Search This Blog

Showing posts with label Activism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Activism. Show all posts

Saturday, August 8, 2020

Cancel culture & the Snowflake War: Do-gooders, No-gooders & Do-nothings

Cancel culture & the Snowflake War: Do-gooders, No-gooders & Do-nothings

By Ranting Panda, 8 August 2020

If one listens to conservatives, it would seem that lefties, or progressives at least, are waging a war on freedom and free-speech. Conservatives frame this non-existent war as a product of 'political correctness', or 'virtue-signalling', because of left-wing do-gooders, who are supposedly being overly sensitive snowflakes who manufacture offence and then meltdown in the face of this 'contrived' offence.

There is some truth in conservatives claims. There are times that progressives 'cancel' those who are perceived as having some moral failing, such as being racist or sexist. 

Many conservatives see themselves as thick-skinned heroes defending freedom ... they see themselves as victims of the Snowflake War. 

Anyone would think that conservatives are resilient people who would never indulge in 'cancel culture' or 'political correctness'. However, they have been guilty of these very issues themselves. The difference is that when progressives do it, it is because of abuse perpetrated by systemic discrimination or in response to someone harming others. When conservatives do it, it is usually because they are upset that someone thinks, acts or looks different to them.

Yes, believe it or not ... Conservatives are epic snowflakes, waging war on freedoms using their own brand of self-centred political correctness and virtue-signalling that dog-whistles to other conservative snowflakes.

'Conservative political correctness?', I hear you ask! Yep. Conservative political correctness usually revolves around respecting flags and statues, rather than people. For instance, patriotism is sacrosanct. 



One such example occurred in Australia in 2017, when a Muslim feminist writer named Yassmin Abdel-Magied, posted a tweet on Anzac Day which stated: 'LEST. WE. FORGET. (Manus, Nauru, Syria, Palestine...)'. Conservatives were so affronted by this innocuous tweet, that Yassmin was hounded out of the country. She received rape and death threats because of it and ended up leaving Australia to live in England. Many of the threats targeted Yassmin's religion and gender. I mean, being a Muslim and a feminist was never going to sit well with conservative snowflakes. Conservative commentator, Prue McSween, called Abdel-Magied a flea and stated that it was acceptable for her to feel unsafe in Australia, then compounded this disgusting tirade by stating that if she saw her, she would be tempted to run her over (BBC 2017). Ironically, many of the people who were offended by her tweet, claimed that Anzac Day commemorates those who fought and died for Australia's freedoms. Apparently, those freedoms don't include freedom of speech for young, feminist Muslim women, even though these same conservatives will claim that it's Muslims who hate Australia's freedoms ... 

In 2017, not long after the disgustingly racist and sexist abuse of Yassmin Abdel-Magied, the Australian Human Rights Commission made a submission to a parliamentary inquiry into multiculturalism, regarding the lack of non-Anglo-Celtic people represented in the public sphere. This may seem innocuous enough, however it triggered Rowan Dean, editor of The Spectator Australia, into racially attacking the federal Race Discrimination Commissioner, Tim Soutphommasane. This racist abuse was given a platform on Sky News, were Dean defiantly declared that Mr Soutphommasane should 'hop on a plane and go back to Laos'. It should be noted that Mr Soutphommasane isn't from Laos; he was born in France to Laotian parents. (BBC 2017).

Then there was Scott McIntyre, a former SBS journalist, who tired of the drunken nationalism that has taken over Anzac Day. McIntyre believed that Anzac Day had taken on a cult-like following, in which people glorified war and dehumanised the 'enemy'. McIntyre decided to remind Australia that some of our diggers were involved in horrendous crimes in the fog of war, such as rape and murder (Davidson 2016). These snippets of truth went down like a lead-balloon with conservatives, leading to McIntyre being sacked by SBS in response to howls of conservative rage.

The problem with this unquestioning nationalism is that it condones and perpetuates war crimes and other criminal behaviour by defence force personnel. For instance, when the ABC reported on the abuse of asylum seekers by Australian military personnel (Roberts 2014), then Prime Minister Tony Abbott accused it of being unpatriotic (Bourke 2014). Apparently waving the Aussie flag was more important that stopping the abuse of innocent people by the military. When the ABC reported on alleged war crimes by the SAS in Afghanistan (Willacy 2020), conservatives were angry with the ABC for reporting it, not because there may have been war crimes committed by Australian troops. 

Still don't believe that conservatives can be snowflakes? Tell them that their food is Halal. In their apoplectic rage, they will boycott the product, write angry letters to the company, to their local politicians, to the newspaper, and fire off incoherent tweets and social media posts. Yep, cancel culture, right there!

More fun can be had if one dares say 'Happy Holidays' at Christmas time. They will become proudly indignant and declare that it is 'Merry CHRISTMAS'! Even though many of these conservatives only look forward to Christmas for the presents, food, decorations and holidays. Most of them couldn't care less about it being the celebration of the birth of Jesus. Most of them have never set foot in a church. And those who have? Clearly, they love their dogma more than they love people. I mean, seriously, if someone wishes you well, then be thankful. It takes a special kind of spitefulness to complain that a season's greeting didn't meet the expected standard. As Benjamin Franklin astutely observed, 'How many observe Christ’s birthday! How few, his precepts! O! ’tis easier to keep Holidays than Commandments'.

There was a call to boycott Starbucks because their coffee cups were deemed 'anti-Christmas'. How can a coffee cup be anti-Christmas? When it is red. Well, when it is red only and does not feature Christmas trees, grimacing Santa Claus faces or (most appropriately) snowflakes ... because nothing screams 'Jesus is the reason for the Season' than a coffee cup covered in European winter symbols (Dvorak 2015). 

