The Therese Defarge school of Social evo

History for those engaged in creating it. Comprehensive activism and applied memetics.

On American Culture

A friend who produces independent films asked me to share some of my thoughts on american culture for an up coming project. I thought some who read this blog might find the content useful so after some editing for confidentiality I am reproducing my reply here.

I am glad to share my thoughts and comments in terms of culture and america. To start with I want to point out that while most americans today use the words culture and civilization as terms meaning more or less the same thing, i see the two concepts as different and often opposing. Civilization draws it's roots from the word city and expresses the economic and political relationships between people in which the city, as trading center is the focus point. Culture, from the Latin to cultivate, indicates a much more organic development describing the interconnections between people that have developed over generations of human interrelationships. Interrelationships that are ties held in a common inheritance, language, traditions, myths, rather than ties determined by an institutional state apparatus of control. The process of civilizing, making amenable to the economic structure and it's growth and purpose involves a reduction of things and people into abstractions that can be qualified numerically. Often this is accomplished by devaluing or eliminating the human intangibles that are the foundation of culture. Look at the contrast between popular and folk music, again often confused as having a like meaning. Folk music, refers to an organic music that is produced by and for a people sharing a culture, where popular music refers to music that is produced by an industry and has successfully dominated the majority of a market. The look at gentrification of a working class neighborhood such as R____ street, the neighborhood. The neighborhood itself has a history, it expanded as African-Americans built homes their after being displaced by the policies of urban removal that destroyed the vibrant and now nonexistent community on V_____ H_____ (itself and example of gentrification). Many of the people in the neighborhood grew up with each other, most recognize each other by face if not by name. People hang out doors, say hello as they pass, and in general live in the full sense of community. If there is a conflict between residence it is far more likely to be resolved by direct communication or impromptu mediation than resorting to the determination of the state. To the eye of the developer, and the city, the intangibles that the community is rich in are not visible, while the accountable value of a development is. The value to the developer is to sell the new built housing at the highest possible profit which encourage developments aimed at upper middle class people that displaces people in lower economic stratas.

What is unique about the US in terms of civilization and culture is that it foundation came during the age of reason, with it's strong emphases on mathematical tangibles, and the nations growth occurred during the industrial revolution. Although not directly speaking to the subject you might find Dee Williams book “hear that lonesome whistle blow” useful in understanding historical relationship between america's geographical and economic growth with the growth of faceless and inhuman corporations. The american revolution was primarily a revolution of the property class, who wrote into the constitution an emphases on the sacred rights of property resulting in a prejudice toward viewing the world through the reduction of the world into bottom lines, giving an extreme upper hand to the process of civilization over cultivation.

This is not to say that there is not culture, or cultures, that bind people in America, but that these cultures are faced with brutal struggles for their survivals, particularly against commercial co-optation, from their birth. The vast majority of cultures are emerging, short lived, and embattled, while many are empty husks that allow a shallow medium for corporate profit. A factor in this is related to how Americans get their information, very little is down through any oral tradition, and even what is written down tends to be left unread past it's initial generation; Americans read few books, and seldom books that a year or two and the dominate literary paradigm of paleo-post-modernism encourages most works to limit themselves to the current popular prospectives defined by civilization. Significant to this is that the concept of generation within the US paradigm is dominated by the marketing concept of generation related to plan obsolescence. Human generations should be understood related to the connection of old and young. A child whose grandmother was born a slave, or whose grandfather fought in the civil war, would once have had a personal interconnection with a period of time before their birth, a human generation, understood memetically, should be defined by that length of time on the outward edge of human survival, 80 to 100 years, understood genetically it would be understood as the time it takes an individual to grow to have grand children (40-50 years). Yet Americans tend to define generations within the 7-10 years related more toward marketing trends than to human cultural or biological development. The frequent displacement to which individuals are subject (with the median american relocating every 5-10 years) allow very little opportunity for culture interrelations to exist beyond a single generation.

I hope this is helpful and not too convoluted,

Elizabeth Parenti-Soba
Non fatuum huc persecutus ignem

posted by: EzizabethParentiSoba at 18:42 | link | comments |
babylonian renaissance, post-modernist, machiavelli

Command Rape

Suzanne Swift is a MP who was sexually harassed and raped by superiors during her first tour of duty in Iraq. Finding attempts to address this issue ignored by her equal opportunity officer, and with the imminent prospect of redeployment where she would serve under the orders of the same men who had already violated her she decided instead to go into hiding. She was subsequently arrested and taken from her mothers home in handcuffs. Then in a shocking display of insensitivity to justice or humanity placed under the direct supervision of one of the men she charged with having abused her. Suzanne bravely continues to fight, seeking an investigation into her charges against three sergeants and an honorable discharge with full benefits.

