Four cynical and somewhat uncharitable thoughts

[sabotabby]

1.
I suppose the big news today is not however many Iraqis died as a result of the American-led attack on their country, but that Cindy Sheehan has "resigned" from the "anti-war movement." No apologies for the scare quotes—I am unconvinced of the existence of such a movement, and I'm not sure how one would resign from a movement anyway, beyond becoming pro-war.

2.
Her criticisms of the Democrats are fair enough, and I can only hope that some of the more idealistic types among us take them to heart. The other day at a demo, someone standing next to me mentioned that more people voted in American Idol than in the American elections. My fellow demonstrator seemed to feel that this was a bad thing. I suspect that's because American Idol is a process that significant amounts of Americans still feel that they have some power within, some say about.

I was in Seattle during the midterm elections, and at the time I remember being struck by the pure joy among remarkably intelligent people who suddenly realized that if they didn't like their leaders, they could vote for new ones—as though, up until that point, they had forgotten and simply taken a Republican government as an unfortunate inevitability. Sheehan's "resignation" (can't we just call it "activist burn-out"?) illustrates another one of those things that should be obvious. Electoral politics and symbolic protest don't really count for all that much. Some of us learned this after our first few years of rallies—it doesn't matter what your placard says or how loudly you shout or even how many Starbucks windows you smash if you're not doing anything between weekend gatherings at the American consulate.

3.
I've long been uncomfortable with the way the North American anti-war movement privileges the experiences of white Americans over the piles of dead Iraqi bodies. And regardless of how much sympathy I feel for her on a personal level, Sheehan has always typified that sort of thinking. Not that it's her fault, or that she hasn't suffered, but this ought to be a wake-up call to anyone who thought that we could end corporate America's adventure wars in the Middle East by painting peace symbols on our faces and camping out in the grass while listening to hand-picked celebrity spokespeople.

My issue is not with her story being highlighted (or Rachel Corrie's, for that matter), out of some sort of indie-kid "I was protesting before you thought it was cool" attitude, but rather of the tendency of the left to proclaim how it's more patriotic, more white-bread American than those Republican traitors, even given the long history of such wars under various other governments. Sheehan was used to further this agenda, this othering of the majority of victims. Bush was a killer not because his war murdered 700,000 Iraqis, but because his war murdered Casey. It's so much more comfortable to think that it's only the leadership that needs to be adjusted, not the underlying political and economic structures, not the thrust of 500 years of barbaric history.

4.
The "face of the anti-war movement" will, for me, always be a photo, published in the British press but not the North American papers, of an Iraqi soldier who'd been burned to death. I was about twelve when I saw it, at a time when, by watching North American television and reading North American newspapers, it was entirely possible to conclude that the only deaths on either side in the first Gulf War had been by friendly fire. Back then, those were the only deaths that got reported. Seeing that photo, in all its ghastly glory, brought the war home for me. This is the reality of Western imperialism, ugly and brutal and vicious, and most of its victims cannot simply choose to retire.

Comments

[cpxbrex.livejournal.com]

You're not too cynical. I also doubt the existence of the anti-war movement. Like you said, you've got to do something more than just protest.

So, in our last big presidential election, all the big so-called anti-war groups supported Kerry, whose plan to get out of Iraq is suspiciously similiar to Bush's "surge". End the war? No, he wanted to expand it. Yet, they supported him, anyway, and did so over supporting people like Dennis Kucinich who has always been anti-war. The "anti-war" movement in America is so debased that the obviousness of supporting an anti-war candidate never seriously occurred to them.

I'm not saying that they'd be a legitimate movement if they hadn't supported Kerry, I'm just saying that they're not even doing such trivial things as supporting actual anti-war candidates. They simply do nothing to bring their strength to bear, in any meaningful way, on the people who promote this war, functioning as an arm of the Democratic Party to try to keep as many anti-war Americans voting for pro-war Democrats as long as possible. Needless to say, I have deep disgust for this cynical tactic.

And you're right about American Idol. The difference between American politics and American Idol? Your vote is counted and counts!

I am also with you about the whole privilege of white suffering. It's like the 700,000 or 1,000,000 Iraqis killed during this abomination don't count, but a blond guy dies! Whoa! Stop the fucking presses! It's sick.

[sabotabby]

From what I can tell, the dynamic goes something like this:

Republicans: WE ARE TOUGH ON TERROR! ALL YOUR CIVIL LIBERTIES ARE BELONG TO US. DEMOCRATS ARE SOFT ON TERROR AND TREASONOUS.

Democrats: Um...no, we're not. We're—even more patriotic than you guys! We are even tougher on terror! We will pound those terrorists harder and faster!

Internally, the Democrats want to promote candidates who look the most like Republicans, because for some reason they think this sill make Republicans vote for them. Anti-war candidates, they reason, don't stand a chance because they'll look too radical, or too soft.

