Dear Honorable Senator Durbin,
I would like to thank you and your staff for your response to my previous letter. It was apparent that the topic and intent of my letter were understood, and I appreciate your efforts to address my concerns. Furthermore, I am glad to hear that we are both concerned about the “tragic cycle of violence” and that we both hope that diplomatic measures can be taken to bring about a more equitable arrangement than what currently exists.
That said, I would like to point out a few notable word choices in the letter as way of warning. Sometimes words are carefully chosen out of political necessity. At other times, words are used without consideration, thereby revealing biases that even the writer may not be aware of. It is not up to me to determine which of these holds true in the current context. I am here simply to point them out.
The first notable choice is the use of word however in the following sentence “However, these goals [i.e. Palestinian safety, sovereignty, and democracy] cannot be achieved at the expense of Israel’s sovereignty or the safety of its citizens.” The use of this word not only negates the assertion in the previous sentence (i.e. that Palestinians have rights), but it also presupposes that the goals of Palestinians and the goals of Israelis are at odds and, thus, Palestinians must acquiesce. Sometimes, a period should be a period. Palestinians have rights. Israelis have rights. These rights extend to the point where they intrude on the rights of the other. Enough said.
The second point I would like to address is the use of modals, in particular the words must and should. You state that Hamas must reject terrorism and bombings but that Israel should take steps to address illegal settlements and improve the daily lives of Palestinians. As in your previous statement, the onus appears to be wholly on the backs of the Palestinians and, in particular, on Hamas. Palestine must comply, must accept the resolutions and must abide by cease-fire agreements. Israel should strongly consider curbing their activities. At what point will we demand that Israel fulfill its obligations as set out in various ceasefire agreements? At what point will Israel be told to comply with international law and basic humanitarian rights? For example, when will Israel be told (rather than encouraged) to ease restrictions on border crossing? In 2005, the border crossing into Gaza became even more guarded, leading to a slow strangle of the Gazan economy and viability and an increasing dire humanitarian crisis. One can only assume that this tightening was in retaliation for the democratic election of Hamas. And let us not forget the “security” wall, which was deemed illegal by the international courts, the expansion in Jerusalem in violation of Security Council orders, or the numerous illegal settlements breaking up the West back, despite UN Resolutions denouncing them and Israeli internal reports admitting their illegality.
One final point, as we consider this particular sentence and what Hamas must do. I take issue with the general supposition that Hamas is the barrier to peace. Although I can appreciate the desire not to encourage terrorism, the argument that Hamas cannot be involved in peace talks is simply absurd. It sounds like nothing more than a repeat of what was said about Arafat and the PLO. They too were deemed terrorists and, hence, unapproachable, but this terrorist designation itself may be suspect. It may be hard to distinguish between an organization opposing armed occupation and a bunch of thugs, but in the current case, the occupation is apparent, as are the arms of the militaristic superiority of the occupier. The UN recognized the right of peoples to struggle against armed occupation back in the mid-80s, thereby allowing some wiggle room for Palestinian resistance. Although this doesn’t grant blanket approval to violent struggle, it does allow for the right to confront imperialistic forces. Still, even if we determine that Hamas is a thuggish, terrorist group, its incorporation the peace process is necessary for progress. If the conflict in Northern Ireland taught us nothing, it taught us that the surest way to peace is through talks with one’s enemies. Only when the IRA was brought into peace talks was any sustainable progress made. Thus, even if Hamas is a terrorist organization, not talking to them will serve only to impede a peaceful resolution.
Overall, the word of the day must be equality. Each group has suffered deeply. Each side has significant and valid grievances. Each faction must be held equally accountable. If Israel has the right to protect its people with white phosphorus and D.I.M.E bombs, then perhaps Hamas has the right to protect its people with Qassam rockets and suicide bombings. Though I would prefer more peaceful forms of resistance, such as those used by the Women in Black in Israel and the strikes and boycotts used by Palestinians during the first Intifada, we seem to be living in less patient times. However, we must still pursue the path of equality and justice, until we can find the road of mercy. Either violence is never an acceptable form of justified struggle, or it equally acceptable from both sides of a conflict. Either everyone can ignore agreements and laws, or no one can.
Thank you again for your time and for attending to my comments and concerns. I hope that soon we will not need to discuss the conflict between Israel and Palestine because a peaceful resolution has been achieved. Until then, I will continue to address what I feel are lapses in logic and morality, lest we become absurd or hypocrites.
Yours truly,
MJL
Tuesday, February 24, 2009
Thursday, February 19, 2009
This is just the beginning (of the end (of days))
***The US governments seems so bent on "winning" this war against terrorism that it's willing to train its own executioners. File this one under: WTFAWD? (what-the-f**k-are-we-doing)***
Due to recruiting pressures, two wars, and growing anti-war sentiment, the military has been turning a blind eye and accepting white supremacists and other lovely racists into its ranks. Don't be surprised. The military isn't. They've known about the growing numbers of extremists in the service since at least 2006.
They join not because they want to wage war abroad (though that is -- I'm sure -- an added bonus). Rather, they join to prepare for the upcoming war at home. The Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), an organization that tracks hate groups here in the US, cites a former Special Ops officer and neo-Nazi, Steven Barry, who explains why white supremacists need to join the Army:
Remember Timothy McVeigh? His military experience came in handy, didn't it? Why don't we ask the victims of and the families of the 168 people killed in the Oklahoma City bombing how useful his training was.
And now we have new crazies climbing the ranks. For example, take Marine Lance Cpl. Kody Brittingham, who was recently arrested on unrelated charges when a search dredged up a journal containing white-supremacist material and a plot to kill President Obama. And there are a litany of others, many of whom the SPLC warned the military about. There was Forrest Mackley Fogarty, stationed in Iraq through the Army National Guard; Matt Buschbacher, a Navy SEAL; and Shawn Stuart, who served two tours of duty in Iraq to mention a few. The SPLC reports that "None of them were ever disciplined for neo-Nazi activities. All were honorably discharged."
One wonders how enlisting men like this, training them, arming them, and then shipping them into Iraq or Afghanistan is going to help win the hearts and minds of the people. A man identifying himself as Jacob Berg told an investigative reporter:
With the crazy Christian Zionists and Dominionists nipping at one heel, AIPAC at another, and white supremacists creeping up from behind, one wonders where front line for the war against terror really is or where it really should be.
::shudder::
Due to recruiting pressures, two wars, and growing anti-war sentiment, the military has been turning a blind eye and accepting white supremacists and other lovely racists into its ranks. Don't be surprised. The military isn't. They've known about the growing numbers of extremists in the service since at least 2006.
