"Terrorism" is a mode of governing (by officialdom or those opposing government), using intimidation through a systematic threat or use of violence. Terrorism is two-sided: state vs. out-group violence.
Who are labeled "terrorists?" Premier Begin of Israel was a member of the terrorist Stern Gang opposed to the British when he was a young man. Once he became Premier he was deemed a "statesman." Palestinians who kill innocent Israelis with bombs in buses are called "terrorists," but not those who conduct aerial bombings of Palestinian refugee villages.
In Labeling theory, the capacity to designate groups or individuals "terroristic" enables those in power to use the media to make the label stick on groups out of power, often those greatly disadvantaged.
Those with less power (e.g., slaves vs. masters, employees vs. employers, women vs. men, etc.) must avoid costly direct confrontations. The weaker resort often to indirect means to achieve goals. Sometimes those out of power resort to terrorism after the powers that be have used state-sponsored intimidation and violence.
Ignoring those out of power can radicalize them, for example when the pro-apartheid government of South Africa refused to talk with the ANC, when the British government wouldn't talk with the IRA, and when Israeli leaders refused discussions with the PLO, and President Bush refused to confer with "opponents!"
Those called "terrorists" are not crazy. They risk their lives for reasons, their own good reasons. They can be annihilated by governments in power, but if their grievances go unrecognized, violence continues. Their demands may or may not be valid, but they deserve humane consideration.
Why are Americans often the targets of "terrorism?" Why are so many US embassies built like fortresses, unlike those of Scandinavian countries? In our mirrors we see ourselves as benevolent; why do so many of the world's oppressed see something else?
The US is powerful enough to rule the world. With our military bases in 130 countries, over the globe we appear to have that intent. But we cannot prevent specific terroristic acts. Ron Steel (New Republic) contends that "what we think is an embrace is seen by others as a stranglehold." Puzzled by their reactions, we consider them irrational.
The US is capable of terrorism. Occasional violent Native American uprisings in US history have been called "terroristic" but not the official genocidal policies that provoked them. Slave revolts were considered "terrorism" against masters, but the horrors of slavery were not given that label.
US foreign policies have supported many terroristic dictators (Batista of Cuba, Somoza of Nicaragua .. and the Contras, Marcos of the Philippines, Pinochet of Chile, Noriega of Panama, etc.). Our own CIA has undertaken numerous nefarious covert actions, directly or indirectly. Our School of the Americas has trained thousands of Latin American military personnel in oppressive tactics.
Much of the world is now protesting the "legislation against terrorism" by which America tries to impose laws on other countries. Current domestic "anti-terrorism" legislation deals with symptoms, not causes. Increased government surveillance and more police diminish our liberties without addressing the conditions that foster terrorism.
Personally, I oppose violence by anyone against others for any reason. But it is understandable that desperate people will turn to such methods. Why are so many people despairing and persuaded to become "terrorists?" We need to act on the answers!
The article originally appeared in the September, 1996 issue of the North Country Peace Builder, a publication of the Minnesota Fellowship of Reconciliation.
June 27, 2009
June 21, 2009
For Better or Worse -- Part Two
More changes for the better ...
- In the US there is a move increasingly against capital punishment for minors, "handicapped", cases of likely racial/ethnic/political discrimination, due to numerous cases proved innocent via DNA and other new tests.
- The US, Canada and European countries are returning artifacts and physical remains to indigenous groups (or from sites of classical civilizations -- Greek, Roman, etc.) for their possession and ceremonial receptions.
- Pressures increasing for the USA to "rejoin the world" regarding commitment to treaties, removal of military bases, reversal of "imperial" policies.
- Developments in Latin America to create their own continental media, trade agreements, inter-national commitments of diverse natures, vs. USA dominance.
- Tobacco smoking has decreased remarkably in USA (though commercially "pushed" in Third World countries), due mainly to education and working on the "demand" side, not the supply side.
- Environmental movement is beginning to alter our behavior and those of other peoples, some of which are "way ahead of us" in making changes.
- The International Criminal Court (ICC), Truth Commissions, and domestic tribunals are arising to bring violators of "human rights" to accountability.
- The USA Interior Department is being forced to recognize the maltreatment of Native Americans re: lands, culture, languages, religion, millions of $$ never paid them for timber, mining, and other royalties due them.
- The number of American students "studying abroad" has been rising, or language fluency more often expected, and "Third World" being involved.
- Japan recently changed its policy so that women can "ascend to the throne"!
- Women have increasingly held top political positions (Presidents, Premiers) in other nations; and in the USA women have increased their representation in Congress and legislatures, as Judges and Governors, and in Cabinet offices in recent times.
- Under President Chorea, Ecuador has included in its new Constitution, wording that recognizes environment being in care of its citizens, to be protected, preserved. (Though corporations have a way of pressuring "citizens" to agree to projects that will violate their environments.)
Versions of this article have previously appeared in the North Country Peace Builder (November, 2008) and the newsletter of the Twin Cities Friends Meeting (January, 2009).
June 13, 2009
For Better or Worse -- Part One
Four years ago I enhanced my spirit by listing more than 40 ways in which behaviors had changed for the better -- personally, locally, nationally, and elsewhere in the world. As an "update," I present some more recent gains for our humanity and other living things!
More recent changes for the better to follow in Part Two. Versions of this article have previously appeared in the North Country Peace Builder (November, 2008) and the newsletter of the Twin Cities Friends Meeting (January, 2009).
- The use of less invasive surgery techniques is increasing.
- There is a growing sensitivity to the "feelings" in our treatment of / relationships with domestic and wild animals.
- There is a greater openness to speak about formerly "taboo" topics -- for ourselves and society -- suicide, alcoholism, therapy, rape, addictions, our age, cancer, Alzheimer's, abortion.
- A growing challenge in the USA to violations of international laws/treaties and bit-by-bit violations of civil rights and Constitutional provisions by Congress and our leadership.
- Our civic and international challenge to USA imperialism, censorship, torture.
- More accent on urban civic art -- fountains, grass, murals, park spaces by citizen action, construction regulations, community action, philanthropy.
- Increase in mass transit support and use, more biking, altered car usage.
- Wider training, acquaintance with, usage of nonviolent philosophy and methods to pressure for changes in social patterns, government changes, movements for social change; condemnation of violence as means to ends.
- Nobel prizes for peace being given to "activists" more often to aid their endeavors in timely ways -- Rigoberta Menchu, Jimmy Carter, Al Gore, etc. and to women change-agents -- Iranian attorney, Kenyan forest renewals.
- Diversity increasing in many Western countries, resulting from accepting refugees of former colonies; and as result of our wars -- Somalis, Hmong, Cambodians, Vietnamese, Latin Americans from wars we supported.
- Formal apologies by Australia and Canada to their indigenous peoples for the long mistreatment of them. (Not USA yet!)
- Formal apologies for slavery practice and conditions by Virginia and other southern states / communities.
