Thought some of you might be interested in something one of our most eloquent ex list members wrote on another list recently, especially as it touches on much of the discussion here. The Dan and Gord mentioned are the ones you are familiar with. Gord has added a few comments at the end.
From Vera: Hi all, Ever since September 11, I have been wanting to put down in words some of the thoughts I've been working with. I especially want to write something for you folks, since whenever Dan and Gord converse I seem to put in my two cents which always fall somewhere weirdly in the middle. I feel compelled to explain myself. I find Bush's "we're good and they're evil" characterization ridiculously simplistic. I don't disagree that bin Laden, and the events of September 11, are evil. Indeed, I think I finally settled in my own mind that it is appropriate to apply the word "evil" to a human being, when he is a powerfully charismatic leader who uses his psychological power to persuade young men that the highest good they can ever do is to end their lives in a horrendous fashion, while taking as many other lives as possible. I have settled in my own mind that perhaps the most evil ideology the world has ever seen is the ideology of patriarchy, which holds that the natural order of the world is for a few older men to control most of the power and money while treating younger men as cannon fodder and women as property. The inspiration and spiritual center of patriarchy is an omniscient, all-powerful, wrathful male God who demands obedience -- no one you'd ever invite to your garden party. The male god of monotheism has no congress with woman. There is no real equivalent of Shakti in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, despite the merely tolerated presence of the Madonna and the Sophia. Our culture is based on the same patriarchal ideology represented by radical Islamists; we just haven't recently carried it to quite the same extreme. But back up a few centuries and notice the holocaust that took place against women during the Middle Ages, perpetrated by the Church and its patriarchs. So while I agree with Bush that bin Laden is evil, I don't agree that we Westerners represent unbridled "good." Part and parcel of patriarchal systems is that the correct way to do business is through competition and force. If the partriarchs must use force to get what they want, they pull out the big penises (guns, missiles) and wreak havoc upon their fellow human beings. (It's a cliche, and to some extent I'm tired of the missile/penis metaphor, but it's just too obvious a one to omit.) Cooperation, empathy, and partnership, which are as much human traits as competition and violence, are sometimes given a nod along the way, but in patriarchal systems "might makes right" is fundamental. So I don't see the current world situation as simply another case of the U.S. justifying a massive deployment of force. I see it as another horribly destructive outcome of the worldwide predominance of the patriarchal model as a way of organizing human societies. It dismays me to read so much anti-U.S. discourse. Though I don't agree with most of Bush's actions, it seems to me beside the point to demonize the U.S. The way superpowers conduct themselves in these times is a symptom of a larger problem. We must stop agreeing with the patriarchal model and insist that the human values of cooperation, empathy, and partnership be represented in all our institutions and in every word we utter or write. What does this have to do with what I wrote the other day about the anti-globalists? I see them as agreeing with the current organization of human beings into nation states. Every time someone mouths a generalization about "Americans," or agrees when someone else does, the system of nation states is given tacit support. The system of nation states, the way it is currently practiced, is just institutionalized patriarchy. Powerful nations act as patriarchs-writ-large. Why give any credence to this idea? Gord reported that a Korean friend informed him "I hate America more than Japan." To me this implies hating people; I don't think this person is referring to hating the idea of America or Japan, or hating the governments of these countries. The comment makes me believe the speaker hates my family, and especially my daughters who combine both nationalities. People of good will should not agree with such statements, even in silence. It is possible to have compassion for the speaker while still objecting to his or her words. Having said all this, I must emphatically add that I believe the U.S. MUST attempt to flush out, arrest, and incarcerate terrorists. Like Bush, I don't want to wait till they strike again. I want to take away their weapons NOW. (This is different from "I want to kill them before they kill us," though spokespeople for the U.S. government don't seem to grasp the fine difference between those two statements.) Why do I think the U.S. must do this? Because Europe won't. Of all the frustrating opinions to repeatedly read and hear, the European complaint that the U.S. isn't acting cooperatively is one of the worst. Frankly, I'd MUCH prefer that the U.S. not act alone, and that the U.S. government would actually *listen* to our allies, and grant that the leaders of other countries might have some wisdom. But the fact that the U.S. acts alone is as much the fault of the European countries, at this point, as it is the fault of the U.S. If other countries want an equal role in policing the world, then where are their armed forces? Where are their military expenditures? They have been content to allow the U.S. to spend more and equip more forces because it benefits them to do so. If they're so hot on helping to police the world, then they need to put their budgets where their words are. I have no illusions about the need for worldwide policing against terrorism. We must move to a system of international peacekeeping and international justice. It has to be backed up by the superior ability to take away the weapons of those who would do harm. And it's clear to me that the U.S. will go it alone as long as the European countries continue to permit it to. So they had better get moving. But in the long run, those of us who don't like the current way business is conducted must speak out not against the U.S., but against patriarchy and the mystique of male violence. We must recognize and treat the root of the problem, not the symptoms. This is a tall order for individuals. It's easy to adopt an attitude of helplessness and cyncism. But there are things individuals can do right now to help push along the evolution of human ideas: 1) Give aid to people and organizations that empower women and nurture children. In particular, help organizations whose goals include improving women's economic status. Independent women are the bane of partriarchal systems. 2) Find ways to introduce the best of our culture to others, while learning as much as possible about cultures foreign to us. In North America, this includes respecting the cultures of indigenous people right here in our own countries. It's high time we admitted that they are as much our founding fathers and mothers as our European ancestors. 3) Object to hate speech and violent language. Doing this might bring the conversation to an end, but in my opinion people of good will must no longer tolerate hate and violence in speech as well as in deeds. 4) Recognize that hatred of the West is not a virtuous repudiation of western culture's materialism. Understand that all human beings, regardless of where they live, are materialistic. It's part of our shadow. Our salvation is to dig deep and find our spiritual alternatives to the empty consumption and stockpiling of *things.* We have a wonderful tool to help us do these things, and we're using it right now. I can't put it better than Terence McKenna did: "We need to turn off the virtual internal televisions which are hooking us in to the tired cultural assumptions dictated from the Pentagon, Madison Avenue, and the corporate state. We need instead to turn on our modems and to begin to interact with like-minded people throughout the world and establish this new intellectual order which will be the salvation of the biosphere, I firmly believe. The Internet concretizes our collectivity finally allowing people to feel the inter relatedness of their fates; feel that inter relatedness as a thing that transcends national divisions, ideological divisions. The net allows each of us to recover the experience of being part of the human family." Peace -- Vera Gord (who in case you didn't know, is teaching English in South Korea): Sorry, I've had a busy week -- a birthday, a trip to Seoul (including a concert by Yo-Yo Ma and the Shanghai Symphony orchestra), joining a rock band (part-time), and several extremely late nights out hanging out with a Quebecois teacher here and having stunning barmaids chat up the friendly foreigner who is earnestly trying to learn Korean. But yeah, I don't mind you cross posting the email, though I would ask you amend one tiny fact? It was the younger sister of my friend/student who said that she hated America more than Japan (and this was reported by her sister, not said directly to me). I'd also note that this is people talking in their second (or third or fourth) language: some subtlety is missing. For example, I wouldn't say I hate America, but I do distrust America, dislike many aspects of it (while liking others), and am pretty critical of America most of the time. However, there's a lot of linguistic subtlety involved in expressing feelings like that -- strong general negative feelings that have particular causes and roots. -- Doug email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.zo.com/~brighto "Now people stand themselves next to the righteous And they believe the things they say are true They speak in terms of what divides us To justify the violence they do" Jackson Browne, It Is One
