I'm currently slogging (and believe me, "slogging" seems negative but it's the right word considering how long it is taking me) through The Great War for Civilization by Robert Fisk. It is a long book and covers much Mr. Fisk's journeys and research on the Middle East. And while he has a certain leftist bent that does not diminish the work that he has compiled. I have found it to be fascinating reading, though not everyone would necessarily agree. I only wish I had read it when I first purchased the book more than a year ago - then promptly misplaced it until recently. *sigh*
But before my ADD tendencies cause me to diverge too far from my intended subject, I am currently reading through one of his sections on the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians. He brings up the demonization that takes place by the Israelis when they discuss the Palestinians and how they are vermin, cockroaches and insects to be stomped upon in order to teach them lessons. This is, of course, when they're not being referred to as terrorists or homicide bombers. <sarcasm> Really, I suppose the world owes Fox News a debt of gratitude for that. </sarcasm> And one only need go through MEMRI to see how many Arabs and Muslims talk about Jews. And these are things that have been occurring for years, not something that is just recent. If anything, the only thing recent about these characterizations is that they're now much more easily translated into English and therefore available to the English-only crowd who previously may have been unaware of them. And it is this demonization issue that I discussed less than a year ago on this blog and it seems to have come around again.
Indeed, how it easy it is to learn that the best way to make it easy to hurt or kill someone is to strip away their humanity and see them only as a negative caricature or as nothing more than a beast. It is not hard to understand how the situation in the Middle East between Israelis and Palestinians continues to fester when they see each other as beasts needing to be slaughtered in order to obtain what they want. Someone needs to really bring both sides to the table and enable them to start talking to each other - as people. This doesn't mean that it would be as easy as that but there can be no real beginning to a solution unless and until each side recognizes the other as someone more than just a generic "enemy" - or vermin or terrorist or Zionist or pig.
Would that it were so easy...
Showing posts with label Middle East. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Middle East. Show all posts
Tuesday, February 14, 2012
Thursday, March 17, 2011
War and Demonization
I was recently getting my car worked on at the local dealership and, while waiting, ended up watching some of Fox News. Unlike many people, Fox News does not bother me most of the time; if anything, I view it as the anti-MSNBC. In other words, I recognize that it has a specific editorial bent and watch it with that in mind.
On that particular day, they were covering the recent protests in Egypt and specifically addressing their concerns regarding the possibility that the Mubarak regime would be replaced by the Muslim Brotherhood. With little context other than the repeated use of the phrase "Muslim" Brotherhood expressed in a dark and sinister tone, anyone whose knowledge of the world was garnered only from Fox News (and I know more than a few) would automatically infer that this was bad and therefore to be avoided. Another inferred suggestion was that the US should instead support the Mubarak regime at all costs because it was secular and not based on Islam (not to mention his support of a peace treaty with Israel).
But it is this directly implied reference to the negative aspects of Islam (via the twisted ideology of Islamist fanaticism) with the very term of "Muslim" that provokes a sad reminder of the past - one that has been oft-repeated and still is not learned from. Or, more precisely, it has not been learned from in the context of preventing it from recurring. Unfortunately, those who have learned from it have discerned that it continues to work in spite of its negative historical precedents. The lesson, of course, is that in order to foster a willingness to fight against an enemy, it is vitally important to demonize that enemy. And when I say demonize, I mean to classify your enemy as being less than human, as being not worth consideration or insignificant, as being nothing more than an object to be destroyed. After all, it is always far easier to kill someone when you do not consider them to be human or worth the effort to consider why you should not kill them on someone else's orders. And such a demonization can be done based on ethnicity, gender, political affiliation, religion, national standard, or any other subjective measure; there are no limits to this classification.
The historical precedents within just the last century are staggering when we consider that they still continue today. Hitler and his rabid persecution of the Jews during the 1930's and 40's are perhaps the clearest example - but not the only ones. We also have the persecution of Tutsis by Hutus in Rwanda in 1994, the massacres of Kosovars by Serbians in the mid 1990's, the slaughter of Chinese, Koreans and other Asians by the Japanese during WWII and the attacks against civilians (perceived to be enemy supporters) in Vietnam by the United States in the 1960's. This does not include other events that could be similarly classified - China during the Cultural Revolution, the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia, the reign of the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia, nor incidents that occurred under Western colonial rule throughout Africa, Asia and the Middle East.
