I’m shocked and deeply saddened by Joan Walsh of Salon and other commentors’ focus on Bhutto’s death as purely a political and economic catalyst and how it will affect the US and world politics.
How about the loss of a WOMAN LEADER in a world increasingly polarized between the masculine and feminine? In the Reagan/Thatcher 80s, Bhutto was to me a shining example of how a woman could be both feminine and powerful, both compassionate and effective—and perhaps more importantly, how the people of a culture widely seen as much more sexist and restrictive to women could actually vote a woman into power. It was the beginning of my recognition of women and feminism throughout the world, not just in the US; of my understanding that feminism wasn’t just about middle-class US women being able to have abortions or go to professional universities or play sports or feel safe to walk home at night, but that it also encompassed the other 95% of the world, of which more than half was women. Women in societies where they could be forced to leap upon the funeral pyre of their husbands from forced marriages. Women who could be killed for simply loving—or looking at—the wrong man. Women whose very lives—not to mention their sexual fulfillment and ability to give birth safely—were threatened by female genital mutilation. And all the hundreds of thousands of women who would never be because of female infanticide in the two most populous countries.
Being from the US and having very little exposure to politics in the rest of the world, I was ignorant of the progressive Scandinavian societies where women achieved near equity during Second Wave feminism. I only remember seeing Corazon Aquino and Benazir Bhutto and other “Third World” women coming to power—being VOTED into power—and thinking, what’s WRONG with us? Even Thatcher, although I admired her abilities (but not her politics) was the Iron Lady, the Man with Tits, the Wombless Woman. There was nothing feminine about her.
But Bhutto, ah, Bhutto made leadership seem naturally graceful and feminine and full of compassion. I did not follow her career closely, know little of the circumstances surrounding her falls from power either time—I have no doubt that there were elements of corruption and power-mongering around her governments, as there are around every modern government. I also have no doubt that the same sorts of people who love to hate Hillary Rodham Clinton and Nancy Pelosi and Helen Clark and Arundhati Roy and Wangari Maathi and all the other strong, powerful women in the world today, also hated Benazir Bhutto and did all they could to bring her down in the eyes of the world and her people. The current epidemic of misogyny didn’t spring, fully formed, from the Bush administration or fanatical Islam—it has been quietly (and not so quietly, see Pat Robertson and the late Jerry Falwell) fomenting ever since the beginning of the Second Wave. It certainly existed where Bhutto was popular.
Speaking of fanatical Islam, however, that was another thing that Bhutto did … for me. Here was a worldly, educated, powerful woman, an excellent speaker, obviously capable of drawing crowds of support (of men as well as women) who was a Muslim. Benazir Bhutto was the face of feminist Islam; she gave credence to the stories of Fatima and other powerful Muslim women—mother and wives and daughters of Mohammed who, like the women surrounding Jesus of Nazareth, were instrumental and absolutely essential in spreading the teachings of Islam. I also suspect that, like almost all women, no matter how important or powerful, they also performed many “feminine” tasks such as care-giving and nurturing and cooking and teaching and building community—in short, the tasks that hold the society together. Tasks that our political leaders should focus on more, rather than trying to force change by economic or political (or violent) means. Of course, I don’t mean to say that Benazir Bhutto spent her time baking bread or wiping the fevered brow of her children—although she very well may have; or that those things are more important than leading the pro-democracy movement and calling for the eradication of poverty in Pakistan. But are they really less important? And even though I never saw her do them and don’t know that she ever did them, there was something about her that gave the impression that great leadership could encompass all of those elements of femininity and compassion without losing any of its power.
After September 11 and the Bali bombing, I was living in Australia. Benazir Bhutto seemed to visit frequently, appearing on many forums and political discussion shows, trying to bridge the cultural gap between frightened, suspicious “white” Australians and angry, suspicious Muslim Australians. Despite incidences of violence and racial unrest that broke out in some of the inner cities (more a result of ghettoization and economic disparity, I believe, than actual religious radicalization) Australians seemed by and large to want to believe that the two cultures could live side by side, could intermingle and create a multi-cultural society. It’s a belief that has practical as well as ideological implications for Australia; after all, the island nation’s closest neighbour is the world’s largest Muslim nation: Indonesia. Although right-of-centre (and Bush “arse-licker” as dubbed by the former leader of the opposition) Prime Minister John Howard was able to wrangle two electoral victories out of fear and xenophobia, his adamant support for the “war on terror” and particularly its implications of a “war on Islam” made many Australian uncomfortable and, I hope, had more than a little to do with Howard’s recent humiliating loss.
I digress. I mention Bhutto’s visits to Australia as she seemed at the time one of the few people able to pour oil on those troubled waters of racial and religious tension. She seemed always, to me, the ultimate in feminine grace and power, with a beauty not simply of face and form, but of compassion and wisdom as well. In short, she embodied a contemporary image of the Goddess; in doing so, she gave me hope. Now, my only hope is that her decision to return to Pakistan for the movement, despite the risks she well knew she took, will achieve what she set out to achieve—a step along her home’s road to democracy, another stone in the path to peace.
