January 12, 2005
-
TOPIC: STARTLING REVELATIONS…WITH EVIDENCE
I’ve spent the last two days in the book store, reading a combination of Howard Zinn and Noam Chomsky. If you wish, you may discredit the arguments I am about to make, solely on the basis of my sources. I recently had a debate w/ someone who is skeptical of Chomsky because he is “anti-semetic,” or at least, “anti-israeli.” While Chomsky may be anti-israel in some respect, that is another separate topic with its own reasons that I am not well-versed in. The bottom line remains, however, that both Chomsky and Zinn are driven for justice, equality, tolerance, and peace, at the head of all their views on history, politics, and economics. If you haven’t heard of these two people, or if you don’t know much about their arguments, it’s probably because they’re not taught in our schools, not discussed in the media, therefor, leaving it to luck and circumstance to stumble on.
Here is my thesis:
The government of America is one of the greediest, stingiest, and most undemcratic countries there are. Many hostilities towards the US, and many examples of foreign countries with ruthless leaders and extreme poverty, are partly a result of America’s own greed, stinginess, and our lack of support for the democratic ideals that we hold for our own country.
There are 5 points to highlight this:
1) America’s government has consistently opposed labor movements in favor of corporate interests, both here and abroad.
The Ludlow Massacre althought not a recent example (1913), is a historical example of how the US government has viewed its workers. The story is of the stand-off between Colorado coal miners, upset that they were being paid only $1.68/day and working in miserable conditions. Their union went on strike after one of their union activists was killed. The Rockefeller family, who owned Colorado Fuel & Iron, was not at all pleased, and since they owned most of the town, they had most of the workers evicted. The strike continued, and the National Guard was called in. The ensuing harassment and killings of coal strikers fighting for an honest wage, represents the American governments’ position between corporations and labor.
For an international example, see our support for the anti-labor Rios Monnt in point #4.
2) America’s government has helped create trade laws through the World Trade Organization, NAFTA, and other programs, that benefit US corporations, but deprive the masses of those profits and products.
While in theory, the WTO organization should be protecting and helping poorer nations to develop, it forces poorer nations to adopt economic policies such as not allowing business subsidies to help its industries, while the US, already a developed nation, continues to subsidze its own companies, creating a lopsided trading playing field. For more information click here, or here. and check out this organization that’s dedicated to the end of these unbalanced subsidies.
3) America’s tax and spend policies that disproportionatly benefit corporations and leave the poor without their basic needs of food, water, shelter, health care, education, and work.
4) America’s selective military actions that oppose 3rd world social democracies and supports 3rd world capitalist democracies. This has generally gone hand-in-hand with supporting human rights violators and fascist governments.
ex) US support for the former President of Guatamala, Efraín Ríos Montt who has been called “Guatamala’s Hitler.” Upon seizing power, he created a junta that immediately suspended the constitution, shut the legislature down, set up secret tribunals, and began a campaign against political dissidents that included kidnapping, torture, and extra-judicial assassinations. He threatened labor unions with firing squads, and attacked the native Mayan population, destroying nearly 600 villiages. All of this with US support, praise, and in the name of promoting our brand of democracy, versus allowing Guatamala to develop as a social democracy.
ex) The US hates social programs so much, to the point that they destroyed the Sandinistas in Nicaragua. Oxfam, an international development organization whose purpose is to eliminate world poverty, hailed the Sandinistas government: “exceptional in its strength of that governments committment…to improving the condition of the people and encouraging their active participation in the development process.”
5) America’s giving of financial and military aid to oppressed people only when US corporatoins stand to benefit, while ignoring oppressed people when US corporations do not stand to benefit.
ex) America’s support for the overthrow of President Hussein in Iraq vs. the non-discussion of America to overthrow President Mugabe in Zimbabwe, who has used his military to threaten and murder his political opponants.
