current increase is only to make up for the increases that should have happened during the Bush administration. Due to these Pell Grant cuts and increases in college tuition costs, many low-income college students may very well be forced to drop out.

These cuts are not only inhumane in that they make the suffering of the poor the solution to the current problems, but are also ironic. The right-wing wants to see an economically and militarily strong America, yet how does one expect America to be either when its young are uneducated?

Social Security

Many Republicans on Capitol Hill are up in arms, arguing that Social Security has to be cut in order to balance the budget. They completely ignore the importance Social Security to the elderly, especially those of color. Social Security provides most retirees with about two-thirds of their income, but with people of color, it provides 90% of all income.[3] In advocating cuts to Social Security, both political parties are advocating a war on not only poor people, but a war that mainly targets people of color.

Yet, the most shocking part is that Republicans and the Democrats are not only willing to let other people’s parents and grandparents suffer, but are willing to let the young suffer as well. The people who will suffer the most from an increase in the retirement age is this generation of young people, who will find that they will have to work more and more years just to be eligible for Social Security benefits.

When taking into account the employment situation of those who receive Social Security, the predicament for those affected becomes even more ironic. One proposal virtually forces the elderly to go and find a job in order to be able to support themselves, while the other proposal forces younger people to work for more years. Yet both are going to have to deal with the Great Recession and its main effect: little to no job growth.

What this essentially does is subject both old and young to a meager existence, at the beck and call of corporations who can fire them at any moment, knowing that they (the corporations) have a virtually limitless labor pool to draw from.

Medicare and Medicaid

Everyone, from the President to the newest House member has been pressing for cuts in Medicare and Medicaid. They say that it is the main problem with our budget and that, just like with all other social programs, we just can’t keep funding them, lest we eventually go bankrupt. According to the latest information, 16% of the population is on Medicare[4] while 21% is on Medicaid.[5] Even if only a small amount of the funding is affected, this will have serious effects as the health care of both seniors and the poor is taken out from under their feet. Once again, as with Social Security, we see the irony in this. Since the poor and elderly will have no health insurance, the only way they’ll be able to get health insurance is by going back to work, yet there are so few jobs available.

Food Assistance

With assisting the poor in getting access to food, it seems that in this too, the government has decided that it would be best to cut funding. An article in the Iowa Independent states “The cliff in food stamps means that one month; a family will receive a set amount of money, about $4.50 per person per day. The next month, they will get less.” [6](emphasis added) In good economic conditions, that amount would barely feed a family for a month and this is even truer today, when one looks at rising food costs! It is impossible for anyone to survive on such a meager income. The irony is that this may very well create criminal elements in society where there were none before, as people turn to crime to fill their stomachs. This irony becomes stronger when one considers that there was a 14% increase in the number of food stamp recipients last year.[7]

The most ironic part of austerity measures, though, is how they create a situation where the public is willing to fight back and rally against the destruction of their lives. The elite have a perception that they are invulnerable and that their intelligence is second to none, yet they are unable to realize that the very things they are doing to shore up revenues in the short-term will be their long-term downfall.



Endnotes

 1: Tami Luhby, “All Providence teachers receive dismissal notices,” CNN Money, February 23, 2011 (http://money.cnn.com/2011/02/23/news/economy/Providence_teachers_layoff_notices/index.htm)

2: Mark Kantrowitz, “Congress Proposes Big Cuts in Pell Grants,” Fastweb, February 11, 2011 (http://www.fastweb.com/financial-aid/articles/3006-congress-proposes-big-cuts-in-pell-grants)

 3: National Senior Citizens Law Center, Social Security Cuts Would Hurt Lower-Income Adults, http://www.nsclc.org/index.php/social-security-cuts-would-hurt-low-income-older-adults/ (December 2, 2010)

4: Kaiser Family Foundation, Medicare Beneficiaries as a Percent of Total Population, http://kff.org/medicare/state-indicator/medicare-beneficiaries-as-of-total-pop/

5: Kaiser Family Foundation, Medicaid Enrollment as a Percent of Total Population, http://kff.org/medicaid/state-indicator/medicaid-enrollment-as-a-of-pop/

