Today President Obama declared he would seek to block the court-ordered release of photos showing U.S. troops abusing prisoners. As the AP reports, it is an abrupt reversal of his earlier position. What was Obama's reasoning for going seemingly "Bushian" about the release of these photos? President Obama states his decision to keep the world in the dark about the photos was done out of concern they would "further inflame anti-American opinion," endangering U.S. forces in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Seriously? That's the best you got? With all due respect Mr. President, you've got things a bit backwards. And here, let me tell you why...
More after the fold...
First off, anti-American sentiment in the world is quite inflamed already. Despite the fact that our corporate news media can spend hours on end talking about dumb comments by young beauty queens or give 24-hour coverage to the troubled celebrity du jour, media outside our country keep the rest of the globe very informed. Television stations like Al-Jazeera, while mocked and demonized in the U.S., actually offer very informative and hard-hitting journalism that detail in full the damages our imperial adventures have wrought in places like Iraq and Afghanistan. No new photos are going to do any more damage than what they are allowed to see streaming through their television sets or in their newspapers, which turn out to be much more truthful about the brutality of war than our own.
Second, forget photos--real life victims of torture and abuse have returned home to tell their stories in ways that pictures can't begin to capture. These are people's family members, and they have recounted in full--through interviews and articles--what they have been through. Again, I know our news media barely pays attention to such things, but their stories are well known in the neighborhoods, cities and countries they come from.
Third, contrary to Orientalist stereotypes the Muslim world is not made up of emotional hot-headed fanatics. Regular people live there--the type who will *naturally* become incensed at photos of torture and abuse. Will some use it to rally hatred and stir up violence? Sure. Just like we do, or have we forgotten the destruction wreaked on Fallujah by U.S. troops after some American contractors were killed and their bodies strung up by vengeful Iraqis? Fact is, with hundreds of thousands of Iraqis killed and thousands of Afghans still dying in their fractured and occupied countries, anger should have long led to the majority of the population rising up in rebellion against every American in sight. Yet peoples in these regions have not done so en masse. So there's no reason to assert that allowing them to see some terrible photos will cause them to act out on their anger any more than they have for the past eight years.
Fourth, most people in the Middle East were paying close attention to Nov. 2008. They are aware there is a new figure in the White House. And they are rational enough to discern actions taken under a previous administration from the current one. Showing the photos would probably go a long way in allowing many in the region to further acknowledge differences between these two administrations, and not blame the current one for the acts of the past. Showing these photos would allow the new administration to demonstrate that they acknowledge wrongs done by their predecessors and the hurt they have inflicted. Most victims first and foremost want those who wronged them to admit their guilt and be open about it. This won't solve everything, but it's a good first step. Hiding it away is not.
Fifth, however bad these photos are, trust that our imaginations are much, much worse. Not releasing the photos only causes endless speculation about what they could possibly contain. Eventually, somehow, these photos will come out--they always do. In the meantime however, you're allowing us to entertain our darkest sadistic nightmares. And you may find in the end that rumors are a greater threat than the truth.
Sixth, you really want to not incite hatred against American troops Mr. President? Well here's something for starters--stop sending unmanned aerial drones to bomb villages to kill one "suspected militant" and accept civilian casualties in such operations as collateral damage. Stop the massive bombing of population centers and then spinning off propaganda to blame it on "extremists." Stop this ill-informed idea that you can spread democracy at the edge of a knife and a missile as you ramp up a surge in Afghanistan and now intend to expand this bizarre crusade into Pakistan. Thought about shaving off some of that ridiculously over-sized and over-priced U.S. embassy casting an imperial shadow in the center in Iraq? How about listening to polls by the Iraqi and Afghan people who want an end to occupation now? How about stopping this boogey-man hunt for "terrorists" that to many in the region just wreak of subversive attempts to gain oil and gas fields?
There are 1001 things Mr. President you can do to lessen the harm faced by U.S. troops--key among them getting them the heck out of where they aren't wanted. But going along with a cover up of past U.S. misdeeds isn't one of them. Because it seems the only ones who are being shielded from seeing the truth here aren't peoples in foreign lands, but those right here who are kept blissfully ignorant about what is carried out in their names across the world. Perhaps this is just a political tactic of some nuance that escapes me--and the photos will eventually come out through some panel commission or act of the courts. But it would go a long way in improving our image in the world if you took a stand to shed more light and decided to drop alot less bombs. Change the rest of the world we can believe in? Try again.
