[Peace-discuss] Would It Kill Us to Apologize to Iran for the Coup?

Sat Feb 7 05:06:02 CST 2009

If there is one thing I have seen emerge from this discussion is a conflict
between to what degree do we concern ourselves with foreign policy and to
what degree does it come at the cost of domestic policy. This brings to mind
the session we recently had at the public library where we listened to
Martin Luther King Jr. speak out against the war in Vietnam. The people who
attended made some very salient connections between Vietnam and the
conflicts that are going on overseas. When MLK made his speech he noted that
people asked him why would he concern himself with Vietnam at the possible
expense of the civil rights movement. What he saw then, and what is
pertinent now, is that war is ultimately an "enemy of the poor."

What do we say to African American soldiers who helped liberate the Nazi
death camps during World War II, only to come home and be told what fountain
they can drink out of or what bathrooms to use? As King put it he saw young
black men being sent overseas and being told they were fighting for
liberties that weren't available to them at home. What do we say to poor
white women like my grandmother who saw of her three sons get drafted for
Vietnam?  It's been said that an injustice anywhere is an injustice
everywhere which is why I would advocate for most of us to at least try to
have a sense of balance in both domestic and world affairs. As it's been
pointed out most of us will have stronger leanings towards a particular
direction, but again we do need to try.

I recently read somewhere that gasoline is currently around $10 a gallon in
Denmark. Needless to say that may well explain why the Danish people are
very pro-active in finding alternative sources of fuel. Unlike Great Britain
or the United States the Scandinavian countries don't have as much of a
vested history in colonization which has formed the basis of much of our
cultural, racial, religious, and class distinctions. Even when the Nazi's
occupied Denmark the people there made a great deal of effort to protect the
Jewish population and later became vocal opponents of South African
Apartheid starting in the 1960's.  I'm not suggesting that the Danes are
free of prejudice or privilege but we can perhaps learn some valuable
lessons from what has already been done.

Getting back to the original premise of the thread, it would be a tremendous
step forward if the United States apologized for the wrongs that have been
done to Iran. Being willing to acknowledge mistakes can go a long ways
towards healing the divides that exist between us and Iran. One way in which
we can start to bridge the divides is through acknowledging where some of us
have benefited from being able to use a disproportionate amount of the
resources available to us. This is something that can be beneficial on both
a domestic and international front.

On Sat, Feb 7, 2009 at 12:51 AM, Jenifer Cartwright <jencart13 at yahoo.com>wrote:

