Friends,
This article was sent to us by one of my husband's best friends. He is a (pasty!) white guy, a Catholic priest. They went to college together.
Anyhow, he didn't write it, only sent it to everyone I guess.
He's spent many years as a missionary in Africa.
It's a little different perspective. Your thoughts are welcome.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
The Racism of American Warmongering
Tim Wise, AlterNet
September 17, 2001
Viewed on September 18, 2001
-------------------------------------
Well, it looks as if the good people of the rural U.S.
should be breathing a sigh of relief right about now. After all, with the President and most Americans itching to bomb
any place where terrorists might be hiding, one can only
imagine the kind of wrath that would have been brought down upon the heads of folks in Iowa, Nebraska, Wyoming or
Mississippi had the guilty parties been white boys with
crew-cuts, like Tim McVeigh.
All this talk of "Kill the Arabs," "carpet bomb 'em back
into the stone age," or "get the ragheads" would have to
have been replaced with "Kill the Crackers," "bomb 'em back to the 'Dust Bowl,'" and "get the trailer trash."
But the fact is, we all know that such a scenario would
never have transpired, and not because white boys aren't
capable of inflicting mass death. They certainly are.
McVeigh proved that, if for some folks Hitler, Stalin,
Andrew Jackson, Lyndon Johnson and Dick Nixon weren't
sufficient to make the case. But rather, because the folks
who are so quick to collectivize the responsibility and the payback when the perps are dark-skinned or "foreign," are
just as quick not to do so when white boys are the ones
committing mass murder or engaging in terroristic
activities. In the wake of Oklahoma City, none of the people
who are now calling for war against Afghanistan even
suggested targeting white supremacist groups and militias
for destruction, let alone bombing the cornfields of "middle America" in the hopes of taking out a few anti-government
types.
Bottom line: enemies who look different, speak a different language, or practice a different religion are lots easier
to view as the "other." As somehow cutoff from the common
humanity of which we consider ourselves a part. And so we
speak now of killing Arabs indiscriminately, of not
differentiating between the guilty and the innocent
(ironically, the precise mentality of whomever carried out last week's attacks), and winning a war, which we claim has
been officially engaged. But we would have said none of
these things had the perpetrators been internal extremists.
We said none of these things about those who fit the
descriptions of Tim McVeigh, or Terry Nichols. We would
never have heard columnists calling for profiling of white men, the way that reactionary crank and wanna-be pin-up girl
of the right, Ann Coulter, called for the same against Arab and Muslims this week.
Actually, that wasn't all she said: she also opined that it should be the role of the United States to invade "their"
countries, kill "their" leaders, and "convert them to
Christianity." If these were the words of an Imam, calling for the forced conversion of Southern Baptists to Islam, we
would call them the fanatical ramblings of a jihad-happy
madman. But when the fashion-conscious and attractive
(though clearly Snickers-deprived) Coulter says it, she
finds mass support for her nuttiness, gets her call for a
new round of Crusades published on the website of the
National Review, and will remain a regular commentator for
such paragons of journalistic virtue as Fox News.
So too Jerry Falwell, who for some unknown reason people
still take seriously despite his penchant for committing
random acts of serial stupidity. His latest? Laying the
blame for the attacks on New York and DC at the feet of the
ACLU (for "throwing God out of the schools"), "the
abortionists" ("because God will not be mocked"), as well as
"pagans," "feminists," and "the gays and lesbians." After
offering this truly maniacal glob of pedantic crap,
Falwell's partner in fundamentalist lunacy, Pat Robertson,
chimed in to blame "pornography on the internet," abortion,
and the removal of the ten commandments from courthouses.
God, according to these twin towers of intellectual
mendacity and biblically bankrupt spirituality, is "lifting
his protection from us," as our comeuppance for secular
humanism.
It makes me think back to what Barry Goldwater said about
Falwell in 1981, when the rotund little preacher asked all
"good Americans" to rise up in opposition to the nomination
of Sandra Day O'Connor to the Supreme Court (since, after
all, the Court was no place for a lady). "All good
Americans,' Goldwater intoned, 'should rise up and give
Jerry Falwell a kick in the ass." Precisely, and now two
decades overdue.
Funny how all the discussion of religious fanaticism among
certain followers of Islam has led us to overlook the
fanaticism of certain Christians who are now calling for
blood. One has to imagine that if Jesus was here today they
would call him a pussy for all that "turn the other cheek"
stuff. And while I can't answer the question that so many
self-proclaimed followers of Christ ask when they wear their
"What Would Jesus Do?" armbands, I feel pretty confident
that I know what he wouldn't do. He wouldn't be saying
things like: "let's shove a couple dozen cruise missiles up
their ass," or going out and spraypainting "Fuck Islam" on
mosques, or screaming about the "sand niggers" while
guzzling beer at some sports bar. And for that matter, he
wouldn't be standing around chanting "U.S.A, U.S.A." at a
memorial service, in an attempt to turn it into a jingoistic
pep rally.
