Unpeople
Byrnzie
Posts: 21,037
A rational analysis by Noam Chomsky on the subject of blinkered racism in the World today:
http://www.nationofchange.org/recognizi ... 1326034449
Noam Chomsky - Sunday 8 January 2012
On June 15, three months after the NATO bombing of Libya began, the African Union presented to the U.N. Security Council the African position on the attack – in reality, bombing by their traditional imperial aggressors: France and Britain, joined by the U.S., which initially coordinated the assault, and marginally some other nations.
It should be recalled that there were two interventions. The first, under U.N. Security Council Resolution 1973, adopted on March 17, called for a no-fly zone, a cease-fire and measures to protect civilians. After a few moments, that intervention was cast aside as the imperial triumvirate joined the rebel army, serving as its air force.
At the outset of the bombing, the A.U. called for efforts at diplomacy and negotiations to try to head off a likely humanitarian catastrophe in Libya. Within the month, the A.U. was joined by the BRICS countries (Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa) and others, including the major regional NATO power Turkey.
In fact, the triumvirate was quite isolated in its attacks – undertaken to eliminate the mercurial tyrant whom they had supported when it was advantageous. The hope was for a regime likelier to be amenable to Western demands for control over Libya’s rich resources and, perhaps, to offer an African base for the U.S. Africa command AFRICOM, so far confined to Stuttgart.
No one can know whether the relatively peaceful efforts called for in U.N. Resolution 1973, and backed by most of the world, might have succeeded in averting the terrible loss of life and the destruction that followed in Libya.
On June 15, the A.U. informed the Security Council that “ignoring the A.U. for three months and going on with the bombings of the sacred land of Africa has been high-handed, arrogant and provocative.” The A.U. went on to present a plan for negotiations and policing within Libya by A.U. forces, along with other measures of reconciliation – to no avail.
The A.U. call to the Security Council also laid out the background for their concerns: “Sovereignty has been a tool of emancipation of the peoples of Africa who are beginning to chart transformational paths for most of the African countries after centuries of predation by the slave trade, colonialism and neocolonialism. Careless assaults on the sovereignty of African countries are, therefore, tantamount to inflicting fresh wounds on the destiny of the African peoples.”
The African appeal can be found in the Indian journal Frontline, but was mostly unheard in the West. That comes as no surprise: Africans are “unpeople,” to adapt George Orwell’s term for those unfit to enter history.
On March 12, the Arab League gained the status of people by supporting U.N. Resolution 1973. But approval soon faded when the League withheld support for the subsequent Western bombardment of Libya.
And on April 10, the Arab League reverted to unpeople by calling on the U.N. also to impose a no-fly zone over Gaza and to lift the Israeli siege, virtually ignored.
That too makes good sense. Palestinians are prototypical unpeople, as we see regularly. Consider the November/December issue of Foreign Affairs, which opened with two articles on the Israel-Palestine conflict.
One, written by Israeli officials Yosef Kuperwasser and Shalom Lipner, blamed the continuing conflict on the Palestinians for refusing to recognize Israel as a Jewish state (keeping to the diplomatic norm: States are recognized, but not privileged sectors within them).
The second, by American scholar Ronald R. Krebs, attributes the problem to the Israeli occupation; the article is subtitled: “How the Occupation Is Destroying the Nation.” Which nation? Israel, of course, harmed by having its boot on the necks of unpeople.
Another illustration: In October, headlines trumpeted the release of Gilad Shalit, the Israeli soldier who had been captured by Hamas. The article in The New York Times Magazine was devoted to his family’s suffering. Shalit was freed in exchange for hundreds of unpeople, about whom we learned little, apart from sober debate as to whether their release might harm Israel.
We also learned nothing about the hundreds of other detainees held in Israeli prisons for long periods without charge.
Among the unmentioned prisoners are the brothers Osama and Mustafa Abu Muamar, civilians kidnapped by Israel forces that raided Gaza City on June 24, 2006 – the day before Shalit was captured. The brothers were then “disappeared” into Israel’s prison system.
Whatever one thinks of capturing a soldier from an attacking army, kidnapping civilians is plainly a far more serious crime – unless, of course, they are mere unpeople.
To be sure, these crimes do not compare with many others, among them the mounting attacks on Israel’s Bedouin citizens, who live in southern Israel’s Negev.
They are again being expelled under a new program designed to destroy dozens of Bedouin villages to which they had been driven earlier. For benign reasons, of course. The Israeli cabinet explained that 10 Jewish settlements would be founded there “to attract a new population to the Negev” – that is, to replace unpeople with legitimate people. Who could object to that?
The strange breed of unpeople can be found everywhere, including the U.S.: in the prisons that are an international scandal, the food kitchens, the decaying slums.
But examples are misleading. The world’s population as a whole teeters on the edge of a black hole.
We have daily reminders, even from very small incidents – for instance, last month, when Republicans in the U.S. House of Representatives barred a virtually costless reorganization to investigate the causes of the weather extremes of 2011 and to provide better forecasts.
