Woolwich Murder: Spectacle and Message


Barbarism. That is the only word fit to describe the events that unfolded on a Woolwich street this afternoon. According to eye witnesses a young man wearing a Hope for Heroes shirt was run over and then hacked to death by two men of “Muslim appearance” [sic]. The perpetrators then explained their motives to passers by and into camera (now hosted by ITV News) and apparently shouted “Allahu Akbar” at irregular intervals. When the police showed up, they allegedly charged them and were promptly shot by armed officers, then taken to hospital.

Let’s just be clear about a couple of things. While the man in ITV’s video said this crime was a taste of what goes on “in our lands”, that hardly justifies cold blooded murder. This gut-wrenching, frenzied attack is no more representative of Islam and Muslims than the grotesque outrage perpetrated by Anders Breivik was of the Christian Europe he claimed to be “defending”. That’s it, full stop. There is no “legitimate grievance” here. Nor does it have anything to do with Britain’s 2.7m Muslims, or the supposed “failures” of multiculturalism. This is an awful killing motivated by a perverse, convoluted revenge fantasy dreamed up by two pathetic murderers. And that’s where it should end.

But it won‘t. These two men were obviously media savvy. They knew a brutal unprovoked attack on a man likely to be a squaddie outside a barracks would attract furious headlines and dominate the news cycle. They knew the almost casual nonchalance and interaction with witnesses after the murder guaranteed acres of print. And they knew their apparent attempts to film the attack themselves, and subsequent statements to camera would be watched by many hundreds of thousands of people. This was a very visible murder: an act they wanted on every front page, every TV screen, every Twitter feed.

Acts of terror have always relied on the spectacle. Indeed, you don‘t need to be well-versed in postmodern waffle to accept Jean Baudrillard’s argument that the September 11th attacks were about semioticsas much as anything else. It was an attack at the very heart of American power, designed to be “high impact” as well as mass casualty. But for all that it, the Bali and Madrid bombings, the London 7th July attacks were presented as episodes in a global war, a clash of civilisations between the American Empire and Jihadi insurgency. And, of course, as appalling as these awful crimes were it was a narrative that suited neocon hawks and extreme Islamists in equal measure.

But going by what the media has reported so far, the Woolwich murder is different. An awful, barbaric spectacle, yes. But not an “action” in a global war. It appears to be an act of vengeance – at least to the murderers themselves. But more than that at the same time. It reminds one of the “propaganda of the deed”, the terror attacks favoured by some 19th century anarchists. Just as they believed blows struck at the high and mighty would rouse the toiling masses from their slumbers, the explanation of motive given to camera by one of today’s murderers is designed to draw attention to the awful things that are happening in the Middle East.

But their casual brutality guarantees this will be the last thing that gets talked about.

(http://averypublicsociologist.blogspot.co.uk/2013/05/woolwich-murder-spectacle-and-message.html)
Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

No to terrorism! No to racism! No to war!


Statement from Greenwich Socialist Party on the Woolwich killing

The unprovoked, barbaric and vicious murder of an unarmed soldier in Woolwich yesterday is a horrific event which must have been profoundly traumatic for the people who witnessed it, and, of course, an appalling tragedy for the victim, and the victim’s family and friends.

Local residents showed incredible bravery in intervening to try and assist the victim.

The Socialist Party completely condemns this attack just as we condemned 7/7, 9/11, and all similar attacks aimed at indiscriminate slaughter.

This latest killing, while of one individual rather than many, appears to have been completely indiscriminate, with the victim selected possibly only because of the ‘help for heroes’ t-shirt he was wearing.

The attackers apparently claimed to be acting in the name of Islam, and in protest at the occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan.

However, the vast majority of Muslims will be as sickened and horrified by this attack as the rest of the population.

The brutal imperialist occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan, which have resulted in the deaths of over one hundred thousand civilians, are not the responsibility of ordinary soldiers, but of the governments that took the decision to invade and then occupy.

New Labour went ahead with the invasion of Iraq despite opposition from a majority of the population, including the biggest demonstration in Britain’s history, which the Socialist Party helped to organise.

Terrorism

Terrorism is a completely mistaken and counter-productive method of struggle. It was the mass terrorism of 9/11 which gave George Bush a ‘justification’ he could use to invade Afghanistan and then Iraq.

One of the attackers in Woolwich called on the people of Britain to overthrow the government. It is the same government which continues the occupation of Afghanistan, that is carrying out terrible austerity measures on the working class of Britain.

However, this brutal killing will be used by Cameron to try and bolster support for this incredibly unpopular, weak and divided government.

In the wake of this killing the racist thugs of the EDL have already cynically tried to use the event to whip up racism against all Muslims.

Two attacks on mosques took place on the night of the Woolwich killing. The Socialist Party is totally opposed to the scapegoating of Muslims as a result of this tragic killing.

From whatever section of society mistaken and damaging methods of struggle arise, the only way to combat them is for all working people – from all backgrounds – to unite to build a movement against racism, against terrorism, but also against the endless austerity of capitalism.

Democratic rights

We must also resist any attempts by the government to use this as an excuse to attack our democratic rights.

Anti-terror legislation has been used to undermine anti austerity protests. Ordinary working class people have fought and died for these rights in the past.

This is not the first time working class people in Greenwich have had to stand firm in the face of attempts to divide.

Just a two minute walk up the same road is the Kings Arms pub which was bombed by the IRA in 1974. The community in Greenwich resisted those who tried to whip up anti-Irish hysteria at the time.

In 1993 Stephen Lawrence was murdered in Eltham just 20 minutes away. A mass campaign against racism was mobilised by members of the Socialist Party (then Militant) and others which resulted in the far-right BNP’s headquarters in Welling being shut down.

It is important now, more than ever, that working class people in Woolwich and the country as a whole remember that history of solidarity and struggle.

We must stand united against any attempts to divide us in the wake of this tragic event.

(http://www.socialistparty.org.uk/articles/16739/23-05-2013/no-to-terrorism-no-to-racism-no-to-war)

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

Crime Fiction and Capitalist Reality, by RON JACOBS


 

 

Life On a Neoliberal Planet

 

The novel is generally acknowledged to be a bourgeois form of literature. It wasn’t until there were enough literate people with time for leisurely reading that this entertainment came along.  The crime novel reflects the bourgeois obsession with order and usually represents the concerns of that class.  There is a crime against an individual that shakes up bourgeois society.  A detective from the police force or a private investigator hunts down the perpetrator through a series of clues, makes the arrest and all is well again.  Agatha Christie’s novels are perfect examples of this.  Then there are the tough guy novels featuring men like Mike Hammer.  In this type of story, the protagonist easily forsakes the niceties of bourgeois society in his crime solving.  Naturally, this alienates the police and the bourgeoisie, but he still gets the job done, captures (or kills) the criminal, and allows the middle class to get on with their lives.  This representation is occasionally turned around and the protectors of order — the police and courts — are the criminals and by association so is the system they work for. This is noir.  Noir does not pretend that the society their protagonists operate in is worth saving.  It’s just the only one we have.  This is where the novels of a few current writers exist, and where mine are intentionally placed.

Writing about Italian noir for World Literature Todaycritic Madison J. Davis noted :

The traditional mystery, deriving from Poe’s “The Murders in the Rue Morgue” and evolving through Conan Doyle and Agatha Christie to contemporary practitioners like Carolyn G. Hart and Simon Brett, requires a certain faith in the legal system—or at least in a measure of justice parceled out to those who commit crimes. We live, however, in a skeptical world, in which even those who enjoy the puzzles and deductions of the traditional whodunit cannot see them as realistic. The events of the twentieth century have cracked, often splintered, our faith in the legal system and the triumph of justice, even in the good ole U. S. of A.