Friday, December 28, 2007
Thursday, December 27, 2007
Mourning the Loss of Another Great Sister
Today Benazir Bhutto finally succumbed to the assassination that has been stalking her since her return to her native Pakistan. As the first woman leader of an Islamic state, Bhutto greatly impacted both the Muslim world and the world at large. She showed that it was possible to be graceful, feminine, beautiful and yet still be an effective (and clearly threatening to dictatorship and patriarchy) leader.
Her loss is a horrendous blow to the pro-democracy movement in Pakistan; and despite US mouthings of proper outrage and shock, her election and/or the ascendancy of her party to any level of power (whether leadership or opposition) would’ve impeded US control and influence in Pakistan. So, although I would seriously doubt the Bush administration had any sort of direct hand in her murder, I’m sure there are things they could’ve done to make sure she was better protected.
As she was not. In an interview http://edition.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/asiapcf/11/04/bhutto/index.html Bhutto reflected on the first assassination attempt in October, when she had just returned to Pakistan. She questioned the refusal to allow her to have tinted windows in her car, to protect her anonymity; possibly more disturbing, however, were her observations that the street lights were turned off, the length of time it took for the police to file her “complaint”, and the fervid rejection of CIA and/or Scotland Yard forensic assistance in investigating the attack.
Despite the authorities’ obvious indifference to her safety, President Bhutto did not leave her country. By remaining in Pakistan to shore up the pro-democracy movement and as inspiration to her supporters, she showed a fortitude and courage no longer often seen in Western politicians. Like Aung San Suu Kyi, she remained a present, visible figure to give hope to those whose hope may have waned in the recent crackdown.
And like Aung San Suu Kyi, Wangari Maathi, Arundhati Roy, Liberia's Ellen Johnson-Sirleaf, Argentina’s President Cristina Fernandez, President: Michelle Bachelet, New Zealand’s Helen Clark, and the (small but growing) handful of women leaders around the world, Benazir Bhutto gave hope to women working for equality and justice.
As a radical leftist feminist, I find the concept of the headscarf (or burka or hajib) to reflect submission to a patriarchal religious tradition onerous. One of the great leaders of the 20th century, however—and great hero to me—Benazir Bhutto wore the scarf out of respect for the ancient tradition of her people.
She did so with an honor and grace—and a humility not often seen in any major world religious or other tradition today.
In honor of her, her belief in true, grassroots democracy, her commitment to peace, her people and the people of the world, I am honored and humbled to wear a headscarf today.
May Prime Minister Bhutto’s ideals live on.
Her loss is a horrendous blow to the pro-democracy movement in Pakistan; and despite US mouthings of proper outrage and shock, her election and/or the ascendancy of her party to any level of power (whether leadership or opposition) would’ve impeded US control and influence in Pakistan. So, although I would seriously doubt the Bush administration had any sort of direct hand in her murder, I’m sure there are things they could’ve done to make sure she was better protected.
As she was not. In an interview http://edition.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/asiapcf/11/04/bhutto/index.html Bhutto reflected on the first assassination attempt in October, when she had just returned to Pakistan. She questioned the refusal to allow her to have tinted windows in her car, to protect her anonymity; possibly more disturbing, however, were her observations that the street lights were turned off, the length of time it took for the police to file her “complaint”, and the fervid rejection of CIA and/or Scotland Yard forensic assistance in investigating the attack.
Despite the authorities’ obvious indifference to her safety, President Bhutto did not leave her country. By remaining in Pakistan to shore up the pro-democracy movement and as inspiration to her supporters, she showed a fortitude and courage no longer often seen in Western politicians. Like Aung San Suu Kyi, she remained a present, visible figure to give hope to those whose hope may have waned in the recent crackdown.
And like Aung San Suu Kyi, Wangari Maathi, Arundhati Roy, Liberia's Ellen Johnson-Sirleaf, Argentina’s President Cristina Fernandez, President: Michelle Bachelet, New Zealand’s Helen Clark, and the (small but growing) handful of women leaders around the world, Benazir Bhutto gave hope to women working for equality and justice.
As a radical leftist feminist, I find the concept of the headscarf (or burka or hajib) to reflect submission to a patriarchal religious tradition onerous. One of the great leaders of the 20th century, however—and great hero to me—Benazir Bhutto wore the scarf out of respect for the ancient tradition of her people.
She did so with an honor and grace—and a humility not often seen in any major world religious or other tradition today.
In honor of her, her belief in true, grassroots democracy, her commitment to peace, her people and the people of the world, I am honored and humbled to wear a headscarf today.
May Prime Minister Bhutto’s ideals live on.
Friday, December 21, 2007
MY HUSBAND GAVE ME A GOAT!
