A few days ago Cindy Sheehan, appalled that the democrats folded up their attack on the greedy bloodthirsty enterprise that is the war in Iraq, gave up and went home. And most Americans said nothing. Americans couldn't bring themselves to mourn the fall of this heroine. Why couldn't they mourn and why is she a heroine?
They couldn't mourn because they form part of a sick society so addled by palliative bromides and Goebbelsian propaganda that they cannot bring themselves to miss the presence of someone who is willing to sacrifice herself for a reflective moment from her people- an answer to why they love the wars that kill their own. In despair, "raging against the dying of the light", she described America as
“a country which cares more about who will be the next American Idol than how many people (American troops in Iraq) will be killed in the next few months while Democrats and Republicans play politics with human lives.”
Perhaps she was "a soccer mom" when her son was growing up- a son who went and joined the military. A home environment that produces soldiers probably isn't a granola crunching hippie one. More middle of the road I think. That's what makes this mother's transformation remarkable. Her anti-war stance is understandable as her son died in a meaningless conflict. But that is not the transformation. Sheehan could have been another "hero's mom" that took in the small town accolades and curdled and bristled inside at the inhuman insanity of her culture. No, she decided to turn around and go to the top, take on the President of the United States, in the classiest possible fashion, asking him for one meaningful conversation.
She reminds me of both Don Quixote and Aung San Su-Kyi. Perhaps I am being unfair, Aung San Su Kyi stands with Mahatma Gandhi, Nelson Mandela, and Martin Luther King as custodians of the greatest values, people who decided to play dice with the universe. Yet she reminds of those people because she lost a great deal, had to hit the wall of value, and chose to take on the most powerful of people. Normal people do not do anything like that. For some reason Cindy Sheehan turned into the best that America could be.
But the Americans have repeatedly failed their best. They cannot bring themselves to understand much less celebrate people like Nader and Sheehan. Politically, they only lurch towards Gore because they know they made a mistake picking Bush over him (as a custodian of their vacuous over-consumption). They celebrate John F. Kennedy, giving him the credit for Martin Luther King's struggle. Kennedy's election was rigged (the Mafia brought Illinois in). He had a great deal of Southeast Asian, Cuban and Latin American blood on his hands. His successors LBJ, Carter and Clinton were all presidents responsible for great suffering.
The truth is that the Democratic are far more evil than the Republicans. In Germany, their ilk were not the maniacal nazis, they were the calm rational supine supporters who stood by watching. They have no spine, no values, and no religion . The Republicans may be mostly immoral but he Democrats are uniformly amoral. Thus they are plaint to anyone's wiles, a bunch of losers. The only way they win elections and get people to trust them is when the shit comes down and everything smells.
Somewhere in all this is a piece of mythology that when the press is free, when information ins available, then people will realise and act when their government strays from their values.
Showing posts with label Identity Politics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Identity Politics. Show all posts
Saturday, June 30, 2007
Friday, May 11, 2007
A letter in response to an Ibbitson column in the Globe and Mail
John Ibbitson wrote an article in the globeandmail about what the French election means for the World. It is the work of a simpleton- an America-loving Canadian simpleton who seems to know little beyond what Americans know about the rest of the world. The article is best found using a Google search string:
http://www.google.ca/search?client=safari&rls=en-ca&q=What+it+will+mean+to+have+France+with+America+in+the+world&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8
This is my response to his column:
Dear Mr. Ibbitson,
I read your latest article "What it will mean to have France with America in the world" which ended in the following manner, "And if nothing else, Mr. Sarkozy's victory should serve as a reminder to skeptics that the American way is increasingly the only way - even for the French." That sentence made me laugh out loud. It sounds like it was been written 40 years ago when America, Britain, France and Russia were the most important countries in the world.
American power in both West Asia and South America have been gradually fading for 35 years. Asia is where all the growth is, and America's impotent fury over North Korea underscores exactly how much its influence in the region has faded. The fact is that, notwithstanding Sarkozy, the American and European agenda has diverged on energy (gas and oil from Russia), defence (European defence products), and international trade (different emphasis in trade accords). Given the political moves of the Bush administration as well as the economic news to come, the American model of state-sponsored (not laissez faire) capitalism, centralised presidential democracy and no welfare state stands increasingly discredited as a model (even as its acceptance is still peaking in the world mind you). Democracy and political accountability are causing that. If, as you say, Europe will never have the population or economic clout to lead the world, it is hard to understand why America will continue to do so.
