----- Original Message -----
From: "Nick Arnett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Brin-L" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, September 14, 2001 5:29 PM
Subject: RE: Songs
> The most moving performance I ever witnessed of the song below was in a
> squatters' settlement in Mexico, performed by very poor people, playing
> hand-made instruments. It sounds very, very different coming out of the
> mouths of people who haven't benefited from U.S. culture. They were, in
> fact, people who see the United States as a supporter of right-wing
> government and business leaders that do everything they can to prevent
> people from becoming educated, forming labor unions or any of a number of
> other actions that in this country are considered fundamental liberties
and
> very, very American values. Throughout Latin America, we support such
> actions, directly and indirectly.
I think I've mentioned this before, but I/my family has had years of
connective to the poor of South America. My dad's twin brother, my Uncle
Jim, moved to the barrios of Maracay Venezuela back in the mid-60s. Yes it
was just an uncle, but since he had no children of his own (he is a priest)
we were his closest family. We'd drive 150 miles to visit with him 'most
every weekend until he moved when I was just over 10.
As a result, the relationship of the US to South America was a big topic of
conversation in our family for many years. I do not dispute the fact that
the US has allied itself with repressive regimes. I agree that, even in
fighting Communism, we should not have aligned ourselves with some of the
right-wing thugs that we did. I agree that anger on the part of the poor
people of South America towards the US is justified in those circumstances.
But, I also know that, for the most part, our relationship with the people
of South America was not purely antagonistic. It was definitely a love/hate
relationship with the US. After all, it was a conservative bishop who
agreed to send a team to South America to work with the poor people in the
barrio. It wasn't a matter of converting heathens either, the religion of
the people was Catholic. It was a matter of social justice. As Pope Paul
VI wrote during that time, the official attitude of the Catholic church was
"if you want peace, work for justice."
I am not arguing that the Catholic church was perfect, no more than I'd
argue that the US government was perfect. I'm arguing that there was a lot
of good done as well as wrongdoing. Further, that was recognized, so the
understanding of the people as a whole was mixed, not pure hatred. People
recognized the love and caring of some Americans as well as the indifference
of others.
As a result, our relationship with South and Central America is no worse
than mixed. We have millions of illegal immigrants coming from there, and
most of the trouble has to do with illegal capitalism (the drug trade). I
live in an area full of illegal immigrants, friends of ours use to be
illegal, our church holds ESL classes for hundreds of immigrants, Texas is
30% Hispanic. Realistically, the risk of terrorism from the radical right
wing is far higher than from this population.
Basically, what I'm getting at is, while we do have issues of social justice
concerning the actions of the US in the world, they are not connected to
this bombing. We've interfered in this hemisphere for around 150 years, and
the main terrorist risk is not from Latin America. Rather, it is from the
Middle East towards Afghanistan. The two main complaints concerning the US
are
1) Support of Israel
2) Our cultural influence
Do you think that we should let Israel be pushed into the sea? That is,
basically, the demand of those aligned with this weeks attack.
Do you think that things like equality for women, tolerance of different
religions, civil liberties, elected governments, etc. is evil? That is the
threat of the US to the cultures to these people. The willingness to act to
defend Arab countries from a Persian country probably made us enemies, but I
don't think that was the source of hate I thought it would be. After all,
Syria did not withdraw from the coalition during Desert Storm.
> God calls for justice, God calls for us to cast out the wicked from among
> us, God expects us to hold one another accountable and to punish
> appropriately. And God calls us to do all of these things in love, not
> hatred. God does not call us to be vengeful to one another. God teaches
us
> to hate evil, not neighbors. Evil
Well that's true. But, I think that expecting Americans to have no anger
after such an incident us very unproductive. It reminds me of
fundamentalist preachers who tell victims of incest to forgive their fathers
as soon as they started counseling them.
One part of love is self-love. I think that lecturing a group of people who
have been terribly hurt about their inappropriate response with writings
that appear to be self righteous is inappropriate. I'm sure that you don't
mean to write in a manner that is interpreted that way, but I interpreted
the posts in that manner and I agree with the basic concept of "love your
enemy."
Indeed, I am very heartened by how the established sources of power are
fighting against the type of racism and stereotyping that typically
accompany an act of war. Compare the difference between interning the
Japanese in WWII, and having an Islamic cleric be the first to speak at the
national day of remembrance. Did FDR speak against harassing Japanese
Americans in WWII? Did Japanese American leaders get time on major news
programs to speak about how they lost people too and how their children lose
twice: first with the bombing and then with the threats from idiots?
In an ideal world, we could arrest, convict, and send all those responsible
for this to prison for the rest of their lives. (Yes, I'm opposed to the
death penalty) In an ideal world, bin Laden could eventually repent of his
actions, be forgiven, and then acknowledge that his punishment was merciful
and work the rest of his life to help the US in any way he could from his
prison cell as a statement of acknowledgement of the wrongness of his
actions.
But, speaking of forgiveness now is highly inappropriate. Having gone
through the process of forgiveness for the damages of incest (not as bad as
death, but certainly non-trivial) I can tell you from experience that it way
way too soon to expect people to talk about forgiveness ...except in an
abstract sense. It denies the validity of the anger and pain of the hurt
person. It is appropriate to fight against anger turning into hate, but I
would suggest that phases like "focusing on just punishment and deterrent
instead of revenge" is better. I think that JDG's arguments against the use
of nuclear weapons are a good example of an appropriate means of dealing
with this. While I have and will differ with him on points concerning
appropriate action, I think his attitude towards the people of Afghanistan
is valid.
I'd also like to throw out one possibility. Talking with friends who
immediately turn to what we've done wrong, I've gotten the sense that some
of this talk is a coping mechanism. If we are to blame, then we have
control...we can prevent future attacks. I think that denial is a very
understandable first reaction...its in all the books on grief for goodness
sakes. But, I think we need to accept that we cannot prevent this type of
action by behaving properly. In this case, I think it is our righteous
actions more than our unrighteous actions (and there have been both) that
have put us at risk.
> One of the things that transformed Europe 500 years ago was when the
Gospels
> became available to ordinary people, who saw that Christ favored the poor
> and oppressed, not the wealthy and powerful. As we turn to Scripture in
> this song and elsewhere, it will demand that we seek first the gift of
love
> in our own hearts before we dare judge others.
>
True, but this has virtually nothing to do with this attack. Remember, it
was not sponsored by the poor and oppressed, it was sponsored by a
multi-millionaire with an agenda.
> God will judge each of us one of these days.
>
And we will all be found wanting, and will only have hope because of the
grace of God. I think that any claim that this is the judgment of God,
whether because we have allowed feminism in the US (as seen on the 700 club)
or because we support Zion (Hussein) is wrong. (I know that you support
neither point of view Nick.) I also think that we deny our own humanity
when we deny the appropriateness of grief and anger. If a foreign country's
leaders were to talk like our country's leaders, I would not consider them
out of line. If we do not claim to be all powerful, if we acknowledge our
human limitations, then we should allow ourselves the same right to human
reactions.
Now, to go all the way back to the songs. In times like this, when people
are hurting, songs of self-love, of love for one's community are highly
appropriate. Just because many people lost in the WTC were very well
compensated traders, doesn't mean that their deaths are not a devastating
event for the people who love them. Just because the CEO of the bond
trading company who lost most of his employees in the WTC is rich and
powerful doesn't make his tears fake. (I'm not saying that you claimed
this.) Just like any other human being, Americans have right to grief and
to console each other now. Sometimes true humility requires accepting that
one has needs.
Dan M.
