See What Students Say
Writings by Students
2010
Piotr Pilat
Reading response one
Just 315
Dr. June Terpstra
07/07/10
Reading Response One
In this week's reading response I will concentrate on discussing the overall idea and the different portrayals of the vast known wrongful topic of Terrorism. I will base my opinions about the idea of Terrorism by reading and examining the assigned for today articles. Furthermore, by reading and comprehending the articles; "Terrorism: Theirs and ours", "The new legal definitions of Domestic Terrorism", "Making Islam synonymous with terrorism"," Terrorism: Why They Want to Kill Us", and finishing up with the vast article "Terrorism", I will try to portray the best way I can my own opinions on the given information in those articles, mainly concentrating on the first three. The first article that I will talk about is "Terrorism: Their and ours".
In 1998, Eqbal Ahmad, a professor at Hampshire College in Massachusetts wrote an article titled "Terrorism: Their and ours". In this particular article, Ahmad starts out by stating a brief history of Terrorism, which in his words began in Palestine, in the 1930s and 1940s. By 1945, those terrorists from Pakistan, Zionists, were described as "freedom fighters", someone who fought off their invaders. I suppose that later on it inspired the comic book called "Freedom fighters", heroes who fought the Japanese during Pearl Harbor. Furthermore, from 1969 to 1990, PLO occupied the main stage as the terrorist organization, with Yasir Arafat as their leader, and by many described as "The Chief of Terrorism". If that is so, if he was who people say he was, it is very ironic because I remember watching him on TV right after the 9/11 attacks, as he showed his sorrow on what had happened. Well, no one expected him to say that he was glad, and everyone kind of knew that he was going to act that way. Continuing on, in 1985, President Reagan received a group of bearded men, saying that they were equivalent to our founding fathers. From what I know, President Ronald Wilson Reagan was always up to something no good. That's at least what my friend said, stating that his full name, first, middle, and last name, consisted of all sixes, therefore he was the devil, and that he brought drugs to U.S., but people have different theories about him. Ahmad also talks about the overall meaning of the word Terrorism, and states the one example which was given by George Shultz, best defines the word. He states that, "Terrorism is a modern barbarism that we call terrorism", and that "Terrorism is a form of political violence". Furthermore, Ahman argues that he couldn't find one definition that best defined Terrorism, and the one given by George Shultz, was the closets one. Later on, Ahmad talks about the five types of terrorism, something that he has worked on. Those five include; one, State terrorism, within the country, two, Religious terrorism, Catholic killing Protestants, three, Crime, mafia, and all crimes commit terror, four, pathology, you are sick and want to be heard, and the last one, five, Political terror of the private group. Close to the end Ahmad talks about the idea of Jihad. By many described as holy war, but its specific definition from Arabic is "to struggle", which means that it could be a struggle by violence or by nonviolent means. He divided Jihad into two parts; small Jihad and big Jihad. Small Jihad involves violence, and big Jihad involves the struggles with self. Moreover, Eqbal Ahmad gives us his opinions and states his own findings concerning the idea of Terrorism. He approaches it from his own interesting perspective which makes us, the readers, think about it and look at it from a different point of view.
The two other articles I will discuss are; "The new legal definitions of Domestic Terrorism", and also "Making Islam synonymous with terrorism". The first article came from American Patriot Friends Network. This is not really an article but a group of legal definitions of "Terrorism", one that is used to intercept and obstruct the word "Terrorism" in the legal world. It consists of many different definitions of "Terrorism", ones that can be used in different aspects of legal domestic life. Moreover, this section gives us specific and very much expanded definition of "Terrorism" within the legal world. The second article is "Making Islam synonymous with terrorism". This specific article which was written by Glenn Greenwald concentrates on the theory which states that when US is at war, it is always under attack by foreign groups. Evaluating more clearly on this theory, when the US is at war with some other country, and at the same time the US soil experiences some form of threat or attack, according to that theory it is 99.99 percent performed by that same country the US is at was at that time. Moreover, the article gives us plenty of examples which show that the various attacks were performed by Americans or by other groups of individuals, and not only by the people who the US is at war with at the same time. Therefore, some sources always want to mess with people's minds by trying to turn us against a specific country or a group that the US is in conflict with.
________________________________________________________________________
Jesus Arteaga
Reflection Paper
Professor Terpstra
Week 1
7/7/2010
Terrorism, it is evident that a clear definition was not given as the author of one of the readings indicated. Also making a coalition to that even before you had even mentioned in class, I thought about the movie you had showed us about the economic hit man. Pretty much making obvious that in some cases the United States elite classes are the real terrorist in the world. They are the ones to really inject terror in other countries who are less fortunate on an economic basis and at times even to those living within the same country. I am also taking a media class this term and its called "The Sociology of Media" and it shows us how effective the media is when it transmits information to the viewers. What I am trying to get at by this is that what ever news channel or newspaper we read, we need to understand that one way or another it tends to shape up our opinion about issues occurring around us, whether those issues are negative or positive, here or over there, it shapes and makes us react in a certain way. So we tend to build an opinion about other nations through the information provided by the news media. Many of the times they are one sided opinions favoring the country for which they provide the news to. But us as citizens of countries like so, need to look in deeper into historical event and really understand in this case what the word Terrorism mains and like that we can compare events from history until today and see (like you insinuated) if the events have been won heroically or not. Also I had a class last semester I my political science field called "Disaster Policy and Politics" in this class I learned about Osama Bin Laden, Al Queda and other terrorist organizations. In this class we went into depth on the building of these organizations, how they came to be and why. As seen in the video in class we got information on Qutib. He was a big inspiration in Osama Bin Laden's road to create Al Queda. So in that class we learned as the video taught as well that this strong opinion to hate the western world is very strong and has been taking effect through time. The beliefs of many of these organizations are that the United States (mainly) as well as other Western countries, corrupt the human being, by the way they live their lives on a daily basis and overall. These organizations have declared a war against us (Western countries) and anyone else who agrees with our style of living. But I continue to believe that we have to look in deeper than what the media shows to determine for ourselves who is right and who is wrong. Like one of the authors states "You see, why I have recalled all these stories is to point out to you that the matter of terrorism is rather complicated. Terrorists change. The terrorist of yesterday is the hero of today, and the hero of yesterday becomes the terrorist of today. This is a serious matter of the constantly changing world of images in which we have to keep our heads straight to know what is terrorism and what is not. But more importantly, to know what causes it, and how to stop it." This really caught my attention because it is so true looking back at events from history and how just like it is stated the terrorist of yesterday can be the hero of today, relating to the Jewish people when they were making their way back into the land they claimed to be theirs from ages ago and from that defeated the Palestinian people in some battles were considered terrorist acts. But then when the Holocaust was occurring all of a sudden they are good in the eye of the other countries who once proclaimed them as terrorist. The images of countries tend to change with time and still I believe that rich buy their image and make themselves be viewed as the good guys. In relation to this I think the United States fits prefect in the current war we are fighting now. As the video demonstrated, we (US) went in to Iraq to supposedly liberate the people but its been to long and now we have basically become those who came in and plant a US flag on foreign soil and claim as ours and with that the consequences came and now are hated by many especially in European countries.
_______________________________________________________________________
Regina Kinyui
Professor June Terpstra
Social Justice 315F.
OPERATION IRAQI "FREEDOM."