- Gay-lesbian issues, same-sex marriage & related aspects are being recognized in the US on the basis of equal rights (Massachusetts, Connecticut, California).
- Nelson Mandela has been removed recently from the USA roster of "terrorists."
- Instant Runoff Voting is gaining recognition as a more democratic & economical way to secure "majority support" in contests with multiple candidates, when no one has secured 50% of the vote.
More recent changes for the better to follow in Part Two. Versions of this article have previously appeared in the North Country Peace Builder (November, 2008) and the newsletter of the Twin Cities Friends Meeting (January, 2009).
June 6, 2009
Turning Off the Gas
An interview of Terry Irish, Don's oldest daughter, by Ava Dale Johnson
A.D.: Terry, at near 90, your father still does more than any two of us. He’s so busy, I’m not asking him, but you, to tell us your take on what’s he’s doing to help the environment.
T: Well he has made some habit changes.
A.D.: What changes?
T : First off, he donated his car to nonprofit Newgate School. They’ll use it to train mechanics, then sell it to help their work.
A.D.: And I suppose he’ll not be buying any gas?
T.: Right, and instead of buying car insurance he’ll give that money to causes he cares most about.
A.D. : So, how does he get around?
T.: He takes the bus—combining errands for food, to visit the sick, go to Green Party meetings, TCFM, lectures. . . .
A.D. : Does he ever pool with someone else driving their car?
T.: Sometimes. He and I do something once a week anyhow, so now we may combine dinner out or a movie with a grocery store stop.
A.D. :He must have to do a lot of walking, to catch all the buses.
T.: Yes, but he has lots of energy and it’s good for his health. He’s alert and organizes. He studies all the schedules.
A.D. : How about the weather?
T.: He never complains, but his boots are about gone. The ones he’s wearing have been repaired, but won’t last another winter.
A.D.: Are you ever concerned?
T.: Well, our family would feel better if we always knew where he was going. We’ve talked about a cell phone but that’s tech, and costs. We know that he could have problems, but so could we.
A.D: What does Don tell you that he learns from riding the bus?
T.: He sees poor people. And as an extrovert, he’ll strike up conversations, even in Spanish. He always thanks the bus drivers.
A.D.: Have there been times when he forgot to carry his bus fare?
T.: No, and he avoids the rush hours. Only needs quarters. I encourage him to get a bus pass and told him where, but. . . .
A.D.: He carries his perennial brief case?
T.: Yep – I’ve seen him also manage two bags of groceries. He uses routes 21 (Lake St.), 14 (Bloomington Ave.), occasionally 84 (Snelling Ave.), l6 (University Ave), with no complaints, to see how many errands he can do on one transfer. I think he used 4 buses to get to Como Clinic.
A.D.: Does he count up how many gallons of gas he’s not burning?
T.: I think he has figured that. And he knows this is good for his health, (high cholesterol runs in our family.)
AD: You’re smiling. Is it fun for him?
T: Oh, yeah. A challenge. He gets a kick out of seeing how much he can get for 50 cents. (Note from Don: now 75 cents, non-rush hours. My total transportation expense locally for 2008 was $425.00. Walked, bussed, and biked also -- about 130-140 times on local errands each season.)
From the February, 2008 Newsletter of the Twin Cities Friends Meeting, St. Paul, Minnesota.
A.D.: Terry, at near 90, your father still does more than any two of us. He’s so busy, I’m not asking him, but you, to tell us your take on what’s he’s doing to help the environment.
T: Well he has made some habit changes.
A.D.: What changes?
T : First off, he donated his car to nonprofit Newgate School. They’ll use it to train mechanics, then sell it to help their work.
A.D.: And I suppose he’ll not be buying any gas?
T.: Right, and instead of buying car insurance he’ll give that money to causes he cares most about.
A.D. : So, how does he get around?
T.: He takes the bus—combining errands for food, to visit the sick, go to Green Party meetings, TCFM, lectures. . . .
A.D. : Does he ever pool with someone else driving their car?
T.: Sometimes. He and I do something once a week anyhow, so now we may combine dinner out or a movie with a grocery store stop.
A.D. :He must have to do a lot of walking, to catch all the buses.
T.: Yes, but he has lots of energy and it’s good for his health. He’s alert and organizes. He studies all the schedules.
A.D. : How about the weather?
T.: He never complains, but his boots are about gone. The ones he’s wearing have been repaired, but won’t last another winter.
A.D.: Are you ever concerned?
T.: Well, our family would feel better if we always knew where he was going. We’ve talked about a cell phone but that’s tech, and costs. We know that he could have problems, but so could we.
A.D: What does Don tell you that he learns from riding the bus?
T.: He sees poor people. And as an extrovert, he’ll strike up conversations, even in Spanish. He always thanks the bus drivers.
A.D.: Have there been times when he forgot to carry his bus fare?
T.: No, and he avoids the rush hours. Only needs quarters. I encourage him to get a bus pass and told him where, but. . . .
A.D.: He carries his perennial brief case?
T.: Yep – I’ve seen him also manage two bags of groceries. He uses routes 21 (Lake St.), 14 (Bloomington Ave.), occasionally 84 (Snelling Ave.), l6 (University Ave), with no complaints, to see how many errands he can do on one transfer. I think he used 4 buses to get to Como Clinic.
A.D.: Does he count up how many gallons of gas he’s not burning?
T.: I think he has figured that. And he knows this is good for his health, (high cholesterol runs in our family.)
AD: You’re smiling. Is it fun for him?
T: Oh, yeah. A challenge. He gets a kick out of seeing how much he can get for 50 cents. (Note from Don: now 75 cents, non-rush hours. My total transportation expense locally for 2008 was $425.00. Walked, bussed, and biked also -- about 130-140 times on local errands each season.)
From the February, 2008 Newsletter of the Twin Cities Friends Meeting, St. Paul, Minnesota.
April 11, 2009
The Need and Importance of Civilian "Diplomacy"
Thomas Jefferson contended that an "enlightened citizenry" is required to maintain democracy. Such civic knowledge seems woefully lacking presently in many such segments of American society. Numerous factors are responsible.
(1) Educational institutions now seem to focus more on job preparation than on humanities, history, and ethics as vital for creating humane citizens.
(2) Major sources of "news" for most Americans are the commercial radio and TV stations. Much program time is given to "infotainment," little for foreign affairs in depth. Government "handouts" are presented with little critical questioning. Investigative journalism and foreign correspondents have been reduced. Panelists rarely are persons who "think outside the conventional box," ask fundamental questions or challenge official assumptions.
(3) The U.S. government's penchant for secrecy has increased since WWII, even more so since 9/11. {Ed. note: The Freedom of Information Act was under attack by the previous Administration.}
(4) American news media have consolidated into four or five huge corporations that control hundreds of TV and radio stations and other information sources. Congressional legislation and FCC regulations have permitted expanded concentration of communications power in recent years. CBS is owned by Viacom, and has had 200 affiliated TV stations and 180 radio stations. Viacom has published 2000 titles annually, and has owned Paramount Films and Blockbuster Video.
