|
New:
CounterPunch's
Top 100 Nonfiction Books in Translation
Five Days That
Shook The World:
Seattle and Beyond
By
Alexander Cockburn
and Jeffrey St. Clair
Photos by Allan Sekula
(Click Here to Order from CounterPunch
Online at 20% Off Amazon.com's price!)
INSIDE
EXCLUSIVE
TO
COUNTERPUNCH
SUBSCRIBERS
Published on JULY 12
RAND's BLUEPRINT FOR
THE COLOMBIAN WAR
PRISONERS BATTLE
CALIFORNIA'S PRISON
SHU TORTURE
REMEMBERING SHAHAK
MURDER IN NAVAJOLAND
Published on JULY 1
BLACKS, LABOR AND
SOUTHERN POLITICS:
THE CASE OF THE
CHARLESTON FIVE
SO INIMITABLE:
THE LATE GREAT
JOHN LEE HOOKER
FARMINGTON, NM,
RACIST HELLHOLE
ARSENIC: THE GOOD NEWS
BONO AND HESTON
GALE NORTON'S
SECRET PAST
Search
CounterPunch
Al
Gore:
A User's Manual
by Cockburn
and St. Clair
Buy
This Explosive
New Book at an
Amazing Discount!
Reviews of Gore:
a User's Manual
Whiteout:
CIA, Drugs & the
Press
by
Alexander Cockburn
and Jeffrey St. Clair
A Pocket Guide to
Environmental Bad Guys
by James
Ridgeway
and Jeffrey St. Clair
The
Phoenix Program
by Douglas
Valentine
TDY
By Douglas
Valentine
New Stories:
CounterPunch Coverage
of Election 2000
|
September
24, 2001
Hitchens'
Call for Blood
American Innocence
By Vijay Prashad
News from Tashkent, Uzbekistan comes
to us that US military aircraft landed at a military airport
yesterday. The first installment of bombers is poised to blast
Afghanistan from the map, to render the region into the parking
lot of Lyndon Johnson's fantasy. Iraq will perhaps bear some
of the brunt of the attack, since, as Stratfor (the intelligence
forecaster) puts it "Iraq is very convenient for an air
attack" and "extending the list of nations that supported
the attackers [even without evidence] from one to two would solve
a number of problems for the United States."
Three aircraft carriers are
in the vicinity of the Persian Gulf, and supply ships have entered
the final stages of their journey into the Indian Ocean.
The Saudi's say that they will
not permit the US to use the retooled Prince Sultan Air Base
south of Riyadh for retaliation against Afghanistan. During the
Gulf War, in public the Saudis and the US said that these bases
would not be used, but during the war, US planes took off from
Arabia to conduct missions in Iraq. Similar things might happen
when the bombs begin to rain. Four and a half thousand US military
personnel sit at Prince Sultan, including a host of aircraft.
The 5th Fleet is in Bahrain, Yemen says that the US can refuel,
and Kuwait's airports are always open for their liberators.
B-52s and B-1s are in the air,
ready to drop an enormous payload, as RC 135 fuel tankers fly
along for air-support along with a set of surveillance crafts.
Some estimates tell us that over two hundred planes are on hand
for the assault.
Diego Garcia and the bases
in the Gulf are on alert, as, perhaps, is Quetta, Pakistan.
The Pakistani government, afraid
of the outcome of the assault, has moved two brigades of its
16th Division from the Umarkot-Panaoqil sectors, along the border
that divides it from Gujarat and Rajasthan in India. Eager to
do its bit for the alliance, the Hindu-Right led Indian government's
foreign minister Jaswant Singh announced, "India had no
intention to add to the complexities that the Government and
people of Pakistan were faced with." The convoluted grammar
perhaps reveals the ambiguous sensibility of the government,
otherwise eager to use any opportunity to put Pakistan on the
margins of US policy.
The drums of war could not
be any clearer.
And yet, many of us in the
US remain shrouded in that classic American posture: innocence.
The demand for revenge comes
without any consideration of the long-term costs of our actions.
If profits can be posted each quarter without any sense of the
long-term human consequences of our economic actions, why can't
our armies and state department act on the short-term as well?
Why do we have to wait, when we can just act? Why does the long-term
hinder our short attention span? Why doesn't the military, like
our children, suffer from ADD?