The last effort to reign in Asia was the South-East Asian economic crisis where the State Department let well known financiers run riot knowing fully well what they were up to- the memories of the South-East Asians won't let that happen again. With Russia playing the energy card with increasing effectiveness (it supplies energy to Europe, China and Japan) and the failed wars in both Iraq and Afghanistan, American efforts at bolstering influence in Central Asia have ground to a halt. The only places in the world that this slide in influence has not been halted are Central America, Canada and large parts of Africa. The increase in influence in Canada has been the most fruitful with America gaining near total control of energy supplies. The influence in Central America is a mere remainder of the heyday of the Monroe doctrine. Even in Japan, that most faithful of America's allies, the legitimacy of American power and influence has been slipping even in the face of North Korean madness.
The latest effort at finding a close ally is in India. The only problem is that India is a lively feisty democracy that has the highest consistent anti-incumbency mood among the large democracies of the world. Its political elite are increasingly reminded that private side deals aren't important if domestic policy isn't taken care of. The pro-American bent in the present government is being rapidly checked as the domestic ramifications of policies are felt. India is looking increasingly eastwards not westwards. Building trading ties with ASEAN is their prime consideration. Even Australia under Sheriff John Howard, arguably the oldest whitest male heading a "western democracy", is having to build bridges with his coloured counterparts in Asia. As Latin America and Europe find their own destiny, Russia bargains to maintain its place, and China and India rise, America's role as leader of the "free world" against communism becomes increasingly obsolete. The efforts at creating one more singular bogeyman, be it Al Qaeda, Iran or Chavez, are not finding fruition. It is fortunate that the never-ending war described in 1984 has been so difficult for the Bush administration to recreate in our world.
American financial institutions have achieved remarkable efficiencies in generating and deploying capital. As these systems were exported, America's influence consistently rose. That quid pro quo is natural. But now America has less to offer many countries- it has some of the highest poverty rates, crime rates, and health care cost problems in the industrialised world. Its political system is almost too dire to be called a representational democracy (two nearly identical parties competing for votes, regional bias in the senate completely perverting the one person one vote principle). I think you have been spending too much time sympathising with the Americans. You might try sympathising with others as well. I suggest reading the Financial Times, The Guardian, Xinhua - anything that will cure you of this American tunnel-vision you seem to possess.
Best regards,
Hari Balaraman
P.S: you might find this article on the future prospects of the American economy enlightening ( http://www.blonnet.com/2007/05/11/stories/2007051100430800.htm )
P.P.S: The French economy has grew uninterrupted for the last ten years (although its prospects are now dimming). The French people have turned to Sarkozy because of the societal tensions integrating a welfare state with multiculturalism. He has tapped into a deep vein of racism that has sustained both the mainstream in decades gone by (in its paternalistic colonial endeavours) and lately candidates such as Le Pen. It is laughable to say they votes for his pro-American and pro-English bias. In fact the most popular that Chirac and de Villepin have been is when they have been seen as standing up for France against the Americans or against other EU interests. His pro-American bias is incidental to his appeal in French society. He won because he was more plausible as a "rupture" candidate than his uncertain and lightweight Socialist opponent. Don't kid yourself.
http://www.google.ca/search?client=safari&rls=en-ca&q=What+it+will+mean+to+have+France+with+America+in+the+world&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8
This is my response to his column:
Dear Mr. Ibbitson,
I read your latest article "What it will mean to have France with America in the world" which ended in the following manner, "And if nothing else, Mr. Sarkozy's victory should serve as a reminder to skeptics that the American way is increasingly the only way - even for the French." That sentence made me laugh out loud. It sounds like it was been written 40 years ago when America, Britain, France and Russia were the most important countries in the world.
American power in both West Asia and South America have been gradually fading for 35 years. Asia is where all the growth is, and America's impotent fury over North Korea underscores exactly how much its influence in the region has faded. The fact is that, notwithstanding Sarkozy, the American and European agenda has diverged on energy (gas and oil from Russia), defence (European defence products), and international trade (different emphasis in trade accords). Given the political moves of the Bush administration as well as the economic news to come, the American model of state-sponsored (not laissez faire) capitalism, centralised presidential democracy and no welfare state stands increasingly discredited as a model (even as its acceptance is still peaking in the world mind you). Democracy and political accountability are causing that. If, as you say, Europe will never have the population or economic clout to lead the world, it is hard to understand why America will continue to do so.
The last effort to reign in Asia was the South-East Asian economic crisis where the State Department let well known financiers run riot knowing fully well what they were up to- the memories of the South-East Asians won't let that happen again. With Russia playing the energy card with increasing effectiveness (it supplies energy to Europe, China and Japan) and the failed wars in both Iraq and Afghanistan, American efforts at bolstering influence in Central Asia have ground to a halt. The only places in the world that this slide in influence has not been halted are Central America, Canada and large parts of Africa. The increase in influence in Canada has been the most fruitful with America gaining near total control of energy supplies. The influence in Central America is a mere remainder of the heyday of the Monroe doctrine. Even in Japan, that most faithful of America's allies, the legitimacy of American power and influence has been slipping even in the face of North Korean madness.
