In the weeks since the previous blog entry, my fears about the USA or Israel, or most likely, first Israel then the USA, undertaking military action against Iran have only been confirmed by the course of events. President Obama seems to be trying to moderate and minimize the rush to war, but he does not seem willing or able to clearly speak out against it. Politically, this is understandable, as he does not want to appear "weak on defense," which these days seems to essentially mean "weak on attacking Muslim nations." It is however another indication of the man's cowardice and calculation. Obama is no moral beacon for our time, but just another politician willing to allow the slaughter of innocents for the sake of political advantage.
Don't get me wrong, I will vote for the man considering that the alternative is even more frightening, but I do find his presidency quite disappointing, in this and other ways. I am even willing to concede that Obama may be the best that liberals and progressives can hope for at this time, considering the power of the oligarchic and militaristic forces arrayed against us, but that doesn't mean I have to like it or pretend that it is something more or better than it is. I am still proud that his election broke the race barrier in our country at the highest level, but the huge backlash against him that began almost IMMEDIATELY after he was elected, and has never let up ever since, has also sadly exposed how deeply racist America remains. However, even taking into account all of this, I believe that we who believe in liberal and progressive ideals like economic justice and environmental protection have to continue to speak up and demand MORE. That, after all, is how politics works: put on the pressure to advance your cause. God knows the other side is doing it x100.
I recently became aware of an initiative that in my view represents the most clear, principled, and elegant response to America's current syndrome of endless military engagement. This is a House Resolution authored by Keith Ellison, Congressman from Minnesota, that calls for a Global Marshall Plan. The intent is that we turn away from seeking to achieve our security by military domination of the troubled areas of the world to striving to provide a much higher level of aid than we have to this point to poor peoples and countries around the world, to help them develop in ways that meet their actual human needs, rather than going down the path of militarism and violence, as such groups as Al-Qaeda have done in the past. The reference to "Marshall Plan" refers back to the time in the late 1940s and early 1950s when the USA provided huge amounts of financial assistance to war-ravaged countries in Europe to enable them to rebuild, an effort almost universally hailed as a brilliant success that enabled modern western Europe to become generally peaceful and stable. The idea is to attempt the same with other regions and hope for the same kind of positive results. America does give aid to many countries, but the amount is puny compared to what we spend on our military. Ellison and others propose that we flip this equation: put less emphasis on military power and invest more in peaceful development projects. Some would say it is terribly idealistic, but I see little evidence that our current strategy is making the world a better place. Maybe it is time to try a little idealism and back down from trying to be the world's hegemonic bully.
I would note that when the USA provided aid to Muslim peoples in Indonesia and elsewhere in the wake of the December 2004 tsunami, opinion polls of the time showed our favorability rating among Muslims populations in the region of the disaster ticking upwards for the first time in years. Imagine that: helping and befriending Muslims rather than invading and attacking them. It can be done. Or, we can just stick with our current policy of invasion-occupation-threat-domination, attack and counterattack, for the next 50 years. That is possible too.
In Tikkun magazine and on the web site of the Network of Spiritual Progressives, this initiative is explained in simple terms as a contrast between a foreign policy of "domination" versus one of "generosity." I think this frames the issues in a clear and compelling manner, and is worth thinking about further. I know I will be doing that, and encourage my readers to do the same.
In Pagan terms, perhaps we could explain this as turning away from the war god to focus more on the gods of peace and plenty and fertility. We need them now, desperately.
Showing posts with label Iran. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Iran. Show all posts
Sunday, March 11, 2012
Sunday, February 19, 2012
Our Shiny New War Against Iran
Today's blog is a humorous attempt to deal with something I find very frightening: the apparent coalescence of an acceptance of using military force against Iran for quite dubious reasons that are all too reminiscent of our most recent military adventures. One hopes that people learn from their mistakes, but in this case, I fear that we are on the edge of a whole new tragic chapter in idiotic American imperialism. It is so sickening that I need to attempt some dark humor. Here goes:
War is coming. A NEW war. Not one of those old, worn-out, pre-owned wars in Afghanistan and Iraq,but a shiny NEW war that we all can feel proud and patriotic about. Aren't you happy? Don't you miss the EXCITEMENT and PATRIOTISM of the post-9/11 days when we invaded Afghanistan and Iraq, before those wars became dragged-out, boring and uninteresting? Oh, there is nothing like that initial rush of war to bring out the best in our country! Hooray for war. Let's go!!
What is this new war? You don't know?You don't follow the news? War against Iran, you dummy. Don't you know that Iran is VERY VERY dangerous, it is developing nuclear technology,and that IT MUST BE STOPPED? And we and our friends the Israeli government have been laying the groundwork. It's kind of like what we did in the build-up to the invasion of Iraq, only better because many people have forgotten how that particular little foreign adventure came about. Oh, you have a vague recollection of that and would like to know more how the new rush to war resembles the previous one? OK, here goes.
As with Iraq, we are accusing an oil-rich country in the Middle East of striving to develop nuclear technology which could someday be turned into nuclear weapons. We claim this gives us the right to attack them even if they have not attacked anyone else. AS IF THAT MATTERED TO US! Hello-o, haven't you heard of "pre-emptive strike?" Duh! We claim the right to attack anyone anywhere who we think MIGHT be a threat. What's wrong with that? What could possibly go wrong? Isn't that the way the world is supposed to work? Our way or the death ray!