[stoneself.livejournal.com]

huh... iraqis? who are they?

isn't this war all about america?

[sabotabby]

It's a civil war.

Between the Red and Blue states.

[sadie-sabot.livejournal.com]

re: #3: tell it, sister.

linking to your post on my post about the same thing.

[sabotabby]

*high fives*

[dubaiwalla.livejournal.com]

To be a pedant, with regard to #2, are you sure more people voted than in presidential elections? Getting more votes does not necessarily amount to quite the same thing. Not that this significantly detracts from your larger point on problems with a societal-level sense of alienation.

As for #3, while I'm all for people caring about Iraqi lives, in the short term, anyone taking a public stance against the war has a tactical choice to make. They can try make the claim that the war is unpatriotic, continue to (primarily or even exclusively) stress the importance of American lives, and thus stand a chance of achieving a withdrawal, or talk about Iraqi lives and end up being marginalized by war supporters who call them unpatriotic and stress American interests. Much as I dislike the former course of action, it seems to be to be the lesser evil.

[sabotabby]

To be a pedant, with regard to #2, are you sure more people voted than in presidential elections? Getting more votes does not necessarily amount to quite the same thing. Not that this significantly detracts from your larger point on problems with a societal-level sense of alienation.

I'm not positive, and I was wondering that as I was searching for links. I admittedly know very little about American Idol.

Much as I dislike the former course of action, it seems to be to be the lesser evil.

I understand why it's a tactic, but there's a long-term problem with that. Ultimately, these sorts of wars are in American interests—at least in the interests of the American ruling class, which are the only interests that are regularly advanced and taken as universal—even if 3,000 or so working class kids get killed. The war is quite patriotic in that sense, insofar as patriotism is indistinguishable from national chauvinism.

[hopita.livejournal.com]

To be a pedant, with regard to #2, are you sure more people voted than in presidential elections? Getting more votes does not necessarily amount to quite the same thing. Not that this significantly detracts from your larger point on problems with a societal-level sense of alienation.

I was going to say something similar, so instead I'll respond to your post. The basic gist: remember, people can vote more than once for American Idol contestants. In American politics, we can only do that in Chicago.

[apperception.livejournal.com]

Bush was a killer not because his war murdered 100,000 Iraqis, but because his war murdered Casey. It's so much more comfortable to think that it's only the leadership that needs to be adjusted, not the underlying political and economic structures, not the thrust of 500 years of barbaric history.

There's some phrase in philosophy -- I think it's "misplaced concreteness", but I'm not sure. It's when you take something that is really abstract but you make it look really concrete and so more real than other things. I think the phrase is often applied to Plato's "ideas", since he took things like "tallness" to be the most concrete, most real things, and actual tall things to be mere images of them.

Anyway, the example you mention here I think is misplaced concreteness. It seems sort of natural to take one person who died in the war and to think, "Wow, this really brings it home! Look how sad this particular mother is over the death of his son!" It seems concrete, because it's an individual person. What could be more concrete than that? But actually the opposite is the case, and I think you hit the nail on the head with this by saying that what's really at issue here is the history of this country. If you look at it as an isolated incident, if you make it about particular people who die in particular situations, you lose what is going on. You're so focused on one person or one outcome, that you miss the context which explains why this is happening in the first place and what the experience even means. One person's death is senseless. Of course it's senseless. When the fuck does death ever make sense when looked at that way? But if all we can say about the war is that it's just senseless, then I think that obscures what's really going on. The war is not irrational. It's not the choice of a few irrational people. It's highly rational when viewed in the context of history -- the history of the United States, world history since 1991, the reorganization of capital since 9/11/01. Fetishizing individuals, diving wholeheartedly into particularism, and turning history into a special interest story all cause us to lose sight of the deliberate and even insideous structure of what is really taking place, and so it robs us of our ability to act.

And none of this is really a criticism of Sheehan but maybe just of how the media picks these things up and repackages them for us.

[sabotabby]

Yeah—I feel like I need to keep stressing that I don't blame Sheehan for any of this. She's one of the war's many victims, as is her son. And she has done everything that she could think of to fight back, which is something I utterly respect.

But that's no excuse for the rest of us to lose sight of the bigger picture.

I like the phrase "misplaced concreteness."

[mistersmearcase.livejournal.com]

I think maybe you've clarified for me why being anti-war in the U.S. feels so futile. I actually went to the big march on Washington, because it's somehow affirming to be around a bunch of other people who just aren't into the whole project. But I found myself wondering if anyone was really convinced that marches do anything. We all know the drill at this point: you go, you walk around, maybe you yell at some protestors of the protest or engage in a few awful three word chants, you wonder what the Parks Service will report the number as, and then you remember that whether it's 10,000 or 10,000,000 nobody will care except for the people who were there.