We are fortunate in America in that we do have access to books, we can assemble, we can discuss. In order to create a more just America and a more just world, we must first show people the level of injustice that exists. What we’re up against are our media and school systems that do not shed light fully on the injustice, thereby, whether intentional or not, keeping our society ignorant, apathetic, and complicit in injustice. Along with that, comes an ideology of patriotism, which makes it difficult for those, especially those who are in the super-wealthy, or the middle-class below them, to see the extent of these injustices which are not visible in their everyday lives. That patriotism, the belief that “America is best,” that, “our poor are better than the poor around the world (which isn’t necessarily true), that, “America is the father and rightful owner of democracy, free to spread it where it sees fit,” a patriotism which does not see or recognize the extent of America’s opposition to true democratic values and economic justice, is a patriotism naturally opposed to the patriotism that believes, “we must help ALL people so that we can live in a world of democracy, a world of justice, a world without poverty, hunger, war, disease…”
I’ve also come up w/ a short list of 3 rules of “logic,” to keep in mind when listening to politicians:
1) lies – these are statements that represent facts which are untrue, or which omit important facts
2) exaggerations – drawing inappropriate conclusions from certain facts, non-sequitor
3) Trojan horse / misleading motives – using empty rhetoric to disguise alterior motives
ex) I picked up Foreign Policy magazine, and there was an article written by Colin Powell titled, “No Country Left Behind.” Recognizing that this was named after Bush’s No Child Left Behind education policy, which is a trojan horse for taking apart public schooling, I immediately grew skeptical of Powell.
Powell draws a link between development, democracy, and security, setting us up with empty rhetoric for his Trojan horse:
“The root cause of poverty is social injustice and the bad government that abets it. Poverty arises and persists where corruption is endemic and enterprise is stifled, where basic fairness provided by the rule of law is absent. In such circumstances, poverty is an assault against human dignity, and in that asault lies the natural seed of human anger. The US cannot win the war on terror unless we confront the social and political roots of poverty…Ultimately, it is not possible to separate economics from politics. We should not expect democracy to work in places where there is blatant economic injustice.”
These are Trojan horse arguments. Powell’s true amtitoins are not to eliminate all poverty, or he would have had to show concern for US poverty, and his whole argument gets flipped on its head. Suddenly, it’s Powell who has been part of a bad government, where corruption is endemic. Suddenly, it’s the US that is assaulting human dignity. Suddenly, the US is creating within its own borders, seeds of human anger. Suddenly, we should not expect democracy to be working in America, where we too have blatant economic injustice. He ties all of this into winning the war on terror. We see clearer how the war on terror is a Trojan horse for other purposes, since a false link is made between poverty in general and terrorism.
What is that Trojan horse? It’s called neoliberalism. Powell’s democracy and Powell’s economic justice equates to a world where every country looks like the US, a country where there’s a rich minority, and a poor majority. A country where politics and the media are controlled largely by the interests of the wealthy, not the interests of the majority. The very fact that Powell believes that poverty is ok in our country, but not in yours, shows, he is interested not in combatting poverty at all, but he is interested in interfering with other countries, even democratic ones. This fits in with the model above.
Comments (14)
I haven’t read that article by Powell, so I can’t really say, but what he’s saying isn’t really wrong. I think that if you’re talking about international terrorism, you’re not in a context where it’s worth talking about US poverty, unless you mean to say that poor US citizens are international terrorists. And that’s something Powell would never say, even if it were true.
I don’t think his argument is as much a trojan horse as it is an attempt to shape the direction of the next Bush administration. Running around and telling the whole truth all the time is a good way to get ignored (see Chomsky and Zinn for examples of this). So he has to make a sort of trojan horse argument that appeases the right wingers by tying it to the war on terror, but which promotes some common sense in the form of attempting to address issues of economic and social justice.
Immediately after 9/11, the US was in an excellent position to right many of the foreign policy wrongs we’ve perpetrated (such as supporting murderous dictators and so forth), but Bush blew it. Powell’s still echoing this possibility, as if the BushCo machine would ever alter course. Too bad he’s leaving office.
You make a similar point to my friend who criticizes Nader. “You need to work within the system, what has Nader done by trying to play spoiler, he got Bush elected the first time, which allowed him to get elected a second time.” The thing is, outside of politics, Nader has accomplished many good things for consumers, and I’m sure that while he has not received national attention for his views (banned from the presidential debates), he has had some effect on not letting the other 2 major parties run farther and farther to the right. I think this applies to Chomsky and Zinn as well. For them to hold to their principles of seeking truth and justice, they have to stay true to those ideals, even if it means they will be shut out from the mainstream. While “running around and telling the truth all the time is a good way to get ignored,” it is also a good way to get noticed underneath the surface. The WTO protests in ’99 are an example of this. There can be no compromise for truth and justice, those are simply things you cannot sell out. If Nader cannot win as a 3rd party, then that’s that, but you can’t fault him for not compromising his essential values and siding with the Democrats, who have become more like the Republicans in terms of expanding the military budget, and other matters. It’s the argument, the lesser of 2 evils is still evil. While politicians do have to play politics to get some issues of economic and social justice passed, that game of politics also ensures that we maintain some amounts of economic and social injustice. And, while this is the system, and the system does bring forth some progress, it’s a one step forward, one step back, kind of progress.