Well, actually, he gave me a bee hive—he wanted to give me a goat but they were sold out! Neither of the creatures actually comes to me, the “recipient”; rather, it is a program of World Vision that allows people to give life-saving or –improving basic necessities to people in need.
My gift will provide “a family in Somalia or Jerusalem/Gaza/West Bank with a beehive, safety equipment and training so they can produce a source of essential vitamins for their children and generate vital income” www.worldvision.com.au/smiles. As my husband wrote to me, “we have enough ‘stuff’ already. I think that this is a gift that will keep on giving to people who need it. Was going to buy a goat but they've sold out.” As my mother pointed out, it’s probably just as well that it wasn’t a goat—you have to feed a goat; bees feed themselves. Also, it’s hard to steal bees.
But I’m as happy with this gift as I imagine a wife in the developing world would be with an actual goat! I checked the website and World Vision is indeed sold out of goats (for families in the Sudan), donkeys for women in Ethiopia, and sports equipment for children in Papua New Guinea. Still available, however, are school kits for children in Azerbaijan, greening/tree-plantings in many African, South American and SE Asian countries, and Clean and Flush systems to improve hygiene in the Democratic Republic of the Congo.
If you’re of the “teach a person to fish” philosophy, however, there are other ways to contribute to the development of that developing world: Andrew Leonard of Salon today celebrates the repayment (in full) of a micro-loan and feels so enriched by the experience he’s decided to “roll it over and double up on [his] bet”, starting “the How the World Works Christmas tradition.”
http://www.salon.com/tech/htww/2007/12/21/a_very_merry_kiva_christmas/index.html
Although this is all a very “rich white liberal” thing to do—a process about which I’m very critical and cynical—still, it’s one of the few ways that those of us in the first world can contribute to improving the quality of life for the 2/3 of the world who live on less than $2 a day. I sponsor a child in Kenya, I go out of my way to buy Fair Trade goods, I research consumer products to make sure they’re not created by child labor in sweatshops. I don’t shop at WalMart, I don’t buy Nestle, Exxon or Teva, I buy as locally as possible, and I support all manner of pressure on elected officials as well as corporate entities from Bono, Bob Geldof, Oprah, Care2, Angelina Jolie, and every other well-meaning First World liberal trying to alleviate the guilt and actually do some good, for the long term.
I do, however, tend to feel more impassioned about non-human animals; much of my interest in improving the conditions of humans in the developing world comes from my understanding that if the conditions of humans are improved, deforestation and destruction of habitat for the many endangered animals—Mountain Gorillas, Bengal tigers, clouded leopards, jaguars, lemurs, elephants, and dozens, maybe hundreds of others—will be reduced. Humans I reckon play at least some role in much of their own misery. Non-human animals do nothing but act in the way that nature—or circumstances brought about by the interference in nature—forces them to. Such circumstances have also, of course, affected indigenous peoples all over the world; I am quite prepared to recognize the impossible positions of the !Kung of the Kalahari, the Maasai, the Inuit, the Papau New Guineans, the Amazonian tribes, all of whose deep connection to nature places them between protecting the natural world of which they are part, and surviving in the face of the onslaught of Western “civilization”. Some of the actions they have taken have been heroic indeed. If I had money to donate, I’d give it to http://www.survival-international.org/home, which advocates for the rights of indigenous people to simply live the way they’ve lived for 1000s of years.
But right now my sympathies are with the whales and my passions with Paul Watson and Sea Shepherd http://www.seashepherd.org/migaloo/index.html. I read and have sent as a gift and recommended to everyone The Whale Warriors, the story of Sea Shepherd’s 2005 tracking of the Japanese whaling fleet, that illegally hunted and killed more than 800 minke whales and nearly 50 fin whales in the Antarctic whale sanctuary. When I lived on the East Coast of Australia, every spring (that’s September through November Down Under) I was thrilled to see the whale migration south to the summer feeding grounds in the Antarctic. Pods of several whales, pairs of mothers and calves, sometimes two or three pals, or the occasional loner, swam by, visible along the horizon as they spouted and breeched. The whale-watching industry of Australia has successfully created a sense of stewardship by almost all Australians (except, of course, the recently deposed Howard government) and the fury with which Aussies greet the Japanese determination to continue to hunt 1000+ whales per year for “research” purposes has become virulent: FUCK OFF JAPAN... LEAVE OUR WHALES ALONE!!!! http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=7251222651&ref=nf
With their announcement this year that they would add 50 humpback whales to the quota—and refusal even to guarantee the safety of Migaloo, the rare albino humpback that is Australia’s darling—Japan has crossed the line. Even the BUSH ADMINISTRATION has sternly warned Japan that this activity will not be tolerated. New Aussie Prime Minister Kevin Rudd has confirmed that he will send Naval scouts to document the illegal whaling “take action before the International Court of Justice and the Tribunal for Law of the Sea, using the Whaling Convention and the Endangered Species Convention” —hunting whales, especially in a sanctuary, is, after all, ILLEGAL.