They join not because they want to wage war abroad (though that is -- I'm sure -- an added bonus). Rather, they join to prepare for the upcoming war at home. The Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), an organization that tracks hate groups here in the US, cites a former Special Ops officer and neo-Nazi, Steven Barry, who explains why white supremacists need to join the Army:
- "Light infantry is your branch of choice because the coming race war and the ethnic cleansing to follow will be very much an infantryman's war," he wrote. "It will be house-to-house, neighborhood-by-neighborhood until your town or city is cleared and the alien races are driven into the countryside where they can be hunted down and 'cleansed.' "
"As a professional soldier, my goal is to fill the ranks of the United States Army with skinheads. As street brawlers, you will be useless in the coming race war. As trained infantrymen, you will join the ranks of the Aryan warrior brotherhood."
Remember Timothy McVeigh? His military experience came in handy, didn't it? Why don't we ask the victims of and the families of the 168 people killed in the Oklahoma City bombing how useful his training was.
And now we have new crazies climbing the ranks. For example, take Marine Lance Cpl. Kody Brittingham, who was recently arrested on unrelated charges when a search dredged up a journal containing white-supremacist material and a plot to kill President Obama. And there are a litany of others, many of whom the SPLC warned the military about. There was Forrest Mackley Fogarty, stationed in Iraq through the Army National Guard; Matt Buschbacher, a Navy SEAL; and Shawn Stuart, who served two tours of duty in Iraq to mention a few. The SPLC reports that "None of them were ever disciplined for neo-Nazi activities. All were honorably discharged."
One wonders how enlisting men like this, training them, arming them, and then shipping them into Iraq or Afghanistan is going to help win the hearts and minds of the people. A man identifying himself as Jacob Berg told an investigative reporter:
- "Us racists are actually getting into the military a lot now because if we don't every one who already is [in the military] will take pity on killing sand niggers. Yes I have killed women, yes I have killed children and yes I have killed older people. But the biggest reason I'm so proud of my kills is because by killing a brown many white people will live to see a new dawn."
With the crazy Christian Zionists and Dominionists nipping at one heel, AIPAC at another, and white supremacists creeping up from behind, one wonders where front line for the war against terror really is or where it really should be.
::shudder::
Wednesday, February 18, 2009
My newest favoritist site EVER!
OMG. Let me repeat: O-M-G!!! This site is AWESOME, and I don't use all caps lightly.
I took my last two posts and made pictures of them. Amazing, if I do say so myself.
You take a bunch of text or words, plug it into their applet, and it creates a "word cloud", or as we in the business like to call it a semantic network. It weights each word by frequency, excluding common words and randomly aligns them. You can adjust the colors, fonts, and other features. Frickin AWESOME!
This one is called "Take Courage"
I call this one "Avigdor Lieberman"
I took my last two posts and made pictures of them. Amazing, if I do say so myself.
You take a bunch of text or words, plug it into their applet, and it creates a "word cloud", or as we in the business like to call it a semantic network. It weights each word by frequency, excluding common words and randomly aligns them. You can adjust the colors, fonts, and other features. Frickin AWESOME!
This one is called "Take Courage"
I call this one "Avigdor Lieberman"
Tuesday, February 17, 2009
You're not alone
I’m sitting here in the atrium of Kellogg School of Business at Northwestern, watching the students filter in for lunch and networking while I listen to Andrew Bird’s “Take Courage,” and I’m starting to have one of those existential moments, contemplating human nature, free will, and plants.
It began with Andrew Bird and my current obsession with this song. I woke with it in my head, went to gym, ate breakfast, read a few online papers, wrote a letter to the State Department, all while hearing his whistle in my mind. I do not believe that artists speak to me directly. In fact, I think they really speak to no one save maybe themselves, saying what they wish to hear, painting what they want to see, filling their voids for themselves. We just get to benefit from their nature to abhor a vacuum and use their art to fill our own. Why do they bother, these artists even when they may remain obscure or poor? Because it is their nature to. The caged bird sings, because that’s what birds do. The cut grass grows, because that’s what grass does. Business students network, because that’s what markets do.
So what then if we allowed all people to pursue their interests and predilection as their natures lead them? Would we end up with savants in random fields or solipsistic bloggers? Would we descend into chaos? If structure was not imposed on our activities and on our possible futures, who would do the hard or undesirable work? Who would farm or bury the dead? Who would collect the garbage? Would we have a world of daydreamers, video game players, and sloths? And what about those among us who feel compelled to humiliate, victimize, rape and murder? What would constrain them?
And this is where the plants come in. Nothing grows completely wild. Even the weeds must share the soil with other roots and must bend to find the light. Even the trees depend on the rain and are twisted and shaped by the winds. The mere presence of other plants dictates the height, width, and lifespan of a plant, sometimes aiding, sometimes impeding.
So what are the forces of nature that (would) constrain us? Culture? Religion? Reason? I don’t know, but I believe they exist. It may be as simple as the mere presence of other people or of other life that keeps up within the acceptable range. Maybe the weight of humanity keeps us grounded.
Of course, I’m one of those who believe that human nature is not inherently evil. At the same time, I don’t believe it’s inherently good. I do, however, believe it is inherently in harmony, which transcends distinctions such as good or evil. It simply is because it is and whistles because it can.
It began with Andrew Bird and my current obsession with this song. I woke with it in my head, went to gym, ate breakfast, read a few online papers, wrote a letter to the State Department, all while hearing his whistle in my mind. I do not believe that artists speak to me directly. In fact, I think they really speak to no one save maybe themselves, saying what they wish to hear, painting what they want to see, filling their voids for themselves. We just get to benefit from their nature to abhor a vacuum and use their art to fill our own. Why do they bother, these artists even when they may remain obscure or poor? Because it is their nature to. The caged bird sings, because that’s what birds do. The cut grass grows, because that’s what grass does. Business students network, because that’s what markets do.
So what then if we allowed all people to pursue their interests and predilection as their natures lead them? Would we end up with savants in random fields or solipsistic bloggers? Would we descend into chaos? If structure was not imposed on our activities and on our possible futures, who would do the hard or undesirable work? Who would farm or bury the dead? Who would collect the garbage? Would we have a world of daydreamers, video game players, and sloths? And what about those among us who feel compelled to humiliate, victimize, rape and murder? What would constrain them?
And this is where the plants come in. Nothing grows completely wild. Even the weeds must share the soil with other roots and must bend to find the light. Even the trees depend on the rain and are twisted and shaped by the winds. The mere presence of other plants dictates the height, width, and lifespan of a plant, sometimes aiding, sometimes impeding.
So what are the forces of nature that (would) constrain us? Culture? Religion? Reason? I don’t know, but I believe they exist. It may be as simple as the mere presence of other people or of other life that keeps up within the acceptable range. Maybe the weight of humanity keeps us grounded.
Of course, I’m one of those who believe that human nature is not inherently evil. At the same time, I don’t believe it’s inherently good. I do, however, believe it is inherently in harmony, which transcends distinctions such as good or evil. It simply is because it is and whistles because it can.
Dearest State Department . . .
