>(We see 90% support for bombing and killing thousands of people
>who had nothing to do with the _casus_belli_, which seems
>like pretty much the same sort of thing. If a little cooler
>and calmer, it is still mindless and it still kills.) I
>hypothesize that, rather than murderous racism, Mr. Fisk was
>indulging in a little silly hyperbole. In fact a bit of
>reflection would inform him that he could never be an oppressed
>Afghan; he is locked into Robert Fiskness at least until his
>next incarnation.
Would 90% of Americans still support the bombing of Afghanistan if they could see American bombs from perspectives of oppressed Afghans? Isn't it the role of corporate media to _prevent_ Americans from _even attempting_ to see American bombs from points of views of those who try desperately to flee from them -- the role that Fisk and other left-wing journalists refuse to play?
Unless Afghans were saintly or servile, which they are not, emotions that fill Afghan bodies and souls would include rage, not just grief, sorrow, etc. Fisk understands rage of the oppressed and its sources, even while defending himself from becoming its target, whereas in the dominant ideology, the oppressed are never entitled to anger. The oppressors ask the oppressed to become inhuman, i.e. saintly or servile -- or better yet, saintly servants, like Uncle Tom. Those who seek to dismantle a structure of oppression, in contrast, should first of all try to feel the rage of the oppressed _as their own_. Then and only then can discussions of who or what should be politically proper targets of counter-attacks, what should be morally appropriate means of counter-attacks, etc. begin. -- Yoshie
* Calendar of Events in Columbus: <http://www.osu.edu/students/sif/calendar.html> * Anti-War Activist Resources: <http://www.osu.edu/students/sif/activist.html> * Student International Forum: <http://www.osu.edu/students/sif/> * Committee for Justice in Palestine: <http://www.osu.edu/students/CJP/>