As with Iraq, we have no patience with the Iranian point of view. We "know" they cannot be trusted, certainly not their president with the supposedly unpronounceable name, Ahmedinejad. It's always more fun to vilify someone with a "weird" name, don't you know?
The Iranians claim they need nuclear technology for peaceful purposes of energy production and medical technology, such as radioactive isotopes used in chemotherapy for cancer. THAT IS SO RIDICULOUS!
Furthermore, we "know" that Iran is a menace in the region. President whose-name-no-patriotic-American-dare-pronounce has said ugly things about Israel, unlike the nice things that people say in other nearby countries like Saudi Arabia, Lebanon, Syria and Egypt. Everyone knows that we insist that every Middle Eastern country love and respect Israel 110%, or we go to war against them right away.
And poor little Israel, it has done nothing to deserve any criticism or animosity from the other countries in the region. Those Palestinians who were forced off their land in 1947 and continue to cry-baby complain about this when they are not whimpering about Israel making their lives impossible with checkpoints, economic blockades and occasional military invasions that demolish neighborhoods are not people that we have to worry about, except that they show an irritating capacity to launch missile strikes and suicide attacks against Israel. So annoying! Can't they just accept their poverty, dispossession and isolation without having to make such a fuss? Can't they just withdraw into their pitiful shanty towns and quietly wait to die? What's wrong with them? I guess you just never know with those crazy Muslims. What, you are telling me that some of the Palestinians are Christians? That cannot be right; please just shut up.
Even more ridiculous is the accusation that Israel has its own nuclear weapons. You say the CIA has reported this? OK, maybe they have a few little bombs. They are our ally, so they are entitled. Anyway, it's a dangerous neighborhood. No one should get excited just because this or that country develops a few nuclear weapons without cooperating with nuclear treaties or allowing international inspection, UNLESS THAT COUNTRY IS IRAQ....I MEAN IRAN!!
Iran is quite the cry-baby too. Have you heard this OUTRAGEOUS idea that they might feel threatened by American power in the region? THAT IS SO RIDICULOUS. What American "power?" OK, we have some soldiers over there. OK, we have invaded countries on both the eastern side of Iran (Afghanistan) and on the western side (Iraq). That's none of their business! Did we complain when Russia put missiles into Cuba? Hell no! Did we attack Canada when they introduced nationalized health insurance? No, of course not. So where does Iran get off bitching and bitching about this? OK, so maybe we do have some bases to the north of Iran in some of those "-stan" countries. OK, so maybe our naval fleet does take the occasional pleasure cruise off the coast of Iran. OK, so maybe we do have a military alliance with Saudi Arabia and soldiers in Kuwait. OK, maybe we have allowed or even assisted Israel in developing nuclear weapons. That is no excuse for Iran to get all hissy-fitsy and nuclear. Only two countries in the world have the right to self-defense, including nuclear weapons: America and Israel. If Iran thinks they have a right to develop nuclear weapons just because they are surrounded by hostile forces, then they really do deserve to be attacked and invaded.
Iran is the craziest, most dangerous, and violent country on the planet. Just compare how many countries in the Middle East they have attacked and invaded to how many we have! It's like night and day. What, you are saying that it was not Iran that started the Iran-Iraq War, it was Iraq, led by Saddam Hussein, who we were supporting at the time? I don't believe it. Besides, everyone knows that Iran supports Hezbollah, a terrorist group in Lebanon that launches missiles against Israel from time to time. What, you are saying that Hezbollah first came about as a reaction to an Israeli invasion of Lebanon in the early 1980s? You mean Israel attacked first? Well, that was 30+ years ago. Why can't Hezbollah give it a rest? Crazy damned Muslims.
As you can see, there is no way to look at the objective facts without reaching the sole possible conclusion: Iran must be attacked, and we're going to do it! Yay, go America!
(**Bonus points for you Political Science majors if you can answer the following question: could a military strike on Iran help Obama in the general election? And, would not doing it hurt him? Advantage to the Republicans, who are, with the exception of Ron Paul, united in seeking an attack on Iran! You can tell how patriotic a politician is by how eager he or she is to attack other countries!! Yay!)
It may be Israel that attacks first, but that won't even matter, because we have a defense alliance with them and if they get into any trouble, if Iran or anyone else tries to strike back, we can rush in and show the Iranians the same kind of "shock and awe"--I mean "freedom and democracy" that--we brought to Afghanistan and Iran. Consider the Israeli military our advance scouts and the whole thing makes perfect sense.
From a lot of the information I see in the media, this is a no-lose situation. After all, with our huge, excellent military involved, what could possibly go wrong?
What, you mean Iran could shut down the Persian Gulf and disrupt our oil supply? Just when you thought it was safe to buy a Hummer again....
What, you mean a strike by Israel against Iran could lead to other countries like Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Lebanon getting involved, and a spiraling, expanding war? No way; you need to take your medication.
What, you mean some of OUR young men and women will die? Not if we stick with drones and long-range nuclear missiles....but even if a ground invasion were necessary, well, at least our boys and girls would take a whole lot of them Iranians down with them. We'll have a nice parade for our fallen patriots.