If Suzanne's case was an isolated incident it would still be one that should be addressed, but before speaking about her individual case I want to point out the realities of the current it is reflective of. incidents of reported rapes in the military has increased 65% in the last two years. The military has attempted to cover up the deaths by dehydrations of women soldiers seeking to avoid rape in the shadow of Abu Ghraib. Further there is no doubt in my eyes that the focus on sexual exploitation and humiliation expressed by the tactics of torture and degradation within those walls fosters and promotes rape by members of the armed forces. For the benefit of it's own honor and integrity the US military needs to purge itself of an attitude and culture that supports and promotes sex crimes, but even more our nation must make sure that our political leaders, most notably the members of the Bush administration whose policies have promoted the culture that says sex crimes can be used as a weapon are held accountable for the culture they have promoted.

People who see the military as simply a hierarchy of a chain of command and a discipline based on rules and regulations may think it seems out of step that having deserted, under whatever circumstances, Suzanne deserves and is entitled to an honorable discharge. There is more to military traditions than rules and regulations, but this comes from an ignorance of the reality of war. No group of people have ever walked together into violent and dangerous situations in which they need to depend on each other to live without forming an essential social contract expressed in the slogan “taking care of ones own”. One of the most important responsibilities a sergeant has is to see to the well being of the enlisted personnel serving under them. Morale, the willingness and ability to fight, is an essential element necessity for the effectiveness of a military organization. The use of rank to violate the dignity and person of a subordinate is an essential violation of the social contract of a community at arms. A soldier is knowingly placed at risk in order to fulfill their mission, and the abuse of authority to degrade an individual soldier is itself detrimental to the nature of military discipline. When the military turned it's back on Suzanne it lost it's claim to her subordination to it's authority. Suzanne served with honor, and was dishonored. The onus in restoring honor is not with Suzanne but with her superiors who committed or where complacent with acts detrimental to the honor and dignity of the US armed forces.

There is an on line petition in support of Suzanne which I encourage all to visit and consider signing;

http://www.thepetitionsite.com/takeaction/441448013?ltl=1155141762

to learn more about the situation and how you can help visit the sight below

http://www.suzanneswift.org/

Elizabeth Parenti-Soba

posted by: EzizabethParentiSoba at 19:20 | link | comments |

Bush prompting led to Israeli invasion of Lebanon

In the dawn of the Israeli invasion of Lebanon I remember reading an article that suggested Hezbollah had incited the conflict in order to shift world attention away from the Iran's nuclear program. I thought at the time that if anyone was served by the expanding violence it was the Bush administration. At that time the triple suicide at Guantanamo and the outrageously insensitive response put forth by the administration had brought the unlawfulness of US policies toward detainees to the forefront. The expanding violence of the Lebanon conflict quickly replaced it in the headlines and editorial pages. I almost wrote then about who was served by this growing violence, but it seemed to much based on speculation.

Now sources close to the Israeli leadership reveal that as early as May 23rd, 7 weeks before the kidnapping of Israeli soldiers, George Bush met with Prime Minister Ehud Olmert to encourage an Israeli military adventure against Hezbollah, not only encouraging military action in Gaza and Lebanon but even urging and Israeli attack on Syria, a country bush would have US troops attack if they where not bogged down in Iraq. This is the third war, forth if you include the financing of an offensive by Somali warlords in Mogadishu, that George Bush has promoted or encouraged since taking office. While Prime Minister Olmert and Israel refuse the notion of attacking Syria, an idea some in the Israeli government rejected as insane, Olmert did buy into military aggression in Gaza and Lebanon with the idea of teaching Hezbullah a lesson and creating a cycle of escalating violence that led to the kidnapping of Israeli soldiers and eventually the invasion of Lebanon by Israel.

George Bush talks about bringing democracy to other countries and shaping a new middle east but what he has created is growing destabilization that may eventually threaten global destruction. George Bush, along with many significant figures in his administration, have heavy ties to the oil industry. If one allows oneself to begin speculating on this bases the shaping of a new middle east seems akin to the shaping of a new China through the opium wars. The US, the worlds major consumer of fossil fuels, have extensively invaded the region of the world where the largest oil reserves are to be found. George Bush and his friends have profited by the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people while creating problems for the world that it will take decades to resolve.

