Big Talk vs. Big Action

Few things are more dangerous to genuinely crucial topics of concern than a false sense of interest based on a false sense of security. We have been taught from our youth that appropriate behavior for an enlightened society is to be multi-cultural and to show an interest in the world affairs and plight of those in circumstances less fortunate than our own.

However, this enlightened concern patronizes those who are actually in the situation by making it seem as though concern is something that can be afforded to the wealthy from a distance. Meanwhile we can sit in our air conditioned, publicly funded radio/television studios or comfortable, expensive coffee houses and debate in theory the issues genuinely impacting others throughout the world.

By debating we have a free flow of ideas and that free flow of ideas allows everyone some modicum of participation. One can feel connected to the topic by discussing it in the abstract.

But feigning interest in a topic or discussing it purely in abstract terms for the sake of sounding concerned without having an interest in the practical administation of the concerns or the practical needs of the HUMAN BEINGS in the situation is worse than not having an interest at all.

This enlightened conversation has painted these human beings as single dimensional figures and (without meaning to--the question here is not intent but result) paints a picture meant to serve as a warning, to prove one's knowledge, to express the deep sadness, but which does NOT accomplish anything practical or useful or real for those about whom one can only speak in abstract.

Do not allow the "enlightened" view of the world fool you into thinking that deep philisophical debate puts bread on the table for one single individual in need. Do not think that because you are able to participate in this debate that that individual somehow psychicly feels your concern.

Get your hands dirty. Be willing to go beyond your own safe, anti-bacterial world to actually make the difference.

DO something big. Don't just TALK big.

Reinforcing Tyranny

The latest report from the LA Times (http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-iran1-2009jul01,0,4811927.story) on July 1, 2009 stated that the Iranian government is still confident that it can entirely put out the flame of protest in its country. Groups who previously stood behind the protesters are now saying that the bloodshed and the pain has reached a critical level and is too much. They are suggesting that the protesters sit this one out.
Pictured above is a university student who was recently beaten into a coma by government officials in Iran. Added to the recent Youtube videos of other students being shot and beaten one can definitely understand the concern of these groups. Sitting comfortably in a nation that prides itself on individual liberties where one rarely has to stand up for what one believes in, it is almost incomprehensible that a call for a free and fair election could result in such brutality--or that one would want to continue to subject themselves to such brutality for something as intangible as an election.

With that (and the understanding that being in the time and place of the brutality offers a perspective and the ability to make the decision whether or not to continue the fight) the following is the humble opinion of one activist minded person:

The youth in Iran cannot give up. Those who have taken to the streets demanding their rights must continue to fight. Yes--this student and every other protester who has been brutalized in this traumatic stiuation have suffered. But to sit down now and allow the government to continue its ways will only serve to further the agenda of the oppressive regime. These Freedom Walkers have fought too hard, suffered through too much, and endured for too long for their efforts to have been in vain.

To stop now, to give up, to sit down, will only reinforce the tyranny of the current regime.

As for the international community:

Financial and military support may not be feasible or practical right now. It is understood that they may have to fight this fight on their own. But, would it be too much to ask that the free people of the world stand up and give support morally and verbally to these protesters? They're not asking for the overthrow of a peaceful, democratic, government--they are demanding that their voices be heard in a FREE and FAIR election! We must support them.

Those on the inside have said that they can handle this fight--as long as they know that there are people on the outside who support them.

We MUST give them this support!

Tyranny will last only as long as we cower in the corner, begging for mercy.

Conflict of Interest?

The recent situation in Iran was initially the center of much international media coverage. Most explicitly, the video coverage of Neda Agha-Soltan, the 26-year-old Iranian philosophy student who was viciously gunned down during a protest of the state's recent election. Many are claiming that the election was fixed--the protesters have taken to the street demanding their right to free and fair elections. This woman boldly told her friend, "Its only one bullet," when asked if she was afraid to die. She then paid the price for her bravery with her life. It was broadcast on Youtube and covered by some of the major networks.

Members of the British embassy were arrested over the weekend because the Iranian government believes they've been instrumental in the latest protests.