Dear Honorable Secretary Clinton,
I would like to encourage the Department of State to continue to list Kach and Kahane Chai on the list of known terrorist organizations. Furthermore, I encourage you to deny visas to those who are or were associated with these organizations. These groups have been listed as terrorist organizations since 1994 for contending that Arabs should be removed from the biblical lands of Israel by force when necessary. They condone violence against non-Jews in Israel/Palestine as an appropriate means to establish a religiously homogeneous state and are, therefore, rightfully listed as terrorists and deserving of a fitting response.
Although their last major attack was in 1994,* they have continued to incite and encourage “low-level attacks” against Arabs, both Israeli and Palestinian. In 2005, an Israeli solider associated with Kahane Chai opened fire on a bus of Arab-Israelis, killing four,** and there have been reports of others associated with these groups condoning, if not planning, violence against the civilian population. Israel, itself, has banned these two groups and regards them as extremists, despite the groups’ attempts to become more legitimate and allowed into the government.
The recent electoral ascent of Avigdor Lieberman*** and his Yisrael Beiteinu Party in the Knesset may put the State Department in the awkward position of having to deny an elected official a visa. However, due to his pass membership in the Kahane Chai and our position on former terrorists and those associated with terrorist organizations, we must not capitulate. We cannot tolerate extremist groups and their members, regardless of which side of the line their sentiments fall. If we are to deny visas to men like the Swiss scholar Tariq Ramadan for his alleged connections to Hamas or to women like the Nicaraguan historian Dora María Téllez for alleged terrorist activities, then we must remain consistent and deny visas to those associated with Kach and Kahane Chai.
Sincerely,
Meredith Larson
Footnotes:
* This 1994 attack refers to the Cave of the Patriarchs massacre in which Baruch Goldstein opened fire on Muslims visiting a mosque, killing 29 of them. One rabbic commentator noted the irony of Israel's response to this terrorist action. It is common for Israel to punish the families of Arab terrorists by doing such things as bulldozing or sealing their homes. However...
**Avigdor Lieberman has inspired a good deal of concern within the Jewish diaspora and Israel itself. More left-leaning Israelis are starting a petition to keep him and his party out of high-level positions. While there may be many reasons for their disdain, I assume that most of the reasons stem from his demand for Loyalty Oaths from all Israelis (though one would guess primarily non-Jews) and his extreme and (at least) mildly racist rhetoric.
I would like to encourage the Department of State to continue to list Kach and Kahane Chai on the list of known terrorist organizations. Furthermore, I encourage you to deny visas to those who are or were associated with these organizations. These groups have been listed as terrorist organizations since 1994 for contending that Arabs should be removed from the biblical lands of Israel by force when necessary. They condone violence against non-Jews in Israel/Palestine as an appropriate means to establish a religiously homogeneous state and are, therefore, rightfully listed as terrorists and deserving of a fitting response.
Although their last major attack was in 1994,* they have continued to incite and encourage “low-level attacks” against Arabs, both Israeli and Palestinian. In 2005, an Israeli solider associated with Kahane Chai opened fire on a bus of Arab-Israelis, killing four,** and there have been reports of others associated with these groups condoning, if not planning, violence against the civilian population. Israel, itself, has banned these two groups and regards them as extremists, despite the groups’ attempts to become more legitimate and allowed into the government.
The recent electoral ascent of Avigdor Lieberman*** and his Yisrael Beiteinu Party in the Knesset may put the State Department in the awkward position of having to deny an elected official a visa. However, due to his pass membership in the Kahane Chai and our position on former terrorists and those associated with terrorist organizations, we must not capitulate. We cannot tolerate extremist groups and their members, regardless of which side of the line their sentiments fall. If we are to deny visas to men like the Swiss scholar Tariq Ramadan for his alleged connections to Hamas or to women like the Nicaraguan historian Dora María Téllez for alleged terrorist activities, then we must remain consistent and deny visas to those associated with Kach and Kahane Chai.
Sincerely,
Meredith Larson
Footnotes:
* This 1994 attack refers to the Cave of the Patriarchs massacre in which Baruch Goldstein opened fire on Muslims visiting a mosque, killing 29 of them. One rabbic commentator noted the irony of Israel's response to this terrorist action. It is common for Israel to punish the families of Arab terrorists by doing such things as bulldozing or sealing their homes. However...
- When has Israel destroyed or sealed the home of a Jewish terrorist? After Baruch Goldstein went on his rampage of murder on Purim 1994, gunning down 29 Palestinians in the Cave of the Patriarchs in Hebron, not only was his home not sealed, but the Palestinian population was placed under a 24-hour curfew for more than two weeks - all the while having to watch from their windows the fanatic group of settlers in Hebron dancing freely in the streets in joyous celebration of Goldstein’s heinous crime. While Israel understandably forbids a condolence tent being set up by the family of a terrorist killed in his perverted line of duty, to this day hundreds of Jews still gather undisturbed at the memorial site for Goldstein on the anniversary of his massacre of innocent Palestinians.
- "A mob of Palestinians tonight murdered a Jewish Israeli man in a police uniform after he opened fire on a bus and killed four Arabs, allegedly in protest of the Gaza withdrawal plan."
**Avigdor Lieberman has inspired a good deal of concern within the Jewish diaspora and Israel itself. More left-leaning Israelis are starting a petition to keep him and his party out of high-level positions. While there may be many reasons for their disdain, I assume that most of the reasons stem from his demand for Loyalty Oaths from all Israelis (though one would guess primarily non-Jews) and his extreme and (at least) mildly racist rhetoric.
Friday, February 13, 2009
An open letter to U.S. Rep. Janice ("Jan") Schakowsky
Dear Honorable Representative Jan Schakowsky,
I wanted to take a moment to offer you my sincere thanks for the email you sent. I am happy to see that our opinions on the humanitarian crisis in Gaza are similar. Your letter reflects an awareness of both the severity of the situation Palestinians find themselves in and the desperation to be heard that your constituents feel.
In particular, I appreciate the fact that you see the death told as “truly tragic” and that you reached out to both the International Committee of the Red Cross and Israeli Ambassador Meridor to expedite humanitarian relief. And while I am glad you feel that we need to address the Israel/Palestine situation diplomatically, I am a bit concerned about the way you present the preconditions for peace. You state that Palestinians must recognize Israel’s “right to exist” and to “abandon terrorism” while neglecting to mention that Israel must recognize certain Palestinian rights, such as the right to not be bombed by the IDF, to receive necessary medical care, to import necessary goods such as fuel and medicine, to cross borders, and basically to be allowed some modicum of self-respect and security.
As for Israel’s survival as a Jewish democratic state, well, considering the current rise of Avigdor Lieberman and his party's desire to have all Israelis (Jews, Arabs, and the like) sign loyalty oaths or lose their citizenship, one might wonder if Israel is going to be able to save itself and remain a democracy or if it will descend into a McCarthyistic fascist (thought Jewish!) state. And as for the two-state solution you mention, I agree that we need a place to start, and I guess even moldy bread would look good to the starving. But I wonder if this will truly bring sustained peace and prosperity to both the Israelis and Palestinians. If certain other issues, such as the status of Jerusalem, the right to return, and the settlers are not handled openly and equitably, no number of states (2 or 2000) will save the people.