The latest effort at finding a close ally is in India. The only problem is that India is a lively feisty democracy that has the highest consistent anti-incumbency mood among the large democracies of the world. Its political elite are increasingly reminded that private side deals aren't important if domestic policy isn't taken care of. The pro-American bent in the present government is being rapidly checked as the domestic ramifications of policies are felt. India is looking increasingly eastwards not westwards. Building trading ties with ASEAN is their prime consideration. Even Australia under Sheriff John Howard, arguably the oldest whitest male heading a "western democracy", is having to build bridges with his coloured counterparts in Asia. As Latin America and Europe find their own destiny, Russia bargains to maintain its place, and China and India rise, America's role as leader of the "free world" against communism becomes increasingly obsolete. The efforts at creating one more singular bogeyman, be it Al Qaeda, Iran or Chavez, are not finding fruition. It is fortunate that the never-ending war described in 1984 has been so difficult for the Bush administration to recreate in our world.
American financial institutions have achieved remarkable efficiencies in generating and deploying capital. As these systems were exported, America's influence consistently rose. That quid pro quo is natural. But now America has less to offer many countries- it has some of the highest poverty rates, crime rates, and health care cost problems in the industrialised world. Its political system is almost too dire to be called a representational democracy (two nearly identical parties competing for votes, regional bias in the senate completely perverting the one person one vote principle). I think you have been spending too much time sympathising with the Americans. You might try sympathising with others as well. I suggest reading the Financial Times, The Guardian, Xinhua - anything that will cure you of this American tunnel-vision you seem to possess.
Best regards,
Hari Balaraman
P.S: you might find this article on the future prospects of the American economy enlightening ( http://www.blonnet.com/2007/05/11/stories/2007051100430800.htm )
P.P.S: The French economy has grew uninterrupted for the last ten years (although its prospects are now dimming). The French people have turned to Sarkozy because of the societal tensions integrating a welfare state with multiculturalism. He has tapped into a deep vein of racism that has sustained both the mainstream in decades gone by (in its paternalistic colonial endeavours) and lately candidates such as Le Pen. It is laughable to say they votes for his pro-American and pro-English bias. In fact the most popular that Chirac and de Villepin have been is when they have been seen as standing up for France against the Americans or against other EU interests. His pro-American bias is incidental to his appeal in French society. He won because he was more plausible as a "rupture" candidate than his uncertain and lightweight Socialist opponent. Don't kid yourself.
Sunday, April 08, 2007
The endangered species- the dynamic Canadian businessman
Eric Reguly's last column in the Globe and Mail:
http://www.globeinvestor.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20070405.wrreguly05/GIStory/
"Canadian companies will allege any reason for their lack of global success: excessive taxes and regulation, domestic merger barriers in some industries and the like. Forget it. Feckless CEOs are the main obstacle."
I wonder if it is cultural- whether never having been a coloniser, one's country and people lose the desire and ability to mustle someone down, to dominate them, to exploit them for one's betterment. The interesting thing is that it is the Canadian business-men that are displaying this lack of machismo. From what I read in the article, (and those of various business-friendly columnists) I see a desire to be mollycoddled by the government, to be subsidised in ever-increasing amounts, so that they can stand up to foreign competition, or even worse, so that they may suppress their horrible inner desires to compulsively submit to old colonisers (Britain and France) or new ones (the US).
In India the two "good" attributes that the greedy, corrupt, exploitative upper classes have displayed in their post-colonial assumption of every trapping of the white colonisers, are aggression and confidence. That allows Tata, Reliance (and some others) to want to dominate the world. They wanted to dominate their fellow Indians and they want to dominate the wider world.
So what do we want from Canadian businesspeople- evil that can or good that can't? Are the meek really going to inherit the earth or shall we replay the sins of so many colonisers?
These are only two choices- but I wonder. Should Canadians be asking for better from their businesspeople before handing out more tax-breaks?
Another point to ponder- why do Canadian mutual funds give such crappy returns?
http://www.globeinvestor.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20070405.wrreguly05/GIStory/
"Canadian companies will allege any reason for their lack of global success: excessive taxes and regulation, domestic merger barriers in some industries and the like. Forget it. Feckless CEOs are the main obstacle."
