via the ever-wonderful ruth desouza, this is really worth listening to. while i wouldn't agree with everything she says, i think she provides some really challenging perspectives:
Showing posts with label War. Show all posts
Showing posts with label War. Show all posts
Tuesday, 4 September 2012
Wednesday, 25 April 2012
Soldiers are not the only victims of war
Today I've attended two ANZAC ceremonies in my local area - the first a civic ceremony at the local war memorial cairn, the second at a veterans' home. There was recognition offered for those who did not come back, and respect shown for those present who had made it home, but I couldn't help thinking of all those not mentioned.
In the first ceremony the Turks, who after all actually live in Gallipoli and have done so, by one name or another, for centuries, were totally absent. There seemed to me to be a confusion of the reason for fighting against the Axis forces in WWII with the catalysts of the Great War. "Freedom", "liberty", "our way of life" were peppered throughout some speeches. It's a very long bow to say that those who went to Gallipoli were going for that, truly. The ANZAC forces, the communal "we" invoked on April 25th, were the invaders; a fact which didn't really sink in for me until I went to Gallipoli myself and saw the Turkish memorial. I was also aware that while there were Indian forces at Gallipoli, and there are many many Indians living in Mt Roskill, no acknowledgement was made.
Some glorify that disastrous campaign, with pictures in their heads of willing sacrifice, as if dying was the point of it all, and not something each strove actively to avoid. The horror of it is forefront in my mind as I stand, or sit, or sing, along with the thought "never again."
The victims of war are not all members of the armed forces, be they conscripted or volunteers. Civilians, who just happen to be living in the way, are frequent casualties, be they killed, injured, traumatised, raped, or impoverished. Yet again, these people, undeniably scarred by war, are absent from most commemorations.
Recognising those currently invisible at many ANZAC ceremonies does not need to happen in a way that overwhelms the contribution of those who have served in the Australian and New Zealand armed forces. Maybe next year.
In the first ceremony the Turks, who after all actually live in Gallipoli and have done so, by one name or another, for centuries, were totally absent. There seemed to me to be a confusion of the reason for fighting against the Axis forces in WWII with the catalysts of the Great War. "Freedom", "liberty", "our way of life" were peppered throughout some speeches. It's a very long bow to say that those who went to Gallipoli were going for that, truly. The ANZAC forces, the communal "we" invoked on April 25th, were the invaders; a fact which didn't really sink in for me until I went to Gallipoli myself and saw the Turkish memorial. I was also aware that while there were Indian forces at Gallipoli, and there are many many Indians living in Mt Roskill, no acknowledgement was made.
Some glorify that disastrous campaign, with pictures in their heads of willing sacrifice, as if dying was the point of it all, and not something each strove actively to avoid. The horror of it is forefront in my mind as I stand, or sit, or sing, along with the thought "never again."
The victims of war are not all members of the armed forces, be they conscripted or volunteers. Civilians, who just happen to be living in the way, are frequent casualties, be they killed, injured, traumatised, raped, or impoverished. Yet again, these people, undeniably scarred by war, are absent from most commemorations.
Recognising those currently invisible at many ANZAC ceremonies does not need to happen in a way that overwhelms the contribution of those who have served in the Australian and New Zealand armed forces. Maybe next year.
Sunday, 11 September 2011
commemoration
it's september the 11th again, and ten years on from the attack on the various targets in the unites states. every year we have the reminders of this anniversary, the coverage across the media, the images played again on our screen.
the annual reminders around this disaster keep the tragedy fresh in our memories and remind us of those who suffered, the pain and the grief that is obviously still a major factor in the lives of the people most directly affected by it.
yet there is no doubt that this annual commemoration is a political event, it has political and social implications. simply because no other international tragedy has a similar commemoration or media focus. perhaps the bombing of hiroshima and nagasaki comes close - there tends to be a newsclip about commemorations in japan, but this is rarely the first or second item in the news report, nor does it get a full half hour's attention on, say, campbell live.
the anniversary of the massacre at sribrenica does also tend to get some coverage. but not so much the boxing tsunami that took so many lives, nor other massacres of the second world war. subsequent wars barely get a mention, and there isn't a commemoration day where we actually consider those who suffered and listen to their first hand accounts.
don't get me wrong - i'm not saying that we shouldn't remember what happened in america on 11 sept 2001. i'm saying we should also remember those other events, and hear from those others who have suffered and are continuing to suffer. because if we don't, then we treat one set of victims as more important than another, more worthy of our attention than others. and we then feel less inclinded to do something to alleviate their suffering or to even identify with it.
and when we remember 11 september 2001, we should also remember those who have suffered and continue to suffer because of wars that resulted from it. let's hear not just from those in new york but also from those in washington DC, the relatives of those who died in that other plane that went down, and the people of afghanistan and iraq. let's learn what it's like to have bombs and terrorist attacks every other day, because these people too are a casualty of the bombing in america. let's hear about their heroism and courage in the face of horror and tragedy on a massive scale, their sacrifices and humanity.
of course there are plenty of other people who are much better than saying what i want to say. so here are a few links: first from an american, steve almond, on "the decade of magical thinking":
Nobody stood up – in Congress, in the bright studios of our corporate media, in city hall – to make the obvious point that millions of people in other parts of the world live in a state of perpetual danger. And that the events of 9/11 might therefore require of us a greater empathy for those suffering elsewhere, might even nudge us toward a more serious consideration of our own imperial luxuries and abuses, and how these might relate to the deprivations suffered in less fortunate precincts.
That’s not what we talked about. No, we talked about our feelings. Americans were bloated with empathy in the weeks after 9/11. But something fatal was happening: as a nation, we were consenting to pursue vengeance over mercy.
please do go and read the whole piece. here's another by cas mudde on the security implications:
Every event has winners and losers and 9/11 is no exception. More broadly, the larger intelligence-security complex has been the major winner. Throughout the world budgets for intelligence agencies and related security firms (often private) have skyrocketed. In Australia the increase since 2001 has been almost tenfold! At the same time, the influence of these organisations has grown exponentially, as a consequence of the securitisation of politics and the hasty introduction of new and often vague and thus far-reaching laws....
The report emphasises that many non- and semi-democracies have also used post-9/11 anti-terrorism legislation to stifle democratic and non-violent internal opposition, though it fails to report that there are many examples of similar arrests and harassments in established democracies (such as the scandal involving the wiretapping of US peace activists).
there's this piece by glenn greenwald at salon:
This is why there is nothing more dangerous -- nothing -- than allowing this type of power to be exercised without accountability: no oversight, no transparency, no consequences for serious wrongdoing: exactly the state of affairs that prevails in the United States. It's also why there are few things more deeply irresponsible, vapid and destructive than demanding that citizens, activists, and journalists retreat into Permanent Election Mode: transform themselves into partisan cheerleaders who refrain from aggressively criticizing the party that is slightly less awful out of fear that the other party might win an election 14 months away, even when their own party is the one in power. Renouncing the duty of holding accountable political leaders who exercise vast power makes one directly responsible for the abuses they commit.
here's an account by chilean mario nain on the effects of 11 september 1973, or this piece from the guardian on the same topic:
The coup was supported by the US government of Richard Nixon. But after 1977, the Carter administration distanced itself from Pinochet because of his repeated violation of human rights. The regime remained in power for 16 years, becoming one of the longest lasting military dictatorships in Latin America, and it almost certainly introduced more changes than in any other country. Economic policy took a radical neoliberal turn under the influence of Milton Friedman. Allende's nationalisations were reversed and a programme of privatisations was introduced, together with the elimination of tariff barriers; this, alongside the banning of trade unions, produced a dramatic fall in real wages and an equally dramatic increase in business profits.
a commemoration of 11 september gives us the opportunity to contemplate many things. let's hope that we do take the time to widen our internal gaze and think about all those affected in a myriad of ways as a result of events on this particular day.
the annual reminders around this disaster keep the tragedy fresh in our memories and remind us of those who suffered, the pain and the grief that is obviously still a major factor in the lives of the people most directly affected by it.
yet there is no doubt that this annual commemoration is a political event, it has political and social implications. simply because no other international tragedy has a similar commemoration or media focus. perhaps the bombing of hiroshima and nagasaki comes close - there tends to be a newsclip about commemorations in japan, but this is rarely the first or second item in the news report, nor does it get a full half hour's attention on, say, campbell live.
the anniversary of the massacre at sribrenica does also tend to get some coverage. but not so much the boxing tsunami that took so many lives, nor other massacres of the second world war. subsequent wars barely get a mention, and there isn't a commemoration day where we actually consider those who suffered and listen to their first hand accounts.
don't get me wrong - i'm not saying that we shouldn't remember what happened in america on 11 sept 2001. i'm saying we should also remember those other events, and hear from those others who have suffered and are continuing to suffer. because if we don't, then we treat one set of victims as more important than another, more worthy of our attention than others. and we then feel less inclinded to do something to alleviate their suffering or to even identify with it.
and when we remember 11 september 2001, we should also remember those who have suffered and continue to suffer because of wars that resulted from it. let's hear not just from those in new york but also from those in washington DC, the relatives of those who died in that other plane that went down, and the people of afghanistan and iraq. let's learn what it's like to have bombs and terrorist attacks every other day, because these people too are a casualty of the bombing in america. let's hear about their heroism and courage in the face of horror and tragedy on a massive scale, their sacrifices and humanity.
of course there are plenty of other people who are much better than saying what i want to say. so here are a few links: first from an american, steve almond, on "the decade of magical thinking":
Nobody stood up – in Congress, in the bright studios of our corporate media, in city hall – to make the obvious point that millions of people in other parts of the world live in a state of perpetual danger. And that the events of 9/11 might therefore require of us a greater empathy for those suffering elsewhere, might even nudge us toward a more serious consideration of our own imperial luxuries and abuses, and how these might relate to the deprivations suffered in less fortunate precincts.
