Weapons, Money, and Diplomacy

Image Courtesy of Washington Note

Weapons, Money, and Diplomacy: The US Role in the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict



The following is the transcript of a recent interview I did with Jeremy R. Hammond of Foreign Policy Journal on his upcoming book concerning the US role in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

1. What led you to write this book and is it a follow-up to your book The Rejection of Palestinian Self-Determination?

It’s funny you should ask! The new book will be the final result of a process that began in earnest during Israel’s ’08-’09 military assault on Gaza, dubbed “Operation Cast Lead”. That event prompted me to want to write a book about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, but I knew I couldn’t write about contemporary events such as that without also providing historical background as context. So I had a grand ambition to provide an overview of the conflict going back to its roots and up through the present day. That idea proved overly ambitious for me at the time, but it did result in The Rejection of Palestinian Self-Determination.

I continued to keep in mind the book I’d wanted to do on Operation Cast Lead and the U.S.-led so-called “peace process”, however. What prompted me to begin this project in earnest again was President Obama’s May 2011 speech in which he referred to the “1967 lines” as the starting point for negotiations, and the media’s inane response to it as representing some kind of dramatic “shift” in U.S. policy. It was no such thing, as I explain in the forthcoming book.

So it is in some ways a follow-up to my other book, which focuses more on the contemporary history of the conflict while jumping back to provide crucial historical context as necessary to properly understand events. For example, to understand the so-called “peace process”, one needs to understand the roots of the conflict and how Israel came into existence through the ethnic cleansing of three-quarters of a million Arabs from Palestine. A look back at the June 1967 war and its aftermath is necessary to understand events today, and so on.

2. With regards to the US' initial support for Israel, what factors led to the US to go this route and how does the reality of the situation deviate, if at all, from the mainstream narrative?

The U.S. supported Israel from its birth. The Truman administration recognized the newly declared state of Israel on May 14, 1948 literally minutes after this unilateral declaration was made. What we think of today in terms of U.S. support, however—which includes massive military and financial aid (over $3 billion annually) as well as diplomatic support in terms of protecting Israel (such as through the use of the U.S. veto in the U.N. Security Council) from being held accountable for its violations of international law—really began in earnest following the 1967 war, when Israel demonstrated its worth as a regional partner by defeating the combined armies of the neighboring Arab states in just six days, following its surprise attack on Egypt that started the war on June 5.

The mainstream media makes no secret of this U.S. support for Israel, but it at the same time attempts to maintain the narrative of the U.S. as an “honest broker”. This is a farce. The entire U.S.-led so-called “peace process” is the process by which the U.S. and Israel block implementation of the two-state solution based on the requirements of international law, including U.N. Security Council Resolution 242 following the ’67 war, which called on Israel to withdraw from the territories it then occupied and has continued to occupy ever since in keeping with the principle that the acquisition of territory by force is inadmissible. There is an international consensus favoring the two-state solution. The Palestinians accept it, but it is rejected by Israel and the U.S., which both speak of support for a “two-state solution”. But the “solution” the U.S. and Israel push for is not at all the same thing as the two-state solution. On the contrary, the framework for the “peace process” is one that rejects any application of international law in resolving the conflict.

3. How did the American public feel about supporting Israel?

The American public by and large consents to the U.S. policy of supporting Israel, which in reality means supporting Israel’s oppression of the Palestinian people and defending its violations of international law. There are many reasons for this. A lot of it has to do with the role of the media in misleading the public about the nature of the conflict and manufacturing consent for U.S. policy. A lot of it also has to do with the sense among many Christians that they must support Israel no matter what. A lot of it has to do with anti-Arab and anti-Muslim bigotry. And so on.

4. When did groups like AIPAC spring up and begin to lobby Congress? Did they face any domestic resistance?

The American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) was founded in 1963. I doubt there was much resistance to its formation, but the history of the lobby isn’t something I’ve much research into. I don’t focus on AIPAC much in my book, mainly because I consider its influence to be relatively unimportant. A lot of people think that this lobby actually drives U.S. foreign policy, but this is a mistaken view. I would posit that if AIPAC ceased to exist tomorrow, U.S. policy would continue as it has. It has some influence in the Congress, but it is not as though U.S. Congresspersons wouldn’t express their support for Israel if it didn’t exist. U.S. policy is determined by U.S. policymakers in terms of their own beliefs and perceptions and American “interests” as they narrowly define them, not by the Israel lobby.

5. Why does the US continue to support Israel when they have spied on and even gone so far as stealing nuclear information from the US, lobbyists aside?

