When people call me anti-American, it makes me feel as though what I'm saying is on the right track. The petty myopia of nationalism, race, religion and class is the grand tragedy of mankind throughout the ages. Now the dialectic progression of history has brought us to the US, or perhaps more accurately, Capitalist, domination of the earth that we see today. People generally are afraid to question things upon which rests their entire reality and way of life. So be it. I recently came across something written by Thomas Carlyle (18th century Scottish historian) that more eloquently than I could ever hope to, states how I feel about this current paradigm and where it is bound to lead: "Your Society, your Household, practical and spiritual Arrangement, is untrue, unjust, offensive to the eye of God and man. Nevertheless its hearth is warm, its larder well replenished: the innumerable Swiss of Heaven, with a kind of natural loyalty, gather round it; will prove, by pampleteering, musketeering, that it is truth; or if not an unmixed (unearthly, impossible) Truth, then better, a wholesomely attempted one , and works well. Changed outlook, however, when the purse and larder grow empty! Was your Arrangement so true, so accordant to Nature's ways, then how, in the name of wonder, has Nature, with her infinite bounty, come to leave it famishing there? To all men, to all women and all children, it is not indubitable that your Arrangement was false. Honour to Bankruptcy; ever righteous on the grand scale, though in deatail it is so cruel! Under all Falsehoods it works, unweariedly mining. No Falsehood, did it rise heaven high and cover the world, but bankruptcy, one day, will sweep it down, and make us free of it."
Now here we are, as a society, very close to the bankrupcy that Carlyle spoke of. Rather than travel the well beaten path of decadence, decline and anarchy we are arriving at a point in time which might allow for a more deliberate and sustainable existence, if we have the collective courage to change this edifice before it all comes crashing down. But, as always, 'you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink'. So be it.
3 comments:
Zac, your poem Human History in eight lines is pretty good. But if you won the lotto tomorrow, I am sure your perspective would change. But right now your perspective seems to be the majority of this country, its just most of the majority doesn't have a voice.
In response to my past comment under your post “ Human History in eight lines,” I did some research by looking at polls and international opinions based on the America occupation in Iraq, specifically looking for differences between pre and post occupation in deterrence, obedience, and stability in Iraq. It was difficult to find neutral readings, gauging the process in Iraq. Upon reflection of the research, I may have been wrong about my previous opinions.
I tried to understand the long-term and greater benefits of the occupation of Iraq, by looking at the process and methods the United States uses from the lens of the deterrence and punishment theory, currently universally accepted by legislatures when enacting statues and punishment for crimes. I must say, there was some sense to be made of the theory. I agreed with it, even if just initially, because I could think of no better alternative. Neither could the democrats for the past 2 years. Therefore, by the process of elimination and the lack of any viable alternative I thought the occupation may have been justified. I justified the occupation from a world dominance and universal obedience perspective, but never from a moral perspective.
As I stated earlier, I probably was wrong. “True audacity is the trick of knowing how far you can go in going too far” – Jean Cocteau. Ya, I think Jean has the Bush administration in mind when he said that quote, even if it came before its time. The New York Times reported that Mosque attendance in Iraq has plummeted by as much as 90-percent in recent months, due to fears of sectarian attacks. Initially, I thought wow, I was right. Deterrence through punishment and elimination has begun to change the ways of the Iraq people and some polls may lead you to believe that. However, at the same time, sales of CDs with religious lectures have boomed, and religious satellite channels featuring “bombastic imams” are more popular than ever. The New York Times reported that people are more exposed to religion and past culture than before, this is because these tapes and tv channels play all day in the house. Opposed to daily visits to mosques to the pray, Iraqis now listen, observe, and hear daily preaching about the evils of America.
Also, in my last post I felt the U.S. striked at the right time, when Iraq was weak and had a target on its back. That was a miscalculated quote. With the violence between Israel and Hezbollah in Lebanon, Iran’s nuclear defiance, and the turmoil in Iraq, this was a horrible time to strike. Maybe Bush thought occupation of Iraq would stabilize the whole region, but there is no theory or proof behind that statement. Many scholars blame America’s invasion into Iraq in creating all that turmoil, because instability is at an all-time high. Some say it was inevitable, which is why Bush invaded to stabilize the region to control this violence before it was out of control.