That’s not what we talked about. No, we talked about our feelings. Americans were bloated with empathy in the weeks after 9/11. But something fatal was happening: as a nation, we were consenting to pursue vengeance over mercy.
please do go and read the whole piece. here's another by cas mudde on the security implications:
Every event has winners and losers and 9/11 is no exception. More broadly, the larger intelligence-security complex has been the major winner. Throughout the world budgets for intelligence agencies and related security firms (often private) have skyrocketed. In Australia the increase since 2001 has been almost tenfold! At the same time, the influence of these organisations has grown exponentially, as a consequence of the securitisation of politics and the hasty introduction of new and often vague and thus far-reaching laws....
The report emphasises that many non- and semi-democracies have also used post-9/11 anti-terrorism legislation to stifle democratic and non-violent internal opposition, though it fails to report that there are many examples of similar arrests and harassments in established democracies (such as the scandal involving the wiretapping of US peace activists).
there's this piece by glenn greenwald at salon:
This is why there is nothing more dangerous -- nothing -- than allowing this type of power to be exercised without accountability: no oversight, no transparency, no consequences for serious wrongdoing: exactly the state of affairs that prevails in the United States. It's also why there are few things more deeply irresponsible, vapid and destructive than demanding that citizens, activists, and journalists retreat into Permanent Election Mode: transform themselves into partisan cheerleaders who refrain from aggressively criticizing the party that is slightly less awful out of fear that the other party might win an election 14 months away, even when their own party is the one in power. Renouncing the duty of holding accountable political leaders who exercise vast power makes one directly responsible for the abuses they commit.
here's an account by chilean mario nain on the effects of 11 september 1973, or this piece from the guardian on the same topic:
The coup was supported by the US government of Richard Nixon. But after 1977, the Carter administration distanced itself from Pinochet because of his repeated violation of human rights. The regime remained in power for 16 years, becoming one of the longest lasting military dictatorships in Latin America, and it almost certainly introduced more changes than in any other country. Economic policy took a radical neoliberal turn under the influence of Milton Friedman. Allende's nationalisations were reversed and a programme of privatisations was introduced, together with the elimination of tariff barriers; this, alongside the banning of trade unions, produced a dramatic fall in real wages and an equally dramatic increase in business profits.
a commemoration of 11 september gives us the opportunity to contemplate many things. let's hope that we do take the time to widen our internal gaze and think about all those affected in a myriad of ways as a result of events on this particular day.
Wednesday, 25 May 2011
The invisibility of rape in war
Trigger Warning for this post for rape & violence. I found the three paragraphs below absolutely chilling when I read them last week. So much is left unsaid, and yet to me the implications are clear.
Excerpt from Ask That Mountain: The story of Parihaka, by Dick Scott - first published 1975, this is from the 2006 reprint:
The night raids were stepped up to find which houses to destroy and the women were frequently victims of drunken and diseased troopers. Once the officers got their wires crossed and a unit raided where it was not expected. The sequel, as the Auckland Herald delicately reported, was the discovery of 'a gentleman who has taken a very prominent part in the recent proceedings under circumstances that recall the earnest terms in which the West Coast Commission deplore the existence of semi-connubial relations between officials and natives.'Even in 1975, and in more recent reprints, it seems that it was not acceptable to call terrible things by their true names. This was rape. It was repeated rape, systematic and used to demoralise and exercise power in a shameful exhibition of a piece with the unfair confiscation of the land. There is mention of the syphilis that affected the population of Parihaka after these rapes, but no mention of the other effects that violence would have had - not only the physical and mental impact but also no doubt pregnancies and possibly children who resulted from these "semi-connubial" encounters, and then the potential shattering of adult relationships too. Does the "semi" indicate the only the men consented?
The reality behind the indulgent amusement was that syphilis was brought into the town once given a clean bill of health by Taranaki's medical officer, Dr. O'Carroll, and congenital cases, a direct result of the invasion, were reported through the province for years aftewarrds.*
* Dr EP Ellison, of Manaia, told the writer: 'There was looting and debauchery. Perhaps I speak too strongly but the truth must be told. In my work as a young man I saw cases of congenital syphilis in Taranaki that were the result of the occupation of Parihaka.' Not all excesses were condoned. At one stage of the Taranaki campaign some of the armed constabulary were court-martialled for copulating with dogs...
One of the things I find true about the way that George RR Martin portrays war in his A Song Of Ice And Fire series is how he doesn't make rape invisible. He doesn't make it prurient either, or paint it as titillating - it is more told than shown, if that makes sense - but he acknowledges it as another form of the violence of war.
It's only by naming it, by acknowledging it, that we can fully recognise that rape is there, it is real, and it must be stopped.
Monday, 25 April 2011
Of poppies and pride
This morning Snuffly, his father and I trudged along May Rd in the rain to the Mt Roskill War Memorial. There was quite a crowd; the hall was full, with many standing at the back or just outside. The Auckland City Brass Band and a local Tongan choir assisted with the musical episodes, and the wreath-laying was done respectfully.I wonder sometimes, during these ceremonies, what everyone else is thinking. We bow our heads, we look grave, we wear our respect for the dead with a kind of pride, like our poppies. There's a sort of enforced conformity about how solemn we must be on April 25th, as if it's a national funeral that we repeat annually.
I don't want to forget. And for me, these days, ANZAC Day is about not forgetting the horror of war; all of the horror, not just the experiences of soldiers, for "our boys over there", but for everyone touched by violent conflict.
We often seem to have this strange picture of war in our heads, as New Zealanders, where we are always fighting the Nazis, have always been fighting the Nazis, and that's OK because everyone knows they were evil. This simplification was understandable when I was an eleven year old standing on parade at the Devonport ceremony with my white Mariners' hat freshly coated with toothpaste. But as an adult, especially since I went to Gallipoli, I know it's not true.
At ANZAC Cove we were the invaders not the defenders. I felt embarassed, in the mini bus driving through what is almost a holy place for Kiwis, while the Turkish tour guide told us what we wanted to hear about - the experience of people like us. They took us to the Turkish memorial too, and it was significantly more packed than any of the antipodean ones, with Turkish flags flying. To be The Other on that land, on their land, where their blood was shed too, was a bit of an epiphany for me.
We put these poppies on our breasts, we bear them with pride, but we should not be proud of war, or of New Zealand's war record. We've fought our own, we've fought alongside dubious allies for foggy reasons, and our people have done terrible terrible things to others in war time. We shouldn't delude ourselves that no ANZAC every raped or murdered or stole. Soldiering is not usually an act of self-defence.
That's what is inside my head as I stand there while we listen to The Last Post. The importance not only of remembering, but also of remembering as truly as we can.
ANZAC Day Lady Blogging Roundup 2011
In both 2008 and 2009 we put together roundups of NZ women blogging on theme of ANZAC Day on April 25th. Let's give it a go again this year, in the interest, once again, of promoting the perspectives of women in the NZ blogosphere.In order of being found - with new links to be added in later in the day:
Remember - ANZAC Day 2011 by Dzeni - interesting graphic created from fatalities lists
"War Brides" by Denny - considering the women who crossed the world after WWII, having married NZ servicemen
Your sons are our sons - Homepaddock shares Ataturk's words.
The poppy: a symbol of life and death by Clare Curran - reflecting on her own changed attitude to ANZAC Day and Stephen Mulqueen's brass poppy artwork.
New at 11.30am:
Living and learning by Homepaddock - a quote on the experience of living at Gallipoli in WWI
They also served by Homepaddock - remembering the service of women too
For God, Queen and Country. Or how we kill, torture and contaminate for Gold, oil and drugs by travellerev - expressing some cynicism, I think it's fair to say, about John Key's recent discovery of an ANZAC connection
Of poppies and pride by Julie - what's inside her (my) head during ANZAC ceremonies.
New on Tuesday:
on not commemorating anzac day by anjum - expressing her worries about the current shape of the day
Nostalgia about war is the luxury of those unaffected by war by Annanonymous - standing in reflection rather than nostalgia
Tuesday Poem - A Gal of the Streets, G A Studdert Kennedy - Janis shares a poem that looks at the effects on both those who go and those who are left behind
The Waiareka Warriors - Homepaddock highlights a relevant book
Tuesday Poem for Anzac Day - Eliot's The Hollow Men - Mary McCullum has a video version of the poem plus some comments
War and Peace: an ANZAC Day memory - Pamela Gordon provides a timely excerpt from Janet Frame
ANZAC - TRIBUTE TO THE MAORI BATTALION by roarprawn
--
Please add any posts we've not yet put into the post in comments and we'll slot them in as time allows through the day and on Tuesday.
Sunday, 24 April 2011
on Q & A
here is a link to the video of my spot on Q & A. i don't know how to embed it so you'll have to watch on the tvnz site. here's a link to the transcript if you don't have access to broadband or are living outside nz.
these things always go so fast, and i had a whole heap of things i wanted to say but never got a chance to cover. still, it was much, much less hostile than i was expecting even though the questions were challenging. it was helped by the opportunity to chat with graham redding, the prinicipal of the knox centre in otago. he is indeed a lovely man, and we found that we had much more in common than we had differences.
a couple of things i wanted to note. first of all, i wondered if you noticed that i was the only woman on the show. thank goodness for matt mccarten, otherwise they would all have been white males. there's a point to made about how much time is given to women's voices, especially in when it comes to discussing serious issues & political news. i'm not a regular watcher of Q & A, so don't know how much of a balance they usually have, but i'm really hoping it isn't like this all the time.
what is there to say about the wayne mapp interview? the SAS should never have been sent to afghanistan. combat troops were pulled out in 2005, and there was absolutely no reason to send them back. the war in afghanistan is going nowhere and achieving nothing. there is no plan in sight, there's no sense of when it might be over or what needs to happen so that foreign troops can say they've "won".
a couple of important links: the scoop report here is longish but well worth reading. the rolling stone article i referred to in my segment can be found here, but i'll put in a strong trigger warning on the material & especially the photographs (which i haven't looked at). it documents the cold-blooded murder of innocent civilians, and the taking & circulating of trophy photographs.
