Hosted by Justin Podur
Stephen Lewis did the Massey Lectures this year. Previous Massey lecturers (that I’ve read and loved) include Noam Chomsky, Thomas King, and (that I’ve read and found interesting) Richard Lewontin and John Ralston Saul.
For those who don’t know who Stephen Lewis is, he’s the UN Special Envoy for HIV/AIDS in Africa. He’s also been a politician in Canada, a very important activist for Canada’s social democratic New Democratic Party (NDP).
I have traveled to quite a few places where I’ve encountered volunteers with Christian Peacemaker Teams. I’ve never been to Iraq, so that’s not one of the places. But I can say this, which is what others have been saying since some of the CPTers (as they are known to anglophones) were abducted in Iraq last week. The CPTers might have the word ‘Christian’ in their name, but they are no missionaries. They might have ‘peacemaker’ in their name, but that isn’t a euphemism for imperialism the way ‘peacekeeping’ or ‘peacebuilding’ can be. They are people of conscience who are very much anti-imperialist in the most important way – in their actions.
They should be released unharmed. Sign a petition here.
A Change of Tone
On July 11, 2005, Canada’s Chief of Defence Staff General Hillier discussed the forces arrayed against NATO forces in Afghanistan with great nuance and understanding: “These are detestable murderers and scumbags, I’ll tell you that right up front. They detest our freedoms, they detest our society, they detest our liberties.”
Continue reading “‘Despicable murderers and scumbags’: Canada in Afghanistan”
An event announcement in which I am personally implicated, below.
I also was, courtesy of some great organizers in Halifax, on the Atlantic Coast of Canada over this past weekend. I gave a talk on Haiti at St. Mary’s University and another on Israel/Palestine at Dalhousie. I was very happy to speak to engaged audiences of awake and interested people, not to mention to spend time with the local activists who made the events happen.
http://www.flonnet.com/fl2223/stories/20051118001206300.htm
Naomi wrote a piece about Cauca and Manuel Rozental’s case.
The government has recently escalated the violence against the peasants occupying lands in Cauca. See En Camino for ongoing stuff, and also check back here.
I also have a few thoughts about this Canada and corruption Gomery business, which I’ll try to get to when I get the chance.
He’s a friend and mentor of mine, so this is a matter of personal interest for me as well. Here is a communique from the indigenous movement in Northern Cauca about how Manuel was forced to flee. I did the translation.
The Price of Our Struggle: Individuals and Groups, using threats and dirty war, seek to silence us
Action Alert
Association of Indigenous Councils of Northern Cauca (ACIN)
October 29, 2005
The Association of Indigenous Councils of Northern Cauca (ACIN) –CXAB WALA KIWE, announces the following to national and international public opinion.
I’ve never met Joe Emersberger, but he’s a tireless letter-writer, relentlessly logical, interested in Canada’s role in the world and the Americas, and so I can’t help but encourage his move towards article-writing and blogging. Here’s a short one he sent as a guest blog for the Killing Train:
WHY WOULD CANADA HELP HAITI’S POOR?
by Joe Emersberger
I’ve often stumbled over a simple question about Haiti – and I’ve seen others either struggle with it or evade it. Why is Canada involved with trampling over democracy and human rights in Haiti? Similar questions about the UN and US role in Haiti have left me sputtering. I haven’t been prepared for the question. I’ve underestimated the importance people would attach to it. Even when you provide compelling evidence of Canada’s crime people still look for a motive. That’s surprised me. Wary of giving a longwinded (and inevitably speculative) reply I’ve been tempted to respond “Why worry so much about the motive when guilt is so evident? If you catch murderers in the act do you worry about establishing their motives more than you do about stopping them?” But a reply like that is condescending and ineffective – as is an overly detailed history or economics lesson. I’ve decided to try something that I hope will make me more succinct and effective by appealing to common sense. I’m going to try to answer the question “why?” with “why not?”.
Why is Canada on the side of a brutal regime in Haiti?
Why would Canada defy the US over Haiti? If the US were willing to let Haitian democracy develop then so would Canada. But in the absence of serious opposition – as existed against the Iraq war or against co-operation with US missile “defense” – Canada will do the bidding of the US. Thanks to the mainstream media, among other actors, Canada pays a negligible price as it helps its largest trading partner crush Haiti. Canada isn’t going out of it’s way. It is following the path of least resistance. Reversing course, especially now, would be costly. It would take quite a public outcry to bring about.