Wednesday, May 13, 2009
Hiding Our Abuse
Tuesday, April 28, 2009
Debunking the Post-Racial Myth
If it was one thing that made my teeth grate during the 2008 Presidential campaign, it was the notion that Barack Obama was signaling a "post-racial" era in America. Political pundits--conservative or moderate or even liberal--deemed our times the "post-Civil Rights" era. The popular idea was that if white America can vote for a black man as president, this would somehow negate the last few hundred years of American racism. Of course, it was utter rubbish.
Conservative commentator George Will early in the Democratic primaries crooned that Barack Obama's win would "bring down the curtain on the long running and intensely boring melodrama 'Forever Selma,' staring Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton." Chris Matthews of MSNBC marveled that with candidate Obama there was, "No history of Jim Crow, no history of anger, no history of slavery....All the bad stuff in our history ain't there with this guy." Somehow all these pundits seemed to find a post-racial America despite the race-baiting of the Clinton campaign, the bizarre P.U.M.A. movement and Geraldine Ferraro's attempts to racialize feminism, white America's freak out meltdown over Jeremiah Wright and the full blown ugliness that was the McCain-Palin hate-fest.
Hoping for their post-racial dreamland, they failed to notice that to become the first black president, Barack Obama had to twist, shape and perform near acrobatic feats to keep white America (who in the end did not give him the majority of their votes) placated and at ease. Somehow the very pundits that could gloat about a post-racial society from one side of their mouths, could still worry endlessly about Obama's ability to connect with regular white voters. That his chances even among the more "enlightened white voters" were greatly influened by the fact that he was "black enough" to still be African-American in their eyes but was also not "too black" as someone of multi-racial heritage, is one of those taboo topics we're still not supposed to politely discuss in public conversation. As I once heard a black DJ joke to a colleague over the radio, it was unlikely white America would elect someone of a different demeanor than Obama or even a different complexion. This was followed by nervous laughter and the topic shifted--quickly.
Speed up to month four of 2009 and the election of a black president has seen everything from a rampant rise in white supremaicst hate-groups to incitations of violent government overthrow, secession and fake-populist, corporate-sponsored anti-tax protests with names that make them easy to mock.
Don't let me even start on the lack of post-racial awareness in American foreign policy, which seems to repeatedly find itself as odds with the darker, poorer masses of the world.
And of course, those are just the more overt issues. Rarely discussed are the varied forms of domestic institutional racism that do not disappear under an Obama presidency--from an unfair prison system to racial wealth inequality gaps. These are race-based systems that will negatively impact the lives of millions of people of color far beyond any hate-group or FOX News. And it should put the lie to any claim of some post-racial society that will magically appear because black and white kids can now identify with a bi-racial African-American in the White House. As Henry Giroux writes in a recent article, "the idea that we have moved into a post-racial period in American history is not merely premature - it is an act of willful denial and ignorance."
Giroux's article below:
Youth and the Myth of Post-Racial Society Under Barack Obama
Monday 27 April 2009
Henry A. Giroux t r u t h o u t Perspective
With the election of Barack Obama, it has been argued that not only will the social state be renewed in the spirit and legacy of the New Deal, but that the punishing racial state and its vast complex of disciplinary institutions will, if not come to an end, at least be significantly reformed. From this perspective, Obama's presidency not only represents a post-racial victory, but also signals a new space of post-racial harmony. In assessing the Obama victory, Time Magazine columnist Joe Klein wrote, "It is a place where the primacy of racial identity - and this includes the old Jesse Jackson version of black racial identity - has been replaced by the celebration of pluralism, of cross-racial synergy."
Obama won the 2008 election because he was able to mobilize 95 percent of African-Americans, two-thirds of all Latinos and a large proportion of young people under the age of 30. At the same time, what is generally forgotten in the exuberance of this assessment is that the majority of white Americans voted for the John McCain-Sarah Palin ticket. While "post-racial" may mean less overt racism, the idea that we have moved into a post-racial period in American history is not merely premature - it is an act of willful denial and ignorance.
read full article here.