Conservatives can continue the rage and wallow in their victimhood straight after Christmas, when Easter Eggs appear on the shelves. Well, there will be rage if said egg dares not mention the word 'Easter'. God forbid selling a chocolate egg that doesn't say Easter. I mean seriously, What Would Jesus Do? We all know how that Jesus smashed down a big helping of Easter Eggs during the Last Supper. Over the years, conservatives have boycotted Nestle and Cadbury for both daring to produce Easter Eggs that don't meet the high moral standard set by privileged conservatives who clearly have nothing better to be offended at. Ironically, these symbols of Easter that they lose their collective minds over, have nothing to do with Jesus, but are pagan symbols of fertility. Easter has links to several pagan fertility religions, including Ishtar, the Mesopotamian 'Queen of Heaven' and goddess of sex, drugs and rock'n'roll. Although Easter was likely named after the German 'Eostre', it was a northern hemisphere celebration of fertility, that Christians appropriated to make their message more palatable to the locals (D'Costa 2013). Compromise, anyone? It seems that the early Christians weren't quite the snowflakes that today's conservative Christians are. 

Speaking of drugs, sex and rock'n'roll, how can we forget when conservatives waged all-out war on rock music: the 'Devil's Music'! This reached peak silliness when John Lennon made the astute observation that The Beatles were 'more popular than Jesus now'. People melted down, believing that The Beatles thought they were greater than God. Lennon clarified later that he was referring to how their fans saw them, not that he was anti-God or anti-Jesus. In response to this perceived insult, Christians bought Beatles albums and then burned them (think about that, take all the time you need ... cancelling a band by buying their stuff ... riiiiight). Tragically, this attempt to cancel The Beatles culminated in Mark David Chapman shooting and killing John Lennon in 1980. Chapman was a 'born-again' Christian, who stated that part of the reason he did it was because of Lennon's comment about The Beatles being more popular than Jesus (Jones 1992, pp 117-118). Chapman had also been upset with the songs 'God' and 'Imagine'. Chapman believed that Imagine was a Communist song, and subsequently wrote his own lyrics to it, which included 'Imagine John Lennon dead' (Jones 1992, pp 117, 189). 

Chapman's hatred of Communism wasn't his own invention. The last time Christians got so upset about Communism, they unleashed they sang the praises of Adolf Hitler ... and we know how that ended.

Conservatives are currently melting down over cheese. Yep, believe it or not, they are more interested in cheese than in ending racism. In fact, many of them don't believe in either systemic racism or casual racism. Systemic racism is evidenced by significantly higher incarceration rates of indigenous people or people of colour, higher suicide rates, poorer educational and health outcomes, and increased poverty. Casual racism is much more insidious, but just as harmful. It may include jokes or snide comments based on racial stereotypes, but it presupposes white superiority and the subjugation of people of colour. 

So, cheese. Australia's Coon Cheese was named after the man who invented the ripening process for cheese, Edward William Coon. The ripening process is also named after him and is known as cooning. Unfortunately, Edward Coon's surname is also a racial slur. For decades there were requests to change the name of the cheese. Keep in mind, that Edward Coon did not found or own Australia's Coon Cheese; it was merely named after him. It was created by the Warrnambool Cheese and Butter company, and launched by Fred Walker. In July 2020, it was under the ownership of Canadian company, Saputo Inc, who decided to change the name based on its association with the racial slur. 

And didn't the conservatives cut their collective cheeses over it! Now, the cheese could just as easily have been called Walker Cheese, WCB Cheese, or any other variant of its original or current owners. It's just a name. Saputo recognised that while Coon was the surname of the man who invented the maturation process, it can cause significant offence, so they changed the name. They didn't shoot Bambi. But conservatives carried on as if their first-born was being torn from their arms, and promised to boycott the cheese. Not that the boycott will do much, because some had already boycotted the cheese when it became Halal certified. Yep, conservative cancel culture: cancel cheese. Conservatives tackling the big issues. After all, cheese is more important than addressing racism. 

The man who drove the name-change is Dr Stephen Hagan. In retaliation for Dr Hagan daring to challenge the name of a cheese, One Nation member, Mark Latham, mocked him and suggested that 'evil snowflakes' would start targeting products that included the word 'white'. He included a photo of Paul's 'Smarter White Milk' product. Not surprisingly, several media outlets ran this as a factual story. So incensed were the racists who actually believed this puerile drivel, that Hagan received more than 30,000 abusive comments, hate mail and several death threats (Roe 2020). Yeah ... death threats over a fake story about the name of a milk product. Latham is leader of One Nation in New South Wales and a member of the NSW Legislative Council, the Upper House in the NSW Parliament. This is the standard of politics and media in Australia. It also shows just how sensitive racist snowflakes are in Australia: they will cry over milk and cheese. 

Speaking of racism, there was the matter of an NFL player, Colin Kaepernick, who kneeled during the national anthem prior to a football match in 2016. He was protesting against police brutality. Small-minded conservatives took this as a affront to US sovereignty. Yeah, I know ... how freaking sensitive does one have to be to interpret an anti-racism protest as an attack on US sovereignty? But such is the depths of nationalism that permeates right-wing media and group-think. In protest, many conservatives burned their own NFL jerseys and Nike shoes. Again ... take all the time you need to think about this ... protesting by burning something they've already bought. That's really going to hit the NFL or Nike's bottom line. The sad thing, when asked, many of these people had no idea what Kaepernick was protesting. Many thought he was opposing the flag, the anthem, or US troops, because of bigoted group-think manipulated by racist politicians and media. 

The anti-Kaepernick brigade were already so emboldened with nationalistic fervour and racism, that it didn't take much to push them over the edge ... and we ask how Germans could be so duped by Hitler? Indeed.

Speaking of football players, in Australia many indigenous people played in the rugby league and Australian Rules football codes. Throughout the years, many reported receiving racist abuse, including former Brisbane Broncos player, Steve Renouf (Pengilly 2020), and former St Kilda player, Nicky Winmar (NMA 2020). Adam Goodes had a stellar AFL career, playing more games than any other indigenous player, twice winning the coveted Brownlow Medal for being the best and fairest player in the competition, and in 2014, he won Australian of the Year. Despite his achievements, Goodes was subject to years of racist abuse. During the Indigenous Round in 2013, Goodes was racially vilified by a spectator. Goodes called her out for it during the game (McRae 2020). It transpired the spectator was 13 years old. The conservative response? Well, rather than agreeing that Goodes had every right to challenge racist abuse from a 13 year old brat, they attacked him, doubled down on the vilification and drove him from the game. 