And then Farrah Fawcett, Michael Jackson, and Billy Mays died. Obama's latest speech was interrupted by a rude cell phone. California is being forced to issue IOU's because they can't pay their bills right now. How quickly we forget that there is an entire world with bigger issues than our latest celebrity funeral.

Where is the outcry? Where is the indignation? Where is the strong message from the leader of one of the most powerful nations in the world regarding the safety of these protesters or the fundamental human rights that America was founded on: freedom of speech, expression, and assembly? He proudly declared that his administration had pushed the Middle East in the direction of democracy when he gave his speech in Egypt a few months ago. Then he realized that the election was a sham and we've heard very little from him since.

Its disconcerting.

Moreso, is the absolute lack of interest from the public. There has been some modicum of outcry, yes, but the overall media coverage is reduced to a tiny "Special Features" link at the bottom of major news websites. Michael Jackson's untimely and unfortunate death, however, recieves three links at the top of the page. Sometimes, with a picture.

When did we stop giving a damn? When did the VERY public, VERY exposed, VERY brutal death of young women in the streets stop bothering us?

Is it just because we feel our own financial, political, fill-in-you-blank-here needs are not being met?

When did freedom become the birthright of a small few--taken completely for granted and hardly extended?

Fence Sitting is Harmful

The line between what is right and what is wrong is becoming increasingly blurred in our present society. At what point did we stop standing up for our convictions? And it may be that we never actually perpetrate crime ourselves, but to sit by idly and cover our eyes hoping a situation will just get better might as well be an all-out condoning of the action. 

This principle is at play in every level of world politics from the most intimate personal relationships to the precariously balanced relationship of nations not wishing court the ill-will of perpetrating nations and thus closing their eyes to atrocity daily. At some point we have to stop being so spineless. Atrocity persists because we permit it to persist. By not demanding action we are complicit in the continuation of the situations at hand. 

Take this to a small level. Say that friend A and friend B were walking down the street. Friend A decides to beat up Friend C. In order to preserve relations with both, friend B doesn't say anything and instead holds his hands over his eyes. Friend A is guilty of a assault. Friend B is complicit in the crime. 

Now, let's take this a little larger. Nation A and Nation B are friends. Nation A decides to finance the human rights atrocities committed by Nation C. Because Nation B is almost entirely supported by exports to and imports from Nation A, they decide to casually pretend that nothing is going on. Or at best be very slow to respond. They're also trying to preserve relations with Nation C since alienating them would in turn alienate Nation A. Nation A is guilty. Nation C is guilty. Nation B is complicit. 

The sad state of affairs in our world is that we stand by and allow things to happen to people we care about, we stand by and watch other nations get decimated, and we stand by and watch entire people groups be destroyed because we care more about our own interests and our perceived "peace" then we do about the reality which is that people suffer and die daily without any intervention by anyone who can. 

Its high time we started standing on our convictions instead of allowing them to be pretty rhetoric. Get off the fence and stand for something...or risk falling for anything.

Jus in Bellum?

I spent some time this week reading Sven Lindqvist's History of Bombing, a book that details the advent of aerial bombing and the use of such bombing in wars thereafter. The author points out that there are two types of warfare:

(1) Bellum Hostile--> "Christian" warfare against similar groups

and

(2) Bellum Romanum--> War waged against "savages"

In essence, those who make war like to think that there is a way to fight Bellum Hostile with what is called Jus in Bellum (Justice in War). There is a way to fight a gentleman's fight, they contend. Lindqvist argues that this is increasingly not the case.

In order to fight an enemy we must dehumanize the enemy. When you look into your enemy's eyes and see a man who has a family, a past, and dreams of a future, you have a harder time shooting him. It is the reason that celebrations like the 1914 Christmas Truce between the opposing sides on the Western Front were instantly stopped--you can't empathize with the guy on the other end of your gun. Reduce him to a two-dimensional demon and then shoot him. Convince yourself that it is a necessary death.

So it is, and so it has been. Nations go to great lengths to create propaganda that pushes against the idea of humanity in the enemy. In WWI there were pictures of "German Huns", during the cold war you were asked "Is YOUR workplace harboring Communists?" and essentially the national narrative had to be rearranged.