I wonder if it is cultural- whether never having been a coloniser, one's country and people lose the desire and ability to mustle someone down, to dominate them, to exploit them for one's betterment. The interesting thing is that it is the Canadian business-men that are displaying this lack of machismo. From what I read in the article, (and those of various business-friendly columnists) I see a desire to be mollycoddled by the government, to be subsidised in ever-increasing amounts, so that they can stand up to foreign competition, or even worse, so that they may suppress their horrible inner desires to compulsively submit to old colonisers (Britain and France) or new ones (the US).
In India the two "good" attributes that the greedy, corrupt, exploitative upper classes have displayed in their post-colonial assumption of every trapping of the white colonisers, are aggression and confidence. That allows Tata, Reliance (and some others) to want to dominate the world. They wanted to dominate their fellow Indians and they want to dominate the wider world.
So what do we want from Canadian businesspeople- evil that can or good that can't? Are the meek really going to inherit the earth or shall we replay the sins of so many colonisers?
These are only two choices- but I wonder. Should Canadians be asking for better from their businesspeople before handing out more tax-breaks?
Another point to ponder- why do Canadian mutual funds give such crappy returns?
Saturday, March 03, 2007
the travails of the Indian intelligentia
Another unrestrained idiot speaks:
http://www.financialexpress.com/columnists/full_column.php?content_id=142161
India is chock-full of elites that want to take a crap on the masses. This article discusses the shame the author felt when an American friend couldn't get his passport back after submitting it for a visa at the Indian embassy. He couldn't get it back because he had thrown away the receipt. Well he eventually got it back but the author burned with shame for the wretchedness of his India and how it doesn't provide customer service to his white friend. Amazing. You meet these sorts every time you fly out of India- they try to make common cause with you in their disdain for the country. They like to get back to stop feeling inferior but can't help feeling superior to their kind by the time they leave. There are bigger bloody problems in India to write about but these upper class bastards can only focus on these.
my letter in response to him:
How often have you been treated with courtesy and respect at a foreign embassy? I have often travelled to many countries and have often been treated with officiousness and disdain- the most often actually by US officials. Try getting your passport back without a receipt at the US consulate in Vancouver- I wouldn't. The author wants to replace "wacky but true" with brownpeople-in-white-suits. Wacky-but-true came about because people like you wanted to be like the west but failed. Bollywood is crap because it seeks to imitate rather than create. You think you're our ambassador in California but you're not. Your obsession with your self-image doesn't represent my highest values.
Regards,
Hari
http://www.financialexpress.com/columnists/full_column.php?content_id=142161
India is chock-full of elites that want to take a crap on the masses. This article discusses the shame the author felt when an American friend couldn't get his passport back after submitting it for a visa at the Indian embassy. He couldn't get it back because he had thrown away the receipt. Well he eventually got it back but the author burned with shame for the wretchedness of his India and how it doesn't provide customer service to his white friend. Amazing. You meet these sorts every time you fly out of India- they try to make common cause with you in their disdain for the country. They like to get back to stop feeling inferior but can't help feeling superior to their kind by the time they leave. There are bigger bloody problems in India to write about but these upper class bastards can only focus on these.
my letter in response to him:
How often have you been treated with courtesy and respect at a foreign embassy? I have often travelled to many countries and have often been treated with officiousness and disdain- the most often actually by US officials. Try getting your passport back without a receipt at the US consulate in Vancouver- I wouldn't. The author wants to replace "wacky but true" with brownpeople-in-white-suits. Wacky-but-true came about because people like you wanted to be like the west but failed. Bollywood is crap because it seeks to imitate rather than create. You think you're our ambassador in California but you're not. Your obsession with your self-image doesn't represent my highest values.
Regards,
Hari
Monday, October 30, 2006
A crisp winter morning
I woke up and class was cancelled- good thing since I was going to be late. But as I stepped out to get a coffee and bagel at Think café, I relished the cool and crisp morning. I've always been comfortable with cool weather- it brings back memories of Delhi when I was 5 and was kitted out in a blazer at Springdales School (that was part of the winter uniform).
I remember landing in London with my family on our way to Nigeria in 1985. We spent four days there and the first thing we did was go to H & M (I think it was around then) and buy parkas. I remember standing on the corner and blowing into the air. Perhaps it wasn't the next time we went there- in 86. I have always found london to be a delight. Then (as we would now) we stayed in cheap hotels or Bed and Breakfasts. The rooms were warm and in the morning there were cartoons on TV and then some show entitled "Good Morning Britain" or something like that. In the well lit studios with bright pastels colours, the hosts were always relaxed in their own skin and discussing the news- it was as if you walked in on them eating breakfast in the bright city of the world that London was. Then we stepped out for breakfast- eggs, bacon, sausages, coffee. The days were about shopping, actually mostly window shopping. The days were exotic and every pound carefully but well spent.
