Disorder in Modern China: Analysis of Two Primary Documents

The first source examined was the address delivered by Yosuke Matsuoka, the Japanese delegate to the League of Nations, the second an analysis of the creation of the mythology of the Boxer Rebellion.

A proper understanding can only be achieved if the context of historical sources is examined carefully. Each of the sources presented attempt to address the causes of social disorder and political fragmentation in Chinese history. The sources deal with the effect that external powers had on China, the internal system of governance and state-society relationships in regards to the rural urban divide and inequalities in income and access to social benefits.

The first source examined was the address delivered by Yosuke Matsuoka, the Japanese delegate to the League of Nations. The League was set up after World War One as a forum for countries to address conflicts before they escalated into war. The Japanese delegate was speaking before the League was to vote on the findings of the Lytton Report in regard to the Japanese invasion and installment of the Mankuko puppet government in Manchuria.

The Japanese delegate addressed three issues in his speech. First, that the situation in China is quickly disintegrating into anarchy, second, Japan has a lot at stake in the future of China, and third that because Japan ultimately has China’s best interest at heart, it is not necessary for the League to intervene on China’s behalf.

The delegate makes many valid points in asserting that the situation was very bad in China. He correctly points out that for the previous twenty years a revolution had ripped through China. He goes on to talk about how tens of millions have lost their lives in the fighting, and that as a result of this fighting, tyranny, banditry, famine and flood has caused the lives of hundreds of millions to plunge into despair. He correctly points out that chaos reigns in China. The fundamental causes of the problems is the lawless condition and that the population was suffering under warlords. An objective observer would not dispute thisⁱ. Furthermore, the delegate argues that China has lost sovereignty and control of its territory, and is not doing its part of meeting its obligations to its neighbors.

The delegate is not only addressing the current issues, but also their long history. These arguments would resonate well with the audience at the League meeting, because each of the problems addressed was one of the main causes for rebellion in China during the previous 100 years. These rebellions targeted the source of trouble for the Chinese, which included the foreign presence. The other country’s delegates would be aware that these rebellions often targeted foreigners, required large military forces to defeat, and were costly in both lives and moneyⁱⁱ. Taking into account the audience, which included European countries with vast experience in China ranging from the Unequal Treaties to the Boxer Protocol, this would have been the most compelling part of the speech.

The delegate also claims that Japan has a lot at stake in China, especially Manchuria. Again, Japan’s heavy investment in Manchuria would not be disputed by anyone. Matsuko himself would go on to head the Japanese Railroad in Manchuria after Japan withdrew itself from the league. For a state to be in the League, the delegate argues, it has to be sovereign. Because China could not meet this requirement, it should have not been allowed to file a complaint against Japan in the League. Also, Japan claimed that Manchuria is not a part of China and the people living there are not Chinese. Therefore Japan wants to maintain independent Manchouko in the interests of the people living there. This was contrary to the Lytton report and repeated the standard colonial arguments made by othersⁱⁱⁱ.

When one finally arrives at the third contention, Japan’s argument quickly unravels. The basic argument that the delegate makes was that Japan wants Manchuria to become a land of law order, peace and abundance and that the ultimate aim of Japan is to help China. Unfortunately for the delegate, this falls into the standard colonial pattern. The address mirrored speeches by Napoleon when he invaded Egypt in 1798, the British when they invaded Iraq in 1920. Undoubtedly, each of these professions of good intentions was revealed to be false, just as history revealed Japan’s were. Simply, this is what one would expect from an invading army; these arguments can be dismissed. When one looks at Japan’s history in China, it is no different than that of the European powers. Seeing itself as their equal, Japan had used the same arguments these powers historically had used to establish itself as a colonial power in China, exploiting the countries resources and people just as its Western counterparts had. Naturally, the bloody history of Japanese intervention in China was omitted in the speech.

The result of this weakness of the speech complimented that the audience at the League were imperial countries themselves, and would be all too familiar with such talk. Therefore they would be able to see the transparent hypocrisy, which helped lead them to an unsurprising unanimous vote against the Japanese that followed the delegate’s speech.

The next source examined is also study in the construction of selective history, but this time, it originates from the Cultural Revolution. In Cohen’s analysis of mythologization of the Boxers, the author examines three critical periods of this construction of history: the attacks on Liu Shaoqi, on Confucianism and Soviet Revisionism. As Cohen points out in the article, history was used as a tool to reaffirm the revolution and because the Cultural Revolution was a factional struggle, by appealing to the past, the powerful arguments were made for discrediting state enemies.

A different enemy threatened the state in each of phases of the Cultural Revolution. In order to discredit the enemy, the Boxers were mythologized in order to create symbols of different revolutionary qualities. Then the enemy would be revealed as traitors or counterrevolutionaries for supposedly opposing these values.

To discredit Liu Shaoqi, it was alleged that he praised a film that negatively portrayed the Boxers. This made him a traitor because the film portrayed deep-rooted class hatred and imperialists as envoys of civilization while it made the boxers out to be “barbarous rioters”. Soon the Red Guards, vanguards of the revolution, joined the fray by inventing the idea that the Red Lanterns were a major historical force. As Perry points out, this was most likely done because of the number of similarities that existed between the portrayal of the Lanterns and the Guards (264). Once the connection between the Red Lanterns and Red Guards was established, anyone who disparaged the Red Lanterns was doing the same to the Red Guards, thereby criticizing the revolution. This “made point that one’s attitude toward the Boxers and the Red Lanterns was an indicator if one was a true revolutionary or a fake one.” This was in reference to the manufactured image, which had little relation to historical fact.

Later in the Cultural Revolution when the official target became Confucianism, the image of the Boxers was again molded to suit the purpose of discrediting the enemy. Confucianism adhered to strict beliefs that women were inferior to men. So, in this case, a story about a female Red Lantern leader Lin Hei’er was concocted in which she took on the corrupt a male authority figure. So when she attacked him in a tirade, wasn’t “just [the standard story of] a working class person talking up to a member of a ruling class, it is also a female in a patriarchal society talking down to a male”. Similarly, when her Red Lanterns [engaged] the imperialistic forces in battle, “it is not simply a case of primitively armed Chinese fighting against foreigners, but also of women fighting with men (273)”.

When, as a pretext for a renewed military presence Soviet historians tried to fabricate the historical role of the Russian army in Asia, the Chinese responded in kind to discredit this idea. The Soviets made the Boxers out to be ignorant, superstitious, and blindly anti-foreign. This was done while heaping praise on Czarist armies for helping civilize and modernize China. In response, Chinese historians did their own reconstruction, selectively and liberally quoting sources to make the Russians seem like the ones who were truly ignorant and barbarous. As part of the Chinese reconstruction, the sources were cited accurately, but with no attempt to deal with them critically, in context or objectively. For example, the Chinese omitted mention of the Boxer’s supernatural powers because this would not go along with the pre-selected image.

Mao used propaganda was used to mobilize the masses in an effort to consolidate control of the government away from the Communist Party. This addressed the gap between urban and rural dwellers by glorifying the proletariat and attacking symbols of their historic class struggle: against both ineffective, corrupt bureaucracy and imperialism. Similarly, the Communist Party had agitated the apathetic poor farmers during the revolution^iv. Because the Boxers were presented as an example of the poor rising up in revolution, it appealed to rural Chinese masses, which constituted the majority of the population. It recognized that addressing their needs was necessary for a Chinese government to be legitimate and to retain power. Mao was able to harness and attempted to benefit from this by making the state enemies out to be the enemies of the masses and empowering the masses to rise up against their oppressors.

The third article deals with recent attempts to address historical injustices that have existed against farmers throughout Chinese history^v. The Chinese farmer has historically been the subject of exploitation, a depressed agricultural system, lack of good arable land, and among the most severally effected by natural disasters. Discontent peasants have often risen up and fought their back against perceived oppressors when conditions become intolerable. Reforms in the Chinese government have in recent years created outlets for this frustration and empowered the rural poor to address their grievances to prevent disorder and lawlessness from breaking out.