> Re John's point about human nature: even if we argue that most people are
> kind, generous, and good, there are always those few who are not... and
> regardless of the economic systems in which they're operating, some of these
> ruthless types will make their way to the top by stepping on the backs of
> others UNLESS there are laws in place -- and enforced -- that prevent it.
> Some people (those who don't want their immorality interferred with) love
> to say that "you can't legislate morality."  Well, my view is that it's the
> responsibility of gov't to use both sticks and carrots. The gov't first must
> rule that certain immoral behaviors are illegal, and then must enforce that
> ruling by imposing penalties -- the civil rights act of 1964 comes to mind.
> The gov't also sweetens the pot by allowing philanthropists to deduct
> certain charitable contributions on their taxes... which is the main reason
> that so many rich folks give so much money to worthy causes. And in this
> way, the gov't sets the tone, and people (not all of them, but more than
> otherwise) do eventually become more ethical (e g comparison of the
> treatment and rights of African-Americans immediately before- and now, long
> after the civil rights act of '64).
>  --Jenifer
>
>
>
>
> --- On *Fri, 2/6/09, John W. <jbw292002 at gmail.com>* wrote:
>
> From: John W. <jbw292002 at gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Would It Kill Us to Apologize to Iran for the
> Coup?
> To: "C. G. Estabrook" <galliher at uiuc.edu>
> Cc: "peace discuss" <peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net>
> Date: Friday, February 6, 2009, 7:15 PM
>
>
>
> Here is a point on which Carl and I agree, though his interest in the topic
> is more academic, let us say, than mine.  Capitalism was the root cause of
> racial discrimination rather than the reverse, and it's the source of just
> about all of our other disparities as well.
>
> However, I go a step further and identify unregenerate human nature as the
> real culprit.  Humans, by and large, are self-centered, grasping, fearful
> little creatures who are more interested in getting ahead of their neighbor
> than in sharing their bounty with him/her.  It doesn't matter what "system"
> we operate under, be it monarchy or capitalism or communism or what have
> you.  Some humans always seem to figure out a way to oppress their fellow
> humans, and rationalize their behavior in myriad ways.  They don't even
> consider it oppression, they consider it "working hard" or "living right" or
> whatever - even when they don't work and live on the income from a trust
> fund!  And in that Marti is absolutely right; by failing to recognize their
> privilege and surrender at least some of it for the common good, they
> perpetuate and exacerbate the evil.
>
> I continue to wonder at the factors which caused Europeans, just in the
> last half of the last century, to get it more nearly right than most other
> societies in history.
>
> JW
>
>
> On Fri, Feb 6, 2009 at 11:44 AM, C. G. Estabrook <galliher at uiuc.edu>wrote:
>
> I wouldn't call it limousine liberalism, but John is correct I think to
>> suggest that there is a tendency in recent American liberalism to substitute
>> diversity for (economic) equality as the goal of progressive politics.
>>
>> The argument is sharply set out by Walter Benn Michaels in "The Trouble
>> with Diversity: How We Learned to Love Identity and Ignore Inequality"
>> (2006).  And it's been argued that the real story of Tom Frank's "What's the
>> Matter With Kansas?" (2004) is that the working class abandoned the
>> Democratic party when the Democrats abandoned economic equality (insofar as
>> they ever embraced it) in favor of diversity.
>>
>> Benn Michaels summarized his argument in a recent issue of the British
>> journal, "New Left Review."  Here is his conclusion:
>>
>> "...the answer to the question, 'Why do American liberals carry on about
>> racism and sexism when they should be carrying on about capitalism?', is
>> pretty obvious: they carry on about racism and sexism in order to avoid
>> doing so about capitalism. Either because they genuinely do think that
>> inequality is fine as long as it is not a function of discrimination (in
>> which case, they are neoliberals of the right). Or because they think that
>> fighting against racial and sexual inequality is at least a step in the
>> direction of real equality (in which case, they are neoliberals of the
>> left).  Given these options, perhaps the neoliberals of the right are in a
>> stronger position -- the economic history of the last thirty years suggests
>> that diversified elites do even better than undiversified ones. But of
>> course, these are not the only possible choices."
>>
>> <http://www.newleftreview.org/?page=article&view=2731>
>>
>>
>> John W. wrote:
>>
>>
>>> On Fri, Feb 6, 2009 at 8:58 AM, Robert Naiman <naiman.uiuc at gmail.com<mailto:
>>> naiman.uiuc at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>>
>>> I'm definitely not in favor of refusal to recognize privilege. But I
>>> presume
>>> that in a non-racist society, if everyone woke up one day and discovered
>>> that
>>> by some mysterious process, a chunk of their neighbors were
>>> disproportionately excluded from the economic benefits that the society
>>> had
>>> to offer, people would move to address the disparity.
>>>
>>>
>>> You gotta be shitting me, Robert.  Surely you jest?  You have neighbors
>>> right
>>> here on this mailing list who are disproportionately excluded from the
>>> economic benefits that society has to offer, and it has nothing to do
>>> with
>>> race, and no one on this list is doing a damned thing about it or is
>>> GOING to
>>> do a damned thing about it.  Whenever I talk about poverty, lack of
>>> health
>>> insurance, etc., from a personal perspective, I get a blank stare from
>>> the
>>> limousine liberals.  "Get a life," they say, or "Be warmed and filled,"
>>> to
>>> quote the Good Book.  I daresay that most of the readers of this list
>>> care
>>> more about people in Pakistan than they do about their neighbors, at
>>> least in
>>> terms of doing anything pragmatic to help them.
>>>
>>> I'll probably live to regret that comment, but there it is.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> So, the fact that such disparities persist in our society, and the fact
>>> that
>>> we don't move successfully to redress them, to me is evidence enough of
>>> racism; no other story is necessary.
>>>
>>>
>>> You ain't read enough stories, apparently.  There are many types of
>>> disparities in our society, and many complex causes of such disparities.
>>> Racism is an important one, but it is only one.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> That doesn't mean that other stories don't have value, and might not also
>>> be important to achieving the end of redress, but I see no need to posit
>>> them as
>>> prerequisites, and some reason not to; since it might be the case, for
>>> example, that some people have a psychological barrier against
>>> recognizing
>>> privilege, but not against redress justified on some other basis.
>>>
>>>
>>> You lost me there.  Not that it matters.
>>>
>>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> Peace-discuss mailing listPeace-discuss at lists.chambana.nethttp://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/listinfo/peace-discuss
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Peace-discuss mailing list
> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
> http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/listinfo/peace-discuss
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/archive/peace-discuss/attachments/20090207/dbfec5a7/attachment.html