"Jalapeño cheese grits RULE."
Mar. 28th, 2003 09:30 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
hermionesviolinYes, we spent the first 10 or 15 minutes of Am. Lit. class yesterday talking about Southern food. I learned that Michael’s a vegetarian, which always endears people to me. He talked about how he doesn’t get along with his family, how he gets along with them better since he moved 1500 miles away. He also did some of that talking about his children are of the devil, though i don’t think he meant it (partly from the kinda “i don’t really mean this” quality of it, but mainly because i’ve seen him with his kids and it’s obvious that he loves them). That bothers me. I was telling Allie that it’s because some people really don’t get along with their families and it’s something very serious that makes me very sad, so i don’t like when people joke about it, but i think actually it’s more of an honesty issue. Like, i buy that he doesn’t get along with his family, but i don’t buy that he doesn’t like his children because i’ve seen evidence to the contrary, so that makes me question the validity of the statements about the family, and then of course the important part is that then it puts the marital griping into more questionable territory, and not only do i like believability and consistency but i’m doing my thesis on his marital status. ;)
He asked whether we wanted to take some time to talk about what’s going on internationally before talking about Birth of a Nation or set aside some time at the end to talk about it or just what. Someone said something about this racist war, and i asked if someone could explain to me just how this war is “racist” since i’ve heard that term thrown around a lot but haven’t heard any explanation, and a bunch of hands shot up, so Michael said we seemed to have agreed on a direction and was everyone okay with that.
(For the record, it’s a racist war because, duh, it’s being waged against people of darker skin than us, though i forget the elaborate rationale which makes that argument actually make sense, and because so many members of the military – i.e., Americans who are going to die in this – are people of color. I’ll accept that as a legitimate criticism, but really that just says that the military is racially problematic or something; it doesn’t apply solely to this war.)
Since i’ve been back from Spring Break (during which i assiduously avoided war coverage) i’ve been weary. I have continued to avoid reading about the war, just felt very weary of the whole thing, and inclined to be anti-war hearing about the death and destruction and all (plus i oppose a lot of what this administration has done, so it gets difficult to support/defend something they’re doing). But listening to people state reasons why they opposed the war, i jotted the ideas down because i had counters to them. Dealing with specific issues, arguments, logics, this i can do. The amorphous sadness can envelop me, because i can’t do anything about it, but individual points i can deal with. Like light piercing through the enveloping cloud. Argument invigorates me. And in class i actually got to point out some of the problematics of the “We should have just let the inspectors do their jobs” argument (though Michael did in turn point out that as long as the inspectors were there, with the threat of military force if WMDs were discovered or used, if any weapons existed they were rendered unusable).
(Following up on my post about The Birth of a Nation, since we did spend the last half hour or so of class talking about the film, is “Dixiecrats Triumphant: The secret history of Woodrow Wilson” from Reason magazine, sent to me by my Dad.)
I wore my red short-sleeved shirt with the floral cutouts, because it’s pretty and spring-y. I remembered the Wear Red to Oppose the War, but decided that i hadn’t seen anything about that in the publicity for this day, so i would be okay. And i was fine until i went to the Dean Walters teach-in, where there were a couple Radical Cheerleaders in their red shirts and some other people in red shirts and i felt so very aware of the fact that i was being read as anti-war. It made me realize how problematic it is to “read” people, that you may well not be working within the same set of codes.
The Jennifer Walters thing was good. She opened saying she’s a mess, and she said that the flailing keeps her honest, keeps her from being self-righteous, and i liked that. I think that’s one of the ways that messy and wounded places are places where the light can come in (one of the major themes of her talk).
We talked about the used of religious language in the media and so on, and one woman said that she feels like her religion has been co-opted (by the Bush administration) to mean and to justify things she doesn’t agree with, and that it makes it difficult for her to connect to her religion and spirituality, to use them as methods of healing in this time, and how much moreso Muslims have felt that after September 11, and both those ideas really struck me.
I was also interested that two people who seemed to be very definitely anti-war were also advocating complexity and grey area and stuff with their words, though i think they were thinking of it just as an attack on the anti-war side. One person said that it seems like stepping away from extremes, getting into grey areas, is seen as traitorous, and i know she was referring to the “You’re either with us or you’re against us” type rhetoric from the administration, but i thought about how one of the reasons it’s so difficult to have debate within the “liberal” community is because i very much think that (often) if you support the war you are seen as a traitor. The second woman talked about how in our culture we’re very quick to judge, to make everything black and white, that that’s how we deal with things. I know she was talking about the axis of evil rhetoric and so on, but it made me think about how the anti-war stuff is so much about right vs. wrong (Bush is wrong and evil, killing people is wrong, peace is right and good, etc.).