Due to various changing conditions, lodging complaints is now a viable way to correct these wrongs. The authors emphasize that this process is not simple, easy or always successful. Villagers have become more defiant since the end of the communal system because the taxes and grain that the village takes now comes directly from the farmer’s pockets, and due to this, Village cadres sometimes have to use force. Villagers freed from commune question why they need cadres who take so much but offer little benefits.

Also, villagers more aware of prices in cities and know the prices that their goods are being sold for elsewhere. Villagers are more connected then ever with other communities, and realize that they are not isolated in their plight^vi. News of successful lodging of complaints travels fast and news of success motivates others. Electoral reforms also help empower villagers, who are increasingly aware of two laws in particular the Organic Law and the Administrative Litigation Law that gives villagers the right to sue officials for wrongdoing. Previously protected Cadres also make themselves venerable when they have violated a hard to ignore sate policy or law.

Despite of these new opportunities, only well organized are complaints successful. Also, despite the new vulnerabilities, protections for village cadres from higher authorities remain. Villagers use a variety of tactics to respond to this. They use traditional forms of protests combined with symbolic and modern proactive methods. Ultimately, a complaint won’t be successful unless one can persuade other villagers and get public support.

Lodging complaints is now viable because higher-ups in the Communist party are acting on the knowledge that throughout Chinese history, unrest in poor populations has destroyed the prosperity of the country. Also, they understand the difficulties of administering the enormous and diverse Chinese countryside is no easy task. While steps have been made to increase reform, the overall authority of the village cadre has been maintained to preserve order.

The fourth and final source used was the Qiu Ju Film. This film’s topic is how the average peasant in China could seek redress. This is a story of the main character fighting bureaucracy. One hundred, or even fifty years ago, this would have been impossible. But now living in the 1990s, in a different China, Qui Ju had an alternative: she could take on the system. This, of course, was going to prove to be not easy, partially because China is so huge and diverse and partially because its not supposed to be simple. The reality of the complaint system proved that only a dedicated and impassioned effort, such as Qiu Ju’s, could be settled acceptably.

In the film Qiu Ju shows the attempt of a young couple to actually use the system to lodge a complaint because of a transgression committed against them by the village cadre. The movie showed her journey in getting justice, as the village cadre attacked her husband over a misunderstanding and caused him to suffer a severe injury. For Qiu Ju, the compensation had to come in the form of an apology. She was offered a cash compensation, which was thrown at her, but she took this as an insult. All she wanted was to humble the man that had brought her husband so much pain, in the form an apology.

The movie was testimony about the system described in the O’Brien and Li piece. As that article pointed out, a complaint had a much better chance to succeed if I was done collectively with the backing of large numbers of villagers. Unfortunately for her, Qiu u did not have this. Instead she was armed with a sense of justice and a never dying perseverance.

Qiu Ju was pitted against many challenges. First, she had to face corruption at local level. Then, as she persisted, and went into a city to appeal further, she was confronted with China’s enormous rural-urban divide. She was in a foreign land- a land totally she was completely unfamiliar with and unprepared to deal with. This confrontation pitted the China of the past, the rural farmer, with the China of the future- that of cities and capitalism. The result of this was that they were taken advantage of, over-charged for a taxi for example. Adapting to this new environment was one of her biggest challenges.

Furthermore, Qiu Ju was confronted with the Chinese disconnect between state and individual. Of course this had come a long way since the days of the Imperial Rule in China, but for people living there, the movie argues, that there is still plenty of space for improvement. Throughout this time, she and her husband were victims of the powerful prejudice that is prevalent throughout Chinese. Yue Daiyun described it in To the Storm; despite the enormous contributions they give to society, people from urban areas look down at people from rural areas. Lastly, Qiu Ju’s trip into the city highlights one of modern China’s failures, a booming economy for the middle and upper-classes, with a peasant backbone of the country that have not seen their lives change much in the last hundred years. With the end of the Imperial system though, and the establishment of the Communist system, the movie shows what greater government penetration into villages accomplished and what it has done to address the age long issues of the role of the rural farmer in Chinese society.

As the saying goes, one who doesn’t learn from history is bound to repeat its mistakes, and so defines the task of historians: to learn from this and affect positive change where we are able to. The first two sources examined historical wrongs, while the second two look at ways of addressing them.

The final two sources examine how China is finally addressing the greatest historical challenge it has faced, its own discontented poor. One has to respect the progress that has been made by the Chinese government in the areas of rural reform. While one can argue things have improved, the reality on the ground shows that much work is still left to be done if one takes into account the lives of rural farmer. Even though China’s population is becoming more and more urban, it still relies on its farmers for its most basic need: food. If history has shown that the Chinese poor can rise up and cause great disorder when the pressure put on them is too great, one would have to immediately look to the future. The pressures that the future holds for the farmer will be greater than they have ever faced. Already faced with competition from urban developments, this problem will only get worse. Furthermore, as China’s population continues to increase at a rapid pace, another pressure being applied to the farmers is the question of how the country will feed itself in thirty years. If one is to have an understanding of such problems, how the government will responded to them, and how to evaluate the government’s words and actions, one has to look at the past.

The first source is important because it does just that. It demonstrates that concentrations of power, such as an imperial power, will profess the best of intentions and attempt to construct a history that absolves them of any responsibility. The contemporary example that one could relate this is the speech Donald Rumsfeld’s gave in Iraq after the US invaded^vii; his arguments are strikingly similar to those of the Japanese. The irony of course, is lost on the US government and not pointed out by press. This takes the reader to the Perry article, which examines the effect of propaganda on a society in which dissent is suppressed. A parallel can be drawn to again to America in the 1930s when the only mainstream alternative to the corporate owned press, was destroyed. To quote a study on this period,

When true alternatives to mainstream commercial newspapers and electronic media are not available, however, the legitimization of existing authority and power relations is more readily maintained, and the myths that act to place primary reason in abeyance (i.e., the inherent good of the “free market,” economic competition, U.S. nationalism) are invariably perpetuated by the powers that control the means of discursive exchange and dissemination.^viii

History long ago proved the immense power of propaganda, but as the world’s experience with the Holocaust proves, this alone does not absolve one of their responsibilities as human being. With the greater than ever concentration of control of the world’s media in the hands of fewer and fewer corporations which have increasingly close ties to the government, this raises serious questions and needs to be addressed in the context of the Cultural Revolution, and other similar historical phenomenon.

If one lesson can be taken from this, criticizing one’s country or party is the hardest thing to do. One has to be aware of the power in the construction of history. One needs to be critical, and detached from loyalties if truly after history. Chinese historians, for example, must understand what to expect when their government prepares to deal with its, for example, looming confrontation between farmers and land developers. One also has to draw a parallel, and examine our own society. Do intellectuals continue to push the party line in the mainstream press? Many outside of the mainstream would say no, but this is a discussion for another day.

i McCord, Edward “Burn, Kill, Rape and Rob: Military Atrocities, Warlordism, and Anti-Warlordism, in Republican China,” Scars of War, 18-47.

ii “ A Western Account of the Boxer Rebellion” http://unx1.shsu.edu/~his_ncp/bxr2.html

iii Duara, Prasenjit, “Manchukuo: An Historical Overview,” Sovereignty and Authenticity, 41-86

iv Bianco, “Peasant Responses to Chinese Communist Party Mobilization Policies, 1937-1945,” Peasants without the party, 231-243.

v Berstein and Lu, “Burdens and Resistance: Peasant Collective Action,” 116-165.

vi Lewis, John and Xue Litai, “Social Change and Political Reform in China” Meeting the Challenge of Success,” The China Quarterly, 2003, 926-942

vii Khalidi, Rashid, "The United States and Palestine" in Resurrecting Empire: Western Footprints and America's Perilous Path in the Middle East(Boston: Beacon Press, 2004) pg 37.

viiiTracy, James F. "Smile While I Cut Your Throat:" Mass Media, Myth, and the Contested "Harmonization" of the Working Class. Journal of Communication Inquiry, Vol. 25, No. 3, 298-325 (2001) © 2001 SAGE Publications

Movie Review "Feast or Famine" in China

The movie "Feast or Famine" is an intriguing look into China's relationship with mother nature; more specifically the film explores China’s huge problem of water use and rainfall. China's problem is very interesting because of its varying geographic features. In the south, there is often not enough rain, but in the North there is often a problem with flooding. This has been an age old long problem that the Chinese have had to deal with and China has suffered, as the film mentions, some 1200 famines in recoded history. The overall problem is that the Chinese are trying to feed one third of the worlds population with 7% of the world's arable land. The little amount of arable land that is available is constantly being encroached upon by developments, which doesn't help the problem at all.