Conservatives have a track record of prioritising racism over respect. Although, they also have a track record of claiming that 'kids of today have no respect for their elders'. Well, why should they, when their elders glorify such disrespectful behaviour.

Don't get conservatives started on statues. During the Black Lives Matter protests, there were calls to tear down statues of confederate soldiers because they had defended slavery. Conservatives, in their rather simplistic rationale, equated this to changing or erasing history. Hello ... there are things called books! These books actually record history. Ditching a statue of some slave-owning racist white supremacist is not erasing history, it is acknowledging history and raising awareness of the person's vile behaviour. Interestingly, many of the confederate statues were not erected during or immediately following the American Civil War, but were erected specifically in defence of racism (Robinson 2020). Many were put up during the early 1900s to defend the Jim Crow laws which legalised the disenfranchisement and segregation of black people. In the 1960s, many of these statues were erected in response to the Civil Rights movement which was calling for the dismantling of the racist systems established by the Jim Crow laws, and the attitudes and systems that had existed in America before, during and since slavery (Williams, Armitage & Stein 2020; Gunter & Kizzir n.d., p 11).  

Speaking of Black Lives Matter ... not surprisingly, many conservatives piously claimed 'ALL lives matter', not just black ones. This little act of defiance represented an incredible level of hypocrisy because these same ALM advocates have actively campaigned against, or voted for politicians who oppose, refugees and asylum seekers, LGBTIQ+ rights, same sex marriage, Islam, migrants, and the list goes on. Perhaps, the ALM brigade should look up the meaning of 'All' in the dictionary. Just to be clear, the Merriam-Webster dictionary defines 'all' as meaning, 'every member or individual component'. Everyone! Not everyone except for black people or gay people or Muslims or refugees! Funnily enough, those marching for BLM are also most likely to also march in defence of the rights of other persecuted groups; its BLM activists who actually believe that all lives matter, rather than the pious ALM proponents.

Nothing triggers some conservatives like suggesting that others have equal rights. Recent campaigns for same sex marriage resulted in conservatives boycotting numerous companies who expressed solidarity with the cause, such as Qantas, Virgin and Hallmark. 

Sadly, many conservatives see social justice and human rights as being an affront to their own rights. This is typical of the selfishnessness of conservatives who only sympathise with issues that impact them specifically. They couldn't care less about issues that impact others. This is why they oppose anti-racism campaigns, they oppose same sex marriage, they oppose other religions. Meanwhile, they will hurl insults at those who dare to stand up for these rights, labelling them 'do-gooders', 'social justice warriors', 'bleeding hearts', or accusing them of 'virtue-signalling', just because they want to help others. If you're not a do-gooder, then what are you? A no-gooder? A do-nothing? Seriously, if you're not wanting everyone to have the same rights as you, then you can't say 'ALL lives matter'. At best, you're a do-nothing ... at worst, well you're doing no good and maybe those words like bigot, racist, white-supremacist, may appropriately describe you. 

These conservatives label human rights and social justice as 'cultural Marxism'. Conservatives have been responsible for a lot of fear-mongering: fear of black people, fear of Islam, fear of a gay agenda, fear of communism. During the 1940s and 1950s, the 'reds under the bed' paranoia was cancel culture writ large. It culminated with witch-hunts led by Senator Joe McCarthy and a Congressional committee known as the House Un-American Activities Commission (HUAC). These witch-hunts resulted in the destruction of many people's lives and careers. Dozens of singers and actors suffered through this paranoia, including Charlie Chaplin, Harry Belafonte, Pete Seeger and Orson Welles. There were some who managed to rebuild their careers, others disappeared into obscurity, reputations destroyed by anti-Communist paranoia.

The new focus on 'cultural Marxism', or neo-Marxism, is just rebranding of McCarthyism, playing on the fears of gullible conservatives. Their fears are unfounded. President Donald Trump exploits these fears by accusing the far-left and Antifa of inciting violence during BLM protests. However, in the last 25 years, no-one has been killed by the far-left in the USA. Contrast this to the 329 people who have so far been killed by right-wing extremists in the United States (Pasley 2020). This indicates the danger of fear-mongering and demonisation is that people will focus on the wrong things. Racism continues and hate-crimes escalate, while conservatives wring their hands claiming 'All lives matter'. Some claim that they oppose racism, but will then boycott a business that supports Black Lives Matter ... nothing says anti-racism like boycotting a business that is actively anti-racist ... 




Conservatives love to play the victim, even though they are often the perpetrator. Their claim of 'Cultural Marxism' is ingrained in them by opinionated conservative commentators dog-whistling to their xenophobia and bigotry, which reinforces their feelings of victimhood (Wilson 2015). They will claim that free speech is under attack because of left-wing do-gooders. What they don't seem to understand is that free speech means that everyone is entitled to speak their mind. Just because a conservative is called out for their racist, bigoted or false claims, doesn't mean that their freedom of speech is being threatened; it means that someone else is exercising their freedom of speech in retort. 

I saw a statement recently, which said, 'Racism asks for your silence. Anti-racism asks for your voice'.

It is important to speak up and challenge racism. Speaking up is not the silencing of others. 

While there are some examples of left-wing cancel culture, it is blown well and truly out of proportion by conservatives who struggle with changing social norms, so react by manufacturing their inability to adapt into a national crisis (Hobbes 2020). 



We share the world with billions of people, which means that there will be billions of disparate views and values. Rather than trying to ban everyone or everything that we disagree with or don't understand, we would be much better off trying to understand others and learning to disagree without taking offence. Having said that, there are times when behaviours and systems need to be addressed. Racism, sexism and bigotry are harmful and should not be tolerated. This is not just a matter of agreeing to disagree. We need to reach a point where these behaviours and values are not acceptable. 