What, you mean the money that we will spend on the war is money we can't use for things at home? Well, since when do we care about the people in America? It's killing foreigners that counts, not taking care of things like bridges, schools, mortgages, pensions, unemployment and child poverty. War is patriotic. Trying to do anything about that other stuff sounds suspiciously like socialism. Can't have that. Lots of people don't have jobs, sure, but they could always join the army. If kids are going hungry, they could be trained to serve as mine-sweepers, make themselves useful.
What, you mean Russia and China are allies with Iran? Well, what could they do about it?
World War III? Well, we would win, wouldn't we? Doesn't it say so in the Bible? Don't you believe in America?
Shut up. We are going to war, and the only opinion you are going to be allowed to have is, "Support the troops!" and maybe also, Support the Drones. Support the Nukes.
Somewhere the war-god is smiling... America, with its lack of respect and understanding for other cultures and inability to examine its own actions or history is so easy to lead to the battlefield. The war-god will be well-fed with the bodies and souls of the dead. He is smiling.
(War-)God Bless America?
War is coming. A NEW war. Not one of those old, worn-out, pre-owned wars in Afghanistan and Iraq,but a shiny NEW war that we all can feel proud and patriotic about. Aren't you happy? Don't you miss the EXCITEMENT and PATRIOTISM of the post-9/11 days when we invaded Afghanistan and Iraq, before those wars became dragged-out, boring and uninteresting? Oh, there is nothing like that initial rush of war to bring out the best in our country! Hooray for war. Let's go!!
What is this new war? You don't know?You don't follow the news? War against Iran, you dummy. Don't you know that Iran is VERY VERY dangerous, it is developing nuclear technology,and that IT MUST BE STOPPED? And we and our friends the Israeli government have been laying the groundwork. It's kind of like what we did in the build-up to the invasion of Iraq, only better because many people have forgotten how that particular little foreign adventure came about. Oh, you have a vague recollection of that and would like to know more how the new rush to war resembles the previous one? OK, here goes.
As with Iraq, we are accusing an oil-rich country in the Middle East of striving to develop nuclear technology which could someday be turned into nuclear weapons. We claim this gives us the right to attack them even if they have not attacked anyone else. AS IF THAT MATTERED TO US! Hello-o, haven't you heard of "pre-emptive strike?" Duh! We claim the right to attack anyone anywhere who we think MIGHT be a threat. What's wrong with that? What could possibly go wrong? Isn't that the way the world is supposed to work? Our way or the death ray!
As with Iraq, we have no patience with the Iranian point of view. We "know" they cannot be trusted, certainly not their president with the supposedly unpronounceable name, Ahmedinejad. It's always more fun to vilify someone with a "weird" name, don't you know?
The Iranians claim they need nuclear technology for peaceful purposes of energy production and medical technology, such as radioactive isotopes used in chemotherapy for cancer. THAT IS SO RIDICULOUS!
Furthermore, we "know" that Iran is a menace in the region. President whose-name-no-patriotic-American-dare-pronounce has said ugly things about Israel, unlike the nice things that people say in other nearby countries like Saudi Arabia, Lebanon, Syria and Egypt. Everyone knows that we insist that every Middle Eastern country love and respect Israel 110%, or we go to war against them right away.
And poor little Israel, it has done nothing to deserve any criticism or animosity from the other countries in the region. Those Palestinians who were forced off their land in 1947 and continue to cry-baby complain about this when they are not whimpering about Israel making their lives impossible with checkpoints, economic blockades and occasional military invasions that demolish neighborhoods are not people that we have to worry about, except that they show an irritating capacity to launch missile strikes and suicide attacks against Israel. So annoying! Can't they just accept their poverty, dispossession and isolation without having to make such a fuss? Can't they just withdraw into their pitiful shanty towns and quietly wait to die? What's wrong with them? I guess you just never know with those crazy Muslims. What, you are telling me that some of the Palestinians are Christians? That cannot be right; please just shut up.
Even more ridiculous is the accusation that Israel has its own nuclear weapons. You say the CIA has reported this? OK, maybe they have a few little bombs. They are our ally, so they are entitled. Anyway, it's a dangerous neighborhood. No one should get excited just because this or that country develops a few nuclear weapons without cooperating with nuclear treaties or allowing international inspection, UNLESS THAT COUNTRY IS IRAQ....I MEAN IRAN!!
Iran is quite the cry-baby too. Have you heard this OUTRAGEOUS idea that they might feel threatened by American power in the region? THAT IS SO RIDICULOUS. What American "power?" OK, we have some soldiers over there. OK, we have invaded countries on both the eastern side of Iran (Afghanistan) and on the western side (Iraq). That's none of their business! Did we complain when Russia put missiles into Cuba? Hell no! Did we attack Canada when they introduced nationalized health insurance? No, of course not. So where does Iran get off bitching and bitching about this? OK, so maybe we do have some bases to the north of Iran in some of those "-stan" countries. OK, so maybe our naval fleet does take the occasional pleasure cruise off the coast of Iran. OK, so maybe we do have a military alliance with Saudi Arabia and soldiers in Kuwait. OK, maybe we have allowed or even assisted Israel in developing nuclear weapons. That is no excuse for Iran to get all hissy-fitsy and nuclear. Only two countries in the world have the right to self-defense, including nuclear weapons: America and Israel. If Iran thinks they have a right to develop nuclear weapons just because they are surrounded by hostile forces, then they really do deserve to be attacked and invaded.