Personally, I am deeply concerned about the way politicians and leaders (Israeli, Palestinian, and American) are manipulating this tragedy to secure their own power. I desperately hope that mercy and justice, rather than racism/antisemitism and revenge, begin to guide our policies. I believe that we are moving in that direction, but I, like many others, am growing impatient. Ultimately, it is not for us Americans to decide what is good for the Middle East. We must avoid be perceived as imposing our will and instead allow the sides to reach a common agreement for goodwill.
Recently, I had a less favorable exchange with a certain senator from our state. He too responded to my call and emails for a cease-fire and for strengthened humanitarian intervention, but his response was nothing more than a myopic, militaristic love fest in which he touted his unwavering support for Israel (even when its actions are, as some describe, genocidal) and his backing of $30 billion dollars for defense aid to Israel as though these things were diamonds to showcase and not the dog turds they truly are.
So again, I would like to thank you and your staff for the correspondence. I hope that you take it as a badge of pride that some have called you a moonbat. Someone needs to be pulling to the left to keep us moving straight and centered.
Blessed are the peacemakers.
Sincerely,
Meredith
I wanted to take a moment to offer you my sincere thanks for the email you sent. I am happy to see that our opinions on the humanitarian crisis in Gaza are similar. Your letter reflects an awareness of both the severity of the situation Palestinians find themselves in and the desperation to be heard that your constituents feel.
In particular, I appreciate the fact that you see the death told as “truly tragic” and that you reached out to both the International Committee of the Red Cross and Israeli Ambassador Meridor to expedite humanitarian relief. And while I am glad you feel that we need to address the Israel/Palestine situation diplomatically, I am a bit concerned about the way you present the preconditions for peace. You state that Palestinians must recognize Israel’s “right to exist” and to “abandon terrorism” while neglecting to mention that Israel must recognize certain Palestinian rights, such as the right to not be bombed by the IDF, to receive necessary medical care, to import necessary goods such as fuel and medicine, to cross borders, and basically to be allowed some modicum of self-respect and security.
As for Israel’s survival as a Jewish democratic state, well, considering the current rise of Avigdor Lieberman and his party's desire to have all Israelis (Jews, Arabs, and the like) sign loyalty oaths or lose their citizenship, one might wonder if Israel is going to be able to save itself and remain a democracy or if it will descend into a McCarthyistic fascist (thought Jewish!) state. And as for the two-state solution you mention, I agree that we need a place to start, and I guess even moldy bread would look good to the starving. But I wonder if this will truly bring sustained peace and prosperity to both the Israelis and Palestinians. If certain other issues, such as the status of Jerusalem, the right to return, and the settlers are not handled openly and equitably, no number of states (2 or 2000) will save the people.
Personally, I am deeply concerned about the way politicians and leaders (Israeli, Palestinian, and American) are manipulating this tragedy to secure their own power. I desperately hope that mercy and justice, rather than racism/antisemitism and revenge, begin to guide our policies. I believe that we are moving in that direction, but I, like many others, am growing impatient. Ultimately, it is not for us Americans to decide what is good for the Middle East. We must avoid be perceived as imposing our will and instead allow the sides to reach a common agreement for goodwill.
Recently, I had a less favorable exchange with a certain senator from our state. He too responded to my call and emails for a cease-fire and for strengthened humanitarian intervention, but his response was nothing more than a myopic, militaristic love fest in which he touted his unwavering support for Israel (even when its actions are, as some describe, genocidal) and his backing of $30 billion dollars for defense aid to Israel as though these things were diamonds to showcase and not the dog turds they truly are.
So again, I would like to thank you and your staff for the correspondence. I hope that you take it as a badge of pride that some have called you a moonbat. Someone needs to be pulling to the left to keep us moving straight and centered.
Blessed are the peacemakers.
Sincerely,
Meredith
Tuesday, February 10, 2009
Before the Law
Franz Kafka, one of my favorite writers back when I was in high-school , wrote a story called "Before the Law," in which a man comes to the gates of the Law and asks the gatekeeper for permission to enter. The gatekeeper tells him he has to wait but that he will probably get to enter. The story goes on to chronicle the man's attempt to bribe the gatekeeper, so he can enter, but years pass. Then, just as the man is about to die, he asks the gatekeeper why no one else has ever come to seek justice with the Law. The gatekeeper tells him that this doorway was meant only for him (the seeker) and that only he could have entered here. Then he shuts the door forever.
As with all of his stories, Kafka's view of justice and the law seem imbued with a sense of hopelessness, alienation,and self-blame. His characters try to do what is right in order to be accepted and respected by the power structure. But if "Metamorphosis" and The Trial have taught us nothing, such outcomes are highly unlikely. More probable is emptiness, denial, and despair. I believe this expectation of continuous disenfranchisement is the universal norm, rather than some depressing, Kafkaesque anomaly.
And so it is with great pleasure that I now introduce some of people who have been dragged into the courtyard of the Law, in person, in corporate form, and in absentia if necessary.
(In progress at the Hague)
January 26, 2009, International Criminal Court
January 30, 2009 – reopening of a case by US Court of Appeals
(Coming soon to a New York court by you) April 29, 2009
As with all of his stories, Kafka's view of justice and the law seem imbued with a sense of hopelessness, alienation,and self-blame. His characters try to do what is right in order to be accepted and respected by the power structure. But if "Metamorphosis" and The Trial have taught us nothing, such outcomes are highly unlikely. More probable is emptiness, denial, and despair. I believe this expectation of continuous disenfranchisement is the universal norm, rather than some depressing, Kafkaesque anomaly.
And so it is with great pleasure that I now introduce some of people who have been dragged into the courtyard of the Law, in person, in corporate form, and in absentia if necessary.
(In progress at the Hague)
- Name: Charles Taylor
Location of offense: Sierra Leone
Charge: He's facing "11 counts including murder, rape, conscripting child soldiers and sexual slavery during the 1996-2002 civil war in the impoverished West African state." He's charged with your basic crimes against humanity
Details: Some have said that (among other things) Taylor encouraged cannibalism as a way to terrorize the population, demanded human sacrifice, and buried pregnant women alive. One hopes that there's a special ring in hell for people who would do things like this, doesn't one?
January 26, 2009, International Criminal Court
- Name: Thomas Lubanga Dylio
Location of offense: Democratic Republic of Congo
Charge: Crimes against humanity
Details: “conscripting and enlisting children under the age of fifteen years and using them to participate actively in hostilities” including training them to rape, kill, torture, and perform other horrifying atrocities.
Although Lubanga is facing charges related to the use of child soldiers, some contend that he should also face charges for the mass killing and torture of civilians, primarily those from the Lendu ethnic group.