Along with the problem of lack of arable land and droughts is flooding. As the film showed, hundreds of millions of lives are affected by the water levels of the major Chinese rivers, and much work has to be done by government officials to protect these lives. In 1998 specifically, because of worst flooding since 1954, levies had to be broken and 100,000 farms had to be sacrificed to save millions in the cities. It was saddening to witness the devastation these floods cause but later events in the movie left the viewer with some hope for the future of these people. There were many government programs being devoted to the victims of this natural disaster. The hope for these people lies in China's ingenuity in dealing with these problems, and its abilities to use modern technology and innovations to fight flooding and to keep up the production of food goods to feed the expected 300 million people increase in population over the next 20 years. overall the film provides a sobering view of China's relationship with water, but also extensively explores what is being done to fight and prevent future catastrophe.

Book Review of:Rethinking Camelot; JFK, the Vietnam War and US Political Culture

Noam Chomsky’s Rethinking Camelot; JFK, the Vietnam War and US Political Culture is an ambitious book. Written on the 30^th anniversary of President John F. Kennedy’s assassination, Chomsky sets out to challenge what he calls the “Kennedy Revival”. Going beyond that, he attempts to put the Vietnam War into a broader context: that of the 500 years that have passed since Christopher Columbus “discovered” the Americas and started the European conquest of this region and the rest of the globe.

As part of the introductory chapter, Chomsky attempts to identify the “direct line of descent” (5) between the Vietnam War and the war of extermination against the Natives Americans. He notes how Frenchmen Alexis de Tocqueville “was struck that the conquerors could deprive people of their rights and exterminate them ‘with singular felicity, tranquility, legally, philanthropically without shedding blood, and without violating a single great principle of morality in the eyes of the world’. It was impossible to destroy people with ‘more respect for the laws of humanity,’ he wrote.”… Of the founding fathers.

Chomsky then moves to the topic of the First Seminole War. “The Spanish Minister concluded that ‘The war against the Seminoles has been merely a pretext for General Jackson to fall, as a conqueror, upon the Spanish provinces…for the purposes of establishing there the dominion of this republic upon the odious basis of violence and bloodshed’-‘strong language from a diplomat,’ [William] Weeks writes, ‘yet a painfully precise description of how the United States first came to control the province of Florida.”’ As Secretary of State, [John Quincy] Adams had the tasking of justifying what General Jackson had achieved. So he did, using the opportunity to establish the doctrine of executive war without congressional approval that was extended to new dimensions in the Indochina wars.”(6)

After giving the reader a very radical frame of reference to work with, Chomsky moves to his thesis. The specific purpose of this book is to challenge what Chomsky sees as a myth propagated about Kennedy’s legacy and assassination. He specifically cites Oliver Stone’s movie JFK. Stone and others associated with mainstream and especially so called ‘liberal’ culture have propagated the idea that Kennedy was assassinated because he was endorsing a unilateral withdrawal from Vietnam, or other high-level policy changes that could threaten powerful interests in government. Using four sources of evidence including historical facts, public statements, internal government planning records, and memoirs and other reports of Kennedy insiders, Chomsky examines whether such theories have any basis in reality.

First Chomsky explores whether JFK was indeed ideologically different from his predecessors. Chomsky asserts that when JFK was elected, he adopted doctrines already established by previous administrations. The most important of these was the rotten apple theory, which is well documented in internal documentation, but not well known in the mainstream, and for example, totally absent from our assigned textbook. This theory states that radical nationalism is not to be allowed in the Third World. This could result in the possible success of such an independent government, a virus, which could spread to other countries in the periphery and undermine US power across the globe. This was the main pretext that Kennedy used to continue and expand US involvement in Asia as well as South America.

Chomsky also challenges the idea that the US government viewed Ho Chi Minh and the Viet Minh as Chinese and Soviet communist puppets. [Quote from textbook]. Chomsky argues that in 1948 Minh was recognized as an independent nationalist, and this fact, rather than the notion that the government thought he was a communist, made him threatening. “Evidence of ‘Kremlin-directed conspiracy” could be found ‘in virtually all countries except Vietnam,’ which appeared to be ‘an anomaly.’ Nor could links with China be detected”(13). He was considered a threat to the power responsible for Vietnam’s well being (France , which had Vietnam in its colonial grip for the better part of the previous century). In these same internal documents, China, Vietnam’s northern neighbor and longtime dominant foreign influence in Vietnamese affairs, was to be excluded because it was an “alien interest”, unlike the countries responsible for it (France and the US) (48).

Another important idea passed down from previous administrations was the idea of the Domino Theory, first stated by President Eisenhower in 1954. This stated that Japan was the key to stability and peace in the Eastern Hemisphere. In order for Japan to succeed, it had to have its southern empire reinstated to roughly WWII levels as an area for its economic exploitation. This was necessary for Japan to be able to withstand Communism. It follows that any disruption of economic zone that could spread would take away Japan’s ability to survive economically, and it would result in the entire area and eventually Japan falling under communist control.

Finally, there is the National Security Council decision passed down a few weeks after the Geneva Accords were signed in 1954. This treaty was supposed to allow the French to withdraw and give Vietnam time to establish the institutions needed for future elections to take place. These elections were to take place in 1956. The NSC decision stated that “even in the case of ‘local Communist subversion or rebellion not constituting armed attack,’ the US would consider the use of military force, including an attack on China if it is ‘determined to be the source’ of the ‘subversion’(NSC 5429/2)”(41). Chomsky adds that in 1955 the Joint Chiefs outlined 3 types of aggression: literal aggression between two states, overt armed attack from within the area of each of the sovereign states, or the third kind, aggression other than armed. It follows that, “an internal uprising against a US-imposed police state, or elections that come out the wrong way, are forms of ‘aggression’, which the US has the right to combat by arbitrary forms of violence” (41). As Chomsky mentions, it goes without saying that such actions violate the fundamental understanding of the charter of the United Nations, and international law.

Chomsky argues that these four points constituted the core of the doctrinal framework that was established by his predecessors, and was the same one Kennedy adopted during his time in office. This core explains why American presidents viewed countries such as Vietnam as a threat, even though, as they understood in Vietnam’s case, the country might not be controlled by Soviet or Chinese communist forces. Also, it gives the justification that was needed to view elections that didn’t come out the desired way as dangerous, and answerable by force.

Again, it is important to remember that the nature of the conspiracy theorists that Chomsky is responding to. The underlying justifications to their theories is the notion that President Kennedy was a man that wanted peace in Vietnam and was preparing to unilaterally withdraw US forces. Chomsky proceeds to address this specific issue. He examines Kennedy’s actions and statements to understand his position on withdrawal. It is interesting to note that in 1959 Kennedy said that “Vietnam represents the cornerstone of the Free World in Southeast Asia”. He was aware that US appointed President Diem of South Vietnam had already suspended the elections that were to have taken place in 1956, and was generally a corrupt and brutal dictator. The elections agreed upon in the 1954 Geneva accords never took place in the South because the Vietnamese government understood that it had no support among its constituents and any free elections would result in a Communist victory.

As Kennedy came into office, the South Vietnamese government was on the verge of collapse. As a result, Kennedy escalated the war effort. The fruits of this escalation looked promising: “By late spring of 1962, the Pentagon Papers analyst observes, “the prospects looked bright” and “to many the end of the insurgency seemed in sight”’ (66). These achievements enabled Kennedy to report in his January 1963 State of the Union message that ‘“The spearpoint of aggression as been blunted in South Vietnam.” In [close Kennedy associate and historian Arthur] Schlesinger’s own words: “1962 had not been a bad year: aggression checked in Vietnam”’(67).