I think many people go into politics because they do believe in social and economic justice, but, they quickly learn that the game of politics is corrupted by the influence of money and greed. Fortunately, we can beat them at their game and create a system of continual progress, one step forward, followed by the other foot, but it will have to be done like most progress, through the efforts of people rather than the efforts of gov’t, through the learning done outside of school, through the efforts of people like Nader, Zinn, and Chomsky.
YO!
you rock!
thank you so much for writing your opinions on these matters. i constantly wish that i could find people like-minded as ourselves who wish to explore these topics from humble beginnings (i.e. reading shit on our own and making connections)
now, i shall go away and post later when i have ample time to read through and digest this last post and respond with an informed opinion.
keep on rockin’ bro!
No, I’m not saying anyone needs to work inside the system. I’m saying you’re wrong about Powell’s statements.
Powell’s not a neocon. He’s been a good soldier *for* the neocons, but he’s not one himself.
Oh, hey… Have you ever seen ‘Bob Roberts?’
I’ll answer more later, but ry?: Obviously, taxes don’t in any way “hurt the economy.” That’s ultimate nonsense based in Republican propaganda that suggests that tax money somehow disappears. What happens when people pay taxes? The money is either spent by the government (returning it into circulation) or it is used to redeem government bonds (paying down debt) which also puts it back into the system. From a pure economist point of view it makes zero difference whether a government builds a road or a private developer builds that road, the same money is spent on materials, labor, etc. Now taxes may influence what people do with money. So, for example, the US taxes work at a higher rate than any other form of wealth acquisition. Obviously this discourages work. If your tax system encourages gambling (as our tax system does) than more people will gamble. If your tax system encourages savings at the expense of spending (as sales taxes do) then people spend less and the econmy struggles. But tax rates? Tax rates mean nothing. The biggest periods of economic growth: Under Lyndon Johnson, Ronald Reagan, and Bill Clinton occurred while effective tax rates increased dramatically.
I don’t really have time for a full response right now, but this is a good link regarding the “infant mortality myth.”
In short, the reason the US has such an apparently high infant mortality rate is because the United States also easily has the most intensive system of emergency intervention to keep low birth weight and premature infants alive in the world.
How does this skew the statistics? Because in the United States if an infant is born weighing only 400 grams and not breathing, a doctor will likely spend lot of time and money trying to revive that infant. If the infant does not survive — and the mortality rate for such infants is in excess of 50 percent — that sequence of events will be recorded as a live birth and then a death.
In many countries, however, (including many European countries) such severe medical intervention would not be attempted and, moreover, regardless of whether or not it was, this would be recorded as a fetal death rather than a live birth. That unfortunate infant would never show up in infant mortality statistics.
nothing like pretending that an article with a line like this: “Cuba probably does much the same thing that many other countries do” is factual. If the author was serious, he could check the Cuban records and note that there is no difference in classification between Cuba and the US on this, or Germany and the US, or the UK and the US. Probably no nation on earth has the level of neo-natal care across the board that Cuba does. That’s why infant mortality is so low there.
I heard about College Daze from a fellow Wash U Student and read an article written about you and the book. I’m a sophomore there and I’ve feel very much that do about college and the lack of emphasis put on education. My history professor from highschool told me that he feels two years would be enough for most students in college and then the rest should be out in the “real world” whatever that may be trying to learn from experiences.
Wash U does a good job of trying to keep people in their “bubble.” I actually was a Business school student for my freshman year and hated it and switched to Arts n’ Sciences. Most of what I study now though is Spanish and French language, so it’s not really too much of the college classes, but just reading literature or studying grammar.
I’m going to study abroad in both France and Chile, and I know that will let me know a lot about myself that I can’t learn on campus. I also plan on joining the peace corps after college and maybe doing foreign service work or some sort of activist work.
I would like to talk to you (and I have a lot of friends who would also be interested) if ever you are on campus. Just in case my e-mail address is kothegaln@olin.wustl.edu .
When you start with a false statement: “bad government produces poverty” for example, you can pretty much prove anything. Poverty, on this planet, is obviously the result of an inequal distribution of wealth. No leader of this US administration will say that because we control 25 times our “fair share” of the earth’s wealth.
Now, the right will say “we worked for it” but that’s not true. We stole it. This continent. Oil from around the world. The labor of those who work for pennies so we can have 5,000 square foot homes. It’s all stolen. If it wasn’t, if thatliberalmedia and his ilk were right about “capitalism,” those in oil exporting nations like Nigeria would live like we do, those who make our computer chips in Malaysia would share our standard of living.