The key factor that all of those times mentioned above have in common is the consistent dehumanization that took place prior to and during each of them. The view that your enemies were lesser than you whether by virtue of color, culture, religion or political bent was the key factor in energizing the supporters of a given leader to be willing to attack, hurt and kill the "enemy". It is easy to want to destroy something that you do not understand - I have an abhorrent hatred of cockroaches and would sooner kill one than look at it and I do have a general understanding of cockroaches. When your enemies are designated as cockroaches, you no longer see them as human and have less compunction about hurting them (this example is particular to 1994 Rwanda and the treatment of the Tutsis). This is reinforced by ensuring a clear separation and delineation of your enemies (such as the Jews in Germany who were forced to identify themselves as such by the wearing of a yellow star) and making certain there is no mixing that might lead to a recognition that your opponents are very similar to yourself. Referring to your enemy in negative stereotypes and not understanding their point of view (the US attitude toward its enemies in Vietnam as well as the Japanese during World War II) leads to an unbridled arrogance that is hard to overcome and bridge the gaps between.
Yet the one way to overcome this sort of demonization is to open the lines of communication between various groups and allow people to be more than just a stereotype. When your only understanding of someone different from you is a stereotype, then it is not difficult to carry that image into a negative portrayal that can easily be twisted into something that inevitably becomes far more dangerous. But the responsibility for breaking through the barriers separating groups lies with everyone - not on the other people. Indeed, when it relies on other people, that is where the path toward demonization begins. Find someone who is different and learn how to prevent those barriers from being erected in the first place.
(Special thanks to FP for editing assistance. Any errors are mine alone.)
On that particular day, they were covering the recent protests in Egypt and specifically addressing their concerns regarding the possibility that the Mubarak regime would be replaced by the Muslim Brotherhood. With little context other than the repeated use of the phrase "Muslim" Brotherhood expressed in a dark and sinister tone, anyone whose knowledge of the world was garnered only from Fox News (and I know more than a few) would automatically infer that this was bad and therefore to be avoided. Another inferred suggestion was that the US should instead support the Mubarak regime at all costs because it was secular and not based on Islam (not to mention his support of a peace treaty with Israel).
But it is this directly implied reference to the negative aspects of Islam (via the twisted ideology of Islamist fanaticism) with the very term of "Muslim" that provokes a sad reminder of the past - one that has been oft-repeated and still is not learned from. Or, more precisely, it has not been learned from in the context of preventing it from recurring. Unfortunately, those who have learned from it have discerned that it continues to work in spite of its negative historical precedents. The lesson, of course, is that in order to foster a willingness to fight against an enemy, it is vitally important to demonize that enemy. And when I say demonize, I mean to classify your enemy as being less than human, as being not worth consideration or insignificant, as being nothing more than an object to be destroyed. After all, it is always far easier to kill someone when you do not consider them to be human or worth the effort to consider why you should not kill them on someone else's orders. And such a demonization can be done based on ethnicity, gender, political affiliation, religion, national standard, or any other subjective measure; there are no limits to this classification.
The historical precedents within just the last century are staggering when we consider that they still continue today. Hitler and his rabid persecution of the Jews during the 1930's and 40's are perhaps the clearest example - but not the only ones. We also have the persecution of Tutsis by Hutus in Rwanda in 1994, the massacres of Kosovars by Serbians in the mid 1990's, the slaughter of Chinese, Koreans and other Asians by the Japanese during WWII and the attacks against civilians (perceived to be enemy supporters) in Vietnam by the United States in the 1960's. This does not include other events that could be similarly classified - China during the Cultural Revolution, the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia, the reign of the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia, nor incidents that occurred under Western colonial rule throughout Africa, Asia and the Middle East.