This success allowed for talk of withdrawal. But the main point that Chomsky makes here is that all talks of withdrawal were preconditioned on complete military victory, and would not be considered unless this objective was achieved. He thereby adds fuel to his argument that Kennedy was not breaking from the doctrinal norm, and was not advocating or even considering a unilateral withdrawal that might have made his assassination necessary in the eyes of some.

Chomsky uses two sources of information to base his claim that talks of withdrawal were conditioned on complete military victory: the initial press reports that followed these discussions, and the reference to them in the Pentagon Papers. “On January 25, 1963, the Comprehensive Plan was presented to The Joint Chiefs”…stating that “the phase-out of the US special military assistance is envisioned as generally occurring during the period July 1965-June 1966,’ earlier when feasible.”’ This was based on the belief that the Viet Cong should be eliminated between 1-3 years after the South Vietnamese forces become operationally independent. MACV Commander General Harkins believed that it would take one year, but Secretary of Defense McNamara chose the conservative 3 year estimate. A Joint Chiefs of Staff investigative team concurred with this decision (68-69).

At the same time, an escalation of violence was planned. Along with the ungoing US Farmgate operations, armed helicopters that were already serving in an escort role ‘“should be allowed to attack ‘Viet Cong targets of opportunity, in a combat situation,’ even if not fired upon’.” … “Another recommendation was to go beyond ‘the minor intelligence and sabotage forays[1 line not declassified]’ to ‘a coordinated program of sabotage, destruction, propaganda, and subversive missions against North Vietnam .”’ (69).

Chomsky concludes:”we thus learn that in January 1963, in an atmosphere of great optimism, the military initiatives for withdrawal went hand-in-hand with plans for escalation of the war within South Vietnam and possibly intensified operations against North Vietnam(70). He also notes how “similarly, in November 1967, General Westmoreland announced that with victory imminent, US troops could begin to withdraw in 1969…that recommendation does not show that [Westmoreland] was a secret dove”(67). In fact, Westmoreland was anything but.

Overall, Chomsky’s book does an excellent job of refuting conspiracy theorists that believe that JKF was assassinated because he was a ‘secret dove’, planned unilateral withdrawal from Vietnam or was planning drastic changes to the government. This is no small task because to do so, he had to challenge just about every underlying belief about not only the Kennedy administration, but the entire history of America that is propagated today. Citing many sources and passages ignored by contemporary historians, Chomsky paints a context of American history and a picture of the Vietnam War very different than that presented in the mainstream.

Not only does he successfully identify the core justifications for such conspiracy theories, he uncovers ample internal documentation that is hard, if not impossible to refute, because it is not covered by the mainstream press. This combines with the fact that he draws such a radically different conclusion of American history than one is lead to believe by the mainstream. Through Rethinking Camelot Chomsky essentially wins the reader over to his primary objective of persuasion: for the reader to look up the passages that he cites and to double check his facts, and to reconsider many commonly held beliefs.

Bibliography

Chomsky, Noam. Rethinking Camelot; JFK, the Vietnam War and US Political Culture. Boston: South End Press, 1993.

Independence Day: A day of celebration or mourning?

Frederick Douglass communicates very powerful ideas in his Fifth of July Speech. The nature of the arguments presented in this speech are very persuasive. He has been asked to give a speech celebrating the United States Independence Day, and instead he names all the reasons why instead of celebrating, he is in mourning. He argues that it is Independence Day only for white men. Because slavery still exists in America, it is not his Independence Day. Furthermore, this is a most serious stain on a the soul of a country that professes great ideas and whose principles, as laid out in the Declaration of Independence, are being shamed by the very existence of slavery.

There is not a more disgraceful act, he argues, then slavery. Furthermore, because two years prior to the speech slavery had been nationalized, he argues that the stain now extends to the entire country. He goes on to point out that it is an outrage that even the institution of religion has joined forces with the government to support slavery. He would prefer atheism then to ally himself with a religion that justifies such barbarism. He goes on to attack America’s hypocrisy in condemning tyrants abroad, claiming divinity and superior religion, while supporting the subjugation of a whole community within its own borders.

His arguments are very powerful because all he is asking for himself his people is equal treatment and the basic freedoms that other human beings enjoy in the same land. He isn’t asking for any special treatment, or demanding that the country bend over backwards to accommodate his unique needs. They arguments become even more powerful because he chooses a day where the rest of America is celebrating ideas they claim to be universal. The irony just couldn’t be any more biting.

Douglass correctly argues that the end to slavery is inevitable. Douglass’s point that the contradictions between the existence of slavery on the soil of a country that professes such great freedom and liberty cannot stand the test of time is one of his most powerful points. He forewarns that this will not be a quiet end. Douglass predictions that America needs “…the storm, the whirlwind, and the earthquake” proves to all be true. Tragically, as it turns out, his predictions are manifested a few short years later with the civil war to finally bring an end to slavery. The war takes the literal manifestations of Douglass’s predictions. Douglass would prefer for slavery to just be ended peacefully, but he makes the point that it is too deeply entrenched within American culture and society for this to be possible.

The solution Douglass proposes is so simple and basic that it seems it would be impossible to argue against it from any moral position. Because of all his powerful ideas and statements, his solution as presented in his speech, leave the reader with hope. Douglass’s passion and determination are passed onto the reader, leaving one with no doubt that his words will come true.

Foner, Philip S. , ed. The Life and Writings of Frederick Douglass. New York: International Publishers Co., Inc., 1950.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/aia/part4/4h2927t.html

Hip Hop As Resistance

“War Is a Global Economic Phenomenon:

Palestine, Kosovo, Cashmere/ No different than the avenues right here An increase in the murder rate each year/ Paramilitary unit keep the streets clear/ Curtains up on the theatre of warfare /Dramatic politics nightly preformed here/ Worldwide from Colombia to Columbine/ Stock holders keep your dollar signs on the line”

-Mos Def

Music has always been historically used as a form of resistance in America. From the days of slavery, oppressed groups have used music as a form of hidden transcript, to protect and continue their cultural identity. What makes the African-American experience so unique in American history is their relationship with the early American economy. As Karl Marx stated, commodity is capitalism’s original sin and, America’s original commodity was African people(Ball, 1). For this reason, along with the Natives, African Americans have been continually been oppressed in America history, and its from this that Hip-hop as resistance culture has arisen, and why it is so important to understand it.

Although originating from numerous influences(Heath, 49), hip-hop’s main influence came from the Jamaican tradition of allowing poets and others to sing or rhyme over the instrumental (“dub”) sides of well known reggae vinyls at parties. In the mid-1970s, the culture center shifted to New York where it blended with the spoken-word tradition that had been around for decades, and this is how modern-day hip-hop was created; it is a product of globalization and now is spread through every continent and country on the planet, absorbing and integrating whatever culture it comes into contact with. “Hip-hop, without question, demands its own degree of cultural literacy, but this is a sort of knowledge not predicated on access to any institution of formal education—it is a literacy that is thus more fluidly attained, a readership more easily cultivated (Heath, 848-9)”.

This culture was a response to the neo-liberal policies being implemented in black and Latino ghettos within the United States. ‘‘Hip hop is not merely a critique of capitalism, it is a counter-formation that takes up capitalism’s gaps and contradictions and creates a whole new mode, a whole new economics(Potter, 111)’’. By the 1980s, a few hip-hop groups had transcended the hidden transcript that Hip-hop originated with. Tupac, Public Enemy, N.W.A, etc, are but a few examples of “Speaking truth to power”, where the artist directly confronts the listener to the idea that they are being persecuted for their ideas and because they are resisting, making the private transcript public. Simultaneously, the level of political critique was raised to a new plateau by a variety of groups. A prime example would be the hip-hop/rock group Rage Against the Machine. Not only did they produce award winning music, they were a symbol of resistance against the government, specifically its global and national economic policies and the hegemony of America’s ruling class. A prime example of this would be the Rage Against the Machine music video “Sleep Now in the Fire”, a song on their 2000 album “The Battle for Los Angeles”.