I would argue that the twenty-first century has brought us beyond even the skepticism Davis acknowledges.  Indeed, skepticism seems almost quaint, when we read about hundreds of men being released from prison because they were jailed they for crimes they did not commit.  Their incarceration was not due to a mistake, but a conscious decision by authorities to match a crime to the victim they chose.  Every time news like this comes out, the credibility of the police as protectors of society diminishes.  When working people see their friends and children going to prison for drug offenses while the wealthy usually avoid doing time, their perception of the legal system being rigged in favor of the wealthy and powerful is reinforced.  Since the police are the most obvious representatives of that system (and the individuals most citizens encounter) they are no longer perceived as much more than enforcers of the rights of the wealthy and powerful.  This perception, long held by those considered The Other in society, is now part of the common parlance.  Indeed, television crime shows assume this in their portrayals of police departments and individual cops.  Certain series, most notably David Simon’s depressingly exquisite take on the corruption rampant in an entire city’s political and legal system called The Wire, create a world where the incorruptible individual has no place.Sinners front for web

This does not mean that the police don’t enjoy at least tacit support by a majority of the population; it does mean that the number of people who believe the police are not above criminality is much diminished from just a few decades ago.  The abuse of power by police during the protests of the 1960s and onwards; the revelations of individual cops like New York’s Serpico regarding corruption and illegal arrests (among other things); the militarization of most police forces in cities and towns large and small; and the continued abrogation of civil liberties in the name of the war on drugs and the war on terrorism.  All of these make the line between the police and the criminals they supposedly oppose very thin.  Despite the multitude of cop shows on television attempting to present police as protectors of order and the innocent and even the presence of movies like Clint Eastwood’s Dirty Harry series (which serve as propaganda for authoritarianism), many residents of modern society are convinced the police are not there for their sake.

Nor is the legal system.  Occasionally a clever lawyer is able to keep an innocent person out of prison — in real life and in fiction.  Indeed, certain authors have made a good living writing legal thrillers that feature these kinds of stories.  More often than not, however, the police and the courts conspire to convict the person in the docket no matter what.  It’s not that the conspiracy is intentional; it’s just how the system works.  Police arrest a person for a crime and the courts do the rest.  Without a good attorney — something very few can afford — the suspect’s options are very limited.  If one adds a cop with a grudge, a judge with an agenda, or a politician with a law and order platform to the equation, that person in the docket does not stand a chance.

A few decades ago I was charged with “possession with the intent to sell” because I was sitting in an automobile when an acquaintance sold a small amount of marijuana to an undercover cop.  This all went down not long after the state I was living in had passed a law that rendered the U.S. Constitution’s prohibition on unreasonable search and seizure null and void.  Anyone who was in the vicinity of anything having to do with illegal drugs was as culpable as the person actually involved with the drugs.  So, since I was in the car when the drug deal occurred, I was also involved in the sale.  When I showed up at court on the charge, I asked my public defender if I should challenge the charge and plead not guilty.  His response was simple.  If I challenged the charge I would not win.  He advised me to take a plea deal and do community service.  I took his advice.  The law was not interested in justice, just in throwing people in jail.

Much anti-capitalist and antiwar activity is already labeled criminal in an imperial society.  This in itself means that characters participating in activities that fall into this category are already suspect.  Meanwhile, the forces of law and order trying to stifle such characters have a leeway not provided the citizen, no matter what he or she is involved in.  The often violent reaction of the authorities to the Occupy Wall Street protests in Fall 2011 provides a recent example of this fact.  A greater contradiction occurs when the forces of authority engage in criminal behavior in the pursuit of the forces aligned against the rulers the police are hired to protect.  A further complication comes into play when criminal actions by the police are ignored or sanctioned while criminal acts by the targets of the authorities are not.  In a line quite familiar to most rock and roll fans (especially those who listen to the Rolling Stones) that calls every cop a criminal, this contradiction is even clearer.

Back to that incorruptible individual.  Most noir features a private investigator.  Like the accused, he or she is an individual who lives on the edges of the law. In a world where the law itself can be unjust, only those not in debt to the system designed to bring justice can find that justice.  Most often the investigator is one who works for hire with a set of morals that are immutable. In certain cases, like two of the novels in my 1970s trilogy, the investigators are regular folks determined to help a friend.  Still, they are not without faults.  Alcohol is often a vice these characters deal with.  Most recently, in Thomas Pynchon’s foray into the genre with a book titled Inherent Vice, his private eye smokes a lot of marijuana.  Early on, many of the so-called tough guys like Mike Hammer were sexist and racist.  As the genre has evolved, so have the investigators.  Like the society they operate in, today’s investigators include Blacks, Latinos, Asians, and women.

Today’s noir fiction is the story of a system and society in decline.  Marxist Ernest Mandel published a book on crime fiction in 1986 titled Delightful Murder.  In this book, Mandel looks at the genesis and development of crime fiction.  We see the development of the criminal from a lone individual whose exploits shock and dismay, but whom heroic police agents can capture.  As capitalism moves into its monopoly phase, the lone criminal remains a problem, yet the real problem developing is an entire class of criminals.  These are what Marx labeled the lumpenproletariat: that part of society whose sole task is surviving no matter what it takes.  Usually extremely poor, only occasionally employed in conventional jobs, and existing literally outside of society, the lumpen are the truly dangerous ones in the bourgeoisie’s midst.  They provide respectable society with their entertainments such as illegal drugs and sex, but must be controlled at all cost.  The investigator’s position in society is closer to that of the lumpen than to any other stratum.  He or she understands the justice of the streets is often not the justice of the courtroom.  Of course, this position outside of society means there is nothing to lose in fighting the wealthy and powerful.

Mandel published his book before capitalism’s latest phase was truly underway.  That is, neoliberalism.  This stage of monopoly capitalism is the nightmare that Rosa Luxembourg warned us about.  Financiers who produce no product run the world.  Instead of creating work, their actions profit from the destruction of jobs and the impoverishment of millions. They launder the millions made by international drug lords while financing politicians who want to build more prisons and lock up those who use the drugs.  As far as the financiers are concerned, the working class itself is now a criminal class.  Yet, we know better.  It is the financiers and their class that are the true criminals.  Still, they go free while workers go to jail for the crime of being poor.  The conspiracy of the super rich is not an accident.  They built the world that way.

Writers can choose to point this out or they can go along with the status quo.  Good crime fiction on a neoliberal planet chooses the former.  The task of those who write these tales is to point the finger at the true criminals.  The police are only heroes when they bust the big guys.  The system can only be just when it turns on its own.  At this juncture in time, this only seems to happen in stories.  Unfortunately.

This essay appears as a foreword to all three novels in Jacobs’ “Seventies Series.”(Fomite Press) It first appeared in the March 2013 CounterPunch magazine.