For to be free is not merely to cast off one's chains, but to live in a way that respects and enhances the freedom of others. Nelson Mandela
Introduction.
The issue of non interference seems to have been a long forgotten promise in today's political realm with the U.S being seen as the lead bully due to its aggressive foreign policies. In special reference to the ongoing Iraq war, I will focus on three main issues that will support Jeff Archer's claims about the manner in which the Iraq war has adversely affected the Iraqi people. I will provide further evidence to Archer's claims to show that apart from those mentioned in his book, more people in power are following suit when it comes to the total destruction of Iraq. The three main focuses in this paper are on Iraq women, Religious imperialism and the use of force in Iraq.
"Liberation for Iraqi women under operation Iraqi freedom"
Looking at Iraq today, it is almost impossible to believe that the country was once a nation state that had a normal life without the constant fear of bombs and military attacks. Just as Archer (2008) stated, research done on Iraqi women in 2006 by Act together a women's rights group found out that Iraqi women's lives are worse off than they were before the invasion in 2003. Out of the 260,000 reconstruction contracts in Iraq, less than 1000 have been assigned to women. Prior to the invasion 70% of the public workforce was filled by women. In the political realm, women held seats in parliament which is also an indication of the high status of women's educational achievements under the rule of Saddam Hussein. Currently, the 25% quota reserved for females in the national assembly is nothing but symbolic due to the increase of Islamist leaders who want to turn Iraq from secularism to a Sharia state thus undermining the rights of women (http://www.acttogether.org/codepink.htm). Under the Family law act passed in 1959, women had more rights and the law ensured equal rights in matters of personal law that protected them from violence, gave them the right to inherit and own property, higher education, and divorce and child custody among many other rights that they enjoyed under Saddam Hussein's rule.
However, under the U.S appointed Iraqi Governing Council (IGC), the government passed resolution 137 which will replace the personal law of 1959 with religious laws under Shiite rule and other conservative Islamists that have differing interpretations of Islamic laws. Under this constitution only 17% covers women. In the midst of the ongoing violence in Iraq, people were asked to vote on a constitution they did not understand and were lead to believe that the constitution served to weaken the state and strengthen religion within the government. (Hunt & Posa, 2004). All this was done under the banner "liberation for Iraqi women", but yet since 2003 Iraqi women have been brutally attacked, raped, tortured, intimidated, kidnapped and banned from participating in society. Though it is common for military personnel to claim they do not do body counts, this goes against Geneva conventions IV Article 27 that calls for the humane treatment of protected persons which requires keeping track of such persons. An independent study showed that more than half of the reported deaths caused by the occupation were women (Al-Ali & Pratt, 2006). Their past lives that enabled all these freedoms have now been erased and are nothing, but long forgotten memories and dreams. By 1970, Iraq's constitution as far as women's rights went was the envy of the Middle East, but is today worse off than it was fifty years ago. (http://www.alternet.org/story/45540/).
According to The World Health Organization reports, war hits women and children the most and thus experience conflict and displacement differently than men do mainly because of existing gender divisions of roles and responsibilities. As a result of war, women are more prone not only to violence and abuse, but also diseases thus leading to increased female and infant mortality and morbidity. In countries where children and women were already exposed and vulnerable to diseases, war increases death rates by 24-fold (http//www.who.org). The same report also showed that most armed conflicts caused by religious strife mostly serve to oppress women's education as is the case in Afghanistan and Iraq which in turn adversely affects a country's post-war recovery as education is the key to economic growth of a country.
Imperialism: "And the light (U.S) had shone in the darkness (Iraq) and the darkness will not overcome it." (George Bush, Archer, 2008)
Today, the line between state and religion is still an issue that Americans grumble with not only here in the U.S, but also internationally. It is not uncommon to hear people who have never touched nor seen a Quran quote it as if they were in a madrasa class explaining to each other the concept of jihad which is seen as "a violent holy war". Just as George Bush and other world leaders condemned Islam and waged a war against the religion, so are citizens today. When Obama was running for office rumors that he was a Muslim flooded the media which I guess were meant to equate him to a terrorist not because of his actions or beliefs but simply based on the fact that he was rumored to be of the Islamic faith. Archer (2008) stated that God is now a prerequisite of patriotism and vice versa. The all so common in God we trust and God bless America is reminiscent of the colonialist's mentality in which the cross followed the flag. Though political leaders have echoed each other over the years stating that the war is on terror and not on Islam, one is left to wonder why Islamic ideology is constantly being bashed and branded as evil on a daily basis and why the word Islam is now equivalent to the word terrorist. Historical amnesia is the worst, we forget Christianity went through its years of Terrorism during the French wars of 1562 - 1598 followed by another bloody 30 years from 1618 - 1648 (http://www.wsu.edu/~dee/reform/wars.htm).
Christians chose to omit the part of Christianity where Pope Gregory IX ordered the killings of heretics based on the notion that he did not think they were worthy of his rule. Back then a powerful leader carried out an inquisition, today it is called carrying out democracy and religious freedom. Archer (2008) quotes General William Boykin who was responsible for co-coordinating the hunt for Osama Bin Laden and in his quote about an attack he had conducted in Somalia he said "I knew that my God was bigger than his. I knew that my God was a real God and his was an idol." He later appeared on 60minutes to defend his statement after the back lash on him had become too much to ignore. When asked if he believed that his Christian God was bigger than Allah, he stated "I'm not going to go into that, I'm a Christian. That speaks for itself." (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories). These were the comments of a man who believed that all American presidents are elected not by the people, but by God but yet saw nothing wrong with invading another man's country to place a leader chosen by man. In his explanation he stated that Osman Atto (the Somali warlord he captured)
"Was a corrupt, evil warlord who was stealing from and robbing his own people. He's a man who worshipped graft, corruption, power and money...my reference to his God being an idol was not to Allah. My reference was to his worship of corruption, of power, of money. He was a thug."
(http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/09/15/60II/main643650.shtml)
Religious Thugs is what we have in most of our churches today, but because their Christians, it is acceptable and necessary to have them bash other religions in order to "show us the path to righteousness and heaven". My brother once said to me that religion would take me to hell which I thought was a strange thing to say considering he is a young pastor, but his statement should have been a disclaimer right before Genesis and right after Revelations. Just as Pat Robinson claimed Haiti was hit by the hurricane due to a pact they had with the devil, Pastors such as John Hagee had no problem delivering one of his extremely passionate and fiery sermons about not tolerating Islam. I used to watch him up until that one sermon when he either intentionally or unintentionally failed to distinguish between radical Islamists and everyday Islamists.
"It is a world war, we are at war with a religious dictator, we are at war for the spiritual survival of this nation and the survival of the western world, it is an attack on religious freedom, and an attack against religious speech, it is an attack against every freedom that you cherish, we are at work with a religious dictatorship for the survival of the western world, nothing less than that...these Islamists are believed to have suicide bombs to explode in American cities. We are at war and victory must be our only objective, there is no substitute for victory, partial victory is not an option"
He then proceeded to answer the question (which he asked himself) whether Muslims who live in America are loyal to the country. He answered the question by quoting a survey conducted in 1992 on the gulf war in which 82% of Muslim mothers said they would not approve of their sons joining the American army to fight Saddam Hussein and 63% said they did not approve the way Bush senior conducted the war on Iraq. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yUCbHFOmBHQ). Needless to say the audience thought of him as a man of God who would never lie especially when standing at the pulpit delivering "the word of God". He claimed that Islam was not a sister faith of Christianity because it was an imperialist religion that was not peaceful and "called for death of all Jews and Christians". Just as Archer (2008) stated, such fears are mixed with patriotism and believers have now been made to believe that Islam is the enemy of all things western.