The group became the voice for many movements and attempted to personify the 90’s protest counter-culture. They did songs and benefits for, among others, political prisoners Mumia Abu Jamal and Lenard Pelletier(Native American separatist leader falsely imprisoned in 1972), and with solidarity with the Zapatistas in their song “The People of the Sun”. In fact, in a benefit concert for Mumia Abu Jamal in Philadelphia, Rage Against the Machine actually did a cover of NWA’s “*** the Police” in response to the repressive actions the Philadelphia police force has taken against supporters of Mumia, a former Black Panther and muckraking journalist falsely accused of killing a police officer.

The groups lead vocalist, Zach De La Rocha, was featured in the 1994 movie “Zapatista”(which was viewed as part of the class) as an outspoken critic of the violent and repressive policies the Mexican government has used against the Zapatista Movement of Chiapas. This largely indigenous population rose up in protest of the North American Free Trade Agreement which was signed between Mexico and the United States and took away many of their property rights. This is an excellent example of how Hip-hop and activism go hand in hand, and how it plays a vital role in Keck & Sikkink’s Transnational Advocacy Networks.

The Zapatistas for example are attempting to garner support for their cause and create an alternative economy to the commodity based one the Mexican government faces. The Zapatista also stress, in Richard Falk’s terms, a heterogeneous approach where societies are allowed to pursue their own path, versus the homogenous path that Mexican government is trying to impose by attempting to crush the Zapatistas.

Another example of Rage Against the Machine’s protest tactics would be the music video “Sleep Now in the Fire”. The group decided to protest the international corporate headquarters of the world, Wall Street, by doing a street concert at the steps of the New York Stock Exchange, the belly of the corporate beast as far as the group members are concerned. Even though they were not given a concert or protest permit, the show continued regardless. Although the lyrics of the song themselves do not go into great depth, even alone they are motivational and informational. But combined with director Michael Moore’s film work, the music video for the song combines visual with the auditory to give the audience a much more complete experience.

The music video, which played on MTV, also satires the excesses of American mainstream culture represented by the ABC TV show Who wants to be a millionaire. Eventually the audience smashes the show’s set and rejects the monetary prize that the show is trying to glamorize. The music video also prominently features video footage from arguably the most important and famous American protest of the time period, the World Trade Organization protest that took place in December 1999 that was dubbed ‘The Battle of Seattle’. The video ends with the band members along with director Michael Moore being arrested. Despite this, at 2:52 in the middle of the trading day, the New York Stock Exchange was forced to close.

Since Rage Against the Machine broke up in 2000, various other groups have gained prominence and continued to carry the torch of hip-hop resistance. One such group is Philadelphia based Jedi Mind Tricks. Although they are not traditionally known for their explicitly political music, their 2006 Album: Servants in Heaven, Kings in Hell changed this trend and contains several songs with very powerful messages. One such song is “Uncommon Valor: A Vietnam Story” vocalist RA: The Rugged Man, who for about three entire minutes casts the listener into the shoes of the rapper’s father His “verse recounts the war experience of his father, Staff Sergeant John A. Thorburn, who was a cold-blooded killer, until an ambush in Cambodia nearly killed him. He reaches a moment of clarity while in the hospital, but after being sent home, he discovers his exposure to Agent Orange, leaving two of his children severely deformed and handicapped, and, eventually, killing one of his sons.”¹

John A. Thorburn was one of the many Americans that served in the Vietnam War. The song challenges the mainstream idea that the North Vietnamese are America’s natural enemy. The song also discusses the repercussion of war in general to those who have to fight it. Also, it discusses the effects of the chemical warfare, from which the repercussions are still being felt by marginal communities in the United States as well as in Indochina. Minorities and the poor were extremely over-represented in the numbers they served, died and were injured in the war and this was another branch of the neo-liberal project of dealing with these superfluous and undesirable populations. Additionally, the Vietnam War itself was a neo-colonial project against a region that resisted integration into the global neo-liberal economic order. This song is just one example of the powerful cognitive links Hip-hop creates in the mind of its audience, between US policy at home and abroad.

Another example would be the track “Shadow Business” which also makes a similar conceptual link. The first part of the song is about the horrors of the conditions slave labor that is taking place in American Samoa. By initially using a documentary very similar to Naomi Klein’s “No Logo: Taking Aim at the Brand Bullies “, informing the viewer of the controls used by the factory owners, along with the actual working conditions, which are often 90 degrees. The first verse talks about the economic status of men, and specifically women, who are often sexually abused. The quote “what did 400 years in grave teach us? /only the cleverness of slave masters”. Makes an important historical link between the treatment of workers today and of slaves in the past makes an important bridge to the second verse.

The second verse is by no coincidence about another form of forced labor which exists within the United States, the Prison-Industrial Complex. The rise of this phenomenon is a product of the privatization of prisons and the cutting of social spending and is directly tied to the enormous rise of poverty and the prison population starting in the late 1970s which continues until today. The verse contains much information for the listener concerning prison labor. The first line is “There are 1. 6 million people locked in jail/they’re the new slave labor force trapped in hell.”, which also sets the tone for the rest of the song. Their exploitive nature is discussed in the second part, they generate over a 1 billion dollars/ but only get paid .20 cents an hour/. This is all the time while companies make profits. Slavery is not a lie/ legal conviction of the crime. The music video that was created for this song features additional footage taken from various documentaries on the topic. Ultimately, Jedi Mind Tricks is able to condense the information from various scholarly articles and transform this often inaccessible information form into one that can reach and educate a much wider and diverse audience.

Jedi Mind Tricks sets the pattern of the vast majority of ‘positive’ commercial rappers, who while mostly focusing on other subjects, do contain a revolutionary or radical message. Some other examples of this would be “A Song for Assata” by Common, “Big Business”, “War” and “Proper Propaganda” by Dilated Peoples, “War” by Mos Def, “Changes” by Tupac, and “Bombs over Baghdad” by Outkast, among various others.

While this covers the trend of present day rappers, there are several that do not fit this mold. Dead Prez, The Coup, Immortal Technique are examples of hip hop groups that are at least rhetorically completely dedicated to revolution and the overthrowing of current regime. In addition to that, they actively seek to educate their listeners about the realities of the world, and why it is up to their listeners, as American citizens to do something about it. The rapper Immortal Technique may be the most outspoken of this category. Titling his albums Revolutionary Volume 1 and Revolutionary Volume 2, he leaves no question in the listener’s mind of his views. Although all of tracks on this album are outspoken criticisms of the current political, economic and social culture, the track 4^th Branch may be the most appropriate for this discussion.

Throughout the entire song, Immortal Technique directly challenges the hegemonic project of the controlling economic forces and their close ties to the military. His allegations are not unfounded; the same companies that form the Military-Industrial Complex also control the media in the United States. He directly challenges the dominant mainstream American view of nationalism, patriotism, and the identity of America and its history:

“How could this be, the land of the free, home of the brave? /

Indigenous holocaust, and the home of the slaves/

Corporate America, dancing offbeat to the rhythm/

You really think this country, never sponsored terrorism?/

Human rights violations, we continue the saga/

El Salvador and the Contras in Nicaragua/

And on top of that, you still want to take me to prison/

Just because I won't trade humanity for patriotism”

“Embedded correspondents don't tell the source of the tension/

And they refuse to even mention, European intervention
Or the massacres in Jenin, the innocent screams
U.S. manufactured missiles, and M-16's
Weapon contracts and corrupted American dreams
Media censorship, blocking out the video screens”

“They bombed innocent people, trying' to murder Saddam/

When they gave him those chemical weapons to go to war with Iran/

This is the information that they hold back from Peter Jennings

“Read about the history of the place that we live in /

And stop letting corporate news tell lies to your children”

Overall, threw various methods and tactics, these groups seek to inform the American public, motivate people to educate and take action and maybe most importantly, build solidarity, expand Gramsci’s counter-hegemonic cultural space, and allows for debate among various marginal groups. Overall, its best features is it that it is a completely democratic, grass roots phenomena that no one can own, because anyone can make hip-hop and educate and inform others. Also, it is rooted in agitation and struggle, and in the timeless words of Frederick Douglass: “If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning.”