Iran is the craziest, most dangerous, and violent country on the planet. Just compare how many countries in the Middle East they have attacked and invaded to how many we have! It's like night and day. What, you are saying that it was not Iran that started the Iran-Iraq War, it was Iraq, led by Saddam Hussein, who we were supporting at the time? I don't believe it. Besides, everyone knows that Iran supports Hezbollah, a terrorist group in Lebanon that launches missiles against Israel from time to time. What, you are saying that Hezbollah first came about as a reaction to an Israeli invasion of Lebanon in the early 1980s? You mean Israel attacked first? Well, that was 30+ years ago. Why can't Hezbollah give it a rest? Crazy damned Muslims.
As you can see, there is no way to look at the objective facts without reaching the sole possible conclusion: Iran must be attacked, and we're going to do it! Yay, go America!
(**Bonus points for you Political Science majors if you can answer the following question: could a military strike on Iran help Obama in the general election? And, would not doing it hurt him? Advantage to the Republicans, who are, with the exception of Ron Paul, united in seeking an attack on Iran! You can tell how patriotic a politician is by how eager he or she is to attack other countries!! Yay!)
It may be Israel that attacks first, but that won't even matter, because we have a defense alliance with them and if they get into any trouble, if Iran or anyone else tries to strike back, we can rush in and show the Iranians the same kind of "shock and awe"--I mean "freedom and democracy" that--we brought to Afghanistan and Iran. Consider the Israeli military our advance scouts and the whole thing makes perfect sense.
From a lot of the information I see in the media, this is a no-lose situation. After all, with our huge, excellent military involved, what could possibly go wrong?
What, you mean Iran could shut down the Persian Gulf and disrupt our oil supply? Just when you thought it was safe to buy a Hummer again....
What, you mean a strike by Israel against Iran could lead to other countries like Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Lebanon getting involved, and a spiraling, expanding war? No way; you need to take your medication.
What, you mean some of OUR young men and women will die? Not if we stick with drones and long-range nuclear missiles....but even if a ground invasion were necessary, well, at least our boys and girls would take a whole lot of them Iranians down with them. We'll have a nice parade for our fallen patriots.
What, you mean the money that we will spend on the war is money we can't use for things at home? Well, since when do we care about the people in America? It's killing foreigners that counts, not taking care of things like bridges, schools, mortgages, pensions, unemployment and child poverty. War is patriotic. Trying to do anything about that other stuff sounds suspiciously like socialism. Can't have that. Lots of people don't have jobs, sure, but they could always join the army. If kids are going hungry, they could be trained to serve as mine-sweepers, make themselves useful.
What, you mean Russia and China are allies with Iran? Well, what could they do about it?
World War III? Well, we would win, wouldn't we? Doesn't it say so in the Bible? Don't you believe in America?
Shut up. We are going to war, and the only opinion you are going to be allowed to have is, "Support the troops!" and maybe also, Support the Drones. Support the Nukes.
Somewhere the war-god is smiling... America, with its lack of respect and understanding for other cultures and inability to examine its own actions or history is so easy to lead to the battlefield. The war-god will be well-fed with the bodies and souls of the dead. He is smiling.
(War-)God Bless America?
Sunday, September 18, 2011
Opening the Heart to Others
A student's comment from Friday and a film I viewed on DVD today bring me to reflect on the great joy that comes from opening the heart to appreciate others in the world quite different from ourselves, bringing us to discover hidden kinship with them, and the great tragedy that can result from clinging to preconceptions and prejudices that wall us off from others and leave us isolated, bitter and fearful towards the world and its many unknown others.
In a class discussion about the growing numbers of Americans being locked away year by year in our ever-expanding prison system, a student opined that it was easier for other countries to cope with crime and social problems of the sort that result in mass incarceration in the USA because they did not have the ethnic diversity that was, in his view, a great problem in the USA. I was taken aback because this student, a young white fellow transplanted from Brooklyn to the Lower Upstate area, was one who I had previously judged as one of the most intelligent,animated and inquisitive of the new semester's group. Now I feared that he might also be one of the most racist. He helpfully clarified, "I am not a racist," (Whew! great relief! glad that has been taken care of!) "but I just think it's natural that every group prefers to be with its own kind." I was really knocked off-balance by these sentiments, because I might have expected them from others in the class, Lower Upstate having its share of small-town conservative white folks who have been known to support groups like the KKK, but now this fellow, my would-be (in my imagination) Golden Child!I fumbled for a response and then the discussion moved on.
One reason I had some trouble coming up with a snappy and illuminating reply is that I am aware that some very peaceful, progressive, semi-socialist places like the countries of Scandinavia are indeed fairly (though not completely, and less so as time goes on) homogeneous places, ethnically speaking, and it may well be that the absence of ethnic division does make it easier for people to arrive at and maintain a sense of common welfare and human community. However, ethnic homogeneity is much more the exception than the rule in human history, and tends to be a temporary state that inevitably gives way to mixing, moving and intermarrying of people from different ethnic, cultural and religious origins. Think of ancient Rome's barbarian and African emperors; Byzantine rulers marrying daughters of Khazaria, the medieval Jewish state north of the Caucasus; think of Celtic + Roman + Moorish + Jewish Spain; think of the Ottoman Empire, the Russian and now the American. All mixed and mixing, and as a result, better or worse off?