Ron Jacobs is the author of the just released novel All the Sinners, Saints. He is also the author of The Way the Wind Blew: a History of the Weather Underground and Short Order Frame Up and The Co-Conspirator’s Tale. Jacobs’ essay on Big Bill Broonzy is featured in CounterPunch’s collection on music, art and sex, Serpents in the Garden.  His third novel All the Sinners Saints is a companion to the previous two and is due out in April 2013.  He is a contributor to Hopeless: Barack Obama and the Politics of Illusion, published by AK Press.  He can be reached at: ronj1955@gmail.com.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

The ‘Terror’ Act of Woolwich, by BINOY KAMPMARK


 

 

Using Labels

 

It is an object study.  Two men in a car, which is driven into another man.  The attacked individual is then hacked to death by a meat cleaver or kitchen implement in broad daylight.  There may be several instruments used.  There are religious chants – or at least the sort popular opinion might expect.  The individuals then ask bystanders to take photos and shots.  This is their day.  It should be preserved for history.  Police then arrive and shoot the two men, one of them critically.  Eyewitnesses claim that one of the individuals was carrying a firearm (Time, May 22).

All of this has amounted to a “terror” attack.  It took place in the south-east London area of Woolwich yesterday.  Police were called to the scene of the incident on John Wilson Street at 2.20 p.m.  But London has been witness to violent crimes before, as it will continue to be. The descriptions of this event have propelled an event of terrible violence into another category: one of terrorism.  Yet hardly anything has actually been said to warrant the term.  Then again, as Cicero claimed in his second oration against Verres, O tempora! O mores!

While the misuse of political terminology has become standard, tolerated fare in the twenty-four hour news cycle, it is worth looking at these unfolding events again to heed how terms of security can be misused.  The “framing” of an event can have significant implications for policy.  It doesn’t require the ponderings of cognitive linguist George Lakoff to remind us how effective those tactics can be.  Don’t call it tax evasion.  Call it tax minimisation.  Don’t call it a criminal act – call it a “terrorist act” before all the facts are known.  The agenda is dictated in advance.

Then come the fundamental problems for those dealing in the business of defining terrorism, a field marked as much by charlatanism as it is by usefulness – practitioners cannot agree on any specific term.  Dozens are floating about in the spectrum of terminology.

The eyewitness accounts that are coming in suggest that a brutal crime may have taken place, a theatrically bloody act of public spectacle. James Heneghan told radio LBC 97.3 that he and his wife saw two men (yes, he did say black) “hacking this poor guy, hacking him, chopping him.”  The assailants “were oblivious to anything, they were more worried about having their photo taken, running up and down the road” (Metro, May 22).

Identification evidence is notorious, and tends to provide defence lawyers with ample grist to a busy mill. It may well be that another such case may be forming.  According to another eyewitness, this time Fred Oyat, living in a high-rise near the location of the attack, there were four gun shots, and “four knives on the ground – big kitchen knives.  The knives were very bloody” (Time, May 22).

The attacks of September 11 2001 were treated as the singular events of their time.  In many ways, this was a disservice to history.  Previous eras of terrorism have befallen the tottering human race, mostly inflicted by governments rather than two-bit revolutionaries.  The specific attacks of 9/11 have been deemed everything from “acts of war” to “acts of terror”.  They have also been regarded as criminal acts, though this view was rapidly swept under the carpet when the dots were joined.

Many are wishing that the latter view might have held sway – the “war on terror” remains one of the most lexically nonsensical creations in the last twenty years.  It has produced extra-judicial solutions, legal fantasies and a security culture tolerant of torture (oh, apologies, enhanced interrogation – every occasion deserves it term).  It has also produced the atmosphere that transforms a violent act with a machete (or machetes) in a London suburb into terrorism.  The only term that comes closer in absurdity is that lamentable construct, the “war on drugs”, that other abused reference that suggests you can wage war against an inert object or a tactic.

The material here for this conversion from alleged criminal act to actual act of terrorism is sketchy but important to note.  Heneghan’s observations bolster the designation of terrorism – the assailants “were waiting for the police to arrive to be shot by the police.  That’s the only thing I can think.” There were supposedly cries of “AlIah Akbar” before the attack (Birmingham Mail, May 22).  Instantly, one thinks of the rhetoric of martyrdom – these religiously intoxicated assailants wanting to perish at the hands of the security establishment.  Not quite as dramatic as your standard car bomb, but necessity is the mother of invention.

The individual who lost his life was a British soldier – another box to be ticked in the security chart.  He was allegedly wearing a Help for Heroes t-shirt, a military charity for wounded British soldiers.

The location was just a few blocks from the Royal Artillery Barracks.  Another box, another tick.  There was political speculation over the incident – from local MP Nick Raynsford and even, if this can be verified, French President François Hollande.

To round this off, British Prime Minister David Cameron has joined the speculation, suggesting that there are “strong indications” that this was a terrorist attack.  “We have suffered these attacks before, we have always beaten them back.  We will not be cowed, we will never buckle.”  And whatever happened to that good old fashioned term of a violent crime (actual or alleged), whatever the motivation?

Binoy Kampmark was a Commonwealth Scholar at Selwyn College, Cambridge.  He currently lectures in politics and law at RMIT University, Melbourne. Email: bkampmark@gmail.com

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Venezuelan National Assembly Approves Law Against Torture


Published: 05/16/2013

(http://venezuela-us.org/2013/05/16/national-assembly-approves-law-against-torture/)

After an intense day of debates, the domestic policy committee of Venezuela’s National Assembly approved on Wednesday a special law against crimes of torture, which will guarantee greater respect for human rights.

In a session presided over by José Morales of the United Socialist Party, torture was classified under the law as a serious crime punishable by 3 to 25 years in prison.

“We are working, and we want to highlight the absence of deputies of the opposition parties, none of them appeared, nor were they present in the plenary session approving this new law,” Morales said.

He called on opposition lawmakers to join their respective committees, saying: “once they stop engaging in political tourism and decide to join the groups in the National Assembly, they will be welcomed to do the work the people elected them to do, that they were entrusted to do and that they are paid to do by this institution.”

In the second debate on this law, 31 articles were agreed upon with majority support and they were sent immediately to the National Assembly’s directors for a plenary session discussion.

“It is important to highlight that this legal instrument has a fundamental importance taking into account that it sanctions one of the greatest crimes that can be committed in society, which is torture against another human being,” Morales said.

He noted that, under the definition of torture, the law includes forms of cruel treatment by public servants and medical personnel, which garner “more severe punishments than those that were previously established in the Penal Code, which helps in the struggle against the crime of torture.”

Another socialist lawmaker, Juan Carlos Alemán, who was in charge of leading the discussion, said the law is pioneering among Venezuelan legislation.

“We were able to build a complete instrument that sanctions even those individuals that could be implicated as accomplices or intellectual authors of crimes of torture or human rights violations,” he said.

Meanwhile, Morales announced that also slated for discussion in 2013 is a law against medical malpractice, a law on constitutional protections, a law on firefighters, and another against car theft.

AVN/ Press – Venezuelan Embassy to the US/ May 16, 2013

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Noam Chomsky, Scholars Ask NY Times Public Editor to Investigate Bias on Honduras and Venezuela


 

NACLA Store Advertisement

 

The following petition, signed by over a dozen experts on Latin America and the media, was sent today to Margaret Sullivan, Public Editor of The New York Times:

May 14, 2013

Dear Margaret Sullivan,

In a recent column (4/12/13), you observed:

Although individual words and phrases may not amount to very much in the great flow produced each day, language matters. When news organizations accept the government’s way of speaking, they seem to accept the government’s way of thinking. In The Times, these decisions carry even more weight.

In light of this comment we encourage you to compare The New York Times’s characterization of the leadership of the late Hugo Chávez in Venezuela and that of Roberto Micheletti and Porfirio Lobo in Honduras.