In 1822-23, G. W. F. Hegel
ignored the Napoleonic wars that tore Europe up around him to
hold forth for four hours a week on the philosophy of history.
He concentrated his discussions on the "oriental world"
(too much of either civil society or of state, an excess of things),
on the Greek and Roman worlds (the correct, if primitive, balance
between the people and their state) and the "German or Modern
world" (perfection incarnate in the Prussian state). In
a few pages he brushed off Africa, for whom "history is
in fact out of the question," and America. The Americas,
by whom he meant the Native Americans, are "like unenlightened
children, living from one day to the next, and untouched by higher
thoughts or aspirations." These enlightened thoughts are
the privilege of Europe, but not necessarily the European immigrants
to the Americas. America, he said, is "a land of desire
for those who are weary of the historical arsenal of the old
Europe." For this reason he hoped that "America will
abandon the ground on which world history has hitherto been enacted."
In other words, that America would recreate social relations,
untrammeled by the weight of history, and offer a new sense of
reality for the world.
But Hegel fears that this will
not be so. Not because America will become Europe, but because
in "North America, the most unbridled license prevails in
all matters of the imagination." Reality will give way to
fable. The land itself, the "geographical basis" haunts
the minds of the migrant Europeans and others who follow them,
and makes them fly, like the Amerindians before them, into the
imagination. If Hegel dismisses Africa for its lack of Consciousness
(Spirit or the Geist), he dismisses America because Consciousness
only enters as Imagination.
Or as Innocence. Hegel's generally
unreliable text (for it is filled with gross and untutored generalizations)
points us to a prevalent mythology that comes to us at the origins
of the European colonization of the Americas - the myth of innocence.
The persecuted Europeans flee the guiles of Old Europe to make
a place that does not replicate its complexity, deviousness and
intrigue. They arrive in the Americas, wide-eyed and curious,
desperate for a new life. These settlers do not care for the
artificiality of feudal manners so they inaugurate a world of
forthrightness, frankness and independence. Hardy, courageous,
tough - this is the self-image of the colonial settlers.
A century after Hegel, Edith
Wharton will both represent and skewer this conceit in her novel,
the Age of Innocence (1920), a book on the dream-time of a people
who resist the pangs of adolescence by enacting maturity and
blinding themselves from the world's evils.
The genocide of the Amerindians,
the slavery of peoples from Africa, the widespread disruption
of anti-colonialism in the name of anti-communism - this is the
legacy that is lost by America's innocent amnesia. In March 1968,
the National Advisory Commission on Civil Disorders tendered
its report on the uprisings of the decade, and it offered an
indictment that covers this general sense of amnesia: "What
white Americans have never fully understood -- but what the Negro
can never forget -- is that white society is deeply implicated
in the ghetto. White institutions created it, white institutions
maintain it, and white society condones it." Our inability
to deal with racism is certainly a consequence of the innocent
amnesia of whiteness, the grave desire to represent racism as
the touchiness of the oppressed or as the province of an isolated
group of Aryanists. Our history of white privilege is actively
forgotten, that history of white suburbanization through federal
assistance, of the creation of white equity, and of the immense
amount of values appropriated without wages from a determinate
set of peoples whose descendents for the most part are capital
poor.
The black book of US violence
does not by itself produce "fascism with an Islamic face"
(as Christopher Hitchens puts it in the recent Nation), for the
Islamicists have their own dynamic and their own historical agency.
The US is not alone culpable for 9/11, indeed no one of the "Chomsky-Zinn-Finkelstein
quarter," in my estimation, is arguing that "the chickens
are coming home to roost." The stakes of the argument, on
the other hand, are that the claim of the innocence of the US
state is a blanket denial of history, that the US colluded with
these right-wing forces, indeed gave them strength to demolish
the left in their societies, funded them, trained them. Of course
these groups had their own agendas, their own schemes, and they
too used the US for their own ends. Now the ends collide: the
US is addicted to oil, indeed it curtails its famous desire for
democracy when it comes to its friendship with the most authoritarian
allies, the Saudis and the other oilogarchies (UAE, Kuwait, Qatar,
etc). The Taliban's brand of Wahabbism is horrendous, but the
Saudis' monarchy is no better, although our oil addiction will
prevent any indictment of the latter. The addiction to oil means
that the US props up these withered monarchies and acts in cahoots
with them when they suppress their own people. Such a policy
creates distress, anger and frustration. Groups such as the Egyptian
Islamic Jihad emerge from anger at a regime that is beholden
to Europe-US, which squelches the dreams of freedom of its own
people, even as this nationalism rejects anti-colonialism for
a form of Islamicist fascism. The Taliban, for instance, is not
against the oil-pipeline concession, but it is eager to get the
best return for its land rather than bow down to Unocal ("The
Spirit of 76") and turns to Bridas from Argentina for the
deal. Fascism is comfortable with business, even Islamicist fascism.