January 30, 2009 – reopening of a case by US Court of Appeals
- Name: Pfizer, American-based pharmaceutical company
Location of offense: Nigeria
Charge: Tort violation under US law
Details: The defendants are the parents of multiple children in Nigeria. They accuse Pfizer of using their children as human guinea pigs without their knowledge or consent during a meningitis outbreak. They further claim that the use of the untested, unapproved medicine led to illness and death. The case was originally rejected but has been reopened.
(Coming soon to a New York court by you) April 29, 2009
- Name:
Location of offense: Nigeria
Charge: complicity in human rights abuses in Nigeria, including the execution and torture of members of a group of environmental leaders, known as the Ogoni 9.
Details: EarthRights International reports that Shell provided arms, transportation and other assistance to the military in the hopes that they'd be able to restart drilling and business there. Go capitalistic imperialism! This case will explore the executions of the Ogoni 9, a group of environmental activists, along with the torture and deaths of other Nigerians.
Saturday, February 7, 2009
The mettle of mothers
One of my absolute favorite people, Nick Hockings, once said to me, "Wars will end when parents stop accepting flags for their dead children." He was referring to the war in Iraq at the time, but his was a timeless observation. Martyrs, flags, and dog tags make for poor substitutes for children. Any parent can attest to that.
As a slight change of pace, I'd like to talk a bit about two instances of courage and hope in the face of despair, times when parents -- actually mothers and women more generally -- have decided they'd rather have their sons and daughters and neighbors to corpses. In some cases, these women affected the course of history and their cultures, and in others they are still affecting a change and may (godwilling) alter the course of insanity.
Act 1: Madres de Plaza de Mayo
For seven years, starting in 1976, the junta of Argentina waged war against its citizens. The "Dirty War," as it is called, began after President Peron's death. His wife and vice president, Isabel Peron, took hold of the government but was soon removed from power by the military, who then attempted to consolidate its position by committing genocide against its people. Ultimately, between 10,000 and 30,000 people were "disappeared" or murdered, most of them trade unionist, students, and activist - your normal undesirables.
Although some say the Falklands War with Britain was the reason for the Dirty War's ending, there was a growing movement of opposition during the war led by the mothers of the disappeared. And their protest helped to undermine the junta both nationally and internationally.
During their campaign of terror, the government abducted "subversives" and innocents alike, tortured them, drugged them and dropped them alive out of airplanes into the ocean, stole the babies from pregnant prisoners, and denied any knowledge of even the existence of the abductees.
Starting on a Saturday in 1977, mothers of children who had disappeared gathered in the Plaza de Mayo in Buenos Aires, wearing white head scarves with the names of their missing children written on them. Some even wore pictures of their children around their necks. Soon the women began to meet every Thursday to demand answers, marching to see their children again or to know what had happened to them.
The government, of course, denied any knowledge of their children's whereabouts and tried to ignore the uppity mothers, calling them crazies and subversives, in the hopes that they'd go away. They didn't.
Although everyone knew the government was behind the mass disappearances, no one spoke up, no one except the mothers. In Latin America, and especially the Catholic Argentina, women had one of two roles: the public role, which usually translated into 'prostitute', and the private role, which was the respectable 'mother.' Good women did not engage in the public sphere, making the very public, very focused, very political actions of the mothers all the more powerful. As Gilda Rodriguez writes:
For years, the mothers were the only public sign of dissent, but slowly the movement grew to include the middle class and workers more generally. On December 10, 1982, they held a 24-hour protest, this time with thousands behind them. By 1983, the government's disdain for the mothers' movement went public, as police used tear gas and sticks to break up and break down the mothers. But theirs was a "a tenacity born out of a mother's love," and it would not be broken so easily.
Eventually, with the help of international pressure and the fall of the military junta during the Falklands War, the Dirty War came to an end, but the mothers kept going. They demanded that those responsible be held accountable, and while many children never came home and many parents never found out what happen to their babies, the movement changed the way women and mothers were perceived. No longer relegated to the private sphere alone, these women marked their ground in the public sphere and called tyranny by name.
Act 2: Women in Black
During the first Intifada in 1987, Israeli women began to gather in vigils. By 1988, these small vigils became a movement with weekly demonstrations in Jerusalem on Fridays (I assume because of Sabbath). Arab-Israeli and Palestinian women joined in, leading to a coalition of Jewish, Muslim, and Christian women. They had no agenda or platform other than the end of aggression and occupation.
The women extended support to one another, crossing the Green Line, visiting Palestinians in Israeli prisons. They gathered at regular intervals, always wearing all black to represent mourning, always keeping their message focused on ending the occupation, aways non-violent, though not always silent. They were often harassed, mostly - but not completely - verbally. Men and boys would spit on them and drop their pants to show off their asses and genitals. Fruit, sandwiches, eggs, waters - basically anything throwable was thrown at them. But such actions seemed only to strengthen their resolve.
Gila Svirsky, one of the women in the early years of the movement, recalls the attacks in detail, pointing out that such abuses were always sexually motivated.
It didn't take long for the international community to become aware of what the Women in Black were doing. The movement continued to grow and crossed borders. By the end of the 1980s, women across the world were dressing in black, taking to the streets, and demanding an end to aggression and occupation in their own countries and abroad.
In the 1990s, women in former Yugoslavia donned all black and protested the regime of Slobodan Milošević. Slobodian dismissed them as witches, but needless to say, he didn't win that fight. In December of 2001, over 5,000 Palestinian and Israeli Women in Black and men marched in Jerusalem. In the same year, the movement received the Millennium Peace Prize for Women from United Nations Development Fund for Women (UNIFEM), and the Serbian and Israeli branches were (combined) nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize.
Perhaps they have to wait until the occupation actually ends before they can win that prize, but if peace actually comes, I don't think the Nobel Prize will really much matter.
Better than a coffin
These are by no means the only stories of women opposing oppression and genocide. There was the Black Shash Movement in South Africa, for instance, but Africa deserves its own posting to cover all the grassroots movements to bring peace and end genocide. And while I focused on women here, we should not forget that men too have stood to bear witness along with their sisters.
But there is something inspiring about the presence of political women, of mothers unwilling to give up on their children or on the future. There is something tangibly powerful, though impossible to define, in seeing such actions. Perhaps it takes the unwillingness of the most marginalized elements of society to abandon hope and accept the status quo and all its violence to remind us of our conscious. Perhaps because women are often viewed to be unaware, powerless, or ready-made victims, their chutzpah is more powerful.
I don't know.
But one thing I'm sure of is that if I had to choose one person who I know would fight heaven and hell for me and whom I'd want to be at my side during a time of trial, it'd be my mom.
As a slight change of pace, I'd like to talk a bit about two instances of courage and hope in the face of despair, times when parents -- actually mothers and women more generally -- have decided they'd rather have their sons and daughters and neighbors to corpses. In some cases, these women affected the course of history and their cultures, and in others they are still affecting a change and may (godwilling) alter the course of insanity.