In the past four years, the Times has referred to Chávez as an “autocrat,” “despot,” “authoritarian ruler” and a “caudillo” in its news coverage. When opinion pieces are included, the Times has published at least fifteen separate articles employing such language, depicting Chávez as a “dictator” or “strongman.” Over the same period—since the June 28, 2009 military overthrow of elected president Manuel Zelaya of Honduras—Times contributors have never used such terms to describe Micheletti, who presided over the coup regime after Zelaya’s removal, or Porfirio Lobo, who succeeded him. Instead, the paper has variously described them in its news coverage as “interim,” “de facto,” and “new.”

Porfirio Lobo assumed the presidency after winning an election held under Micheletti’s coup government. The elections were marked by repression and censorship, and international monitors, like the Carter Center, boycotted them. Since the coup, Honduras’s military and police have routinely killed civilians.

Over the past 14 years Venezuela has had 16 elections or referenda deemed free and fair by leading international authorities. Jimmy Carter praised Venezuela’s elections, among the 92 the Carter Center has monitored, as having “a very wonderful voting system.” He concluded that “the election process in Venezuela is the best in the world.” While some human rights groups have criticized the Chávez government, Venezuela has had no pattern of state security forces murdering civilians, as is the case in Honduras.

Whatever one thinks of the democratic credentials of Chávez’s presidency—and we recognize that reasonable people can disagree about it—there is nothing in the record, when compared with that of his Honduran counterparts, to warrant the discrepancies in the Times’s coverage of the two governments.

We urge you to examine this disparity in coverage and language use, particularly as it may appear to your readers to track all too closely the U.S. government’s positions regarding the Honduran government (which it supports) and the Venezuelan government (which it opposes)—precisely the syndrome you describe and warn against in your column.

Sincerely,

Noam Chomsky, Institute Professor Emeritus, MIT
Edward Herman, Professor Emeritus of Finance, Wharton School at the University of Pennsylvania
Greg Grandin, Professor of History, New York University
Sujatha Fernandes, Professor of Sociology, Queens College, CUNY Graduate Center
Corey Robin, Professor of Political Science, Brooklyn College, CUNY Graduate Center
Adrienne Pine, Professor of Anthropology, American University
Mark Weisbrot, Ph.D, Co-Director, Center for Economic and Policy Research
Miguel Tinker Salas, Professor of History and Latin American Studies, Pomona College
Katherine Hite, Professor of Political Science, Vassar College
Steve Ellner, Professor of International and Public Affairs, Columbia University, Universidad de Oriente
George Ciccariello-Maher, Professor of Political Science, Drexel University
Daniel Kovalik, Professor of International Human Rights, University of Pittsburgh School of Law
Gregory Wilpert, Ph.D, author of “Changing Venezuela by Taking Power”
Joseph Nevins, Professor of Geography, Vassar College
Nazih Richani, Director of Latin American Studies, Kean University
Steven Volk, Professor of History, Oberlin College
Aviva Chomsky, Professor of History, Salem State University
Keane Bhatt, North American Congress on Latin America
Chris Spannos, New York Times eXaminer
Michael Albert, ZNet
Oliver Stone, Filmmaker, “South of the Border”
Michael Moore, Filmmaker, “Capitalism: A Love Story”
Vincent Warren, Executive Director, Center for Constitutional RightsAffiliations are used for identification purposes only.

Readers can add their names to the petition at New York Times eXaminer, or contact Ms. Sullivan directly at public@nytimes.com. Please limit emails to 300 words, and follow the guidelines listed at the public editor’s web page.

Update (5/14): Oscar Award-winning director Oliver Stone has added his name to the list of signatories, and a Spanish-language translation of the petition is now available at New York Times eXaminer. (Una traduccíon al español ya está disponible aquí.)

Update (5/15): Another Oscar-winning filmmaker, Michael Moore, has added his support to the petition. Other prominent signatories of late include philosopher Slavoj Zizek, author Eva Golinger, and Marjorie Cohn, former president of the National Lawyers Guild.

Update (5/17): Vincent Warren, executive director of the Center for Constitutional Rights, has added his support as a main signatory to the petition. Other academics who have added their names to the petition include Latin America specialists Rosa Maria Pegueros of Rhode Island University, Suyapa Portillo Villeda of Pitzer College and Ryan C. Alaniz of Cal Poly State University. Adolph Reed, political science professor at the University of Pennsylvania, is also a recent signer.

*

Below is a list of 16 Times articles that served as the basis of an analysis piece from which this petition was derived. None of the terms below (autocrat, despot, authoritarian, ruler, strongman, caudillo, dictator, tyrant, sultan) have been applied to either of Honduras’s post-coup regimes:

News:

Shy U.S. Intellectual Created Playbook Used in a Revolution,” Sheryl Gay Stolberg, 2/16/11: “Autocrats abhor Mr. Sharp. In 2007, President Hugo Chávez of Venezuela denounced him.”

The Arab Spring Finds Itself Upstaged by a New Season,” Neil MacFarquhar, 9/22/11: “In fact, this year’s gathering was suffering from something of a despot deficit, or at least the ranks of haranguers raging against the evils of capitalism and the West have been drastically thinned by revolutions or disease. President Hugo Chávez of Venezuela, undergoing chemotherapy treatment in Cuba, literally mailed it in . . .”

Charges Against U.S.-Aided Groups Come With History of Distrust in Egypt,” Scott Shane and Ron Nixon, 2/6/12: “Authoritarian rulers from Caracas to Moscow and beyond have long viewed pro-democracy groups financed by the United States with deep suspicion, regularly denouncing them as meddlers or spies and sometimes harassing their workers.”

A Polarizing Figure Who Led a Movement,” Simon Romero, 3/5/13: “He maintained an almost visceral connection with the poor, tapping into their resentments, while strutting like the strongman in a caudillo novel. . . . He grew obsessed with changing Venezuela’s laws and regulations to ensure that he could be re-elected indefinitely and become, indeed, a caudillo.”

Opinion:

The Winner in Honduras: Chavez,” Alvaro Vargas Llosa, 6/30/09: “The United States’ more measured response [to Honduras's coup d'etat], and the low-profile stance taken by some South American governments, have been lost amid the high-stakes campaign launched by Venezuela’s caudillo.”

Real Men Tax Gas,” Thomas Friedman, 9/19/09: “Such a tax would make our national-security healthier by . . . increasing our leverage over petro-dictators, like those in Iran, Russia and Venezuela, through shrinking their oil incomes.”

As Ugly as It Gets,” Thomas Friedman, 5/25/10: “[Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva] regularly praises Venezuela’s strongman Hugo Chávez and Fidel Castro, the Cuban dictator — and now Ahmadinejad — while denouncing Colombia, one of the great democratic success stories. . .”

Wallflowers at the Revolution,” Frank Rich, 2/5/11: “More damning, Morozov also demonstrates how the digital tools so useful to citizens in a free society can be co-opted by tech-savvy dictators, police states and garden-variety autocrats to spread propaganda and to track (and arrest) conveniently networked dissidents, from Iran to Venezuela.”

Why Tyrants Love the Murdoch Scandal,” Bill Keller, 7/24/11: “And autocrats will be autocrats, with or without our bad example. Robert Mugabe and Hugo Chávez would be just as hostile to an unfettered press if no British journalist had ever hacked a phone.”

The Stomachs of Strongmen,” Ann Louise Bardach, 8/21/11: “Ironically, the hemisphere’s most indomitable strongmen and determined foes of the United States and free market economics have both been felled, at least for now, by abdominal woes . . . The symbiosis between Cuba’s emeritus or former (and in most ways, still de facto) commander in chief and the Venezuelan colonel-turned-oil-sultan is the most powerful and fascinating political alliance in the Americas.”