6: Annie Lowrey, “The Real Impact of Cutting Food Stamps,” Iowa Independent, September 29, 2010 (http://iowaindependent.com/44131/the-real-impact-cutting-food-stamps)


7: Walter Smolarek, “Number of Food Stamp Recipients Increased 14 Percent in 2010,” Liberation, February 17, 2011 (http://pslweb.org/liberationnews/news/food-stamp-recipients-2010.html)

Did The Rebels Use Chemical Weapons: The UN Report and the Evidence

Image Courtesy of The Age

The long-awaited UN report on the usage of chemical weapons in Syria has been released.  While the White House[1] and the New York Times[2] have already taken the report and argued that it helps their argument that Assad used chemical weapons, it may be more prudent to look at what the UN report states and how the possibility remains that the Syrian rebels could have used chemical weapons.

In the report, the UN stated the following: “Information about the delivery systems used was essential for the investigation. Indeed, several surface to surface rockets capable of delivering significant chemical payloads were identified and recorded at the investigated sites.”[3]

The main questions that need to be asked are:

1.      Did the Syrian rebels have sarin gas?

2.      Did the Syrian rebels have access to surface to surface missiles before August 21, 2013?

In regards to the sarin gas, the Syrian rebels did in fact have sarin gas before the day of the incident. Just this past May, it was reported that according to the UN“Testimony from victims strongly suggests it was the rebels, not the Syrian government, that used Sarin nerve gas.”[4]

In regards to the surface to surface missiles, it was reported in August that “the Free Syrian Army - as well as the Al-Qaeda affiliated al-Nusra Front and other groups - have also been using increasingly potent captured artillery. This has included Grad surface-to-surface rockets analysts say were vital to the Islamist-led push into Latakia.”[5] (emphasis added)

This is further expounded upon in a report by the Middle East Media Research Institute released in July which stated that “antiaircraft, antitank, and surface-to-surface weapons are in the hands of both the Free Syrian Army (FSA), which is considered relatively moderate, and the local and global Islamist forces.”[6] (emphasis added)

This evidence reveals that it is possible for the rebels to have launched the chemical weapons attack.

We need to keep in mind that the US and its allies have yet to present any evidence whatsoever that the Assad government used chemical weapons. We also need to remember that “the report left the key question of who launched the attack unanswered.”[7]

The jury is still out on if Assad used chemical weapons.


Endnotes

[1] Steve Holland, “White House says U.N. report on Syria's chemical weapons bolsters U.S. argument,” Reuters, September 16, 2013 (http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/09/16/us-syria-crisis-usa-obama-idUSBRE98F0ZG20130916)

[2] C.J. Chivers and Rick Gladstone, “Forensic Details in U.N. Report Point to Assad’s Use of Gas,” New York Times, September 16, 2013 (https://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/17/world/europe/syria-united-nations.html?_r=0)

[3] Professor Ake Sellstrom, United Nations Mission to Investigate Allegations of the Use of Chemical Weapons in the Syrian Arab Republic: Report on the Alleged Use of Chemical Weapons in the Ghouta Area of Damascus on 21 August 2013,  http://reliefweb.int/sites/reliefweb.int/files/resources/Secretary_General_Report_of_CW_Investigation.pdf (September 16, 2013)

[4] Shaun Waterman, “Syrian rebels used Sarin nerve gas, not Assad’s regime: U.N. official,” Washington Times, May 6, 2013 (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/may/6/syrian-rebels-used-sarin-nerve-gas-not-assads-regi/)

[5] Peter Apps, “Syria government, rebels ramp up conventional weapons use,” Reuters, August 23, 2013 (http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/08/23/us-syria-weapons-conventional-idUSBRE97M0FH20130823)

[6] Middle East Media Research Institute, Syrian Rebels Developing Rocket, Missile Capabilities To Combat Aircraft, Tanks, And Ground Targets, http://www.memri.org/report/en/0/0/0/0/0/0/7299.htm (July 22, 2013)

[7] Fox News, UN Secretary General calls evidence of chemical attack in Syria 'indisputable,’ http://www.foxnews.com/world/2013/09/16/un-chemical-weapons-inspection-team-turns-over-report-on-syria-to-secretary/ (September 16, 2013)

The Interventionists: Embracing the Logic of Empire

Image Courtesy of Black Agenda Report

The call for intervention in Syria has gone to a massive battle cry in just a couple of days following the chemical weapons attack allegedly committed by the Syrian government, though the information is dubious at best.[1] The Obama administration as well as media pundits are calling for intervention, yet ignore their own hypocrisy- and in many cases irony- in regards to the entire situation.