This kind of behavior from Israel is tolerated by the U.S. because it is considered by policymakers to be a valuable strategic partner in the region. One can disagree with this and argue that Israel is in fact a strategic liability. I would agree. But the fact remains that in the minds of U.S. policymakers, Israel is a strategic partner. U.S. and Israeli “interests”, again as narrowly defined by government officials, don’t always align, but they very often do, such as with the goal to overthrow the regime of Saddam Hussein in Iraq or to get Iran to surrender its right to nuclear technology for peaceful purposes under the nuclear non-proliferation agreement (NPT). Even vague talk about Israel in any kind of negative light produces a horrible backlash for any politician. The Obama administration, for example, has come under fire simply for suggesting that Israel should stop its illegal construction of settlements in the occupied West Bank. During his reelection campaign, he was accused by Mitt Romney of “throwing Israel under the bus” for such, even though the level of support Israel has received under the current administration has been unprecedented—the Obama administration vetoed an uncontroversial U.N. Security Council Resolution condemning Israel for this ongoing illegal activity, for example. And as I said, the American people themselves largely hold favorable views towards Israel. Romney was appealing no only Jewish Americans but conservative Christians with his ridiculous substances criticisms of Obama. There was plenty Romney could have criticized Obama about on matters of substance, but he didn’t because Romney holds the same pro-Israeli views as Obama.

6. Why is the US actively against a Palestinian state in practice when such a state wouldn’t be a threat to the security of Israel?

This is an excellent question that doesn’t have just one answer. I’ve already touched on some of the reasons. This kind of support for Israel from the U.S. government, including helping to block implementation of the two-state solution, is institutionalized. Imagine a new administration coming into office and declaring that it was going to abandon the “peace process” that has been going on since the Madrid conference in 1991? It’s unthinkable. No candidate who held such a sensible view of the conflict as to recognize how this process is the very mechanism by which the two-state solution has been blocked could ever get elected.

The purpose of my book is to help change that by exposing the true nature of Israel’s policies towards the Palestinians, of the U.S.’s policy towards the conflict, and of the role of the media in manufacturing consent for this policy. For any progress to be made towards peace, U.S. support for Israeli violations of international law must cease. And for that to happen, it must become politically infeasible for it to continue. I want to contribute to making that necessary paradigm shift happen with this book. The U.S. government isn’t going to solve the conflict. We need to step up and take actions to make a just peace possible.

7. How and why have the American public's perception of Israel change over the years, if any perception change has occurred at all? Positively or negatively?

I think the Palestinians have attracted increased sympathies from Americans in recent years. Despite the enormous amount of pro-Israel propaganda, for example, regarding Operation Cast Lead, many people saw threw it and couldn’t reconcile Israel’s claim of “self-defense” with the civilian Gazan death toll and wanton destruction of civilian infrastructure. Then there was Israel’s murderous attack on the Freedom Flotilla, killing nine peace activists aboard the Mavi Marmara. There is a growing boycott, divestment, and sanctions (BDS) movement calling for corporate responsibility, e.g., holding accountable businesses that profit from products made in the illegally-constructed settlements in Palestinian territory. Israel has become increasingly isolated in the international community. The E.U. fairly recently issued a new policy guideline, for example, that will require any Israeli company seeking to do business with European entities to declare that it has no connection to the illegal settlements. The tide is turning, slowly but surely. I hope my book will help further these positive developments towards accountability under international law, the pursuit of justice for the Palestinians, and the realization of peace for both sides.

8. Why does the US continue to say that Israel has the right to defend itself while never stating if the Palestinians have a right to self-defense as well?

The simple answer is that while the U.S. interprets Israel’s “right” to “defend” itself to include violations of international law including war crimes, it effectively doesn’t recognize any right of the Palestinians to self-defense. An illustrative example was Obama’s much-touted Cairo speech. I’ll just share an excerpt from the book on this point:

In a much anticipated speech at Cairo University in Egypt on June 4, 2009, President Obama said he was there “to seek a new beginning between the United States and Muslims around the world” while also stressing “America’s strong bonds” and “unbreakable” relationship with Israel.  

