Outcasts United

I had the pleasure of reading this book during the summer, and I'm so glad I did, as I had plenty of time to read it and think about the greater themes within its pages. Rather than skimming, I loved that I could enjoy the story in its fullness! I did need to review the pages, however, because some of the subtleties of the book have slipped my memory.

I am amazed at how many complex topics are identified throughout the book; the author discusses gender, many political situations that produce refugees, racial/refugee discrimination, economic hardship, violence, and on and on! I greatly appreciate how St. John ties in the personal stories (often heartbreaking) of the families of many of the boys playing for the Fugees. The book serves as an engaging commentary on the many issues surrounding refugee relocation in the United States.

I could not help but recognize the tragedy of various unmet needs of all communities in Clarkston. There was clearly fear present in the local, predominantly white, community; fear of the unfamiliarity of Clarkston, fear of potential violence that refugees could bring to town, as well as frustration and anger! St. John quotes Officer Jordan, the police officer responsible for assaulting a Nigerian American, speaking in his defense: "They're in America now, not Africa," indicating his frustration with the growing population of refugees (84). The refugee communities, on the other hand, were being discriminated against, were being frequently mistreated, and were living very challenging lives as a result (not to mention their histories of immense tragedy). Chime, the man who was mistreated by Officer Jordan, expressed his feelings of being discriminated against: "You can't have have dark skin and a new car in Clarkston without harassment," he said (St. John 83). This is just one snapshot from the larger picture in Clarkston. The big question is: how do the resentments, fears, prejudices, frustrations get healed...and/or transformed? My PAX mind was busy with thoughts about mediation, restorative justice, dialogue...etc!

Yet, the possibilities for cross-cultural communication and cooperation in Clarkston are endless! In the video below, Luma speaks about how Clarkston presented her (and the whole city, really) with an incredible opportunity to grow. Luma found family in Clarkston, and was able to coach boys from 28 different countries (and as an Arab Muslim no less!). She speaks about how unique this situation is.

Inequality

I am choosing to write on the Barash article, "Economic Well-being," because I couldn't help but notice its relevance to the current global condition, namely the Occupy movement. When tackling the issue of world hunger, what must be addressed is the "distribution problem" (Barash 8). We are hearing about the 99% vs. the 1% a great deal today in the US (and hallelujah!). In the article, Barash discusses disturbing figures of inequality specifically in the food supply. Barash writes: "Fewer than 3% of the world's land owners--many of them absentee and/or large agribusiness firms--own nearly 75% of all cultivatable land" (8). As we know, large corporations who control seed and crop production, manipulate farmers out of their livelihoods. I will never forget Vandana Shiva's message about the suicide rates in India...and her important work of starting seed banks. I have read countless articles about the unsustainable nature of the current food system, and how the entire world could be fed with a corporate farming overhaul. Given the message of the Occupy movement, I couldn't help but comment on the inequality of food distribution.

Speaking of inequality of food distribution (food deserts):
Going to Growhaus this morning was very inspiring, and inspiration is important in today's world. The future of the environment, of human rights, of access to good food and water...often seems bleak. Yet there are projects such as Growhaus springing up all over the country, and they are serving to educate, support, and uplift communities. I'm certain we all could see the effects of structural violence in the community we visited today. The Growhaus message was perfect, for they are not there to "fix" a broken area, but rather, strive to collaborate to create positive change with and for the people living there.

Human Rights

"Human rights and peace are inextricably connected" -Barash (183)

The concept of human rights is incredibly inspiring; to think that standards could be upheld for the entire human race. Rights are generally very subjective, and a "right" assigned to one person or group could simultaneously harm another person or group. Who decides what is right anyway? Human rights are meant to surpass subjective deliberation...they are "inalienable," and therefore cannot be taken, or given away (Barash 178). 

Perhaps in the future, human rights will be upheld, and enforced to a much greater extent. We know that powerful states have long denied people their rights. Barash comments on this point, writing: "As opposed to the relatively narrow focus of states, concern with superordinate human rights requires that political barriers be transcended, in the search for human dignity on the widest possible scale" (183). What a powerful statement indeed! I do not believe that any single person could deny the truth in human rights. It is each individual's duty to honor life in all its forms, thereby affecting the sovereign state's actions.

Barash notes that in states where human rights are denied, violence often increases. I see this as the correlation between structural violence and secondary violence.

The issue of human rights is certainly very complex, as this world is made up of varying cultures with differing value systems. Despite differences in religion, cultural history, race, etc. I believe that there can be found a common caring for humanity deep within every living being. Human rights can and will be upheld when the intuitive center of spirit is given more nurturing.

A Global Community

I am appreciative that we are able to write the blogs after the classes, because it gives me an opportunity to relate the readings to any new material, and to discussions had in class.
As I mentioned to the group, I see a common theme connecting both readings, and the excerpts from the documentary on the International Criminal Court.