When you create a savage of your enemy, none of the original rules of war apply. He's not a human being, he's not like you, so Bellum Romanum rules and savages be damned.

Really, it is the eternal paradox. It really isn't possible to fight a war without demonizing the enemy, and it really isn't possible to demonize the enemy and still fight Bellum Hostile. Therefore, we firebomb civilian locations that have no military significance. We lay waste to cities when our might have been better used elsewhere. It breaks the will of the people who are, in their own course, supporting their governments in the propaganda campaign against YOU, so it isn't like such action doesn't have an impact. Let's be clear--it has an impact on people who would likely suggest such an impact should be had on you, in turn. Thus, the German Blitz on England answered the firebombing of Dresden and Hamburg.

Then historians try to go back and place blame on the firebombers of Dresden and Hamburg for targeting civilians and not hitting more strategic military targets or more effective targets like the Auschwitz cremetoria.

I think such consideration is right. We SHOULD consider the contradictions in claiming to wage civilized war while not following through with out own call to duty.

HOWEVER: there is such a thing as necessary war. I am not an idealist who thinks that it'll ever be truly possible to hold hands and be friends with everyone. When attacked, I think it is justified to counter-attack. I think that war against Hitler was justified. I think that war against the masterminds of 9-11 is justified. But let's not fool ourselves into thinking that we'll ever be able to truly follow any "rules of war". If we demonize the enemy, admittedly a tool that seems necessary for the self defense of a nation, then we also dehumanize them. If we dehumanize them then anything goes.

If that is what we think, then let us be bold and admit it. Let us say out loud we're waging a total war, or wage no war at all. Because we only undermine the concept of justice, the concept of universal human rights, the concept of honor when we claim to be honorable and then allow ourselves to make it obvious that our warfare is not. IF it is necessary that it be so--so let's just call it what it is. And let us be prepared to suffer the consequences.

Perhaps then, the only wars that civilized nations fight will be just wars--and though they won't be gentlemen's wars we'll be honest enough to admit that a gentleman's war is an oxymoron anyway.

Determination and Defiance

Several days ago I held in my hand a copy of National Geographic. It was the issue celebrating their hundred best photographs. Being a bit of a photography hound myself, I began to consider each page. If there is one thing this magazine is known for it certainly would be its vast collection of travelogue-esque pictures. The heartbreaking shots of the children dying from malnutrition in Third World countries, the breath taking picture of the veiled girl with the electric eyes that graced the cover, and the amazing beauty of humanity as a whole as captured by the lens of a single person's SLR. I really think that part of my love affair with photography has to do with the ability to capture the beauty of humanity on film (or digital chip, as it were). The celebration of life, even in moments of sorrow. The ability to cross language, cultural, and religious barriers and draw empathy from the viewer--that sense of connection.

Awe-inspired by the work at my fingertips, I flipped through the pages slowly. That was when I found her. The photograph is smaller than others, almost a side-note to the magazine's endeavors. It is black and white and shows what looks to be a courtroom scene. Against the wall stand (and sit) soldiers, all carrying the obligatory arms. In the fore, surrounded by a waist high cage made of metal bars, stands a woman. She can't be older than 25, and she's wearing a lovely skirt with polka dots on it. The most striking feature of the entire photograph, however, is the look on this woman's face. It is determination. It is defiance.

It is the look that says, "You've taken all of my freedom already. Going to jail will be a respite."

It is the look that says, "I'm not sorry. I'm not backing down. And I'm not going to show you I'm afraid."

It is pride; it is a subtle anger.

It is clearly expressed.

The caption to the photo states that the woman was on trial for "terrorist activity" in a nation that had marginalized her people. I forget the details, but they're unimportant. This woman could be any woman in any country. Any woman, that is, willing to show by her look of righteous anger that she was fighting for a cause outside of herself. The caption merely confirmed what her face had already told you.

If I had one wish for the world it would be that everyone would have the opportunity to wear that look. I don't wish everyone to be forced to stand trial for their beliefs, but if it happens I would want us all to be able to do so unapologetically. Was it not the Founding Fathers of the United States who stated that those who stand for nothing will fall for anything? As a culture we need to know what we stand for. As individuals we need to be willing to do so.

