File spoon-archives/anarchy-list.archive/anarchy-list_2003/anarchy-list.0303, message 151


From: "Old Goat" <olgoat-AT-nebi.com>
Subject: Re: Reply to Carp
Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2003 10:58:13 -0600


It is a mistake for anyone to think Americans are monolithic
about this war -- or about political things in general.  I will
say, however, that most of the folk I know possess varying
positions that this current dust-up-to-be is not a good idee.  Of
course, most of the folk I know, outside my own xenophobic Roma
family, are anarchists and a real percentage of those are
homeless or, alternatively speaking, "domestically challenged" so
you could honestly say I don't exactly swim in the main stream
here.  Howsomever, even the few main stream folk I do
occasionally hang with ain't any more in favour of this
particular instalment of Bush's Punic Wars than they were
Clinton's Pubic Wars.

In our neck of the prairie the onliest time folk get anywheres
near jingoistic is when, of a given Saturday, the Nebraska
Cornhusker (American) football team plays the Colorado Buffalos,
the Texas Longhorns, or the Oklahoma Sooners.  (The Huskers, as
we affectionately refer to them, went 7-7 last season and since
then have hired a bunch of new coaches and a new athletic
director -- a lad from our town, by the by.)  Speculation of the
Husker prospects for the 2003 season far outweighs worry about
the war around here.

When I ask folk why they ain't more concerned about the war the
most proffered reasonable answer is: they'll (the gov't) do what
they want no matter what I think.  I don't think this is
defeatist so much as it is realistic.  The real Golden Rule is
"he who has the gold makes the rules."  So long as the actual PTB
want to do this it'll get done.  As much as I'd like to fix all
this, I can't; but I have a hunch that the closer these United
States get to becoming a police state, what with their War on
Terrorism, and all, the more folk will withdraw their consent.
Hell, around here it has been years since a majority of eligible
voters went to the polls on any issue, and the minority that do
gets progressively smaller.  Nobody I know thinks we have a
"government of the people, by the people, for the people..." or
that we even did when Father Abraham popularised  the phrase.

Even my kid uncle, active in the peace movement ever since he
returned from slaughtering hundreds -- perhaps even thousands --
from a WWII bomber, has privately resigned hisself to the notion
that the best approach is to give these current gov't assholes
enow rope and they will fuck up and hang theyselfs.  Makes as
much sense as owt else I've heard suggested.  Political power
comes out of the barrel of a gun and right now the assholes have
most of the guns.  I am not yet ready to have my butt shot off.

old goat


----- Original Message -----
From: "roger" <diogenes.jones-AT-attbi.com>
Subject: Re: Reply to Carp


> agreed.  but i believe i've already pointed out a couple
things, Dave:
> whether you're talking about direct non-violent action (i think
those
> were your words to me) or some variant of it, it STILL is too
little
> too late.  it will not STOP this war, which is anywhere from 3
days to
> 3 weeks away, but no more.
>
> if you disagree with that assessment (and please stop calling a
> reasonable position 'defeatist' because you don't like it.
> 'defeatism' is a state of mind and you don't know my state of
mind)
> then please lay out ANY realistic scenario whereby bush and
blair will
> change their mind (between them they have at least one) and
call this
> off.  you can't Dave, and no one else can right now either.
the best
> bet is actually north korea, but they may figure their best
chance
> comes on the SECOND day of the iraq war.
>
> frankly, Dave, i think you would be better served to spend you
energy
> trying to figure out how far the anti-war coalition can be
pushed and
> how many will join.  if, for example, our worst fears are
realized and
> a nasty, long, oppressive occupation of iraq spurs bombings and
> terrorist attacks across the uk and the u$, then in that
context a lot
> of liberal/social-dem types will probably be willing to engage
in some
> form of (probably non-violent) protests and even some direct
action
> designed to throw a spanner in the works.
>
> if, on the other hand, the conflict is over quickly and the
bushies
> are able to give good media spin to it all and get some puppet
gov up
> and running ------ well, it will be harder to maintain a broad
front.
> either way, what is the role of 'Scottish Anarchists' for
example?
> how far 'out front' should anarchists be?  and how vanguardist
is this
> all?
>
> whatever the case, Dave, be prepared for some to disagree with
you.
> the way you attack others on this list doesn't bode well for
your
> ability to sustain any coalition that includes those who stray
much
> from your view of things.  you remind me of my preacher daddy.
most
> of us hillbillies got a lot of scots-irish in us.  fortunately
long
> exposure to africans (and getting the holy shit kicked out of
us by
> the yankees) has loosened up our stiff spines a bit.
>
> and if you want to interact with amerikans, then i would make a
couple
> points.  your identity as a scot is ethnically based.  i do not
wish
> to demean it or make it seem unimportant.  but the conflation
of your
> ethnic identity with the existence (no matter how tenuous) of a
state
> is the basis of classical nationalism.  it's a fact (as you are
so
> fond of saying) that immigrants to european countries do not
> assimilate easily if at all.
>
> it's different here.  my ethnic identity is somewhat distinct
and
> different from my identity as a roman, er, i mean amerikan
citizen.
> it has an imperial feel for a reason.  like rome, we can gobble
you up
> and digest you.  you're a scot mostly when you're in scotland.
it's
> tied to that land.  unfortunately, some would like an amerikan
to be
> an amerikan EVERYWHERE.  universal citizenship, first class.
posh
> indeed.  what did you eurotrash call it in the nineteenth
century --
> extraterritoriality i believe.  great concept.
>
> that's what i meant when i said you were wrong to worry about
amerikan
> nationalism cause we're exploring darker and more evil -isms.
when it
> comes to the future of either of our states, i'm not so much a
> defeatist as i am a nihilist.




   

Driftline Main Page

 

Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005