1 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncommon_Valor:_A_Vietnam_Story

Information in American Society

The obtainment of information and news is an important aspect in the culture of American life. By understanding how information is brought into American homes one can better understand the lifestyles of the people who reside there. By incorporating the methods of Barbara Carson in her article, “Interpreting History through Objects” our group plans to trace the development of news media from newspaper, radio, television to the internet. We will interpret these objects in terms of their introduction to the media market and also evaluate their changing roles in society and their current place in today’s culture.

The newspaper has been the oldest form of mass communication in the United States. It has existed since the American Revolution, and the writings such as Thomas Paine’s Common Sense even helped mobilize the colonies to rise up against the British. Originally the main source of information for the American home, newspapers have fallen much in prominence and importance as other information sources have come into existence(Grimsted, 115.)

During the 19th Century, the Newspaper was part of an overall expression of ‘high culture’ in which classic texts and other works, along with current events, were discussed. Along with this came the participation of large numbers of working-class members of society in the creation, editing and distribution of large numbers of working-class newspapers. These papers were different than the capitalist, for-profit newspapers because instead of just seeking profit, they allowed for a normally voiceless public to participate and debate the great issues of the time. This was not just limited to the home, as “…craftsmen[and other factory workers] would hire somebody to read to them while they were working because they were interested and had libraries.”(Chomsky, 5)

There are numerous examples of such participation, and the great social movements of the 19th and early 20th century were done on the backs of the working-class press. This press was unique because it got out the movements message in the participants own words. During the struggle to end slavery, for example, abolitionist newspapers played a very significant role. Two prominent abolitionists during this period who utilized the right of free press were William Lloyd Garrison with the Liberator and Frederick Douglass with the North Star. They used this forum, the only one at the time that could be used to convey information and to gain support for their cause.

At the same time, it was illegal for blacks to learn how to read because slave masters realized the power of newspapers in organizing both slaves and freemen to fight for freedom. The race of Douglass, for example, was very significant. His written words were invaluable to convincing whites of African Americans inherently equality, a primary reason why they deserved freedom from slavery. The most prominent abolitionist writing, Harriet Beecher Stowe’s (the woman Lincoln credited with being responsible for brining upon the Civil War) Uncle Tom’s Cabin, was also originally published in serial form in newspapers.(David Grimsted, American Visions and Revisions 1607-1865, 245 )

Referring back to the Carson model, one has to keep in mind the ownership of newspapers. These questions all help to explore the media’s role in a democratic society. It is very important to note that the positions that the working-class press took on important issues were many times the opposing viewpoint of the for-profit corporate press. It goes without saying that the working-class press was often at odds with the imposition of the capitalism without limits during this period. The process of media consolidation was the corporate newspapers response. Media consolidation means that ownership of media outlets are increasingly being controlled by fewer and fewer corporate entities was carried out and has severely affected newspapers. Media consolidation, along with other pressures, meant the end of the working-class press during the middle 20^th century. When alternatives to corporate media sources are absent, an important study concludes, “the legitimization of existing authority and power relations is more readily maintained, and the myths that act to place primary reason in abeyance (i.e., the inherent good of the “free market,” economic competition, U.S. nationalism,) are invariably perpetuated…”( James F. Tracy, “Smile while I cut your throat”, 3)

As early as the middle 19^th century, the working-class press was aware of this new trend, and “according to Yale University labor historian David Montgomery, condemned what they called the "bought priesthood," referring to the media, the universities and the intellectual class, that is, the apologists who sought to justify the absolute despotism that was the new spirit of the age: “gain wealth, forgetting all but self”(Noam Chomsky, Democracy and Education). The independent press was powerless to oppose this trend, and its ability to represent popular movements and provide an alternative to the corporate media was destroyed.

“In 1920 there were 700 cities” in the U.S. “with competing dailies.” By 1986, however, despite a doubling of the population, “there were only a dozen cities with competing dailies.(Ben Bagdikian, The Media Monopoly, 9) The ideological battle to oppose the new ‘spirit of the age’ was also lost. By 2004, the media was controlled by just six intertwined corporations.ⁱTo sum up the defeat, one can quote “Nobel Prize winning economist James Buchanan, [who]writes 'what each person seeks [today]…is mastery over a world of slaves.(Noam Chomsky, Democracy and Education)."

↔

In the study of information media in the American home, one has to keep in mind that America is a democracy. In a democracy, the media plays the essential role of informing the citizen of the current events that are occurring in their neighborhood, city, state, nation, and worldwide. How, by whom, etc this information is presented makes an enormous impact in effect that this information has on the reader. Because the other members in my group decided to do more current artifacts, I chose the natural historical counterpart, newspapers. Overall, the effect of media consolidation has had a huge impact on how citizens gain their knowledge of the world; this trend started with newspapers and has continued in parallel to the other artifacts we have studied. I wish to raise awareness in the reader’s mind of this very important and understudied issue, so the reader themselves can decide how this has impacted their own lives.

I had a fantastic time working with my group. I honestly don’t think there is a single bad thing I could say about any of them. Being a History major, group projects are completely new to me, but the other group members were able to guide me through the process and I have them to thank for the fact that our project ended up a very polished and informative collaboration.
Having had a similar interest in the area in which you all chose to work, how well do you think you all actually worked together?
Our group worked very well together. There were no personality conflicts, nor did a single person try to impose their will or vision on the other members. I think this was an essential factor in our project coming together so seamlessly. The project allowed for personal freedom in our individual artifact analysis, but also time for group critique.
Every group member was able to take the lead in the various meetings at various times. Jasmine seemed the most comfortable with the whole group project concept, as I already stated, this is completely new to me. She was able to organize the meetings, organize the folders and do the small things that made the whole project come together.

I would have definitely preferred to work in a group, and I think this is essential for this type of project and type of class. If one student worked alone on this entire category(media-information) there is no way they could have done an as thorough job as we were able to do through a combined effort. Also, the group process allows for the critique of the other members, and forces members to find connections between the artifacts which I believe is essential for the entire project to come together, and for it to have a convincing overall argument on this vast topic.
I found that our group members largely shared our world view concerning our topic. I because I have a particularly nuanced interest in my topic, my analysis may have been more historically based, and more advanced in a sense, but I don’t think that necessarily made my part superior in anyway. I believe because we had a lot to share with each other, we were all able to learn a lot about the topic, and I don’t think anyone can argue that this is a bad thing.

i

Why They Hate Us

Trying to find the reasons that militant Islamist groups, such as al Qaeda, declared war the United States and other western nations is no easy task. A good way to approach this question would be to look at the reasons that these Islamist groups stated in declaring their war. The next logical step would be to evaluate the validity and truth of these statements. If the reasons have some factual basis, one can assume that these were the true reasons behind their declaration of war. If these reasons have no factual basis, one can assume that there are other unstated reasons that must exist.

A factor that underlies Islamists reasons for attacking America is the Middle East’s cyclical history with Western intervention. It is necessary to establish this context because even if it is not well known in the West, one can be sure that their own is well known by Muslims. Furthermore, one cannot possibly attempt to understand the modern history of the Middle East without establishing this context.

After the 18^th century, the once great Ottoman Empire suffered continued defeats and loss of lands to the European powers. This continued until the Ottoman Empire’s final demise after World War I. The fundamental Islamist movement rose out of the ashes and humiliation of these defeats. It is also important to keep in mind that each of the above mentioned incidents was followed by idealistic claims of bringing democracy and peace to the region but actually resulted in the installment of corrupt and undemocratic regimes, or in the case of Israel, a democratic regime displacing the existing Palestinian population.

The first example of this would be Napoleon’s statement in 1798 to the Egyptian people: “I have not come to you except for the purpose of restoring your rights from the hands of the oppressors”. Another would be the European victors of WWI, in this case the British working under League of Nation mandates in Iraq after World War I: “Our armies do not come into your cities and lands as conquerors or enemies, but as liberators…”¹ In both of these cases, the native populations resisted foreign control. One could add to the list the creation of Israel and partition of Palestine, and the huge array Cold War intervention by the Soviets and the West.