But Powell (being scripted to say what he says because he’s the only member of the US government considered to be seen as even remotely moral outside of red state America) is arguing for American Empire as he rides the “poverty Trojan Horse.” He’s suggesting that if everybody agrees with America (becomes a Protectorate) then we will help. We won’t, of course. We’ll help just as Britain “helped” 19th Century China and 18th Century Ireland.
Awesome post, Dan.
I like Zinn a lot but have serious disagreements with Chomsky – not because he’s anti-isreal (I am too… in fact, I’m opposed to any apartheid state, including our own), but because he takes a very hard-line anarchist, anti-marxist position that goes nowhere.
I’ve begun to have some interesting discussions w/ my roommate. He just finished reading “The Case For Isreal,” by Alan Dershowitz. Like myself, we’re both Jewish, and grew up thinking Israel = good, Arabs = bad. For the most part, I still hold that position. (the same way I held the position US = good only a few months ago). When I think of Israel, I think:
a) after WWII, the Jews needed a home, otherwise we’d all be dead
b) once Israel became a state in ’48, they were continuously attacked by Arabs. Any land they won in defensive wars is their land, and in fact, there is no other country in the world that we’d expect to give back land won in a defensive war
c) the Arabs have continuously turned down peace, and are only interested in destroying all Jews
d) Israel, like America, gives its citizens so many freedoms and rights that could never be dreamed of in any Arab country. Israel’s military actions are moral compared to Arab terrorists who go after innocent people. Israel’s military actions are in self-defense, while Arab terrorists seek to exterminate all of Jewish Israel
those are the basic ideas in my head…Dershowitz goes through a list of 32 frequent criticism of Israel, and obviously has a defense for every one. It was interesting that I had just read Chomsky’s “What Uncle Sam Really Wants,” and had no idea that the book my friend was reading addresses Chomsky on page one as “far left,” and throughout the book as a supporter of anti-semitism. We agreed to swap books, and I think we’ve both fallen into the trap of becoming partisans, (my friend wanted to burn my Chomsky book before opening a page after reading what an anti-Semite he was), and I’m already more of a skeptic of Dershowitz than I have been of Zinn or Chomsky (although years ago I read some Dershowitz w/ an open mind about civil liberties or something). Anyways…what I immediately did was read Dershowitz’ criticisms of Chomsky, specifically what my friend had read to me about Chomsky’s support for Robert Faurisson, a Holocaust denier. After hearing 2-pages, I was left thinking, “oh my god, how could Chomsky do such a thing.” Dershowitz mentioned how Chomsky not only supported Faurisson’s free speech, but provided a forward for Faurisson’s book, thereby “joining with the author, and defending the substance of Faurisson’s work.”
After reviewing the Chomsky-Faurisson case in further detail, it became quickly evident how Dershowitz, a clever lawyer, was able to sell to the jury (the unknowing and impressionable reader), that Chomsky was anti-Semetic, or at least had a few screws loose, and was “disqualified from ever being taken seriously on matters pertaining to Jews.”
First of all, Chomsky has written without equivocation that the Holocaust was one of the sickest crimes committed against humanity. To try to allude, as Dershowitz does, that Chomsky either believes the arguments of Holocaust deniers, or that he defends the “substance” of their work, is a flat out lie, or at least, false in logic. The truth is, Chomsky is one of the staunchest defenders of civil liberties and the freedom of speech. Chomsky’s support for Faurisson went no further than his support for his freedom to say something, even something as wrong and offensive as denying the Holocaust. If we begin to ban speech, even the most wrong and controversial, we run a slippery slope with the possible banning of things that are right and controversial (for example, some Mississippi libraries are trying to ban Jon Stewart’s book, “America.”)
With that being said, Chomsky wrote a letter on behalf of Faurisson, and said he could use it for any purpose. When Faurisson used it as a forward to his book discrediting the Holocaust, people falsely concluded that Chomsky was giving his stamp of approval to the legitimacy of the content, not simply the legitimacy of the right to free speech. Upon realizing this, Chomsky called for his letter to be taken out of the book, but realized it was too late, and in fact regreted that he asked for this. He had done nothing wrong, it was merely a case of his words being taken out of context, something that Dershowitz does in his book as well.