Why does Canada’s mainstream news media cover up what’s going on?
Why wouldn’t they? Why would they stand up for the rights of millions of Haitians who make less than $2 per day, who don’t buy their newspapers, or buy what advertisers sell? Why would they anger wealthy owners and advertisers who are members of the class that is pushing for deeper integration with the US? The media doesn’t even have to put out a large quantity of biased reports to cover things up. It isn’t a story, like the war in Iraq, that is too big to bury. Ignoring Haiti is fairly easy.
Why is the US so eager to support repression in Haiti?
Why should the US allow meaningful democracy to develop in Haiti? Why would the US risk having such a development get out of hand and spread to other poor countries? The bargaining power the US (and Canadian) elite have over their workforce depends largely on the poverty and desperation of people in poor countries. Why would the US elite risk losing any bargaining power because of the dangerous example set in small countries like Haiti? Why take that risk, even if it’s minimal, if they can very inexpensively back the Haitian elite who pose no threat at all? They’ve backed them for over a century. Why stop now? Who is going to stop them?
I’m happy to report that people, even very conservative people, that I’ve encountered aren’t naive about what the Canadian government is capable of. However, they (and I) can easily lose sight of the fact that our government, like any other that exists, is a repression maximizing institution (part of being accountable mainly to profit maximizing institutions). It doesn’t need to be strongly coerced or enticed to do horrible things. All it needs is for the public to look the other way.
A review of a seemingly little-known science fiction film called ‘Serenity’. Serenity is the creation of Joss Whedon, who is also the creator of the TV shows ‘Buffy’ and ‘Angel’. I didn’t follow either show, but occasionally tuning in, I found the dialogue and plot lines to be good.
So when a friend of mine bought the DVDs to the precursor of the ‘Serenity’ film, which was a TV series called ‘Firefly’, and loaned them to me, I was interested enough to give them a try. I ended up watching 14 episodes in about 3 days.
The TV show aired on Fox in 2002 and was cancelled before its first season was through. Its creators blame ‘reality tv’. In fact it was quite demanding of the audience.
The series and movie are of interest to me because, like any pop culture, I impose my own political views on it. The premise of the show is that, 500 years in the future, an ‘Alliance’ has ‘unified’ all of the inhabited planets (inhabited by humans, there are no alien races) of the galaxy in a massive war. On the other side of this war of ‘unification’ were the ‘Independents’, or ‘browncoats’, who fought for – well, independence, presumably. Among these independents was the main character of the show, captain Malcolm Reynolds, and his first officer, Zoe. Six years after the war ends, the show’s action starts – with the two of them and a handful of others doing small-scale smuggling operations and other little jobs and avoiding the Alliance.
It was so interesting to me because the captain is a character with really profound principles who had given up on the possibility of changing the world – the time for fighting had past, and he had to accept that his side had lost. Given the way the alliance forces look and act, the ‘independents’ had a kind of anti-imperialist flavour, to me. So how does one live one’s principles if one has already fought and lost? It’s interesting to watch it all play out.
The movie, ‘Serenity’, seemed to me in some ways to break with this a little. I hadn’t seen this break until a friend called attention to an ‘inspirational speech’ the captain gives the crew before they embark on a risky conflict with the Alliance. A friend of mine suggested she could almost see the American Flag unfurling in the background as the captain finished his speech. I didn’t see it that way and I’m still unsure whether that was there somewhere in the writer’s consciousness. From a war of colonial liberation, I wondered whether I had to recast the war between the ‘Alliance’ and the ‘Independents’ as a historical parallel with the American Civil War. That makes the captain an ex-Confederate soldier – which, for someone like me, makes him somewhat more difficult to identify with or admire.
The series, and the film, remain ambiguous enough that I believe one can impose one’s own politics on them. Like ‘Lord of the Rings’, which I know in some respects is probably a white supremacist fantasy about beating back the brown hordes – respects I decided I would ignore so that I could enjoy the story and the film.
If anyone’s watched it, I’d be curious what you think.
I haven’t said anything about the quake in Pakistan and Kashmir. I am at a bit of a loss. There are some good articles on ZNet South Asia Watch, including one by Hoodbhoy.