i wanted to respond to a point made by glyn carpenter, director of the nz christian network. he commented that while christian leaders condemned the qur'an-burning, muslim leaders hadn't condemned the killing of UN workers in afghanistan. well, he's just plain wrong about that. the OIC is the most power international group of muslim nations, and here is their press release. here is a video and a transcript of an interview on CNN with a representative of CAIR, and a press release from another american muslim organisation. i've condemned it on the programme & do so again - it's a tragic and horrific reaction to events in america.
finally, i'd have preferred not to be in the room with dr brash for some time, though we did manage to have a robust debate on a couple of issues. i'm not going to say what it was about, but let's just say that i could not resist the opportunity to take him on. i've actually met him before, though i very much doubt he remembers me, but i have to say that i certainly don't look forward to the possibility of him re-entering parliament.
these things always go so fast, and i had a whole heap of things i wanted to say but never got a chance to cover. still, it was much, much less hostile than i was expecting even though the questions were challenging. it was helped by the opportunity to chat with graham redding, the prinicipal of the knox centre in otago. he is indeed a lovely man, and we found that we had much more in common than we had differences.
a couple of things i wanted to note. first of all, i wondered if you noticed that i was the only woman on the show. thank goodness for matt mccarten, otherwise they would all have been white males. there's a point to made about how much time is given to women's voices, especially in when it comes to discussing serious issues & political news. i'm not a regular watcher of Q & A, so don't know how much of a balance they usually have, but i'm really hoping it isn't like this all the time.
what is there to say about the wayne mapp interview? the SAS should never have been sent to afghanistan. combat troops were pulled out in 2005, and there was absolutely no reason to send them back. the war in afghanistan is going nowhere and achieving nothing. there is no plan in sight, there's no sense of when it might be over or what needs to happen so that foreign troops can say they've "won".
a couple of important links: the scoop report here is longish but well worth reading. the rolling stone article i referred to in my segment can be found here, but i'll put in a strong trigger warning on the material & especially the photographs (which i haven't looked at). it documents the cold-blooded murder of innocent civilians, and the taking & circulating of trophy photographs.
i wanted to respond to a point made by glyn carpenter, director of the nz christian network. he commented that while christian leaders condemned the qur'an-burning, muslim leaders hadn't condemned the killing of UN workers in afghanistan. well, he's just plain wrong about that. the OIC is the most power international group of muslim nations, and here is their press release. here is a video and a transcript of an interview on CNN with a representative of CAIR, and a press release from another american muslim organisation. i've condemned it on the programme & do so again - it's a tragic and horrific reaction to events in america.
finally, i'd have preferred not to be in the room with dr brash for some time, though we did manage to have a robust debate on a couple of issues. i'm not going to say what it was about, but let's just say that i could not resist the opportunity to take him on. i've actually met him before, though i very much doubt he remembers me, but i have to say that i certainly don't look forward to the possibility of him re-entering parliament.
Wednesday, 28 July 2010
war & peace
is it just me, or are there a whole lot more war dramas and programmes on tv than their used to be? i've avoided pretty much all of them, i think.
it's not that i don't like war stuff per se - i watched stuff like the manchurian candidate (denzel washington version), enemy at the gates and other stuff i'm sure, that i thought were good. but what concerns me is that there are so many more stories being told about war than there are stories about peace.
i'm also concerned that many of the war stories are told in a way that don't glamorise war as such, but glamorise aspects of it. i'm finding it difficult to word this the right way. it's not a bad thing thing to show stories of courage under fire, and of people committing noble acts in absolutely awful situations. but unless those stories also show the horror and suffering of war, the impact on civilians not just from loss of life but also loss of infrastructure, and the severe trauma on combat personnel, i'm afraid that those stories tend to make war sound a little bit like a good thing, a noble thing even.
tie this in with the increasingly jingoistic nature of anzac day, and it becomes a development that i'm a little uncomfortable with. i've often said that if we spent as much on peace as we do on war, then the world would be an infinitely better place. but it would also be helpful if we could have more stories about peace, and if we could celebrate those stories a lot more. i'm thinking about stories that show tense situations solved by negotiation and compromise. i'm pretty sure those can be pretty intense and interesting viewing - i'm thinking for example of those hostage-type dramas where a kick-ass negotiating team saves the day.
the thing is that unless we have a greater focus on peace and celebrate peace, we're less likely to achieve it. in order for that to happen, peace making needs to become a part of our popular culture. it needs to be a greater part of our public discourse. it should be part of a public holiday where we spend time sharing stories about and commemorating peace and peace-keeping initiatives.
fortunately, there are other people in the country who think like i do, and who have been actively doing something about it. the aotearoa nz peace & conflict studies centre trust (yes, quite a mouthful) have successful in setting up the national peace & conflict centre at otago university. their july 2010 newsletter isn't online yet, but you can read previous newsletters here. they're currently looking for "an experienced fundraiser to help us generate
more support from individuals, businesses, and charitable trusts". another initiative is:
... a workshop on Peace Education in New Zealand early childhood, primary and secondary schools on the 29th and 30th October in Dunedin. The aim is to bring together teachers, providers, and the Ministry of Education to discuss what has happened in the field of Peace Education in NZ, what is happening now, and what needs to happen.
all good stuff. i'd also love to see nz on air and the film commission providing specified funding for film and programme makers to develop peace-related material - documentary or fiction. and wouldn't it be nice if we actually had a ministry of peace with funding equal to that of the ministry of defence. ah well, dreams are free.
it's not that i don't like war stuff per se - i watched stuff like the manchurian candidate (denzel washington version), enemy at the gates and other stuff i'm sure, that i thought were good. but what concerns me is that there are so many more stories being told about war than there are stories about peace.
i'm also concerned that many of the war stories are told in a way that don't glamorise war as such, but glamorise aspects of it. i'm finding it difficult to word this the right way. it's not a bad thing thing to show stories of courage under fire, and of people committing noble acts in absolutely awful situations. but unless those stories also show the horror and suffering of war, the impact on civilians not just from loss of life but also loss of infrastructure, and the severe trauma on combat personnel, i'm afraid that those stories tend to make war sound a little bit like a good thing, a noble thing even.
tie this in with the increasingly jingoistic nature of anzac day, and it becomes a development that i'm a little uncomfortable with. i've often said that if we spent as much on peace as we do on war, then the world would be an infinitely better place. but it would also be helpful if we could have more stories about peace, and if we could celebrate those stories a lot more. i'm thinking about stories that show tense situations solved by negotiation and compromise. i'm pretty sure those can be pretty intense and interesting viewing - i'm thinking for example of those hostage-type dramas where a kick-ass negotiating team saves the day.
the thing is that unless we have a greater focus on peace and celebrate peace, we're less likely to achieve it. in order for that to happen, peace making needs to become a part of our popular culture. it needs to be a greater part of our public discourse. it should be part of a public holiday where we spend time sharing stories about and commemorating peace and peace-keeping initiatives.
fortunately, there are other people in the country who think like i do, and who have been actively doing something about it. the aotearoa nz peace & conflict studies centre trust (yes, quite a mouthful) have successful in setting up the national peace & conflict centre at otago university. their july 2010 newsletter isn't online yet, but you can read previous newsletters here. they're currently looking for "an experienced fundraiser to help us generate
more support from individuals, businesses, and charitable trusts". another initiative is:
... a workshop on Peace Education in New Zealand early childhood, primary and secondary schools on the 29th and 30th October in Dunedin. The aim is to bring together teachers, providers, and the Ministry of Education to discuss what has happened in the field of Peace Education in NZ, what is happening now, and what needs to happen.
all good stuff. i'd also love to see nz on air and the film commission providing specified funding for film and programme makers to develop peace-related material - documentary or fiction. and wouldn't it be nice if we actually had a ministry of peace with funding equal to that of the ministry of defence. ah well, dreams are free.
Monday, 19 July 2010
children's crusade
this song is one my favourite ever, although i had listened to it for years and had forgotten what it was called. but thanx youtube! i've put in a version below that just had the lyrics. there's another version on youtube here, which is quite powerful but extremely graphic in its depiction of violence so i didn't think it was appropriate to put up here. on the other hand, we are so often presented sanitised pictures of the reality of war, and what we find difficult to look at, well just imagine how that feels to the people who have to experience it. in any case, if you have the stomach for it, go look at the other version, because it also has some useful information amongst the images. and if you don't, maybe listen to the version below and take a moment to think about the most innocent casualties of wars around the world.
Thursday, 11 March 2010
about violence and non-violence
ok, this one's just a little controversial, but hey, what's a blog for if not to challenge it's readers...
below are excerpts from this article by radha d'souza. radha has a link with nz, in that she worked at the law school of the university of waikato for some years, her field of specialisation being human rights law. she was one of the four researchers who conducted the major project on protection orders (completed in 2008, i think), along with dr ruth busch.
i'm not going to add any commentary to radha's words, she's pretty eloquent after all. the context is her responding to a television interview she had seen about maoist violence in india, featuring dr binayak sen, a civil liberties campaigner:
Dr. Sen tried, heroically, to make the point that one third of the people of India suffer from chronic malnutrition, that over 50% of the Adivasis and 60% of Dalits are bordering on starvation (dear readers, put these numbers in perspective by bearing in mind that India is one-sixth of humanity), that over 50% of India (1/12th of world population) is undernourished, and that state policies that create and sustain the conditions for this mass starvation fall within the definition of “genocide” in international law....
At the heart of the controversy over Maoist violence is an issue that is foundational to modern societies... : the difference between institutional and individual violence. Only human beings can make ethical judgments because only human beings have a psyche capable of moral differentiation. For that reason in criminal trials, for example, intention is decisive. Institutions are not human beings, they are literally “mindless”. Institutions are complexes of laws that structure society and allocate people their places within it. When an institutional system is founded on violence, violence becomes the necessary condition for the continued existence of those institutions, in other words, the institution cannot survive without violence, it becomes like the proverbial vampire that will die if it cannot suck blood. This type of violence is fundamentally different from individual and group violence. However brutal, or obnoxious, or vicious it may be, individual violence is still human violence, it involves the mind, rightly or wrongly, and it invariably invites contestation over ethics in society. Institutions founded on violence, on the other hand, will collapse if violence is taken away. Individuals in charge of institutions must, therefore, continue to engage in violence if they are to save the institution from collapse....