We have no quarrel with them. But without the sanctions, we would see the oil-for-food program become oil-for-tanks, resulting in a greater threat to Iraq's neighbors and less food for its people...President Clinton 1998. (http://www.cnn.com)
When the Security Council placed sanctions on Iraq, the aim was to bring the country to its knees in a formal and "legitimate way" through the use of the international watch dog, The United Nations. A series of sanctions were slapped on Iraq as punishment for invading Kuwait and what followed was devastation, but yet the U.N saw absolutely nothing wrong with letting innocent children and elderly citizens die miserable deaths every single day for a whole decade. As Archer (2008) claimed, over 1.5 million people were reported to have died as a result of the sanctions. The blockade severely impacted food production owing to the fact that Iraq relied on food imports by 80% (Alnaswari, 2001) as a result, food prices shoot up to 200% - 1800%. According to a report issue by a senate committee on foreign relations in 1991, By December 1990, the blockade had frozen Iraqi's imports by 90% and exports by 97% (NY times, December 6, 1990. A 16). When the U.S bombed Iraq in 1991, the initial targets were 84 but were later increased to 723 in the course of the war which were all dropped in-discriminatorily. (http://armedservices.house.gov/).
Resolution 687 further pushed Iraq to a desperate state of affairs by placing more pressure on Saddam Hussein to give up weapons of mass destruction. The U.N then pretended to have made amendments to the resolution on food imports in cases of humanitarian needs which were part of resolution 661anywyas thus made no major impact as far as improving the situation caused by the sanctions. After carrying out research on the effects of the sanctions and the Gulf war on the civilian population, a U.N committee stated that the major four areas (Food, water and sanitation, oil and power generation) that called for immediate attention to place Iraq back to the pre war conditions would each need 22.1Billions dollars. This was a figured far beyond what the U.N which at the time had a budget of 2.5billion (http://www.un.org/NewLinks/ga_closing.htm) as well as the international world could afford to Iraq. However, by allowing Iraq to export oil and partake in financial trade, this could have been resolved, but instead; the Security Council chose to continue with the embargo that lasted a total of ten years. Admiral Admund Giambastiani, Jr a commander in The U.S military and NATO appeared before the House Armed Services committee on October 2nd 2003 and kept comparing the current war on Iraq to the Gulf war of 1991 and said that a new approach that entails the following would be necessary for success.
"The emphasis now is on the effectiveness of joint capabilities employed at times and places of our choosing to achieve strategic effects. Joint Force Commanders today tell me that they don't care where a capability comes from so long as it meets their war fighting needs. They also tell me that "it's not the plan, it's the planning." They understand that the ability to plan and adapt to changing circumstances and fleeting opportunities is the key to rapid victory in the modern battle space."
The admiral stated that one of the main changes was the move from desert storm's approach of overwhelming power to the application of overmatching power achieved by making changes on how "operation Iraqi freedom" is being conducted.
"Operation Iraqi freedom was the most joint and combined operation in American history... In the area of knowledge, for example, we used three times the number of Joint Surveillance Target Attack Radar System (JSTARS) hours in Operation Iraqi freedom as compared to Desert Storm... It took an average of four aircraft to kill one target in Desert Storm, whereas in Operation Iraqi freedom just one aircraft could kill about four targets". (http://armedservices.house.gov/comdocs).
In 1998, Bill Clinton stated that force had to be used in Iraq because Saddam Hussein had used chemical weapons against foreign soldiers and civilians alike and this "had to be stopped". (http://www.cnn.com/). Operation destroy Iraq seems to have been accomplished to a certain degree and I think it will be quite interesting to see how this plays out and what will one day be defined as success or failure in the middle east.
Conclusion.
The treaty of Versailles signed in 1919 was meant to recognize the sovereignty of states with a non interference approach to solving border issues, but just like any other treaty, this was never to be. America's exceptionalsim and its Swiss cheese ratifications have guaranteed the country a position in the bullying pulpit where the world is its congregation. Just because a certain economic and political system works for one country does not mean that such a system(s) is desirable or workable in another. Personally I think the Middle East just like Africa would have been better off if it were not for revolutionary leaders being assassinated, pushed out of office and countries being forced into political and economic systems that have done nothing, but drowned countries into bottomless pits of corruption. Not that the west is solely to be blamed for this because all world leaders seem to enjoy the spoils of such tainted wealth, but if it were not for western interference in the activities of the global south, I do believe the path to self determination might have led to a better world and more humane treatment of each other. Colonialism happened and will continue to happen for as long as the international world continues to stand by and watch innocent people being massacred all for the sake of democracy, trade and freedom. Iraq should be left alone and western nations should place sanctions and democratic practices on themselves first before enforcing their ideologies on others.
.
Works cited.
Archer, J. The Mother of All Battles: The Endless U.S - Iraq War. La Mesa, California: Alternative Publishing.
Al-Ali, N. & Pratt, N. (2006) Women in Iraq: Beyond the Rhetoric. Middle East Report,
239, 18-23.
Alnasrawi, A. (2001). Iraq: Economic sanctions and consequences, 1990-2000. Third world quarterly. 22, 205-218.
http://www.acttogether.org/codepink.htm.
http://www.alternet.org/story/45540/.
http://armedservices.house.gov/comdocs/openingstatementsandpressreleases/108thcongress/03-10-02giambastiani.html.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/09/15/60II/main643650.shtml.
http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1998/12/16/transcripts/clinton.html.
http://www.unis.unvienna.org/unis/pressrels/1999/ga1613.html.
http://www.who.int/features/2003/iraq/briefings/iraq_briefing_note/.
http://www.wsu.edu/~dee/REFORM/WARS.HTM.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yUCbHFOmBHQ.
Hunt, S. & Posa, C. (2004) Iraq's women excluded. Foreign policy, 143, 40-45.
NY times, December 6, 1990. A 16).
_______________________________
Jessica Horning
Law & Terrorism
1.15.10
Reflexive Response #1
After just the first two classes, I just have to say that I am so happy that I am taking this class, I can already tell that it will be a deeply interesting and eye-opening class, but also a class with very difficult and tough content matter to deal with. These first readings I enjoyed, two of them took apart what terrorism is, even though there has yet to be a clear definition given by and politician or military official and these two also started to unravel some of the misconceptions and lies that Americans believe about terrorism and some of what the US government has used to place terrorism and terrorists as an Islamic phenomenon. The other two readings gave a lot of law background regarding terrorism and it's different acts defined by the law and each acts sentencing and time served info. In the "Law of War Handbook" there was tons of information, some of which was hard for me to comprehend, just because of differences in language and very theory based content, but I thought it is going to be a very helpful tool, once I read it a second time, to reference in regards to the histories of war and what constitutes war as conflict management or rules of hostilities.