Saturday, November 8, 2008
Three Important Reasons to Be Thankful
Glenn Greenwald over at Salon.com pointed out three immensely important things to be thankful for about the outcome of this presidential election. And even a cynic like me, who will no doubt be critical of an Obama presidency as much as anyone else's, has to admit that Greenwald is spot on.
Want to see the three immensely important things?
Check beneath the fold.
Thursday, November 6, 2008
Global Newspapers Cheer on Obama
The Courier-Mail Brisbane, Australia
One for the ages...
More newspaper headlines below the fold.
Kleine Zetung Graz, Austria
De Standaard Brussels, Belgium
O Povo Fortaleza, Brazil
EXTRA Rio de Janiero, Brazil
Dnevnik Daily Sofia, Bulgaria
Corriere Canadese Toronto, Canada
The Beijing News Beijing, China
Lidove Noviny Prague, Czech Republic
Die Tageszeitung Berlin, Germany
Hajdu Bihari Naplo Debrecen, Hungary
Morgunbladid Reykjavik, Iceland
Anandabazar Patrika Calcutta, India
Indonesia celebrates
Jam-e-Jam Tehran,Iran
Irish Examiner Cork, Ireland
Yedioth, Ahronoth Tel Aviv, Israel
La Repubblica Rome, Italy
An-Nahar Beirut, Lebanon
Liechtensteiner Volksblatt Schaan, Liechtenstein
Verslo Zinios Vilnius, Lithuania
Star Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
The Namibian Windhoek, Namibia
AD Amsterdam, Netherlands
The New Zealand Herald Auckland, New Zealand
Dziennik Polski Krakow, Poland
Publico- Lisbon Edition Lisbon, Portugal
Jurnal Bihorean Oradea, Romania
Al-Riyadh Riyadh, Saudia Arabia
Politka Belgrade, Serbia
SME Bratislava, Slovakia
The Times Johannesburg, South Africa
The Dong-a Ilbo Seoul, South Korea
El Periódico de Catalunya Barcelona, Spain
Dagens Nyheter Stockholm, Sweden
Basler Zeitung Basel, Switzerland
Apple Daily Taipei, Taiwan
Olay Bursa, Turkey
The Guardian London, UK
Gulf News Dubai, United Arab Emirates
El Universal Caracas, Venezuela
Tuesday, November 4, 2008
Tuesday, July 22, 2008
Run Jesse Run
If we only spoke well of others, we'd need never whisper.--proverb, anonymous
I was at a lounge when someone passed me a mobile phone, and I read the news of Jesse Jackson's now infamous comments about Barack Obama. I stared at it dumbfounded for a while, thinking--hoping--I was reading something from The Onion. Then I found out the source was FOX News. Aha! I was certain then it wasn't true. Faux News tell the truth? Yeah right! I went to bed confident I'd wake up in the morning and learn the whole thing was cooked up by Bill O'Reilly during a midnight loofah run. But alas, the new day came, and the craziness was there--with a youtube video to boot. Jesse Jackson, social activist, stalwart of the Civil Rights Movement, international peace negotiator, had claimed he wanted to castrate another black man. I remarked that day the only way things could be worse, was if on that recording Jesse had called somebody a "N---a." That would be the coup de grace. One week later... Sigh. Sometimes I hate being right.
In the aftermath, Jesse's detractors--who span the political and social spectrum--have been unable to conceal their glee. From angry rappers to white conservative pundits, everyone has made sure to give Jesse his licks. It's been an unashamed, free-for-all festival of "schadenfreude" that some are contending might be the end for the 66 year old activist turned public pariah. So I figure since everyone has been so quick to write Jesse's obituary, we might as well do the man the honor of recounting his life outside of one disastrous and ill-timed mic gaffe.
"Run Jesse Run." That was the famous slogan that fueled Jesse Jackson's 1984 and 1988 Presidential campaigns. Though selectively forgotten in recent history, the two runs were far from mere "stunts." In 1984 Jesse got 18.2 percent of the Democratic vote, winning five primaries and caucuses, including Louisiana, the District of Columbia, South Carolina, Virginia, and one of two separate contests in Mississippi. In 1988 Jesse ran again and some 7 million Democrats of diverse racial and ethnic backgrounds cast their vote for him, providing victories in at least a dozen primaries and caucuses. Long before the multi-racial coalition built by Sen. Barack Obama, candidate Jesse Jackson was reaching not only blacks, but poor disfranchised whites and others looking for "change." A case in point, while Sen. Barack Obama handily lost Puerto Rico in the 2008 primary, Jesse Jackson won over its overwhelming Latino constituency in 1988, who cast their vote without reservation for the black candidate.