That Israeli troops have been deployed to serve US military ends is not to be found surprising. While the US, has often played the role of mediator between Israel and the Arab world it is no neutral between the two parties. The US funds the Israeli military to the extent that for each single Israeli citizens the US provides Israel with 24,000 dollars of military aide. Looking at the math behind this one can easily see that US support allows Israel a military far larger and better equiped than that nation itself could ever afford. Israel has long served both the US, and before that England, as a client state providing itself as a proxy military force when direct intervention by the US military was not possible. George Bush has demonstrated an eagerness to deploy the US military as an invasion and occupying force unprecedented in recent US history. Even before his dubious re-election in 2004, he had shown the clear intention in going to war with Syria and Iran, and surely would have engaged US forces in another war had he ever exceeded in stabilizing the military occupation of Iraq. Unable to use the US military to expand the sphere of the war, he has turned to the Israeli military to serve his ends.

The current state of affairs leaves little hope for the near future of the middle east, and seems to promise a long and bitter season of US military involvement in the regent. The key to undoing the damage done is to begin to establish the responsibility where it belongs. The absolute first step the US most take in begining to repair the damage it has brought about is to hold George W Bush accountable for policies of military aggression through impeachment and charges of war crimes which most of the world now realized he is responsible for.

Elizabeth Parenti-Soba

posted by: EzizabethParentiSoba at 16:21 | link | comments |
war crimes, israeli-lebabon war

Paper trail of war crime intent
     Last Wednesday, August 9th, the Washington post  reported that the Bush administration drafted amendments to the War crimes act that would retroactively protect the adminstration policy makers from criminal for authorizing any humiliating and degrading treatment of detainees. Before speaking to the recent events leading up to this act, I would like to bring our intention back to the early days, and before, of the Bush administration.
         When Bush first took office, the attention of the world policy makers had been brought to bare on war crimes do to the civil wars taking place in the former Yugoslavia. The brutal policies of ethnic cleansing aimed at the muslim population of Bosnia had brought to the surface the failure of world political and social apparatus in preventing genocide. To address this failure world leaders, including the US under Bill Clinton, had worked to develope an international war crimes tribunal.
        When Bush came to office he attacked this effort, saying that it could be used by enemies of the US to bring charges against US military officials. Not only did George Bush pull the US from the treaties creating this tribunal, but he did his best and indeed his worse to scuttle the treaty by holding the population of war torn Bosnia as hostage by treatening the peace keeping efforts in which the US played a significant role if other world leaders went ahead in forming the tribunals. Other world leaders refused to be blackmailed by this move. The treaty went through and the war tribunals where created, the to this day the US remains outside this international venue to address war crimes. Although they follow identical policies and both share responcibilities toward the unjust war in Iraq Tony Blair may someday face legal jeopardy that George Bush early actions buffered him from.
      Now almost 6 years later The Bush administration is creating legal legislation to protect itself from legal accountability for acts against humanity. Beyond this the legislation attempt to allow policies that violate Article 3 of the Geneva Convention against "outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment". At primary odds here is the interogation technique "water boarding" that has become a mainstay of CIA interogators. This technique involves strapping a detainee to a board and submerging them into water until they are on the verge of drowning, pulling them up and repeat the process.
       I don't know if anyone who has never been tortured can ever appreciate the brutality of this type of experience. When I was in conflict with my step-father over the policies and direction of CP-USA(P) I experienced like tactics that he employed against disident. One of Gino favored techniques was to haul someone up by a noose around thier neck then drop them down before they sophocate. Like all torture, the effect is not just on the victim who experiences the pain and suffering of immidiate death, but on the perpetrators. As victim after victim are exposed and survive this horrible treatment it becomes an unreal event to the torturor. The name of the techinique itself "water boarding" expresses the idea of game and sport, like snow boarding, the heart mind and soul of the torturor learn to except this brutality as a play and illussion rather than the reality of suffering the victim is exposed to. The technique itself is one that builds into the attitude of the torturors, and through them into the atmosphere of the interrogation the attitude that the detainees life and thier suffering is an illussion. More than this it creates a reality where the life of the victim, and thier suffering, become trivialized and by this result the degnity of the individual broken down, slowly in thier own psyche but far more rapidly in the pysche of the CIA torturor. I remember a reflective comment on The Jallianwala Bagh massacre by a british officer saying that Ghandi subsequent success not only served India but Britain in saving that nation from the transformation thier own Brutality had led them toward. What is the effect on the collective consciousness of america as our national leaders contenue to defend and perserve this outragously perverse practice. Can we afford to be what this practice transforms us into? As George Bush approaches the end of his time in office can we afford to ignore the reality that he is not being held accountable for? It is far past the time for the american people to pull thier heads out from thier rectums and begin to examine the face of our nation as seen clearly by the rest of the worlds population. Are future now is bleaker than we allow ourselves to imagine, as things stand now we may be at war for many future years. George Bush time in office will pass, but without accountablity his legasy will carry on. In most likely hood he will leave office to be replaced by a democrat such as Evan Bayh or other candidate involved with the DLC happy enough to contenue the policy that have led americans to war. In time, without accountability, the memory of his time in office will blur and americans willingness to see a whitewashed image of themselves will forget the dark cancerous growth on our national soul. Americans need to free themselves before they can speak of freeing others, and freeing themselves begins with rejecting the lies being fed to us as noble slogans such as "cut and run". We must not run from the ugly reality of what George W. Bush has led this nation into. We must not run from the ugly face we have revealed to the rest of the world. We must instead bring the battle for freedom into our own borders and pull down those who have profit from our national disgrace. George Bush is undeniably a war criminal and his adminstration is filled with monsters who have made the world a less fine place. To be free we must abandon the practice of ignoring the ugliness that falls short of our noble self-image. Instead of holding to delusions of american nobility that require us to ignore the truth of our ignoble actions and policies, we must instead hold up a true image of ourselves that fall short of the noble image so many seek. To be a truely free people we must stop ignoring what we are becoming and take action against it. George W. Bush needs to be held accountable for war crimes, and the democrats who have supported his policies cannot be rewarded with his downfall but held accountable themselves.