Republicans feared that it might be an opening wedge for “propaganda” on global warming, a nonproblem according to the catechism recited by the candidates for the nomination of what years ago used to be an authentic political party.
Poor sad species.
http://www.nationofchange.org/recognizi ... 1326034449
Noam Chomsky - Sunday 8 January 2012
On June 15, three months after the NATO bombing of Libya began, the African Union presented to the U.N. Security Council the African position on the attack – in reality, bombing by their traditional imperial aggressors: France and Britain, joined by the U.S., which initially coordinated the assault, and marginally some other nations.
It should be recalled that there were two interventions. The first, under U.N. Security Council Resolution 1973, adopted on March 17, called for a no-fly zone, a cease-fire and measures to protect civilians. After a few moments, that intervention was cast aside as the imperial triumvirate joined the rebel army, serving as its air force.
At the outset of the bombing, the A.U. called for efforts at diplomacy and negotiations to try to head off a likely humanitarian catastrophe in Libya. Within the month, the A.U. was joined by the BRICS countries (Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa) and others, including the major regional NATO power Turkey.
In fact, the triumvirate was quite isolated in its attacks – undertaken to eliminate the mercurial tyrant whom they had supported when it was advantageous. The hope was for a regime likelier to be amenable to Western demands for control over Libya’s rich resources and, perhaps, to offer an African base for the U.S. Africa command AFRICOM, so far confined to Stuttgart.
No one can know whether the relatively peaceful efforts called for in U.N. Resolution 1973, and backed by most of the world, might have succeeded in averting the terrible loss of life and the destruction that followed in Libya.
On June 15, the A.U. informed the Security Council that “ignoring the A.U. for three months and going on with the bombings of the sacred land of Africa has been high-handed, arrogant and provocative.” The A.U. went on to present a plan for negotiations and policing within Libya by A.U. forces, along with other measures of reconciliation – to no avail.
The A.U. call to the Security Council also laid out the background for their concerns: “Sovereignty has been a tool of emancipation of the peoples of Africa who are beginning to chart transformational paths for most of the African countries after centuries of predation by the slave trade, colonialism and neocolonialism. Careless assaults on the sovereignty of African countries are, therefore, tantamount to inflicting fresh wounds on the destiny of the African peoples.”
The African appeal can be found in the Indian journal Frontline, but was mostly unheard in the West. That comes as no surprise: Africans are “unpeople,” to adapt George Orwell’s term for those unfit to enter history.
On March 12, the Arab League gained the status of people by supporting U.N. Resolution 1973. But approval soon faded when the League withheld support for the subsequent Western bombardment of Libya.
And on April 10, the Arab League reverted to unpeople by calling on the U.N. also to impose a no-fly zone over Gaza and to lift the Israeli siege, virtually ignored.
That too makes good sense. Palestinians are prototypical unpeople, as we see regularly. Consider the November/December issue of Foreign Affairs, which opened with two articles on the Israel-Palestine conflict.
One, written by Israeli officials Yosef Kuperwasser and Shalom Lipner, blamed the continuing conflict on the Palestinians for refusing to recognize Israel as a Jewish state (keeping to the diplomatic norm: States are recognized, but not privileged sectors within them).
The second, by American scholar Ronald R. Krebs, attributes the problem to the Israeli occupation; the article is subtitled: “How the Occupation Is Destroying the Nation.” Which nation? Israel, of course, harmed by having its boot on the necks of unpeople.
Another illustration: In October, headlines trumpeted the release of Gilad Shalit, the Israeli soldier who had been captured by Hamas. The article in The New York Times Magazine was devoted to his family’s suffering. Shalit was freed in exchange for hundreds of unpeople, about whom we learned little, apart from sober debate as to whether their release might harm Israel.
We also learned nothing about the hundreds of other detainees held in Israeli prisons for long periods without charge.
Among the unmentioned prisoners are the brothers Osama and Mustafa Abu Muamar, civilians kidnapped by Israel forces that raided Gaza City on June 24, 2006 – the day before Shalit was captured. The brothers were then “disappeared” into Israel’s prison system.
Whatever one thinks of capturing a soldier from an attacking army, kidnapping civilians is plainly a far more serious crime – unless, of course, they are mere unpeople.
To be sure, these crimes do not compare with many others, among them the mounting attacks on Israel’s Bedouin citizens, who live in southern Israel’s Negev.
They are again being expelled under a new program designed to destroy dozens of Bedouin villages to which they had been driven earlier. For benign reasons, of course. The Israeli cabinet explained that 10 Jewish settlements would be founded there “to attract a new population to the Negev” – that is, to replace unpeople with legitimate people. Who could object to that?
The strange breed of unpeople can be found everywhere, including the U.S.: in the prisons that are an international scandal, the food kitchens, the decaying slums.
But examples are misleading. The world’s population as a whole teeters on the edge of a black hole.
We have daily reminders, even from very small incidents – for instance, last month, when Republicans in the U.S. House of Representatives barred a virtually costless reorganization to investigate the causes of the weather extremes of 2011 and to provide better forecasts.