The Cold War pitted the US against secular nationalism in the Middle East, which the US worried would ally itself with Communists. In response, according to journalist Peter Bergen, the US allied itself with the Muslim Brotherhood, one of the most ideologically extreme elements in the Middle East, so they would combat this secular nationalism.² This article was written using more than a dozen interviews with government and non-government officials and newly declassified documents. Al Qaeda, it turns out, is an offshoot of the Brotherhood.

The final example would be the most recent invasion of Iraq. The words of Donald Rumsfeld, unknowingly, echoed the words of past would-be conquers: “Unlike many armies in the world, you came not to conquer, not to occupy, but to liberate, and the Iraqi people know this”.³ This was not missed by the Muslim world.

All these factors have come together and left the people of the Middle East with a clear idea of Western intentions. This recent history of the Middle East is not so easily forgotten by those that have suffered through it. These memories are not quick to fade, even more so because of the long standing tradition of oral story telling in Islam.

Osama Bin Laden is the leader of al Qaeda, the most prominent Islamist group that has declared war on the west. In several interviews done with eminent British journalist Robert Fisk, he talks about the reasons that he was angered with and eventually declared war on the United States. And as Fisk points out, “history-or his version of it- was the basis for almost all of his remarks”.⁴

One of the reasons Osama Bin Laden stated for his declaration of war was the fact that the United States is a close ally of Saudi Arabia. In fact, Bin Laden sees Saudi Arabia as an extension, even “colony” of the United States. He seems this as an example of the United States attempting to control the Middle East. For example, he blames the Saudi government for financing Iraq with $25 billion dollars during the Iran-Iraq war. He also cites the $60 billion dollars Saudi Arabia paid in support of the Coalition Allies during the Gulf War, “buying military equipment which is not needed or useful for the country, buying aircraft by credit”, while at the same time creating unemployment, high taxes and a bankrupt economy. The Saudi Government defaulted on its contracts to Saudi businessmen, at tune of about 30 percent of Saudi national income inside the kingdom. This caused prices to go up, the cost of electricity, water and fuel to increase. Funding for education and government farming programs were also let run dry.

Furthermore, Bin Laden states, because of the Gulf War, there were US troops stationed in Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia was the birthplace of Islam, and holds two of Islam’s holiest cities, Mecca and Medina. Immediately after the US troops were stationed there, there were protests inside Saudi Arabia by the religious leadership, or Ulema, which demanded US troops be removed. This transgression against Islam, in their eyes, was intolerable.

Another reason for Bin Laden’s declaration of war is the perceived US support for Israel. In 1996, 10 days after an attack on US military complex, Bin Laden explained of the reasons behind it. “The explosion in al-Khobar did not come as a direction reaction to the American occupation but as a result of American behavior against Muslims, its support of Jews in Palestine and of the massacres of Muslims in Palestine and Lebanon- of Sabra and Chatila and Qana- and of the Sharm el-Sheikh conference”.What it boiled down to is that for Bin Laden, “there is no difference between the American and Israeli governments or between the American and Israeli soldiers”.

Lastly among Osama Bin Laden’s reasons are the sanctions that were placed against Iraq after the first Gulf War. “We as Muslims have a strong feelings that binds us together…We feel for our brothers in Palestine and Lebanon…When sixty Jews are killed inside Palestine all the world gathers within seven days to criticize this action, while the deaths of 600,000 Iraqi children did not receive the same reaction.”

Israel’s actions in the occupied territories have been well documented by human rights groups such as Amnesty International. “Killings of Palestinians by Israeli security services or settlers have led to suicide bombings and the deaths of Israeli civilians. These have led to waves of arbitrary arrest, incommunicado detention, torture and unfair trials[by Palestinian Security forces]. The Palestinian population have been the main victims of such violations…the Occupied territories have become a land of barriers, mostly erected by Israeli security services, between town and town and village and village.”⁵

Since the start of the second Intifada, the Palestinians have been subjected to extreme collective punishment at the hand of the Israeli army. These responses took three main forms: illegal killings, tortures, and house demolitionsⁱ. According to the Israeli Information Center for Human Rights in the occupied Territories, B’Tselem, 3,386 Palestinians have been killed since September 2000, 1,008 of them were classified as combatants, and 676 of them were children. During the same period, 992 Israelis were killed, of those, 309 were security forces and 118 were children. Amnesty International writes that “Israeli security services have routinely tortured Palestinian political suspects on the occupied territories”⁶. B’Tselem counts that 4170 Palestinian homes have also been destroyed since the beginning of the second Intifada.ⁱⁱ

Regardless of their portrayal in the Western media, these actions are given prominent coverage in the Arab press. Even former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak would seem to agree that the conditions of the Palestinians are conducive to extremism. “I would have joined a terrorist organization…”⁷ was Ehud Barak’s response when Barak was asked what he would have done if he had been born a Palestinian.

Israel is not the only US ally that has been condemned by human rights organizations. No one would doubt the close ties between the Saudi Kingdom and the United States that have existed since Saudi Arabia’s inception. Neither can one doubt the abuses of the Saudi regime. According to a 2005 Human Rights Watch report, “human rights violations are pervasive in Saudi Arabia”⁸. They are not alone. Egyptians still suffer under an undemocratic regime, fixed elections, routine torture and political violence. Similarly situations exist in, Jordan⁹ and Pakistan and other US allies in the area.

It would be impossible to contradict the statement that Iraq, suffered horribly under UN sanctions during the 1990s. It was estimated that 1.5 million women and children died during these years. In 1996, The United Nations Children's Fund estimated that around 4,500 children under the age of five are dying here every month from hunger and disease. UNICEF stated in 1999 “if substantial reduction in child morality throughout Iraq during the 1980s had continued through the 1990s, there would have been half a million fewer deaths of children under five in the country as a whole during the eight-year period 1991 to 1998”¹⁰. Denis Halliday, the former head of the UN's humanitarian program in Iraq stated that “I recently met with trade union leaders [in Iraq] who asked me why the United Nations does not simply bomb the Iraqi people, and do it efficiently, rather than extending sanctions which kill Iraqi people.” In 2000 Halliday wrote “here we are in the middle of the millennium year and we are responsible for genocide in Iraq”. ¹¹His words leave little room for interpretation or debate.

After evaluating Osama Bin Laden’s remarks, and looking for factual validity behind his reasons for declaring war on the United States, it would seem like the reasons he has given have some factual basis. In numerous polls done on the subject, these grievances resonate with the experiences of the Middle East with the West¹². Therefore, one can surmise that his stated reasons are in fact the reasons why Islamists groups declared war on the West.

A recent defense department report concurs with this conclusion. It states: “Muslims do not hate our freedom, but rather they hate our policies. The overwhelming majority voice their objections to what they see as one-sided support in favor of Israel and against Palestinian rights, and the long-standing, even increasing, support for what Muslims collectively see as tyrannies, most notably Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Pakistan and the Gulf states”¹³.

My Personal Analysis

All of this flies in the face the opinion of President George W. Bush. According to him, the Islamists “ hate what we see right here in this chamber -- a democratically elected government.... They hate our freedoms -- our freedom of religion, our freedom of speech, our freedom to vote and assemble and disagree with each other.”¹⁴ Instead of addressing the well known issues that antagonize Muslims worldwide, Bush’s actions only play into the extremists’ hands, and, for example, have created a terrorist recruiting camp in Iraq beyond Osama Bin Laden’s wildest dreams. Ironically, Iraq didn’t get the terrorists used in Bush’s original justification to go to war with Iraq until after that war was over. These have been the reasons that Islamists groups declared war on the West, and it is the continuation of these policies that continues to fuel support for their war.

1 Rashid Khalidi, "The United States and Palestine" in Resurrecting Empire: Western Footprints and America's Perilous Path in the Middle East(Boston: Beacon Press, 2004) pg 37.