Elizabeth Parenti-Soba

posted by: EzizabethParentiSoba at 15:40 | link | comments |

Friday, 11 August 2006

Republicrats close ranks on Liebermans defeat
       With the victory of Conseravative multi-millionaire Buisnessman Ted Lamont over DLC embedded centrist Joe Lieberman there has been a counter attack. A counter attack not from other DLC (democratic leadership council) but from the republican party,  the Bush administration, and neo-conservatives. The republicans have been supported in this by the press which has co-operated with the republicans in painting this defeat of pro-war policy as a result of the democratic "far left".
        I think one of the most amusing headlines was NBC headline saying  proclaiming Kennedy supported Liebermans bid to run as an independent. This has nothing to do with  liberal senator Ed Kennedy but is the endorsement given Lieberman  by Minnesota GOP congressman Mark Kennedy, who is himself seeking a first term as senetor. This move by the press and the GOP show how commited to misinformation these institutions really are.
       Liberman, choosing to run as a spoiler after lossing the primary, shows the priority of the DLC which has never been to defeat the Republicans but to maintain a political posture that limits public political debate to centrism and right of center. Opposition to the war  in Iraq is not a far left position. Frustration anger and outrage of the crimes commited at Guantanamo and other manafestations of the so called war on terror is not far left. Outside the illusionary deceit presented by the corporate press and the republicratic alliance between neo-conservative and neo-liberals the outrage of the direction are national government has been taking over the past 6 years are in fact mainstream in nature. The press along with the republican party has spun this victory of popular democracy into an elitist purge.
         What the press should be looking at is the reality of Leibermans commitment to run in as a spoiler. The DLC agenda has always been an insistence that they must abandon thier party's political base in order to run "electable candidate" in what has sometimes been called "rebublican-lite". The history of this strategy has been a record of defeat, but the DLC has held power over the democratic politcal agenda not by winning elections but by sabotaging the election bid of any other option run within the democratic party. Liebermans bid, to run as a spoiler candidate demonstrates this policy. If Lieberman could not win the primary, what purpose could he have in running as an indepent accept to hope to hand the election over to the republicans by spliting the democratic vote. What this achieves is the defeat not just of Lamont, but of options outside the centrist agenda. Like George Bush, Joe Lieberman is not a friend of democracy. Democracy is a lie and a fruad if the options presented are limited in scope, for 20 years now the DLC has focused it's energy into limiting that scope, limiting the options available in US electoral politics by making a fruad of the american two party system.

Elizabeth Parenti Soba

posted by: EzizabethParentiSoba at 20:25 | link | comments |
iraq war, democratic leadership council, joe lieberman, connecticut primary