Imagine by some miracle if a total pacifist were to occupy the White House. It is estimated that sixty percent of the American economy is directly or indirectly dependent on defense. Corporate America: the Lockheeds, the Boeings, the Northrops, will collapse like a pack of cards, taking with them the thousands they employ. Most technological innovations of the West that invest their institutions with so much power and capabilities are the result of militarism. Even banal things like food packaging, gyms and exercise regimes, dietetics, aging research, are driven by militarism. The internet and the communication technologies were military innovations. The incorporation of civilian and military uses of technologies through dual-use policies makes the intermeshing of militarism and economy virtually inseparable. The entire society is organized in a “warlike way” to use Marx’s phrase. In such a military-industrial-finance-media complex waging war becomes a necessity for survival of those institutions...
Our messiah of peace in the White House will have to reorganize life in America, bottoms-up, get people to plant potatoes and cabbages, run their own local communal power plants, dismantle the supermarkets and get them to preserve and cook their own food, and turn them into a community of people affiliated to land, instead of a community of interest groups affiliated to different types of market institutions. The messiah of peace will, without doubt, be branded a trouble maker, a revolutionary, a terrorist, even a Maoist perhaps, who knows. He will without doubt be liquidated before long. Only the people of America can undertake such a task, and that too only when they feel so committed to building a non-violent society that they are prepared for the sacrifices, and violence and bloodshed the task will necessarily invite.
The Indian armed forces are the fourth largest in the world. Unlike the United State, the Indian military has been used primarily against the Indian people: against Kashmiris, Nagas, Assamese, North-eastern peoples, Muslims, Dalits, Adivasis, or… Maoists. This is a fundamental difference between capitalist nations like the US, and India. The Indian state must colonise its own people to remain affiliated to the military-industrial-finance-media complex that rules....
The Maoists are desperate to get the message across to a nation besotted with the vampire, and they do it using desperate means. Are we going to shoot the messenger because we do not like the message, or, ostrich-like, bury our heads in the sand because we do not want to know about the message?
The message will not go away because we do not like how the message is delivered. If anything it will feed the vampire institutions with more blood.... The message and the desperate messengers are part of the same problem, the problem of the political economy of violence. Paradoxically, the institutions founded on violence, the military-industrial-finance-media complexes, are the ones that preach the ideology of non-violence in unequivocal terms; and those who advocate peace with justice end up advocating violence. How are we to understand this paradox? We cannot say it is because the institutions are hypocrites because, if institutions are mindless, they cannot be hypocrites.
i really recommend reading the whole article. certainly a lot of food for thought.
below are excerpts from this article by radha d'souza. radha has a link with nz, in that she worked at the law school of the university of waikato for some years, her field of specialisation being human rights law. she was one of the four researchers who conducted the major project on protection orders (completed in 2008, i think), along with dr ruth busch.
i'm not going to add any commentary to radha's words, she's pretty eloquent after all. the context is her responding to a television interview she had seen about maoist violence in india, featuring dr binayak sen, a civil liberties campaigner:
Dr. Sen tried, heroically, to make the point that one third of the people of India suffer from chronic malnutrition, that over 50% of the Adivasis and 60% of Dalits are bordering on starvation (dear readers, put these numbers in perspective by bearing in mind that India is one-sixth of humanity), that over 50% of India (1/12th of world population) is undernourished, and that state policies that create and sustain the conditions for this mass starvation fall within the definition of “genocide” in international law....
At the heart of the controversy over Maoist violence is an issue that is foundational to modern societies... : the difference between institutional and individual violence. Only human beings can make ethical judgments because only human beings have a psyche capable of moral differentiation. For that reason in criminal trials, for example, intention is decisive. Institutions are not human beings, they are literally “mindless”. Institutions are complexes of laws that structure society and allocate people their places within it. When an institutional system is founded on violence, violence becomes the necessary condition for the continued existence of those institutions, in other words, the institution cannot survive without violence, it becomes like the proverbial vampire that will die if it cannot suck blood. This type of violence is fundamentally different from individual and group violence. However brutal, or obnoxious, or vicious it may be, individual violence is still human violence, it involves the mind, rightly or wrongly, and it invariably invites contestation over ethics in society. Institutions founded on violence, on the other hand, will collapse if violence is taken away. Individuals in charge of institutions must, therefore, continue to engage in violence if they are to save the institution from collapse....
Imagine by some miracle if a total pacifist were to occupy the White House. It is estimated that sixty percent of the American economy is directly or indirectly dependent on defense. Corporate America: the Lockheeds, the Boeings, the Northrops, will collapse like a pack of cards, taking with them the thousands they employ. Most technological innovations of the West that invest their institutions with so much power and capabilities are the result of militarism. Even banal things like food packaging, gyms and exercise regimes, dietetics, aging research, are driven by militarism. The internet and the communication technologies were military innovations. The incorporation of civilian and military uses of technologies through dual-use policies makes the intermeshing of militarism and economy virtually inseparable. The entire society is organized in a “warlike way” to use Marx’s phrase. In such a military-industrial-finance-media complex waging war becomes a necessity for survival of those institutions...
Our messiah of peace in the White House will have to reorganize life in America, bottoms-up, get people to plant potatoes and cabbages, run their own local communal power plants, dismantle the supermarkets and get them to preserve and cook their own food, and turn them into a community of people affiliated to land, instead of a community of interest groups affiliated to different types of market institutions. The messiah of peace will, without doubt, be branded a trouble maker, a revolutionary, a terrorist, even a Maoist perhaps, who knows. He will without doubt be liquidated before long. Only the people of America can undertake such a task, and that too only when they feel so committed to building a non-violent society that they are prepared for the sacrifices, and violence and bloodshed the task will necessarily invite.
The Indian armed forces are the fourth largest in the world. Unlike the United State, the Indian military has been used primarily against the Indian people: against Kashmiris, Nagas, Assamese, North-eastern peoples, Muslims, Dalits, Adivasis, or… Maoists. This is a fundamental difference between capitalist nations like the US, and India. The Indian state must colonise its own people to remain affiliated to the military-industrial-finance-media complex that rules....
The Maoists are desperate to get the message across to a nation besotted with the vampire, and they do it using desperate means. Are we going to shoot the messenger because we do not like the message, or, ostrich-like, bury our heads in the sand because we do not want to know about the message?
The message will not go away because we do not like how the message is delivered. If anything it will feed the vampire institutions with more blood.... The message and the desperate messengers are part of the same problem, the problem of the political economy of violence. Paradoxically, the institutions founded on violence, the military-industrial-finance-media complexes, are the ones that preach the ideology of non-violence in unequivocal terms; and those who advocate peace with justice end up advocating violence. How are we to understand this paradox? We cannot say it is because the institutions are hypocrites because, if institutions are mindless, they cannot be hypocrites.
i really recommend reading the whole article. certainly a lot of food for thought.
Friday, 19 June 2009
A right to kill?
A while ago, this article caught my attention. It's about the British Ministry of Defence reviewing its ban on military women in close combat roles, in which soldiers are required to kill the enemy face to face.
There is opposition to the possibility of women combatants from within the military. One officer is quoted as follows:
"The reason [for the ban] is not because women are not capable. It comes to the dynamics of units of 18-year-old soldiers ... they would be fighting for attention." He added: "It is all about unit cohesion, not the capability of the soldier."
So women shouldn't be allowed to participate because men can't control their behaviour? Where have I heard that argument before? And these same men who can't control themselves around female fellow soldiers are expected to abide by the conventions of war, including appropriate treatments of civilians? Hmmmm.
That aside, I'm interested in how feminists should respond to this possibility of 'equal opportunity'. I for one, don't want to kill people up close and personal. I don't want to kill them from a distance. In fact, I don't really want to kill people at all. Most women are socialised to have an aversion to violence - but I've no doubt that some of us can and do kill people proficiently, and fancy making a career of it.
I'm trying to separate my own distaste for violence, and my cynicism about the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, from the issue of what women should and shouldn't be able to do. I'm not a fan of the military as an institution - but so long as we have it, should feminists fight for women to be able to participate in all aspects of it on the same grounds as men? Or is this just fools' gold, masquerading as women's liberation?
There is opposition to the possibility of women combatants from within the military. One officer is quoted as follows:
"The reason [for the ban] is not because women are not capable. It comes to the dynamics of units of 18-year-old soldiers ... they would be fighting for attention." He added: "It is all about unit cohesion, not the capability of the soldier."
So women shouldn't be allowed to participate because men can't control their behaviour? Where have I heard that argument before? And these same men who can't control themselves around female fellow soldiers are expected to abide by the conventions of war, including appropriate treatments of civilians? Hmmmm.
That aside, I'm interested in how feminists should respond to this possibility of 'equal opportunity'. I for one, don't want to kill people up close and personal. I don't want to kill them from a distance. In fact, I don't really want to kill people at all. Most women are socialised to have an aversion to violence - but I've no doubt that some of us can and do kill people proficiently, and fancy making a career of it.
I'm trying to separate my own distaste for violence, and my cynicism about the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, from the issue of what women should and shouldn't be able to do. I'm not a fan of the military as an institution - but so long as we have it, should feminists fight for women to be able to participate in all aspects of it on the same grounds as men? Or is this just fools' gold, masquerading as women's liberation?
Wednesday, 17 June 2009
Guest Post - The Silenced
This guest post has been written by Auckland Tamil woman Anna Ponnampalam. Thanks Anna for sharing the recent history of Tamil female combatants and the women of Tamil Eelam.
On the May 18th 2009, the government of Sri Lanka (GoSL) declared victory over the alleged ‘terrorists’, the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE). Majority of the Sinhalese in Colombo, the capitol of Sri Lanka and elsewhere broke into festivity instantaneously. The sound of fireworks filled the city. People paraded the streets, shouting, dancing to the sound of ‘raban’ drum beats and waving Sri Lankan flags. There were at least three days declared as public holidays for the celebration. The Sinhalese went into many Tamil shops and houses and demanded money for fireworks, rice to make ‘kribath’ (a rice dish usually made during celebrations).