Republicans feared that it might be an opening wedge for “propaganda” on global warming, a nonproblem according to the catechism recited by the candidates for the nomination of what years ago used to be an authentic political party.
Poor sad species.
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
it's pretty much the same old exploitation of class ... the rich vs. the poor ... it's the same thing for every major global issue from climate change to war ... the poor shall suffer the consequences and exploitation by the rich ...
my ex just gave $20k as part of her family foundation to a program that allows african documentary filmmakers to make their own films ... so there voices can be heard ...
but similar to israeli policies - change can only occur internally ... and for the most part, the citizens of the countries that are exploiting will turn a blind eye ...
Just curious... why do African film makers need your ex's money for "their voices to be heard?"
Africans are like the most ancient peoples on the planet. 200,000 years, and they can't make a moving picture without 20 Grr from your ex? Wow. Good thing we didn't have to wait for them to invent the camera, or harness electricity...
Americans are here 200 years, we got a man on the moon. Just sayin...
Probably money well spent though... especially if you want info on how to build a home out of mud or twigs.
Two completely racist posts in a matter of minutes. That may be a record here.
Hardly racist- far from it. previous post implies that Africans are exploited, and unable to advance or change their position bc of it.
Just wondeing who was exploiting them when they were the only ones around?
I'm sure they were just a couple of degrees too hot on the exploited meter, or surely they would have built Rome...
...so close...
PC much? geez...
i would classify more ignorant than racist ...
this is where education and the ability to think critically doesn't allow for a reasonable discussion
Thinking critically is what allows me to ask why someone lives in a mud hut after 200,000 years.
Thinking ignorantly is believing it's some white guy's fault.
Pardon my satellite, hope it doesn't fall on your mud-nest.
Hilarious what passes for education around here. Does PJ award you guys a Masters after 10,000 posts or something?
it's really a toss up of whether i should feel sorry for you or be annoyed by your continuing insensitivity ... i do know tho that you have yet to make yourself a person who deserves a reasonable response ...
either way - i expect you will continue to do what you do ...
If by implying that I am "insensitive", you are trying to say you are "sensitive" to Africans, I would sumbit that your sympathy stems from a deep-seeded sense of superiority to them.
Maybe you are the racist? I don't feel sorry for them at all- BECAUSE I SEE US AS EQUAL.
that makes absolutely no sense ... if you get hit by a car - should i not feel sorry for you because we are equals?
and this is great !..."Pardon my satellite, hope it doesn't fall on your mud-nest."
Godfather.
I consider Shirley to be an unpeople.
Your ex didn't give some African 20K bc he got hit by a car.
And Obama's grandmother not having running water in her village has nothing to do with anybody but the people in her village.
We can go all day, but if they are REALLy equal in your eyes, you wouldn't treat them like they can't help themselves... They are people, not animals.
Listen you fucking racist. Why do you assume that the film makers she is donating to are living in huts? Because they are in Africa?
http://www.google.ca/search?q=johannesb ... 5&bih=1223
dude ... he is totally not worth getting worked up over ... i think his ignorance makes him one of those trolls who doesn't know he is a troll ...
I'm not worked up at all. Just tired of ignorance ruining the forum. If these people are allowed to post garbage like this. Then we should be allowed to berate them for it.
Name calling is not OK... Please see posting guidelines.
These are the kind of people we don't need in this forum. The kind of people ruining it for the majority.
the funny thing is he is calling you out for calling him a racist when he said the exact same thing to me a few posts ago ... i would treat it as entertainment more than critical thought ...
edit: i have been called all kinds of things here and on pms - and i have never reported anything to the mods ... ever ... just sayin' ...
I read what I concider crap all the time here but I don't call people names......anymore
Godfather.
Ya. Calling me a "fucking racist" is bannable.
Posting PM's is bannable. NOTE: I did not curse at you.
If having an opinion that people should be responsible for themselves, and stop blaming people (Whites, Americans, Christians, any group) for their 200,000 year-old problems is "racist", then fine. Call me whatever you want, but I am following the guidelines, and you have broken them twice.
Control your emotions please....
Sticky post:
viewtopic.php?f=13&t=67751
Discuss the topic, not the people discussing the topic. No personal comments. Look your comments over before hitting Submit and be sure you're debating THE TOPIC.
Posting Guidelines:
viewtopic.php?f=13&t=91525
Posting Guidelines
1. Be nice. We're very big on RESPECT here. Respect for each other, the band and the Ten Club Community forum environment. Please think of it as if you are as a guest in someone else's home. Please do not put your posting privileges at risk.
2. Discuss, disagree and debate politely. It's possible to disagree with people without being abusive, and it's a requirement here. This includes abusive Private Messages.
a. We operate on the "I'm rubber, you're glue" philosophy so if you make a wonderful, thoughtful post with good points and call the other guy a moron while you're at it, it'll be removed. See #3.
3. There are people bashing and insulting each other all over the internet. We feel it can be better here.
4. Please respect topic integrity by not derailing discussions from the original poster’s intent (OP). You can begin a new topic of your own in the appropriate forum.
etc..