2 Peter Bergen, “The Wrong War: Backdraft: How the war in Iraq has fueled Al Qaeda and ignited its dream of global jihad.” Mother Jones Magazine. July/August 2004 Issue

3 Ibid 1.

4 All Osama Bin Laden quotes from the chapter, “One of our brothers had a dream…”

Robert Fisk The Great War for Civilization: The Conquest of the Middle East(New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2005)

5 www.amnesty.org/resources/pdf/ combating_torture/sections/section2-1-2-2.pdf

6 http://www.btselem.org/english/Press_Releases/20060104.asp

7 Bill Maxwell "U.S. Should Reconsider Aid to Israel". St. Petersburg Time. December 16, 2001

8 “Human Rights Overview: Saudi Arabia”http://hrw.org/english/docs/2006/01/18/saudia12230.htm.

9 “Human Rights Overview: Jordan”http://hrw.org/english/docs/2006/01/18/jordan12225.htm

10 “THE STATE OF THE WORLD’S CHILDREN -1998” www.unicef.org/sowc98/sowc98.pdf

11 Denis Halliday “Time to see the truth about ourselves and Iraq”. The Guardian. August 2, 2000.

12 Pew Global Attitudes Project : “Islamic Extremism: Common Concern for Muslim and Western Publics” http://pewglobal.org/reports/display.php?PageID=809

13 “Defense Science Board Task Force on Strategic Communication, November 29, 2004” http://www.acq.osd.mil/dsb/reports/2004-09-Strategic_Communication.pdf

14 George W. Bush “Address to a Joint Session of Congress and the American People”, September 20, 2001. http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/09/20010920-8.html

i

ii

Uncle Tom’s Cabin

Uncle Tom’s Cabin is the response of writer Harriet Beecher Stowe to the conditions of slavery in the United States. Specifically, it is a rebuttal to the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850. This federal law mandated that all northerners assist in the capture and pursuit of alleged runaway slaves and northern judges be paid a bonus if they ruled in favor of returning the slaves to their owners in the South. Through her effective use of religious imagery Stowe performs an outstanding job in both criticizing slavery and making powerful arguments in an effort to convince northerners to not cooperate with slave catchers.

Stowe identified the root problem of slavery as the common racist perception of the black race. This dehumanization was a necessary prerequisite for the institution of slavery to be both created and perpetuated. It is very difficult for one group to brutalize and oppress another unless the victims are made out to be less human and less deserving of compassion then those doing the oppressing. Stowe sought to create a common link between white and blacks through the use of religion in her novel. If she could show that black slaves were as capable of being religious and embracing Christianity as whites, she felt that she could break the grip of racism, and in effect give humanity to blacks in the eyes of whites. If she could accomplish this, she would force whites to rethink their views of blacks, and in turn their attitudes towards slavery.

The first step in accomplishing this deed was by establishing that slaves were capable of appreciating and truly embracing Christianity. She did this through several of her main characters in her novel. The best example would be the slave known as Tom. Tom was perceived by all who came into contact with him as being one of the most pious and religious people that they had met. He was a devout Christian who not only read the bible, but as was constantly demonstrated, one who practiced its teachings in his everyday life. It could be argued that he was the most devout Christian in the novel.

Once it was established that slaves were capable of being members of the Christian faith, Stowe moved on to next step of further humanizing the slaves. She showed that blacks were able to feel pain and joy just like their white counterparts. She put her characters, both white and black through situations of pain and loss. She showed that both blacks and whites feel the same emotions, cry the same tears and bleed the same blood. One of the primary examples was the pattern of parents losing or being separated from their children. The pain, anguish and helplessness that St. Clare felt towards losing his daughter Eva was a direct parallel to the novel’s depiction of the slave parents experiences in losing or being separated from their children. This showed that both races have similar emotions and that a white person would react similarly to a slave who lost their child. The white reader who would have felt sympathy to St. Clare’s loss could not help but also feel the same about the slaves’ loss. By doing this, Stowe was able to reveal to the reader another example of the similarities of the white and black race.

To further add to her argument Stowe used the child Eva to depict a truly innocent pious white character. Because of her purity, Eva was colorblind to all she met; and she loved everyone the same, regardless of their race. For example, she immediately befriended Tom when she met him. Both of the characters grew very close, and Eva and Tom both reflected on the Bible together. Eva was also the only character that felt true compassion for Topsy, a black slave that was a truly hated by most others in the novel. She was able to change Topsy’s life by recognizing that all she needed was to feel loved, and by providing this love.

Furthermore, the most religious people in the book were those that were also the ones that acted most honorably and most selflessly. Tom was a deeply religious person and never hurt a soul throughout the novel and always put other people’s needs first. The Quakers repeatedly risked bodily harm to help those in need, including slaves and even the slave catcher Tom who fell and got injured attempting to capture George and his family(215). Mrs. Shelby, Eliza’s owner and another deeply religious character did all she could to try to stop Eliza’s child from being sold. Then when Eliza and her child escaped from the farm, she did all she could to stop the slave catcher Haley from catching her, even though it meant breaking the law. Yet another religious character was Mrs. Bird who first challenged her husband, the Senator on his support for fugitive slave legislation, and then did all she could, with her husbands help to assist Eliza on her journey to freedom.

One main criticism of Uncle Tom’s Cabin is the allegation that character from whom the book’s title is derived is fitting of the modern definition of the term ‘Uncle Tom’. In the modern definition, an ‘Uncle Tom’ chooses to live a life of relative comfort close to his racial master instead of living and working with the rest of his counterparts. Going along with this, an Uncle Tom feels above his peers and is in other words a race traitor or collaborator.

I disagree with this interpretation for several reasons. First of all, Tom is trusted and is close with his first two masters for no other reasons besides the fact that Tom’s intense religious character makes him unable and unwilling to do anything that will harm his honor or bring shame to himself. His motivations for choosing too stay with his first master instead of running away are also called into question. I believe he chose this path because he was simply unable to violate his master’s trust. Also as he points out, if Eliza, her child and Tom had all runaway, all of the rest of the slaves would have suffered, when this could have been avoided if Tom went along with the man who had bought him.

Also, a so called “Uncle Tom” would be expected to use his position of power to further his own interests and feel better than the rest of his race. There absolutely no point in the story where Tom does anything to remotely raise suspicion of this. Instead, on numerous occasions Tom goes out of his way to protect his fellow slaves. He feels nothing but respect and compassion for them. The most powerful example of this would be Tom’s refusal to whip the mulatto girl. Tom is unable to hurt another human being, and as he declares, he would rather die than do so. Sadly, this decision ends up costing him his life, but in the end his soul and his pride remain unbroken.

Finally, it is important to point out the author’s motivation in creating Tom in this image. The author goes out of her way to create many different characters and personalities for the slaves in her book. This further emphasizes the humanity and diversity of the black race, just as the white race contains individuals with greatly varying personalities. Stowe has already created the character George Harris who is willing to stand up to the whites and escape slavery. Furthermore, he is willing to fight and kill in order to keep himself from being captured. This proves that the author’s intention is not to paint all slaves as docile and submissive as some may allege. Instead, in Tom, she creates a character whose religious beliefs and dedication are above question.

The final and most powerful rebuke of slavery and The Fugitive Slave Act is the natural culmination of Stowe’s powerful arguments. It is my belief that Stowe convincingly establishes to any sane reader that slaves are capable of being Christian, and by extension of being human and capable of experiencing common human emotions. She argues that because God’s laws transcend that of man, all men and women, slaves and whites are first obligated to God’s laws, then to mans. And although it can be said that Southerners would still not accept this argument, it wasn’t primarily directed towards them in the first place. Its primary goal was to reveal the true horrors of slavery to the northerner who would otherwise only hear a filtered, watered down version. I believe Stowe wished to create a Christian revival within the north similar to what St. Clare experienced; a discovery of an interpretation of Christianity that directed him to “..think no man can consistently profess it without throwing the whole weight of his being against this monstrous system of injustice that lies at the foundation of all our society; and if need be, sacrificing himself in the battle(332).” And although she didn’t quite achieve this, and some may argue that Stowe’s vision of racial equality and acceptance has still not been achieved today, her novel made enough of a difference that sold tens of thousands of copies, and was credited by Abraham Lincoln himself with being at least a contributing factor to the start of the Civil War.