From: joanna bujes <jbujes at covad.net> Date: Sun, 27 Jun 2004 10:50:40 -0700
I have to agree with Joanna here, in what was obviously otherwise a cinematic coup-de-main on the part of Moore. (If I have to have a stiff drink after seeing a film, it was probably a success).
But the point here should not be whether F 9/11 had anything to say _in general_ about racism. Simply slapping down an anti-racist ideological placemarker would be an empty gesture that would actually detract form the quality of the film.
The issue is, as Joanna suggests, both far more concrete and utterly germaine to only real "enabler" ("cause") of the Iraq war: the unleashing among the American masses of a virulent, potentially genocidal, hatred of Arabs specifically and Islam generally. F 9/11 does not address this crucial issue, without which this war would have been impossible to launch, regardless of Bushs' motives. The brief (but moving - this was for me the most emotionally intense point in the entire film) footage of the Iraqi mother wailing for Allah to destroy the enemies' (that the Americans, folks) houses, and the images of maimed Iraqis, was the only potential reference to this central - central! - reality of the American aggression .
But it was only potential, and not actual, because the scene was merely a setup for the main dish: the much longer encounter with the bereaved (but flag waving) Flint mother. This was clearly the most self-indulgent moment for Moore, who only cut away in the nick of time before the lemon-squeezing became a little too obvious.
The sequence should have been reversed!!! The sufferings of the American mother should have been the lead-in, to put it bluntly, the prop to the sufferings of the ultimate victim: the Iraqi mother who is _still_ victimized, _still_ suffering, long after the American "moves on dot com ;-)", because it is not simply that it is not America, but Iraq, that is the occupied country, but that it is furthermore America that is the occupier. But all this falls out of sight once we go to Flint, Michigan.
I'll leave it to Joanna to explain about the grotesqueries of American self-pity, as she seems to have well-formed ideas about something I've never really thought about. But after seeing F 9/11, I'm beginning to see her point.
F 9/11's failure to address what made this war possible naturally goes hand in had with the utterly complete absence of even the remotest reference to anything to do with Israel and/or Zionism. I don't think this is tactical, or because the subject is somehow completely "irrelevent" to the intent of 9/11. Rather , these are simply rationalizations of the same unconscious Arab-hating racism, or unconsciousness of that racism and its key enabling role. Of course it is "natural" to exclude any relevant reference to Israel/Zionism if reference to what allowed the Iraqi invasion to happen is also excluded.
Compare this, though, to the rich and extensive coverage of the Bush family's intimate ties with the Saudi royals. The issue here is not the facts of the matter, or our political desire to rid ourselves of these fat parasites, or that this was a both an obvious and easy story to tell in the context of F 9/11. The issue is that no attempt was made to draw any distinction between the Saudi royals as a part of the Arab ruling class and the Arab masses, who are jointly oppressed and exploited by the Saudis, the Americans and the Israelis together. Instead, we could have the Saudi equivalent of the supposed Israeli "hijacking" of US foreign policy.
Think of how even more "shocking" it would be to see that the US is actually playing "both sides" of these supposed "enemies". That's the image of American power that really needs to be exposed.
What did Likudism have to say about 911? GOOD! They were frickin' overjoyed!
So, instead we were left in ambiguity: the worse thing about Bush is that he is in cahoots with the very American stereotype of the "Arab raghead". Of course, Moore tries to be careful here by quoting some expert about how the Bush-Saudi royal connection is to not be seen as conspiracy, but as "strictly business". But that still leaves open who collects the most mulah from this partnership. And under capitalism, that's what decides "who's in control".
Be honest now: How many here would be willing to say that your typical non-leftist American viewer _would not_ come away with precisely this conclusion about what is really wrong with Bush?
I'd go one further, and state that not a few American leftists won't exploit this racist sentiment in the run-up to the election. Yes, forget about Nader - it's the capitulation of most of the American left - Moore included - on _this_ score, to _this_ kind of right wing, solidly lodged in the Arab-hating Democratic Party, that should be worrying us.
-Brad Mayer ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No, I wasn't asleep, but the point was implicit. It needed to be explicitly made. What I'm waking up to is that the issue of racism is one we've all been asleep about for a long time. And that issue is related not only to the fact that it's the poor ( many of whom are black) that fight our wars, but that it's no accident that the war we're fighting at the moment is against a bunch of "sand-n-words" whose lives are so unimportant, we can't even be bothered to count the dead.
Joanna
Gary? wrote:
From: "joanna bujes" >
> We'll see. The weakest part of the movie, as is the weakest part of
> contemporary political discussion, is the absence of any discussion of
> racism -- racism, its continuation and its many changing shapes, seems
> to elude just about everyone. Chuck Grimes had an excellent post on it a
> couple of weeks ago, but his is a lone voice.
>
>
go and see it again , you obviously fell asleep , when Moore is showing the parts of Flint that are like a battle zone and interviewing the young black kids ??
Gary? ride si sapis