I started thinking to myself as I was reading "Making Islam synonymous with terrorism," what my beliefs and pictures in my head of a terrorist were. The only image that came to mind was Osama Bin Laden and I think that is because when 9/11 happened I was in high school and after it happened I watched so much news covering it and the image of Bin Laden got burned into my vision of who a terrorist is. I remember being in high school and at my school, which was an all-girls catholic high school, there were a lot, maybe 20-25% of the students were actually Islamic. I remember them not really coming to school after 9/11, maybe for about a week or two and when they came back to school they said their parents didn't want them walking or taking the bus to school, because they feared they would get harassed or even attacked themselves.
I never though, held a bias against anyone from the Middle East or of Islamic faith. I think it was because many of the girls I went to school with were Islamic, but they were normal teenage girls and were so friendly and not once did I think because of their religion or ethnicity that they were a threat. Many of Americans do and that is because, I think, our government and media have concentrated all attention and negativity to those people and that part of the world. That when I was reading this article, it became clear to me that there are many acts of terrorism occurring and the majority is not from Islamic people. Many of the terrorist attacks however, do seem to be based on religious conflicts and extremists and from people who are so narrow-minded, like the attacks against the gays, lesbians, blacks, Jews and Asians.
Which brings me to Ahmad's article, which I enjoyed because he was basically breaking everything regarding to terrorism down and speaking the truth about US's involvement, our past presidents involvement and how our country accepts terrorist acts from our allies and that it has "double standards" when dealing with certain countries depending if they are an ally or an enemy. His statement on this issue is right on and I'm surprised that this is the first time I have heard someone bring up that point. Also the history of Bin Laden and the meaning of Jihad was very interesting, and that the US military has actually gone against the codes or laws in the handbook, by killing the innocent people based on their lack of knowledge when planning and carrying out specific attacks.
A few points from the "Law of War", first, "History shows that in the vast majority of instances the law of war works. Despite the fact that the rules are often violated or ignored, it is clear that mankind is better off with them than without them (pg.4). I found this particular section very interesting and true. All of these rules about war are set in place to protect innocent people (civilians) and to ban the use of force with military weapons and biological war, etc; these were all put into place for a reason and thought of for a purpose, but yet it is common knowledge and true that many times these rules about war are "violated and ignored", but it is still good to have them in writing. This thinking seems so backwards to me, basically if our military wants to break the laws it's okay, but if another military does, then they are in violation. Another example is that the soldiers are supposed to protect all weak and unarmed people. So the attacks that Ahmad talks about towards the end of his article, where all attacks resulted in the killing of the innocent, are okay, only because it was the United States who was making the attack? That sending in unmanned drones that bomb a specific target is just, when in fact they bomb towns that are filled with innocent unarmed civilians?
It just seems that many of the things our military is doing is in direct violation of these laws listed in the handbook and that they were only set into place for other countries to obey and believe that the US will also obey, when it seems clear that they are not.
Alfredo Arvizu
Law and Terrorism
January 15, 2010
Dr. Terpstra
I found many things about the articles we were assigned very interesting. These articles touched upon the double standards of the American people. It talked about the American hegemonic structure that renders the American people to support unilateralism. They also gave the reader specific times and locations of terrorist action by peoples who are not considered terrorists. Lastly, and most important it brought up the dilemma of our inability to define terrorism, leaving it open to interpretation so our government can circumvent terrorist accusations.
American people have a long history of dealing in double standards. You can trace this American philosophy all the way to early colonial days when the pilgrims left
Americans as a society have been taught to internalize what they are told to fit the design of those top ten percent who run our nation. Most people interpret the ideas of the ruling class as patriotic ones. That’s why most of us do not question the motives of the ruling class when they engage in unlawful warfare. In fact we support them by donating our children to go fight these wars that undoubtedly only benefit the ruling class. We allow our government to engage in unilateral actions because we believe that this government is looking out for the best interest of its people. They place an American flag in front of you and we completely forget to look at with is standing behind it. We are told that Israeli insurgency is justified and we buy it, we are told that Palestinian insurgency is terrorism and we buy it. They say the occupation of
Defining terrorism hasn’t proved to be easy. One thing that these many government definitions have in common is that terrorism only affects western societies. One definition that I found particularly interesting stated that “terrorism was a menace to western moral values” undoubtedly reaffirming my belief that people who come up with these definitions lead you to believe that terrorism only threatens the western world. These definitions completely disregard the hardships experienced by the Iraqi and many other Middle Eastern countries that have experienced terrorism at the hands of the western world.
This section of class was an excellent introduction that has helped me look at terrorism from a different perspective. This different point of view of terrorism has helped me to look at terrorism as problem to human kind and not as a problem to American life.
Jonathan Martinez
JUST 315H
20 FEB 09
GUERILLA WARFARE
"Guerilla Warfare" by Che Guevara was a fascinating read. Although one may get confused on what the text is about seeing as how the book is mainly focused on Che's insights and his tactical philosophies on fighting a guerilla war in Latin America, one must delve deeper into the reasons why these essays were written in the first place. One must ask what the cause behind this war was.
The Cuban people were oppressed and persecuted by the unfair tyranny of the Batista regime. After years of trying to fight within the system, the Cuban people decided to take matters into their own hands. A militia was created, and after many more years of struggle and jungle warfare, the Batista government was finally eradicated.
The Cuban people were under the rule of an unjust dictatorship. So unjust that a group of people finally said "ENOUGH", faced their oppressors head-on and became revolutionaries. This situation mirrors what is going on in our own country today. Whether people like to see it or not, we, Americans, are also under the rule of an unjust government and I wonder just how long will we remain oppressed? Just how long do we have to endure the wrongness of our backwards government before we say "ENOUGH" and take matters into our own hands?
The one thing I kept thinking about while reading this book was, "Look what these people have been forced to do because of the disparity that has been inflicted upon them by their own government. A government that didn't give a damn about them." Let us open our eyes and take a real good look at some of the injustices that our government is doing to us. Let us take a look at the endless list of grievances that have been inflicted upon us.
Our government allows CEO's and Chairpersons of Fortune 500 companies to steal millions and billions of dollars from hardworking taxpayers. Our government bails out banks that have admittedly lied, stolen, and cheated the American people. Our government creates laws that only apply to people who do not own multi-million dollar corporations. Our government is full of people who can be bought off. Our government is full of people who accept bribes and "kick-backs". Our government is full of people who talk a nice game but seriously doesn't give two-shits about the "little" people. Our government is full of "elected" officials whose only purpose in life is to follow and worship the almighty dollar.
And who are the ones who pay for it in the end? The man who just lost his job and can no longer provide for his wife and kids. The single woman who has no other choice but to sell herself on the streets in order to buy baby supplies for her two-year old. The 18-year old girl who wants so badly to go to school and become a doctor, but instead has to work in a factory to help support her family since her parents were laid off. The eight-year old boy who knocks on his neighbors' door to ask if he can borrow some milk for his cereal. The thousands of people who are forced to stand in the unemployment line for hours hoping and praying to find work. The family who lost their life savings and have no other choice but to foreclose the only home they ever knew.
We are the ones who suffer. The 90% of the American population, who make $40,000 a year or less, have to pay for the mistakes, the negligence, and the downright FAILURE of those we trusted with our very livelihood. And for what? What reasons do these senators, congressmen, and CEO's give for their actions? To add an extra story on their 12-bedroom, 6-bathroom, and 4-car garage houses. To take private jets to Hong Kong for brunch. To throw lavishing parties in 5-star hotels, or even better, aboard their humongous yachts. To take 6-month long vacations in Maui and Bora Bora. What excuses does our government create for not punishing those who are truly guilty for their crimes against humanity?