Just last month, Ian Hurd of the New York Times argued that the US should intervene in Syria because the alleged use of chemical weapons “demand[s] an urgent response to deter further massacres and to punish President Bashar al-Assad.”[2] It is quite fascinating that Hurd is so concerned with Assad’s alleged use of chemical weapons, while ignoring the fact that the rebels very well may have used chemical weapons as well in May, earlier this year. [3] Nor do I see him and other pro-interventionists discussing that fact or the fact that the US and its allies have used chemical weapons before and not given a hoot.[4]

There is more hypocrisy when the argument of saving civilians is bought up. People such as Warren Kinsella at London Free Press claim to care about civilians. Kinsella states that “Inaction in the face of such terrible war crimes is complicity.”[5] However he ignores the fact that if he and others so much about morality and protecting civilians from deadly state repression, why were they not pushing for intervention when civilians were getting killed and brutally repressed by their governments in Bahrain?[6] How about in Egypt?[7]  Many of these same people were nowhere to be found.

There is also a rather large amount of irony in regards to Syria. There are those that criticize President Bush for his Iraq debacle, namely on the fact that Bush had based the war on fabricated evidence, however, they are willing to accept Kerry’s assertion that “there's ‘no doubt’ the Assad regime was behind this ‘crime against humanity."[8] This would be humorous if the consequences weren’t going to be so horrific. Bush used the same ‘just trust me’ rhetoric that Obama is currently using, however, at least Bush presented evidence, albeit false evidence. In a way, it is even worse for Obama because he has not presented any evidence that the Assad regime committed the chemical attacks and there is evidence that they were not involved.[9]

Furthermore, the hypocrisy continues as there were critics that argued that the Iraq invasion was illegal, yet they back the intervention in Syria, with the aforementioned Ian Hurd having the audacity to say that we should “bomb Syria, even if it is illegal” and that “there are moral reasons for disregarding the law.”[10] The fact that the US has no legal standing whatsoever for its intervention in Syria doesn’t seem to matter at all.

A final touch of irony is that many are lamenting the federal sequestration which has wreaked havoc on local communities such as Salem, Oregon where “a Salem day center where the homeless went to get out of the heat and cold, do laundry and shower have severely cut hours and services”[12] and  cuts in education which has resulted in

· Services cut or eliminated for millions of students.
· Funding for children living in poverty, special education, and Head Start slashed by billions.
· Ballooning class sizes.
· Elimination of after-school programs.
· Decimation of programs for our most vulnerable—homeless students, English language learners, and high-poverty, struggling schools.
· Slashing of financial aid for college students.
· Loss of tens of thousands of education jobs—at early childhood, elementary, secondary, and postsecondary levels.[13]

Yet, they will gladly spend more money on war, which is expected to cost $100 million[14] or perhaps even more if Assad falls.[15]

For all of their talk, the interventionists seem oblivious to the greatest irony of their cause: They may very well end up killing civilians so they can save civilians.[16] They have embraced the logic of empire.