There is something to be said for waking up and walking around in the crisp morning and finding you are in centre of the world as people from all parts bustle around you making their lives, finding each other. Makes me think of walking to the railway station early in the morning in Bombay to see an aunt coming in on a train. As the city lightened and cars started running and garbage trucks were heard, vendors who slept near their sugarcane juice stands awoke to set up for the daily business.
I have early morning memories of every city I've lived in- it's a movie collection in my head that I can play back whever I need to.
I remember landing in London with my family on our way to Nigeria in 1985. We spent four days there and the first thing we did was go to H & M (I think it was around then) and buy parkas. I remember standing on the corner and blowing into the air. Perhaps it wasn't the next time we went there- in 86. I have always found london to be a delight. Then (as we would now) we stayed in cheap hotels or Bed and Breakfasts. The rooms were warm and in the morning there were cartoons on TV and then some show entitled "Good Morning Britain" or something like that. In the well lit studios with bright pastels colours, the hosts were always relaxed in their own skin and discussing the news- it was as if you walked in on them eating breakfast in the bright city of the world that London was. Then we stepped out for breakfast- eggs, bacon, sausages, coffee. The days were about shopping, actually mostly window shopping. The days were exotic and every pound carefully but well spent.
There is something to be said for waking up and walking around in the crisp morning and finding you are in centre of the world as people from all parts bustle around you making their lives, finding each other. Makes me think of walking to the railway station early in the morning in Bombay to see an aunt coming in on a train. As the city lightened and cars started running and garbage trucks were heard, vendors who slept near their sugarcane juice stands awoke to set up for the daily business.
I have early morning memories of every city I've lived in- it's a movie collection in my head that I can play back whever I need to.
Sunday, October 15, 2006
Who the F*** Knows Where Asia is
This quote from the India Resource Centre on the Financial Times website (http://www.ft.com/world/asiapacific/india)
"Separated from the rest of Asia by the Himalaya mountain range, India forms the bulk of a subcontinent"
So many people nowadays seem not to know where Asia begins and where Asia ends. Many people seem to confuse East Asia or South East Asia with all of Asia. I wonder if the redoubtable Amy Yee of the Financial Times in Delhi was responsible for this bout of geographical buggery (not that there is anything wrong with buggery per se).
I therefore wrote a note to the Financial Times. Any bets that they might order their writers back to the geography textbooks?:
"Hi,
I noticed your description of India in the India Section describes India as separated from the rest of Asia by the Himalayan mountain range. Please note that India is not separated from Asian countries like Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iran, Syria and Turkey by the Himalayan mountain range. The person who wrote that description seems to have little knowledge of where Asia ends and where Europe and Africa begin. I expect a better description from a reputed source such as the Financial Times.I hope you will correct this error."
"Separated from the rest of Asia by the Himalaya mountain range, India forms the bulk of a subcontinent"
So many people nowadays seem not to know where Asia begins and where Asia ends. Many people seem to confuse East Asia or South East Asia with all of Asia. I wonder if the redoubtable Amy Yee of the Financial Times in Delhi was responsible for this bout of geographical buggery (not that there is anything wrong with buggery per se).
I therefore wrote a note to the Financial Times. Any bets that they might order their writers back to the geography textbooks?:
"Hi,
I noticed your description of India in the India Section describes India as separated from the rest of Asia by the Himalayan mountain range. Please note that India is not separated from Asian countries like Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iran, Syria and Turkey by the Himalayan mountain range. The person who wrote that description seems to have little knowledge of where Asia ends and where Europe and Africa begin. I expect a better description from a reputed source such as the Financial Times.I hope you will correct this error."
Sunday, June 05, 2005
On Michael Ignatieff's speech on the connection between Foreign and Domestic Cdn policy (excerpt in the Toronto Star)
The excerpt of his speech is located at:
http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1117663830280&call_pageid=968256290204&col=968350116795
My comments:
It's one thing to speak generally when attempting to inspire- it's another thing to say very little that is concrete. Ignatieff points at problems- he doesn't point out why they are problems. He does not propose solutions. The depressing thing he still sounds better informed about Canadian problems than any federal politician.
And before we follow this mindless drivel about projecting power- Ignatieff points to protesters in Paris in 1968 and the ghost of Trudeau. Trudeau would never approve of "projecting power" as a rationale for creating a Canadian nationalism. After all shortly after coming to office, Trudeau halved the number of Canadian troops dedicated to NATO. He was trying to define a new nationalism at the time. Ignatieff is recycling trite and watered down realpolitik notions for his nationalism. He wants idealists protesting on the street. For what? For the vague, insipid notion of what he thinks Canadian nationalism should be.