When are we going to finally say "ENOUGH" and takes matters into our own hands. When will we face our oppressors head-on and become revolutionaries? The American people are already on the edge. It's only a matter of time before our government finally throws us over it. I can't say I'm entirely proud to be an American right now. And I completely understand why the Cuban revolution even began. I know, without a doubt, that I would have been standing right next to Castro and Guevara, fighting for my rights and my liberation. And I would have gladly died for that which I believed in. I know whose side I would have been on. I know why there had to be a Cuban Revolution. Now, all I need to know is...when our revolution will begin.
______________________________________________
Yeman Rahal Justice Studies 315
January 21, 2009 Prof. Terpstra
The Wretched of the Earth
One thing while growing up as an Arab there was many Arabic series that I watched about France trying to take over the Middle East and forcing their ideology. The French had done a lot to the Middle East, especially in Algeria, Syria and Lebanon. They had taken over for years to force their ideology in the Arab world, but what I guess they didn't understand is that it's going to take a lot more then force, torture, slaughtering and stealing our land and our goods to change an Arab and especially a Muslim Arab. Now don't get me wrong, there are plenty of puppets in the Arab governments that do fall into Europe and the United States trap and do follow their Western Ideology. The Arab governments ninety percent of the time do not speak for the Arab people. I know that the book is based on the France and Algeria and how France wanted to take over Algeria but Fanon sucked me in as if I was in the Middle East and was seeing the struggle of my people. When I first began reading this book I couldn't help but think about the Middle East and all the situations that they are going and have been going through for years.
There are many parts in the book that I could relate to my class, ethnicity, creed, gender and experiences. The first thing that I saw was a in the forward page xxiv, where Sarte perceived the problem as, "One of the functions of racism is to compensate the latent universalism of the bourgeois liberalism: since all human begins have the same rights, the Algerian will be made subhuman". When I read that I couldn't help but to think to my self that's how the Palestinians are being treated by the Israelis and the supporters of Israel. To them Palestinians are nothing but sub-humans, in 22 days they had killed 1300 and injured thousands, they have wiped out families in full. They have used illegal chemical weapons on civilians like they were lab rats, while the whole world sat and watched the massacres on television. If this kind of treatment isn't subhuman then I don't know what is. Another part of the book was in the forward, page xxv which states "Treating the natives as less than human- settler vigilante groups called the wanton killing of Muslim Algerians "rat hunts", for years Muslims have been getting treated like rats by Europeans and Americans. The French have killed many Muslims throughout history, but you'd think we are in the 21st century things would change, but the sad thing is it hasn't. It has only gotten worse in time; there is more greed and more heartless people in the world today then ever before. Now the two major countries who are stirring the problems are America and Israel. To start off Israel believes that they aren't doing anything wrong but defending it's self from the Palestinian people, the savage Palestinian people that are destroying their homes by throwing rocks on them and killing their people. As for America, Iraq came in and invaded the United States killed two million people and stole all there natural resources, so you can see why Muslims should be massacred to the point of genocide.
Another part of the book that caught my attention was on page 15 where it states "The colonized subject will first train this aggressiveness sediment in his muscles against his own people. This is the period when black turn on black, and the police officers and magistrates don't know which way to turn", that is exactly what the United States did in Iraq. They pitted a brother against a brother, a Sunni Muslim against a Shiite Muslim, Muslims against Christians and Kurds, how else are they going to make sure a civil war breaks out in Iraq, the CIA and FBI and the American army are snakes, they'll bite and then tell you that your brother did it or if you a Sunni a Shiite did it, or a Christian or Kurd a Muslim did it, so they let the people of Iraq kill each other off. On page 38 Fanon says "In 1945 the 45,000 dead at Setif could go unnoticed; in 1947 the 90,000 dead in Madagascar were written off in a few lines in the press; in 1952 the 200,000 victims of repression in Kenya were met with relative indifferences" it is massacres like this that go unnoticed in the world because it's not happening in developed countries, they are happening in third world countries and why should any of these developed countries care, they invade these third world countries so they can take their natural resources, especially in Africa. We all know America and Britain invaded the Middle East for their oil. They don't care all these massacres in the world are occurring because of their greed, but I'll tell what they do care about, they really care about the Holocaust, a bunch of dead Jews is an unforgivable thing but millions of Arabs and Africans and Muslims dead isn't such a big deal remember like I told you before we are sub-human.
On page 85 Fanon talks about "In guerrilla warfare, in fact you know longer fight on the spot but on the march. Every fighter carries the soil of the homeland to war between his bare toes", to me this reminds me of Hezbollah. They put their lives on the line in order to liberate south Lebanon from Israel, so the Lebanese people can live freely without occupation from Israel, but the sad part is, Hezbollah is now labeled as a terrorist group rather then freedom fighters. In 2006 Israel invaded Lebanon and killed 1200 civilians and displaced 100,000 families. Hezbollah was the one fighting back while the Lebanese Amy were hiding and watching the massacres rather then go out and fight the enemy. I believe the Lebanese government had to do something to do with the 2006 war with Israel, you have about thirty percent of the government who obey the United States commands and wanted Hezbollah disarmed this way Israel won't have a threat on their hands.
On page 107, Fanon talks about "Colonialism will attempt to rally the African people by uncovering the existence of "spiritual" rivalries. In Senegal the magazine Afrique Nouvelle secretes its weekly dose of hatred against Islam and Arabs". Fanon wrote this book in 1961 and we're in 2009 and you still have the racism against Arabs and Muslims, especially after 9/11. People in the United States and Europe always have something stupid to say when it comes to Arabs and especially Muslims; either their Terrorist, Hajis, Towel Heads or Sand Niggers, come on already its ridiculous how people can be so racist against Muslims. No one ever stops and thinks to themselves why Muslims supposedly "blow themselves up". They don't think that they have been occupied for over sixty years by Israel and everything was taken away from them, their families were killed, raped and starved. They have been living like animals, with limited water, food, electricity and medicine. Any necessity that a human needs, they are limited to. It gets to a point I guess in their minds, that enough is enough. They begin to think to themselves: I will no longer be treated like a sub-human, I will no longer sit here and watch my wife and children get raped and killed, I will no longer be afraid of the colonizer, I have nothing to lose they took everything away from me, and at the end my soul doesn't belong to me it belongs to God. The only revenge they see is to kill the colonizer, so they strap themselves with a home made bomb and walk into a crowded Israeli area and get their revenge. When the Western World see's this kind of acts coming from a Muslim, they only see the act of a terrorist they don't see why this person did what he did, what led up or triggered his behavior. They just connect Islam with hatred and barbarism as if they are savage people.
On page 146, Fanon writes "More than one colonized subject had to say, "We've had enough," more than one tribe had to rebel, more than one peasant revolt had to be quelled, more than one demonstration to be repressed, for us today to stand firm, certain of our victory". This is exactly what I thought when Hezbollah defeated Israel in 2006 and the Israeli soldiers turned around and walked back into Israeli defeated. Hezbollah to many countries is known as a terrorist group, but millions of Muslims and Arabs call them freedom fighters. The leader of Hezbollah, Sayyed Hassan Nassrallah had his son join Hezbollah and fight the Zionist. His son was shot and murdered while he was on a mission trying to get into Israel. Israel had taken his body and was given back to his parents a few years later. Let me see anyone of these government officials put their children's lives out on the line for the sake of their country, religion and people. I'll tell you I'm almost positive that they would never put their child in harms way. If it was for Hezbollah Lebanon wouldn't be where it is today.