The key factor that all of those times mentioned above have in common is the consistent dehumanization that took place prior to and during each of them. The view that your enemies were lesser than you whether by virtue of color, culture, religion or political bent was the key factor in energizing the supporters of a given leader to be willing to attack, hurt and kill the "enemy". It is easy to want to destroy something that you do not understand - I have an abhorrent hatred of cockroaches and would sooner kill one than look at it and I do have a general understanding of cockroaches. When your enemies are designated as cockroaches, you no longer see them as human and have less compunction about hurting them (this example is particular to 1994 Rwanda and the treatment of the Tutsis). This is reinforced by ensuring a clear separation and delineation of your enemies (such as the Jews in Germany who were forced to identify themselves as such by the wearing of a yellow star) and making certain there is no mixing that might lead to a recognition that your opponents are very similar to yourself. Referring to your enemy in negative stereotypes and not understanding their point of view (the US attitude toward its enemies in Vietnam as well as the Japanese during World War II) leads to an unbridled arrogance that is hard to overcome and bridge the gaps between.
Yet the one way to overcome this sort of demonization is to open the lines of communication between various groups and allow people to be more than just a stereotype. When your only understanding of someone different from you is a stereotype, then it is not difficult to carry that image into a negative portrayal that can easily be twisted into something that inevitably becomes far more dangerous. But the responsibility for breaking through the barriers separating groups lies with everyone - not on the other people. Indeed, when it relies on other people, that is where the path toward demonization begins. Find someone who is different and learn how to prevent those barriers from being erected in the first place.
(Special thanks to FP for editing assistance. Any errors are mine alone.)
Sunday, February 27, 2011
Uprisings in the US?
According to the Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan, yes, they will occur. Of course, he also believes in UFO's and claims to be Muslim so hopefully I will be forgiven if I have a difficult time taking his words at face value. This is, after, the same man who admitted that his incendiary rhetoric "may" have led to the assassination of his former mentor, Malcolm X - though he has been often accused of a far more complicit role in the murder. And this does not even mention his relationship to currently embattled Libyan leader Moammar Qadhafi. Yes, it would seem that Brother Minister Loius Farrakhan has a slightly twisted relationship with reality so, while I will not argue that an uprising similar to what is currently engulfing many states in the Middle East is impossible in the United States, I will certainly have a difficult time believing that Mr. Farrakhan has any prescient (and unbiased) views on the issue.
But can uprisings like those in Tunisia, Egypt, Bahrain, Libya and others occur in the US (or even in Western Europe)? Absolutely they can! Note that I said they can occur, not that they *will* occur. The reality, as difficult as it may be to admit, is that no nation is impervious to the types of internal strife and difficulties that are now striking the Middle East. They can, however, be sublimated or hidden from general view until they explode into the open. Much as western analysts failed to predict the actual failure of the Soviet Union (though they had predicted ad nauseum that it would fail eventually?!), so, too, did they fail to understand and predict the massive changes now occurring in the Middle East. What had been a relatively stable, if autocratic social and political structure has begun to show just how fragile it truly was. Tunisia and Egypt fell without the sort of repressive crackdown that had been expected. Iran, Libya and Syria have all felt the tremors and moved to crack down either before it could begin in earnest (Iran and Syria) or in a massacre of protesters whose crime was to speak out against the ruling tyranny. Similar protests have occurred in Jordan, Bahrain, Oman and Yemen, among others and the response has been varied between seeking to placate the protesters and simply killing them in armed responses.
Some of these nations were stable and educated while others were poor and not as educated. But the one thing that they all hold in common is the lack of accountability on the part of the government. All operate under a form of dictatorship - whether by a singular, titular leader (Qadhafi, Mubarak, Assad), a group (Bahraini Sunnis) or even faux electoral processes (Iran). None operated under the idea of Western electoral democratic ideals where leaders are held accountable to the people under whose name and authority they allegedly rule. Yet, in spite of the many variations that existed within each nation, all now experience the tidal wave of frustration that has risen up in the form of revolutions that seek to improve the lives of the protesters.
It is also worth noting that more than a few countries and organizations throughout the world are also taking note of these protests and their successes and failures. China is very worried about protests there and is clamping down hard on noted activists at the hint of any sign of discontent - even though it seems that they are not leading any charge in that direction. And it seems likely that nations in Central Asia (including Pakistan and other former Soviet republics) are very wary of such a tidal wave of revolution spreading to them.