Perhaps he should look into what does inspire young people to protest on the streets- WB, IMF, Globalisation, the Environment, the War in Iraq. Nobody is going to come onto the streets to demonstrate because .... "we cannot project power and influence abroad"
It is ridiculous to suggest that nationalism has weakened because Canada has not acted abroad. Canadian nationalism has been suffering internal haemorrhage. Canadian nationalism has been in trouble ever since parts of the country outside of Ontario and Quebec grew large enough to express their discomfort with rules geared towards the compact between those two provinces. Ad campaigns based on Canada's influence on the world are irrelevant sound-bites in the screaming match that ensues from domestic power imbalances.
This is the bankruptcy of ideas- when the most prophetic Canadian proto-polician sounds like he's running an independent election campaign.
I sympathise with Mr. Ignatieff's concerns...barely. Ignatieff seems to be worried that the elite of which he is a part is about to lose its precarious place. The speech sounds like the complaint of a petit bourgeois about to lose his club membership.
Is there anyone sounding better? Have the nationalists completely run out of ideas?
http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1117663830280&call_pageid=968256290204&col=968350116795
My comments:
It's one thing to speak generally when attempting to inspire- it's another thing to say very little that is concrete. Ignatieff points at problems- he doesn't point out why they are problems. He does not propose solutions. The depressing thing he still sounds better informed about Canadian problems than any federal politician.
And before we follow this mindless drivel about projecting power- Ignatieff points to protesters in Paris in 1968 and the ghost of Trudeau. Trudeau would never approve of "projecting power" as a rationale for creating a Canadian nationalism. After all shortly after coming to office, Trudeau halved the number of Canadian troops dedicated to NATO. He was trying to define a new nationalism at the time. Ignatieff is recycling trite and watered down realpolitik notions for his nationalism. He wants idealists protesting on the street. For what? For the vague, insipid notion of what he thinks Canadian nationalism should be.
Perhaps he should look into what does inspire young people to protest on the streets- WB, IMF, Globalisation, the Environment, the War in Iraq. Nobody is going to come onto the streets to demonstrate because .... "we cannot project power and influence abroad"
It is ridiculous to suggest that nationalism has weakened because Canada has not acted abroad. Canadian nationalism has been suffering internal haemorrhage. Canadian nationalism has been in trouble ever since parts of the country outside of Ontario and Quebec grew large enough to express their discomfort with rules geared towards the compact between those two provinces. Ad campaigns based on Canada's influence on the world are irrelevant sound-bites in the screaming match that ensues from domestic power imbalances.
This is the bankruptcy of ideas- when the most prophetic Canadian proto-polician sounds like he's running an independent election campaign.
I sympathise with Mr. Ignatieff's concerns...barely. Ignatieff seems to be worried that the elite of which he is a part is about to lose its precarious place. The speech sounds like the complaint of a petit bourgeois about to lose his club membership.
Is there anyone sounding better? Have the nationalists completely run out of ideas?
Saturday, May 14, 2005
On Richard Drayton's Article
This story is printed at the following web address:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,1480252,00.html
I sent the story out to friends and a friend of Montreal Maurice responded (the response was forwarded to me) and I composed the following message to Maurice- a sort of further take on Draytong with, as he put it, "my colourful leaps in language." Taking his words of appreciation to heart, since I am generally bereft of creativity and rarely close to writing well, I figure I might as well plaster it on the old blog....
my ditty:
I sent the article out because is the perfect riposte to the us-them dichotomy, the favourite of people who need/want simplicity. This view (retrospective judgement of allied actions) is perfect to attack such thinking because since WW2 all the teams seem to have been mixed up. The bad guys have become the good guys. Gerhard Shroeder attends celebrations of D-Day in Normandy and the massive Soviet defeat of the Nazis in Moscow. Suddenly people have to take him and Grass seriously when they speak of Dresden. In Japan, there was the fire-bombing of Tokyo and Hiroshima and Nagasaki- a cumulative destruction of 600,000 lives, 1/10th of the holocaust. But, the Japanese are the good guys and the Chinese are the bad guys now. Junichiro Koizumi is thus in attendance in Moscow and that is another reason one is forced to pay heed to Japanese view on Allied wartime atrocities.
What I'm trying to point out is not that all is beauty and light since the teams haev changed and we are so lucky to have learnt all this now. On the contrary, the strange way in which politics have changed post-WW2 brings to light that idiotic simplistic notions of us/them good/bad dichotomies don't work and that this is bad for the simpletons.
The Soviets, Japanese and Germans are bad and we (i.e. anglo-americans) are good. But, the Soviets are good for defeating the Germans but bad for taking the Kurile Islands from Japan at the end of WW2. The Japanese and Germans are bad for everything. So that's settled at one level but it sounds kinda wonky and over-simplistic.