I remain kind of unconvinced about the merit of the argument she's using that I understand to say "the large party [in the U.S.] that contains some anti-war sentiment in our currently unambiguously two party system is not at present sufficiently anti-war, so screw them." At least that's what my bleary-eyed morning read through her letters got me, that her reason for "resigning" is either that or a personal sense of pique at her treatment, which is probably 1) justified and 2) something anyone could have foreseen, and makes her look a little like a celebrity complaining about paparazzi.

[sabotabby]

I think it's not so much "not sufficiently anti-war" but "actually pro-war, in its passive-aggressive flip-floppy way."

I'm a bit concerned that she's going to get all third party now.

[zingerella.livejournal.com]

I was trying to express something very like this to the Gentleman this weekend.

In Brattleboro, on the fence over the Kyle Gilbert Memorial Bridge, the good townspeople have tied row upon row of small, hand painted stars and stripes banners—one for each American military serviceperson who has died in "service to their country." The wall of little flag stretches along the sidewalk above the river, and if you were really short and wanted to see the river, you'd have to stand on something to see over them.

There are no flags for dead Iraqis on the bridge. No explanation, either, of what precise service the people represented by these little flags (which look like they were painted by small hands as a school project of some sort) gave their lives to perform.

The whole thing made me feel a little ill.

(Not that my feeling ill and then running off to dance accomplishes anything.)

[sabotabby]

It's interesting that such a statement can be taken in so many ways. I'd be tempted to respond with a display of little Iraqi flags—though it would take much longer, and be much harder to enumerate—and see what sort of reaction that garnered.

[wlach.livejournal.com]

In fairness, Cindy Sheehan does talk about the toll the war has taken on the population of Iraq in her letter:


If Iraq hasn’t unraveled in Ms. Pelosi’s mind, what will it take? With almost 700,000 Iraqis dead and four million refugees (which the US refuses to admit) how could it get worse? Well, it is getting worse and it can get much worse thanks to your complicity.


I'm completely with you on the crassness of American discourse, but I think this at least merits a mention. One of the biggest problem among both the left and the right is a reluctance to actually examine primary sources...

[sabotabby]

She does, and she has. It's not Sheehan that's the problem—it's a problem with how the media frames the discussion and privileges some voices over others, and a problem with the left for reproducing that same hierarchy within its own movements.

[terry-terrible.livejournal.com]

Sheehan handed her resignation into the Anti-War Movement board of directors, a new CEO will have to be approved by the majority shareholders at A.N.S.W.E.R. and Not In Our Name. Bob Avakian is top the candidate for the CEO position.


/poor attempt at snark.

I agree with all of the above. One thing I aslo disliked about Sheehan is that the issue more and more became about her as a personality. No doubt the ad homenin attacks by right-wingers attributted to this but it seems that the issues she brought up got lost in the noise. This seems inevitible in today's media driven culture but how can an movement avoid this? Especially when "led" by charsamatic people for figureheads or spokespeople? Personally, I'd think it better to speak with one voice without a spokesperson to muddy the waters.

[sabotabby]

Come on. Any snark that involves Avakian is good snark.

I think spokespeople are useful. Media stars are even useful, to a point. If journalists have to get soundbytes at an anti-WTO demo, for example, better they should interview Jaggi Singh than an inarticulate summit-hopper with no analysis. But we need to make sure that we choose our own spokespeople as much as we can, and be critical and watchful that these spokespeople don't become overwhelmed by their own egos (not that this is a criticism I'd make of Sheehan in particular). They should represent the movements rather than individual interests, and we should make sure that there are up-and-coming new voices to avoid burnout and attention-whoredom.

[sadie-sabot.livejournal.com]

the place I look to for hope in he anti-war movement is GI resistance. It's not huge, but it's building. and it may well be the eventual source of a viable anti-war movement.

Cause godDAMNit, A.N.S.W.E.R. is never going to make a movement happen.

But the soldiers who refuse to fight, they're pretty damn inspirational. And we're only a few years ito this war, too.

(sigh. but it's fucking hard to drum up any optimism to be honest)

[sabotabby]

I'm optimistic that the war itself isn't all that viable.

The GI resistance movement on our end is another whole can of worms, and it's got many of the same problems—a disproportionate focus on white soldiers, essentially. And they've got to stay relatively invisible, because we've got @#$% Harper and not @#$% Trudeau, so it's hard for them to influence others to defect. But it is promising.

[peterbilt-47.livejournal.com]

I am posting only to let my new icon stretch its legs. The whole thing pisses me off royally.

[sabotabby]

That is a great icon. I want Inigo Montoya to be a spokesperson against the war. You just know he would find the whole thing dishonorable and seek revenge on the bloody bastards who started it.