This book was written by Fanon in 1961 and like I said before we are in 2009 and we are still going through the same shit. Nothing has changed, people were born and some had died, but the racism, hatred and greed still exist. We finished from Europe trying to take over the world and now have moved to the United States and Israel. The greed, the hatred and racism runs through veins of the United States and Israel. They would love too see every Muslim and Arab dead, it would be a lot easier from them to rob us blind and take land that never belonged to them, but what can I say the United States stole the land from the Indians and Israel stole Palestine from the Arabs, so it's nothing new. The United States kept on stealing all these countries and now their in Iraq and Afghanistan, so they're robbing them blind. As for Israel they tried to expand into Lebanon and were defeated, but that doesn't mean that they'll quit and move on. Reading Fanon was amazing, it's like he spoke for every oppressed person and knew exactly what they were going through, he lived it. He saw the oppression and the struggle of his people and laid it all out from the beginning of the struggle to the end.
_____________________________
Calvin Marcia
500 Years of Resistance
Professor Terpstra
Book Report #1
Franz Fanon speaks about the philosophy and psychology of revolution, colonialism, and why people rise up to fight against their government that has been oppressing the people and their country. He also speaks greatly about the path to liberty from one's government and how people can achieve that and how people have achieved liberation. What Fanon speaks about in this book also relates very much to the United States and our government and their underlying reasons for their behavior.
In the chapter "On Violence" Fanon speaks greatly about the relationship between the colonists (those in power) and the colonized (those being oppressed). The relationship is strained and full of tension. The colonized see the unfair treatment they receive and at times, due to unreasonable oppression, unfairness, and injustice, the colonized with rebel against their government. The colonist intervene with the colonized by using the police force and military to ensure that the colonized are kept under control. This is clearly seen through our capitalist country. The police force is used to keep the low of the low, the minority, the scum of society, in controlled. We clearly see how police constantly hassle African Americans and specifically young African Americans. The police patrol the neighborhoods and constantly harass certain groups in society. This unfortunately leads to many African Americans in the prison system where their race is the majority race but their race is considered a minority in our country.
Fanon speaks about what divides the world is really what race you belong to. He believes in the cause and effect of the color of your skin. "You are rich because you are white, you are white because you are rich" states Fanon. He clearly believes what race you happen to be, predestined what kind of experiences you go through throughout your life. In our society we can see those who are white have privileges and more leniency in our society than say Blacks, Hispanics, and other minority groups. Unfortunately this is the reality that we must face in our society. The whites have better jobs, are a majority in the governmental areas, get less harsh punishments for committing crimes, go to the better schools, live in the better neighborhoods, have the best ability to get resources, are seen as the role models of society, etc. Our society must absolutely start to see individuals as a person and not the circumstances and stereotypes that have been socially constructed.
In our class we have recently discussed that the low of our society are the ones ready to fight back because they feel, see, and understand the oppression and injustice of our society. Fanon seems to agree with this as well. He believes the lowest of society, the peasant, the minority, has nothing to lose and everything to gain. It is these underprivileged that have exploited and for these underprivileged there is no compromise and no chance of negotiations. In order to have a voice in a society they see that the only way to be heard is to fight and by any means necessary which includes violence. But of course in our government, these underprivileged are constantly kept an eye on by the police and when they retaliate back because of their struggle and oppression by society, they are seen as unfit and reinforcing the stereotypes that society has built. It is a lose- lose situation where the exploited doesn't have the resources to fight back. If and when they do fight back, due to lack of resources, they can be defeated. The only way to succeed is to win.
Fanon speaks about a socialist regime that should be entirely devoted to the people based on that the people are the most important asset while ruling out that a few privileged people hold most of the power and not focusing on the nation as a whole. In other words, it seems Fanon's choice of government would be a socialist one. So is communism better than democracy? According to Fanon, the lectures and readings in class, and now my own personal view, the answer is yes. Giving the people an equal amount of economic resources so that all in one society are given an equal amount of possibility and opportunity. I remember you speaking about how Cuba has the highest literacy rate in Latin America a few semesters ago and that poverty is nearly inexistent. I am also aware of Fidel Castro being a hero of yours, and it seems that Fanon seems would also agree with you. It took me a while to actually believe that a socialist government is better than a democratic one, but I now believe that it is true and should be implemented.
One quick point in the book that reminded me of the war in Iraq is when Fanon writes, "private companies put pressure on their own government to ensure that the troops stationed in these countries are assigned to protecting their interest". To me, this sounds closely related to our current war in Iraq where there is clearly an underlying reason for this war. The reason seems to be that the elite have their interests set on the oil in Iraq. This war may very well be an act to control and manufacture the oil in Iraq.
In the chapter "Grandeur and Weakness of Spontaneity", one of the fist statements to astound me was when Fanon writes, "To wage war and to engage in politics are one and the same thing". With that said, is he inferring that politicians constantly are looking for a reason to engage in war with a country for the sake of specific interests? Although I agree with Fanon on some aspects, this one is a little hard to swallow and comprehend.
I also enjoyed reading about how the colonists and police force try to modify their behavior towards the colonized by being more respectful to them by giving them proper names as in "Sir" and "Ma'am". Due to these changes towards the colonized, they start to believe that things are changing for the better. This is done to release some of the tension between the colonists and colonized. The colonized feel hatred toward the oppression and by properly treating them a little better, it defuses the psychological aspects of this hatred. Perhaps at times, Fanon describes that the colonized are given goods and money that once was never given to them before. The colonists want to impress the colonized, make them feel at home, make them feel that change is arising, when in fact they are merely doing this to stop any rebellion that might be in the works. This is done psychologically to defeat the colonized quickly. As I read this it was very interesting. I'm a psychology major so this aspect of his writing was intriguing. It also made sense at the same time. To give false hope to people who are oppressed so that they may believe that change might start happening, therefore stopping any rebellion or countering of the colonists in anyway.
In the chapter "The Trials and Tribulations of National Consciousness", Fanon states that the national bourgeoisie creates holidays, resorts, casinos, and other types of entertainment for the Western bourgeoisie. This is something that we can see for ourselves in our own society and government when you see the American government controlling and changing the culture of Hawaii into a tourist attraction. By doing this, Hawaii has lost its ancient culture which includes their language and way of life. It is an unfortunate event to see and specifically because someone else's way of life is being changed all for the glorification of businessman, banking associates, and other elite officials to enjoy their time away from their lives to take into the depravation of their private get-aways. This is saddening to see happen all over the world.
I enjoyed reading about how Fanon describes a leader who arises from the people and speaks about fighting for the people of the oppressed. At first, this leader seems honest and sincere. The people put their trust in this "patriot" as Fanon describes him. But eventually when he does rise in the political game, his true personality comes about and this true face is focused on one thing: to make as much profit as possible out of the situation he is in. At this time, he is out of touch with the people and become increasingly more like that of the colonists. He eventually stumbles onto corruption and gratification. The first person to come to my mind reading this is that of our current President Barack Obama. This description of the "patriot" seems to fit the description of our President and hopefully doesn't end up on the side of the colonists. Although historically, it seems to be heading that way eventually.