It would work if the Japanese and Germans and Soviets disappeared leaving us feeling good. But, unfortunately, with us here on the podium at Red Square are Gerhard, Vladimir and Junichiro, who are non-Soviet, non-Nazi, and non-Japanese militaristic (kinda). So we get into German v. Nazi, and Japanese v. bad-Japanese, and Russian v. Soviet. Each part of each dichotomy helps us explain the other ones. So russians are good because they opposed Nazis. Japanese are good because they opposed Soviets. And of course in East Germany, Germans are good because they opposed Soviets and the new Bad-Germans, i.e the Communists.
The real problem shows up when you try to relate the good guys in those equations to the allies. How do Russians, Good-Japanese, and Good-Germans relate to the Allies? Since Russia was broadly aligned with the the English in WW2 as opposed to WW1 (which would bring up problems) it's fixable. But what about the other two? In the case of Dresden, we are talking (ostensibly) about civilian German refugees, women and children and how 25-45k of them were bombed away in one night on the order of a British General, Arthur "Bomber" Harris (a man who, like Saddam, is honoured through statues, in his case in central london). In the case of the fire-bombing of Tokyo, and the nuclear holocaust in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, until the late seventies, there was no problem because there was no difference between Good-Japanese and Bad-Japanese- they were all still the yellow menace and "Made in Japan" was still a joke. Ah, but now, Junichiro and Co. are rich allies in the fight against another yellow menace, the North Koreans and the Chinese. So, the good/bad dichotomy surfaces and remains problematic. Suddenly, somebody's got to carry the can for 500,000 to 600,000 Good-Japanese civilians killed by nuclear strike and about a 100,000 killed by fire-bombing. After all, good Junichiro's mom must have been Good-Japanese, right? (see, if the good-bad Japanese dichotomy doesn't stand, then all of us, on the pure snow-white allied side are potential mass murderers, rapists etc... this is powder-keg stuff).
I read a novel a couple of years ago by a british writer who fought in the war, with a young italian man as the protagonist- the entire novel was comedic but one of the scenes deals with how some odd "liberator" from one of the allied armies came along a-liberating and raped his wife one day. Of course, the novel ends happily [in the terms of the 50s when it was written] with the protagonist accepting equally his child and child of the rapist and the larger now more multi-cultural family living happily ever after in Sunny Italy. The whole thing was poignant because rape was being dealt with like any other hazard of war that swam along in the funny story about a young man who wouldn't fight. Of course the novel was based on various things the the writer had seen in the war. It's weird- when I was younger, I read Commando and Battle comics. Now that I'm nearly done with my twenties, I find it incredible that the story pitched (and swallowed by) adults in the anglo-american sphere is of the same complexity- a candy-ass, snow-white and cinderella-like notion of Allies v. Axis.
People will empirically question the 10,000 rapes figure cited in the Aricle because it is the easiest thing to attack. They quickly turn their eyes away from the clear documentation of the other atrocities. That's when the ethical blank-cheque starts- and you're completely right, the article isn't a quibble about details- it's about how those details are being used. Korea, Vietnam, and then every other other damn war is/was defined in terms of snow-white World War 2.
History is ghastly, complex and uncertain- we can't let it be used by spin-doctors with simple answers to prolong the madness.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,1480252,00.html
I sent the story out to friends and a friend of Montreal Maurice responded (the response was forwarded to me) and I composed the following message to Maurice- a sort of further take on Draytong with, as he put it, "my colourful leaps in language." Taking his words of appreciation to heart, since I am generally bereft of creativity and rarely close to writing well, I figure I might as well plaster it on the old blog....
my ditty:
I sent the article out because is the perfect riposte to the us-them dichotomy, the favourite of people who need/want simplicity. This view (retrospective judgement of allied actions) is perfect to attack such thinking because since WW2 all the teams seem to have been mixed up. The bad guys have become the good guys. Gerhard Shroeder attends celebrations of D-Day in Normandy and the massive Soviet defeat of the Nazis in Moscow. Suddenly people have to take him and Grass seriously when they speak of Dresden. In Japan, there was the fire-bombing of Tokyo and Hiroshima and Nagasaki- a cumulative destruction of 600,000 lives, 1/10th of the holocaust. But, the Japanese are the good guys and the Chinese are the bad guys now. Junichiro Koizumi is thus in attendance in Moscow and that is another reason one is forced to pay heed to Japanese view on Allied wartime atrocities.
What I'm trying to point out is not that all is beauty and light since the teams haev changed and we are so lucky to have learnt all this now. On the contrary, the strange way in which politics have changed post-WW2 brings to light that idiotic simplistic notions of us/them good/bad dichotomies don't work and that this is bad for the simpletons.