Part of his appeal was that in American political culture, Jesse was no light weight. A veteran of the Civil Rights movement, he not only marched with figures like Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., but stood on the very balcony alongside the "King of Peace" on the day he was tragically martyred. A figure of international fame, Jesse was repeatedly involved in negotiations between enemy factions, and even successfully secured the release of American pilots shot down during missions--once in 1983 in Syria and again in 1999 during the Kosovo war. A staunch anti-war activist, anti-poverty crusader and advocate for the downtrodden, he was vocal against the Bush administration before 9/11, directly after, in the run up to the Iraq War, and long before "Dubya-Bashing" became popular. In 2004, his speech at the DNC lambasting the Iraq War was so adamant and clear, prime time networks refused to air it. Not one to allow partisan loyalty to blind him to wrongs, he has been critical of Republicans and Democrats alike. When President Bill Clinton used a speech organized by the Rainbow Coaltition to engage in his infamous "Sister Souljah" moment, he got a strong and angry rebuke from Jesse, who saw the race-baiting stunt for what it was.
Yet for all his deemed "good," Jesse has found himself on the receiving end of relentless criticism. For black conservatives he has been a regular object of scorn, a figure who in their eyes creates crutches for blacks and whines about racism--representing the worst aspects of modern "black leadership." For many in the black nationalist community, he is not radical enough--and deemed a collaborator with white America. The more radical of this grouping even charge him with treason, a member of the much maligned black Boule, in league with sinister forces out to wreak havoc through endless conspiracies. To much of white America itself, Jesse has come to be viewed as a grand annoyance--a figure who always seems ready to point out racism, who seems to appear at the head of every march, at every incident, there to "stir up trouble" and white guilt. Jesse hasn't helped his own cause, with more than a few questionable acts. In 2001 it was revealed he had fathered a child outside of his marriage in 1998, while consulting President Bill Clinton as a spiritual advisor during the Lewinsky affair. Questionably, the mother of his child was given $40K from funds taken out of Jesse's Rainbow PUSH coalition to make a maternity move. (*Jesse has kept up continuous financial responsibility for the child) Media Hog. Limelight lover. Overly Flamboyant. Ambulance chaser. Black loudmouth. Egotistical. Arrogant. Uppity. Say Jesse Jackson, and his detractors can rattle off an endless list of offenses. Whatever good will and diversity coalition Jesse was able to gather in 1984 and 1988 by today has been whittled away, leaving his image a tarnished one.
Enter Barack Obama.
Jesse and Obama aren't exactly strangers; they're even--in a fashion--familial. Michelle Obama went to school with Jesse's oldest daughter Santita, who not only sang at the couple's wedding--which Jesse attended as well--but became godmother to their daughter Malia. Through his wife's friendships with the Jackson family, Barack Obama had met and spoken to Jesse on numerous occasions. Yet this did not always mean the two men were close. As early as 2000 when Obama made his first run for the House seat of Rep. Bobby Rush, Jesse would back his long time friend (Rush) over the Southside Chicago organizer and state senator just starting to make a name for himself.
In 2007 as the Illinois Senator rose to prominence and entered into a presidential bid, Jesse's detractors took glee in comparing the two men. The rise of Obama was going to rid the world of Jesse, they cheered. Obama was the new leadership, Jesse was the old news. Conservative columnist and pundit George Will claimed Obama's rise would end Jesse's "Selma forever" tour. Even former President Bill Clinton, attempting to stir up racial animosity against Sen. Obama, would invoke Jesse during the South Carolina primary. Rumors of comments disparaging Obama by Jesse--in which he allegedly claimed Obama was "acting white" in his response to the Jena 6--made headlines. Rumors arose that the Obama campaign was keeping Jesse at arms length--the tarnished activist considered a liability with white voters. The two men however adamantly denied these claims. Jesse threw his support behind Sen. Obama, even as his wife threw hers behind Sen. Clinton. His son, Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr., would become the Obama campaign's co-chair. Obama himself would state publicly that there was no competition between the two, and his presidency would not do away for the need for Jesse's activism.