Barash and Webel, in "International Cooperation," write on the effectiveness, but greater ineffectiveness of the UN (and its predecessor The League of Nations). Essentially, what is outlined prominently in the chapter is that the UN is limited in its abilities due to the nature of its foundation on the nation-states. The UN is not an organization of NGOs, but is rather an organization of governments. The UN, therefore, cannot often achieve what it was founded to achieve when powerful nation-states have the power to veto. Barash and Webel point out, for instance, that the U.S. has threatened to not pay dues unless certain conditions (supportive of U.S. policy) were met. "War is itself largely a product of the nation-state," write Barash and Webel (304). The UN was founded on positive, important principles, but when it is manipulated by nation-states, it cannot serve to promote a peaceful world. The film we watched in class illustrates much of this same dynamic. The ICC has the potential to create huge change by advocating for the rights of all citizens on the globe, regardless of nationality.  If sovereign states were not interested in securing their own needs, the ICC could have a greater impact.

Webel and Barash write: "Community must be re-forged on a global scale," that we must become "planetary citizens" (304-5). Richard Falk also writes to a similar effect in his article "On Human Governance." Falk offers that peace will come from bottom-up leadership (which is community-driven in nature), rather than top-down globalization. I see the common theme between all sources as the world's need for community across all borders, for "associative" International cooperation (Barash 288).  Sovereign states have the majority of the power and influence, and wield it in destructive ways. The people, the citizens of the world, must individually find peace, then collectively come together for peace. We cannot rely on institutions such as the UN and ICC to uphold the collective yearning for ceasefire. (Whoa this got a bit inflated and idealistic! I just got into a zone!)

The Special Significance of Nuclear Weapons

Before class this morning, my mind was spinning with information gained from the readings, and my heart was heavy with the realities of nuclear power and nuclear war.

As much as I could have written before class, I feel I have much more to say now. The readings were intense. Even on a strictly intellectual level, the information is challenging. Allowing myself to sit with the information has been an even greater challenge. I remember sitting in lectures at CU and listening to my professor (who I still have a lot of respect for) speak on the sensibility of deterrence. The sense I got from her was that she simply did not know of another way to view the nuclear warhead situation in the world. Many of us feel that nuclear weaponry will be a part of life for an indefinite period of time. After all, the waste from production of the weapons we have already created is not going away. From the stance of the inevitability of nuclear weaponry, I can see how deterrence may seem like a reasonable way to uphold "peace." I find Barash and Webel's comments on strategic deterrence to very important. They write: "A number of factors--or 'skeletons in the closet'--have consistently undermined the presumed goal of strategic nuclear stability based on mutual deterrence" (77). These skeletons are: not having a "quantitative measure" for enough force to effectively deter the adversary, credibility or "usability" of deterrence missiles, vulnerability of weapons, human psychology, and inability to "deter" terrorists because of the innate ambiguity surrounding terrorist groups (Barash 77-80). When faced with the realities of these "skeletons," it is important to re-assess the belief in the deterrence model. We must perpetuate hope of complete disarmament. As unlikely as it may be at this point in time, it will take a collective movement of faith in peace without nuclear weapons to remove the fingers from the triggers. We must move from holding "negative peace" (the absence of war) as the goal to holding a vision for "positive peace" (truly life-supporting ways of being) (Approaches 72).

During class I had a visceral reaction to the material. The feelings of immense confusion and uncertainty that had been simmering at the edges of my consciousness began to boil. I can't help but feel uncertain, for all of the things that have mattered so much to me up to this point could so quickly be obliterated...in the next moment. I feel very unsure of the future. I find I must pay attention to the positive actions that are taking place all over the world, but I also cannot turn a blind eye to the degradation of humanity. Joanna Macy speaks to this uncertainty in the following video. Her words mean so much to me. She says that she wants to be sure that the future will "turn out okay," yet, she knows it's not possible to be sure (Macy). She says that we can live on the "knife edge of uncertainty," and find our greatest inspiration and creativity to create change from this edge (Macy).
Please watch!!

The Human Desire to Belong

I was surprised to find that much of this week's study material drew complete parallels to what I have been recently grappling with in my personal life. Or perhaps I extracted aspects of the articles and of the documentary because my consciousness is streamlined in one direction. For as McNamara said in The Fog of War, "We see what we want to believe" (Fog).

I am drawn to discuss the Merton and Janis articles as well as the documentary in the context of the natural human desire to belong, to be part of a greater whole.

Reading Merton's "A Devout Meditation in Memory of Adolf Eichmann" encouraged my musing in this direction with his discussion of sanity. Merton clearly struggled with the fact that perpetrators of horrific violence (he used the example of Adolf Eichmann) were often deemed "perfectly sane," according to psychological standards (240). Merton writes: "We rely on the sane people of the world to preserve it from barbarism, madness, destruction. And now it begins to dawn on us that it is precisely the sane ones who are the most dangerous" (241). I too feel that I could more easily understand people who are responsible for, or who consciously condone, genocide, if I knew they were under the influence of psychosis (although, who defines psychosis? That is another series of blog posts!). Perhaps rather than operating out of insanity, such people are acting to preserve their sense of identity; in other words, they may be victims of "groupthink" (Janis 32).