In the chapter "On National Culture" I turned to Fanon's psychological explanation about the culture in which the colonized live in. Due to the colonized unconsciously not being able to come to terms to the current state and environment that they live in, which is full of barbarity, they must look into their past and reclaim stories of past glory and dignity. This allows for the justification and promise of a national culture as well as challenging the importance in the colonized's psycho-affective equilibrium. As stated before, I am very much interested in Fanon's psychological explanations, and this once again is an intriguing explanation of a national culture. Although many would read this and not fully comprehend his statement, it makes perfect sense for the colonized to reclaim past history of greatness for the anticipation and welcoming of a national culture without barbarity.
One fascinating statement was that "The only common denominator between the blacks from Chicago and Nigerians or Tanganyikans was that they all defined themselves in relation to the whites". This is very true. We see socially constructed beliefs that blacks must follow and mostly must follow the behaviors and idolization of white people.
For me the most interesting read in the book was the very psychological related chapter "Colonial War and Mental Disorders". Although all the cases were a great to read, informative, and interesting, I was more intrigued with some of Fanon's writings. I was shocked to read that the French were teaching students at school about how Algerians are not human. Fanon even states that there were doctors who claimed to find evidence and proof that Algerians were still part of the Ape species and not fully develop. They taught throughout the country that the Algerians were habitual killers, savage killers, and senseless killers, are born liars, born thieves, and born criminals. With these constructed ideas in place, people actually begin to believe them. They start to judge Algerians unfairly, they start to treat Algerians inhumanely, and they start to punish Algerians cruelly. Fanon writes that due to this constant exposure to murder, hatred, life struggles and constant barbarity around him, the colonized sees his fellow man as a relentless enemy and turns his violence toward his own people. This all makes sense and is seen throughout the world today. We see how our country judges Middle Eastern people unfairly by calling them savages and constantly showing the American people videos of disgusting acts by the few to generalize the many. This is unfair and truly a despicable act done to brain wash the American people into thinking how Middle Easterners behave and can not learn to live humanely.
__________________
Joshua Cruz
500 Years of Resistance
Dr. Terpstra
The Wretched
For this book report I will critically analyze the author's argument and show the reader what it is that I am grasping from his material.
The Wretched of the Earth is a very interesting read. The author Frantz Fanon boldly portrays his desire for a utopia of equality after retribution and reckoning for those that have long endured the pain of being taken advantage of by the pompous European pigs that he calls the bourgeoisie. It is a psychological breakdown of the world after so many years of colonialism, occupation and globalization by European powers in Africa and other parts of the eastern world.
Fanon advocates for violence as the key for battling colonialism. He believes that in order for the colonized to become completely free of their oppression they must become completely free of their past and in order to do that they must uptake "absolute violence" towards the oppressors. In Fanon's world, colonialism is a disease and violence is the medicine that cures it and cleanses or purifies the body, so that it can start anew-to start a whole new world. In order for such a revolution to take, the peasants have to be mobilized, turned into an army or revolutionaries. He calls these peasants the "fellaheen." The reason that he believes in these peasants is because they are the largest class in the world and a class without the benefits of the economic structure that can so often make you indifferent to revolution.
The next largest class in the world would be the urban proletariat, or what we would call in the U.S., the middle class. This class is ill equipped for revolution, both mentally or physically. This class benefits sufficiently from the economics of the elites and has become too accustomed to the urban environment that can be easily siege.
As a Puerto Rican male I can see myself and my people more in the area of urban proletariats in that we certainly do benefit from imperialistic economics that are provided by the United States who we "used to be" a colony of. I can argue that we have lost so much of our peasant or "fellaheen" aspect that it is now almost impossible to reach a state of total revolution on our island. Unfortunately this is what is happening all around the world and most people do not know it. What Fanon speaks of in this book says to me that the "industrializing country" is really a country that is being stripped of its ability for absolute revolution through a process that is still colonization, but more palatable and modern. He also warns us about the counter-revolutionaries amongst the revolutionaries; how a loss of spirit or integrity can lead to division and the forming of more bourgeoisies from the revolution itself. I see similar stuff happening at my school with some of the activist organizations on campus. When the organizations are forming, people are motivated and inspired; the rooms are full of romantic revolutionaries that are ready to fight for a cause. As weeks pass the meetings are composed of fewer and fewer people. It is "national unity" that keeps us together and this is sometimes weakened when some success is reached or when repression starts to rain down upon the "romantics" or when some of the pie becomes available to some in the revolution. This is an issue that we need to target in order to ensure the success of revolution. We need to find out if we can keep our own from becoming counter-revolutionaries.
In the final chapter Fanon gets into the psychiatry of things. He argues that through the process of colonization and the war the takes place between the occupier and the rebels, the casualties on the rebel side have already lost from the very beginning, so that even if they don't lose their lives or a limb, they still have lost their humanity and/or identity. I know from previous research that being colonized certainly leads to a loss of identity which leads to high cases of schizophrenia in the native population
In the end Fanon was able to create a following all around the world. He created a message and brought deep insight and understanding to a black liberation movement that eventually brought colonialism to its downfall. However, even though colonialism has been addressed, we find ourselves still being screwed by the rich minority of the world. The bourgeoisie are still running the show and they do not plan on giving up. African nations are still suffering heavy loses to globalization which has become the new form of colonization. We live in a world where immoral profiteering goes unpunished and consumerism is more important for governments than humanitarianism is. A lot of work is needed to be done.
_____________________________________
Nick Nunez
01/19/2009
Politics of Punishment
Read and Respond Week 1
The atrocities of the Palestinian people in Israel truly are horrific and devastating. After reading the articles, viewing the photos and watching the videos, I want to believe that it was unreal. If someone were to ask me if I can imagine what hell would look or be like, the first thing or place I would think of, is Israel. I knew very little of the history of conflict between the Israelis and the Palestinians and had no idea nor did I really care of what was going on the other side of the world. Now that I know a little more of what is going on, I see that it is a reflection of the Nazi holocaust. I can't believe that a military group can invade another person's home consisting of mainly children, women and elder men and murder them without thinking twice. Especially if they are unarmed and harmless. The executions and torture that is taking place is almost unbearable to watch but is needed in order to gain a sense of reality; not only in Israel, but other parts of the world as well.
The videos did bring up a good point because they did reveal the other side of the story that I would have never saw by only watching U.S. news. Our major news stations portray the Palestinians as the evil aggressors and the Israelis as the victims. News clips across our nation show Palestinians burning the Israel flag and the civilians throwing rocks at the armed military. I never noticed until I watched this video that all the interviewees were Israelis and of course are going to only give their bias side of the story. Also, I knew the U.S. supports the Israeli government but I didn't know that they gave them over 6 billion dollars and free weapons within the last couple of years.
For years the news stations have been feeding my brain with all those clips and stories. I couldn't help but to believe what I heard and saw. I always perceived Arabs in general, as the aggressive terrorists. Not only have I become victim to the propaganda but my family, friends and other people I know have too. They are ignorant to factual events that take place in Israel as well as other Middle Eastern countries. This misleading information greatly affects their feelings and beliefs and often turns them into negative ones. That's why they, like many other Americans, don't care about the conflict and feel that the Palestinians deserve what is happening.
