From: "Africa Diaspora" <oridota-AT-online.fr> Subject: Re: Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2001 23:34:44 +0200 I. A. Oridota, oridota-AT-online.fr Directeur de publication Africa Diaspora 83, rue Michel-Ange 75016 Paris France Tél.: 01 40 71 70 80 Fax: 01 47 43 18 94 contact-AT-africa-diaspora.com www.africa-diaspora.com ----- Original Message ----- From: Kamran D. Rastegar <kdr7-AT-columbia.edu> To: <postcolonial-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu> Sent: Monday, October 22, 2001 5:08 PM > > I'm sorry if I'm sending information that has already been posted to this > list - but I don't think I've seen any discussion of this issue here yet. > > Kamran > > ------- > > FYI - This is a statement from UBC (University of British Columbia in > > Vancouver, 'Canada') Womens' Studies Professor Sunera Thobani. Two weeks she > > was accused of spreading anti-american hate crimes while speaking at a > > womens' forum to discuss opposition to Canada's involvement in the 'war > > against terrorism' . The hate crime claim was filed by the CEO of an > > american company (Imperial Parking) who resides in Vancouver and sits on the > > university's alumi funding body. He has encouraged other funders of the > > univeristy to withhold funding and force the university to fire her. She > > has not been fired and the investigation into her alledged 'hate crime' > > continues. Her recalling of the story and her response to it all, follows. > > > > >Enclosed is Sunera Thobani's response to the recent chilling attacks > > >against her attempt to voice genuine and informed opposition to the war > hysteria > > >that continues to sweep North America. > > WAR FRENZY > > Sunera Thobani > > My recent speech at a women*s conference on violence against women has > generated much controversy. In the aftermath of the terrible attacks of > September 11, I argued that the U.S. response of launching *America*s new > war* would increase violence against women. I situated the current crisis > within the continuity of North/South relations, rooted in colonialism and > imperialism. I criticized American foreign policy, as well as President > Bush*s racialized construction of the American Nation. Finally, I spoke > of the need for solidarity with Afghan women*s organizations as well as > the urgent necessity for the women*s movement in Canada to oppose the war. > > Decontextualized and distorted media reports of my address have led to > accusations of me being an academic impostor, morally bankrupt and > engaging in hate-mongering. It has been fascinating to observe how my > comments regarding American foreign policy, a record well documented by > numerous sources whose accuracy or credentials cannot be faulted, have > been dubbed *hate-speech.* To speak about the indisputable record of U.S. > backed coups, death squads, bombings and killings ironically makes me a > *hate-monger.* I was even made the subject of a *hate-crime* complaint to > the RCMP, alleging that my speech was a *hate-crime.* > > Despite the virulence of these responses, I welcome the public discussion > my speech has generated as an opportunity to further the public debate > about Canada*s support of America*s new war. When I made the speech, I > believed it was imperative to have this debate before any attacks were > launched on any country. Events have overtaken us with the bombing of > Afghanistan underway and military rule having been declared in Pakistan. > The need for this discussion has now assumed greater urgency as reports of > casualties are making their way into the news. My speech at the women*s > conference was aimed at mobilizing the women*s movement against this war. > I am now glad for this opportunity to address wider constituencies and in > different fora. > > First, however, a few words about my location: I place my work within the > tradition of radical, politically engaged scholarship. I have always > rejected the politics of academic elitism which insist that academics > should remain above the fray of political activism and use only > disembodied, objectified language and a *properly* dispassionate > professorial dimeanor to establish our intellectual credentials. My work > is grounded in the politics, practices and languages of the various > communities I come from, and the social justice movements to which I am > committed. > > ON AMERICAN FOREIGN POLICY > > In the aftermath of the terrible September 11th attacks on the World Trade > Centre and the Pentagon, the Bush administration launched *America*s War > on Terrorism.