[Aside: as Bridas and Unocal
tried to lobby the Taliban, both turned to sources that show
us how integrated the Taliban are to international sleaze and
underworld terror - Bridas went with the head of Saudi intelligence,
Prince Turki Faysal, while Unocal worked with the Saudi Delta
Oil Company (whose head, Badr al Aiban, has the ear of King Faud
of Saudi Arabia, a man with some measure of influence in the
world of the social decay of orthodoxy) as well as with former
US Ambassador to Pakistan and pipeline to the Taliban, Robert
Oakley. The Taliban is not so isolated and madcap as the media
sometimes claims.]
Of course no amount of anger
justifies the terror of 9/11. But why do people, like Hitchens,
get incensed when we recapitulate the main points of the oil-blood
soaked history of the US in west Asia? Why does he suggest that
when the "Chomsky-Zinn-Finkelstein quarter" outlines
US barbarity that this is a justification for 9/11? The history
of US-Taliban-bin Laden itself does not excuse the madness of
9/11; although it gives a measure of proportion to such asinine
statements that the US lost its virginity on that day, or that
the US state is as innocent as the cultural conceit of its population.
At Durban, during the World
Conference Against Racism, the US abandoned ship when talk of
reparations took center stage. The Europeans, being less keen
on innocence, but no more forthright about its history, said
clearly that any real apology for racism or any categorization
as slavery-colonialism as "crimes against humanity"
would bring forth expensive lawsuits. The US, being innocent,
left as a defender of Israel, without too much comment on its
own state racism. Within the press stateside there was that recurrent
saw about why the descendents of the slavers, who are themselves
innocent, should pay for the crimes of their forefathers. Or,
indeed, can't we all feel proud of our own separate and multicultural
histories: the right-wing racist t-shirt with the confederate
flag says its best, "you have your X, and we have ours."
Innocent of oppression, the US can be shocked that in this time
of grief anyone would want to make us remember the past.
The guns are on their way to
wreak havoc in southern Asia. An acquaintance says to me that
he doubts that the US will actually fire on Afghanistan, or if
the bombs fall they will be strategic and only directed at Bin
Laden's camps. There is that automatic faith in the goodness
of the system, the desire to see evil in a few people (Bin Laden,
Kissinger, Mother Teresa), but to feel assured that in the end
the goodness and innocence of America will shine through. Such
an attitude is naïve only in that it is in denial of history,
of the recent past of violence unleashed without care for human
life - the 100,000 dead in Dresden, the 100,000 dead within minutes
in Hiroshima, the hundreds of thousands dead in Cambodia and
Vietnam, the half a million dead in IraqS.. numbers make death
clinical and distance our capacity to empathize with those bodies.
Our remembrance of things past
is not geared toward a justification of the madness of 9/11.
Like all progressive historians, I am concerned that our innocent
amnesia will not allow us to see why such a thing happened, indeed
to render those who did those acts outside understanding. Such
an attitude means we can do little to combat such vast acts of
terror, since we can then only take recourse in some manner of
prayers that the irrational madness does not strike again.
Our reaction too should be
guided by the reasons for 9/11 and not just our grief for those
dead. To go after bin Laden and his cohorts is to deal with the
symptom of an international problem whose name is oil, and whose
energy is able to satisfy the voracious appetite of the moneymakers.
As the engines of the bombers warm up, as we get ready to take
to the streets in protest against the inevitable war against
the planet, let us refuse the conceit of American innocence.
Anything is better than bad faith. CP
Vijay Prashad is and Associate Professor and Director
of the International Studies Program at Trinity College in Hartford,
CT.
|