[emak-bakia.livejournal.com]

Right on to all of that! And I remember that photo and seeing some similar ones from WWII that aren't quite as famous as the Iwo Jime flag-raising when I was a kid. Those pictures stayed with me.

[sabotabby]

I didn't see anything similar from WWII growing up, except for pictures from the Holocaust, but I read Sadako and the Thousand Paper Cranes at, like, age six or something, and Johnny Got His Gun and Slaughterhouse Five at a relatively early age. Which pretty much instilled me with a visceral idea of what war was all about.

[smhwpf.livejournal.com]

I think a lot of it's about how you use it. I mean, I think campaign's like Sheehan's (and similar ones like Reg Keys and Rose Gentle over here, although they've been lower profile) will draw people in who wouldn't otherwise be. Sadly, a lot of people will only take notice when it's their own country's dead. Thing is once you've got people's attention to then make sure you draw it to what's happening in Iraq. People often only get woken up one stage at a time.

Of course, the media are always going to make the story more about that one individual, and more about US/British soldiers than you want it to be (and most likely than Sheehan/Keys/Gentle etc. want it to be), and you're always going to be fighting an uphill battle against that, and choking down your bile over the way you're playing into the fact that western lives are valued more than others'. But I think on balance the good of such campaigns probably far outweighs the harm.

As for the STW movement generally (in Britain) I do sometimes despair. They really do seem to be singularly lacking in either imagination or strategy.

[sabotabby]

I think it's the responsibility of the movement to push past that, though. If you look at the anti-war movement during Vietnam, you see Americans first caring about their own dead, and then sympathizing with the Vietnamese. (Oddly recorded within the Good Sixties/Bad Sixties paradigm: the Good were chanting "Make love not war," and the Bad were chanting "Ho, Ho, Ho Chi Minh, the Viet Cong are gonna win.")

I don't see the anti-war movement in the U.S., at least, making that leap. Which is one of its many failings.

[esizzle.livejournal.com]

Sometimes I wonder if the anti-war movement is just a nice fairy tale we were told as we were growing up. Something that's kind of like the International Community that helps poor oppressed populations in their time of need.

[sabotabby]

But...the one about the International Community is my favourite bedtime story. *pouts*

I think there was an anti-war movement at some point. I hate-on the hippies a lot, but they were sort of the visible face. Another failing of the contemporary anti-war movement is they haven't looked beyond the official history and have copied a lot of the surface tactics and aesthetics—mass marches, peace symbols—without realizing what made those tactics work.

[99catsaway.livejournal.com]

Good points. I can't decide how I feel about the way the American media uses American body counts to tally the destruction of the war. It's disturbing how self-centered the American public is and how the number of dead Americans seems exponentially more important than the number of dead Iraqis. And it seems almost treasonous to point out that the two types of casualties should be equally tragic. It just indicates how much effect that arbitrary national boundaries have- to the point where Americans forget that the whole human race is in this together.

Weird. :/

[sabotabby]

Part of my disconnect with a great many Americans (and no shortage of Canadians) is that I honestly don't believe that the life of someone born within one set of imaginary lines is inherently more valuable than the life of someone born within another set. So the whole argument of "better to fight them there than here," for example, is utterly lost on me. For starters.

[culpster.livejournal.com]

Re Sheehan: at least she didn't eat Dem shit for an entire campaign before disappearing, unlike some other celebrity leftists I could name ;)

I hope she doesn't go all third party too, but it beats becoming an alcoholic which sometimes seems like the other option (I'm on the fence)

Re spokespeople - and related! - take it away, Ray!

"There is an important distinction to be drawn here between source and agent. A man offering an opinion, a proposal, a feeling, of course normally desires that other persons will accept this, and act or feel in the
ways that he defines. Yet such a man may be properly described as a source, in distinction from an agent, whose characteristic is that his expression is
subordinated to an undeclared intention. He is an agent, and not a source, because the intention lies elsewhere. In social terms, the agent will normally in fact be a subordinate - of a government, a commercial
firm, a newspaper proprietor. Agency, in the simple sense, is necessary in any complex administration. But it is always dangerous unless its function and intention are not only openly declared but commonly approved and controlled. If this is so, the agent becomes a collective source, and he will observe the standards of such expression if what he is required to
transmit is such that he can wholly acknowledge and accept it - re-create it in his own person. Where he cannot thus accept it for himself, but allows himself to be persuaded that it is in a fit form for others - presumably inferiors - and that it is his business merely to see that it reaches them effectively, then he is in the bad sense an agent, and what he is doing
is inferior to that done by the poorest kind of source. Any practical denial of the relation between conviction and communication, between experience and
expression, is morally damaging alike to the individual and to the common language."

– Raymond Williams, Culture and Society

[sabotabby]

It's a good distinction to make.

Could the other celebrity leftist have a name that starts with "M" and ends with "oore"?