While there are numerous alternative sources of information, many Americans are not aware of them. Some lack financial capacity to subscribe, and local libraries often do not include them.
Vital sources of information are those non official citizens who go abroad on fact-finding endeavors, alone or with non-governmental organizations (NGO's). Some travel to forbidden destinations in defiance of our government's regulations that can penalize such citizens with imprisonment and heavy fines.
In the earlier days of our Republic, citizens could travel freely to any country that would admit them, and return home again without penalties. Article 13, sentence 2, of the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights states: "Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his (sic) own, and to return to his country."
At the World Conference on Human Rights in Vienna, June 1993, Secretary of State Warren Christopher asserted: "The United States will never join those who would undermine the Universal Declaration...."
However, in recent years, our government has denied such "freedom to travel" to citizens repeatedly, with regard to North Vietnam, North Korea, Libya, Cuba, and Iraq, among others. Many persons and NGO's, not wishing to legitimate these violations of international law by seeking permission from the Treasury Department to go and return, have challenged such prohibitions directly. Without "unofficial civilian diplomacy," Americans would be limited to the government's "facts" and "interpretations," as information about such designated foreign nations.
Former Attorney General Ramsey Clark has visited Iraq and Cuba. Kathy Kelly's Voices in the Wilderness group has led hundreds of citizens to Iraq, verifying the million civilian deaths caused by the UN-US embargo. A Minnesota chapter of Veterans for Peace has conducted a water project, repairing two treatment facilities that served more than 20,000 persons. Pastors for Peace has delivered computers, tools and other goods to Central America, especially Nicaragua, and Clark and the Voices group have also delivered medical supplies to Iraq and Cuba.
John Swomley, a former Fellowship of Reconciliation leader and human rights leader, visited North Korea twice, writing and speaking widely about knowledge gained. Jesse Jackson visited some Islamic Middle East nations and secured the release of several political prisoners. He visited Cuba in 1989, bringing about some relaxations for "religious believers" of mainline churches, well before the Pope's visit to Cuba.
Thousands of American citizens traveled with fact-finding groups to areas of conflict or world concern for which travel was not officially restricted. The Fellowship of Reconciliation's Task Force on Latin America and the Caribbean (FOR-- TFLAC) sent six international delegations of inquiry to Panama in the 1990s. They investigated and monitored the U.S. compliance with the 1977 Carter-Torrijos Canal Treaty, extracting formerly "secret" weapon testing information via the Freedom of Information Act. Troops were to be removed, bases closed, and toxic debris eliminated. (The toxics requirement was not satisfied.) The FOR-TFLAC sent four international fact-finding groups to Puerto Rico and Vieques. They secured data and provided support to the Puerto Rican colony's opposition to the U.S. military's continued bombing since 1946 near the 10,000-civilian community. The Navy was forced to close the Vieques base.
Medea Benjamin's Global Exchange has arranged for many U.S. citizens to visit countries in the "twothirds" world, observing the consequences of First World's commercial and governmental policies and practices. Witness for Peace nationally, and Augsburg's Center for Global Education have conducted thousands of Americans to Haiti, the war-torn Central American countries of Guatemala, El Salvador, and Nicaragua, plus countries in Africa and elsewhere. An increasing number of American students are studying briefly abroad, now increasingly in "Third World" countries.
These citizens have returned home to share their acquired information with their families, neighbors, churches, schools and civic groups helping alter public opinion and pressuring Congress to alter U.S. policies.
Amy Goodman, of Democracy Now radio, has courageously been twice to East Timor (once being seriously injured for her presence). She brings eye witnesses directly to national community radio audiences. The Christian Peacemakers in Israel and Palestine have upset the Israeli military by their audacious challenges to the tanks, bypassing them to provide nonviolent support to those on the receiving end of the firepower.
Former President Jimmy Carter has used his grant of free access and free speech in Cuba to address the Cubans and convey his impressions and recommendations to Americans. (Regrettably, President Bush stated in advance that, no matter what Carter might report, there would be no change in U.S. policy toward Cuba.) The Carter Center in Atlanta also has monitored elections in Latin America, Africa, and Asia, reporting on those political processes. Jimmy Carter, before and since being President, has gleaned knowledge of the Middle East and published widely a "balanced" view.
Although the Peace Corps officially is to "advance US foreign policies," those volunteers return home with "new, better informed selves."
These unofficial civilian diplomats have served important civic functions in helping American citizens understand other nations in a conflict-ridden world. They have returned home with useful and alternative perspectives about the roles of Numero Uno internationally.
It is important also for our children to understand that we were not content "not to know" and "not to act" now and for their future. These deputations, "legal" or not, enable all of us to view other sides, to discover the humanity of those our nation has defined as the "Other."
This article was originally published The Human Quest, Nov/Dec 2002. This 2009 version has been edited/updated from the original publication.
(1) Educational institutions now seem to focus more on job preparation than on humanities, history, and ethics as vital for creating humane citizens.
(2) Major sources of "news" for most Americans are the commercial radio and TV stations. Much program time is given to "infotainment," little for foreign affairs in depth. Government "handouts" are presented with little critical questioning. Investigative journalism and foreign correspondents have been reduced. Panelists rarely are persons who "think outside the conventional box," ask fundamental questions or challenge official assumptions.
(3) The U.S. government's penchant for secrecy has increased since WWII, even more so since 9/11. {Ed. note: The Freedom of Information Act was under attack by the previous Administration.}
(4) American news media have consolidated into four or five huge corporations that control hundreds of TV and radio stations and other information sources. Congressional legislation and FCC regulations have permitted expanded concentration of communications power in recent years. CBS is owned by Viacom, and has had 200 affiliated TV stations and 180 radio stations. Viacom has published 2000 titles annually, and has owned Paramount Films and Blockbuster Video.
While there are numerous alternative sources of information, many Americans are not aware of them. Some lack financial capacity to subscribe, and local libraries often do not include them.
Vital sources of information are those non official citizens who go abroad on fact-finding endeavors, alone or with non-governmental organizations (NGO's). Some travel to forbidden destinations in defiance of our government's regulations that can penalize such citizens with imprisonment and heavy fines.
In the earlier days of our Republic, citizens could travel freely to any country that would admit them, and return home again without penalties. Article 13, sentence 2, of the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights states: "Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his (sic) own, and to return to his country."
At the World Conference on Human Rights in Vienna, June 1993, Secretary of State Warren Christopher asserted: "The United States will never join those who would undermine the Universal Declaration...."
However, in recent years, our government has denied such "freedom to travel" to citizens repeatedly, with regard to North Vietnam, North Korea, Libya, Cuba, and Iraq, among others. Many persons and NGO's, not wishing to legitimate these violations of international law by seeking permission from the Treasury Department to go and return, have challenged such prohibitions directly. Without "unofficial civilian diplomacy," Americans would be limited to the government's "facts" and "interpretations," as information about such designated foreign nations.