Act 1: Madres de Plaza de Mayo
For seven years, starting in 1976, the junta of Argentina waged war against its citizens. The "Dirty War," as it is called, began after President Peron's death. His wife and vice president, Isabel Peron, took hold of the government but was soon removed from power by the military, who then attempted to consolidate its position by committing genocide against its people. Ultimately, between 10,000 and 30,000 people were "disappeared" or murdered, most of them trade unionist, students, and activist - your normal undesirables.
Although some say the Falklands War with Britain was the reason for the Dirty War's ending, there was a growing movement of opposition during the war led by the mothers of the disappeared. And their protest helped to undermine the junta both nationally and internationally.
During their campaign of terror, the government abducted "subversives" and innocents alike, tortured them, drugged them and dropped them alive out of airplanes into the ocean, stole the babies from pregnant prisoners, and denied any knowledge of even the existence of the abductees.
Starting on a Saturday in 1977, mothers of children who had disappeared gathered in the Plaza de Mayo in Buenos Aires, wearing white head scarves with the names of their missing children written on them. Some even wore pictures of their children around their necks. Soon the women began to meet every Thursday to demand answers, marching to see their children again or to know what had happened to them.
The government, of course, denied any knowledge of their children's whereabouts and tried to ignore the uppity mothers, calling them crazies and subversives, in the hopes that they'd go away. They didn't.
Although everyone knew the government was behind the mass disappearances, no one spoke up, no one except the mothers. In Latin America, and especially the Catholic Argentina, women had one of two roles: the public role, which usually translated into 'prostitute', and the private role, which was the respectable 'mother.' Good women did not engage in the public sphere, making the very public, very focused, very political actions of the mothers all the more powerful. As Gilda Rodriguez writes:
- By showcasing their grief in public, the Madres turned their motherhood and their bodies into political tools to hold the government accountable for its actions.
- As mothers, they presented a powerful moral symbol which, over time, transformed them from women seeking to protect their children to women wishing to transform the state so that it reflected maternal values.
For years, the mothers were the only public sign of dissent, but slowly the movement grew to include the middle class and workers more generally. On December 10, 1982, they held a 24-hour protest, this time with thousands behind them. By 1983, the government's disdain for the mothers' movement went public, as police used tear gas and sticks to break up and break down the mothers. But theirs was a "a tenacity born out of a mother's love," and it would not be broken so easily.
Eventually, with the help of international pressure and the fall of the military junta during the Falklands War, the Dirty War came to an end, but the mothers kept going. They demanded that those responsible be held accountable, and while many children never came home and many parents never found out what happen to their babies, the movement changed the way women and mothers were perceived. No longer relegated to the private sphere alone, these women marked their ground in the public sphere and called tyranny by name.
Act 2: Women in Black
During the first Intifada in 1987, Israeli women began to gather in vigils. By 1988, these small vigils became a movement with weekly demonstrations in Jerusalem on Fridays (I assume because of Sabbath). Arab-Israeli and Palestinian women joined in, leading to a coalition of Jewish, Muslim, and Christian women. They had no agenda or platform other than the end of aggression and occupation.
The women extended support to one another, crossing the Green Line, visiting Palestinians in Israeli prisons. They gathered at regular intervals, always wearing all black to represent mourning, always keeping their message focused on ending the occupation, aways non-violent, though not always silent. They were often harassed, mostly - but not completely - verbally. Men and boys would spit on them and drop their pants to show off their asses and genitals. Fruit, sandwiches, eggs, waters - basically anything throwable was thrown at them. But such actions seemed only to strengthen their resolve.
Gila Svirsky, one of the women in the early years of the movement, recalls the attacks in detail, pointing out that such abuses were always sexually motivated.
- For the record, I repeat here some of the most common invective: “whores” (in general), “whores of the Arabs” or “whores of Arafat” (in particular), “You girls need a rape to make you feel better”, “What’s wrong with Jewish men?”, “Is fucking Arabs (or Arafat) better?”, “Shove it, babies, good and hard,” and the endless staple of “Fuck you”. These were often accompanied by appropriate hand gestures. “Whores”, the most common appellation, was often delivered in Arabic (sharmuta), although there’s a perfectly good word for it in Hebrew (zona), and those speaking were always Jewish....There is no question that much of the reaction to us was based upon our gender, not our politics. In mixed male and female demonstrations, the abuse is predominantly political, with words and phrases like “traitors”, “fifth column”, “anti-Semites”, “no memory of the Holocaust”, and the like. We had our share of this, but by and large the curses reserved for Women in Black were sexual.
It didn't take long for the international community to become aware of what the Women in Black were doing. The movement continued to grow and crossed borders. By the end of the 1980s, women across the world were dressing in black, taking to the streets, and demanding an end to aggression and occupation in their own countries and abroad.
In the 1990s, women in former Yugoslavia donned all black and protested the regime of Slobodan Milošević. Slobodian dismissed them as witches, but needless to say, he didn't win that fight. In December of 2001, over 5,000 Palestinian and Israeli Women in Black and men marched in Jerusalem. In the same year, the movement received the Millennium Peace Prize for Women from United Nations Development Fund for Women (UNIFEM), and the Serbian and Israeli branches were (combined) nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize.
Perhaps they have to wait until the occupation actually ends before they can win that prize, but if peace actually comes, I don't think the Nobel Prize will really much matter.
Better than a coffin
These are by no means the only stories of women opposing oppression and genocide. There was the Black Shash Movement in South Africa, for instance, but Africa deserves its own posting to cover all the grassroots movements to bring peace and end genocide. And while I focused on women here, we should not forget that men too have stood to bear witness along with their sisters.
But there is something inspiring about the presence of political women, of mothers unwilling to give up on their children or on the future. There is something tangibly powerful, though impossible to define, in seeing such actions. Perhaps it takes the unwillingness of the most marginalized elements of society to abandon hope and accept the status quo and all its violence to remind us of our conscious. Perhaps because women are often viewed to be unaware, powerless, or ready-made victims, their chutzpah is more powerful.
I don't know.
But one thing I'm sure of is that if I had to choose one person who I know would fight heaven and hell for me and whom I'd want to be at my side during a time of trial, it'd be my mom.
Friday, February 6, 2009
DAMN YOU WORD LIMIT!
So I had this quasi-brillant Letter to the Editor that I was all ready to send to the local papers here in Chicago, until the ACLU told me (not directly - via a mass email) that most papers will not publish anything over 250 words and that most people won't read the long letters. So ::sigh:: I hacked my beautiful 650-word essay almost in half. But I'll be darnedtoheck if I don't say everything I want to say somewhere.
And really, this is a much better forum, as I can put all my hotlinks back in, so people don't think I'm making this stuff up.
Letter to the Editor: The director's cut
In discussions about what to do with the men currently held in Guantanamo Bay, people often forget two important facts: (1) many of them have already been cleared of any wrong doing and--in our own government’s words--were not and are not a threat, and (2) the few men who are a threat can indeed be handled in our federal prison system.