Watson, however, isn’t holding his breath; neither is Sea Shepherd holding back on enforcing the law themselves, as best they can. According to the organisation’s latest press release:
“Sea Shepherd does not understand how Australia can enforce fishing regulations against Toothfish poachers from Uruguay yet cannot intervene against the slaughter of the whales in these same water, waters that are clearly marked on the nautical charts as part of the Australian Economic Exclusion Zone.
“Our response to Australia's announcement of their 'plan' to protect the whales is to drop the camera and pick up your guns and enforce the bloody laws, mate.”
My gift will provide “a family in Somalia or Jerusalem/Gaza/West Bank with a beehive, safety equipment and training so they can produce a source of essential vitamins for their children and generate vital income” www.worldvision.com.au/smiles. As my husband wrote to me, “we have enough ‘stuff’ already. I think that this is a gift that will keep on giving to people who need it. Was going to buy a goat but they've sold out.” As my mother pointed out, it’s probably just as well that it wasn’t a goat—you have to feed a goat; bees feed themselves. Also, it’s hard to steal bees.
But I’m as happy with this gift as I imagine a wife in the developing world would be with an actual goat! I checked the website and World Vision is indeed sold out of goats (for families in the Sudan), donkeys for women in Ethiopia, and sports equipment for children in Papua New Guinea. Still available, however, are school kits for children in Azerbaijan, greening/tree-plantings in many African, South American and SE Asian countries, and Clean and Flush systems to improve hygiene in the Democratic Republic of the Congo.
If you’re of the “teach a person to fish” philosophy, however, there are other ways to contribute to the development of that developing world: Andrew Leonard of Salon today celebrates the repayment (in full) of a micro-loan and feels so enriched by the experience he’s decided to “roll it over and double up on [his] bet”, starting “the How the World Works Christmas tradition.”
http://www.salon.com/tech/htww/2007/12/21/a_very_merry_kiva_christmas/index.html
Although this is all a very “rich white liberal” thing to do—a process about which I’m very critical and cynical—still, it’s one of the few ways that those of us in the first world can contribute to improving the quality of life for the 2/3 of the world who live on less than $2 a day. I sponsor a child in Kenya, I go out of my way to buy Fair Trade goods, I research consumer products to make sure they’re not created by child labor in sweatshops. I don’t shop at WalMart, I don’t buy Nestle, Exxon or Teva, I buy as locally as possible, and I support all manner of pressure on elected officials as well as corporate entities from Bono, Bob Geldof, Oprah, Care2, Angelina Jolie, and every other well-meaning First World liberal trying to alleviate the guilt and actually do some good, for the long term.
I do, however, tend to feel more impassioned about non-human animals; much of my interest in improving the conditions of humans in the developing world comes from my understanding that if the conditions of humans are improved, deforestation and destruction of habitat for the many endangered animals—Mountain Gorillas, Bengal tigers, clouded leopards, jaguars, lemurs, elephants, and dozens, maybe hundreds of others—will be reduced. Humans I reckon play at least some role in much of their own misery. Non-human animals do nothing but act in the way that nature—or circumstances brought about by the interference in nature—forces them to. Such circumstances have also, of course, affected indigenous peoples all over the world; I am quite prepared to recognize the impossible positions of the !Kung of the Kalahari, the Maasai, the Inuit, the Papau New Guineans, the Amazonian tribes, all of whose deep connection to nature places them between protecting the natural world of which they are part, and surviving in the face of the onslaught of Western “civilization”. Some of the actions they have taken have been heroic indeed. If I had money to donate, I’d give it to http://www.survival-international.org/home, which advocates for the rights of indigenous people to simply live the way they’ve lived for 1000s of years.
But right now my sympathies are with the whales and my passions with Paul Watson and Sea Shepherd http://www.seashepherd.org/migaloo/index.html. I read and have sent as a gift and recommended to everyone The Whale Warriors, the story of Sea Shepherd’s 2005 tracking of the Japanese whaling fleet, that illegally hunted and killed more than 800 minke whales and nearly 50 fin whales in the Antarctic whale sanctuary. When I lived on the East Coast of Australia, every spring (that’s September through November Down Under) I was thrilled to see the whale migration south to the summer feeding grounds in the Antarctic. Pods of several whales, pairs of mothers and calves, sometimes two or three pals, or the occasional loner, swam by, visible along the horizon as they spouted and breeched. The whale-watching industry of Australia has successfully created a sense of stewardship by almost all Australians (except, of course, the recently deposed Howard government) and the fury with which Aussies greet the Japanese determination to continue to hunt 1000+ whales per year for “research” purposes has become virulent: FUCK OFF JAPAN... LEAVE OUR WHALES ALONE!!!! http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=7251222651&ref=nf
With their announcement this year that they would add 50 humpback whales to the quota—and refusal even to guarantee the safety of Migaloo, the rare albino humpback that is Australia’s darling—Japan has crossed the line. Even the BUSH ADMINISTRATION has sternly warned Japan that this activity will not be tolerated. New Aussie Prime Minister Kevin Rudd has confirmed that he will send Naval scouts to document the illegal whaling “take action before the International Court of Justice and the Tribunal for Law of the Sea, using the Whaling Convention and the Endangered Species Convention” —hunting whales, especially in a sanctuary, is, after all, ILLEGAL.
