Caught in the middle
The vast majority of Iraqis had no say one way or another in the recent (and ongoing) war, and they certainly don't deserve the treatment they're getting - from either side. One can (as I am) be against the war and naked American imperialism and also be against the nihilistic thug motherfuckers who would detonate a car bomb at a funeral. This particular funeral party was targeted because, like the individual being mourned, it was viewed as collaborationist by one of the more grim factions of the Iraqi "resistance." (I do believe that there are insurgents in Iraq who have taken up arms to fight for dignity and against the absurd, bloody US invasion, and them I wish well. But we Western anti-imperialists are kidding ourselves if we don't acknowledge that a lot of the violence being perpetrated by Iraqis is emanating from folks who did well under Saddam's totalitarian rule and from religious fanatics who are a significant measure more reactionary than the born-again wing of our own government.) I don't think "collaborationist" is an appropriate term for any of the Iraqis who have donned police uniforms or assumed governmental positions. We're not talking Vichy France here. Given a choice between Saddam's Iraq and Some Other Iraq, I'd certainly take a chance on Some Other Iraq too. Now, as time goes on, there may emerge Iraqi politicians who acquiesce to every command or suggestion coming from the White House. In doing so, they may face a popular uprising for obvious and legitimate reasons. I just don't think that segment of the Iraqi elite has clearly emerged yet.
If the Iraqis or other non-Americans responsible for beheadings or attacks on civilians are "savages" then so are the American perpetrators of the war and the sadists running Abu Ghraib. But those of us who opposed the war and hate our government shouldn't get caught up in trying to argue who's more savage than whom. To do so only gives credence to the bullshit binary notion that says only two sides exist in the world, and we have to choose one of them. It's not too hard to pick out behaviors that would have no place in a healthy world. We should never stop trying to monkeywrench the machinations of our own leaders, but let's also not, in the interest of anti-imperialist purity, be afraid to call a spade a spade.
If the Iraqis or other non-Americans responsible for beheadings or attacks on civilians are "savages" then so are the American perpetrators of the war and the sadists running Abu Ghraib. But those of us who opposed the war and hate our government shouldn't get caught up in trying to argue who's more savage than whom. To do so only gives credence to the bullshit binary notion that says only two sides exist in the world, and we have to choose one of them. It's not too hard to pick out behaviors that would have no place in a healthy world. We should never stop trying to monkeywrench the machinations of our own leaders, but let's also not, in the interest of anti-imperialist purity, be afraid to call a spade a spade.
4 Comments:
I'm clueless. Though you can be sure that if I were aware of such origins I would have avoided the phrase. From now on, let's call a fanny pack a fanny pack, shall we?
here is the origin of the phrase.
and here is a related story about the disputed meaning of the phrase.
and you might want to choose something other than "fannypack." that, too, carries another meaning.
James, thanks for finding those links. My choice of "fannypack" was intentional; the person who posted the first comment is someone I've watched "The Office" with, which (as you may know) contains a comic scene playing with that dual meaning. Glad to have a new person's commentary though!
if i would ever finish watching the first season (or second), i'd have probably have gotten that one. and if i weren't slow and dim-witted, i could have probably deduced that the word choice was purposeful.
glad to add to the comment count.
Post a Comment
<< Home