One of America’s biggest faults was the fact that they secured Iraq like they would secure a state prison, “on the cheap.” Bush devoted billions but he probably needed four times as much. He replaced a dictator with something I feel was even worse, a Shiite radicalism, fed by Iran. Since than Bush has put pressure on Israel to accept a cease-fire in Lebanon, strengthening the Iran-back Hezbollah. Bush nows calls Lebanon the “third front” in his war on terror, and called Hezbollah the enemy. Yet Bush isn’t helping France destroy Hezbollah, instead he is calling on France to police the Lebanese border. Oh Bush, I guess freedom fries and freedom toast are no longer an item in the Congressional cafeteria or I doubt he would be calling them for help. Although I am sure Bush is ordering their help. Additionally, Bush failure to secure Afghanistan allowed Iran to gain influence there. In the London Times, Gerald Baker said he might conclude that Bush was “some sort of Iranian Candidate, an agent of Tehran, brilliantly executing a covert strategy to enhance the prestige and power of the ayatollahs.” Even if these results were not Bush’s intention, the results of his policies have been a calamity. At least Bush dragged the Brit’s around by their balls so they can take some of the “stupid” blame. Hahaha, I thought one of the main reasons the Brits followed the U.S. because Bush promised peace between Israelis and Palestinians when the West entered the Middle East, at least the British got a little taste of common America culture, being lied to by the President. My advice to Tony Blair would be to join the club and buy some toothpaste with fluoride. On the flip, Saddam’s second trial has begun even though a verdict has not been issued in his first trial. His second trial is about his scorched the earth campaign, which lasted eight months and involved chemical weapons that killed an estimated 50,000 Kurds. Saddam identified himself as “the President of the Republic of Iraq and commander in chief of the heroic Iraqi armed forces.” That’s kinda cool. If I ever committed his crimes, I hope I could be fearless enough to introduce myself in someway similar. He isn’t going to be executed with those types of responses. The way Iraq is now, he might be pardoned as a national hero. People can forget the past when the present sucks. Around the same time as Saddams second trial and despite massive security, gunman sniped 20 Shiite pilgrims and wounded over 300 in Baghdad last week. It was on a major Shiite holiday. The U.S. guarded the mosque, established perimeter checkpoints, Iraqi troops roamed the streets, and U.S. helicopters watched from the air. Still, snipers hid on rooftops in Sunni neighborhoods and shot pilgrims, with no fear.
Either way, I can find no true answer or anyone else with a clear, sustainable, and workable strategy for the Middle East. And as every avatar knows, you don’t takeoff if you don’t have a map or directions. You’ll just got lost somewhere in the sky and eventually crash and burn.
To me, the main difference, the divide in America, between Bush and the Middle East is political theory, but the divide is fenced with ideas of money and status. The republicans and those with a lot of money could care less we are spending billions in the Middle East because it helps them sleep better at night and foreign businessmen are making a lot of money. The poor, or to a better extent, the non-wealthy, are pissed that billions are being spent on a war with no map and no foreseeable end, and they can’t get a decent job or fancy meal. When you are fighting to pay the month, fighting to get a job, fighting to feed your kids, and fighting to pay for gas, the war on Iraq is the last freaking thing on your mind and you could care less about anything to do with it. When you later learn the foreign war is funded with billions while domestic spending is in the millions . . . . wooo pretty much that is that and how could it be rationally supported? No one has an answer, but everyone has an opinion on the war based on their life experiences and how it indirectly effects their lives.
As the great late Richard Pryor once said, “When you ain’t got no money, you gotta get an attitude.”
