I answered your questions. How did I refuse to answer your questions?
Did you only want a yes or no answer? I tried not to give you double talk but took each example you gave -- Pol Pot, the Nazi genocide, Stalin's gulag, the Cultural Revolution -- and in each historical context I tried to sketch how a privileged U.S. citizen should try to _act_ (not only criticize) in order to somehow reduce human suffering. In each case what I think should be said, and the kinds of actions taken are different. Thus I said in relation to Nazi atrocities and genocide "The larger question, in the context of Nazi Germany, is what would have been the best way for U.S. intellectuals to stop suffering of oppressed people in Europe, and stop atrocities in Europe. Opening our borders to Jews, Gypsies, homosexuals, the mentally and physically handicapped, and union leaders and socialists, before we entered the war, would have helped."
There are other things that the U.S. could have done of course. We could have _not_ supported Mussolini's grab for power for instance and we could have _not_ given de facto support to Franco. The historical facts are that all parts of the political spectrum in the U.S. focused on Nazi atrocities when it was convenient to justify their actions and ignored them when it was inconvenient. There were exceptions, of course, and mostly among the religious and a few independent leftists; for instance, the Mennonite Central Committee in the U.S. were one of the few "organizations" that worked hard through the whole period to see the world clearly and give aid and comfort to the victims of Nazi atrocities in Europe. If all of us had done 1/10th of the work of the Mennonites in the U.S. the world would be a lot different today, and the atrocities of Nazis would have been limited. But for pointing out the general hypocrisy on these matters (practically all privileged United Statsians), and one of the few exceptions to that hypocrisy (the Mennonites), perhaps I am morally depraved.
It is true, Justin, I too believe that moral truths don't change no matter where you stand.
But your moral responsibilities and your best moral choices _do change_ depending on where you stand. Your moral responsibilities change depending upon your power and privilege and what you and yours have done. So yes, I do understand that (some? all?) moral truths don't change -- this is contentious but it is one of my fundamental beliefs.
Yet the questions here are: How is it best to counter abuse, violence, and atrocities? How is it best to do it without doing more harm to others or increasing the potential of harm to others? It is not always easy to figure this out. But sometimes it is quite easy to figure out that those who condemn someone else's actions are only interested in justifying their own. In fact sometimes those who condemn the "injustices" of their enemies are interested in increasing their own "injustices", though they won't admit that this is their intention. Posturing doesn't help to figure this out, and neither does the claim that I am somehow dictating to you what moral choices you should make. I assume that your choices are yours but that the best way to figure anything out is to discuss it.
It also doesn't help to say that all moral choices are somehow equal. Murder is wrong. But personally I am not sure I am willing to judge the slave who murders his master in the same way I would judge a master who murders his slave. And quite frankly, there were people in the United States before the Civil War, who were in fact anti-slavery, and considered themselves enlightened in their judgments, precisely because they judged these two events as similar moral choices and condemned them equally. Even though William Lloyd Garrison was, what we would call today, a pacifist, he easily saw through the hypocrisy of this position. I try to learn from him in my anti-imperialism.
Just about now, the U.S. media is blaming everyone else for "our" problems in Iraq. The Iraqi people are to blame because they are not "advanced" enough to accept our enlightened "gifts." The Syrians are to blame because they can't police their borders. The Iranians are to blame because they have alliances with their religious compatriots. They are to blame but of course "we" have made mistakes, but are not to blame for our good intentions. I personally think that it is wrong -- hypocritical, if you will --- to even participate in this conversation of placing blame on others. We can recognize reality but
U.S. responsibility for the disaster is ours and as far as I can see blaming others is only a way out of avoiding our responsibility and avoiding restitution. Now, Justin, I am not saying that you are doing any of this, but I would think that it would be possible to recognize the deep hypocrisy of our intellectual culture, that this kind of thing goes on and on, without much notice.
Now and as far as Cuba is concerned, there are whole sections of our government dedicated to discovering human rights violations in Cuba and publishing those violations. There are other sections of our government dedicated to attacking Cuba and economically strangling Cuba. This is just the normal operations of our government. If I speak up against human rights violations by the Cuban regime, will I decrease the violence and the atrocities against the Cuban people one bit? Or will I only be satisfying my own needs for moral posturing? How about if I organize against the Cuban regime? What are the effects of this.