And this leads us back to the question of whether a similar uprising can occur in the US. While there is certainly a possibility of such a level of discontent that could threaten to erupt into a revolution, it does not yet seem to exist in the US. This does not mean to imply that it could not change but there is not the same level of discontent within a majority of the population that would stimulate such a revolution - however much Mr. Farrakhan may hope to proclaim or incite one. This does not mean there are not problems that cause anger, angst, frustration or other responses as there most certainly are. However, there are other recourses available to the citizens that allow them to vent their feelings without building up to the point of a revolution. In the US, life may not always be perfect or even comfortable all of the time, but pushing down on people until they rise up and explode in anger is not a better solution and that is certainly clear in the Middle East today.
But can uprisings like those in Tunisia, Egypt, Bahrain, Libya and others occur in the US (or even in Western Europe)? Absolutely they can! Note that I said they can occur, not that they *will* occur. The reality, as difficult as it may be to admit, is that no nation is impervious to the types of internal strife and difficulties that are now striking the Middle East. They can, however, be sublimated or hidden from general view until they explode into the open. Much as western analysts failed to predict the actual failure of the Soviet Union (though they had predicted ad nauseum that it would fail eventually?!), so, too, did they fail to understand and predict the massive changes now occurring in the Middle East. What had been a relatively stable, if autocratic social and political structure has begun to show just how fragile it truly was. Tunisia and Egypt fell without the sort of repressive crackdown that had been expected. Iran, Libya and Syria have all felt the tremors and moved to crack down either before it could begin in earnest (Iran and Syria) or in a massacre of protesters whose crime was to speak out against the ruling tyranny. Similar protests have occurred in Jordan, Bahrain, Oman and Yemen, among others and the response has been varied between seeking to placate the protesters and simply killing them in armed responses.
Some of these nations were stable and educated while others were poor and not as educated. But the one thing that they all hold in common is the lack of accountability on the part of the government. All operate under a form of dictatorship - whether by a singular, titular leader (Qadhafi, Mubarak, Assad), a group (Bahraini Sunnis) or even faux electoral processes (Iran). None operated under the idea of Western electoral democratic ideals where leaders are held accountable to the people under whose name and authority they allegedly rule. Yet, in spite of the many variations that existed within each nation, all now experience the tidal wave of frustration that has risen up in the form of revolutions that seek to improve the lives of the protesters.
It is also worth noting that more than a few countries and organizations throughout the world are also taking note of these protests and their successes and failures. China is very worried about protests there and is clamping down hard on noted activists at the hint of any sign of discontent - even though it seems that they are not leading any charge in that direction. And it seems likely that nations in Central Asia (including Pakistan and other former Soviet republics) are very wary of such a tidal wave of revolution spreading to them.
And this leads us back to the question of whether a similar uprising can occur in the US. While there is certainly a possibility of such a level of discontent that could threaten to erupt into a revolution, it does not yet seem to exist in the US. This does not mean to imply that it could not change but there is not the same level of discontent within a majority of the population that would stimulate such a revolution - however much Mr. Farrakhan may hope to proclaim or incite one. This does not mean there are not problems that cause anger, angst, frustration or other responses as there most certainly are. However, there are other recourses available to the citizens that allow them to vent their feelings without building up to the point of a revolution. In the US, life may not always be perfect or even comfortable all of the time, but pushing down on people until they rise up and explode in anger is not a better solution and that is certainly clear in the Middle East today.
Monday, February 21, 2011
Excuses
(I'm not sure if writing in the early morning is such a good idea but the idea was in my head and woke me up with the need to write it down. Hopefully this is more cogent than I feel at the moment.)
In the last two months, there has been a tidal wave of change in the Middle East. It began with Tunisia, quickly followed by Egypt and now threatens countries all over the Middle East and North Africa (though it is worth pondering if it will stop there). Bahrain, Libya, Iran, Jordan and Yemen (among others) are all threatened with the possibility of regime change. The leadership of those countries are all deeply concerned about the possibility of being toppled and are working to determine strategies that will enable them to stay in power. Those strategies seem to vary from the pragmatic to the "we really do think you're stupid" approach.
Iran, for example, is actually boasting that Tunisia and Egypt's revolutions are based on their own "Islamic Revolution" from 1979 - despite any evidence that they were led by any Islamic organizations (if anything, the Muslim Brotherhood in both nations tagged along once the revolutions were well on their way). Egypt, from the other side of that argument, claimed that its regime was preventing an Islamist takeover. Libya has today claimed that the protests are being staged by hooligans and illegal immigrants! (It's very hard to resist a jab at the "nativist" argument that is so prevalent on one side of the US political spectrum today.) Indeed, each of the leaders, in essence, argues that they must stay in power in order to prevent calamity and disaster should the unwashed masses succeed in overthrowing them.