Yet it's undeniable that the recent relationship between Obama and Jesse has been a strained one. The two have certainly not been enthusiastically courting each other. But this may have less to do with the "jealousy" of the superstar Obama, which has become a common narrative, and perhaps more so to do with the separate roles the men play. Though his detractors like to mockingly label him a "black leader," activist is the more fitting title for Jesse. As an activist, he is free to take very strong progressive positions on everything from the war to poverty. And he has done so on a national and international stage. Sen. Obama meanwhile is a presidential candidate, a politician who can't be called a "black leader" either. And while he ran left of centrist Sen. Clinton in the primaries, the Illinois senator has never espoused strong progressive values. And, true to form, once the primaries ended he shifted back to his more centrist positions. Sen. Obama is perhaps the candidate more likely to be responsive to progressive stances, but he's not one himself.
For Jesse, one can imagine this is especially irksome. As a presidential candidate, Sen. Obama is set to perhaps make history. And the glamour and glory surrounding that is almost electric in much of the black community. So much so, that criticism of Sen. Obama--even legitimate--is roundly condemned as some form of "black treason." One-time much beloved black radio and talk show host Tavis Smiley learned this the hard way. Jesse and other more progressive black activists have been forced to keep their mouths shut, unable to put forth any sound criticism of Sen. Obama for fear of not only being tagged as treasonous, but ending up playing into the media narrative of "jealousy" and "competition."
Somehow, all of that self-imposed silence managed to explode in precisely the wrong place and at precisely the wrong time--on a biased, unethical "news" network that has shown it not only has little problem with eavesdropping on his guests, but turning their private words into media catching headlines. Jesse's legitimate critique triggered by his progressive leanings--that as a politician Sen. Barack Obama should stick to talking about the government's social responsibility rather than playing the role of chastising father to black men on individual responsibility--was lost in the midst of a foul-mouthed gaffe of epic proportions. Not only did he use the very "n" word he has championed against, but he also invoked sexual violence akin to historical acts of race lynchings. It was stupid, inexcusable, asinine and most of all--tragic. The fact is that a figure like Jesse is hardly irrelevant--in fact, far from it. Barack Obama's possible victory in November, despite all its symbolisms, isn't going to make issues of racism, poverty, militarism, wealth inequality and more disappear over night. And progressives like Jesse--with all his faults--are as key now as ever. The worst result of this single irresponsible act is that it has not only given his detractors more ammunition than they know what to do with, but is being used to bludgeon a voice that spoke truth to power into silence.
Yet, although many are quick to write his obituary, I wouldn't count Jesse out of the fight yet. In his 1984 Presidential bid Jesse made a gaffe just as stunning. Telling black reporter Milton Coleman "let's talk black talk," Jesse went into a tirade of frustration over what he saw as obsession over Israel by members of New York's Jewish community. "That's all Hymie wants to talk about, is Israel," Jesse said, using a common racial slur for Jews. "Every time you go to Hymietown, that's all they want to talk about." Then, as now, Jesse's reliance on inner black solidarity did him in. In 1984 he was let down by Milton Coleman, who doing what journalists do, ignored the rule of "black talk" and reported what he heard. Today it was a crude remark made to another black guest that ended up on an open mic for none other than FOX News. And yet, even after the Hymietown comment Jesse survived and emerged stronger for 1988.
If anything perhaps now, away from the media spotlight, and outside of the Obama candidacy, Jesse can reorient himself and remain active in the causes where he matters most. This Jesse will hopefully be less apt to be on FOX "News" and give more interviews to worthy reporters like Amy Goodman. This Jesse will stay out of tit-for-tat dust-ups with braggadocios rap stars over their language, and focus more on his marches on Wall St over the subprime mortgage debacle. This Jesse will spend his valuable airtime detailing more about his trip to Haiti and his demand for food aid to the impoverished nation, and show less concern with Obama's seeming Bill Cosby-isms. This Jesse needs to show he is more than a lover of the media spotlight, and should not allow himself to be silenced by those who would like to see him--and the issues he supports--simply disappear.