The Realest Reality Show in the World,” Rachel Nolan, 5/6/12: “[I]t’s hard to imagine another political figure with the combination of manic exhibitionism and entertainer’s stamina required to star in this sort of show, never mind the autocratic control required to make it, literally, must-see TV in his home country. . . . ‘Aló Presidente’ has that same wacky quality. The difference is that Mrs. Mouth wasn’t the autocratic leader of an oil-rich country of 29 million people.”

Velvet Gloves Over Iron Fists,” Dwight Garner, 6/10/12: “The neo-authoritarians, from Vladimir Putin in Russia to Hugo Chávez in Venezuela to China’s more faceless technocrats, are still brutal, but they have learned to adapt.”

How Hugo Chávez Became Irrelevant,” Francisco Toro, 10/5/12: “Mr. Chávez’s autocratic excesses came to look unnecessary and inexcusable to Venezuelans. . . . With oversight institutions neutered, the president now runs the country as a personal fief . . . Chávez-style socialism looks like the worst of both worlds: both more authoritarian and less effective at reducing poverty than the Brazilian alternative. . . . Mr. Capriles pitches himself as an ambitious but pragmatic social reformer committed to ending the Chávez era’s authoritarian excesses.”

The Missing President,” Alberto Barrera Tyska and Christina Marcano, 1/22/13: “In the name of the dispossessed, he revived the ghost of the South American military caudillo, creating a new version of that traditional strongman. … There is one element of the Chávez leadership, however, that is no different from any of Latin America’s other personality-driven authoritarian regimes: its messianic nature.”

Hugo Chávez,” Editorial Board, 3/6/13: “Hugo Chávez dominated Venezuelan politics for 14 years with his charismatic personality, populist policies and authoritarian methods . . . his legacy is stained by the undermining of democratic institutions.”

Death of a Strongman,” Jonathan Tepperman, 4/5/13: “Finally, after years of riding the sugar binge of Chávez’s populist politics, which left the country ‘flabby, enfeebled and import-­addicted,’ much of the public lost enthusiasm for their latter-day caudillo. . . . efforts to underscore the inherent absurdity of autocrats and their personality cults are nothing new.”

 


 

Keane Bhatt is an activist in Washington, D.C. He has worked in the United States and Latin America on a variety of campaigns related to community development and social justice. His analyses and opinions have appeared in a range of outlets, including NPR, The Nation, The St. Petersburg Times, and CNN En Español. He is the author of the NACLA blog “Manufacturing Contempt,” which critically analyzes the U.S. press and its portrayal of the hemisphere. Connect with his blog on Twitter: @KeaneBhatt

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Tales in a Kabul Restaurant by KATHY KELLY


 

 

 

Why Would They Kill Children?

 

Kabul–Since 2009, Voices for Creative Nonviolence has maintained a grim record we call the “The Afghan Atrocities Update” which gives the dates, locations, numbers and names of Afghan civilians killed by NATO forces.  Even with details culled from news reports, these data can’t help but merge into one large statistic, something about terrible pain that’s worth caring about but that is happening very far away.

It’s one thing to chronicle sparse details about these U.S. led NATO attacks. It’s quite another to sit across from Afghan men as they try, having broken down in tears, to regain sufficient composure to finish telling us their stories.  Last night, at a restaurant in Kabul, I and two friends from the Afghan Peace Volunteers met with five Pashtun men from Afghanistan’s northern and eastern provinces. The men had agreed to tell us about their experiences living in areas affected by regular drone attacks, aerial bombings and night raids.  Each of them noted that they also fear Taliban threats and attacks. “What can we do,” they asked, “when both sides are targeting us?”

THE FIRST RESPONDER’S TALE

Jamaludeen, an emergency medical responder from Jalalabad, is a large man, with a serious yet kindly demeanor. He began our conversation by saying that he simply doesn’t understand how one human being can inflict so much harm on another. Last winter, NATO forces fired on his cousin, Rafiqullah, age 30, who was studying to be a pediatrics specialist.

“A suicide bomber had apparently blown himself up near the airport.  My cousin and two other men were riding in a car on a road leading to the airport.  It was 6:15 AM.  When they’d realized that NATO helicopters and tanks were firing missiles, they had left their car and huddled on the roadside, but they were easily seen. A missile exploded near them, seriously wounding Rafiqullah and another passenger, while killing their driver, Hayatullah.”

Hayatullah, our friend told us, was an older man, about 45 years old, who left behind a wife, two boys and one daughter.

Although badly wounded, Rafiqullah and his fellow passenger could still speak. A U.S. tank arrived and they began pleading with the NATO soldiers to take them to the hospital.  “I am a doctor,” said Rafiqullah’s fellow passenger, a medical student named Siraj Ahmad.  “Please save me!”  But the soldiers handcuffed the two wounded young men and awaited a decision about what to do next.  Rafiqullah died there, by the side of the road. Still handcuffed, Siraj Ahmad was taken, not to a hospital, but to the airport, perhaps to await evacuation. That was where he died.   He was aged 35 and had four daughters. Rafiqullah, aged 30, leaves three small girls behind.

And Jamaludeen knows that those girls, in one sense are lucky.  Four years ago, he tried to bring first aid as an early responder to a wedding party attacked by NATO forces.  Only he couldn’t, because there were no survivors. 54 people were killed, all of them (except for the bridegroom) women and children.  “It was like hell,” said Dr. Jamaludeen.  “I saw little shoes, covered with blood, along with pieces of clothing and musical instruments.  It was very, very terrible to me. The NATO soldiers knew these people were not a threat.”

THE MANUAL LABORER’S TALE

Kocji, who makes a living doing manual laborer, is from a village of 400 families.  His story took place three weeks ago.  It started with a telephoned warning that Taliban forces had entered the Surkh Rod district of Jalalabad, which is where his village is located.  That day, at about 10:00 p.m., NATO forces entered his village en masse.  Some soldiers landed on rooftops and slid expertly to the ground on rope ladders.  When they entered homes, they would lock women and children in one room while they beat the men, shouting questions as the women and children screamed to be released.  On this raid, no one was killed, and no one was taken away.  It turned out that NATO troops had acted on a false report and discovered their error quickly.   False reports are a constant risk. - In any village some families will feud with each other, and NATO troops can be brought into those feuds, unwittingly and very easily, and sometimes with deadly consequences. Kocji objects to NATO forces ordering attacks without first asking more questions and trying to find out whether or not the report is valid.  He’d been warned of a threat from one direction, but the threats actually come from all sides.

THE STUDENT’S TALE

Rizwad, a student from the Pech district of the Kunar province, spoke next.

Twenty-five days ago, between 3 and 4 a.m., twelve children were collecting firewood in the mountains not far from his village.  The children were between 7 and 8 years old.  Rizwad actually saw the fighter plane flying overhead towards the mountains.  When it reached them, it fired on the twelve children, leaving no survivors.  Rizwad’s 8 year old cousin, Nasrullah, a schoolboy in the third grade, was among the dead that morning.

The twelve children belonged to eight families from the same village.  When the villagers found the bloodied and dismembered bodies of their children, they gathered together to demand from the provincial government some reason as to why NATO forces had killed them.  “It was a mistake,” they were told.

“It is impossible for the people to talk with the U.S. military,” says Rizwad.  “Our own government tries to calm us down by saying they will look into the matter.”