* Eschewing any role for the United Nations and the need to > abide by international law, the US administration initiated an > international alliance to justify its unilateral military action against > Afghanistan. One of its early coalition partners was the Canadian > government which committed its unequivocal support for whatever forms of > assistance the United States might request. In this circumstance, it is > entirely reasonable that people in Canada examine carefully the record of > American foreign policy. > > As I observed in my speech, this record is alarming and does not inspire > confidence. In Chile, the CIA-backed coup against the democratically > elected Allende government led to the deaths of over 30,000 people. In El > Salvador, the U.S. backed regime used death squads to kill about 75,000 > people. In Nicaragua, the U.S. sponsored terrorist contra war led to the > deaths of over 30,000 people. The initial bombing of Iraq left over > 200,000 dead, and the bombings have continued for the last ten years. > UNICEF estimates that over one million Iraqis have died, and that 5,000 > more die every month as a result of the U.N. imposed sanctions, enforced > in their harshest form by U.S. power. The list does not stop here. > 150,000 were killed and 50,000 disappeared in Guatemala after the 1954 > CIA-sponsored coup; over 2 million were killed in Vietnam; and 200,000 > before that in the Hiroshima and Nagasaki nuclear attacks. Numerous > authoritarian regimes have been backed by the United States including > Saudi Arabia, Egypt, the apartheid regime in South Africa, Suharto*s > dictatorship in Indonesia, Marcos in the Philippines, and Israel*s various > occupations of Lebanon, the Golan Heights and the Palestinian territories. > The U.S. pattern of foreign intervention has been to overthrow leftist > governments and to impose right wing regimes which in turn support U.S. > interests, even if this means training and using death squads and > assassinating leftist politicians nd activists. To this end, it has a > record of treating civilians as entirely expendable. > > It is in this context that I made my comment that the United States is the > largest and most dangerous global force, unleashing horrific levels of > violence around the world, and that the path of U.S. foreign policy is > soaked in blood. The controversy generated by this comment has > surprisingly not addressed the veracity of this assessment of the U.S. > record. Instead, it has focused on my tone and choice of words > (inflammatory, excessive, inelegant, un-academic, angry, etc.). > > Now I have to admit that my use of the words *horrific violence* and > *soaked in blood* is very deliberate and carefully considered. I do not > use these words lightly. To successive United States administrations the > deaths resulting from its policies have been just so many statistics, just > so much *collateral damage.* Rendering invisible the humanity of the > peoples targeted for attack is a strategy well used to hide the impact of > colonialist and imperialist interventions. Perhaps there is no more > potent a strategy of dehumanization than to proudly proclaim the accuracy > and efficiency of *smart* weapons systems, and of surgical and > technological precision, while rendering invisible the suffering bodies of > these peoples as disembodied statistics and mere *collateral damage.* The > use of embodied language, grounded in the recognition of the actual blood > running through these bodies, is an attempt to humanize these peoples in > profoundly graphic terms. It compels us to recognize the sheer > corporeality of the terrain upon which bombs rain and mass terror is > waged. This language calls on *us* to recognize that *they* bleed just > like *we* do, that *they* hurt and suffer just like *us.* We are complicit > in this bloodletting when we support American wars. Witness the power of > this embodiment in the shocked and horrified responses to my voice and my > words, rather than to the actual horror of these events. I will be the > first to admit that it is extremely unnerving to *see* blood in the place > of abstract, general categories and statistics. Yet this is what we need > to be able to see if we are to understand the terrible human costs of > empire-building. > > We have all felt the shock and pain of repeatedly witnessing the searing > images of violence unleashed upon those who died in New York and > Washington. The stories we have heard from their loved ones have made us > feel their terrible human loss. Yet where do we witness the pain of the > victims of U.S. aggression? How do we begin to grasp the extent of their > loss? Whose humanity do we choose to recognize and empathize with, and > who becomes just so much *collateral damage* to us? Anti-colonial and > anti-imperialist movements and theorists have long insisted on placing the > bodies and experiences of marginalized others at the centre of our > analysis of the social world. To fail to do so at this moment in history > would be unconscionable. > > In the aftermath of the responses to my speech, I am more convinced than > ever of the need to engage in the language and politics of embodied > thinking and speaking. After all, it is the lives, and deaths, of > millions of human beings we are discussing. This is neither a > controversial nor a recent demand. Feminists (such as of Mahasweta Devi, > Toni