Endnotes

1: Washington’s Blog, “Point-By-Point Rebuttal of U.S. Case for War In Syria,” Global Research, September 3, 2013 (http://www.globalresearch.ca/point-by-point-rebuttal-of-u-s-case-for-war-in-syria/5347826)

2: Ian Hurd, “Bomb Syria, Even if Its Illegal,” New York Times, August 27, 2013 (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/28/opinion/bomb-syria-even-if-it-is-illegal.html?_r=0)


3: Damien McElroy, “UN accuses Syrian rebels of chemical weapons use,” The Telegraph, May 6, 2013 (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/syria/10039672/UN-accuses-Syrian-rebels-of-chemical-weapons-use.html)

4: Zoltan Grossman, “A Short History of Bio-Chemical Weapons,” Counterpunch, September 2, 2013 (http://www.counterpunch.org/2013/09/02/a-short-history-of-bio-chemical-weapons/)

5: Warren Kinsella, “Five Reasons To Intervene In Syria,” London Free Press, August 20, 2012 (http://www.lfpress.com/comment/2012/08/20/20119696.html)

6: Human Rights Watch, World Report 2012: Bahrain, http://www.hrw.org/world-report-2012/world-report-2012-bahrain (2012)

7: Kareem Fahim and David D. Kirkpatrick, “Army Kills 51, Crisis Deepens In Egypt,” New York Times, July 8, 2013 (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/09/world/middleeast/egypt.html?pagewanted=all)

8: Fox News, Intel report cites evidence of Syria attack, Kerry says 'no doubt' Assad responsible, http://www.myfoxdc.com/story/23301298/kerry-1429-killed-in-syrian-chemical-attack#axzz2e2SwUDPX (August 30, 2013)

9: Yahya Ababneh and Dave Gavlak, “Syrians In Ghouta Claim Saudi-Supplied Rebels Behind Chemical Attack,” Mint Press News, August 29, 2013 (http://www.mintpressnews.com/witnesses-of-gas-attack-say-saudis-supplied-rebels-with-chemical-weapons/168135/)

10: New York Times, August 27, 2013

11: Eric Posner, “The U.S. Has No Legal Basis to Intervene in Syria,” Slate, August 28, 2013 (http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/view_from_chicago/2013/08/the_u_s_has_no_legal_basis_for_its_action_in_syria_but_that_won_t_stop_us.html)

12: Saerom Yoo, “Federal Sequester Means Cuts to Local Social Services,” Statesman Journal, August 27, 2013 (http://www.statesmanjournal.com/article/20130827/UPDATE/130827028/Federal-sequester-means-cuts-local-social-services)

13: National Education Association, Impact of Sequestration on Federal Education Programs - State-by-State, http://www.nea.org/home/52610.htm

14: Mattea Kramer, The Cost of Military Intervention In Syria, National Prorities Project, http://nationalpriorities.org/en/blog/2013/09/05/cost-military-intervention-syria/ (September 5, 2013)

15: Kristina Wong, “Aftermath of US Intervention In Syria Would Cost Billions,” Washington Times, August 30, 2013 (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/aug/30/aftermath-us-intervention-syria-would-cost-billion/)

16: Oliver Holmes and Khaled Yacoub Oweis, “Syria Army Defectors Say US Strikes Could Kill Assad Opponents,” Reuters, August 30, 2013 (http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSBRE97T0N820130830?irpc=932)

The Danger of Forgetting Chelsea Manning

Image Courtesy of the Washington Post

I am worried that we will forget Chelsea Manning. Currently the verdict has been rendered and the spotlight is on her but after a while the spotlight will dim, the flood of letters and support will become but a trickle, and she will be left alone in the darkness.

Manning was sentenced to prison for a total of 35 years; however, she could be out within as little as eight years.[1] While this may not seem like a long time, we often forget about people rather quickly when they are not being mentioned in the news. Just look at environmental activist Tim DeChristopher who was released from prison just a mere four months ago for disrupting an oil bid. During his time in prison, there was little to no coverage of DeChristopher’s high profile actions or interviews with him and thus people forgot about him.

By allowing ourselves to forget Manning, we will allow her actions and bravery to fade into the memory-hole. Americans have a habit of forgetting the actions of heroes that defy the state or letting these people end up being distorted, dumbed down, and watered down for the purposes of serving the status quo. For evidence of this, one need look no further than Martin Luther King. Many are celebrating the 50th anniversary of the March On Washington and use this time to show King’s I Have A Dream Speech, which makes King out to be a dreamer and ignores the fact that he became more and more radical in the later years of his life.[2] By ignoring the more radical King, it makes him seem as nothing but a dreamer and in this same vain, by forgetting Chelsea Manning, we risk allowing the narrative that she was a traitor and put people’s lives in danger (which are completely false according to the Constitution and the Pentagon) to overtake the reality of the situation, thus allowing Manning’s sacrifice to be in vain.