I just got off the phone with my best friend from 2nd grade until I was a senior in college. He had a huge job, making big money and he always took me out to steak dinners and bought the most expensive drugs. whenever we hung out he would never let me pay for a thing, just dropping $20 and $50 everywhere. He was a hardcore Republican, always making fun of me for being a "bleeding liberal" and a stupid "educated hippy vagina" that lives in a town full of "smelly hippy fucks" (Davis, CA). IN a nutshell, he married a Republican golddiggin' 18yr old Mexican, within 5 months she got him fired from his job (she was the secretary fucking shit up), made him move to Vegas to be near her family, got pregnant, and divorced him. I haven't spoken to him in the last 8months until he called me collect from a payphone outside of Vegas last night. He was homeless for about 8months. Going to the $2.99 steak&egg breakfast begging to wash dishes for 6hours for one meal every few days to survive. Finally, he went on a 26mile hike to get a social security card to get temporary employment and passed out on the side of the road during mile 7. Lucky for him, a woman pulled over and called an ambulence for him.
He was a fullblown bum, with a beard to his neck, hair down the back of his neck, and he didn't change his underwear for 4months. Now he has a job as a mover and is staying at a hotel for now.
We spoke for hours last night, and everything he said sounded like it came from your mouth. Every idea, perspective, and advice sounded like it came from Zack. Even his voice sounded a bit deeper and more sophisicated (sp) like yours. Dude, it seems perspectives are all skewed by status. Rich=republican; everyone else = something else. Once a man hits rock bottom, he finds God, appreciates every good in his life, and believes there is much more to life than "fucking capitalism" and money. The rich are nieve, like a sorerity girl, never having to venture to the ghetto, never having to walk over homeless people, or share a small, dirty bedroom/bathroom with 5 other people - therefore, because not exposed or never having to live that poor life, she will never have the care for social programs or welfare. Its not like people are ignorant or stupid for voting Republican and supporting Bush, it just supports their interest, and their interest runs the world.
If Taylor (or any of your friends) and I were Presidents of small islands and asked you to come be the secretary of state, would you pursue your and our collective interest? or would you pursue the interest of all the others on the island? Keep in mind, with limited resources and time, we probably could never make everyone happy and therefore must focus on a few. I woudl probably focus my interest on recreation and sports and building monuments to myself (j/k) and beautiful buildings and recreational areas. I would say fuck you to pork industry and red meat industry since I dont eat that much and everyone else that suffered could move somewhere else. Also keep in mind, if you piss off either of us we might execute you or take away your little piece of land overlooking the waters. Or revoke your book from appearing on the Oprah book reading club best sellar list, therefore insulating your writing, teachings, and life works from millions of eager minds that need ideas. Basically, you scratch me, I scratch you, and everyone else has to get in line or leave. What if we could only support one minority group and sponser them on the islands? If you choose the Asians than the Mascadoian rice workers would be barred. What do you choose, who do you choose? If you had to balance personal dreams and desires vs. whats best for others, what would you choose?
I would seriously doubt you would hold the same perspectives if you won a lot of money or were rewarded everything you wanted for being a good person and earning it. I think you would buy a lot of drugs, buy some fancy suits, and go to strip clubs throwing $100 everywhere. Maybe even dropping some $100's in every hole, crack, or exposed skin of the Asians. I could be wrong, but I couldnt's see you shunning capitalism if you had a ton of money. Its the best system in the world, as long as you buy into it and dont fight it. Would you rather live in Cuba? If you said yes, its different to go there for a few weeks and salsa dance with some cuban hos and eat some banana chips and empanadas. Quite another to not have an opportunity to make money and provide for you family. In life, all there is, is family. If you dont have it you'll keep searching for something else and never find it. Capitalism is a system where you can provide and protect your family, and you are never permanently stuck in one position, theoritically (sp). Capitalism is a good system man, I always said it was bullshit and was a bit loyal to communism and had some interest in socialism. But now that I have the possibility to make some money and am no longer a poor confused college student, I am extremely happy that is the system America has. ANyother system I would be stuck where I am now or stuck where my family was. Now I have the opportunity to do anything I want and take anything I want and I have a stockpile of ammo to make sure I dont get fucked with and can fuck up others, I was loyal, paid my dues, and now its time for rewards. Just because I played by the rules and shut my mouth, I still got to breake the rules everynight when no one was looking. HOwever, I am $100g's in debt . . . so Communism and free health care doesn't sound that bad either. . . .
Post a Comment