Why do conservatives feel led to defend racism, sexism and bigotry? Why do conservatives defend exploitative labour conditions and environmental degradation? Why do conservatives feel it is acceptable to condone violence against black people, women, Muslims, refugees, leftists and anyone else they don't understand? Why do conservatives deny science, but take the word of uneducated, unqualified shock jocks as gospel? They claim they are the victims, when they have no idea what being a victim of racism, sexism and bigotry means. 

Most conservative protests are to enforce their views on others, rather than defending the rights of  others. They think their opinions and values are superior to the rights of others.

Many conservatives value symbols over humanity. Their idea of morality is symbolic. Their idea of equality is that everyone should think, look and act the same as them; they do not value diversity, whether it be in culture, art or ideas. 

Until conservatives empathise with those who suffer discrimination, they won't change their behaviours. As the old adage says, 'Justice will not be served until those who are unaffected are as outraged as those who are'.




References

BBC News 2017, 'The Anzac post, outrage and a debate about race', 10 August, viewed 31 July 2020,

Bourke, L 2014, 'Prime Minister Tony Abbott says ABC not on Australia's side in interview with 2GB', ABC News, 4 February, viewed 1 August 2020, https://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-01-29/tony-abbott-steps-up-criticism-of-abc/5224676.

Davidson, H 2016, 'Former SBS reporter Scott McIntyre repeats Anzac Day accusations on Twitter', The Guardian, 25 April, viewed 1 August 2020, https://www.theguardian.com/news/2016/apr/25/former-sbs-reporter-scott-mcintyre-repeats-anzac-day-accusations-on-twitter.

D'Costa, K 2013, 'Beyond Ishtar: The Tradition of Eggs at Easter', Scientific American, 31 March, viewed 8 August 2020, https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/anthropology-in-practice/beyond-ishtar-the-tradition-of-eggs-at-easter.

Dvorak, P 2015, 'The phony ‘War on Christmas’ is back, fueled by those alleged Jesus haters at Starbucks', 10 November, viewed 31 July 2020, https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/the-phony-war-on-christmas-is-back-fueled-by-those-alleged-jesus-haters-at-starbucks/2015/11/09/ed8471de-86f7-11e5-9a07-453018f9a0ec_story.html.

Gunter, B & Kizzir, J n.d., Whose heritage? Public symbols of the confederacy, Southern Poverty Law Centre, https://www.splcenter.org/sites/default/files/com_whose_heritage.pdf.

Hobbes, M 2020, 'Don’t Fall For The 'Cancel Culture' Scam', The Huffington Post, 11 July, viewed 1 August 2020, https://www.huffingtonpost.com.au/entry/cancel-culture-harpers-jk-rowling-scam_n_5f0887b4c5b67a80bc06c95e.

Jones, J 1992, I'm going to take you down: Inside the mind of Mark David Chapman, Villard Books.

McRae, D 2020, 'Adam Goodes: 'Instead of masking racism, we need to deal with it day-to-day'', The Guardian, 3 March, viewed 1 August 2020, https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2020/mar/02/adam-goodes-interview-racism-walk-away-afl

NMA 2020, Nicky Winmar’s stand, National Museum of Australia, 13 March, viewed 1 August 2020, https://www.nma.gov.au/defining-moments/resources/nicky-winmars-stand.

Pasley, J 2020, 'Trump frequently accuses the far-left of inciting violence, yet right-wing extremists have killed 329 victims in the last 25 years, while antifa members haven't killed any, according to a new study', Business Insider, 31 July, viewed 1 August 2020, https://www.businessinsider.com/right-wing-extremists-kill-329-since-1994-antifa-killed-none-2020-7.

Pengilly, A 2020, ''It was crushing': Broncos apologise to Renouf for racist slurs during career', The Sydney Morning Herald, 31 July 2020, viewed 1 August 2020, https://www.smh.com.au/sport/nrl/it-was-crushing-broncos-apologise-to-renouf-for-racist-slurs-during-career-20200731-p55hf2.html.

Roberts, G 2014, 'Acting Prime Minister Warren Truss defends Navy amid claims asylum seekers beaten and burned', ABC News, 18 February, viewed 1 August 2020, https://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-01-22/australian-navy-accused-of-beating-burning-asylum-seekers/5211996.

Robinson, J 2020, 'Myths About Confederate Monuments - ACLU Deputy Legal Director Jeffrey Robinson exposed Confederate monuments for what they really are', Now This News, 19 June, viewed 1 August 2020, https://youtu.be/55ehKPUm7dc

Roe, C 2020, 'Anti-racism campaigner cops death threats over fake story', SBS News, 18 August, viewed 15 August 2020, https://www.sbs.com.au/nitv/article/2020/08/15/anti-racism-campaigner-cops-death-threats-over-fake-story.

Willacy, M 2020, 'Culture of Cover-up', ABC, 17 March, viewed 1 August 2020, https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-03-17/four-corners-sas-allegations-war-crimes/12028522.

Williams, P, Armitage, R,  & Stein, L 2020, 'As America grapples with its history of racism, relics of the past are being toppled by a new generation', 11 June, viewed 1 August 2020, https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-06-11/why-people-are-pulling-down-statues-in-the-us-in-protest/12343766

Wilson, J 2015, ''Cultural Marxism': a uniting theory for rightwingers who love to play the victim', The Guardian, 19 January, viewed 1 August 2020, https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jan/19/cultural-marxism-a-uniting-theory-for-rightwingers-who-love-to-play-the-victim.

Updated 19 August 2020










Saturday, November 9, 2013

Kristallnacht - Remembrance and Vigilance


Today marks 75 years since Kristallnacht, the 'night of broken glass', in which Nazi brownshirts and German civilians rampaged through Jewish neighbourhoods in Germany, destroying synagogues, businesses, buildings, houses and apartments. Approximately 100 Jews were killed that night, and around 30,000 were imprisoned in concentration camps.