556055_423691381059558_988347887_n(1)

Twelve children killed in the Kunar province, April 2013. Photo credit:  Namatullah Karyab for The New York Times

THE FARMER’S TALE

Riazullah from Chapria Marnu spoke next.   Fifteen days previously, three famers in Riazullah’s area had been working to irrigate their wheat field.  It was early afternoon, about 3:30 p.m.  One of the men was only eighteen – he had been married for five months.  The other two farmers were in their mid-forties.  Their names were Shams Ulrahman, Khadeem and Miragah, and Miragah’s two little daughters were with them.

Eleven NATO tanks arrived.  One tank fired missiles which killed the three men and the two little girls. “What can we do?” asked Riazullah.  “We are caught between the Taliban and the internationals. Our local government does not help us.”

THE STORY OF U.S./NATO OCCUPATION

The world doesn’t seem to ask many questions about Afghan civilians whose lives are cut short by NATO or Taliban forces. Genuinely concerned U.S. friends say they can’t really make sense of our list – news stories merge into one large abstraction, into statistics, into “collateral damage,” in a way that comparable (if much smaller and less frequent) attacks on U.S. civilians do not.   People here in Afghanistan naturally don’t see themselves as a statistic; they wonder why the NATO soldiers treat civilians as battlefield foes at the slightest hint of opposition or danger; why the U.S. soldiers and drones kill unarmed suspects on anonymous tips when people around the world know suspects deserve safety and a trial, innocent until proven guilty.

“All of us keep asking why the internationals kill us,” said Jamaludeen.  “One reason seems to be that they don’t differentiate between people.  The soldiers fear any bearded Afghan who wears a turban and traditional clothes. But why would they kill children?  It seems they have a mission.  They are told to go and get the Taliban.  When they go out in their planes and their tanks and their helicopters, they need to be killing, and then they can report that they have completed their mission.”

These are the stories being told here.  NATO and its constituent nations may have other accounts to give of themselves, but they aren’t telling them very convincingly, or well.  The stories told by bomb blasts or by shouting home-invading soldiers drown out other competing sentiments and seem to represent all that the U.S./NATO occupiers ever came here to say.  We who live in countries that support NATO, that tolerate this occupation, bear responsibility to hear the tales told by Afghans who are trapped by our war of choice.  These tales are part of our history now, and this history isn’t popular in Afghanistan. It doesn’t play well when the U.S. and NATO forces state that we came here because of terrorism, because of a toll in lost civilian lives already exceeded in Afghanistan during just the first three months of a decade-long war – that we came in pious concern over precious stories that should not be cut short.

Kathy Kelly, (kathy@vcnv.org), co-coordinates Voices for Creative Nonviolence. She is living in Kabul for the month of May as a guest of the Afghan Peace Volunteers.

Photo caption:  Twelve children killed in the Kunar province, April 2013

Photo credit:  Namatullah Karyab for The New York Times

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

The First Syrian Casualty, by PAUL LARUDEE


 

 

Syrians Neither Need

Nor Want Western Interference

 

“Truth is the first casualty of war.”

The well-worn aphorism could have served as a refrain for the Mussalaha International Peace Delegation to Syria, May 2-10, 2013. We were reminded constantly of the very different interpretations of events that were being portrayed in our home countries and Syria.

The team gathered in Lebanon with eighteen delegates from six nations, headed by Nobel Peace Laureate Mairead Maguire of Northern Ireland, but a delay in the visas resulted in only sixteen traveling to Syria.  Our host was Mussalaha (“Reconciliation”), a Syrian group dedicated to reconciling local conflicts throughout the country regardless of political, religious or ethnic affiliation.

The architect of the invitation was Mother Agnes-Mariam of the Cross, superior of the Melkite Greek Catholic monastery of St. James the Mutilated in Qara, near Homs.  Mother Agnes is a tough, charismatic nun and one of the leaders of Mussalaha, which has a strong Christian presence but includes nearly all Syrian faiths and ethnicities.

Mussalaha is ostensibly non-political, but there is no such thing in Syria today.  Everyone is compelled to take sides, like it or not. The virtue of Mussalaha is to be on speaking terms with, and trusted by, a very wide spectrum of factions, which is a remarkable accomplishment.  Nevertheless, it exists with the approval of the Assad regime, which means that there are inherent limits to its range of activity.

Most of the Peace Delegation had no illusions.  Our visit required visas from the Syrian government, so we assumed – correctly – that within Syria we would not get much chance to meet with insurgents or even nonviolent “Syrian spring” groups, the repression of whose demonstrations marked the beginning of the violence in March, 2011.

Nevertheless, several of us participated only on condition that there would be no government funding of our trip nor hosting by groups that explicitly support the regime.  Mussalaha is possibly the only group that fit that description.

The trip nevertheless permitted us to hear a narrative that is largely absent in the West, to gauge regime support, to speak to Syrians directly affected by the conflict and to demonstrate our solidarity with the Syrian people.  Our message of support for the Syrian people and for the right of Syrians to determine their own future without foreign interference was consistently articulated by Mairead Maguire and other members of the delegation in meetings with public officials and in media interviews during our visit.

The delay in our visas also afforded us an extended opportunity to visit religious leaders and refugee camps in Lebanon.  Tiny Lebanon has attracted more Syrian refugees ­– up to one million – than any other country, partly because Shiites and Christians tend to gravitate toward their co-religionists there. Lebanon is also the only border country where a substantial portion of the population is sympathetic to the Assad regime.

The result is that even though we were beyond the borders of Syria, many of the refugees were supportive of the regime, as was the case with the displaced persons that we met in Damascus. If we had visited camps in Turkey we would no doubt have heard a very different narrative.

The narrative that we heard, however, is one that is largely absent in the West. To read the Western press, there are no regime supporters, but only subjects cowering in fear of Assad goons.

This is nonsense.  A very substantial proportion of the population clearly supports the regime, which would not likely have survived for two years otherwise.  In fact, one of the chief complaints was that the regime had abandoned many of its supporters and failed to restore order in their communities, thus forcing them to become refugees when armed rebels and “foreigners” drove them out.

Refugees from Qusayr, on the Lebanese border, for example, said that the military had made no attempt to prevent a takeover by armed elements until most of the population had been driven out.  Only in the last few months had the army engaged the rebels in battle and begun to retake the town.  Similarly, a family from Idlib and a woman from Raqqa said that the military had been unable to control those cities or push back the rebels until recently.  This is not surprising, because both are near the Turkish border, where Patriot batteries prevent Syrian aircraft from interdicting cross-border incursions.

This is not to say that Syrians are in love with the Assad regime. Even regime supporters candidly admit that the regime is autocratic and abuses human rights.  Nevertheless, many believe that anything replacement will be worse.

According to this view, Syria is in danger of being overtaken by terrorists from Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Azerbaijan, Chechnya, Libya, and other sources, and that they will tear the country apart.  Whatever the faults of the Assad regime, therefore, it is the only thing preventing the utter destruction of Syria.

And who is sponsoring the foreign terrorists and their arms? Western governments sell most of the arms to countries that then transfer them to the insurgents.  If the U.S. and other governments want to prevent such transfers, it would be a simple matter to do so through conditional end user agreements.  The Western countries themselves are therefore perpetuating the carnage.

Many also doubt that the West wants or would permit a democracy.  Certainly, the U.S. record is not encouraging.  There are many examples, but one of the most iconic is Nicaragua in the 1980s, where the US co-opted the open and free elections with its money and threats.  In other places and at other times, the U.S. simply overthrew the elected regime or prevented an election from occurring.