While it is still very early in both Tunisia and Egypt, there has been no marked change that would propel either nation toward a French Revolution scenario of chaos and anarchy - though it is worth pointing out that there is obvious concern both internal and external to both nations in that regard. If anything, there has been a general happiness at the removal of a tyrannical dictatorship that will hopefully evolve toward a more democratic form in the future. There is no way to know if the same should continue in all cases - statistics alone would indicate that is not likely to be so. Indeed, the violence that has erupted in Libya as Qadhafi struggles to maintain his power seems to point toward a struggle that could explode when/if he does fall. The Bahraini leadership is similarly struggling to maintain its hold on power and has not refrained from violence, either. And the violence used by the regime in Iran actually dates back to the last (disputed) elections and is clearly a sign of the concern that government has over its own internal dissent against otherwise peaceful protesters. But it is easy to argue that the violent upheaval that has begun in those two nations was brought on by a leadership desperate to stay in power and is therefore the chaos they warn against is of the government's own doing and not that of the revolution nor its adherents.
What does seem clear, however, is that the excuses each country's leadership makes for staying in power seem to no longer be working with their respective citizens. And, if history is any indication (and it should be), a government cannot continue when the people have either lost faith in it or lost fear of it. It seems that the "change" that was such a mantra in the 2008 US presidential elections has moved around the world and is more of a force elsewhere than with the man who claimed it as his mantle.
In the last two months, there has been a tidal wave of change in the Middle East. It began with Tunisia, quickly followed by Egypt and now threatens countries all over the Middle East and North Africa (though it is worth pondering if it will stop there). Bahrain, Libya, Iran, Jordan and Yemen (among others) are all threatened with the possibility of regime change. The leadership of those countries are all deeply concerned about the possibility of being toppled and are working to determine strategies that will enable them to stay in power. Those strategies seem to vary from the pragmatic to the "we really do think you're stupid" approach.
Iran, for example, is actually boasting that Tunisia and Egypt's revolutions are based on their own "Islamic Revolution" from 1979 - despite any evidence that they were led by any Islamic organizations (if anything, the Muslim Brotherhood in both nations tagged along once the revolutions were well on their way). Egypt, from the other side of that argument, claimed that its regime was preventing an Islamist takeover. Libya has today claimed that the protests are being staged by hooligans and illegal immigrants! (It's very hard to resist a jab at the "nativist" argument that is so prevalent on one side of the US political spectrum today.) Indeed, each of the leaders, in essence, argues that they must stay in power in order to prevent calamity and disaster should the unwashed masses succeed in overthrowing them.
While it is still very early in both Tunisia and Egypt, there has been no marked change that would propel either nation toward a French Revolution scenario of chaos and anarchy - though it is worth pointing out that there is obvious concern both internal and external to both nations in that regard. If anything, there has been a general happiness at the removal of a tyrannical dictatorship that will hopefully evolve toward a more democratic form in the future. There is no way to know if the same should continue in all cases - statistics alone would indicate that is not likely to be so. Indeed, the violence that has erupted in Libya as Qadhafi struggles to maintain his power seems to point toward a struggle that could explode when/if he does fall. The Bahraini leadership is similarly struggling to maintain its hold on power and has not refrained from violence, either. And the violence used by the regime in Iran actually dates back to the last (disputed) elections and is clearly a sign of the concern that government has over its own internal dissent against otherwise peaceful protesters. But it is easy to argue that the violent upheaval that has begun in those two nations was brought on by a leadership desperate to stay in power and is therefore the chaos they warn against is of the government's own doing and not that of the revolution nor its adherents.
What does seem clear, however, is that the excuses each country's leadership makes for staying in power seem to no longer be working with their respective citizens. And, if history is any indication (and it should be), a government cannot continue when the people have either lost faith in it or lost fear of it. It seems that the "change" that was such a mantra in the 2008 US presidential elections has moved around the world and is more of a force elsewhere than with the man who claimed it as his mantle.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)