Rather than focus on these facts and on the task at hand, i.e. ending an unjust practice, we squabble about recidivism rates and whether or not cities that house former Gitmo inmates would be the focus of future terrorist attacks. First off, many including CNN and law experts seriously doubt the recidivism statistics, as they have traditionally been wrong and have included men who wrote op-ed pieces or attended documentary film fests as “returning to the fight.” And housing accused terrorists hasn't gotten Cuba blown up. Once again, our leaders appear to be manipulating numbers to strengthen their weak arguments, and various shock-jocks are exploiting fear and prejudice to glean higher ratings.
But what we are truly missing here is that we have become bound by fear. We are constantly looking over our shoulders, fearful of all of “them.” We must break out of this bondage and not be so afraid of the actions of one or two men that we end up denying the rights and freedoms of hundreds.
For years, many prisoners have languished in confinement, despite having been cleared. Take for instance the seventeen Uighurs (WEE-gurz) who were cleared in 2004 but are still in Cuba because (i) China, their home country, is likely to oppress them if they go back, (ii) we won’t take them, and (iii) China is threatening other countries that might be willing to take them. And there are others as well, other men and boys who have lost years of their lives, who may never see their families or homes again, and who have done little if anything deserving of imprisonment. Surely, keeping the innocent in prison to avoid the possibility that someone might someday do something we don’t like is no more than throwing the baby out with the bath water, or more accurately burning the baby to boil the bath water.
And as for the argument that we cannot house those who do pose a threat to us – patently false. The USA has the largest prison system in the industrialized world. We have over 2,000,000 people currently in the prison system, almost 0.7% of our population. If anything, we should be arguing that we can’t take them because we don’t have room not because they’re too dangerous. Our justice system, although by no means perfect, has been able to deal with homegrown and international terrorists. Our prisons currently house Jose Padilla, Zacarias Moussaoui, Theodore Kaczynski, and Terry Nichols all in the same Colorado prison. So why are we so opposed to taking in a few more? What are truly afraid of?
Perhaps we are not ready to do the soul-searching necessary to understand what has happened to our country since September 2001, but our inability to confront mistakes and fears cannot come at the expense of justice. Other nations are able and willing to help absorb the innocent, but we must take the lead on this. We had the “moral authority” to take the men to Cuba. Now we must find the moral strength to do what is right. For those who need to remain in prison, we have plenty of concrete for them. For those who need to be freed, we have a compassionate and thriving culture that can absorb them. If we are to be able to look the world in the face and ask them to do their part to help, we must be willing to do our part too.
Sincerely,
Me
And really, this is a much better forum, as I can put all my hotlinks back in, so people don't think I'm making this stuff up.
Letter to the Editor: The director's cut
In discussions about what to do with the men currently held in Guantanamo Bay, people often forget two important facts: (1) many of them have already been cleared of any wrong doing and--in our own government’s words--were not and are not a threat, and (2) the few men who are a threat can indeed be handled in our federal prison system.
Rather than focus on these facts and on the task at hand, i.e. ending an unjust practice, we squabble about recidivism rates and whether or not cities that house former Gitmo inmates would be the focus of future terrorist attacks. First off, many including CNN and law experts seriously doubt the recidivism statistics, as they have traditionally been wrong and have included men who wrote op-ed pieces or attended documentary film fests as “returning to the fight.” And housing accused terrorists hasn't gotten Cuba blown up. Once again, our leaders appear to be manipulating numbers to strengthen their weak arguments, and various shock-jocks are exploiting fear and prejudice to glean higher ratings.
But what we are truly missing here is that we have become bound by fear. We are constantly looking over our shoulders, fearful of all of “them.” We must break out of this bondage and not be so afraid of the actions of one or two men that we end up denying the rights and freedoms of hundreds.
For years, many prisoners have languished in confinement, despite having been cleared. Take for instance the seventeen Uighurs (WEE-gurz) who were cleared in 2004 but are still in Cuba because (i) China, their home country, is likely to oppress them if they go back, (ii) we won’t take them, and (iii) China is threatening other countries that might be willing to take them. And there are others as well, other men and boys who have lost years of their lives, who may never see their families or homes again, and who have done little if anything deserving of imprisonment. Surely, keeping the innocent in prison to avoid the possibility that someone might someday do something we don’t like is no more than throwing the baby out with the bath water, or more accurately burning the baby to boil the bath water.
And as for the argument that we cannot house those who do pose a threat to us – patently false. The USA has the largest prison system in the industrialized world. We have over 2,000,000 people currently in the prison system, almost 0.7% of our population. If anything, we should be arguing that we can’t take them because we don’t have room not because they’re too dangerous. Our justice system, although by no means perfect, has been able to deal with homegrown and international terrorists. Our prisons currently house Jose Padilla, Zacarias Moussaoui, Theodore Kaczynski, and Terry Nichols all in the same Colorado prison. So why are we so opposed to taking in a few more? What are truly afraid of?
Perhaps we are not ready to do the soul-searching necessary to understand what has happened to our country since September 2001, but our inability to confront mistakes and fears cannot come at the expense of justice. Other nations are able and willing to help absorb the innocent, but we must take the lead on this. We had the “moral authority” to take the men to Cuba. Now we must find the moral strength to do what is right. For those who need to remain in prison, we have plenty of concrete for them. For those who need to be freed, we have a compassionate and thriving culture that can absorb them. If we are to be able to look the world in the face and ask them to do their part to help, we must be willing to do our part too.
Sincerely,
Me
Wednesday, February 4, 2009
This little light of mine
One of my favorite gospels is the Secret Gospel of Thomas (the doubter). Unsurprisingly, it's not part of the canon, probably because it is very cryptic, doesn't have a nice narrative, lacks miracles, and presents a Jesus that is confrontational and challenging. It's a nice change of pace, in my opinion.
Anyway, there's a verse in the gospel that came to mind tonight as I was listening to Bill Ayers at a panel discussion at Northwestern. The scripture goes like this:
During his talk this evening, Bill Ayers mentioned that even one candle in room challenges the darkness of the whole room. Once we have lit our candles and made that stand against the darkness, against apathy, against injustice, we seek out the other candles and grow in our light and in our challenge of darkness. We have a duty to ourselves and to one another, regardless of our beliefs or non-beliefs, not to become so accustomed to being in the dark and to capitulating to our anger and despair that we forget to challenge our darkness and the injustice around us.
And for those of us who take comfort in such things, we should remember that God does not create a light so that it can be hidden. Rather, God exists in the light. And this light stands as testament to hope and reconciliation. So take heart and remember that even one small candle can dispel the seemingly endless darkness around us. Even one flicker destroys the myth that darkness has overcome us.
Anyway, there's a verse in the gospel that came to mind tonight as I was listening to Bill Ayers at a panel discussion at Northwestern. The scripture goes like this:
- Jesus said, "What you will hear in your ear, in the other ear proclaim from your rooftops.