Therein lies the rub. In many places in our present world and also in many times and places in the past, we can certainly find evidence of social conflict related to or even centered on ethnic divisions. Score one for the racist call for ethnic purity, it would seem. But it must also be noted that it is not self-evident that ethnic variety was the original cause of such conflicts; it might rather be argued that ethnic variety provided convenient scapegoats and political targets for those looking for a way to sow fear, division and hatred in their societies, as opposed to those many who did find it quite possible to interact peaceably and happily with their new, slightly or greatly different neighbors. People of different ethnic looks and origins may at times separate into warring groups, but this is no automatic thing; they may just as well come together and enjoy one another's company and see great advantages in joining forces. Or they may war at first and then mix together later.
Put a bunch of three year olds of different ethnic or cultural origins into the same room, and they are not likely to form into opposing military units and start making speeches about ethnic purity and the joys of dying for the fatherland ("Better than ice cream!" cried one hopeful young ethno-patriot, waving his diaper-banner proudly). However, put a group of fifteen or fifty year olds into a room, and they may well divide along racial and ethnic lines and regard each other with suspicion. Somewhere along the way, happy-go-lucky kids become suspicious and even hostile adults. How do you get that way? It seems to me that they are taught to be so by the previous generation: much more nurture than nature.
What I now wish I had had the presence of mind to answer my student with is something along the lines of, "Ethnic diversity is the reality of the human condition. The great tragedy of our world is that this diversity often becomes the convenient target of political opportunists and a mythological monster for those fearful of cultural and physical difference, often due to lack of experience with any such difference. The great hope of the human future is learning to enjoy and share our differences."
Too pollyanna-ish? Maybe so, but for my part, I truly believe there can be no doubt that the future belongs to diversity. I can see this among my students. For every one of my young scholars who might spout the occasional semi-racist sentiment, and then feel the need to apologize for it, I see many others socializing with members of other ethnic and racial groups and forming friendships and love relationships, with much more ease and much less self-consciousness than among those of my generation two or three decades ago when we were of comparable age and interracial dating was still somewhat taboo. I saw the same on the streets of Stockholm and Oslo when I visited those supposed hotbeds of total homogeneity in recent years: lots of mixed couples, with dusky-skinned, mixed-ethnic babies in baby carriages, and lots of Turkish kebab sandwiches the fast food of choice.
This brings me to my film review. What I watched that I found so moving and delightful was "Nobody Knows About Persian Cats" (2010) from the brilliant Iranian director Bahman Ghobadi. The film seemed boring at first, following two twenty-something rock-pop musicians, a man and a woman, driving around Tehran as they attempt to assemble a band and obtain illegal visas and passports to get out of Iran to perform their music in London and possibly elsewhere in Europe. As the story progressed I became hooked by the plight of these young Iranians, possessed of the same urges and instincts as young people in the USA or anywhere else, being stifled by a socially repressive regime for the horrible crime of wanting to sing and play modern pop music. There are increasingly troubling run-ins with the Iranian police, who do not seem to be big music fans, to say the least, and the story does not have a very happy ending. Lots of interesting music along the way,though, which tugs at the heart strings for the glimpses it gives into the longings and sorrows of Iranian youth today.
I was struck by the different picture of Iran and Iranians that one gets from a film like this compared to the one that we get from fear-mongers like Dick Cheney and his minions in the American news media who have been programming Americans to believe that Iran is Enemy #1 almost nonstop for the last four or five years, giving the impression that the only thing worth knowing about Iran is that it is a nation of Islamic fanatics who might be developing nuclear weapons that might be a threat someday, somehow to the USA, and that we might have to go to war against them to crush their maybe conditional someday threat. After seeing this film, I am sickened to think that this is the image Americans have in their minds about Iran. We may have disagreements with the government, but we should think more of the people. The others of Iran may be much more like us than we have been led to believe. It felt good to open my heart to feel a simple but profound human bond with people of Iran.
Though the politics of our times can be so very discouraging, I am willing to bet on human diversity and our capacity to develop empathy with the others of the world to guide us to a better place. The fear-mongers and war-mongers will always be with us, but we can change the station and listen to other tunes if we want to.
The film is very strongly recommended!
In a class discussion about the growing numbers of Americans being locked away year by year in our ever-expanding prison system, a student opined that it was easier for other countries to cope with crime and social problems of the sort that result in mass incarceration in the USA because they did not have the ethnic diversity that was, in his view, a great problem in the USA. I was taken aback because this student, a young white fellow transplanted from Brooklyn to the Lower Upstate area, was one who I had previously judged as one of the most intelligent,animated and inquisitive of the new semester's group. Now I feared that he might also be one of the most racist. He helpfully clarified, "I am not a racist," (Whew! great relief! glad that has been taken care of!) "but I just think it's natural that every group prefers to be with its own kind." I was really knocked off-balance by these sentiments, because I might have expected them from others in the class, Lower Upstate having its share of small-town conservative white folks who have been known to support groups like the KKK, but now this fellow, my would-be (in my imagination) Golden Child!I fumbled for a response and then the discussion moved on.