Sometimes the only choice is between an autocratic regime that is pro-Western and one that pursues an independent course. The U.S. will attempt to coerce or overthrow any independent-minded government, but an autocratic regime has a better chance of resisting because its repressive apparatus will crush dissidence before it has a chance to breathe.

If there are Syrians that despair of anything better than the Assad regime and who fear an extreme Islamist state and want to preserve certain qualities that they like (such as an egalitarian treatment of women and a secular state), their view – however cynical or fatalistic – deserves as much say in the future of Syria as there are Syrians who hold it or who defend the regime for other reasons, which might be idiosyncratic, geography-dependent or strategic.

This may be a depressing point of view.  Syrians are obviously entitled to struggle for something better, and they deserve our support for their right to do so.  Unfortunately, the U.S. will pursue what it perceives as its own interests, which are typically the interests of a roomful of powerful individuals and corporations that make vast profits from war and the projection of power.

However, they are not the only players.  The people of the U.S. and other Western societies have at times succeeded in promoting an antiwar, anti-militaristic agenda.  This is a difficult but not totally unrealistic goal.  Without exception, the message of every person to whom the Peace Delegation spoke in Lebanon and Syria was:

1) stop foreign intervention,

2) stop the fighting and

3) facilitate a national dialog of all Syrians to decide the future of Syria.

We in the West can begin with the first step by ending all aid to combatants and letting Syrians settle their differences amongst themselves.  Syrians do not need and mostly do not want Western interference in their affairs.

Paul Larudee is a writer and human rights advocate, and one of the co-founders of the movement to break the siege of Gaza by sea.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , | 1 Comment

The Invention of the White Race by JEFFREY B. PERRY


 

 

Racial Strategies for Social Control by

the Ruling Elites

 

Theodore W. Allen’s two-volume The Invention of the White Race, republished by Verso Books in a New Expanded Edition, presents a full-scale challenge to what Allen refers to as “The Great White Assumption” – “the unquestioning, indeed unthinking acceptance of the ‘white’ identity of European-Americans of all classes as a natural attribute rather than a social construct.” Its thesis on the origin and nature of the “white race” contains the root of a new and radical approach to United States history, one that challenges master narratives taught in the media and in schools, colleges, and universities. With its equalitarian motif and emphasis on class struggle it speaks to people today who strive for change worldwide.

Allen’s original 700-pages magnum opus, already recognized as a “classic” by scholars such as Audrey Smedley, Wilson J. Moses, Nell Painter, and Gerald Horne, included extensive notes and appendices based on his twenty-plus years of primary source research. The November 2012 Verso edition adds new front and back matter, expanded indexes, and internal study guides for use by individuals, classes, and study groups. Invention is a major contribution to our historical understanding, it is meant to stand the test of time, and it can be expected to grow in importance in the 21st century.

“When the first Africans arrived in Virginia in 1619, there were no ‘white’ people there; nor, according to the colonial records, would there be for another sixty years.”

That arresting statement, printed on the back cover of the first (1994) volume, reflected the fact that, after poring through 885 county-years of Virginia’s colonial records, Allen found “no instance of the official use of the word ‘white’ as a token of social status” prior to its appearance in a 1691 law. As he explained, “Others living in the colony at that time were English; they had been English when they left England, and naturally they and their Virginia-born children were English, they were not ‘white.’” “White identity had to be carefully taught, and it would be only after the passage of some six crucial decades” that the word “would appear as a synonym for European-American.”

Allen was not merely speaking of word usage, however. His probing research led him to conclude – based on the commonality of experience and demonstrated solidarity between African-American and European-American laboring people, the lack of a substantial intermediate buffer social control stratum, and the “indeterminate” status of African-Americans – that the “white race” was not, and could not have been, functioning in early Virginia.

It is in the context of such findings that he offers his major thesis — the “white race” was invented as a ruling class social control formation in response to labor solidarity as manifested in the later, civil war stage of Bacon’s Rebellion (1676-77).  To this he adds two important corollaries: 1) the ruling elite, in its own class interest, deliberately instituted a system of racial privileges to define and maintain the “white race” and 2) the consequences were not only ruinous to the interests of African-Americans, they were also “disastrous” for European-American workers, whose class interests differed fundamentally from those of the ruling elite.

In Volume I Allen offers a critical examination of the two main lines of historiography on the slavery and racism debate: the psycho-cultural approach, which he strongly criticizes; and the socio-economic approach, which he seeks to free from certain apparent weaknesses. He then proceeds to develop a definition of racial oppression in terms of social control, a definition not based on “phenotype,” or classification by complexion. In the process, he offers compelling analogies between the oppression of the Irish in Ireland (under Anglo-Norman rule and under “Protestant Ascendancy”) and white supremacist oppression of African Americans and Indians.

Allen emphasizes that maximizing profit and maintaining social control are two priority tasks of the ruling class. He describes how racial oppression is one form of ruling class response to the problem of social control and national Invention_white_race_1-210oppression is another.  The difference centers on whether the key component of the intermediate social control stratum are members of the oppressor group (racial oppression) or the oppressed group (national oppression).

With stunning international and domestic examples he shows how racial oppression (particularly in the form of religio-racial oppression) was developed and maintained by the phenotypically-similar British against the Irish Catholics in Ireland; how a phenotypically-similar Anglo bourgeoisie established national oppression in the Anglo-Caribbean and racial oppression in the continental Anglo-American plantation colonies; how racial oppression was transformed into national oppression due to ruling class social control needs in Ireland (while racial oppression was maintained in Ulster); how the same people who were victims of racial oppression in Ireland  became “white American” defenders of racial oppression in the United States; and how in America racial oppression took the form of racial slavery, yet when racial slavery ended racial oppression remained and was re-constituted in new form.

In Volume II, on The Origin of Racial Oppression in Anglo-America, Allen tells the story of the invention of the “white race” in the late seventeenth- and early eighteenth-century Anglo-American plantation colonies. His primary focus is on the pattern-setting Virginia colony, and he pays special attention to the fact that England alone, of all the European colonizing powers, exported so many of its own surplus poor laboring population. He also pays particular attention to the process by which tenants and wage-laborers in the majority English labor force in Virginia were reduced to chattel bond-servants in the 1620s. In so doing, he emphasizes that this reduction was a qualitative break from the condition of laborers in England and from long established English labor law, that it was not a feudal carryover, that it was imposed under capitalism, and that it was an essential precondition of the emergence of the lifetime hereditary chattel bond-servitude imposed upon African-American laborers under the system of racial slavery.

Allen describes how, throughout much of the seventeenth century, the status of African-Americans was being fought out and he documents significant instances of labor solidarity and unrest, especially during the 1660s and 1670s. Most important is his analysis of the civil war stage of Bacon’s Rebellion when, in the final stages, “foure hundred English and Negroes in Arms” fought together demanding freedom from bondage.

It was in the period after Bacon’s Rebellion, in response to class struggle, that the “white race” was invented as a ruling-class social control formation. Allen describes systematic ruling-class policies, which conferred “white race” privileges on European-Americans while imposing harsher disabilities on African-Americans resulting in a system of racial slavery, a form of racial oppression that also imposed severe racial proscriptions on free African-Americans. He emphasizes that when African-Americans were deprived of their long-held right to vote in Virginia and Governor William Gooch explained in 1735 that the Virginia Assembly had decided upon this curtailment of the franchise in order “to fix a perpetual Brand upon Free Negros & Mulattos,” it was not an “unthinking decision.” Rather, it was a deliberate act by the plantation bourgeoisie and was a conscious decision in the process of establishing a system of racial oppression, even though it entailed repealing an electoral principle that had existed in Virginia for more than a century.