Watson, however, isn’t holding his breath; neither is Sea Shepherd holding back on enforcing the law themselves, as best they can. According to the organisation’s latest press release:
“Sea Shepherd does not understand how Australia can enforce fishing regulations against Toothfish poachers from Uruguay yet cannot intervene against the slaughter of the whales in these same water, waters that are clearly marked on the nautical charts as part of the Australian Economic Exclusion Zone.
“Our response to Australia's announcement of their 'plan' to protect the whales is to drop the camera and pick up your guns and enforce the bloody laws, mate.”
Thursday, December 20, 2007
"Pro-life": Language of Patriarchy
As an enthusiastic reader of Salon.com, I often comment on articles and even participate in debates with other reader/commentors. In today’s issue, Glenn Greenwald compares Ron Paul’s “Pro-life” stance to that of Harry Reid and asks what hypocrisy makes Democrat supporters condemn one but tolerate the other http://letters.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2007/12/20/reid_paul/view/index8.html?show=all . That debate rages on and I will not go into it here.
My question, however, is one that has bothered me for many years, and neither Greenwald nor any other “liberal” or “leftist” or “Democrat” has ever addressed it, let alone answered it to my satisfaction: Why do we allow the right (and this is pretty much a religious right issue) to frame the debate by using their language? How are anti-choice supporters “pro-life”? Study after study, statistic after statistic, shows that when abortion is illegal, women die. How is that pro-life? The VAST majority of right-wingers who call themselves “pro-life” only apply the term to fetuses, but not to living, breathing conscious adults on death row; nor to victims of chronic disease who might be helped by stem-cell research; nor to victims of the war and violence that their government perpetrates on innocent civilians the world over.
My question, however, is one that has bothered me for many years, and neither Greenwald nor any other “liberal” or “leftist” or “Democrat” has ever addressed it, let alone answered it to my satisfaction: Why do we allow the right (and this is pretty much a religious right issue) to frame the debate by using their language? How are anti-choice supporters “pro-life”? Study after study, statistic after statistic, shows that when abortion is illegal, women die. How is that pro-life? The VAST majority of right-wingers who call themselves “pro-life” only apply the term to fetuses, but not to living, breathing conscious adults on death row; nor to victims of chronic disease who might be helped by stem-cell research; nor to victims of the war and violence that their government perpetrates on innocent civilians the world over.
This is what "pro-life"/anti-choice looks like.
The right-wing-coined “pro-life” is an emotionally-charged term designed by its very connotation to put the other side in the wrong—obviously, anyone who is not “pro-life” must be “anti-life”. Nothing could be further from the truth. Pro-choice IS pro-life—pro-quality of life; pro-healthy life; pro-safety and pre-natal care, disease-free, joy-provoking-having-a-child-because-we-WANT-to life. NO one is pro-abortion (except, I like to joke, retroactively, when certain politicians make ridiculous or dangerous decisions). As a long-standing member of the pro-choice community from a personal, political, and abortion-counselor perspective, I can state unequivocally that there are no people more aware of the gravity nor more personally touched by the issue of choice than those in that community.
My point here, however, is how language is used as an ideological whip, and how liberal (or mainstream, if you insist) analysts often seem unable to acknowledge this. Certainly Noam Chomsky’s work and the respect he receives in political theory circles can’t help but illustrate that language does, in fact, create culture. It’s no mistake that the most respected progressive political analyst in the world today is a linguist by profession. Chomsky’s ability to point out what is really meant by what is said is the key to understanding how the corporatocracy has achieved and maintained its power. Before Chomsky, there were Orwell, Woolf, Swift, even Jefferson and any number of wordsmiths who recognized and discussed at length the effect of manipulated language on the political reality and the public’s understanding of it. In order to function, members of a democratic state must have equal access to information—and the definitions of the terms used to produce that information must be agreed upon. Certain terminology must be universal. This issue is particularly pertinent in the immediate political climate, where the definition of “torture” is no longer one on which, apparently, consensus exists.
Any student of political theory who is not aware of how language—word choices, the subtle differences in connotation, the application of inappropriate terms so frequently that they become acceptable, even though the original meaning is completely distorted—is manipulated to achieve power needs to re-read Animal Farm: Some animals are more equal than others. Who can point out the inherent contradiction in that sentence? It’s similar to what an editor showed me not long ago—that something cannot be more unique. Either it’s unique or it’s not.