He sought to assure that “America will not turn our backs on the legitimate Palestinian aspiration for dignity, opportunity, and a state of their own”, but then proceeded to reiterate the U.S.’s preconditions for this to occur: the Palestinians must “abandon violence”, “recognize past agreements”, and “recognize Israel’s right to exist”—none of which were reciprocally required of Israel. He went so far as to lecture the Palestinians that armed resistance was “wrong”, a judgment that didn’t apply to the U.S. and Israel’s own “violence and killing”, which was rather deemed legitimate by the same president, who would later defend the U.S.’s own frequent use of it during his Nobel Prize acceptance speech by saying that “force may sometimes be necessary” and that the “non-violence practiced by men like Gandhi and King may not have been practical or possible in every circumstance”.

The hypocrisy is extraordinary, but standard when it comes to prejudice against the Palestinians.

9. Why do both the US and Israel continue to demonize Hamas when in 2006 they offered a full truce to President Bush and more recently in 2012, Hamas offered a long term cease fire with verifications that would have allowed for the two sides to talk?

Hamas has in fact consistently and for a long time expressed its willingness to accept a state of Palestine with borders along the ’67 lines alongside Israel coupled with the offer of a long-term truce. Again, an excerpt from the book:

To cite a few examples, in early 2005, Hamas issued a document stating that goal and “unequivocally” recognizing the pre-June 1967 line as Israel’s border. 

In early 2006, Hamas official Mahmoud al-Zahar publicly stated that Hamas was seeking a Palestinian state and would accept a long-term truce with Israel if it withdrew from the territories it occupied in 1967. 

Ismail Haniyeh, as already noted, had reiterated to the Washington Post in February 2006 that Hamas would accept an agreement for “the establishment of a Palestinian state with Jerusalem as its capital with 1967 borders." 

In December 2006, Hamas leader Khaled Meshal said that “all the Palestinian factions agree to a return of Israel’s borders to pre-1967 designations.” He said, “We accept the need for two countries to exist, but Israel has no legitimacy so long as the occupation continues.”
Meshal said in January 2007 that Hamas was “with the consensus of the necessity of establishing a Palestinian state on the June 4 borders, including (East) Jerusalem, the right of return and the withdrawal of Israel to these borders.” When asked whether this presupposed the existence of Israel, he answered, “The problem is not that there is an entity called Israel. The problem is that the Palestinian state is non-existent.”  

Meshal explained: 

There will remain a state called Israel. This is an issue of fact, but the Palestinians should not be required to recognize Israel…. As a Palestinian today I speak of a Palestinian and Arab demand for a state on 1967 borders. It is true that in reality there will be an entity or a state called Israel on the rest of Palestinian land…. We are demanding a Palestinian state on the 1967 border including Jerusalem and the right of return. 

Former U.S. President Jimmy Carter had met with Hamas officials in April 2008, and reported that they “said they would accept a Palestinian state on the 1967 borders” and would “accept the right of Israel to live as a neighbor next door in peace” if Israel withdrew. Hamas’s “ultimate goal”, Carter said, “is to see Israel living in their allocated borders, the 1967 borders, and a contiguous, vital Palestinian state alongside.” 

Khaled Meshal at the same time had repeated, “We accept a state on the June 4 [1967] line with Jerusalem as capital, real sovereignty and full right of return for refugees but without recognizing Israel…. We have offered a truce if Israel withdraws to the 1967 borders, a truce of 10 years as proof of recognition.” Haaretz explained that “Meshal used the Arabic word hudna, meaning truce, which is more concrete than tahdiya—a period of calm—which Hamas often uses to describe a simple cease-fire. Hudna implies a recognition of the other party’s existence.” 

Haaretz also reported that on November 8, 2008, four days after Israel’s violation of the ceasefire, Haniyeh once again had reiterated that “his government was willing to accept a Palestinian state within the 1967 borders.”

There are numerous additional examples cited elsewhere in the book. Despite this fact, it is obligatory for government officials and the compliant mainstream media to parrot that Hamas seeks Israel’s destruction. Why? For the American public to know the truth about Hamas’s actual consistent position since at least 2005 would undermine the goal of manufacturing consent for the U.S. policy of supporting Israel’s crimes against the Palestinians.

Getting Personal

Getting Personal: Looking Beyond Macro Oppression

Image Courtesy of the American Psychological Association

Sexism, racism, homophobia, and transphobia are all something that most of us have learned about or are currently in the process of learning. While it is important to learn about these different forms of oppression, we must also take into account from what perspective we are taught about oppression and how it is rather incomplete. Rarely, if ever, do we discuss oppression in a personal manner, from how it affects us on an individual level to how we perpetuate systems of oppression through our thoughts and actions.