The Soviets, Japanese and Germans are bad and we (i.e. anglo-americans) are good. But, the Soviets are good for defeating the Germans but bad for taking the Kurile Islands from Japan at the end of WW2. The Japanese and Germans are bad for everything. So that's settled at one level but it sounds kinda wonky and over-simplistic.
It would work if the Japanese and Germans and Soviets disappeared leaving us feeling good. But, unfortunately, with us here on the podium at Red Square are Gerhard, Vladimir and Junichiro, who are non-Soviet, non-Nazi, and non-Japanese militaristic (kinda). So we get into German v. Nazi, and Japanese v. bad-Japanese, and Russian v. Soviet. Each part of each dichotomy helps us explain the other ones. So russians are good because they opposed Nazis. Japanese are good because they opposed Soviets. And of course in East Germany, Germans are good because they opposed Soviets and the new Bad-Germans, i.e the Communists.
The real problem shows up when you try to relate the good guys in those equations to the allies. How do Russians, Good-Japanese, and Good-Germans relate to the Allies? Since Russia was broadly aligned with the the English in WW2 as opposed to WW1 (which would bring up problems) it's fixable. But what about the other two? In the case of Dresden, we are talking (ostensibly) about civilian German refugees, women and children and how 25-45k of them were bombed away in one night on the order of a British General, Arthur "Bomber" Harris (a man who, like Saddam, is honoured through statues, in his case in central london). In the case of the fire-bombing of Tokyo, and the nuclear holocaust in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, until the late seventies, there was no problem because there was no difference between Good-Japanese and Bad-Japanese- they were all still the yellow menace and "Made in Japan" was still a joke. Ah, but now, Junichiro and Co. are rich allies in the fight against another yellow menace, the North Koreans and the Chinese. So, the good/bad dichotomy surfaces and remains problematic. Suddenly, somebody's got to carry the can for 500,000 to 600,000 Good-Japanese civilians killed by nuclear strike and about a 100,000 killed by fire-bombing. After all, good Junichiro's mom must have been Good-Japanese, right? (see, if the good-bad Japanese dichotomy doesn't stand, then all of us, on the pure snow-white allied side are potential mass murderers, rapists etc... this is powder-keg stuff).
I read a novel a couple of years ago by a british writer who fought in the war, with a young italian man as the protagonist- the entire novel was comedic but one of the scenes deals with how some odd "liberator" from one of the allied armies came along a-liberating and raped his wife one day. Of course, the novel ends happily [in the terms of the 50s when it was written] with the protagonist accepting equally his child and child of the rapist and the larger now more multi-cultural family living happily ever after in Sunny Italy. The whole thing was poignant because rape was being dealt with like any other hazard of war that swam along in the funny story about a young man who wouldn't fight. Of course the novel was based on various things the the writer had seen in the war. It's weird- when I was younger, I read Commando and Battle comics. Now that I'm nearly done with my twenties, I find it incredible that the story pitched (and swallowed by) adults in the anglo-american sphere is of the same complexity- a candy-ass, snow-white and cinderella-like notion of Allies v. Axis.
People will empirically question the 10,000 rapes figure cited in the Aricle because it is the easiest thing to attack. They quickly turn their eyes away from the clear documentation of the other atrocities. That's when the ethical blank-cheque starts- and you're completely right, the article isn't a quibble about details- it's about how those details are being used. Korea, Vietnam, and then every other other damn war is/was defined in terms of snow-white World War 2.
History is ghastly, complex and uncertain- we can't let it be used by spin-doctors with simple answers to prolong the madness.
Sunday, March 06, 2005
of another growing fundamentalism...
I came across this article on Le Monde about the growing number of people converting to bush-style evangelical christians in Algeria and Morocco:
http://www.lemonde.fr/web/article/0,1-0@2-3230,36-400445,0.html
It's scary to think these people walk around in our midst preaching their strange stories, growing their numbers. I once worked for a christian fundamentalist- it was unfortunate how he thought in such fixed narrow ways. He compensated by being very very nice to you at all times.
I wonder if these are the foot-soldiers of the other al-qaeda, the one that has fighter jets and fancy cars.
http://www.lemonde.fr/web/article/0,1-0@2-3230,36-400445,0.html
It's scary to think these people walk around in our midst preaching their strange stories, growing their numbers. I once worked for a christian fundamentalist- it was unfortunate how he thought in such fixed narrow ways. He compensated by being very very nice to you at all times.
I wonder if these are the foot-soldiers of the other al-qaeda, the one that has fighter jets and fancy cars.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)