Same with equality. Either animals (even human animals) are equal, or they’re not. There are no gradations of equality. To say that some are more equal than others is, in the words of my Czech friend, “a nonsense”.
So the fact that Greenwald and many, many other political pundits from the left of center (itself a relative term when you compare even just western political ideologies, let alone those of other cultures)—and even some of them women—continue to use the term “pro-life” in the context originally coined by the religious right raises my hackles of suspicion. I define myself as a leftist because I believe that liberals are essentially reformers, and I don’t believe that reform is enough. I believe we need a revolution. It might not need to be violent, but we need to throw out the current system—particularly the values it espouses and forces on us—and develop a new one. It’s not enough to create a kinder, gentler neo-liberalism; that only results in, like the Victorian age, being nicer to the poor. We need to create a system that eliminates poverty, war, violence, oppression and unnecessary suffering. Not to mention one that allows the continued functioning of a healthy ecosystem here on planet Earth—a proposition that seems a no-brainer to me, but seems to be meeting with all kinds of resistance from those who have the most to lose!
Obviously, my view is that of a minority. I believe, like Arundhati Roy, that that minority is growing every day; that people, particularly in the “developing” world, are waking up to the fact that, between the oppressors and the oppressed, “we be many and they be few”. Greenwald and most widely read political pundits, however, would not define themselves as revolutionaries. And here is where my suspicions catch root: I am aware, as many are not, that to advocate a true equality of women is revolutionary. A society where women have equal access and equal power would (or does, in the few places it exists today) look very different from the society in which we live. To change the language would change the culture—and even the liberal left is still dominated by white males. Does Greenwald’s—and others’—choice to use this term, a cornerstone of patriarchy’s control over women, reveal that even “liberal” society is unwilling to challenge the dominant paradigm?
Tuesday, December 18, 2007
Death by Toxins: A Preventable Plague
16 December 2007
Yesterday we buried my Uncle Claiborne, who died after a protracted battle with mesothelioma. This disease, caused by working with asbestos, has affected or killed an enormous number of former employees of the Newport News Shipyard (of which Uncle Claiborne was one). Claiborne had to have his lung removed nearly two years ago, and has been struggling to regain his strength and quality of life ever since. Two weeks ago, his doctors at Duke University Medical Center discovered that the mesothelioma had spread to his stomach. Uncle Claiborne could no longer eat at all; because he had diabetes, he couldn’t be given glucose. We are all grateful that he went quickly and didn’t linger to literally starve to death.
The shocking thing about this is that the Newport News Shipyard still operates, and still uses asbestos. Victims of mesothelioma are receiving huge financial settlements—as will Aunt Priscilla and her two grown children—but what is any amount of money to the loss of husband and father? Although shipyard employees now use all manner of protective clothing and masks, still, they, like nuclear facility employees, are constantly exposed to this poison. Mesothelioma has attacked people who never worked at or went to the shipyard, but only handled the clothes of or simply lived in the house with shipyard employees. Should not such a deadly and far-reaching poison be banned—shouldn’t ship builders (and here we’re talking about military contractors, in Newport News anyway) find alternative materials to those that cause this incurable and devastating disease?
The materials used to make surfboards, once deemed toxic to the environment and to people who work with them, were banned. Surfboards are still being built; makers have experimented with and found several other options to the toxic materials.
But surfboards are bought and used and almost always built by people whose values are very different from those who build ships for the military. Surfing is a personal pleasure, a healthy life pursuit, a connection to the sea and nature that is, according to aficionados, unparalleled by any other activity. It would be antithetical to the philosophy, almost religion, behind surfing to continue to build and use boards made of toxic materials.
Warships, on the other hand, are built by those who, by definition, see life as less important than power. To participate in the war economy in any way is to agree to the values of power over life, of control over pleasure. Killing—and even death—is preferable to compromise, change, and a reassessment of lifestyle and power structures. So it is no surprise that people whose primary purpose is to build warships are not concerned enough about the health of their workers to find other, non-toxic materials from which to build those ships. All of the members of the Shipyard power structure are, I’m sure, very sorry about the deaths of Claiborne and more than 3000 others just in the Hampton Roads area; but, their actions say, regrettable as it may be, death and suffering are the price we must pay for the lifestyle we choose.
It is, essentially, the same message we send to our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, the vast majority of whom know, it seems, that we are not there to spread democracy and freedom (not for women anyway, who were much better off in both countries before our invasion) but rather to seize and protect the rights of what John Perkins (author of Confessions of an Economic Hit Man) calls the “corporatocracy”. Make no mistake, the vast majority of people in the US—certainly the vast majority of troops—will receive very little benefit from the corporatocracy whose rights our tax dollars and their lives are given to protect. It is the 1 percent, the superwealthy, the CEOs and major stockholders of Bechtel and Halliburton and Lockheed Martin and all the other reconstruction agents and weapons-makers who benefit. But these members of the corporatocracy—not very different at all from the European monarchies of the 17th through 20th centuries, which consisted almost exclusively of members of the same family—all have each others’ backs. They control the mainstream media, the publishing houses, the textbook publishers, almost every form of information-creation in the USA.