Former Attorney General Ramsey Clark has visited Iraq and Cuba. Kathy Kelly's Voices in the Wilderness group has led hundreds of citizens to Iraq, verifying the million civilian deaths caused by the UN-US embargo. A Minnesota chapter of Veterans for Peace has conducted a water project, repairing two treatment facilities that served more than 20,000 persons. Pastors for Peace has delivered computers, tools and other goods to Central America, especially Nicaragua, and Clark and the Voices group have also delivered medical supplies to Iraq and Cuba.
John Swomley, a former Fellowship of Reconciliation leader and human rights leader, visited North Korea twice, writing and speaking widely about knowledge gained. Jesse Jackson visited some Islamic Middle East nations and secured the release of several political prisoners. He visited Cuba in 1989, bringing about some relaxations for "religious believers" of mainline churches, well before the Pope's visit to Cuba.
Thousands of American citizens traveled with fact-finding groups to areas of conflict or world concern for which travel was not officially restricted. The Fellowship of Reconciliation's Task Force on Latin America and the Caribbean (FOR-- TFLAC) sent six international delegations of inquiry to Panama in the 1990s. They investigated and monitored the U.S. compliance with the 1977 Carter-Torrijos Canal Treaty, extracting formerly "secret" weapon testing information via the Freedom of Information Act. Troops were to be removed, bases closed, and toxic debris eliminated. (The toxics requirement was not satisfied.) The FOR-TFLAC sent four international fact-finding groups to Puerto Rico and Vieques. They secured data and provided support to the Puerto Rican colony's opposition to the U.S. military's continued bombing since 1946 near the 10,000-civilian community. The Navy was forced to close the Vieques base.
Medea Benjamin's Global Exchange has arranged for many U.S. citizens to visit countries in the "twothirds" world, observing the consequences of First World's commercial and governmental policies and practices. Witness for Peace nationally, and Augsburg's Center for Global Education have conducted thousands of Americans to Haiti, the war-torn Central American countries of Guatemala, El Salvador, and Nicaragua, plus countries in Africa and elsewhere. An increasing number of American students are studying briefly abroad, now increasingly in "Third World" countries.
These citizens have returned home to share their acquired information with their families, neighbors, churches, schools and civic groups helping alter public opinion and pressuring Congress to alter U.S. policies.
Amy Goodman, of Democracy Now radio, has courageously been twice to East Timor (once being seriously injured for her presence). She brings eye witnesses directly to national community radio audiences. The Christian Peacemakers in Israel and Palestine have upset the Israeli military by their audacious challenges to the tanks, bypassing them to provide nonviolent support to those on the receiving end of the firepower.
Former President Jimmy Carter has used his grant of free access and free speech in Cuba to address the Cubans and convey his impressions and recommendations to Americans. (Regrettably, President Bush stated in advance that, no matter what Carter might report, there would be no change in U.S. policy toward Cuba.) The Carter Center in Atlanta also has monitored elections in Latin America, Africa, and Asia, reporting on those political processes. Jimmy Carter, before and since being President, has gleaned knowledge of the Middle East and published widely a "balanced" view.
Although the Peace Corps officially is to "advance US foreign policies," those volunteers return home with "new, better informed selves."
These unofficial civilian diplomats have served important civic functions in helping American citizens understand other nations in a conflict-ridden world. They have returned home with useful and alternative perspectives about the roles of Numero Uno internationally.
It is important also for our children to understand that we were not content "not to know" and "not to act" now and for their future. These deputations, "legal" or not, enable all of us to view other sides, to discover the humanity of those our nation has defined as the "Other."
This article was originally published The Human Quest, Nov/Dec 2002. This 2009 version has been edited/updated from the original publication.
April 5, 2009
A View of WHINSEC from the Inside
Since the founding of our republic, the U.S. military has intervened almost 100 times in Latin America and in some nations, numerous times. Our forces occupied five of them for more than a decade. Since the Vietnam War, our government has employed tactics of “low intensity warfare” – low for us, high for the recipients of our means. We have instigated coups in Chile, Haiti, Panama, Venezuela, Grenada and Guatemala.
We have created surrogates to do the fighting and dying for our ‘interests’ (e.g., the “Contras” in Nicaragua). We have supported numerous dictators for years (e.g., the Somozas, Batista, Noriega, Hernandez, the juntas of Uruguay and Argentina). Ignoring UN decisions, and in violation of international law, we have employed almost total embargoes (in countries such as Nicaragua and Cuba).
We manipulate Latin American media. We seek to influence their elections with money (e.g., El Salvador, Nicaragua, Venezuela), yet it is illegal under U.S. law for those in other nations to so influence our elections. Through institutions that we dominate, such as the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund, we maintain leverage over them via ‘perpetual debt’. We impose “structural adjustments” on their economies via NAFTA (1994) and CAFTA (2005), trade agreements that benefit our corporations but hurt their poor. U.S. corporations exploit their lack of environmental controls and regulations regarding labor. Clearly the ‘American empire’ is not about fostering democracy or ensuring peace and prosperity. Empire is about controlling peoples and gaining access to their resources.
Training the militaries of the nations of Latin America at the Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation (WHINSEC), formerly the School of the Americas, is one of the instruments used by our government to support powerful elites in Latin America in resisting efforts by their majority poor to secure more just societies.
In April 2007, following the annual November SOA Watch protest vigil at Ft. Benning, GA, I was part of a small delegation that was given the opportunity to visit WHINSEC, interview the commanding officer, Col. Gilberto Perez, visit classes, and meet other staff. Let me share some observations and reflections from that visit.
We first noticed aspects of ‘military culture.’ A warrior culture has its own values and basic assumptions about life. We observed that both the U.S. and Latino soldiers wore distinctive uniforms with varied insignia; we sensed a strong ethos of pride and mutual respect for their inter-related roles.
In examining the program of the Institute, we noted the lack of student exposure to an ‘unvarnished’ history of U.S. – Latin American relations. We were uneasy that Commandant Gilberto Perez seemed unable or unwilling to recognize the possibility that WHINSEC and its personnel might in any way be complicit in the assassinations, massacres, and brutalities that Latin Americans have experienced. His repeated response was, “We don’t make policy; we implement policies. Those who disagree should contact the President and Congress!”
I departed WHINSEC confirmed in my belief that since 1991, the thousands who have demonstrated at SOA/WHINSEC have had an impact. Changing the name of the institution presumably was done by Congress to separate SOA from mounting criticism. The creation of a “Board of Visitors,” with Congressional representation, has provided some independent oversight of the program and greater “transparency.” Also there have supposedly been changes in the curriculum, but it remains substantially the same as before. We appreciated learning that some of the students had been taken to Washington, DC where they met with staff of Human Rights Watch, Washington Office on Latin America (WOLA), and even SOA Watch.