Later in the same chapter, Dershowitz shows how radical imams who preach hatred of Jews often cite historians like Faurisson. Here, Dershowitz commits a double-fallacy. First, he’s already made a false link between Chomsky and a Holocaust denier, and he attempts to extend it to a radical-imam who wants to destroy the Jews. Second, he ignores the fact that Chomsky has a very strict definition of “anti-Semitism” (he is a linguistics scholar after all). If you say you hate Israel, you’re an anti-Zionist, if you say you hate Jews, you’re an anti-Semite. With that definition he holds that Faurisson is an anti-Zionist, because he denounces “Zionist lies,” however, this does not make him an anti-Semite. In Dershowitz’ attempt to draw a link between Chomsky and Sheikh Ibrahim Madhi, who preaches hatred of Jews and blames Jews for the Holocaust, Dershowitz writes, ”Chomsky would not regard him as anti-Semitic” Not only is that unsupported, but it’s not true. Chomsky WOULD consider him to be anti-Semitic.
Dershowitz does a very good job of misstating Chomsky’s views, in order to show that people, even someone as well-respected as Chomsky, who are critical of the state of Isreal, are also anti-Semitic.
The real issue, is the question of, “is it anti-Semetic to single out Isreal” as Chomsky did when calling for colleges such as Harvard to devest their endowment money from Israel. Of all the countries to single out, why would someone single out Israel, unless they were anti-Semetic? “The intellectual godfather of this campaign is none other than Noam Chomsky, who has called for the abolition of the state of Israel and teh substitution of a ‘secular binational state.’
Well…first of all, I don’t know all of Chomsky’s views, but I doubt they’re based on “ignorance, bigotry, and cynicism,” as Dershowitz suggests. The question is, what would possess Chomsky, a Jew himself, and so many others who believe in truth, freedom, and equality, to single out Israel over other countries for divestment?
As I reverse the picture, I begin to ask myself this question: Why does the US give so much support to Israel, over other countries for investment? I’m not sure if schools give disproportionate amount of funds to Israel, but I’m certain we give more military aid to Israel than any other nation. My recent discoveries of US history show me that when the US gives aid, it tends to be to aid our corporations to get rich, while ensuring that the democracy we support is a democracy that is willing to oppress its own people.
However, Israel is clearly a double-edged sword, because it is viewed as the homeland of the Jews. Yes…it was 5 years ago now that I just returned from a 10-day “birthright Isreal trip,” an all expense paid trip paid for by two very rich and gernerous millionaires, who wanted to help Jewish people, mostly college students, who had never been on an organized trip to Israel, to get back in touch with their culture.
So…unlike US actions in Central and South America to overthrow certain democracies and support others, which was supported purely by corporate greed (see post below), support for Israel comes from Jews as well, and for the primary and legitimate reason of wanting a safe Jewish homeland after nearly being exterminated in WWII (and the anti-Semitism that has existed for centuries before that).
However, my new rule is to look for the Trojan Horse from politicians. Seeing that it’s the Republican party and radical-rights that support Israel, I think they’ve created a smoke screen to support a legitimate cause with Jewish backing, to cover-up for the corporate cause, of strategic economic and political positioning in the oil-rich Middle East.
You have an odd idea of stealing thenarrator. Apparently, people entering into contracts overseas of their own free will involves “stealing,” but putting guns to people’s heads and telling them how and with whom they may trade is simply following some sort of moral order. What kind of backwards world do you live in?
I’d like to point out South Korea and Singapore started out just as Malaysia and Thailand have now. The free way. North Korea, China, were a little too eager to shove guns in people faces, and not hesitant to use them. Are China and North Korea “more equal?” Yes, equally dirt poor, except of course the few leaders at the top, who are billionaires. To compare this inequality, the type of inequality that Powell was discussing, to the inequality in the US is just mind-boggling. Either it displays complete ignorance, or, as in Chomsky’s case, a deliberate desire to confuscate the truth. These people who know better and lie anyway aren’t after “justice, equality, tolerance, and peace.” This is a naked power grab.
That was an interesting way of summarizing what I said…I don’t recall saying ANYTHING justifying trade with people putting guns to people’s heads, nor did I say ANYTHING about that being a moral way of doing things. You’ve managed to take my words completely out of context.
Free trade is not stealing. Free trade is free trade. However, what is currently going on through the WTO is not free trade. It is free trade for America, but it is not free trade for 3rd world countries.
Check out http://kickaas.typepad.com/ for examples of how the US unfairly uses gov’t subsidies for farmers and other industries. Then tell me how what the US is doing is fair for everyone, including the poor and 3rd world countries.
And please, explain to me what this power grab is? Tell me how Chomsky, and Zinn, who have fought for labor rights, human rights, minority rights, economic rights, etc. are really concerned w/ power vs. justice, equality, tolerance, etc. And, explain to me, why you feel the need to take words out of context, rather than dealing with the issue at hand, for example, the unfair practices of the WTO, and their “free-trade in name only” policies.