But you really are raising two different points, since we agree that the truth is true no matter who says it and from what perspective. The first is that you say you are switching the subject from from Brian's and my topic, whether it is OK to criticize atrocities committed by victims of US imperialism to how we can best stop the evils of this bad world. These are not the same point, but speaking out is an important step in stopping them.
The second is that you are not really doing what you are saying at all, in fact you are addressing whether a citizen of an imperialist nation has the right to criticize a horror perpetrated by the victim of an imperialist nation -- not how to best act but who may decently speak. So while you may think the truth is true no matter what, you think that some truths may only be spoken by some people. At the risk of complication, I agree with this up to the point, the Soviet hacks who correctly attacked the evils of capitalism but were silent about those of communism deserved our contempt (even if what they said about capitalism was true).
However, I think your version of this, namely that even if you speak out on an equal opportunity basis against atrocities of all sides, you may not do so if "your" government is victimizing the butchers, is, as I said, depraved. And after a night's sleep on it I think I realized why: you view our primary identification as "citizens of an imperialist nation," so it from that aspect you see Brian's or my criticisms of Cuban homophobia and gay bashing. (That is the point point of view of the Soviet hacks: they saw themselves as defenders of the USSR first.) I view my primary identification as internationalist identification with the oppressed of the world, so it's relatively incidental to me in this respect that I'm an American. Brian of course speaks from the perspective a sector of American society that is oppressed _here_ and as he says, expresses queer internationalist solidarity, not American chauvinism.
Well, this won't change minds. But it may clarify differences.
--- Jerry Monaco <monacojerry at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 12/27/06, andie nachgeborenen <
> andie_nachgeborenen at yahoo.com> wrote:
> > I too doubt if we can make any progress. given
> your
> > inadbility to answer a simple question
>
> 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
>
=== message truncated ===
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com