One reason I had some trouble coming up with a snappy and illuminating reply is that I am aware that some very peaceful, progressive, semi-socialist places like the countries of Scandinavia are indeed fairly (though not completely, and less so as time goes on) homogeneous places, ethnically speaking, and it may well be that the absence of ethnic division does make it easier for people to arrive at and maintain a sense of common welfare and human community. However, ethnic homogeneity is much more the exception than the rule in human history, and tends to be a temporary state that inevitably gives way to mixing, moving and intermarrying of people from different ethnic, cultural and religious origins. Think of ancient Rome's barbarian and African emperors; Byzantine rulers marrying daughters of Khazaria, the medieval Jewish state north of the Caucasus; think of Celtic + Roman + Moorish + Jewish Spain; think of the Ottoman Empire, the Russian and now the American. All mixed and mixing, and as a result, better or worse off?
Therein lies the rub. In many places in our present world and also in many times and places in the past, we can certainly find evidence of social conflict related to or even centered on ethnic divisions. Score one for the racist call for ethnic purity, it would seem. But it must also be noted that it is not self-evident that ethnic variety was the original cause of such conflicts; it might rather be argued that ethnic variety provided convenient scapegoats and political targets for those looking for a way to sow fear, division and hatred in their societies, as opposed to those many who did find it quite possible to interact peaceably and happily with their new, slightly or greatly different neighbors. People of different ethnic looks and origins may at times separate into warring groups, but this is no automatic thing; they may just as well come together and enjoy one another's company and see great advantages in joining forces. Or they may war at first and then mix together later.
Put a bunch of three year olds of different ethnic or cultural origins into the same room, and they are not likely to form into opposing military units and start making speeches about ethnic purity and the joys of dying for the fatherland ("Better than ice cream!" cried one hopeful young ethno-patriot, waving his diaper-banner proudly). However, put a group of fifteen or fifty year olds into a room, and they may well divide along racial and ethnic lines and regard each other with suspicion. Somewhere along the way, happy-go-lucky kids become suspicious and even hostile adults. How do you get that way? It seems to me that they are taught to be so by the previous generation: much more nurture than nature.
What I now wish I had had the presence of mind to answer my student with is something along the lines of, "Ethnic diversity is the reality of the human condition. The great tragedy of our world is that this diversity often becomes the convenient target of political opportunists and a mythological monster for those fearful of cultural and physical difference, often due to lack of experience with any such difference. The great hope of the human future is learning to enjoy and share our differences."
Too pollyanna-ish? Maybe so, but for my part, I truly believe there can be no doubt that the future belongs to diversity. I can see this among my students. For every one of my young scholars who might spout the occasional semi-racist sentiment, and then feel the need to apologize for it, I see many others socializing with members of other ethnic and racial groups and forming friendships and love relationships, with much more ease and much less self-consciousness than among those of my generation two or three decades ago when we were of comparable age and interracial dating was still somewhat taboo. I saw the same on the streets of Stockholm and Oslo when I visited those supposed hotbeds of total homogeneity in recent years: lots of mixed couples, with dusky-skinned, mixed-ethnic babies in baby carriages, and lots of Turkish kebab sandwiches the fast food of choice.
This brings me to my film review. What I watched that I found so moving and delightful was "Nobody Knows About Persian Cats" (2010) from the brilliant Iranian director Bahman Ghobadi. The film seemed boring at first, following two twenty-something rock-pop musicians, a man and a woman, driving around Tehran as they attempt to assemble a band and obtain illegal visas and passports to get out of Iran to perform their music in London and possibly elsewhere in Europe. As the story progressed I became hooked by the plight of these young Iranians, possessed of the same urges and instincts as young people in the USA or anywhere else, being stifled by a socially repressive regime for the horrible crime of wanting to sing and play modern pop music. There are increasingly troubling run-ins with the Iranian police, who do not seem to be big music fans, to say the least, and the story does not have a very happy ending. Lots of interesting music along the way,though, which tugs at the heart strings for the glimpses it gives into the longings and sorrows of Iranian youth today.
I was struck by the different picture of Iran and Iranians that one gets from a film like this compared to the one that we get from fear-mongers like Dick Cheney and his minions in the American news media who have been programming Americans to believe that Iran is Enemy #1 almost nonstop for the last four or five years, giving the impression that the only thing worth knowing about Iran is that it is a nation of Islamic fanatics who might be developing nuclear weapons that might be a threat someday, somehow to the USA, and that we might have to go to war against them to crush their maybe conditional someday threat. After seeing this film, I am sickened to think that this is the image Americans have in their minds about Iran. We may have disagreements with the government, but we should think more of the people. The others of Iran may be much more like us than we have been led to believe. It felt good to open my heart to feel a simple but profound human bond with people of Iran.
Though the politics of our times can be so very discouraging, I am willing to bet on human diversity and our capacity to develop empathy with the others of the world to guide us to a better place. The fear-mongers and war-mongers will always be with us, but we can change the station and listen to other tunes if we want to.
The film is very strongly recommended!
Friday, August 21, 2009
War and Peace in Paganism
As a dedicated peacenik and staunch foe of militarism, which I consider one of the greatest curses of modern life, but also a Pagan, I have often pondered how the ancient European Pagan traditions had gods of both war and of peace. Obviously, then as well as now, war was sometimes an unavoidable necessity, and then as now, it had an economic dimension as well, in that "to the victors go the spoils," to which we might add modern-day reflections on the military industrial complex and how much profit and employment is wrapped up in the war biz. The greater the number of people who depend on the military-industrial complex for their employment, education, housing, health insurance etc., the harder it becomes to cut back any aspect of the military, as it has become an ever-expanding social welfare program for soldiers and their families as well as all the people who work in military-related industries.