No one has done the calculations, as far as I know, but my bet is, from everything I have read that the government that has violated the Cuban people the most, and committed the most atrocities against the Cuban people, is not the Cuban regime but the country where we sit. And we sit here trying to decide whether we should condemn the Cuban regime or not? Don't you find this at least a little strange? At least a little in need of explanation?
As I said, I think the specific example of Cuba is easy, because of the disparities of power, and because of our attacks against it. Other historical situations are not so easy to decide what to do about, but as a general rule it is best to start with an investigation of your own government and your own responsibilities in relation to the atrocities committed by others.
Justin, I have tried to explain my beliefs and analysis to you. You have taken the time to try to explain your position to me. Truly, my mind is changeable. I used to hold your position. Over the course of time I was convinced other wise. It is always possible I am wrong. But when ever I bring these things up, I am only called names, or called a communist or an apologist. No one actually tries to engage in a discussion. Brian was the first, _and I actually admire him very much for it_, even though we made no progress.
Now below is something I wrote for myself a long time ago. It was never completed but I offer it as evidence of my moral depravity.
1) Abuse, violence, murder, and atrocities are wrong.
2) The abuse, violence, murder, or atrocities that I commit are my responsibility and can be stopped by me.
3) The abuse, violence, murder or atrocities that I support, willingly or through the institutions that give me my privilege, are also my responsibility.
4) The question is always what is the best way to stop abuse, violence, murder, and atrocities.
5) If the abuse, violence, murder, or atrocities are my own, then the best way for me to stop them is to stop doing them, stop participating in them. After I stop I should also make restitution some how, but that is a more complicated question.
6) In the world of groups, institutions, organizations, governments, and the abuse, violence, murder and atrocities they commit through their everyday "normal" operations and their wars and conflicts, the groups, institutions, etc. that I participate in, that I fund and/or support, and from which I gain privileges, are my responsibility and the collective responsibility of those of us who participate in those institutions with me.
7) I am more responsible for my own actions than I am for the actions of others.
8) I am more responsible for the actions of the groups, institutions, etc. in which I participate, than I am for the groups, institutions, etc. that others participate. How much "more responsible" depends on a lot of factors: Level of power, authority, influence over the groups, institutions, etc., in which I participate.
9) My much more limited responsibility for the actions of others can only be justified, if in taking on those responsibilities, I can do some good, and if by taking on those responsibilities I will do less harm than by not taking on those responsibilities.
10) My responsibility to people against whom I am committing acts of abuse, violence, murder, and atrocities is not for their actions but for my own. This is certainly my first responsibility and in some cases it may be my only responsibility, but that depends on the case.
None of this is set and stone, but priorities should be set and choices must be made for individual and collective action. The question is how, to make those choices, where and when to make those choices, that will best lead to the reduction of abuse, violence, murder, and atrocities. I have also left out many considerations and certainly my thinking may be flawed. If you can point out how this is "morally depraved" I will certainly listen.
> and your
> refusal to condemn human rights violations as long as
> the governmednt that call itself ours is attacking the
> human rights violators. Your analogies to the Japanese
> who attacked Chinese atrocities or, perhaps by
> extension, the Soviet hacks who attacked American
> ones, are defective because Brian and I, like most
> decent people, but unlike the Japanese or Soviet
> apologists, also criticize the human rights violations
> of "our" government. What you don't get is that moral
> truths are true whoever says them, and no one needs
> permission from Jerry Monaco to utter them. Of course
> if you speak only half the truth, attack the crimes of
> foreign regimes while apologizing for your own, you
> reveal yourself as a hack and an apologist, but what
> you say is still true, and generally speaking you
> don't need any special entitlement to speak the truth.
> Now, Brian and I are not hacks, because we slam the
> Cubans and the US both for persecuting gays.
>
> You, as far as I can tell, are a reverse hack: you
> refuse to condemn catastrophic evils committed by
> targets of US imperialism because, apparently and for
> reasons I cannot understand for all of your
> explanations, you think that being a target of US
> imperialism deprives Americans, even if they are
> enemies of and activists against imperialism, from the
> right to say plain and obvious truths like, It's wrong
> to persecute people because of their sexual
> orientation, no matter who you are and what whoever is
> doing to you. Frankly, Jerry, not to put to fine a
> point on it, I think that your position is morally
> depraved.
>
>
>