The SOA began in Panama in 1946, then was forced to leave in 1984, coming to Ft. Benning, Georgia. Since 1991, demonstrations of opposition to the presence and continuance of the School of the Americas have been held. In recent years, more than 20,000 persons have been present. SOA Watch staff and volunteers have visited with Congresspersons regularly. In the summer of 2007 the Congressional vote to terminate the SOA funding came within half a dozen votes of passing! Now, with the new Congresspersons from the 2008 elections, staff are visiting them with our facts and views.
Parallel action is being taken by the SOA Watch staff to "turn off the faucet" for the recruitment of Latin American soldiers to come to WHINSEC for training and then return home to utilize their learned techniques on their own populations. Thus far, Argentina, Uruguay, Venezuela and Bolivia have indicated their intention to cease sending their military and police personnel to WHINSEC. Chile, one of those sending more of their military, intends to cut back 2/3 of the way, thus far. With new leadership by virtue of recent elections, Paraguay and El Salvador might also be persuaded to cease participating in WHINSEC. It is unlikely, given present relationships, that Colombia would alter their participation.
The USA military has been authorized to establish seven more such training schools for foreign militaries, by our military. One will be in El Salvador, another in eastern Europe, the others to be determined. Costa Rica declined to accept one.
I value the opportunity to have visited WHINSEC. I appreciate the graciousness with which we were received by Commandant Perez and other staff persons, especially Lee Rials, Public Affairs Officer. Nevertheless, my view remains that the U.S. should not be training military personnel of other countries. By doing so we become even more complicit with their problems/solutions. Militaries are not instruments of peacemaking - in their purpose, organizational structures, values or training. Peacemaking is not their area of expertise. Peacemaking is the domain of those trained in the theories, principles and practices of active nonviolence. A ‘Global Peace Force’ would make far better peacemakers than the U.S. military.
Contact SOA Watch, PO Box 4566, Washington, DC 20017 for further information.
This post is an updated version of an article that first appeared in the June 2008 issue of the North Country Peace Builder, the quarterly newsletter of the Minnesota Fellowship of Reconciliation.
We have created surrogates to do the fighting and dying for our ‘interests’ (e.g., the “Contras” in Nicaragua). We have supported numerous dictators for years (e.g., the Somozas, Batista, Noriega, Hernandez, the juntas of Uruguay and Argentina). Ignoring UN decisions, and in violation of international law, we have employed almost total embargoes (in countries such as Nicaragua and Cuba).
We manipulate Latin American media. We seek to influence their elections with money (e.g., El Salvador, Nicaragua, Venezuela), yet it is illegal under U.S. law for those in other nations to so influence our elections. Through institutions that we dominate, such as the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund, we maintain leverage over them via ‘perpetual debt’. We impose “structural adjustments” on their economies via NAFTA (1994) and CAFTA (2005), trade agreements that benefit our corporations but hurt their poor. U.S. corporations exploit their lack of environmental controls and regulations regarding labor. Clearly the ‘American empire’ is not about fostering democracy or ensuring peace and prosperity. Empire is about controlling peoples and gaining access to their resources.
Training the militaries of the nations of Latin America at the Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation (WHINSEC), formerly the School of the Americas, is one of the instruments used by our government to support powerful elites in Latin America in resisting efforts by their majority poor to secure more just societies.
In April 2007, following the annual November SOA Watch protest vigil at Ft. Benning, GA, I was part of a small delegation that was given the opportunity to visit WHINSEC, interview the commanding officer, Col. Gilberto Perez, visit classes, and meet other staff. Let me share some observations and reflections from that visit.
We first noticed aspects of ‘military culture.’ A warrior culture has its own values and basic assumptions about life. We observed that both the U.S. and Latino soldiers wore distinctive uniforms with varied insignia; we sensed a strong ethos of pride and mutual respect for their inter-related roles.
In examining the program of the Institute, we noted the lack of student exposure to an ‘unvarnished’ history of U.S. – Latin American relations. We were uneasy that Commandant Gilberto Perez seemed unable or unwilling to recognize the possibility that WHINSEC and its personnel might in any way be complicit in the assassinations, massacres, and brutalities that Latin Americans have experienced. His repeated response was, “We don’t make policy; we implement policies. Those who disagree should contact the President and Congress!”
I departed WHINSEC confirmed in my belief that since 1991, the thousands who have demonstrated at SOA/WHINSEC have had an impact. Changing the name of the institution presumably was done by Congress to separate SOA from mounting criticism. The creation of a “Board of Visitors,” with Congressional representation, has provided some independent oversight of the program and greater “transparency.” Also there have supposedly been changes in the curriculum, but it remains substantially the same as before. We appreciated learning that some of the students had been taken to Washington, DC where they met with staff of Human Rights Watch, Washington Office on Latin America (WOLA), and even SOA Watch.
The SOA began in Panama in 1946, then was forced to leave in 1984, coming to Ft. Benning, Georgia. Since 1991, demonstrations of opposition to the presence and continuance of the School of the Americas have been held. In recent years, more than 20,000 persons have been present. SOA Watch staff and volunteers have visited with Congresspersons regularly. In the summer of 2007 the Congressional vote to terminate the SOA funding came within half a dozen votes of passing! Now, with the new Congresspersons from the 2008 elections, staff are visiting them with our facts and views.
Parallel action is being taken by the SOA Watch staff to "turn off the faucet" for the recruitment of Latin American soldiers to come to WHINSEC for training and then return home to utilize their learned techniques on their own populations. Thus far, Argentina, Uruguay, Venezuela and Bolivia have indicated their intention to cease sending their military and police personnel to WHINSEC. Chile, one of those sending more of their military, intends to cut back 2/3 of the way, thus far. With new leadership by virtue of recent elections, Paraguay and El Salvador might also be persuaded to cease participating in WHINSEC. It is unlikely, given present relationships, that Colombia would alter their participation.
The USA military has been authorized to establish seven more such training schools for foreign militaries, by our military. One will be in El Salvador, another in eastern Europe, the others to be determined. Costa Rica declined to accept one.
I value the opportunity to have visited WHINSEC. I appreciate the graciousness with which we were received by Commandant Perez and other staff persons, especially Lee Rials, Public Affairs Officer. Nevertheless, my view remains that the U.S. should not be training military personnel of other countries. By doing so we become even more complicit with their problems/solutions. Militaries are not instruments of peacemaking - in their purpose, organizational structures, values or training. Peacemaking is not their area of expertise. Peacemaking is the domain of those trained in the theories, principles and practices of active nonviolence. A ‘Global Peace Force’ would make far better peacemakers than the U.S. military.
Contact SOA Watch, PO Box 4566, Washington, DC 20017 for further information.
This post is an updated version of an article that first appeared in the June 2008 issue of the North Country Peace Builder, the quarterly newsletter of the Minnesota Fellowship of Reconciliation.