Kristallnacht was allegedly a response to the assassination of a German diplomat by a German-born Polish Jew. However, it is likely that it would have happened anyway; if not that night, then certainly not long after. Hitler's Mein Kampf foreshadowed what was to come. He blamed the Jews for Germany's loss in World War I and for the economic crisis in Germany, amongst other things. Hitler believed in patriotism, nationalism and racial purity.

Kristallnacht is generally seen as the beginning of the Final Solution that culminated in the Holocaust, which saw the genocide of at least 6 million Jews and other 'undesirables'. However, Hitler began his campaign for the purity of Germany years before this.

In 1933, he incarcerated Communists and Social Democrats. He also targeted dissidents, gypsys, homosexuals, the mentally ill and the physically lame.

Who spoke up?

Some Germans claim that they didn't know of the massacres that were occuring in the concentration camps, however, they did know of the arrests, of the incarcerations because these were reported in newspapers and obvious on the streets as people were arrested and taken away. Few, if any spoke up. In their defence, it would have been a brave and frightening thing to protest the persecution as they would also have been incarcerated.

Hitler's persecution of those he didn't like is a pertinent reminder today that we must speak up against injustice, in all its forms. Across the globe, politics is becoming more and more aggressive with arguments aimed at specific people or groups. We see attacks on other religions and political ideologies, as well as on homosexuality or other 'undesirable' traits.

In Australia, there is the forced incarceration of asylum seekers, victims of persecution in their own land and victims of persecution in the 'civilised' society of Australia. In the USA, we see the rage against Obamacare and the wild accusations of it being Socialism. In the West, there have been numerous groups attacking the 'welfare' state, claiming that it makes people lazy and dependent. Yet, if not for welfare, who would care for those in need? If not, for socialised medicine who would care for the sick?

The polemic vitriol of modern politics sounds a lot like the arguments Hitler used to justify his persecution of Jews, Communists, Socialists, homosexuals, gypsys, the sick and lame, and anyone else who didn't fit his ideal of what a German should be.

On the anniversary of Kristallnacht, we must never forget just how slippery the slope is from 'patriotism' to persecution to pogrom.

Martin Niemöller was a German pastor who opposed Communism and initially supported Hitler. He liked what Hitler had to say. It resonated with his Christian belief and German nationalism. When he was incarcerated in 1937, it became personally clear that he'd been very wrong to not have spoken up earlier.

Niemöller is accredited with a number of quotes. The most famous being:

'When the Nazis came for the communists,
 I remained silent,
 I was not a communist.

When they locked up the social democrats,

I remained silent,
I was not a social democrat.

When they came for the trade unionists,

I did not speak up,
because I was not a trade unionist.

When they came for me,

there was no one left to speak out'.

This quote has been modified numerous times, but is the one listed on the Martin Niemöller Foundation's website (1):

I'm referencing Niemöller because his quotes are particularly relevant today.

Niemöller wrote (2) about whose fault the Holocaust was. It may well have been orchestrated by Hitler and the Nazis, but it was allowed to happen by the people:

'This should be our starting point, and with this very thing in mind, we have to start in earnest. Nobody wants to take the responsibility of the guilt, no one of our German people is guilty, everybody shoves the guilt over to his neighbor. The local official says: I was only a little man, the whole guilt lies with you, Herr local commander; and he, in turn says: I did not wrong anybody; I only obeyed orders. The whole guilt lies with you, you of the Gestapo. But the latter don't want it either and finally everything lands on Himmler and Hitler. These are the greatest sinners, who cannot throw the guilt on others anymore, even if they did try to do so before their death. Can it disappear into thin air this way? The guilt exists, there is no doubt about it. Even if there were no other guilt than that of the six million clay urns, containing the ashes of burnt Jews from all over Europe. And this guilt weighs heavily on the German people and on the German name and on all Christendom. For these things happened in our world and in our name. Can we of the Confessional Church have nothing to do with it? Can we say that the church triumphed on all the fronts?'

Niemöller was in no doubt about the acquiescent role that the church played in supporting Hitler's genocide and persecutions in this speech he gave on 6 January 1946 and which was published in 'Die deutsche Schuld, Not und Hoffnung' ('The German guilt, misery and hope') (3):

'When Pastor Niemöller was put in a concentration camp we wrote the year 1937; when the concentration camp was opened we wrote the year 1933, and the people who were put in the camps then were Communists. Who cared about them? We knew it, it was printed in the newspapers. Who raised their voice, maybe the Confessing Church? We thought: Communists, those opponents of religion, those enemies of Christians - "should I be my brother's keeper?" Then they got rid of the sick, the so-called incurables. - I remember a conversation I had with a person who claimed to be a Christian. He said: Perhaps it's right, these incurably sick people just cost the state money, they are just a burden to themselves and to others. Isn't it best for all concerned if they are taken out of the middle [of society]? -- Only then did the church as such take note. Then we started talking, until our voices were again silenced in public. Can we say, we aren't guilty/responsible? The persecution of the Jews, the way we treated the occupied countries, or the things in Greece, in Poland, in Czechoslovakia or in Holland, that were written in the newspapers. … I believe, we Confessing-Church-Christians have every reason to say: mea culpa, mea culpa! We can talk ourselves out of it with the excuse that it would have cost me my head if I had spoken out. … We preferred to keep silent. We are certainly not without guilt/fault, and I ask myself again and again, what would have happened, if in the year 1933 or 1934 - there must have been a possibility - 14,000 Protestant pastors and all Protestant communities in Germany had defended the truth until their deaths? If we had said back then, it is not right when Hermann Göring simply puts 100,000 Communists in the concentration camps, in order to let them die. I can imagine that perhaps 30,000 to 40,000 Protestant Christians would have had their heads cut off, but I can also imagine that we would have rescued 30-40,000 million [sic] people, because that is what it is costing us now'.