In the Pagan religious traditions I am closest to, the Norse-Germanic Asatru/Heathen tradition and the Baltic-Lithuanian Romuva movement, I have seen that what often seems to attract a certain number of men to these religious movements dealing with the Pagan past is the opportunity to play and pose with swords and other medieval weapons and imagine themselves great warriors of the distant past. A lot of this is just testosterone bluster in honor of the Gods of War, but I worry about how this kind of thing may drown out an appreciation of the Gods of Peace.
I cannot help but relate this to modern American culture, with its endless images of war and violence that are drilled into our heads 24 hours a day. I do understand that boys will be boys, and that they often do love to play with war toys. I had my toy soldiers as a boy too, and enjoyed my share of make-believe combat. But I do worry at how this ties in with our modern, post-9/11 military occupations in Iraq and Afghanistan, because it seems to me that in this last decade, war and the military have gained a sort of sacrosanct status, as something sacred that cannot be questioned but must only and always be obeyed. We are all pressured to "support the troops" rather than to THINK about what these wars are based upon and what they are actually achieving or not achieving.
I find the Gods of War a pretty scary lot. Even Odin, one of my favorite Pagan deities, is described as sometimes being untrustworthy in his aspect as a war god, giving victory to the undeserving and sacrificing his own followers on the battlefield for his own mysterious purposes, including drafting them into the elite force that will battle frost giants and fire demons in the final battle of Ragnarok, which, according to the Eddic poem "Voluspa," will plunge the whole world into fiery chaos, prior to an eventual regeneration of the cosmos after its total destruction. I think that for many in the Heathen or Asatru community, the mythology of Odin, Valhalla and Ragnarok is seen as a straightforward glorification of war and warriors. I see darker, more ambiguous meanings here. Odin's shiftiness on the field of battle seems a perfect metaphor for the horrible uncertainty of war; the destruction on both sides, never knowing who will live or die, and in the aftermath, the grieving for the dead and the wounds both psychological and physical, the broken limbs and shattered minds that even the victors will carry home from the battle, and the possibility of renewed war in the near or distant future as the losing side nurses grievances and dreams of vengeance. Not exactly a good time for all. Not the great fun of "The World of Warfare" video game.
And, Ragnarok is a failure, an absolute disaster for the gods. All the combined efforts of Odin and the other great gods like Thor and Freyr to protect the worlds of gods and of men are all in vain. Odin is swallowed by the great wolf Fenrir; Thor is slain by the Midgard Serpent. The other gods go down in defeat as well, and the fire-demon Surt runs wild, in what seems a medieval version of a nuclear holocaust. There are obviously different ways to interpret this, and my thoughts here are strictly my own. I read this as actually suggesting a weariness with war, a sense that war only leads to greater and greater destruction. Others may view this as prophesizing that some kind of all-destroying conflict (Israel versus Iran in the Middle East? India vs Pakistan? Yankees versus Red Sox? soccer versus football?) is inevitable, and that we should all sharpen our axes, shine our shields and prepare to go down fighting.
However, the peacenik in me finds other threads to follow in the Norse myths. When Odin gains mastery of the magical runes in the poem Havamal, one of the abilities he acquires is the ability to make peace. So he is not a 24/7, bloodthirsty war god who only knows how to rhyme "war" with "more." He knows the value of peace, when possible. There is also the tale of the battle between two families or tribes of divine beings, the Aesir (including Odin and Thor) and the Vanir (fertility gods all, sea-god Njord, brother and sister fertility deities Freyr and Freyja). It was the "first war in the world," and neither side could win. So they arranged a truce, exchanged prisoners, and Freyr and Freyja came to dwell among the Aesir. This truce, unlike the apocalyptic battle of Ragnarok, was a success. Peace worked, at least in this case.
Elsewhere in the mythology, a minor episode that I also find significant is that Freyr, in the course of wooing a maiden of interest, gives away his sword, and when the battle of Ragarok comes, he is without a proper weapon, and has to make do with the horn of a stag; we might jokingly say, Freyr has to "go stag" at the worst possible moment. He gave up his weapon for love. Now, this didn't end so well for Freyr, so it is not necessarily an argument that this was the best move to have made, but I find it expressive of Freyr's primary nature as a fertility god, who was often worshipped in the form of a giant phallus. He seems to have been a "make love not war" kind of god.
Therefore, I think that a cogent case can be made that the Norse tradition is not wholeheartedly pro-war or pro-military. There are also anti-military, pro-peace dimensions that deserve contemplation. Stepping back to our modern society, I think that pro-peace voices need to be bolder and louder. For too long now, the worship of the war god has dominated our political discourse. To be anti-war is seen as wimpy, traitorous, un-American. On the conservative side of politics, there is the strange, ironic coincidence of "pro-life" and pro-war points of view. I think that being truly pro-life should extend to opposing war, or at least being very cautious and reserved about the hellish mass murder that war is, and not celebrating it as if it were a big happy football game for the whole family to watch and cheer. In the Pagan world, I would personally like to join forces with other Pagans who feel that their spirituality calls them to promote peace and denounce war. I will stand with you. There was once a "Pagans for Peace" organization in the late 1990s, but I don't think it survived the Bush years. Perhaps it is time to try again?