March 22, 2009
The Fork in the Road
The New York Yankees’ catcher/folk philosopher reportedly advised: “If you come to a fork in the road, take it!” Currently all humanity confronts a ‘fork in the road’ – prospects of a nuclear holocaust or continuation of civilization. We and all plants and animals depend upon which of these paths we collectively choose to travel. Death or life depends upon our wisdom, adaptability, and sense of urgency. The present war-making route is downhill, familiar, and profitable for the military-industrial complex. The other path is a great challenge with many uncertainties. There will be bends in the road, hills and mountains to climb, bogs that might swamp us, woods in which we may become lost. We face the choice of a human- made Armageddon or the promise of a rainbow over a peaceful world.
In earlier epochs of homo sapiens, hunting/ gathering cultures in small bands often practiced exogamy. Persons in one tribe married into adjacent groups, thereby minimizing inter-group strife. Among some Eskimos, intra-group conflicts were resolved with drum dances and singing, with those assembled deciding which group gave the better performance! Among some small tribes, conflicts often ended when first blood was drawn. Weapons were hand-made, and adversaries confronted each other face-to-face. Over time, in ancient cultures (e.g., Persian, Roman, Greek, Mongol) new weapons such as cavalry and catapults were added, and casualties mounted. Our Civil War brought hundreds of thousands of deaths when cannon were added to hand-to-hand combat. Even with airplanes, World Wars I and II still relied heavily on person-to-person combat in the trenches.
Over time, civilian casualties in war have come to far outnumber military deaths and injuries. Ken Burns’ new film, “War,” tells us that 100 million died in WWII. Today, with the development of drone planes, robots that can fire around corners, space- directed weaponry, and an increasing array of means to deliver death, war has become increasingly abominable. As an instrument of national foreign policies, war should be recognized as obsolete. It creatively resolves no problems, only exacerbates them, wastes scarce resources and devastates all life.
Yet we proceed down the ‘war-as-a-solution’ pathway. As land mines, cluster bombs, saturation carpet bombing, and chemical and germ warfare are used indiscriminately, war becomes increasingly technological and impersonal. According to William Safire, current high-tech warfare enables warriors to fly higher, carry more and bigger bombs, and cause more damage below – all with less guilt.
Yale psychiatrist, Jay Robert Lifton, coined the concept of ‘psychic numbness.’ When tragedies reach such magnitude in our psyche that we cannot embrace the horrors in mind and spirit, we understandably tend to shut down. We don’t want to think about it, can’t absorb it, and we despair.
In seeking to follow the peaceful path, we must retain hope. Slowing down global warming and its consequences is possible, giving us time to make the major adjustments in our world economy, politics and international collaborations. That is success. Yet major changes in individual behavior and through state, national and international deliberations will be required. That may seem impossible – like ‘straight-arming’ locomotives! But humanity must turn the switch and derail our war-based economy onto a siding! Failing that, we will not be able to direct full talents, energies, time and wisdom toward facing the vital life implications of global warming. We cannot straddle the alternatives that the ‘fork in the road’ presents us.
In a September 27, 2007 opinion piece in the New York Times, Vaclav Havel put our human dilemma this way: “Either we will achieve an awareness of our place in the living and life-giving organism of our planet, or we will face the threat that our evolutionary journey will be set back thousands or even millions of years. That is why we must see this issue as a challenge to behave responsibly and not as a harbinger for the end of the world…. We need not fear for our planet. It was here before us and most likely will be here after us.” All humanity is in this together. We all live on the same globe swirling in space. None of us can evade the consequences of failure to meet the challenge. As one Minnesota candidate contends, this is the most important decade in human history. Selecting the ‘right’ fork (which may be the ‘left’!), the peace movement has an historic opportunity to make a difference.
Previously published in the North Country Peace Builder, Minnesota Fellowship of Reconciliation, October 2007.
In earlier epochs of homo sapiens, hunting/ gathering cultures in small bands often practiced exogamy. Persons in one tribe married into adjacent groups, thereby minimizing inter-group strife. Among some Eskimos, intra-group conflicts were resolved with drum dances and singing, with those assembled deciding which group gave the better performance! Among some small tribes, conflicts often ended when first blood was drawn. Weapons were hand-made, and adversaries confronted each other face-to-face. Over time, in ancient cultures (e.g., Persian, Roman, Greek, Mongol) new weapons such as cavalry and catapults were added, and casualties mounted. Our Civil War brought hundreds of thousands of deaths when cannon were added to hand-to-hand combat. Even with airplanes, World Wars I and II still relied heavily on person-to-person combat in the trenches.
Over time, civilian casualties in war have come to far outnumber military deaths and injuries. Ken Burns’ new film, “War,” tells us that 100 million died in WWII. Today, with the development of drone planes, robots that can fire around corners, space- directed weaponry, and an increasing array of means to deliver death, war has become increasingly abominable. As an instrument of national foreign policies, war should be recognized as obsolete. It creatively resolves no problems, only exacerbates them, wastes scarce resources and devastates all life.
Yet we proceed down the ‘war-as-a-solution’ pathway. As land mines, cluster bombs, saturation carpet bombing, and chemical and germ warfare are used indiscriminately, war becomes increasingly technological and impersonal. According to William Safire, current high-tech warfare enables warriors to fly higher, carry more and bigger bombs, and cause more damage below – all with less guilt.
Yale psychiatrist, Jay Robert Lifton, coined the concept of ‘psychic numbness.’ When tragedies reach such magnitude in our psyche that we cannot embrace the horrors in mind and spirit, we understandably tend to shut down. We don’t want to think about it, can’t absorb it, and we despair.
In seeking to follow the peaceful path, we must retain hope. Slowing down global warming and its consequences is possible, giving us time to make the major adjustments in our world economy, politics and international collaborations. That is success. Yet major changes in individual behavior and through state, national and international deliberations will be required. That may seem impossible – like ‘straight-arming’ locomotives! But humanity must turn the switch and derail our war-based economy onto a siding! Failing that, we will not be able to direct full talents, energies, time and wisdom toward facing the vital life implications of global warming. We cannot straddle the alternatives that the ‘fork in the road’ presents us.
In a September 27, 2007 opinion piece in the New York Times, Vaclav Havel put our human dilemma this way: “Either we will achieve an awareness of our place in the living and life-giving organism of our planet, or we will face the threat that our evolutionary journey will be set back thousands or even millions of years. That is why we must see this issue as a challenge to behave responsibly and not as a harbinger for the end of the world…. We need not fear for our planet. It was here before us and most likely will be here after us.” All humanity is in this together. We all live on the same globe swirling in space. None of us can evade the consequences of failure to meet the challenge. As one Minnesota candidate contends, this is the most important decade in human history. Selecting the ‘right’ fork (which may be the ‘left’!), the peace movement has an historic opportunity to make a difference.
Previously published in the North Country Peace Builder, Minnesota Fellowship of Reconciliation, October 2007.
March 2, 2009
Our Nation's Myths
Most of us have difficulty seeing ourselves as others see us. Often we believe myths: that we are more honest, consistent, industrious, humorous, competent or courteous than we really are. Perhaps a little such inflation bolsters our self-worth and enables us to strive for those ideals.