The key to understanding racial oppression, Allen argues, is in the formation of the intermediate social control buffer stratum, which serves the interests of the ruling class. In the case of racial oppression in Virginia, any persons of discernible non-European ancestry after Bacon’s Rebellion were denied a role in the social control buffer group, the bulk of which was made up of laboring-class “whites.” In the Anglo-Caribbean, by contrast, under a similar Anglo- ruling elite, “mulattos” were included in the social control stratum and were promoted into middle-class status. For Allen, this was the key to understanding the difference between Virginia’s ruling-class policy of  “fixing a perpetual brand” on African-Americans, and the policy of the West Indian planters of formally recognizing the middle-class status “colored” descendant and other Afro-Caribbeans who earned special merit by their service to the regime. This difference, between racial oppression and national oppression, was rooted in a number of social control-related factors, one of the most important of which was that in the West Indies there were “too few” poor and laboring-class Europeans to embody an adequate petit bourgeoisie, while in the continental colonies there were ‘’too many’’ to be accommodated in the ranks of that class.

The references to an “unthinking decision” and “too few” poor and laboring class Europeans are consistent with Allen’s repeated efforts to challenge what he considered to be the two main arguments that undermine and disarm the struggle against white supremacy in the working class: (1) the argument that white supremacism is innate, and (2) the argument that European-American workers “benefit” from “white race” privileges and that it is in their interest not to oppose them and not to oppose white supremacy. These two arguments, opposed by Allen, are related to two master historical narratives rooted in writings on the colonial period. The first argument is associated with the “unthinking decision” explanation for the development of racial slavery offered by historian Winthrop D. Jordan in his influential, White Over Black. The second argument is associated with historian Edmund S. Morgan’s similarly influential, American Slavery, American Freedom, which maintains that, as racial slavery developed, “there were too few free poor [European-Americans] on hand to matter.” Allen’s work directly challenges both the “unthinking decision” contention of Jordan and the “too few free poor” contention of Morgan. Allen convincingly argues that the “white race” privileges conferred by the ruling class on European-Americans were not only ruinous to the interests of African-Americans; they were also against the class interest of European-American workers.

The Invention of the White Race is a compelling work that re-examines centuries of history. It also offers Allen’s glimpse of “the future in the distance.” When he completed Volume II sixteen years ago, the 78-years-old Allen, in words that resonate today, ended by describing “unmistakable signs of maturing social conflict” between “the common people” and “the Titans.” He suggested that “Perhaps, in the impending . . . struggle,” influenced by the “indelible stamp of the African-American civil rights struggle of the 1960s,” the “white-skin privileges may finally come to be seen and rejected by laboring-class European-Americans as the incubus that for three centuries has paralyzed their will in defense of their class interests vis-à-vis those of the ruling class.” It was with that prospect in mind, with its profound implications for radical social change, that the independent, working class intellectual/activist Theodore W. Allen (1919-2005) concluded The Invention of the White Race.

Jeffrey B. Perry is an independent, working class scholar and author of “Hubert Harrison: The Voice of Harlem Radicalism, 1883-1918” (Columbia University Press) . His website is www.jeffreybperry.net
Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , | Leave a comment

Syria Has No Reason to Use Chemical Weapons, by PATRICK COCKBURN


 

 

Why the Claims of Sarin Gas Don’t Add Up

 

‘I am not afraid of anything except for God and poison gas,” said an Iraqi officer who had fought in the Iran-Iraq war. “It’s like a ghost. You have no defence against it.” Though not a target of poison gas as a member of the army using it, he knew what it did to its victims.

Poison gas is a terrifying weapon. People are still dying in Iran from the effects of ingesting it a quarter of a century ago. It is one of the few weapons to be banned with partial success between its first use on a mass scale in the First World War and again by Saddam Hussein with even greater intensity against Iranians and Kurds in the 1980s.

It is right, therefore, that the alleged attack by the Syrian armed forces using chemical weapons against Saraqeb, a rebel-held town south-west of Aleppo on 29 April, should be carefully investigated. Doctors told the BBC’s Ian Pannell that after an artillery bombardment they treated eight people with breathing problems, some of whom were vomiting and others who had constricted pupils.

One woman named Maryam Khatib later died. Her son Mohammed said: “It was a horrible, suffocating smell. You couldn’t breathe at all. You’d feel like you were dead. I couldn’t see anything for three or four days.” Videos taken by local people show a helicopter dropping an object which appears to leave a trail of white vapour.

My experience of trying to report allegations of the deployment or use of such weapons over the years makes me cautious. Local people, including local doctors, are often sincerely convinced that some exotic weapon has been used against them, but they may not have past experience of either conventional or chemical attack.

For instance, doctors in Fallujah west of Baghdad suspect that non-conventional weapons must have been used against the city when it was stormed by US forces in November 2004. This might explain why so many malformed babies have been born since. It is impossible not to sympathise or suppress a feeling of rage over the sufferings of these people.

But, in blaming non-conventional weapons, people may underestimate what conventional munitions can do. In two weeks’ fighting in Fallujah in 2004, US marine artillery units fired an average of 379 high-explosive 155mm shells a day into this small city. In addition, American jets flying overhead dropped 318 bombs and, together with helicopters, fired 391 rockets and missiles.

At the time, the Iraqi government of Iyad Allawi made the unlikely claim that just 200 buildings in Fallujah had been destroyed or damaged. A recently published book, The Endgame: The Inside Story of the Struggle for Iraq from George W Bush to Barack Obama by Michael Gordon and Bernard Trainor, from which the above figures are taken, reveals that the US marines “estimated that out of about 50,000 residences in the city, their operations had destroyed between 7,000 and 10,000, as well as 60 mosques”. Perhaps this vastly excessive use of firepower is sufficient explanation for the appalling birth defects.

Allegations about the use of poison gas in Syria are made under the shadow of the notoriously false claims about Saddam Hussein’s possession of weapons of mass destruction made to justify the Iraq war. Not surprisingly, this has made the public everywhere in the world dubious about stories about the possession or use of WMD being used to hoodwink them into supporting another war.

Of course, it is much against the interests of the Syrian government to use chemical weapons because this might provoke foreign military intervention. The Syrian army has no need to use it as a terror weapon because artillery, aerial bombardment and death squads are quite enough to frighten people into taking flight. There are already 1.5 million refugees outside the country.

Journalists bear a large measure of responsibility for giving credence to the stories peddled by Iraqi defectors, intelligence services and government about Saddam’s WMD. In that case, it should have been self-evident that Iraqi defectors with juicy stories, and the opposition parties that promoted them, wanted to tempt the US into military action against Saddam. When it comes to chemical weapons, the Syrian opposition has similar and wholly understandable motives.

As for the credibility of Western government claims about WMD, it is worth recalling that they tolerated Saddam using poison gas on a mass scale. And they did more than just turn a blind eye. Joost Hiltermann, in his book A Poisonous Affair: America, Iraq and the Gassing of Halabja, writes that Western powers “sent repeated signals to Iraq that the regime could continue, and even escalate, chemical weapons use – which it did, with the Halabja attack [when thousands of Kurdish civilians died] as climax”.

PATRICK COCKBURN is the author of “Muqtada: Muqtada Al-Sadr, the Shia Revival, and the Struggle for Iraq.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , | Leave a comment