Is Activism Dead?

Is Activism Dead?

As children and grandchildren of activists for the plethora of causes that the last century brought us we hold a legacy in our hands that is currently being squandered by our own selfish need to have something given in return for any good deed we do. We seem to think that change can be brought about by a catchy slogan, a celebrity endorsement, or a pity check sent to a place we’ve never even dreamed of visiting.

Can we really call ourselves activists anymore? You can put the “One” banner on you’re My Space, you can buy the green “Not on Our Watch—Save Darfur” bracelets, you can even take part in the “Camp Cambodia” drives where you set up tents in the quad and talk genocide with passing strangers (admittedly—ALL things that I have done) but what really is being accomplished? Are we simply assuaging our own guilt and trying to empower ourselves to believe that we are world changers when in reality not one of those things is going to fix any of the problems that we supposedly are “activist” for?


Activism is more than just being able to buy a CD (all donations tax deductible and $.80 of every dollar goes to the cause!), attend a rock charity concert (How could you turn down your favorite band? Do a good thing, hear some good music…win/win, yes?), or pick up the telephone to call the charity that turns South American and African children into icons of suffering (why don’t they EVER show a child smiling. Believe it or not, children DO smile in other countries). It is hard to imagine very many people who attend the “Rock Darfur” concerts being willing to be beaten or killed to make a point for the end of genocide.

It’s almost like the television brings us images of things that we never really call real in our minds…and we feel like sending money and pity will make the world a better place. I don’t mean to sound crass, but holding hands and singing Kumbaya is not going to stop genocidal dictatorships from rising, killing millions of people, and then fading into obscurity.

In my mind, worse than stating that one is an activist because one buys a bumper sticker or sings “We Are the World” is the potential problems created by so-called activists taking credit for action that they didn’t make and thereby taking credit for “solving” the problem single-handedly (never mind that if it would have been that easy it probably wouldn’t have been a problem in the first place).

If Hillary Clinton had ever had my support (which, she didn’t) she would’ve completely lost it the moment that she made the sweeping claim that she was instrumental in the talks that brought peace to Rwanda. Sure she was. That’s why it took over three months for anything to happen. Hillary Clinton didn’t stop the killing, the UN didn’t stop the killing, the humanitarian efforts didn’t stop the killing. Eventually, the rebel forces of Rwanda had to roll in unaided to put an end to the slaughter. "Thanks but no thanks!" they said, "If we keep waiting for you to rescue us, we'll all be dead before you get here!"

While all of this was going on, the world was upset (justifiably) but really lacked true conviction to the feeling of upset and lacked follow-through. What good is it to be upset if you’re not willing to demand a change? Instead the rest of the world watched it happen…then when it is over it can shake its finger.

“Tsk, tsk.” It says.

HELLO! America signed the Genocide Conventions after World War II! We swore “Never Again” after witnessing the Holocaust then we watched it happen in Cambodia, we watched it happen in Bosnia, we watched it happen in Rwanda and NOW we are watching it happen in Darfur.

Nancy Pelosi is now saying that America has lost all moral authority if we don’t do something about Tibet, a province trying to win its independence. All of this was simply posturing because of the then upcoming Olympic Games in Beijing. Had China not been about to play good-will ambassador to the world, the only people who would care about Tibet would be the ones who have the “Free Tibet” stickers on the back of their cars. In my mind America lost all moral authority when President Bush said, “Not on our watch” to Darfur and then allowed the Janjaweed to push the Darfurians into the deserts of Chad. Repeatedly.

Unfortunately what the world needs now is not “love, sweet love” but action—decisive and demanding. A movement likened to the ones of generations past where people were willing to sacrifice their reputations, their dignity, and possibly their bodies/lives for the causes that they believed in. There simply are not enough Stephen Walkers in the world, willing to step away from promising careers (as he did in 1993 during the Bosnian genocide) to stand on principle. The question really ends up being, are you willing to take a bullet for what you believe in?

Or better yet…if its not a cause that you personally feel…can you ever have true empathy for it that would rouse the passion or conviction that would cause you to put yourself in harm’s way to prove your point?

Perhaps the problem isn’t lack of passion…

…but lack of proximity.