Likewise, nations and cultural groups develop myths about themselves that boost their pride (read what they say about themselves in their history books!) . However, when these myths are far from reality, nations -- like individuals -- are apt to act inappropriately in response to challenges.
A few American myths, based on partial truths:
1) "We are a peace-loving nation." The military-related allotment exceeds 50% of the Congressional discretionary budget, higher than the combined military budgets of all our potential opponents. The US has intervened more than 75 times in Latin America, without declarations of war. US military conflicts since WW 11 include Korea, Vietnam, Santo Domingo, Grenada, Cuba, Libya, Cambodia, Iraq, Afghanistan, and Somalia, among others. Our history is violent concerning African Americans, Native Americans, immigrants. Our schools are being militarized by JROTC. We have demonized our "enemies" like Ortega, Castro, Saddam Hussein, North Korea, Iran, Chavez, among others. Virtually every day since WWI, our military has been in other countries.
2) "We wish to spread and strengthen democracy around the world." We confuse voting for democracy. Balance of powers is often missing. Though the country may have a "president," "Congress," and "judiciary," a free press, diverse views, free speech and the rights to organize, demonstrate and campaign, often are missing. We have selected and supported dictators: the Shah (Iran), Marcos (Philippines), Noriega (Panama), Kim/Chung/Park (South Korea), Suharto (Indonesia), and collaborated with military juntas (Uruguay and Argentina), among others. We undermine and overthrow governments: Allende (Chile), Arbenz (Guatemala), Lamumba (Congo), Mossadegh (Iran) , Ortega (Nicaragua), Castro (Cuba), Noriega (Panama), Saddam Hussein (Iraq).
3) "We believe in foreign aid and 'development' for other societies." We provide much less aid than a number of Scandinavian and other countries, per capita. Our aid usually has "strings" attached. Our dominance of the IMF, NAFTA, World Bank and WTO is to benefit "first world" banks and corporations that set the terms for the poorer, weaker nations. Recipients become more dependent NOT more self-sufficient. There are no protections for labor rights or environments.
4) "We are a law-abiding nation." We frequently ignore or violate international law: 40 year embargo on Cuba, numerous bombings and invasions (see above), overthrow of governments (above), ignoring decisions of the World Court (Nicaragua), continued maintenance of Puerto Rico as a colony, Japanese-American incarceration during WW II, and ignoring treaty conditions with Native Americans. We resist ratifying numerous international treaties: the International Criminal Court, Comprehensive Test Ban, Rights of the Child, Rio environmental agreements, Law of the Sea, Land Mine Ban, Kyotot Treaty, International Criminal Court, and others. In war we bomb civilian targets and use chemical weapons (Agent Orange, Vietnam; liquid phosphorous, Iraq).
We need to see ourselves as others see us if we are to get past our myths. Perhaps then we will reduce our arrogance and insensitivity and not be seen as a bully using muscle to get our way. Our arrogant attitudes toward "opponent" countries, unilateralism, double standards, and attitude of exceptionalism aggravate even nations we see as "friends."
Previously published in the North Country Peace Builder, Minnesota Fellowship of Reconciliation, Vol. 51, No. 1, March 2000
Likewise, nations and cultural groups develop myths about themselves that boost their pride (read what they say about themselves in their history books!) . However, when these myths are far from reality, nations -- like individuals -- are apt to act inappropriately in response to challenges.
A few American myths, based on partial truths:
1) "We are a peace-loving nation." The military-related allotment exceeds 50% of the Congressional discretionary budget, higher than the combined military budgets of all our potential opponents. The US has intervened more than 75 times in Latin America, without declarations of war. US military conflicts since WW 11 include Korea, Vietnam, Santo Domingo, Grenada, Cuba, Libya, Cambodia, Iraq, Afghanistan, and Somalia, among others. Our history is violent concerning African Americans, Native Americans, immigrants. Our schools are being militarized by JROTC. We have demonized our "enemies" like Ortega, Castro, Saddam Hussein, North Korea, Iran, Chavez, among others. Virtually every day since WWI, our military has been in other countries.
2) "We wish to spread and strengthen democracy around the world." We confuse voting for democracy. Balance of powers is often missing. Though the country may have a "president," "Congress," and "judiciary," a free press, diverse views, free speech and the rights to organize, demonstrate and campaign, often are missing. We have selected and supported dictators: the Shah (Iran), Marcos (Philippines), Noriega (Panama), Kim/Chung/Park (South Korea), Suharto (Indonesia), and collaborated with military juntas (Uruguay and Argentina), among others. We undermine and overthrow governments: Allende (Chile), Arbenz (Guatemala), Lamumba (Congo), Mossadegh (Iran) , Ortega (Nicaragua), Castro (Cuba), Noriega (Panama), Saddam Hussein (Iraq).
3) "We believe in foreign aid and 'development' for other societies." We provide much less aid than a number of Scandinavian and other countries, per capita. Our aid usually has "strings" attached. Our dominance of the IMF, NAFTA, World Bank and WTO is to benefit "first world" banks and corporations that set the terms for the poorer, weaker nations. Recipients become more dependent NOT more self-sufficient. There are no protections for labor rights or environments.
4) "We are a law-abiding nation." We frequently ignore or violate international law: 40 year embargo on Cuba, numerous bombings and invasions (see above), overthrow of governments (above), ignoring decisions of the World Court (Nicaragua), continued maintenance of Puerto Rico as a colony, Japanese-American incarceration during WW II, and ignoring treaty conditions with Native Americans. We resist ratifying numerous international treaties: the International Criminal Court, Comprehensive Test Ban, Rights of the Child, Rio environmental agreements, Law of the Sea, Land Mine Ban, Kyotot Treaty, International Criminal Court, and others. In war we bomb civilian targets and use chemical weapons (Agent Orange, Vietnam; liquid phosphorous, Iraq).
We need to see ourselves as others see us if we are to get past our myths. Perhaps then we will reduce our arrogance and insensitivity and not be seen as a bully using muscle to get our way. Our arrogant attitudes toward "opponent" countries, unilateralism, double standards, and attitude of exceptionalism aggravate even nations we see as "friends."
Previously published in the North Country Peace Builder, Minnesota Fellowship of Reconciliation, Vol. 51, No. 1, March 2000
February 7, 2009
Who Are You, Really? Who Am I?
When we meet another person, “first impressions” are gleaned by both individuals. However, such insights are often unreliable. Attire, mannerisms, fragments of information about one’s education, residence or occupation, for example, are insubstantial bases for understanding about who the person really is. We tend to categorize people with labels that do not fairly represent them. In truth, each of us has many “selves.” I often feel that “me, myself, and I” cannot achieve consensus!