In the Pagan religious traditions I am closest to, the Norse-Germanic Asatru/Heathen tradition and the Baltic-Lithuanian Romuva movement, I have seen that what often seems to attract a certain number of men to these religious movements dealing with the Pagan past is the opportunity to play and pose with swords and other medieval weapons and imagine themselves great warriors of the distant past. A lot of this is just testosterone bluster in honor of the Gods of War, but I worry about how this kind of thing may drown out an appreciation of the Gods of Peace.
I cannot help but relate this to modern American culture, with its endless images of war and violence that are drilled into our heads 24 hours a day. I do understand that boys will be boys, and that they often do love to play with war toys. I had my toy soldiers as a boy too, and enjoyed my share of make-believe combat. But I do worry at how this ties in with our modern, post-9/11 military occupations in Iraq and Afghanistan, because it seems to me that in this last decade, war and the military have gained a sort of sacrosanct status, as something sacred that cannot be questioned but must only and always be obeyed. We are all pressured to "support the troops" rather than to THINK about what these wars are based upon and what they are actually achieving or not achieving.
I find the Gods of War a pretty scary lot. Even Odin, one of my favorite Pagan deities, is described as sometimes being untrustworthy in his aspect as a war god, giving victory to the undeserving and sacrificing his own followers on the battlefield for his own mysterious purposes, including drafting them into the elite force that will battle frost giants and fire demons in the final battle of Ragnarok, which, according to the Eddic poem "Voluspa," will plunge the whole world into fiery chaos, prior to an eventual regeneration of the cosmos after its total destruction. I think that for many in the Heathen or Asatru community, the mythology of Odin, Valhalla and Ragnarok is seen as a straightforward glorification of war and warriors. I see darker, more ambiguous meanings here. Odin's shiftiness on the field of battle seems a perfect metaphor for the horrible uncertainty of war; the destruction on both sides, never knowing who will live or die, and in the aftermath, the grieving for the dead and the wounds both psychological and physical, the broken limbs and shattered minds that even the victors will carry home from the battle, and the possibility of renewed war in the near or distant future as the losing side nurses grievances and dreams of vengeance. Not exactly a good time for all. Not the great fun of "The World of Warfare" video game.
And, Ragnarok is a failure, an absolute disaster for the gods. All the combined efforts of Odin and the other great gods like Thor and Freyr to protect the worlds of gods and of men are all in vain. Odin is swallowed by the great wolf Fenrir; Thor is slain by the Midgard Serpent. The other gods go down in defeat as well, and the fire-demon Surt runs wild, in what seems a medieval version of a nuclear holocaust. There are obviously different ways to interpret this, and my thoughts here are strictly my own. I read this as actually suggesting a weariness with war, a sense that war only leads to greater and greater destruction. Others may view this as prophesizing that some kind of all-destroying conflict (Israel versus Iran in the Middle East? India vs Pakistan? Yankees versus Red Sox? soccer versus football?) is inevitable, and that we should all sharpen our axes, shine our shields and prepare to go down fighting.
However, the peacenik in me finds other threads to follow in the Norse myths. When Odin gains mastery of the magical runes in the poem Havamal, one of the abilities he acquires is the ability to make peace. So he is not a 24/7, bloodthirsty war god who only knows how to rhyme "war" with "more." He knows the value of peace, when possible. There is also the tale of the battle between two families or tribes of divine beings, the Aesir (including Odin and Thor) and the Vanir (fertility gods all, sea-god Njord, brother and sister fertility deities Freyr and Freyja). It was the "first war in the world," and neither side could win. So they arranged a truce, exchanged prisoners, and Freyr and Freyja came to dwell among the Aesir. This truce, unlike the apocalyptic battle of Ragnarok, was a success. Peace worked, at least in this case.
Elsewhere in the mythology, a minor episode that I also find significant is that Freyr, in the course of wooing a maiden of interest, gives away his sword, and when the battle of Ragarok comes, he is without a proper weapon, and has to make do with the horn of a stag; we might jokingly say, Freyr has to "go stag" at the worst possible moment. He gave up his weapon for love. Now, this didn't end so well for Freyr, so it is not necessarily an argument that this was the best move to have made, but I find it expressive of Freyr's primary nature as a fertility god, who was often worshipped in the form of a giant phallus. He seems to have been a "make love not war" kind of god.
Therefore, I think that a cogent case can be made that the Norse tradition is not wholeheartedly pro-war or pro-military. There are also anti-military, pro-peace dimensions that deserve contemplation. Stepping back to our modern society, I think that pro-peace voices need to be bolder and louder. For too long now, the worship of the war god has dominated our political discourse. To be anti-war is seen as wimpy, traitorous, un-American. On the conservative side of politics, there is the strange, ironic coincidence of "pro-life" and pro-war points of view. I think that being truly pro-life should extend to opposing war, or at least being very cautious and reserved about the hellish mass murder that war is, and not celebrating it as if it were a big happy football game for the whole family to watch and cheer. In the Pagan world, I would personally like to join forces with other Pagans who feel that their spirituality calls them to promote peace and denounce war. I will stand with you. There was once a "Pagans for Peace" organization in the late 1990s, but I don't think it survived the Bush years. Perhaps it is time to try again?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
