|
Magazine
A search for alternatives to hate
THE "war against terrorism" is turning out to be the name of a
sweeping effort to undermine opposition to the United States
Government, not just outside its borders, but within its
territory as well. The international scenario is well known. The
U.S. eschewing available legal means to bring to book those truly
guilty for the suicide attacks in New York and Washington, has
embarked on a military mission whose scope threatens to extend
beyond Afghanistan to Iraq and, it has been hinted, perhaps even
the Philippines, Cuba and Colombia. The tragic incidents in New
York and Washington D.C. are thus emerging as pretexts, not
merely the justification, for current military action.
Within the U.S., according to the American Civil Liberties Union
and the National Lawyers Guild, the expanded powers given to law
enforcement agencies has led to an estimated 700 people,
primarily of Arab descent, being held without charges, many in
undisclosed locations and without access to legal representation.
It has also been reported that the Federal Bureau of
Investigation (FBI) has searched the offices of many
organisations with a focus on West Asia, including those that are
purely humanitarian in character. Elected public officials who
have spoken out against the bombing of Afghanistan have been
dubbed as unfeeling traitors and idiots, while two academics who
organised a teach in at the City University of New York were
censured by the trustees of their institution and threatened with
expulsion. There is a growing sense that the present trend
ominously recalls the McCarthyism of the 1950's, when anti-
communism became the context for stifling domestic dissent, and
for suspending fundamental civil rights.
Simultaneously, however, there is a hunger for more understanding
(bookstores cannot keep up with the demand for books on West
Asia.). There is also a search for alternatives to hate. For
example, the Dalai Lama's latest book, An Open Heart: Practicing
Compassion in Everyday Life, published in August of this year,
has shot into the New York Times best seller list in the wake of
September 11. Finally, even as many are raising war cries, all
around the country more people than ever before are asking why it
is that so many seem to hate the U.S.. Disbelief is giving way to
a desire for knowledge.
This, then, is the setting within which the anti-war, pro-peace,
anti-vengeance, pro-justice movement is gathering force. Its work
is shaped by, on the one hand, a greater than usual governmental
control of information about events (with the mainstream media
failing to provide a counterpoint); and on the other, a woefully
ill-prepared citizenry that is in no position to evaluate what it
is being told. Raising consciousness is thus the first order of
the day.
What is immediately striking to the observer is the mature way in
which this nascent movement is negotiating this socio-political
reality. There is an almost total absence of political rage.
Progressive journalists, political activists, and educators are
only too aware that U.S. citizens' ignorance of geopolitical
realities is socially based, the effect of poor education, some
would even say, miseducation. Accordingly speakers and writers
are not railing against the ignorance of the public, but seeking
to systematically address it. Analysis of the strategies of the
anti-Vietnam war protests has also made it abundantly clear that
many who might otherwise have sympathised with the protesters
were put off by the condescending rhetoric of many dissenters
toward those uncomprehending of the political and moral basis for
resisting the war.
It is not that the analysis in the independent media and other
forums is without emotion. It is rather that passion, here, is
mixed with grief, a sense of urgency, compassion for the
ignorance of most (even those well intentioned), and an admirable
willingness to patiently chip away at popular misconceptions and
untruths. Certainly pain at what is happening does at times spill
over into impatience and frustration, but this is rare. The need
to communicate is paramount. The situation is simply too serious
to make moral outrage a viable rhetorical option. Rage has not
always been a successful tool in persuading or remaking public
opinion. It is now understood to be a luxury peace loving U.S.
citizens can ill afford.
What does all this mean in concrete terms? First, the language of
critique tends not be jargon laden, even when the analysis draws
on left intellectual and political traditions. It seems that many
are groping for words that will cause people to pause and think
again, not simply reject what is being said based on resistance
to its form and style. Second, no question is treated as too
"dumb". The prevailing sentiment seems to be that the mass media
tends to assume too little of its audiences, and that the peace
movement must respect their full potential. Third, peace
activists have tended to be skilled in conversing and "agreeing
to disagree" with those in favour of war. One witnesses, here,
the legacy of the non-violent civil disobedience movements of the
1970's, 1980s and 1990's, notably the anti-nuclear and ecology
movements.
Fourth, emotional, mental and spiritual well being are also being
centrally addressed by all except the most die-hard leftists.
Buddhist approaches to healing grief, addressing fear and hate,
and cultivating compassion are most in evidence, perhaps because
the non-theism of this tradition makes it most compatible with
the predominantly secular character of the peace movement.
However, rabbis, minister, priests and practitioners of Islam are
also present and on call, as it were. In addition, to being
resources to secular efforts, however, many religious groups are
organising their own events, inter-faith dialogues, "know your
rights" meetings, and educational forums on the global context
for the current crisis.
Much of the organising has been at a local level. At the time of
writing this piece, there have only been three large
demonstrations. These were held on September 29, in New York
(when 12,000 people walked 30 blocks to protest the commencement
of the bombing) and in San Francisco and in Washington D.C. where
demonstrations had been planned even before news of the bombing
was received. On a local level, however, there is a great deal
going on. Across the country, from Alameda in California, to
Chicago, to Albany, New York, groups are gathering in public
libraries, schools, churches and main streets to express their
concerns about the governmental response to September 11. Many of
the actions have been humble and simple. For example, there are
daily and weekly vigils for peace during the evening rush hour.
In these, even in relatively conservative towns in California
there have been reports of an almost continuous stream of horns
in response to placards stating, "Honk for Peace", or "Our Grief
Does Not Justify the Bombing".
All indications are that peace activists are preparing for a long
haul. They take their cue partly from George Bush, who has
indicated that this will not be a short war. But additionally,
they are cognisant of the reality that this crisis offers
opportunities for starting and sustaining a dialogue. This is
something that has been extremely difficult to initiate in
context of a privileged and insular society which has only now
been jolted into recognition that this is an interdependent
world, one in which the chickens will, indeed do, come home to
roost. Only time will tell whether these efforts will gradually
succeed in turning the hearts and minds of significant proportion
of Americans. However, the fact that many doubt the wisdom of the
policy being pursued by the current administration is a sign of
real hope in an otherwise dispiriting clime.
The writer is a historian and cultural critic.
Send this article to Friends by
E-Mail
Magazine
|