Behind this lies the silence of the Tamils as many of them throughout Sri Lanka were forced to fly the Sri Lankan flags outside their homes and celebrate the cold-blooded murders of their loved ones.
The GoSL unilaterally broke off the ceasefire agreement in 2007 and the fourth wave of Eelam war had begun. The war intensified to an unprecedented level since late last year as the GoSL was determined to destroy every single LTTE member at any cost. The Sri Lankan armed forces started bombing and shelling indiscriminately. They did not care about civilian casualties as they deliberately targeted public places such as schools, hospitals and temples. Thousands of men, women, children and elderly were killed ruthlessly by the Sir Lankan army. The GoSL army even attacked the Tamil civilians who themselves had herded into an area that the GoSL claimed was a “safe zone” with full force of its military and heavy weaponry. The number of civilian casualties rose from 50 to 60 per day in January 2009 to more than 1,000 a day in late March and April 2009. The most conservative number stands at 20,000 casualties since January 2009.
Rest of the ‘fortunate’ 300,000 civilians who fled the conflict zone are now being ‘processed’ in military controlled ‘welfare camps’ which resemble more of concentration camps. Apparently they are being checked to make sure that there are no LTTE members hiding within any group of people. There are barb wired camps with people kept more or less as prisoners. The UN has asked for access into these camps many times and been denied. Children are separated from their parents; families are split and put into different camps. No independent media is allowed near the camps. The first independent report was aired on UK, Channel 4 in late April. The visas of the reporters were revoked and they were deported from Sri Lanka immediately: Channel 4 Link
There have been numerous reports of human rights abuses in these detainment camps. As with many wars the sufferings of women in such conflicts is much greater. The Tamil women have gone and are going thorough unthinkable mental and physical torment by the Sri Lankan and Indian armed forces during each conflict. Throughout history, women's bodies have been considered the justifiable booty of victorious armies. In conflict situations, whether they are inter-state wars, civil wars, or conflicts born out of deeply divided societies, women are specifically targeted in large numbers for acts of sexual and gender-based violence. They are tortured, raped and stripped of their personal sense of dignity.
There are many reports now of kidnaps, rapes and murders of girls in the camps committed by the Sri Lankan army. There are even reports of forced abortions of pregnant women. The Channel 4 footage shows an anonymous whistle blower talking about women’s decomposing bodies being left for days in some of the tents in the camps. Recent sky news footage reveals the shocking negligence of a Sri Lankan government official, carelessly blaming the NGO officials for the offences: Sky news Link
The armed forces have a history of horrific sexual violations against Tamil women. While several incidents of sexual violence against Tamil women have gone unreported for obvious reasons, the details of many reported ones too have not been revealed. Recently there was a video of armed forces removing the clothes from killed or captured LTTE female soldiers and sexually assaulting them. In many cases, the victims were killed after being sexually violated. The most gruesome was that of Koneswari where a grenade was exploded inside her vagina after being raped and killed, to remove all traces of the sexual offence. There is clear evidence that sexual violence in many different ways had been practised by the Sri Lanka armed forces. The continuing pattern of sexual violence against Tamil women persists because of the climate of virtual impunity that prevails. In the thirty year war, not one army personnel have been held accountable for any war crimes. The picture shown above is one of many photos shot by Sri Lankan Army soldiers by Mobile Cameras in the last few months and released in a local Sri Lankan website as part of Sri Lankan Army Victory Campaign. There were many women in the past who have survived and many brothers of women who were violated who have joined the LTTE later as that’s the only way they thought that they can get justice*.
Unheard voices, the blog of Regina David, a former worker at women’s centres in northern Sir Lanka for 23 years, portrays firsthand accounts of many horror stories: Link 1 Link 2
As Irene Khan of Amnesty International once said,
"Patterns of violence against women in conflict do not arise "naturally" and are not collateral damage of war. They are ordered, condoned, or tolerated by those in power. They persist because those who commit them know they can get away unpunished."The UN has been aware of this.
“The Sri Lankan security forces have continued to commit serious human rights abuses, sexual violence, in the context of the 17 year armed conflict against the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam. Sri Lankan Police have also repeatedly committed rape and other sexual abuse in the course of the fighting”.Even then the UN did nothing and nobody has been prosecuted. Even in recent times the UN failed to act in a responsible and humane manner.
- Report by UN Special Rapporteur on Violence Against Women- 22 Dec 2000
There were two resolutions submitted to the UN Human Rights Council on the 27th of May 2009: One proposed by Europe led by Switzerland demanding a probe on human rights violations by Sri Lankan government and the other proposed by Asia led by Sri Lanka and India proposing the war displaced should be given prominence.
Twenty-nine countries voted in support of the resolution mooted by Sri Lanka while 12 voted against it and six declined to vote. The resolution was adopted with a majority of 12 votes. While only seven of the 47 seats are held by members of the Western countries, the majority, 26 seats are allocated for Asian and African countries, many of which restrict political freedoms and civil liberties.
Human rights Watch: ‘Sri Lanka: UN Rights Council Fails Victims’
“To many Western critics, the Council has failed one of its first and most important tests. For it was set up only three years ago, after a UN resolution, to replace the much criticised UN Commission for Human Rights. This body was widely regarded as toothless and ineffectual. It was always subject to the majority votes of members who had no interest in any outside investigation into their human rights records.”United Nations Human Rights Council has now lost its credibility. This body has completely lost the purpose for which it supposedly exists.
- Times on line – May 28 2009
The Tamil Diaspora tried their best to bring these atrocities to the world’s attention with petitions, protests and hunger strikes. But it was as though we were protesting in a vacuum. It was as though nobody cared. The world chose to remain silent when 20, 000 innocent civilians were gruesomely killed in the name ‘war on terror’. Even when many of the world leaders realised the human carnage that was going on, they only chose to issue statements of warnings for GoSL without any apparent consequences if they failed to act on it. Even now, the world leaders mainly talk about reconciliation. How can there be reconciliation when the government has perpetrated genocide towards its own people? How can there be reconciliation when the root of the problem has not been addressed? The president, Mr Mahinda Rajapakse ordered the indiscriminate bombing and shelling of its own Tamil citizens and then he boasts to the world that he has liberated the Tamil people and that it was a humanitarian mission. How could it be humanly possible to reconcile with a government that arrogantly had shown no remorse for the killings of thousands of civilians and thousands more who are still going through torture?
“This polarizing conflict is identity-related with ethnicity and religion as deeply divisive factors. It will not end with winners and losers and it cannot be ended solely through a military victory that may not be sustainable in the long-run unless legitimate grievances are addressed.”History of the struggle in a bullet point
- Francis Deng, UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon's Special Adviser on the prevention of genocide - 15 May 2009
Since independence in 1948, the successive Sinhala dominated governments took steps in a systematic manner to undermine Tamil’s rights as citizens of Sri Lanka. There was discrimination in education and job opportunities in addition to state sponsored colonization with intent to marginalize the Tamils and our political rights. The Tamils’ peaceful protests were met by acts of state terrorism and state sponsored series of racial riots against Tamils. This inevitably led to the beginning of an armed struggle for self determination. Hence the LTTE are the result of the problem, not the cause of it. Unless the causes for the problems are addressed and a political solution reached, the conflict will never be over.
*It also has to be noted that the Tamil female LTTE soldiers have to be given special places in history books as they have gained the courage to stand up against a brutal enemy who would stop at no cost to destroy their ethnic group, despite being born and brought up in a very male dominated, patriarchal society. The LTTE also have to be credited to have liberated Tamil women in so many ways outside the warzone. They have promoted gender equality and implemented many laws towards achieving equality in all level of the society including anti-dowry laws while they were running a de facto government in the Vanni Land.
Anna Ponnampalam
anna.ponna@gmail.com
Sunday, 17 May 2009
Newsflash: wars don't bring out the nice in people
Last week, Stuff featured a very poignant article about one Sgt John M Russell, a soldier with the US army. Russell was only a matter of weeks from finishing his third tour in Iraq when he took a weapon and shot dead five of his fellow soldiers. He wasn't a 'mean' person, Russell's family have said - he simply cracked under stress.
The article describes the US forces in Iraq as troubled by violence between soldiers, and suicides. Mental health services are offered to soldiers, but the imperative in military culture to be strong, mentally and physically, deters them from seeking help.
Something I don't understand about warfare is that it requires soldiers to suspend any moral qualms they might have, and kill other people - military, sometimes civilian - because the leaders of their nation-state have decided it's a good idea. Very occasionally, wars are fought over important principles. Men and women serving in Iraq can't take comfort from knowing they're on the side of right: they're fighting an unwinnable war without popular support, which has shattered Iraqi society and polarised their own.
Violence damages the people who inflict it, just as it damages those who suffer it. There's no psychologically healthy way to take the lives of others - it seems to me that violence and suicides among soldiers aren't things that can be patched up with a visit to the doctor, but an inevitable consequence of the brutality of warfare. What mental health treatment can, or should, equip people for the business of killing?
'In the Valley of Elah' is a difficult-to-watch but worthwhile film which explores the effects of violence on the psychological wellbeing of US soldiers.
The article describes the US forces in Iraq as troubled by violence between soldiers, and suicides. Mental health services are offered to soldiers, but the imperative in military culture to be strong, mentally and physically, deters them from seeking help.
Something I don't understand about warfare is that it requires soldiers to suspend any moral qualms they might have, and kill other people - military, sometimes civilian - because the leaders of their nation-state have decided it's a good idea. Very occasionally, wars are fought over important principles. Men and women serving in Iraq can't take comfort from knowing they're on the side of right: they're fighting an unwinnable war without popular support, which has shattered Iraqi society and polarised their own.