While it is important to state that those who committed the war crimes will not be receiving time in prison, it is more important to note that the revelations that Manning helped to reveal show 1) the ever-increasing immorality of the US government, 2) the double standard in terms of the justice system, and 3) how many Americans are willing to ignore these immoral and illegal acts in order to side with the national security state.

This siding with the national security state and participating in the demonization of Chelsea Manning is quite dangerous as people side with the very entity that is harming them by destroying their freedoms and disrespecting everything that so many Americans claim to hold dear. It is a dangerous nationalism that has many in such a frenzy to attack Manning. They call themselves patriots, yet ignore the fact that they are supporting a government which has acted in ways that are contradictory to what America claims to stand for.

If we forget Manning, we are, in a way, worse than the government. At least the government let it be known that they wanted to devour Manning, destroy her. They went and treated her “cruel[ly] and inhumane[ly]”[3] for doing her legal duty.[4] The US made no attempts to hide that it wanted Manning to suffer and suffer greatly for the information that had been released and had embarrassed them. If we have supported Manning and then suddenly disappear, we will be worse than the state because we will be abandoning her at the time when she most needs our help, betraying her and revealing that our messages of support were nothing but talk.

We have a habit of forgetting heroes that serve the people rather than the government. We can start to correct this by remembering Chelsea Manning.


Endnotes


1: Keith Wagstaff, “What happens now that Bradley Manning is Chelsea Manning?,” The Week, August 22, 2013 (http://theweek.com/article/index/248602/what-happens-now-that-bradley-manning-is-chelsea-manning)

2: Kai Wright, “Dr. King, Forgotten Radical,” The American Prospect, April 4, 2008 (http://prospect.org/article/dr-king-forgotten-radical)

3: Ed Pilkington, “Bradley Manning's treatment was cruel and inhuman, UN torture chief rules,” The Guardian, March 12, 2012 (http://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/mar/12/bradley-manning-cruel-inhuman-treatment-un)

4: Majorie Cohn, “Bradley Manning’s Legal Duty to Expose War Crimes,” Truthout, June 3, 2013 (http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/16731-bradley-mannings-legal-duty-to-expose-war-crimes)

Breaking Through The Barrier

Image Courtesy of Church In Toronto

This is a follow up to The Other Matrix

Breaking Through The Barrier: Creating Alliances In The Alternative Media


The alternative media began and in many cases still is a platform upon which one can gain access to views, narratives, and analyses of current and historical events that are separate from the mainstream discourse, media, academic, or otherwise. Yet, there is a major problem in the alternative media, namely the fact that there are so many voices saying so many different (and in several cases, contradictory) views on the issues of the day that it is rather difficult to create alliances to combat the current power structures.

There are a number of different ideologies and ideas within the alternative media. Some, like Addicting Info, push a partisan agenda, others like Common Dreams push a progressive agenda, whereas shows like the Infowars are motivated by conspiracies and a disdain for government. Essentially no matter where one goes in the alternative media, there is virtually always an agenda being pushed. However, it is positive that such groups and organizations are open about their bias as it allows for the information presented to be taken with a grain of salt. However, this is a major problem as creates a situation where it is rather difficult to build coalitions as one group will almost always be contradicting someone else. For example, right after the Boston Bombing, you had Infowars arguing that it was a false flag and Democracy Now’s Amy Goodman stating that “no one [should] jump to any conclusions.”

This creates a situation where groups and individuals that agree on major issues such as being against wars of aggression, wanting to protect the environment, and wanting to respect the Constitution (among other issues), wind up walling themselves off from one another, each group in their respective bubble. These bubbles create echo chambers of confirmation bias and don’t allow us to challenge ourselves. Yet, the greater problem is that they keep us from building coalitions and challenging the real enemy, the current political, economic, and social systems that harm us all.