In general society, from school to the news to the home, we learn about oppression through a macro lens, how society at large has oppressed groups of people. Just some examples of this are the women's rights movement, the genocide of Native Americans, slavery, and the internment of Japanese Americans, among other instances. In today's world there are problems of institutionalized racism and police brutality that affect people on a regular basis. However, this is from a societal perspective and examines how society as a whole, through its political, economic, and social institutions work to keep in place a status quo in which certain groups of people are more privileged than others. Yet, society and its institutions are made up of people who aid in their perpetuation, this it is only logical to understand oppression from the individual level as well.


Oppression can affect individuals in a variety of ways. One only need to look at the cat calls that many women receive on a regular basis from men or the stereotypes that people hold about certain races and ethnic groups and then act upon them. Such actions and thoughts contribute to creating an unsafe environment for the individuals in question and limit the spaces in which they can safely occupy.

However, oppression doesn’t have to be in these large group acts as in catcalling or in thoughts, as is with stereotyping, we can oppress people and create unsafe spaces for them through small actions as well. I’ve personally been in situations in which I was applying for jobs and upon meeting the interviewer, I could hear in the inflection of their voice and their eyes that they had not been expecting me to be black. This surprise on their part triggered a nervous reaction on my part and created a feeling in me that maybe I wasn’t wanted for the position; maybe I wasn’t supposed to work here.

Yet, while this was problematic on my part, the actions of the interviewer, whether they realized it or not, did the actions consciously or not, played a role in perpetuating oppression by making me feel uncomfortable and unwanted due to my race. Now, this is not bought up out of feelings of self pity, but rather to show that the actions of an individual can go to continue oppression.

We can begin to aid in the deconstruction of oppression by taking serious time to reflect on our thoughts and actions, what influenced them, and mentally combating them. If we realize that our thoughts are due to ignorance, we can actively engaged with the people who we are having problems with concerning our prejudiced thoughts or actions. We must fight oppression on the micro level because even if we do away with societal oppression, the situation will remain the same as people will be acting upon their prejudiced thoughts. Only then will we truly be able to have an equal society.

Debt Slavery

Debt Slavery: The Forgotten History of Sharecropping

Originally posted at the Hampton Institute

Image Courtesy of the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign

After the close of the Civil War, many assumed that the scar of slavery had been done away with, something to be put into the annals of American history and only to be bought up in classrooms. Yet, the situation in many ways couldn’t have been farther from the truth. Slavery was still around; however it was in a much different form. Besides the convict lease system, which kept black people as slaves within the construct of leasing them out to corporations, there was also sharecropping, which kept blacks tied to the land they worked. In order to obtain a full understanding of sharecropping, the social, economic, and legal contexts under which sharecropping was instituted must first be examined.

Reconstruction

After the Civil War ended the rather short-lived era of Reconstruction came about which saw Union troops occupying former rebel states to ensure that blacks had equal rights and a large rise in the number of black politicians on both the local, state, and national levels. While this was good for black people, there was a dark undercurrent as Reconstruction “exacerbated sectional and political tensions and economic recovery problems.”[1] Due to the Civil War, the entire South was engulfed in economic troubles as with physical slavery abolished; plantation owners now had to pay wages to their workers. Yet the implementation of a wage system was problematic as “the South’s quasi-feudal plantation system was not well-suited for a modern, free labor force.”[2] In addition to this, former slaves were quite reluctant to work in the fields for subsistence-level wages.

Having a wage labor economy was near futile as economically speaking; the entire South was in shambles, especially with regards to currency as “Circulating currency was in short supply,” the Confederate currency was useless, “the banking system was practically destroyed and, crucially, planters, farmers and landowners could not borrow money to pay freedmen to work their land for them.”[3] Planters were left in economic ruins as few were able to use their now ruined land as collateral for loans. Poor harvests only exacerbated the problems as planters found themselves unable to attain sufficient crops to gain enough money to hire wage laborers. Yet, the most important factor in this was that “freedpeople had altogether higher aspirations than being simply wage laborers on large centrally organized plantations.”[4]

To address this problem, Congress established the Freedman’s Bureau, whose purpose it was to aid former slaves and refugees and to handle abandoned land. They were also given the task of supervising labor contracts. Initially, Congress envisioned “that the Bureau would undertake the role of umpire in ensuring that the contracts reflected the free interplay of market forces”[5] and gave Commissioner Major General Oliver Howard, explicit instructions as to what contracts and contractual terms could not be dictated by the Bureau.