And lastly, one woman talked about how Iraqis surrendering is presented as being because they love the U.S. so much, but that in Islam, jihad is only justified if your religion, your ability to practice your religion, is threatened, and that otherwise you are not supposed to fight, not supposed to hurt people, so if these people are Islamic of course they would surrender. I thought that was interesting food for thought – though it’s problematic in many ways (maybe the U.S. is the lesser of two evils compared to Saddam, maybe it’s more about hating Saddam than loving us, for one, and for a second, even if that is an accurate description of Islamic belief, if people of Islam are anything like Christian, than the degree to which they live their life by their religion varies greatly, and there is much disagreement over just what the religion/holy text says).
[The following was too good snark to pass up.]
He asked whether we wanted to take some time to talk about what’s going on internationally before talking about Birth of a Nation or set aside some time at the end to talk about it or just what. Someone said something about this racist war, and i asked if someone could explain to me just how this war is “racist” since i’ve heard that term thrown around a lot but haven’t heard any explanation, and a bunch of hands shot up, so Michael said we seemed to have agreed on a direction and was everyone okay with that.
(For the record, it’s a racist war because, duh, it’s being waged against people of darker skin than us, though i forget the elaborate rationale which makes that argument actually make sense, and because so many members of the military – i.e., Americans who are going to die in this – are people of color. I’ll accept that as a legitimate criticism, but really that just says that the military is racially problematic or something; it doesn’t apply solely to this war.)
Since i’ve been back from Spring Break (during which i assiduously avoided war coverage) i’ve been weary. I have continued to avoid reading about the war, just felt very weary of the whole thing, and inclined to be anti-war hearing about the death and destruction and all (plus i oppose a lot of what this administration has done, so it gets difficult to support/defend something they’re doing). But listening to people state reasons why they opposed the war, i jotted the ideas down because i had counters to them. Dealing with specific issues, arguments, logics, this i can do. The amorphous sadness can envelop me, because i can’t do anything about it, but individual points i can deal with. Like light piercing through the enveloping cloud. Argument invigorates me. And in class i actually got to point out some of the problematics of the “We should have just let the inspectors do their jobs” argument (though Michael did in turn point out that as long as the inspectors were there, with the threat of military force if WMDs were discovered or used, if any weapons existed they were rendered unusable).
(Following up on my post about The Birth of a Nation, since we did spend the last half hour or so of class talking about the film, is “Dixiecrats Triumphant: The secret history of Woodrow Wilson” from Reason magazine, sent to me by my Dad.)
I wore my red short-sleeved shirt with the floral cutouts, because it’s pretty and spring-y. I remembered the Wear Red to Oppose the War, but decided that i hadn’t seen anything about that in the publicity for this day, so i would be okay. And i was fine until i went to the Dean Walters teach-in, where there were a couple Radical Cheerleaders in their red shirts and some other people in red shirts and i felt so very aware of the fact that i was being read as anti-war. It made me realize how problematic it is to “read” people, that you may well not be working within the same set of codes.
The Jennifer Walters thing was good. She opened saying she’s a mess, and she said that the flailing keeps her honest, keeps her from being self-righteous, and i liked that. I think that’s one of the ways that messy and wounded places are places where the light can come in (one of the major themes of her talk).
We talked about the used of religious language in the media and so on, and one woman said that she feels like her religion has been co-opted (by the Bush administration) to mean and to justify things she doesn’t agree with, and that it makes it difficult for her to connect to her religion and spirituality, to use them as methods of healing in this time, and how much moreso Muslims have felt that after September 11, and both those ideas really struck me.
I was also interested that two people who seemed to be very definitely anti-war were also advocating complexity and grey area and stuff with their words, though i think they were thinking of it just as an attack on the anti-war side. One person said that it seems like stepping away from extremes, getting into grey areas, is seen as traitorous, and i know she was referring to the “You’re either with us or you’re against us” type rhetoric from the administration, but i thought about how one of the reasons it’s so difficult to have debate within the “liberal” community is because i very much think that (often) if you support the war you are seen as a traitor. The second woman talked about how in our culture we’re very quick to judge, to make everything black and white, that that’s how we deal with things. I know she was talking about the axis of evil rhetoric and so on, but it made me think about how the anti-war stuff is so much about right vs. wrong (Bush is wrong and evil, killing people is wrong, peace is right and good, etc.).
And lastly, one woman talked about how Iraqis surrendering is presented as being because they love the U.S. so much, but that in Islam, jihad is only justified if your religion, your ability to practice your religion, is threatened, and that otherwise you are not supposed to fight, not supposed to hurt people, so if these people are Islamic of course they would surrender. I thought that was interesting food for thought – though it’s problematic in many ways (maybe the U.S. is the lesser of two evils compared to Saddam, maybe it’s more about hating Saddam than loving us, for one, and for a second, even if that is an accurate description of Islamic belief, if people of Islam are anything like Christian, than the degree to which they live their life by their religion varies greatly, and there is much disagreement over just what the religion/holy text says).
[The following was too good snark to pass up.]