Violence damages the people who inflict it, just as it damages those who suffer it. There's no psychologically healthy way to take the lives of others - it seems to me that violence and suicides among soldiers aren't things that can be patched up with a visit to the doctor, but an inevitable consequence of the brutality of warfare. What mental health treatment can, or should, equip people for the business of killing?
'In the Valley of Elah' is a difficult-to-watch but worthwhile film which explores the effects of violence on the psychological wellbeing of US soldiers.
Saturday, 25 April 2009
ANZAC Day roundup
As part of our brief to promote the blogging of NZ women, here's a round-up of posts on the main theme of April 25th each year, the commemoration of wars gone by:
ANZAC Day irritations by Deborah - on the forgetting of other letters by the As and the NZs
Lest we forget by Anna - rejecting nationalist and romantic reinventions of war
Shipping off by the ex-expat - soldiers are still being shipped off to war today
ANZAC Day by Cactus Kate - considers what today is like for politicians
Anzac Day across the Commons by Brenda Wallace - links to a resource looking at the uploads today
ANZAC Day disconnection by Lucyna Maria - remembers her family's military connections
ANZAC Day by dzeni - sharing her ANZAC image
For all the uncles and cousins we never got to meet by bustedblonde - sharing a poem and her thoughts
Anzac cookies by tammy - yum!
Homepaddock has written quite a few posts about today, and there may be more to come?
Her story
Sidi Reszegh
His story
They also served
Boots Belts Rifle and Pack
Feel free to add others that fit the brief in comments. If I get a chance I'll add anymore that I find to the list tomorrow.
I was going to write a post myself reflecting on what I heard at the ANZAC service I took Wriggly, but I think I'll wait until tomorrow. Mostly because of Anna's fantastic post, but also a little bit because I slept while Wriggly did and now I haz no time!
Oh and here's a link to last year's roundup for ANZAC day too.
Further additions, Sunday 26th April:
Anzac Day - Finding out who you are by Barbara Else - on a relevant documentary you may have missed
Heather Roy's Diary this week featured her reflections on the meaning of the day.
A rare treat by bustedblonde - regarding an aviational commemoration of Anzac Day.
anzac day by sas - a poignant pic and quote
Lest we forget the conchies by The Paradoxical Cat - focuses on conscientious objectors
Anzac Day by Dawn Rotarangi - remembering
And here's a couple of manly contributions well worth perusing: Joe Hendren's The 25th of April is still a day for selective rememberance and Dolan's War stories (which may be of particular interest to Giovanni).
ANZAC Day irritations by Deborah - on the forgetting of other letters by the As and the NZs
Lest we forget by Anna - rejecting nationalist and romantic reinventions of war
Shipping off by the ex-expat - soldiers are still being shipped off to war today
ANZAC Day by Cactus Kate - considers what today is like for politicians
Anzac Day across the Commons by Brenda Wallace - links to a resource looking at the uploads today
ANZAC Day disconnection by Lucyna Maria - remembers her family's military connections
ANZAC Day by dzeni - sharing her ANZAC image
For all the uncles and cousins we never got to meet by bustedblonde - sharing a poem and her thoughts
Anzac cookies by tammy - yum!
Homepaddock has written quite a few posts about today, and there may be more to come?
Her story
Sidi Reszegh
His story
They also served
Boots Belts Rifle and Pack
Feel free to add others that fit the brief in comments. If I get a chance I'll add anymore that I find to the list tomorrow.
I was going to write a post myself reflecting on what I heard at the ANZAC service I took Wriggly, but I think I'll wait until tomorrow. Mostly because of Anna's fantastic post, but also a little bit because I slept while Wriggly did and now I haz no time!
Oh and here's a link to last year's roundup for ANZAC day too.
Further additions, Sunday 26th April:
Anzac Day - Finding out who you are by Barbara Else - on a relevant documentary you may have missed
Heather Roy's Diary this week featured her reflections on the meaning of the day.
A rare treat by bustedblonde - regarding an aviational commemoration of Anzac Day.
anzac day by sas - a poignant pic and quote
Lest we forget the conchies by The Paradoxical Cat - focuses on conscientious objectors
Anzac Day by Dawn Rotarangi - remembering
And here's a couple of manly contributions well worth perusing: Joe Hendren's The 25th of April is still a day for selective rememberance and Dolan's War stories (which may be of particular interest to Giovanni).
Lest we forget
Some thirty years ago, my dad got chatting to a very old man. In the course of the conversation, the old man remarked that he'd been his mother's favourite son. He then added, 'But the other four were killed in the war'. Four bleak telegrams, each telling a mother that the child she'd raised and loved was gone.
I'm one of those who sporadically attend the Dawn Parade. I do it because I want my children to understand what happens when the world goes crazy, casting aside morality and sense in favour of mindless nationalism and militarism. That's the one and only lesson I'm able to draw from World War One.
I was horrified one year, when the Dawn Parade speaker took the opportunity to talk about how New Zealand must be ever-vigilant, poised to enter international military conflict. I had the same feeling again a couple of years ago, when a group of women were derided for commemorating the sexual and other violence against women during wartime. The feeling returned last year, when Australian veterans refused to allow the children and grandchildren of deceased veterans to march with them, wearing the medals of their fathers and grandfathers. (Following an outcry, the Aussie vets backed down, allowing the descendants to join the parade.)
These three examples have a common theme. Each understands war as a story of heroism, with room in the cast for only one group of actors: the men who served. And I understand why they feel this way. By acknowledging the cruelty and injustice which is an inevitable part of any war, for civilians and military alike, they feel that the enterprise in which they suffered and lost friends is lessened or even mocked. So, too, is their service.
I don't believe that admitting the horrific nature of war, and its impact on civilians, diminishes the individual men who've gone to war. I may not believe in the principles for which these men served, but I acknowledge that it takes courage to go to the other side of the world and face harsh and brutal conditions, knowing that it might be a long time before you see the people you love once more. To take the stance that war is undesirable is not an attack on those who served.
I have a fear that some people are attracted to ANZAC day celebrations by a combination of romanticism and nationalism. Discussions of Gallipoli often end up with the trite observation that WWI camaraderie between kiwis and Aussies exists to this very day, in the form of good-natured rugby rivalry. Forgotten amongst the glib media-packaged nostalgia is the cynicism of war: the facts that dispensable Antipodean men were sent into the Gallipoli campaign in the service of an indifferent empire; and that Turkish casualties, military and civilian, far outweighed those of the ANZACs.
War is not a simple tale of noble men serving high principles. It's a far more complex story of wealth and territory; kids who grow up without dads; women who raise families alone, unsure whether their partners will return; conscientious objectors; torture; deprivation and cruelty against civilians; a number of men who return home, physically and psychologically broken, to families that don't know them; and some men who don't make it home at all.
The theme of ANZAC day is 'Lest we forget'. If we treat war as some romantic, nationalistic boys' own adventure, then we've already forgotten.
I'm one of those who sporadically attend the Dawn Parade. I do it because I want my children to understand what happens when the world goes crazy, casting aside morality and sense in favour of mindless nationalism and militarism. That's the one and only lesson I'm able to draw from World War One.
I was horrified one year, when the Dawn Parade speaker took the opportunity to talk about how New Zealand must be ever-vigilant, poised to enter international military conflict. I had the same feeling again a couple of years ago, when a group of women were derided for commemorating the sexual and other violence against women during wartime. The feeling returned last year, when Australian veterans refused to allow the children and grandchildren of deceased veterans to march with them, wearing the medals of their fathers and grandfathers. (Following an outcry, the Aussie vets backed down, allowing the descendants to join the parade.)
These three examples have a common theme. Each understands war as a story of heroism, with room in the cast for only one group of actors: the men who served. And I understand why they feel this way. By acknowledging the cruelty and injustice which is an inevitable part of any war, for civilians and military alike, they feel that the enterprise in which they suffered and lost friends is lessened or even mocked. So, too, is their service.
I don't believe that admitting the horrific nature of war, and its impact on civilians, diminishes the individual men who've gone to war. I may not believe in the principles for which these men served, but I acknowledge that it takes courage to go to the other side of the world and face harsh and brutal conditions, knowing that it might be a long time before you see the people you love once more. To take the stance that war is undesirable is not an attack on those who served.
I have a fear that some people are attracted to ANZAC day celebrations by a combination of romanticism and nationalism. Discussions of Gallipoli often end up with the trite observation that WWI camaraderie between kiwis and Aussies exists to this very day, in the form of good-natured rugby rivalry. Forgotten amongst the glib media-packaged nostalgia is the cynicism of war: the facts that dispensable Antipodean men were sent into the Gallipoli campaign in the service of an indifferent empire; and that Turkish casualties, military and civilian, far outweighed those of the ANZACs.
War is not a simple tale of noble men serving high principles. It's a far more complex story of wealth and territory; kids who grow up without dads; women who raise families alone, unsure whether their partners will return; conscientious objectors; torture; deprivation and cruelty against civilians; a number of men who return home, physically and psychologically broken, to families that don't know them; and some men who don't make it home at all.
The theme of ANZAC day is 'Lest we forget'. If we treat war as some romantic, nationalistic boys' own adventure, then we've already forgotten.
Tuesday, 7 April 2009
Guest Post: Stephanie Mills on nuclear testing compensation
We approached Stephanie Mills to write a guest piece on the issue she actually went on Breakfast to talk about in the first place and she's written this great post in response to our request. Thanks so much to Stephanie for continuing to promote an issue of such importance despite attempts to derail media attention for it.
I thought of Marie-Therese Danielsson when France announced a couple of weeks ago that it would be "true to its conscience" and move to compensate victims of French nuclear testing.
Marie-Therese was one of the first people I met in Tahiti. She and her husband, anthropologist and Kontiki crew member Bengt Danielsson, wrote "Moruroa Mon Amour" to expose the effects of nuclear testing at Moruroa and Fangataufa - decades before any attack of conscience had gripped officialdom in Paris! Convinced that their only daughter's early death was a result of exposure to the tests, Marie-Therese and Bengt battled ridicule, death threats, spying from all manner of French and Tahitian intelligence services as well as daily hostility to get to the truth about what was really happening. Awarded the "Right Livelihood Award" in 1991 for "exposing the tragic results of and advocating an end to French nuclear colonialism" Marie-Therese and Bengt lived long enough to see the end of nuclear testing at Moruroa, if not this compensation announcement.