Yet, this did not solve the South’s labor problem as both planter and freedmen “had little initial idea of what the optimal labor arrangements would be. They had to be discovered by a process of experimentation.”[6] The experimentation began when former slaves begrudgingly entered into labor contracts with planters who still expected them to work in ways quite similar to what they had experienced under slavery. Most planters still believed that blacks needed supervision, Whitelaw Reid noted that most Southerners held the belief that “'niggers wouldn't do more 'n half as much, now that the lash was no longer behind them.”[7] To this end, in the name of ensuring that blacks would work, “they sought to restore gang labor, centralized plantations, and the close supervision of the work and social lives of their new laborers, which, to their mind, were central to the economics of plantation slavery.”[8] While this new system was a compromise between worker and employer, a deal which neither group particularly was fond of, it was one in which blacks had some autonomy, an asset which they leveraged to make the system of sharecropping less oppressive.

Black Autonomy

During slavery, the black family was in a way nonexistent due to the bitter and bleak reality that a family member could be sold off at any time, for almost any reason whatsoever. Thus, when freedom came about, it made sense that former slaves went to great lengths to seek out and reestablish their families. “These attempts to restore families and redirect their labor to serve the needs of the household rather than the planter, were integral to the self-sufficiency that freedpeople sought from sharecropping.” For a time there existed sizable labor shortages, which gave more power to the former slaves and allowed them to “contribute decisively to the contours of the new labor system that was awkwardly being constructed.”[9] Rather than large centralized plantations, blacks had them broken into smaller plots of land and chain gangs were replaced by family and kin-group labor that managed the land.

This collective share arrangement was adopted by both planters and former slaves as planters considered it a group incentive scheme and the former slaves saw it as an opportunity to decrease the amount of outside supervision. The preference blacks had for family-level sharecropping lied “in the increased effectiveness of the incentives implicit in the share arrangement, more closely matching effort and reward at the individual family level, and in the preference that freedmen showed for family farming over collective arrangements.”[10] Though for the little black autonomy that did exist, it was overshadowed by the economics and legal effects of sharecropping.

Economics and the Law

Sharecropping, while influenced by black autonomy, was overall negative for black farmers as such a system “allowed the exploitation of the small farmer by the monopolistic financial structure dominated by the local merchant,” as the farmer (in this case the black family) was unable to access alternative sources of credit to acquire needed supplies and thus the farmer was forced to use his future crop as collateral to finance the loan which “bound the farmer to the merchant and restricted his options to buy elsewhere or dispose of his crop in the most advantageous manner.”[11] Due to his need to pay back the loan, the farmer focused on growing a cash crop such as cotton, to the neglect of food production, thus forcing the farmer to borrow even more money from the merchant as to feed himself. This created a cycle where the farmer was constantly behind in his paying his debt. It also didn’t help that the credit prices that the farmer was charged so he could purchase food “were exorbitant, reflecting not only the local merchant's inefficiency, but his exploitative powers as the sole source of rural credit.”[12] Thus, the farmers stayed in perpetual debt and slavery perpetuated itself, but rather than a physical slavery, it was an economic bondage that held black people to the land.

Another factor in the economics of sharecropping was that the landowner could also provide loans to the sharecroppers. Once again, the future crop was used as collateral against the loan, yet in the 1870s, the Tennessee legislature legalized this practice which, in part due to the corrupt local authorities and the rulings of state courts, resulted in having horrid results for the sharecroppers.

Since 1825 a law had been in place allowing for future crops to be utilized as IOUs to landlords; however the law only applied to the collection of cash rent. In 1870 the legislature passed a law which stated “that under certain conditions a loan by the owner to the cropper for equipment and workstock constituted a lien against the cropper's share of the proceeds.”[13] The legislation did not allow for liens to be carried over from the previous year and mandated that the transaction be in writing. The law was amended in 1875 as to include croppers’ debts to their landlords for supplies used in family consumption. While the legislature did attempt to protect sharecroppers from fraud, they were quite ineffectual as “local authorities ignored violations of the laws and state courts stripped [fraud protection laws] of their legislative intent” which resulted in landowners having the ability to carry debts over year after year. This economic power not only gave them better security for their loans, but also “gave them greater control over their black croppers.”[14]

Besides the law, contract provisions also hurt sharecroppers. Contract terms which assessed “penalties for noncompliance or neglect on the part of the cropper likewise enhanced the landowners' control”[15] as if croppers failed to cultivate the specified amount of land, consequences could be extremely damaging. One contract stated that such a failure would bind the sharecroppers "to pay for fifty acres of corn land at seven dollars per acre & ten (10) acres of tobacco land at twelve dollars & fifty cents per acre in money”[16] where another contract stipulated that the landowner had the privilege of dismissing him entirely. While such terms appeared in the contracts of both white and black farmers, they were more prevalent in the contracts of black farmers. By having the power to dictate the terms of the contract, landowners “could control black croppers during working hours and, perhaps, be situated to dominate them and their families during nonworking hours as well” and there is evidence, “both direct and inferential, that landowners sought to use the system for this purpose.”[17] In some cases, if sickness or accident prevented sharecroppers from meeting their obligations, the landowner had the power to outsource the work at the sharecroppers’ expense.

