From: Arlo Bensinger (ajb102@psu.edu)
Date: Thu May 26 2005 - 15:53:33 BST
[Platt wrote about a "Modern Brujo" saying"]
>Following are excerpts from an essay by Keith Thompson citing his reasons
>for "leaving the left" after a lifetime of "long-term intimate
>relationship." He reminded me of the story of the brujo in Lila, although
>as far as know, Mr. Thompson has yet to suffer torture for his rebellion
>against today's liberal priests.
[Arlo responds]
So, to be a "Brujo" one simply needs to embrace the entrenched power of the
right? This ongoing illusion of the poor "right", suffering while doing
naught by good works under the villany of the "left" is funnier each time
you try to inject it into the dialogue.
As far as I remember, the Brujo acted in a way that brought condemnation
from "society", not just one side in your ongoing "left is all evil, right
is all good" worldview. Methinks a true "Brujo" would act in a way that was
neither right nor left, but brought in cultural change to society as a
whole. That is, both your "right" and "left" would be altered by the
Brujo's actions (albeit it it would only be in retrospect that society
would see this). As long as you cling to this deliberately false dichotomy,
Platt, all your examplars do is demonstrate your uncritical, unyielding
acceptance of "right-wing'" dogma, and how all your philosophy is
subservient to this.
Keith Thompson may be right to be critical of the left (pun intended), but
this hardly implies that the right is above criticism. The Saudis continue
to rule with tyranny and oppression, and yet they are part of the House of
Bush's inner circle. There is no criticism from the right on this. That
Saddam was a brutal leader is indeniable, and yet napalming Iraqis against
all global bans is also undeniably "evil". If the "right" is so vocal on
Iraqi rights and freedom, where was this voice for all the years that Bush
the First sold weapons and was chummy with Saddam? Don't tell me its
because we "didn't know he was evil then". We certainly did, but it was in
our favor to support his tyranny. We supported the Iraq/Iran conflict,
supporting both sides in a historical bloodbath that only served to keep
the region destabilized and prevent a global power from emerging. To only
look at the "elections" and not the history of the "right's" involvement
and claim to be some morally noble freedom-bringer in not only naive but so
distorted it smacks of pure Orwellian tactics. (To be fair, it is not only
the "right", but both political parties (i.e., the American Governement),
that should be critically examined for its historical role in the middle east).
Mr. Thompson favors the use of "evil" to talk about those responsible for
the millions of murders under Stalin. I say, fine! Good! Let's do that!
But, let's also be fair and call those responsible for the "trail of
tears", the exterminations of the Indians, the support of brutal dictators
in South America, those who used and benefitted from American slavery
"evil". Let's be as critical of ourselves as we are of others. But let's
also get one thing clear, what people objected to in Reagan's "evil empire"
term was that it de-humanized the entire population of Russia. You might
not think it was supposed to, but it did. Russians as a whole became evil
in American eyes. Look at the movies and popular culture about Russia at
the time. It was populated by evil, deceitful people all willingly corrupt
and without morals. This language played right into American xenophobia. No
one was talking about how Russians are good people, with good hearts and
sons and daughters and families who are mostly like us but living under an
oppressing regime. The language shaped our cultural attitudes, and the
pervasive wave of anti-Russian xenophobia that swept the nation is evidence
of what even Limbaugh knows, "words mean things". Right now, the same
cultural xenophobia is being tapped into with regards to North Korea. If
you follow CNN or Fox or any mainstream media broadcast, you'd walk away
believing the North Koreans are, as a people, power mad, lunatics bent on
war and destruction. I'm sure there are some like this, but the people of
North Korea (not the regime, but the people) are more like us than
different. They are fathers and sons and mothers and daughters, who wake up
each day, kiss their kids, work, play and dream. I shouldn't even have to
point out that the same de-humanizing rhetoric surrounded our involvement
with Iraq. Were you, Platt, concerned about the innocent mothers and
daughters, fathers and sons, killed by American bombing? Or were they
somehow "expendable"? Are you also expendable, or does your life have more
value?
Everyone I know that you would call "leftist" wants self-determination for
the Iraqis, and it is only with mild annoyance that this comes at the
expense of right-wing hypocrisy. But we also want self-determination for
the citizens of Saudi Arabia, Africa, and all other areas of the world
where people are under external or tyrannical power. When Bush invades
Saudi Arabia and places his "belief in freedom" above his families
long-term financial and power interests, perhaps the right-wing mantra of
"freedom" will sound at least a little more genuine. Do we take freedom
along with the hypocrisy? Sure. Do you simply let that go uncritically? No.
Of course, to make it sound like those on the "left" want to see Iraq
implode to make Bush look bad is simply more evidence of the "vile dogma"
injected into the forum. It is wrong, and is only used as political
propaganda by those favoring a "great and glorious right, evil and immoral
left" worldview. Sad.
Arlo
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu May 26 2005 - 15:59:19 BST