Where:
All over the place
Topics:
US and Bush are evil
Saddam is misunderstood
The path to Utopia is blocked by the US and capitalism
Pretty much a typical day at Smith.
Guest name (Guest) wrote:
-------------------------------
OK, I know the jolt isn't the most warm and cuddly place to ask this question, but does anyone know where the teach-ins are going to be tomorrow morning? Any idea what the topics are going to be?
no subject
Date: 2003-03-28 08:09 am (UTC)A racial war? Please. A religious war? Not. Both sides could switch religions and it would not make much difference.
But the idea of something being done in the name of your religion making it hard for you to connect with your sprituality, that is an interesting thought. I respect organized religion, but at the same time, that is one of the things that keeps me away from it. Thank you for dropping that thought my way.
Gayly generalizing, melanin scales, and believable threats
Date: 2003-03-28 08:21 am (UTC)I'm always bothered by statements like this. They're such sweeping generalizations. Like saying, "Gay are promiscuous." Well, yes, some are--and some aren't.
It also implicitly assumes a comparison: Americans are quicker to judge than others, more likely to make things black and white. Is that really true? I have no idea and I suspect the speaker doesn't either.
2) Every picture I see, Saddam sure looks like a white guy. As do other Iraqis. If you had a melanin scale with Swedes are 0 and Dinkas at 100, they'd probably clock in at about 20.
If you took a melanin score of every American and averaged it, I wonder how the country would turn out. Probably above 20. Which makes for an interesting definition of racist war.
Though you can always say, "Of course, people of color basically don't have power in the United States. Anything the American government does is really white." Thus, American actions to any country outside northern Europe are by definition racist. Logically impeccable. Of course, the argument can also be used to show that everything France does in regard to Iraq is also racist.
3)"though Michael did in turn point out that as long as the inspectors were there, with the threat of military force if WMDs were discovered or used, if any weapons existed they were rendered unusable"
I don't understand. What if there had been no war, the inspectors had stayed, and a year from now Saddam announces he has developed an "Arab Bomb," a nuke which he will send to Tel Aviv unless the Israeli government stops oppressing the Palestinians. Why does the presence of inspectors make him any less able to use this weapon?
In fact, why would the presence of inspectors make much difference at all? After all, the UN has been saying for 12 years that Saddam had to disarm. Back in the mid-1990s, defectors brought evidence that he indeed was developing prohibited weapons. Some of these efforts were then stopped by the first inspections regime but gradually the Iraqi government cooperated less and less and in 1998 the inspectors left, saying they could not do their job. Clinton sent in a few missiles, people went tsk-tsk, and Saddam was left on his own to do what he does.
Perhaps this time, the threats would really be "credible." Saddam would really be scared that if he did what he wasn't supposed to, he would be taken out. But why should he believe this? Would the Smith campus really support war in this case? Would the French Foreign Ministry?
And, of course, some of the fear of Saddam's developing WMDs is not that he will say, "Yoo hoo! Look, I have WMDs." It is that he will use them in ways that don't obviously lead back to him. Or he will sell or supply them to others.
RAS
no subject
Date: 2003-03-28 09:18 am (UTC)From what I can tell, race doesn't really enter into it (as much as it doesn't enter into anything, anyway): if the middle east were white, we'd still be attacking. It isn't their racial quality that's the instigator -- nor, all told, their religion. It isn't anything fundemental, intrinsic about Islam that has us attacking. Though I haven't read the Koran, I've heard the same sort of things you have -- Islam doesn't proscribe violance unless you want it to.
However -- we are attacking because there's a sense of difference between us and the middle east. There are more reasons than just that, but, in essence, the media and the government have coalesced a diverse body of nations into one representative body, with stereotyping (they're terrorists, they're radicals, they're repressive, they're dangerous to the United States) which is true in some cases and not true in others.
And while there are more reasons (as you know), that's the most popular one (because people, in general, are stupid or, at least, don't like to think at all. not everyone, but .. well, most): Iraq is, in the minds of a good portion of the US, part of that unilateral body. Regionalism, not racism, if you will.
Also, me: I'm anti-war not because I haven't heard your arguements, but because I don't think the burden of proof for killing people (American boys and girls, too) has been met. I haven't been convinced of a definitive threat. However ... I do think regime change isn't such a bad idea, not because of Saddam's foreign policy (belligerent and criminal, but not enough to make me want to kill people), but because of his internal policies, which, as far as I can see, are repressive and icky. But I don't think this is the best way to go about it --- because war should be the last option, not the second ("we asked, and he said no, so now we have to go bomb him") .. but, there you go.
Honestly, if I thought we could get Saddam and get out (while supporting a peaceful change over to a less repressive government), I wouldn't be anti-war. But as five days becomes five weeks, five weeks becomes .. I think we're going to have a much bloodier, much longer fight than anyone's anticipated .. and so .. anti-(this)war.