"Groupthink"often occurs when a group of like-minded individuals comes under great stress, and consequentially, feels a desperate need for "affiliation" (Janis 34). Janis believes that decision-making frequently deteriorates when the cohesiveness becomes the group's main focus. Janis uses the example of the Bay of Pigs to illustrate the negative consequences of "groupthink." The author quotes Schlesinger, who was opposed to Kennedy's plan of action for Cuba: "My feelings of guilt were tempered by the knowledge that a course of objection would have accomplished little save to gain me a name as a nuisance" (36). This is a very telling statement, for it shows the vulnerability he felt at the thought of raising a voice of dissent. I would like to suggest that Schlesinger was terrified to be cast out of his sense of place and purpose.
Schlesinger was told not to disrupt the "confidence" of the committee's decisions. That was an enormously conflicted, and tense time in American history. I can't imagine the pressure that the president and his advisers were under. With so much fear in the group, it is little wonder that Schlesinger could not voice his disagreements. The only stability the administration may have been able to find was in the stability of the group. Yet, "group pressures ... help to maintain a group's illusions" (Janis 36). As difficult as it often is to risk the group's illusion of security in times of massive uncertainty, it is vitally important. For including opinions from outside the group's one-track mind can reduce the occurrence of acts of great violence.

McNamara was also influenced by "groupthink," as evidenced by his dialogue with president Johnson, and his loss of memory about the authorization of Agent Orange (and I am sure there were many other examples that were not spoken of). In the recordings of his discussions with Johnson about the devastating misunderstanding that was Vietnam, McNamara came across as submissive. As he expressed in the documentary, he did have reservations about the US's involvement in the war. Yet, he cared deeply about the president, and felt a loyalty to him. There was great confusion over the Vietnam war, and Johnson needed a sense of security, a sense that his decisions were correct. McNamara wanted to support Johnson against his better judgment and intuition.

Finally, I want to tie "sanity" into the entire post a bit more. Merton writes: "What is the meaning of a concept of sanity that excludes love, considers it irrelevant, and destroys our capacity to love other human beings, to respond to their needs and their sufferings, to recognize them also as persons" (241). He comments on his fascination about the cultural norm of killing and disregarding other human lives; how those who are in positions of power, and can decide to annihilate countries with nuclear weapons, are deemed sane. He goes on to say: "I am beginning to realize that 'sanity' is no longer a value or an end in itself" (241). This is what strikes a personal chord with me. I have recently begun an exploration of the cultural norms I try desperately to fit into, even if they are driving me to harmful ends. I have found I am deeply afraid of upsetting the systems that accept me, that give me my identity. I see a great deal of these same fears in this week's material. I see the connection between fear of being alone and becoming victim to "groupthink," and I see the disconnect between "sanity" and what the word means in my heart.

"Terrorism"

"Terrorism" has become a very large subject in America since September, 11 2001. Yet the word, it seems, means different things to different people, and needs context to be used. In my time studying at CU in the International Affairs department, I was exposed to a lot of writing on definitions of terrorism. I feel that the word has had varying connotations throughout history. And though I am familiar with working definitions that do, in my opinion, encompass the scope of the term, I resonate with Eqbal Ahmad's stance on the vagueness of the word. Ahmad writes: "They don't define terrorism, because definitions involve a commitment to analysis, comprehension, and adherence to some norms of consistency" (128). He writes that definitions of terrorism lack clarity because only one version of morality can be included in its definition.
The fact is, what may be seen as an act of terrorism by one culture may represent a cry for justice by another culture. Ahmad then goes on to describe America's retaliation after 9/11 as hypocritical. I had a visceral reaction to this stance, because I certainly agree with him. I am aware of many of the devastating acts of terror (by our own definition) that America has committed throughout history. How then can we justly wage a war on terror after the violence we have inflicted? This is where the definition of terrorism fails us. Ahmad urges us to "avoid double standards" (131). This topic is so loaded, I could easily write an essay...but for lack of time I need to move on.

I feel called to comment on the Robert Pape article as well. Although his thesis centered around the effectiveness of suicide terrorism, I gravitated to his argument that stated: "There is little connection between suicide terrorism and Islamic fundamentalism, or any one of the world's religions" (137). I have felt bombarded by the message that Islamic fundamentalism is the source of the majority of suicide attacks. The facts presented by Pape are therefore very important to note.
This also connects to a much deeper issue of course...that of Islam being targeted as the "enemy" in the US. The American people were instilled with deep fear after 9/11, and "millions ... have felt unprecedented levels of stress, anxiety, trauma, and related feelings of having been 'terrorized' by [the] attacks" (Webel 140). Fear often breeds misunderstanding. Yet, now that 10 years of passed, I do feel that the American people are, as a whole, becoming more educated about the complexity of the 9/11 attacks. Perhaps that is my own naivete, but the blind hatred of "the middle east" seems to be softening. ?????????????