The question that then poses itself is: How do we overcome these barriers, burst these bubbles and create coalitions and alliances. We need to begin a dialogue among one another, specifically the grassroots organizers and everyday individuals who get their information from the alternative media. From this dialogue we can begin to work together and hammer out a pathway to combating the system. The attention should not focus on who each person gets their information from as that would create the grounds for disagreement and a shattering of the coalition rather than a creation of an alliance. In addition to this, to include the ‘stars’ would be unbeneficial as the discussion would focus on them and their views rather than the actual goal of working together.

Without a doubt there will be disagreements and problems, it will be both a chance to air out grievances and to see who among us is truly as open-minded as they claim to be. It will allow for a chance to get the facts straight and for questions to be answered. But most importantly, it will be a way for people to unite.

Beyond Drones

Image Courtesy of North Jersey

Beyond Drones: Combating the System of Militarism and Imperialism


“When machines and computers, profit motives and property rights are considered more important than people, the giant triplets of racism, militarism and economic exploitation are incapable of being conquered.” - Dr. Martin Luther King

On September 11th, I will be attending an anti-drone demonstration in Union Square, NYC. This will be my first protest and I am quite excited. Obviously, the main goal of this demonstration is to protest against the use of drones around the world which kill innocents under the guise of attacking terrorists. While I welcome this protest, we must realize that this demonstration is not enough, that focusing on drones is not enough, we must battle the ‘War On Terror’ overall, as drones are only a small part of that.

The global drone attacks started under Bush and have continued and massively expanded under Obama, with Obama going so far as to assassinate four US citizens (officially speaking). Yet, while this is extremely problematic, it is a symptom of America’s global militarism. Contrary to popular thinking, this global militarism didn’t start in the Bush era, but rather in the time of FDR with World War 2 and has continued and intensified since then. The US has, overtly, either already been involved in or started new wars/conflicts every single decade since the 1940s. This has created destruction all over the world, not just physically in terms of destroyed infrastructure, but mentally[1], historically[2], economically[3], and socially[4].

However, the problems go beyond just the military sphere. It has leaked into American society, specifically into the social realm and how the American people relate to our government. Socially, this militarism has gone and allowed Islamaphobia and anti-Arab racism to flourish in American society. It can be seen in everything, from attacks on mosques[5] to anti-Muslim ads[6]. This hatred and racism has heavily infected every part of our society to the point where it is seen as OK for TV pundits to spew anti-Muslim hatred.

Americans relationship with their government has greatly changed ever since the ‘War on Terror’ was launched. While the government had previously spied on American citizens[7] (and even assassinated some[8]), it was mainly on those whom the government deemed a threat to the status quo. Now the situation has become much more drastic, with the government spying on all US citizens[9] and has possibly given itself the legal authority to not only indefinitely detain them without trial[10], but also to assassinate them. (Assassination on US soil is still possible, given the fact that there are problems with Attorney General Holder’s letter to Rand Paul.[11]) At every level, the very people who are supposed to represent Americas have been complicit in allowing Americans to be spied upon and their civil liberties to be destroyed. [12] There has been such a breakdown in the rule of law, that there are even secret interpretations of law[13], that the American people can be subjected to, but not know of. This growing authoritarianism must be confronted as well.

Economically, corporations have profited quite handsomely[14] from the continuous wars of aggression around the world and spying on Americans[15]. They are only able to do this because there is an economic incentive to create weapons of war and espionage and to use those to great effect. In order to fight against militarism more broadly, such companies should be targeted for boycotts and information campaigns should reveal to the public exactly who these companies are and that they are profiting off of exploiting their customers information.

There is a psychological battle to be held as well. The American people have become accustomed to their country being at war and being in a perpetual state of war. In many ways, some have become complacement at best and at worst, will actually lead on the ‘humanitarian interventions’ launched by the Obama administration. Just like with the drone debate, we should also work to have people realize that while the names and terminology may have changed, the death and destruction have remained the same. This is especially important for those on the left as there are many liberals whose hypocrisy has been revealed as they condemned Bush’s wars of aggression, but support interfering in the affairs of sovereign nations now that Obama is at the helm. We must combat these hypocritical and uninvolved minds, lest we allow these problems to perpetuate.