The events of the past week have brought out the best in
people and the worst: on the one hand, the rescue workers,
diligently seeking for any signs of life amidst perhaps a
million tons of rubble; yet, on the other, the cacophony of
voices calling for revenge. Oh sure, they insist it isn't
about that, but rather, "justice." They insist they want
more than merely the continued spilling of blood, and that striking back has more purpose than merely proving how tough
we are. But ask them what that purpose is, and how they
think massive military retaliation can actually make us more safe, to say nothing of the safety of others the world over,
and their faces go blank, or become contorted with anger, as they shout: "well, we have to do something. We can't just
sit here and let them get away with it!"
But "doing something" is not a valid pretext for unleashing
war. And justice requires that we carefully consider the
difference between responsible parties and innocent ones.
Just as one would not think it "just" to level an entire
neighborhood in search of one serial killer who might be
living in the area, so too is it unjust to speak of turning much of the Arab world into a parking lot, in search of the
few persons actually behind the attacks on the World Trade
Center and the Pentagon.
Not only would such a disproportionate response be morally suspect, it would be irresponsible from a security
perspective as well. It would leave us all less safe, as
millions more in the Arab world came to see the U.S. as a
bully, unconcerned about innocent lives, Muslim holy sites,
or world peace. And ten years hence, or maybe less, they
would understandably retaliate in kind. What is most ironic about all of this, is that such a scenario -- the West and
Islam locked in mortal combat -- is exactly what the Osama bin Ladens of the world have always wanted. It is a trap. A
trap rejected by the vast majority of Arabs, and of Muslims wherever they may be, but one in which they too will be
caught up if we take the bait.
It's really quite simple: we couldn't kill all of "them"
even if doing so was ethically acceptable, which of course it isn't. And those who don't die, who would look around and
see their nations leveled, their houses gone, their family members incinerated, would at that point most certainly feel
that they had nothing to lose by getting even. And there is no more dangerous member of any society than the one who
thinks he has nothing to lose. Desperation doesn't make for very sound judgment, whether the desperation of the
immiserated in the so-called third world, or that of the
most powerful, and yet often least original people on the
planet.
And so what does that leave us with? The fact is, I don't
know. And neither do you. And why we can't just say that,
admit our frailties and uncertainties and ignorance, is
beyond me. That we demand quick and easy answers is
indicative of our cultural attachment to instant
gratification: got a headache, take an aspirin; overweight, get liposuction; upset about something, take Prozac. Don't think, don't analyze, just do it. It is Nike slogan as
national mantra. And it is the prelude to international
slaughter.
No wonder so much of the world looks at America with
contempt and at Americans as spoiled children. First, we
train terrorists the world over, including bin Laden,
because we had to "get the commies" at all costs, even if it meant supporting dictators, fundamentalists, and murderers.
Then we support corrupt and brutal regimes that trample the rights of their citizens. Then we fund and support an
illegal occupation of Palestinian land, and contribute to
the deaths of a million or more in Iraq from bombing and
sanctions. Then, we exhibit our arrogance by withdrawing
from international treaties and forums when the going gets tough or issues get raised that we don't want to discuss.
This is not to say that any of these things, no matter how irresponsible or even criminal warrant an act the likes of
what we saw September 11th. But there is something to be
said for understanding why no one likes you. If all the
other kids in the sandbox think you're a thug and a bully,
then after a while you'd best stop trying to beat them all
into submission, or thinking that they are the problem, and
instead, begin to turn some of that analysis inward. That's what you would do, anyway, if you wanted to actually get to
the bottom of the conflict on the playground. If, on the
other hand, your main concern were showing what a badass you were, then maybe this wouldn't matter much to you at all.
And in that case, you would set out to show those other kids who was boss, who was king of the hill. You would continue
to provoke them, to attack them, and then act shocked when they hit back.
That kind of behavior is unbecoming enough when children
engage in it. When adults with explosives do it, the
immature becomes deadly. This is no game. There is no
"winner" despite the blustery rhetoric of our
frat-boy-in-chief. And unless we begin to fundamentally
alter the way we as a nation operate around the world, we
are in for many years of violence, and counterviolence, and empty platitudes, and flag waving, and body bags. And if
that happens, it won't merely be the fault of those who
attack us from outside, but also the fault of those who were the enemies of justice, equality, and peace on the inside of
the American empire. There will be more than enough blame to go around. #
Tim Wise is a Nashville-based writer, lecturer and activist.
He can be reached at [email protected].
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral,
begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy. Instead of diminishing evil,
it multiplies it. Through violence you may murder the liar, but you cannot
murder the lie, nor establish the truth. Through violence you may murder the
hater, but you do not murder hate. In fact, violence merely increases hate.
So it goes. Returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding
deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive
out darkness: only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate: only love
can do that.
- Martin Luther King
Lisa