Recent Posts
-
Whither Modern Life?
June 27, 2025
-
What the Hell
June 18, 2025
-
As Darkness Engulfs Us
April 6, 2025
-
AI, Risk, and Work
January 17, 2025
-
“Things Are in the Saddle, and Ride Mankind”
December 29, 2024
-
Forgotten Futures in Seattle
December 12, 2024
-
Autocracy Defeats Neoliberalism
November 14, 2024
-
History… We’re Soaking in It!
October 2, 2024
-
A Numbing Spectacle
September 22, 2024
-
War Is the Air We Breathe
July 15, 2024
|
Went to see the just-released film “Why We Fight” yesterday. It’s a very well-made, sound bite-style documentary. It begins auspiciously, with Eisenhower’s 1961 farewell speech in which he warns against allowing the military-industrial complex (M-I-C) to gain unchecked power. Then Gore Vidal appears to announce that we live in the United States of Amnesia. So far, so good.
But as we were leaving the theater 90 minutes later, Hugh told me he didn’t like the film. So we spent the next hour dissecting why. Mainly, the film frames the title’s claim in terms of a bipartisan, industry-driven expansion of the military since WWII. At a certain point every president since Truman flashes by along with a map showing the three dozen or so military interventions and invasions by the U.S. around the world since 1950. While much better than no reference to any of these at all, none are given more than a cursory mention except for the overthrow of Mossadegh in Iran in 1953 (and the ensuing installation of the Shah, which eventually leads to the 1979 revolution and the Iranian theocracy).
The film explains that in 1953 the British were angry after Mossadegh tried to negotiate a better deal for Iran and when the British refused, the Iranian parliament voted to nationalize the oil industry. The British turned to Eisenhower who obligingly labeled Mossadegh a communist (he wasn’t) and green-lighted the CIA-organized coup. This short schematic, sandwiched within a larger narrative, doesn’t really do justice to the complexity of history, to say the least. But this movie is not about a detailed analysis of any given use of the U.S. military, but rather to look at the half century process in which the M-I-C has taken over the government and made itself practically invisible in its ubiquity.
The film is a good antidote to the current last gasp of liberalism, which frames the Cheney-Bush regime as a rogue departure from a democratic norm, a fantasy United States that is basically “good” but has been taken over by a cabal of evildoers. (In this common narrative, plastered all over the blogosphere, from DailyKOS to MYDD to FireDogLake, the Democrats are still the good guys who just have to right the ship of state–this ahistorical, amnesiac frame dovetails perfectly with the regime’s own Manichean worldview.)
Unfortunately, “Why We Fight” makes the same mistake of history that it is is critiquing. The origin of the United States’ culture is based on Indian eviction and genocide, and African slavery. The M-I-C and the projection of U.S. military power dates to at least the late 19th century. The annexation of Hawaii and the Philippines in 1898 (followed by a 15-year war in the archipelago of incredible brutality) are the real beginnings of what Ike and this film frame as a post-WWII phenomenon.
Continue reading Why We Fight History
At CounterPULSE last night we had our 3rd Spring Talk, rediscovering the Philippine-US War, delving into some of the sordid details (that read like today’s news!) and setting off cacophonous echoes through 100 years of a history that we haven’t learned, and ARE repeating! Abe Ignacio went first, he is the co-author of the remarkable and indispensable The Forbidden Book. You should definitely get a copy of this beautiful volume; I guarantee it will blow your mind with excellent full color graphic reproductions of the most amazingly racist cartoons you can imagine. One thing he emphasized in his talk, illustrated by the images he helped collect, is the way racism in the U.S. shaped the portrayal of Filipinos in the popular media. Not only are Filipinos routinely presented as black and brown pre-literate, animist savages, even famous U.S. politicians and writers (like Mark Twain) who opposed the annexation and conquest of the Philippine archipelago are presented as black, childish, womanly, and so on.
The reality is that the Philippines had been fighting for their independence for several years before the U.S. entered into war with Spain, and had already declared their independence prior to the U.S. defeat of the Spanish fleet in Manila Bay. The U.S. could not have defeated the Spanish garrison in Manila without the land forces of the Filipino army, but once the surrender was sure, the U.S. negotiated a ‘sale’ of the Philippines from Spain and took over the entire country. Then, two days before the U.S. Senate was to vote on the annexation of the Philippines, a vote that was expected to lose due to widespread popular opposition to the United States becoming a European-style imperial power, U.S. soldiers opened fire on some Filipino regulars crossing a bridge. When they responded in kind, a small battle ensued. Cables were sent to Washington DC in time to sway some senators’ votes, so that the annexation of the Philippines was passed by one vote.
Continue reading Philippines and San Francisco
I don’t get angry too often. There are SO many things to get pissed off about in this life, from the stupidity of urban design to the banal emptiness of most work we do, to the transparent venality of the kleptocratic class running the corporations and the government. But I always find anger takes more out of me than it gives me, so in general I’ve tended to deal with things that anger me with other reactions than overt rage.
There’s a new post at Ken MacLeod’s blog “The Early Days of a Better Nation” on Progressive Rage. I love MacLeod’s science fiction and am just reading his latest “Learning the World,” which at the beginning splits the story between a large travelling space colony looking for a new habitable planetary home and an earth-like planet that is just noticing something unusual in the sky… but the human-like inhabitants are more like birds than humans… fascinating already. (His 4 volume “libertarian communist” series presents inspiring, politically exciting speculations about where the world is heading… The Cassini Division, The Star Fraction, The Stone Canal, and the The Sky Road). Anyway, MacLeod is a thoughtful guy who is engaging the real world of politics and history on his blog. (A tip of the hat to the folks at Crooked Timber for linking to it already and reminding me about it after I’d noticed it but failed to read it at first.)
“If anti-semitism is, in an important aspect, a rage against the machine, against progress, is there an opposite rage: a rage against reaction, a fury at the recalcitrance of the concrete and the stubbornness of tradition? A rage against what is sacred and refuses to be profaned, against what is solid and doesn’t melt into air, against ways of life that resist commodification, against use-value that refuses to become exchange-value? And might that rage too need a fantasy object?”
Perhaps a symbol or ‘fantasy object’ would serve some psychological or even political purpose. But I never like the manipulativeness that such symbols seem to routinely promote. Rather, is there not a way to take the enormous rage in this culture, currently turned in on itself in the forms of racism and misogyny (and even among pwogwessives in the form of endless backbiting over relative ‘privilege’), and reconceptualize it as a passion for a radically better life? Of course there’s shitloads to be mad about, but we’re awfully good at raging and getting nowhere already. I’d be curious if anger and disappointment and rage could turn into something proactive, something that takes the huge energy fueling all that rage and pushes us towards taking life itself by the throat and creating right away what we actually want.
What does that mean exactly? How would such a process unfold? Not by some central director, that’s for sure. I think it’s not impossible to imagine a growing assertion of human conviviality against the banal stupidity and barbarism of this life. We cooperate in myriad ways all day long every day… why not expand that realm, talk about it as a self-aware alternative to the barbaric norms we’re supposed to uphold, and repudiate the small-minded fools who keep parroting that this is the best of all possible worlds? More rhetoric to be sure, but I’d like to at least propose a kind of ju-jitsu approach to our own (perfectly legitimate) anger, that turns it upside down and inside out, takes the energy of it for something beyond a self-referential howl (not that there aren’t often times when a good howl is just the thing!)…
|
Hidden San Francisco 2nd EDITION!

NEW 2nd EDITION NOW AVAILABLE! Buy one here (Pluto Press, Spring 2025)
|