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.
Tuesday, November 4, 2008
Monday, October 27, 2008
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.
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.
Tuesday, October 14, 2008
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