These videos did make me aware of the cruel treatment of the Palestinians by the Isrealis. The demolition of thousands of homes because the families didn't have permits to have buildings there? That is some bulls!?t! The Palestinians have lived there long before the Jews came. This is just like the Europeans coming to America and stealing land from the Native Americans. The hegemonic group creates laws which only benefit themselves. The checkpoints are another thing that is outrageous. How can a government that claims they are righteous, deny access of Ambulances to hospitals, women going into labor and other ill people in need of medical assistance. A lot of these soldiers enjoy torturing others, and are greatly abusing their powers. It truly is a shame that they are allowed to act the way they do. What I don't understand is why the U.N. is not interfering and putting their foot down, when these atrocities are in obvious violation of International Law.
Now I understand that the Palestinian people are desperate and in great need of change but I totally disagree with the suicide bombings. They are killing both innocent Israelis and Palestinians by using that method. There has to be a more effective way. I can never condone the killing of innocent people. Overall there is way too much killing going on and it needs to stop. This is why I sympathize with the author of "Simply Red." With all the chaos that has taken place throughout history and presently I see why she feels the way she does. Many Arabs have been killed and gallons of blood have been spilt. The worth of Arab blood and life seems to be low.
Weekly Reading Response #2
The theme that ties together this week's readings can be described as, "Law and Punishment: Understanding the methods used, the inequality of punishment and the side effects of oppression." Law has always been a funny subject for me -being a controlled anarchist, I find many of the things which constitute "crime" and it's various classifications to be rather arcane, and yet I do of course recognize that each day, we are all guilty of various transgressions against other individuals and society as a whole. From littering, speeding and writing bad checks, to robbery, rape and murder, it sometimes seems we are more tied as a people by the laws we break than by those we keep. Here we have four examples of law and custom (closely related of course to tradition in many cases) and one of the most interesting aspects to me is how what was progressive in ancient culture became defunct in the face of so-called "civilized nations" and "progress."
Hammurabi's Code provided a number of rules, regulations and methods of recompense for crimes committed. Death featured heavily in this system of justice but if you put that aside and examine other criteria, you find several points which argue for a fairly rational mindset for such a "primitive" culture:
First and foremost, the notion that while the metropolis would get tribute from it's surrounding cities, the rights and practices within the individual city were not interfered with. This ties into the notion of a community-based punishment structure, where penalties for committing a crime would be decided within a single community and not left to a higher authority or subject to being overturned by some outside governing body. In allowing the rulers of those other cities to maintain order according to their own specific set of laws, it allowed for whatever social customs and practices to remain in tact as opposed to subjecting them to the whims of what might be an entirely different set practiced in the metropolis. Especially smart considering the heavy influx of people into those cities for a wide range of reasons.
Also, the notion that intention was to be considered highly important when investigating a crime, something that many modern day laws overlook. While we are supposed to take into account things such as malice or deliberate action, or crimes committed for purely selfish reasons as opposed to those committed in order to ensure survival, we really only consider intent when arguing if someone was guilty of "premeditation" or excessive force, torture before or after harming or killing someone etc. We rarely consider things such as stealing because of hunger, perhaps because it's assumed that no one should HAVE to do such a thing in this day and age.
It is interesting to note that while this code does allow for a lot of overarching such as crimes against the community, property, equipment etc., it does have a lot of say in regards to what goes on within a household -to the point of being rather invasive. Being able to decide if a husband can take a concubine or not is getting a bit to the nitty-gritty end of things -though again, there were laws which protected the interests of women, something that English law would overlook as would American law until much later in history.
Overall, I can appreciate the idea of "eye for an eye" but I also see that this becomes problematic in preventing crimes in the first place. If everyone feels justified to retaliate for a supposed wrong (and let's face it, we've all had those asshole neighbors or the jerk who cuts you off in traffic or the person who takes forever in the check out line -and of course we contemplate many a messy and damning punishment for them as we curse them sometimes not so silently, and exhale noisily and impatiently and we laugh when they get cut off or have to wait or the police are called because of excessive disturbance...) then there's going to be a lot of retaliation instead of developing a learning curve which would help people live more harmoniously with each other. I'm a big proponent that the only army you can bring is yourself -and that the only person who's life course you have a right to dictate is your own...and I also recognize that today's laws, which were created under the guise of protecting the weak from the strong, have instead been perverted to protect the strong from the weak.
Unlike Beccaria, I have no problem with death as a final arbiter -but only under extreme circumstances and only if the cost, be it emotional, mental, physical, social or monetary, is greater to keep them alive than it is to kill them. In a community based punishment model, a person who is found guilty of theft or assault might be considered a worthwhile member of society to keep around provided they are punished in some way that perhaps allows them to learn from those mistakes and become a more productive member of the community. A person found guilty of rape or murder might be someone that a community feels threatens the bonds of order and fairness and might consider death to be the only way to ensure that repeat offenses do not occur in their community or any other one for that matter. The idea that you must prove yourself worthwhile to society in order to keep living within it ties into Beccaria's idea that it is better to prevent crimes than to punish them. It could perhaps be considered a form of psychological coercion...which might aid in preventing crimes from being committed down the line. But I've always appreciated this particular notion...
"The liberty of man consists solely in this: that he obeys natural laws because he has himself recognized them as such, and not because they have been externally imposed upon him by any extrinsic will whatever, divine or human, collective or individual." -Mikhail Bakunin
When reading the English Bill of Rights, only two things really struck me -there was an excessive amount of vagueness and an equally excessive amount of words. Many of the rules and regulations applied to only a small portion of the population, especially considering that should anyone wish to press charges against someone from the middle or upper classes, they would almost have to be equally moneyed in order to afford the services of a solicitor and they'd also probably have to be of the same class if not higher in order to be taken seriously enough. Hence, the chambermaids were fair game, the virginal daughters of the Ton were not. And why you could thrash a farmer or an ostler, but you challenged aristocrats to duels. While certainly other systems of law are almost guaranteed to have a class structure built into them, the English still seem to be the best model for the "haves vs. the have nots" -or perhaps, "He who has, makes the laws, he who hasn't, suffers because of them."
This of course connects to the Roots of Oppression piece -which documents quite nicely the fact that point about the laws being made to protect the strong from the weak. Minorities have suffered greatly at the hands of so-called "civilized" whites, enduring abuses ranging from slavery to extortionate wages to offenses of rape and assault that went un-punished because the system was not designed to help those minorities but instead to keep them subjugated. It is not at all uncommon for those wealthier citizens of a country to feel entitled to a few abuses here and there, to feel as though they had the right to buy, sell and trade human lives as they would any other commodity (and this is not an offense that occurs solely between whites and minorities but rather the upper classes vs. the lower in almost any society) with very little regard for the suffering and lack of dignity such cruel, high-handed and dismissive treatment can cause. There is in fact often a notion that the "little people" should be grateful for whatever scraps they get, and many a document has shown the disbelief for the sheer ingratitude shown by minorities for their poor working conditions, lack of personal freedoms, criminally low wages and subservience to any who rank higher than they do. Reading accounts from various countries about the abuses that servants, slaves and members of the poorer classes suffered at the hands of the wealthy and titled makes me empathize quite strongly with some of the less civilized methods of punishment. Though of course even in saying that, there was a time when such a statement would have gotten me put to death! And to that, I have only this as a response:
"Free thought, necessarily involving freedom of speech and press, I may tersely define thus: no opinion a law - no opinion a crime." - Alexander Berkman