After all, no one lights a lamp and puts it under a basket, nor does one put it in a hidden place. Rather, one puts it on a lampstand so that all who come and go will see its light."
During his talk this evening, Bill Ayers mentioned that even one candle in room challenges the darkness of the whole room. Once we have lit our candles and made that stand against the darkness, against apathy, against injustice, we seek out the other candles and grow in our light and in our challenge of darkness. We have a duty to ourselves and to one another, regardless of our beliefs or non-beliefs, not to become so accustomed to being in the dark and to capitulating to our anger and despair that we forget to challenge our darkness and the injustice around us.
And for those of us who take comfort in such things, we should remember that God does not create a light so that it can be hidden. Rather, God exists in the light. And this light stands as testament to hope and reconciliation. So take heart and remember that even one small candle can dispel the seemingly endless darkness around us. Even one flicker destroys the myth that darkness has overcome us.
Bondage
During my descent into the Christian Dominionist ethos, I stumbled upon their belief that perhaps we should reinstate slavery here in the US. Like the good bleeding-heart liberal that I am, I found this prospect horrifying and have been expressing my dismay with virtual anyone who has the patience to indulge me. My brother, God bless him, pointed out that I was assuming that slavery had ended and that I assumed we (meaning the USA) didn't actively engage in slavery. Both of these assumptions are false. As one site so stingly notes: Slavery occurs in every continent in the world except Antarctica.
Slavery is alive and well in the world and in our communities here at home, and lest anyone else has forgotten, I would like to take a moment to bear witness to my sisters and brothers in bondage. So here's my first stab at it.
There are currently more slaves today then at any time in human history (or at least there are more reported slaves nowadays). Slavery is often divided into four main types: chattel slavery, debt bondage, forced labor, sex slavery. Chattel slavery is what we often think of, as it is closest to what we had in force here in the states with the African slaves. But as we often forget, it is not the only type. To be clear, the most common form of slavery today is actually debt bondage, in which a person does labor (of whatever sort their master wishes) to pay of a loan or debt. But it doesn't end there. Slavery includes forced marriages, especially of young children, to relieve debt or gain favor. And then there are the civilians in war-torn areas, who often find themselves cast into sMany victims of the war in the Congo are forced into slavery by the competing factions, forced under threat of death or dismemberment to work in mineral mines. And we should never forget those who lost limbs and lives slaving in the diamond trade in Sierra Leone. In the USA, there are at least 10,000 slaves working on any given day. In 2004, the Department of Justice reported that"14,500 to 17,500 people are trafficked annually into the United States, and 600,000 to 800,000 are trafficked globally."
Not surprisingly--children and women bear the brunt of slavery, being already marginalized and expendable in many cultures. They (or rather "we", depending on who you are) are especially vulnerable to sex slavery, and young virgin girls are particularly slave-worthy. Women comprise about 80% of the slave trade, with 70% of us being sold into the sex trade. One article reported the following:
But it's a story as old as time itself. Heck - it's in the Bible. Judges 19 has a nice little story about a concubine being repeatedly "abused" over the course of the night by the village folk. She's dumped at the house where her master, who willingly gave her to them to save his own skin, is staying. He later cuts her up into 12 pieces and scatters her remains across the land. [Interesting aside: in scripture, lawful wives were sometimes called concubines, so it may have been his wife that he gave up and later hacked into pieces. Chew on that one for a while.] Sadly, we haven't learned much since then. Bodies are still exchanged, ravaged, and slaughtered. People are still commodities.
Modern day slavery is another case where the sheer enormity of the offense makes it almost incomprehensible. As in so many situations of pure depravity, those among us who are even slightly aware of the problem feel unable to confront it, politically, emotionally, or spiritually. It's sad that we still need to have organizations to end slavery, but luckily they exist. As time permits, I will investigate them and suggest ones that are most active, most efficient, and most deserving of assistance. For now, if you do nothing else, consider signing this petition.
Slavery is alive and well in the world and in our communities here at home, and lest anyone else has forgotten, I would like to take a moment to bear witness to my sisters and brothers in bondage. So here's my first stab at it.
There are currently more slaves today then at any time in human history (or at least there are more reported slaves nowadays). Slavery is often divided into four main types: chattel slavery, debt bondage, forced labor, sex slavery. Chattel slavery is what we often think of, as it is closest to what we had in force here in the states with the African slaves. But as we often forget, it is not the only type. To be clear, the most common form of slavery today is actually debt bondage, in which a person does labor (of whatever sort their master wishes) to pay of a loan or debt. But it doesn't end there. Slavery includes forced marriages, especially of young children, to relieve debt or gain favor. And then there are the civilians in war-torn areas, who often find themselves cast into sMany victims of the war in the Congo are forced into slavery by the competing factions, forced under threat of death or dismemberment to work in mineral mines. And we should never forget those who lost limbs and lives slaving in the diamond trade in Sierra Leone. In the USA, there are at least 10,000 slaves working on any given day. In 2004, the Department of Justice reported that"14,500 to 17,500 people are trafficked annually into the United States, and 600,000 to 800,000 are trafficked globally."
Not surprisingly--children and women bear the brunt of slavery, being already marginalized and expendable in many cultures. They (or rather "we", depending on who you are) are especially vulnerable to sex slavery, and young virgin girls are particularly slave-worthy. Women comprise about 80% of the slave trade, with 70% of us being sold into the sex trade. One article reported the following:
- In Toronto, a case of a pre-teenage girl auctioned to the highest bidder. What made her so special was that she was a virgin.
In Toronto, a 13 year old girl was sold for 3,000 dollars to two young men, 18 and 20 years old. The girl was raped when the men drove her from Toronto to San Diego.
Another 13 year old virgin girl from Mexico was sold in the United States and raped 35 times.
A young Bulgarian girl, also of pre-teen age, was bought by a man old enough to be her grandfather, was forced to have sex 15 times the first day.
But it's a story as old as time itself. Heck - it's in the Bible. Judges 19 has a nice little story about a concubine being repeatedly "abused" over the course of the night by the village folk. She's dumped at the house where her master, who willingly gave her to them to save his own skin, is staying. He later cuts her up into 12 pieces and scatters her remains across the land. [Interesting aside: in scripture, lawful wives were sometimes called concubines, so it may have been his wife that he gave up and later hacked into pieces. Chew on that one for a while.] Sadly, we haven't learned much since then. Bodies are still exchanged, ravaged, and slaughtered. People are still commodities.
Modern day slavery is another case where the sheer enormity of the offense makes it almost incomprehensible. As in so many situations of pure depravity, those among us who are even slightly aware of the problem feel unable to confront it, politically, emotionally, or spiritually. It's sad that we still need to have organizations to end slavery, but luckily they exist. As time permits, I will investigate them and suggest ones that are most active, most efficient, and most deserving of assistance. For now, if you do nothing else, consider signing this petition.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)