While such provisions reflected an assumption that blacks were unable to manage a commercial enterprise, it is maintained by many historians that the provisions were an “effort by white southerners in general to hold freedmen, the large majority of whom became sharecroppers, in a subordinate status after emancipation.”[18] Yet, while black sharecroppers in many ways remained subordinate to white landowners, the situation was worse for black women as for them, sharecropping combined the oppression of debt peonage and black patriarchy within the family.

Black Women

While slavery was brutal, there was actually gender equality among black men and women. Though the plantation system was based on patriarchy, “the domesticity in the enslaved cabin at the quarters was, ironically, about as close an approximation to equality of the sexes as the nineteenth century provided. An androgynous world was born, weirdly enough, not out of freedom, but out of bondage."[19] Yet, with sharecropping, black gender relations changed with the empowering of the black male to create a patriarchal family model.

While black female labor played a large role in producing income for families under the sharecropping model, their work was subjugated to the interests of black men as “male croppers controlled the labor of family members and, hence, held more power than women held over income and property.”[20]

Family sharecropping was not just the preferred model for the black family as a whole, but also for black women. Many times freedwomen rejected field work as they were paid less than men, but also due to gang and squad labor putting them in close proximity to white landowners and overseers who would abuse them.

However, while family sharecropping benefited black women, it was also used as a form of control by white landowners as many held the view that "Where the Negro works for wages, he tries to keep his wife at home. If he rents land, or plants on shares, the wife and children help him in the field."[21] In their view, by allowing family sharecropping the landowner could ensure the stability of their labor and add to the labor pool by having the entirety of the black family work in the fields.

Black patriarchy was rather problematic for black women as “fathers could legally use corporal punishment to discipline their wives and children.”[22] In some cases, such discipline was contractually specified. Thus, not only was the black woman afflicted by the negative economic effects of sharecropping in the form of debt peonage, but also the social affects were harmful to them, especially due to sharecropping empowering and upholding black patriarchy.

Sharecropping eventually ended due to mechanization and the Great Migration[23], yet the effects of sharecropping, compounded with slavery and the convict lease system had a negative multi-generational impact on the black community as a whole as rather than being able to work and obtain and pass down capital as to aid in the economic growth of the black community, it resulted in economic stagnation that would only increase racial economic disparity.


Endnotes

1: John J. McDermott, “Reconstruction and Post-Civil War Reconciliation," Military Review 89:1 (2009) pg 67

2: McDermott, pg 68

3: Ian Ochiltree, “Mastering the Sharecroppers: Land, Labor and the Search for Independence in the US South and South Africa,” Journal of Southern African Studies 30:1 (2004), pg 43

4: Ochiltree, pg 43

5: Ralph Shlomowitz, “The Origins of Southern Sharecropping,” Agricultural History 53:3 (1979), pg 588

6: Shlomowitz, pg 568

7: Ochiltree, pg 44

8: Ibid

9: Ibid

10: Shlomowitz, pg 572

11: Roger L. Ransom and Richard Sutch, “Debt Peonage in the Cotton South After the Civil War,” The Journal of Economic History 32:3 (1972), pg 642

12: Ibid

13: Donald L. Winters, “Postbellum Reorganization of Southern Agriculture: The Economics of Sharecropping in Tennessee,” Agricultural History 62:4 (1988), pg 10

14: Winters, pg 11

15: Winters, pg 13

16: Ibid

17: Winters, pg 14

18: Ibid

19: Willie Lee Rose, Slavery and Freedom (New York, Oxford University Press, 1982) pg 29

20: Susan A. Mann, “Slavery, Sharecropping, and Sexual Inequality,” Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society 14:4 (1989), pg 7

21: Mann, pg 11

22: Mann, pg 12

23: PBS, People and Events: Sharecropping in Mississippi, http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/till/peopleevents/e_sharecrop.html

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)