Kristallnacht and its ramifications must never be forgotten. We must remember the Jews who were murdered that night, the 30,000 who were taken away, most to their deaths in concentration camps.  We must also remember that it was done with the complicity and open support of most Germans, including the church.

Although most countries don't have death camps, in many cases we are complicit in the persecution of others, either because we fail to help or to speak out against injustice. We cannot defend oppression, even if it is our own country that it doing it.

Sinclair Lewis published a novel in 1935 entitled 'It can't happen here', in which he depicted the rise of a Fascist president in the USA on the back of a 'populist platform, promising to restore the country to prosperity and greatness', playing the patriotism and 'traditional values' card. In commenting on this book, journalist Harrison Salisbury (4) wrote:

'Sinclair Lewis aptly predicted in It Can't Happen Here that if fascism came to America it would come wrapped in the flag and whistling 'The Star Spangled Banner'.

We must remain vigilant against the insidious nature of politics that panders to fear, xenophobia and prejudice, for those who condone such politics are guilty of human rights violations through abrogating their moral duty to defend others from injustice, persecution and oppression.






References

1. Martin Niemöller Foundation, The quote, accessed 9 November 2013. http://www.martin-niemoeller-stiftung.de/4/daszitat/a31.

2. New York: Philosophical Library, 1947 [79 pp. 21 cm.], Of Guilt and Hope, by Martin Niemöller, accessed 9 November 2013. http://www.history.ucsb.edu/faculty/marcuse/projects/niem/Niem1946GuiltHope13-16.htm

3. Harold Marcuse, Martin Niemöller's famous quotation: "First they came for the Communists ... ", accessed 9 November 2013. http://www.history.ucsb.edu/faculty/marcuse/niem.htm.

4. Stephen Wylder, Sinclair Lewis never said it; the rules of misquotation, accessed 9 November 2013. http://www.examiner.com/article/sinclair-lewis-never-said-it-the-rules-of-misquotation










Saturday, March 16, 2013

RIP Rachel Corrie

On 16 March 2003, American peace activist, Rachel Corrie was killed when run over by an Israeli Defence Forces (IDF) bulldozer which she was trying to stop from illegally demolishing a Palestinian house in the Rafah Refugee Camp, Gaza. The following is a brief history of the event and inspirational footage of a speech Rachel gave in Grade 5 which described her commitment to human rights.

Rachel had gone to Palestine as a member of the International Solidarity Movement (ISM) to participate in non-violent protest against the illegal Israeli occupation. On the day of her death, Rachel and seven other ISM activists confronted an Israeli Defence Force bulldozer that was about to demolish the house of a local pharmacist, as part of the illegal practice of 'collective punishment'. According to the Fourth Geneva Convention, of which Israel is a signatory to, collective punishment is a war crime.

Rachel, wearing a bright orange, high-visibility vest and using a megaphone, was standing in front of the dozer in an effort to prevent it advancing on the house. She had climbed up a pile of dirt so that she was above the level of the blade, looking directly into the cabin. The Israeli soldier deliberately drove the bulldozer towards her. Rachel was pushed backwards, falling down the pile of dirt which collapsed on top of her. Despite screams from other people to stop, the Israeli soldier continued and dragged her for 10 or 15 metres, crushing her. Rachel was run over twice, suffering a fractured skull, punctured lungs and crushed ribs.

The Israelis claimed it was an accident, that the soldier didn't know she was there, even though the stand-off had been going on for three hours, there were other soldiers present outside of the dozer who could have warned the driver, and Rachel was in a high-vis vest and communicating by megaphone. The Israeli Defence Force investigated the incident and, not surprisingly, cleared itself of blame. In 2005, Rachel's parents sued the Israeli government, but in 2012 and the matter was thrown out.

No justice has been done and as usual, Israel has gotten away with murder. All of this, while the United States continues to poor billions of dollars into funding Israel, knowing that much of it is funds Israel's ethnic cleansing of Palestine through activities that breach the Fourth Geneva Convention and dozens of United Nations resolutions.

Rachel Corrie's life and message should not be forgotten. Her dedication to defending human rights is an inspiration to all of us.

In 1990, ten year old Rachel Corrie gave this incredible speech. The words are powerful and they should inspire each of us to action to overcome poverty and injustice.




I’m here for other children.
I’m here because I care.
I’m here because children everywhere are suffering and because forty thousand people die each day from hunger.
I’m here because those people are mostly children.
We have got to understand that the poor are all around us and we are ignoring them.
We have got to understand that these deaths are preventable.
We have got to understand that people in third world countries think and care and smile and cry just like us.
We have got to understand that they dream our dreams and we dream theirs.
We have got to understand that they are us. We are them.
My dream is to stop hunger by the year 2000.
My dream is to give the poor a chance.
My dream is to save the 40,000 people who die each day.
My dream can and will come true if we all look into the future and see the light that shines there.
My dream can and will come true if we all look into the future and see the light that shines there. If we ignore hunger, that light will go out.

A letter from Rachel to her mother

The following is a letter that Rachel wrote to her mother on 27 February 2003, only weeks before her death. It describes the horror of what Palestinians experience every day, and the frustration for Rachel knowing that the world looks on and ignores the genocide and gross human rights violations perpetrated by Israel.

Love you. Really miss you. I have bad nightmares about tanks and bulldozers outside our house and you and me inside. Sometimes the adrenaline acts as an anesthetic for weeks and then in the evening or at night it just hits me again – a little bit of the reality of the situation. I am really scared for the people here. Yesterday, I watched a father lead his two tiny children, holding his hands, out into the sight of tanks and a sniper tower and bulldozers and Jeeps because he thought his house was going to be exploded. Jenny and I stayed in the house with several women and two small babies. It was our mistake in translation that caused him to think it was his house that was being exploded. In fact, the Israeli army was in the process of detonating an explosive in the ground nearby – one that appears to have been planted by Palestinian resistance.