We must combat what Martin Luther King Jr. called “the giant triplets of racism, militarism, and economic exploitation” if we are to mount a truly successful attack on the drone war. The drone wars are a byproduct of the ‘War On Terror’ and its associated effects at home and abroad. If we do not look at this interconnected system, we will in a way be wasting our time as we will only be cutting off a branch of a tree rather than getting to the roots. We must go beyond drones.

Endnotes

1: Michelle Castillo, “Study: Suicide Rates Among Army Soldiers Up 80 Percent,” CBS News, July 10, 2012 (http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504763_162-57394452-10391704/study-suicide-rates-among-army-soldiers-up-80-percent/)

2: Robert Fisk, “It Is The Death of History,” The Independent, September 17, 2011 (http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/commentators/fisk/robert-fisk-it-is-the-death-of-history-402571.html)

3: Jim Lobe, “Iraq, Afghanistan Wars Will Cost U.S. 4-6 Trillion Dollars: Report,” Inter Press Service, March 30, 2013 (http://www.ipsnews.net/2013/03/iraq-afghanistan-wars-will-cost-u-s-4-6-trillion-dollars-report/)

4: Forbes, The True Costs of the Iraq and Afghanistan Wars, http://www.forbes.com/2010/08/31/costs-war-military-iraq-afghanistan-business-oxford.html (September 1,2010)

5: Kari Huus, “Mosque in Missouri Burns to the Ground One Month After Arson Attack,” NBC News, August 6, 2012 (http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/08/06/13146671-mosque-in-missouri-burns-to-the-ground-one-month-after-arson-attack?lite)

6: CBS News, New anti-Muslim ads up In NYC Subway Stations, http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-57562947/new-anti-muslim-ads-up-in-nyc-subway-stations/ (January 9, 2013)

7: NPR News, COINTELPRO and the History of Domestic Spying, http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5161811 (January 18, 2006)

8: Democracy Now!, The Assassination of Fred Hampton: How the FBI and the Chicago Police Murdered a Black Panther, http://www.democracynow.org/2009/12/4/the_assassination_of_fred_hampton_how (December 4, 2009)

9: Dell Cameron, “Yes, The NSA Can Spy On Every US Citizen,” Vice, June 2013 (http://www.vice.com/read/the-fbi-wants-to-wiretap-every-us-citizen-online)

10: Russia Today, Obama Wins Back The Right To Indefinitely Detain Under NDAA, http://rt.com/usa/obama-ndaa-appeal-suit-229/ (July 17, 2013)

11: Guy Benson, “WH Official: Holder’s Letter to Rand Paul Was An Intentional Non-answer,” Town Hall, March 11, 2013 (http://townhall.com/tipsheet/guybenson/2013/03/11/wh-official-holders-letter-to-rand-paul-was-a-nonanswer-n1531213)

12: Kevin Collier, “Senate Votes to let NSA, FBI, Keep Spying On Your Email,” The Daily Dot, December 28, 2012 (http://www.dailydot.com/politics/senate-nsa-monitor-emails-five-years/)  

See Also: Jason Mick, “US House Backs Obama’s Drone Strikes, NSA Spying,” Daily Tech, July 25, 2013 (http://www.dailytech.com/US+House+Backs+Obamas+Drone+Strikes+NSA+Spying/article32042.htm)

13: Alexander Abdo, “Government Confirms That It Has Secret Interpretation of Patriot Act Spy Powers,” American Civil Liberties Union, March 16, 2012 (http://acludev.aclu.org/blog/national-security/government-confirms-it-has-secret-interpretation-patriot-act-spy-powers)

14: Bill Quigley, “Corporations Profit From Permanent War: Memorial Day 2010,” Huffington Post, May 24, 2010 (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bill-quigley/corporations-profit-from_b_586896.html)

15: Laurence Marvin, “80 Major Corporations Profit From NSA Global Spying Network,” The Examiner, July 4, 2013 (http://www.examiner.com/article/80-major-corporations-profit-from-nsa-global-spying-network)