There are, of course, many other ways to get your information. Thanks to the internet, almost everyone in the “First” world has access to alternative information from virtually every perspective. Indeed, I sometimes think too much information is as bad as too little—who can make sense of all the millions of feeds providing contradictory stories? And since US Americans have been indoctrinated nearly from birth to buy, do, believe whatever is most convenient, is it any surprise that that is what most of them do? It is such a struggle in this country to go against the mainstream, to actually do the right thing, that when I can put aside my petty anger and disgust at what I call “ignorant arrogance”, I have to admit that I shouldn’t be surprised at how easily led we are, but rather at how many people are able to reject and find or create alternatives at all.
Long ago I developed an analogy I like to use. As a horse person, I don’t often get to share my love and knowledge of horses with a general audience. But in the years I’ve spent with horses and learning about them, I’ve come to realise something that seems remarkable. Horses are animals of prey; that is, their primary role in the ecosystem, in addition to maintaining the balance of grasslands, is to feed carnivores. Consequently, all of the horse’s survival mechanisms are based on flight. Horses have excellent hearing and sense of smell, good peripheral vision, and are fleet and graceful—all characteristics to allow them to escape from predators. In order for these mechanisms to function best, however, horses need to live in wide-open spaces such as prairies, savannahs, etc. Their natural habitat provides the possibility of using their defenses to the best advantage.
So what do we humans, whose modern civilizations owe much if not most to the companion labor of horses, do with them? We lock them up in small, dark buildings, where the smell of their bodies and excrement fills the air; they cannot see beyond the walls; their own and the noises of other animals interferes with their excellent hearing; and worst of all, when danger is sensed, prevent them from being able to run from it. Once I realised this about horses, I no longer wondered that some were mean, uncooperative, violent, nervous, or developed self-abusing habits; I wondered why all of them didn’t.
And yet, many, many horses have existed throughout human history that have not only overcome these enormous handicaps, forced on them by human domesticity, but have shown almost supernatural strength and valor. Horses, called upon by trusted humans, run until they drop for some personal emergency or military objective. Horses have fought off human or animal attacks on their offspring or their people. Horses, such as Barbaro, who through breeding and training come to love the competition humans subject them to, will race—and try to win—even with a broken leg.
If horses can overcome negative conditioning and handicaps to behave in such a heroic manner, shouldn’t humans also be able to? Other societies—Western as well as non-western—have chosen to base their laws and structure not on power and control, but on compassion and that elusive “pursuit of happiness” that the US enshrined in our founding documents but still seems to elude us. Why can we not, despite our conditioning, reject a system that values power over life, military prowess over personal health? These toxic materials are almost universally banned throughout the rest of the Western world—why can we not ban toxic materials from every aspect of commerce and production? Why must people in this country be forced to choose between well-paid but potentially lethal work and that which is poorly paid but “safe”?
A local paper did a feature on Uncle Claiborne that mistakenly said he died from cancer. He did NOT die from cancer. He died from mesothelioma, a completely preventable, controllable disease. What kind of values can we possibly claim when we continue to allow such a plague?
Yesterday we buried my Uncle Claiborne, who died after a protracted battle with mesothelioma. This disease, caused by working with asbestos, has affected or killed an enormous number of former employees of the Newport News Shipyard (of which Uncle Claiborne was one). Claiborne had to have his lung removed nearly two years ago, and has been struggling to regain his strength and quality of life ever since. Two weeks ago, his doctors at Duke University Medical Center discovered that the mesothelioma had spread to his stomach. Uncle Claiborne could no longer eat at all; because he had diabetes, he couldn’t be given glucose. We are all grateful that he went quickly and didn’t linger to literally starve to death.
The shocking thing about this is that the Newport News Shipyard still operates, and still uses asbestos. Victims of mesothelioma are receiving huge financial settlements—as will Aunt Priscilla and her two grown children—but what is any amount of money to the loss of husband and father? Although shipyard employees now use all manner of protective clothing and masks, still, they, like nuclear facility employees, are constantly exposed to this poison. Mesothelioma has attacked people who never worked at or went to the shipyard, but only handled the clothes of or simply lived in the house with shipyard employees. Should not such a deadly and far-reaching poison be banned—shouldn’t ship builders (and here we’re talking about military contractors, in Newport News anyway) find alternative materials to those that cause this incurable and devastating disease?
The materials used to make surfboards, once deemed toxic to the environment and to people who work with them, were banned. Surfboards are still being built; makers have experimented with and found several other options to the toxic materials.