This is in the area where Sunday about 150 men were rounded up and contained outside the settlement with gunfire over their heads and around them, while tanks and bulldozers destroyed 25 greenhouses – the livelihoods for 300 people. The explosive was right in front of the greenhouses – right in the point of entry for tanks that might come back again. I was terrified to think that this man felt it was less of a risk to walk out in view of the tanks with his kids than to stay in his house. I was really scared that they were all going to be shot and I tried to stand between them and the tank. This happens every day, but just this father walking out with his two little kids just looking very sad, just happened to get my attention more at this particular moment, probably because I felt it was our translation problems that made him leave.

I thought a lot about what you said on the phone about Palestinian violence not helping the situation. Sixty thousand workers from Rafah worked in Israel two years ago. Now only 600 can go to Israel for jobs. Of these 600, many have moved, because the three checkpoints between here and Ashkelon (the closest city in Israel) make what used to be a 40-minute drive, now a 12-hour or impassible journey. In addition, what Rafah identified in 1999 as sources of economic growth are all completely destroyed – the Gaza international airport (runways demolished, totally closed); the border for trade with Egypt (now with a giant Israeli sniper tower in the middle of the crossing); access to the ocean (completely cut off in the last two years by a checkpoint and the Gush Katif settlement). The count of homes destroyed in Rafah since the beginning of this intifada is up around 600, by and large people with no connection to the resistance but who happen to live along the border. I think it is maybe official now that Rafah is the poorest place in the world. There used to be a middle class here – recently. We also get reports that in the past, Gazan flower shipments to Europe were delayed for two weeks at the Erez crossing for security inspections. You can imagine the value of two-week-old cut flowers in the European market, so that market dried up. And then the bulldozers come and take out people’s vegetable farms and gardens. What is left for people? Tell me if you can think of anything. I can’t.

If any of us had our lives and welfare completely strangled, lived with children in a shrinking place where we knew, because of previous experience, that soldiers and tanks and bulldozers could come for us at any moment and destroy all the greenhouses that we had been cultivating for however long, and did this while some of us were beaten and held captive with 149 other people for several hours – do you think we might try to use somewhat violent means to protect whatever fragments remained? I think about this especially when I see orchards and greenhouses and fruit trees destroyed – just years of care and cultivation. I think about you and how long it takes to make things grow and what a labour of love it is. I really think, in a similar situation, most people would defend themselves as best they could. I think Uncle Craig would. I think probably Grandma would. I think I would.

You asked me about non-violent resistance.

When that explosive detonated yesterday it broke all the windows in the family’s house. I was in the process of being served tea and playing with the two small babies. I’m having a hard time right now. Just feel sick to my stomach a lot from being doted on all the time, very sweetly, by people who are facing doom. I know that from the United States, it all sounds like hyperbole. Honestly, a lot of the time the sheer kindness of the people here, coupled with the overwhelming evidence of the wilful destruction of their lives, makes it seem unreal to me. I really can’t believe that something like this can happen in the world without a bigger outcry about it. It really hurts me, again, like it has hurt me in the past, to witness how awful we can allow the world to be. I felt after talking to you that maybe you didn’t completely believe me. I think it’s actually good if you don’t, because I do believe pretty much above all else in the importance of independent critical thinking. And I also realise that with you I’m much less careful than usual about trying to source every assertion that I make. A lot of the reason for that is I know that you actually do go and do your own research. But it makes me worry about the job I’m doing. All of the situation that I tried to enumerate above – and a lot of other things – constitutes a somewhat gradual – often hidden, but nevertheless massive – removal and destruction of the ability of a particular group of people to survive. This is what I am seeing here. The assassinations, rocket attacks and shooting of children are atrocities – but in focusing on them I’m terrified of missing their context. The vast majority of people here – even if they had the economic means to escape, even if they actually wanted to give up resisting on their land and just leave (which appears to be maybe the less nefarious of Sharon’s possible goals), can’t leave. Because they can’t even get into Israel to apply for visas, and because their destination countries won’t let them in (both our country and Arab countries). So I think when all means of survival is cut off in a pen (Gaza) which people can’t get out of, I think that qualifies as genocide. Even if they could get out, I think it would still qualify as genocide. Maybe you could look up the definition of genocide according to international law. I don’t remember it right now. I’m going to get better at illustrating this, hopefully. I don’t like to use those charged words. I think you know this about me. I really value words. I really try to illustrate and let people draw their own conclusions.

Anyway, I’m rambling. Just want to write to my Mom and tell her that I’m witnessing this chronic, insidious genocide and I’m really scared, and questioning my fundamental belief in the goodness of human nature. This has to stop. I think it is a good idea for us all to drop everything and devote our lives to making this stop. I don’t think it’s an extremist thing to do anymore. I still really want to dance around to Pat Benatar and have boyfriends and make comics for my coworkers. But I also want this to stop. Disbelief and horror is what I feel. Disappointment. I am disappointed that this is the base reality of our world and that we, in fact, participate in it. This is not at all what I asked for when I came into this world. This is not at all what the people here asked for when they came into this world. This is not the world you and Dad wanted me to come into when you decided to have me. This is not what I meant when I looked at Capital Lake and said: “This is the wide world and I’m coming to it.” I did not mean that I was coming into a world where I could live a comfortable life and possibly, with no effort at all, exist in complete unawareness of my participation in genocide. More big explosions somewhere in the distance outside.

When I come back from Palestine, I probably will have nightmares and constantly feel guilty for not being here, but I can channel that into more work. Coming here is one of the better things I’ve ever done. So when I sound crazy, or if the Israeli military should break with their racist tendency not to injure white people, please pin the reason squarely on the fact that I am in the midst of a genocide which I am also indirectly supporting, and for which my government is largely responsible.

I love you and Dad. Sorry for the diatribe. OK, some strange men next to me just gave me some peas, so I need to eat and thank them.

Rachel




RIP RACHEL CORRIE, 10 April 1979 - 16 March 2003.