I think Marie-Therese would have welcomed the long overdue admission of responsibility from the French state. But as a voice of conscience, I think she would have pointed out that justice has still to be done for many of the victims. For example, the association of former Moruroa workers, Moruroa e Tatou says women in Te Ao Maohi (Tahiti-Polynesia) have the highest rate of thyroid cancer in the world. During the atmospheric testing programme, women gave birth to "jellyfish babies" - babies without limbs who died within hours. The state of the coral atolls, subjected to more than 190 nuclear tests, has still not been examined by any open and independent study. And there are a number of reasons to be somewhat skeptical about how generous France's conmpensation package really is.
Firstly, one of the reasons French Defence Minister Herve Morin announced the compensation package is because the French government is under siege from a number of court cases taken by military veterans and former test site workers. Later this month (27 April), a tribunal in Papeete is due to hear the case of eight former Polynesian workers, three of whom are still alive and suffering from cancers of the blood. The other five have already died, mainly from leukemia, and will be represented at the trial by their widows. The case is being supported by Tahiti's President Oscar Temaru, long-time anti-nuclear and pro-independence leader, who himself worked at Moruroa and connects his exposure to illnesses in his own family. (More details of the case)
Secondly, the 10 million euro package is open to claims from about 150,000 civil and military workers - so it isn't going to make anyone's fortune. And the compensation package announced in March was put up to replace more comprehensive laws sponsored by a lobby group Verite et Justice (Truth and Justice), with support from members of all political parties in the French National Assembly.
The narrower bill puts the burden of proof on to the workers and military personnel to prove their illnesses were caused by exposure to radiation. In many cases, workers either were never issued with dosimeters to measure radiation exposure, or the dosimeters have not been kept. Without a dosimeter and therefore proof of exposure to radiation, no compensation is likely to be awarded.
Moreover, the threshold for exposure levels has been set at 50 millisieverts a year - although the French Ministry of Defence claims that only three people were exposed to doses betwen 50mSv and 200 mSv during the testing programme! In fact, 50mSv is much higher than current standards used internationally for nuclear safety. For example, International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) recommended maximum permissible annual dosage for the public is just 1 mSv per year. While there are uncertainties measuring the health impacts of low radiation doses (10 millisieverts or less), the most recent reports on radiation safety conclude that every exposure to radiation produces a corresponding increase in cancer risk.
The compensation package also fails to include any impact on the communities of neighbouring islands which bore the brunt of decades of radioactive fallout. Australian journalist Nic Maclellan outlines the issues in more detail.
Ending testing in 1996 was one step forward, and acknowledging its responsibility for the illnesses, death and hardship the testing programme caused is certainly another. But these are only steps in the journey. Earlier this year, French Prime Minister committed to reduce the number of French nuclear missiles to less than 300.
It's time for France to keep its promise to act on its conscience and decommission all of its nuclear warheads. The victims of French nuclear testing would ask for no less.
(For a comprehensive look at France's nuclear programme, see http://www.francenuc.org/toc_e.htm )
Stephanie Mills, former co-ordinator of Greenpeace International's nuclear test ban campaign
I thought of Marie-Therese Danielsson when France announced a couple of weeks ago that it would be "true to its conscience" and move to compensate victims of French nuclear testing.
Marie-Therese was one of the first people I met in Tahiti. She and her husband, anthropologist and Kontiki crew member Bengt Danielsson, wrote "Moruroa Mon Amour" to expose the effects of nuclear testing at Moruroa and Fangataufa - decades before any attack of conscience had gripped officialdom in Paris! Convinced that their only daughter's early death was a result of exposure to the tests, Marie-Therese and Bengt battled ridicule, death threats, spying from all manner of French and Tahitian intelligence services as well as daily hostility to get to the truth about what was really happening. Awarded the "Right Livelihood Award" in 1991 for "exposing the tragic results of and advocating an end to French nuclear colonialism" Marie-Therese and Bengt lived long enough to see the end of nuclear testing at Moruroa, if not this compensation announcement.
I think Marie-Therese would have welcomed the long overdue admission of responsibility from the French state. But as a voice of conscience, I think she would have pointed out that justice has still to be done for many of the victims. For example, the association of former Moruroa workers, Moruroa e Tatou says women in Te Ao Maohi (Tahiti-Polynesia) have the highest rate of thyroid cancer in the world. During the atmospheric testing programme, women gave birth to "jellyfish babies" - babies without limbs who died within hours. The state of the coral atolls, subjected to more than 190 nuclear tests, has still not been examined by any open and independent study. And there are a number of reasons to be somewhat skeptical about how generous France's conmpensation package really is.
Firstly, one of the reasons French Defence Minister Herve Morin announced the compensation package is because the French government is under siege from a number of court cases taken by military veterans and former test site workers. Later this month (27 April), a tribunal in Papeete is due to hear the case of eight former Polynesian workers, three of whom are still alive and suffering from cancers of the blood. The other five have already died, mainly from leukemia, and will be represented at the trial by their widows. The case is being supported by Tahiti's President Oscar Temaru, long-time anti-nuclear and pro-independence leader, who himself worked at Moruroa and connects his exposure to illnesses in his own family. (More details of the case)
Secondly, the 10 million euro package is open to claims from about 150,000 civil and military workers - so it isn't going to make anyone's fortune. And the compensation package announced in March was put up to replace more comprehensive laws sponsored by a lobby group Verite et Justice (Truth and Justice), with support from members of all political parties in the French National Assembly.
The narrower bill puts the burden of proof on to the workers and military personnel to prove their illnesses were caused by exposure to radiation. In many cases, workers either were never issued with dosimeters to measure radiation exposure, or the dosimeters have not been kept. Without a dosimeter and therefore proof of exposure to radiation, no compensation is likely to be awarded.
Moreover, the threshold for exposure levels has been set at 50 millisieverts a year - although the French Ministry of Defence claims that only three people were exposed to doses betwen 50mSv and 200 mSv during the testing programme! In fact, 50mSv is much higher than current standards used internationally for nuclear safety. For example, International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) recommended maximum permissible annual dosage for the public is just 1 mSv per year. While there are uncertainties measuring the health impacts of low radiation doses (10 millisieverts or less), the most recent reports on radiation safety conclude that every exposure to radiation produces a corresponding increase in cancer risk.
The compensation package also fails to include any impact on the communities of neighbouring islands which bore the brunt of decades of radioactive fallout. Australian journalist Nic Maclellan outlines the issues in more detail.
Ending testing in 1996 was one step forward, and acknowledging its responsibility for the illnesses, death and hardship the testing programme caused is certainly another. But these are only steps in the journey. Earlier this year, French Prime Minister committed to reduce the number of French nuclear missiles to less than 300.
It's time for France to keep its promise to act on its conscience and decommission all of its nuclear warheads. The victims of French nuclear testing would ask for no less.
(For a comprehensive look at France's nuclear programme, see http://www.francenuc.org/toc_e.htm )
Stephanie Mills, former co-ordinator of Greenpeace International's nuclear test ban campaign
Monday, 6 April 2009
Afghan President reviews marital rape law
Following an international outcry, Afghanistans' President Hamid Karzai has agreed to revise a law allowing marital rape, and requiring women to seek the permission of their husbands before venturing out of their homes.
British PM Gordon Brown apparently lead the international condemnation of the law, saying "I phoned the president immediately about this because anybody who looks at Afghanistan will be worried if we are going to see laws brought in that discriminate against women and put women at risk."
It's a pleasant surprise to see Brown state unequivocally that women's welfare is an issue of human rights. He also stated it was unacceptable that British soldiers might die in defence of an oppressive regime, reminiscent of the Taliban. Fair enough - but lets hope the international community's commitment to women will be consistent and far reaching, beyond what is merely politically expedient.
British PM Gordon Brown apparently lead the international condemnation of the law, saying "I phoned the president immediately about this because anybody who looks at Afghanistan will be worried if we are going to see laws brought in that discriminate against women and put women at risk."
It's a pleasant surprise to see Brown state unequivocally that women's welfare is an issue of human rights. He also stated it was unacceptable that British soldiers might die in defence of an oppressive regime, reminiscent of the Taliban. Fair enough - but lets hope the international community's commitment to women will be consistent and far reaching, beyond what is merely politically expedient.
Friday, 16 January 2009
Fair game?
We kiwi opponents of Israel's current aggression find ourselves in a tricky position. What, ethically and constructively, can we actually do from the other side of the world?
An Invercargill cafe owner caused a stir this week by evicting two Israeli women, and the two children with them, from his premises. I can't agree with what he did, but it's difficult not to sympathise with the guy's frustration. For decades, Palestinians have been appealing to Israel and the world for justice. Palestinian acts of violence are condemned; but often, nothing short of violence seems to draw the world's attention to Palestine's suffering.
And that's the sad irony. The same cafe owner might have distributed political pamphlets about Palestine, joined Amnesty International or written thoughtful letters to the editor. No one would have given a shit. You evict women and children from your cafe, people notice. The cafe owner is unrepentant, pointing out that Israel isn't showing much concern for women and children on the Gaza strip*.
Protesters around New Zealand are trying to do what the government will not: apply sanctions against Israel. As a feminist and person on the left, I can't agree with the Invercargill cafe owner's actions - but not because he targeted individuals. So long as sanctions or protest actions are ethical, I don't much care who is the target, man, woman or child.
Sanctions and protests must ultimately target Israel, not Israelis. Of course, it's individual Israelis who will cop the controversy - such as the Israeli chess master currently competing in Queenstown, and called on by John Minto to withdraw from his tournament - but protesters must be careful that their anger is directed, and seen to be directed, at the Israeli state and/or the military and economic structures which support it. Rakon?** Fair game. Israeli sportspeople? Fine. Israeli women and kids in a cafe? Not so good.