But surfboards are bought and used and almost always built by people whose values are very different from those who build ships for the military. Surfing is a personal pleasure, a healthy life pursuit, a connection to the sea and nature that is, according to aficionados, unparalleled by any other activity. It would be antithetical to the philosophy, almost religion, behind surfing to continue to build and use boards made of toxic materials.
Warships, on the other hand, are built by those who, by definition, see life as less important than power. To participate in the war economy in any way is to agree to the values of power over life, of control over pleasure. Killing—and even death—is preferable to compromise, change, and a reassessment of lifestyle and power structures. So it is no surprise that people whose primary purpose is to build warships are not concerned enough about the health of their workers to find other, non-toxic materials from which to build those ships. All of the members of the Shipyard power structure are, I’m sure, very sorry about the deaths of Claiborne and more than 3000 others just in the Hampton Roads area; but, their actions say, regrettable as it may be, death and suffering are the price we must pay for the lifestyle we choose.
It is, essentially, the same message we send to our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, the vast majority of whom know, it seems, that we are not there to spread democracy and freedom (not for women anyway, who were much better off in both countries before our invasion) but rather to seize and protect the rights of what John Perkins (author of Confessions of an Economic Hit Man) calls the “corporatocracy”. Make no mistake, the vast majority of people in the US—certainly the vast majority of troops—will receive very little benefit from the corporatocracy whose rights our tax dollars and their lives are given to protect. It is the 1 percent, the superwealthy, the CEOs and major stockholders of Bechtel and Halliburton and Lockheed Martin and all the other reconstruction agents and weapons-makers who benefit. But these members of the corporatocracy—not very different at all from the European monarchies of the 17th through 20th centuries, which consisted almost exclusively of members of the same family—all have each others’ backs. They control the mainstream media, the publishing houses, the textbook publishers, almost every form of information-creation in the USA.
There are, of course, many other ways to get your information. Thanks to the internet, almost everyone in the “First” world has access to alternative information from virtually every perspective. Indeed, I sometimes think too much information is as bad as too little—who can make sense of all the millions of feeds providing contradictory stories? And since US Americans have been indoctrinated nearly from birth to buy, do, believe whatever is most convenient, is it any surprise that that is what most of them do? It is such a struggle in this country to go against the mainstream, to actually do the right thing, that when I can put aside my petty anger and disgust at what I call “ignorant arrogance”, I have to admit that I shouldn’t be surprised at how easily led we are, but rather at how many people are able to reject and find or create alternatives at all.
Long ago I developed an analogy I like to use. As a horse person, I don’t often get to share my love and knowledge of horses with a general audience. But in the years I’ve spent with horses and learning about them, I’ve come to realise something that seems remarkable. Horses are animals of prey; that is, their primary role in the ecosystem, in addition to maintaining the balance of grasslands, is to feed carnivores. Consequently, all of the horse’s survival mechanisms are based on flight. Horses have excellent hearing and sense of smell, good peripheral vision, and are fleet and graceful—all characteristics to allow them to escape from predators. In order for these mechanisms to function best, however, horses need to live in wide-open spaces such as prairies, savannahs, etc. Their natural habitat provides the possibility of using their defenses to the best advantage.
So what do we humans, whose modern civilizations owe much if not most to the companion labor of horses, do with them? We lock them up in small, dark buildings, where the smell of their bodies and excrement fills the air; they cannot see beyond the walls; their own and the noises of other animals interferes with their excellent hearing; and worst of all, when danger is sensed, prevent them from being able to run from it. Once I realised this about horses, I no longer wondered that some were mean, uncooperative, violent, nervous, or developed self-abusing habits; I wondered why all of them didn’t.
And yet, many, many horses have existed throughout human history that have not only overcome these enormous handicaps, forced on them by human domesticity, but have shown almost supernatural strength and valor. Horses, called upon by trusted humans, run until they drop for some personal emergency or military objective. Horses have fought off human or animal attacks on their offspring or their people. Horses, such as Barbaro, who through breeding and training come to love the competition humans subject them to, will race—and try to win—even with a broken leg.
If horses can overcome negative conditioning and handicaps to behave in such a heroic manner, shouldn’t humans also be able to? Other societies—Western as well as non-western—have chosen to base their laws and structure not on power and control, but on compassion and that elusive “pursuit of happiness” that the US enshrined in our founding documents but still seems to elude us. Why can we not, despite our conditioning, reject a system that values power over life, military prowess over personal health? These toxic materials are almost universally banned throughout the rest of the Western world—why can we not ban toxic materials from every aspect of commerce and production? Why must people in this country be forced to choose between well-paid but potentially lethal work and that which is poorly paid but “safe”?
A local paper did a feature on Uncle Claiborne that mistakenly said he died from cancer. He did NOT die from cancer. He died from mesothelioma, a completely preventable, controllable disease. What kind of values can we possibly claim when we continue to allow such a plague?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)