We live in a society in which individuals often are quite mobile, transient, individualistic, an “atomized population” with fleeting and often superficial relationships. A Danforth Foundation study contended that Americans tend to have many acquaintances but very few friends. Developing deep friendships, confidants, is often difficult and rare in a “here again, gone again” culture. (In our society, perhaps women manage to develop such deeper friendships than men.)
Imagine an individual with overall integrity, intelligence, congeniality, and personal attractiveness who also possesses some seemingly incongruous traits. If this person is a child of the Great Depression in the 1930’s, he/she may still prefer the “cash on the barrelhead” economy, buying only what one can then pay for (except perhaps for land, house, and/or car).
Such an individual may also be frugal and choose clothing that is functional, without regard to current “styles.” One might, in that regard, refer to such a person as a “reactionary” – wishing to return to a simpler time. With a rural upbringing close to the soil, they might strongly support preserving the environment and oppose economic patterns which degrade it, warranting the term “conservative.” If the person supports the freedom of expression on diverse views in the media, schools, churches, and/or governmental platforms, he/she might be considered “liberal.” And if that person rejects “mainstream” religious views, being agnostic or humanist, one might view him/her as a “radical.” Thus, the same person can be reactionary, conservative, liberal and radical, depending on the views and behaviors on which one focuses.
Of course, persons are also often categorized as rural or urban, of a particular racial, ethnic or national background, as heterosexual or not, and so on. We need to exercise caution in “defining others,” lest we deprive ourselves of sharing together our qualities in common and beginning friendships undistracted by our differences. So, WHO are you? And WHO am I, really? Reflect upon yourself! Try to seek the full humanity in others! “pigeon-holing” individuals inhibits the development of new and potentially valuable friendships. Get past the usual introductory questions: “What do you do?” Better: “What do you care most about?”
While teaching courses in Criminology, the first day of class I would distribute a check-list of about 60 crimes, asking students to mark any of the acts they had personally committed (all anonymous). Over the years, I had no one check murder, but there were noted robbery, rape, stealing, trespassing, speeding, and numerous other offenses! The appropriate questions are these: “Who are criminals?” (“Are they only criminals?” “Once a criminal, always a criminal?”) Criminality is but one trait catalogued! Even a thief may otherwise be a good father, husband/wife, friend, voting citizen, and so on. Probably all of us have committed one or more crimes in our lives, apprehended or not, for reasons of conscience or not. I confess that I don’t get headaches from a halo fitting too tightly! Currently, some states are reinstating voting rights for “criminals” who have completed their sentences, returning them to society again.
To establish solid, satisfying friendships, we need to invest the time, make the effort, and discover the multiple selves and fuller humanity of others, finding out WHO they are as we gradually reveal WHO we are. Nations need to do this as well. Restraint from polarizing and demonizing; avoidance of the use of perfunctory labels, are sorely needed in the current political scene and in international relations.
The most destructive use of categorical labeling occurs when opponents are “demonized,” dehumanized, legitimizing emotions toward the opponent such that “anything goes” – torture, assassinations, massacres, carpet bombing, genocide – e.g., Huns, Gooks, Hajis, “terrorists.” As King contended, we commit ourselves to nonviolence, or the results will be non-existence. The urgent concerns regarding global warming will require cooperative endeavors on every level from family, community, states, and among nations.
All humanity confronts the same common problems, living on the same swirling globe in space. To survive together, we’ll need to reach out and find reconciliation with those of other societies to preserve ourselves and all other living things on earth. Let’s reach over the barriers and across the boundaries! We’ll discover a common humanity!
We live in a society in which individuals often are quite mobile, transient, individualistic, an “atomized population” with fleeting and often superficial relationships. A Danforth Foundation study contended that Americans tend to have many acquaintances but very few friends. Developing deep friendships, confidants, is often difficult and rare in a “here again, gone again” culture. (In our society, perhaps women manage to develop such deeper friendships than men.)
Imagine an individual with overall integrity, intelligence, congeniality, and personal attractiveness who also possesses some seemingly incongruous traits. If this person is a child of the Great Depression in the 1930’s, he/she may still prefer the “cash on the barrelhead” economy, buying only what one can then pay for (except perhaps for land, house, and/or car).
Such an individual may also be frugal and choose clothing that is functional, without regard to current “styles.” One might, in that regard, refer to such a person as a “reactionary” – wishing to return to a simpler time. With a rural upbringing close to the soil, they might strongly support preserving the environment and oppose economic patterns which degrade it, warranting the term “conservative.” If the person supports the freedom of expression on diverse views in the media, schools, churches, and/or governmental platforms, he/she might be considered “liberal.” And if that person rejects “mainstream” religious views, being agnostic or humanist, one might view him/her as a “radical.” Thus, the same person can be reactionary, conservative, liberal and radical, depending on the views and behaviors on which one focuses.
Of course, persons are also often categorized as rural or urban, of a particular racial, ethnic or national background, as heterosexual or not, and so on. We need to exercise caution in “defining others,” lest we deprive ourselves of sharing together our qualities in common and beginning friendships undistracted by our differences. So, WHO are you? And WHO am I, really? Reflect upon yourself! Try to seek the full humanity in others! “pigeon-holing” individuals inhibits the development of new and potentially valuable friendships. Get past the usual introductory questions: “What do you do?” Better: “What do you care most about?”
While teaching courses in Criminology, the first day of class I would distribute a check-list of about 60 crimes, asking students to mark any of the acts they had personally committed (all anonymous). Over the years, I had no one check murder, but there were noted robbery, rape, stealing, trespassing, speeding, and numerous other offenses! The appropriate questions are these: “Who are criminals?” (“Are they only criminals?” “Once a criminal, always a criminal?”) Criminality is but one trait catalogued! Even a thief may otherwise be a good father, husband/wife, friend, voting citizen, and so on. Probably all of us have committed one or more crimes in our lives, apprehended or not, for reasons of conscience or not. I confess that I don’t get headaches from a halo fitting too tightly! Currently, some states are reinstating voting rights for “criminals” who have completed their sentences, returning them to society again.
To establish solid, satisfying friendships, we need to invest the time, make the effort, and discover the multiple selves and fuller humanity of others, finding out WHO they are as we gradually reveal WHO we are. Nations need to do this as well. Restraint from polarizing and demonizing; avoidance of the use of perfunctory labels, are sorely needed in the current political scene and in international relations.
The most destructive use of categorical labeling occurs when opponents are “demonized,” dehumanized, legitimizing emotions toward the opponent such that “anything goes” – torture, assassinations, massacres, carpet bombing, genocide – e.g., Huns, Gooks, Hajis, “terrorists.” As King contended, we commit ourselves to nonviolence, or the results will be non-existence. The urgent concerns regarding global warming will require cooperative endeavors on every level from family, community, states, and among nations.
All humanity confronts the same common problems, living on the same swirling globe in space. To survive together, we’ll need to reach out and find reconciliation with those of other societies to preserve ourselves and all other living things on earth. Let’s reach over the barriers and across the boundaries! We’ll discover a common humanity!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)