I'm not particularly bothered by the effects of sanctions on Israeli individuals. Sanctions do damage the careers of individual sportspeople and business people. That's tough - but being asked to leave a sporting tournament doesn't really rate against being maimed or killed by bombs and gunfire, in a place where most no longer have access to food, water, electricity or basic medical care.
Israel has dismissed the world's concerns about its treatment of Palestine by claiming anti-Semitism. It is crucial that we protesters neither allow anti-Semitism amongst our ranks, or be seen to tolerate it in any way. Individual Israelis - sporting, political or other high-profile figures - may be the vehicles through which we protest, but they can't be our ultimate targets. Aside from donating to humanitarian relief efforts in Palestine, kiwis can't do much for Palestinians that isn't symbolic. So our symbolism has to be unambiguous. We must be careful to be concerned with peace and justice, and to make this crystal clear. We can't afford to lapse into racism, or act in such a way that we can be accused of it; particularly when accusations of racism serve the purposes of Israeli aggression.
To use a sporting metaphor, we need to play the ball, not the man.
* Maia has written a fantastic piece on women, children and innocence in Gaza.
** Rakon Industries manufactures a component used in targeted bombs deployed by the Israeli military. Global Peace and Justice Auckland are holding a protest against Rakon on January 17, 3:00pm - 4:30pm, assembling outside Sylvia Park shopping centre on the Mt Wellington Highway.
An Invercargill cafe owner caused a stir this week by evicting two Israeli women, and the two children with them, from his premises. I can't agree with what he did, but it's difficult not to sympathise with the guy's frustration. For decades, Palestinians have been appealing to Israel and the world for justice. Palestinian acts of violence are condemned; but often, nothing short of violence seems to draw the world's attention to Palestine's suffering.
And that's the sad irony. The same cafe owner might have distributed political pamphlets about Palestine, joined Amnesty International or written thoughtful letters to the editor. No one would have given a shit. You evict women and children from your cafe, people notice. The cafe owner is unrepentant, pointing out that Israel isn't showing much concern for women and children on the Gaza strip*.
Protesters around New Zealand are trying to do what the government will not: apply sanctions against Israel. As a feminist and person on the left, I can't agree with the Invercargill cafe owner's actions - but not because he targeted individuals. So long as sanctions or protest actions are ethical, I don't much care who is the target, man, woman or child.
Sanctions and protests must ultimately target Israel, not Israelis. Of course, it's individual Israelis who will cop the controversy - such as the Israeli chess master currently competing in Queenstown, and called on by John Minto to withdraw from his tournament - but protesters must be careful that their anger is directed, and seen to be directed, at the Israeli state and/or the military and economic structures which support it. Rakon?** Fair game. Israeli sportspeople? Fine. Israeli women and kids in a cafe? Not so good.
I'm not particularly bothered by the effects of sanctions on Israeli individuals. Sanctions do damage the careers of individual sportspeople and business people. That's tough - but being asked to leave a sporting tournament doesn't really rate against being maimed or killed by bombs and gunfire, in a place where most no longer have access to food, water, electricity or basic medical care.
Israel has dismissed the world's concerns about its treatment of Palestine by claiming anti-Semitism. It is crucial that we protesters neither allow anti-Semitism amongst our ranks, or be seen to tolerate it in any way. Individual Israelis - sporting, political or other high-profile figures - may be the vehicles through which we protest, but they can't be our ultimate targets. Aside from donating to humanitarian relief efforts in Palestine, kiwis can't do much for Palestinians that isn't symbolic. So our symbolism has to be unambiguous. We must be careful to be concerned with peace and justice, and to make this crystal clear. We can't afford to lapse into racism, or act in such a way that we can be accused of it; particularly when accusations of racism serve the purposes of Israeli aggression.
To use a sporting metaphor, we need to play the ball, not the man.
* Maia has written a fantastic piece on women, children and innocence in Gaza.
** Rakon Industries manufactures a component used in targeted bombs deployed by the Israeli military. Global Peace and Justice Auckland are holding a protest against Rakon on January 17, 3:00pm - 4:30pm, assembling outside Sylvia Park shopping centre on the Mt Wellington Highway.
Wednesday, 14 January 2009
Women and Children: On Innocence
You may have seen the status updates on facebook. Although it depends on who your friends are I guess. At the moment they look like this:
Why are women counted separately?
Maybe that's a disengenuous question, because I think I already know the answer. It's not just because women are the marked category, the other, although that's true too. Listing women separately in the death tally serves a rhetorical purpose, mentioning women is a preemptive argument of innocence.
Because (rhetorically) women are not Hamas, because women do not resist. Because women, and children, are a unit of innocence and inactivity.
Those 100 women (more by the time I publish this) each had a story - each had lots of stories. To reduce those women's lives to a proof of innocence is to deny their agency.
There are many different ways women live and die in Gaza.
I understand why the makers of the 'Stop Israeli War Crimes' facebook application decided to structure their information around reinforcing the idea of innocence. - It's almost as if arguing that some Gazans are innocent (as opposed to deserving collective punishment for having elected Hamas) has become a radical position.
But I think it's foolish to base the defence of Gaza on the idea of innocence. Once, when writing about abusive relationships I said:
That is not my position. I do not ask or expect people to stand still and silent in the face of starvation, murder, and mass imprisonment in order to get my support(I am aware that at this point I am supposed to disclaim that I don't support Hamas, I will not do so).
Maybe I am asking a facebook status to do too much. But I think those of us whose political analysis is more complicated than 'women and children first', and who do not need to see innocence to offer solidarity, should make our politics clear. Because to do otherwise is to reinforce the idea that those who fight back against oppression need and deserve our solidarity less than those who sit still.
In 17 days 919 Palestinians killed by Israel including 284 children & 100 women, 4260 injured. Donate your status: http://apps.facebook.com/supportgaza.The purpose of this post is not to draw attention to those numbers, although that's a worthy goal. Instead I want to unpack what else the update is saying. Which may seem self-indulgent when those tallies are going up as a type, but I will get to a point, I think.
Why are women counted separately?
Maybe that's a disengenuous question, because I think I already know the answer. It's not just because women are the marked category, the other, although that's true too. Listing women separately in the death tally serves a rhetorical purpose, mentioning women is a preemptive argument of innocence.
Because (rhetorically) women are not Hamas, because women do not resist. Because women, and children, are a unit of innocence and inactivity.
Those 100 women (more by the time I publish this) each had a story - each had lots of stories. To reduce those women's lives to a proof of innocence is to deny their agency.
There are many different ways women live and die in Gaza.
I understand why the makers of the 'Stop Israeli War Crimes' facebook application decided to structure their information around reinforcing the idea of innocence. - It's almost as if arguing that some Gazans are innocent (as opposed to deserving collective punishment for having elected Hamas) has become a radical position.
But I think it's foolish to base the defence of Gaza on the idea of innocence. Once, when writing about abusive relationships I said:
If anyone who fights back is in a 'mutually abusive relationship, then the only way you are entitled to support is if you don't fight back. But if you react to the abuse, physically defend yourself, act jealous or fucked up by what's happened to you, then you don't deserve support, and people around can wash their hands and walk away from what they term a mutually abusive relationship.To focus on the innocence of those killed is to take the position that it is less bad if those killed are not innocent in some way. Which is to imply that the only people from Gaza deserving of our solidarity and support are those who do not fight back.
As a feminist, as a human being, it is my duty and my desire, to support the powerless against the powerful, and to not wash my hands of women who fight back.
That is not my position. I do not ask or expect people to stand still and silent in the face of starvation, murder, and mass imprisonment in order to get my support(I am aware that at this point I am supposed to disclaim that I don't support Hamas, I will not do so).
Maybe I am asking a facebook status to do too much. But I think those of us whose political analysis is more complicated than 'women and children first', and who do not need to see innocence to offer solidarity, should make our politics clear. Because to do otherwise is to reinforce the idea that those who fight back against oppression need and deserve our solidarity less than those who sit still.
Thursday, 8 January 2009
Gaza on our minds
Anna has something percolating on this in more depth, so until then, stealing an idea Carol left in our comments, here's a round-up of what I've been able to find in the progressive Kiwi blogworld, with an emphasis on posts from women:
And here's a link to The F Word's round-up of international feminist blogging about Gaza, Israel, Palestine and war. Hat tipped to Carol. I was particularly struck by this quote in the post:
- Anarkaytie reports on yesterday's Wellington protest against the Gaza bombings.
- Idiot/Savant considers the situation in Gaza, and is frequently updating with short highly-readable posts about developments.
- Anjum condemns the violence.
- Joe Hendren writes about the Israeli tennis player competing in this week's ASB Classic Women's tournament.
- Steve Pierson lays out the disproportionality of the Israeli response.
- Anita considers what New Zealand could do about it all, while her blog-mate Pablo comments on our Foreign Minister's position (well his position today anyway).
- Daphna combines some commentary with a review of Israeli film Waltz with Bashir.
And here's a link to The F Word's round-up of international feminist blogging about Gaza, Israel, Palestine and war. Hat tipped to Carol. I was particularly struck by this quote in the post:
We demand that war no longer be an option, nor violence a strategy, nor killing an alternative. The society we want is one in which every individual can lead a life of security - personal, economic, and social.It is clear that the highest price is paid by women and others from the periphery - geographic, economic, ethnic, social, and cultural - who now, as always, are excluded from the public eye and dominant discourse.
The time for women is now. We demand that words and actions be conducted in another language.
Like many others I feel utter despair and a complete lack of ability to do anything that would make even a smidgen of difference. I hate feeling powerless. And if I hate it, here on the other side of the world where the sun is shining and no bombs are falling and my son is not in danger of being killed because of an argument between powerful people with guns, then I can't imagine how bad it must feel to be there.
The horror of a bombing of a school, the high death toll of civillians (be they women, children, or men), it seems insane from here. As with so many other things, I find myself unable to understand the mindset that says the best way to stop violence is with more violence.
I have a friend travelling with her partner and young baby in Israel at the moment. I hope they are safe.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)