For more information, or to become involved: www.rachelcorriefoundation.org












Tuesday, January 1, 2013

Do-gooder v Do-nothing: Activism v Apathy

The most dangerous people in the world are those too apathetic to speak up against injustice and evil. They take the 'Doris Day' approach to the suffering of others: 'que sera sera' - 'Whatever Will Be Will Be'. They are the 'do-nothings' and they give evil victory through their inaction:


'all that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing'. 


Why are the apathetic more dangerous than the perpetrator? Evil has manifested itself since time immemorial and while there are people in the world, there will be people who perpetrate it. Evil resides in the heart of humanity, so it important that we as a society ensure that evil is controlled and not given licence. The apathetic give evil licence through their silence, which in turn encourages and empowers evil-doers. Silence is complicity and the do-nothings are complicit in the worst crimes against humanity because of their inaction.

Sometimes it is easy to identify injustice and tyranny, while similarly nefarious activities masquerade in a cloak of decency, 'justified' in the name of democracy, capitalism, or God. It's almost as if the right marketing can legitimise evil, making it harder to identify the perpetrator as evil. Yet no matter how evil is presented, it is still evil and the perpetrator and the do-nothing are guilty of it.

Albert Einstein stated, 'The world is a dangerous place to live; not because of people who are evil, but because of the people who don't do anything about it'.

These days people who speak up for the rights of others are labelled as 'do-gooders'. The term being used as an insult to imply that such people live in a Utopian fantasy world. Is it Utopian to expect that everyone is entitled to justice, respect and freedom from tyranny and evil?

The do-nothings criticise do-gooders, believing that social justice threatens their freedom. Yet, what sort of freedom allows injustice and tyranny? The apathetic criticise those who stand up for others, while doing nothing themselves to defend the victims.

The do-nothings take the 'Doris Day' approach to life: 'que sera sera - whatever will be, will be', as if they have no control over what happens in the world. This approach is for the lazy, cowardly or those who don't understand the power that they wield. Do-nothings are driven by fear and hate.  They certainly don't care for others. Leo Buscaglia stated, 'I have a feeling that the opposite of love, is not hate - it's apathy. It's not giving a damn'.

Desmond Tutu once said, 'If you are neutral in situations of injustice, you have chosen the side of the oppressor. If an elephant has its foot on the tail of a mouse and you say that you are neutral, the mouse will not appreciate your neutrality'.

For centuries 'do-gooders' have campaigned against injustice in its various forms, whether it be human rights abuses, slavery, apartheid, equal rights.

What have the do-nothings achieved, other than to benefit from the actions of others? A prime example of this is those who oppose unionism while benefiting from all that unionists have achieved, such as the end of child labour, and all they continue to achieve, such as pay-rises. Many do-nothings complain about refugees coming to their country while doing nothing to end the issues that have caused the refugee crisis in the first place. In fact, many of those crises have been caused by wars that the do-nothings have tacitly supported through their inaction.

Plato said, 'the heaviest penalty for declining to rule is to be ruled by someone inferior to yourself'. This has been paraphrased as, 'those who are too smart to engage in politics are punished by being governed by those who are dumber'. Government must be held accountable, so it is imperative that every member of society be active in the political process. At best, the do-nothings facilitate the rise of inferior politicians; at worst, they facilitate tyranny.

The history of the world resounds with the results of successful activism by 'do-gooders'. For instance:
  • workers rights achieved through left-wing agitation in the 19th and 20th centuries, bringing an end to child labour in many countries and providing workers with the 40 hour week, overtime, leave entitlements, sick-pay.
  • Mahatma Gandhi undertook non-violent civil disobedience to end discrimination and racism in South Africa, British rule in India, tyranny, human rights abuses and poverty. Gandhi opposed mixing religion and politics. He also opposed the British-led partition of India which had resulted in massacres and the displacement of millions of people and worked to help the victims of this violence. India was eventually granted its independence because of the work of Gandhi and others like him. Gandhi has inspired millions of non-violent activists throughout the world.
  • the suffragette movements in the 19th and 20th centuries resulted in women being granted the right to vote in a number of nations, including the USA, UK and Australia and inspired women's rights movements decades later, that resulted in equal rights for women.
  • civil rights movements in USA, resulting in equal rights for African-Americans.
  • aboriginal rights in Australia, which resulted in indigenous people being given the right to vote, recognition of land rights and overturning the principle of 'terra nullius' (land without a people). 
  • the trade union movement, Solidarity, in Poland, led by Lech Walesa, resulted in the Gdansk Agreement between striking workers and the government, and eventually to free parliamentary elections that saw Lech Walesa became President of Poland.
  • ending of apartheid in South Africa, resulting in freedom for 20 million indigenous South Africans and the election of prominent anti-apartheid activist, Nelson Mandela, as President of South Africa.
  • the U.N. vote for Palestine on 29 November 2012 because of the agitation by millions of human rights activists world-wide, resulting in de facto recognition of Palestine after decades of genocide and ethnic cleansing by Israel.
  • letter-writing campaigns by Amnesty International which have resulted in the release of thousands of political prisoners across the world.
  • the Protestant Reformation movement led by Martin Luther, which ended the 'indulgence' system in which Christians bought their forgiveness of sin by paying the church. It also resulted in the bible being translated into local languages, rather than only in Latin. Essentially, this brought Christianity to the masses, rather than concentrating it in the hands of the Pope and priests who were using it for their own corrupt means.
  • the Magna Carta which was demanded by feudal barons to limit the power of the King. This led to our modern system of Constitutional Law and various Bills of Rights.
  • Jesus, a Palestinian Jew who spoke out against corruption in the temples, giving ordinary people the power to communicate directly with God rather than by paying priests for the privilege. His activism resulted in a religion dedicated to love, peace, forgiveness and caring for the poor and downtrodden.
The world will never be perfect, however this should not stop us from speaking up when we identify exploitation or tyranny in the world. It may be like putting out bush-fires, with some burning while others are being doused, however, it is better that some fires be put out than the whole world burns.