Morrison, Gayatri Spivak and Patricia Williams) have forcefully drawn > our attention to what is actually done to women*s bodies in the course of > mapping out racist colonial relations. Frantz Fanon, one of the foremost > theorists of decolonization, studied and wrote about the role of violence > in colonial social organization and about the psychology of oppression; > but he described just as readily the bloodied, violated black bodies and > the *searing bullets* and *blood-stained knives* which were the order of > the day in the colonial world. Eduardo Galeano entitled one of his books > The Open Veins of Latin America and the post-colonial theorist Achille > Mbembe talks of the *mortification of the flesh,* of the *mutilation* and > *decapitation* of oppressed bodies. Aime Cesaire*s poetry pulses with the > physicality of blood, pain, fury and rage in his outcry against the > domination of African bodies. Even Karl Marx, recognized as one of the > founding fathers of the modern social sciences, wrote trenchant critiques > of capital, exploitation, and classical political economy; and did not > flinch from naming the economic system he was studying *vampire > capitalism.* In attempting to draw attention to the violent effects of > abstract and impersonal policies, I claim a proud intellectual pedigree. > > INVOKING THE AMERICAN NATION > > In my speech I argued that in order to legitimize the imperialist > aggression which the Bush administration is undertaking, the President is > invoking an American nation and people as being vengeful and bloodthirsty. > It is de rigueur in the social sciences to acknowledge that the notion of > a *nation* or a *people* is socially constructed. The American nation is > no exception. > > If we consider the language used by Bush and his administration to > mobilize this nation for the war, we encounter the following: launching a > crusade; operation infinite justice; fighting the forces of evil and > darkness; fighting the barbarians; hunting down the evil-doers; draining > the swamps of the Middle East, etc., etc. This language is very familiar > to peoples who have been colonized by Europe. Its use at this moment in > time reveals that it is a fundamentalist and racialized western ideology > which is being mobilized to rally the troops and to build a national and > international consensus in defence of *civilization.* It suggests that > anyone who hesitates to join in is also *evil* and *uncivilized.* In this > vein, I have repeatedly been accused of supporting extremist Islamist > regimes merely for criticizing US foreign policy and western colonialism. > > Another tactic to mobilize support for the war has been the manipulation > of public opinion. Polls conducted in the immediate aftermath of the > September 11 attacks were used to repeatedly inform us that the > overwhelming majority of Americans allegedly supported a strong military > retaliation. They did not know against whom, but they purportedly > supported this strategy anyway. In both the use of language and these > polls, we are witnessing what Noam Chomsky has called the *manufacture of > consent.* Richard Lowry, editor of the National Review opined, *If we > flatten part of Damascus or Tehran or whatever it takes, this is part of > the solution.* President Bush stated, *We will bear no distinction between > those who commit the terrorist attacks and those who harbour them.* Even > as the bombing began last weekend, he declared that the war is *broader* > than against just Afghanistan, that other nations have to decide if they > side with his administration or if they are *murderers and outlaws > themselves.* > > We have been asked by most public commentators to accept the calls for > military aggression against *evil-doers* as natural, understandable and > even reasonable, given the attacks on the United States. I reject this > position. It would be just as understandable a response to re-examine > American foreign policy, to address the root causes of the violent attacks > on the United States, and to make a commitment to abide by international > law. In my speech, I urged women to break through this discourse of > *naturalizing* the military aggression, and recognize it for what it is, > vengeful retribution and an opportunity for a crude display of American > military might. We are entitled to ask: Who will make the decision > regarding which *nations* are to be labeled as *murderers* and *outlaws*? > Which notions of *justice* are to be upheld? Will the Bush administration > set the standard, even as it is overtly institutionalizing racial > profiling across the United States? > > I make very clear distinctions between people in America and their > government*s call for war. Many people in America are seeking to contest > the *national* consensus being manufactured by speaking out and by > organizing rallies and peace marches in major cities, about which there > has been very little coverage in Canada. Irresponsible media reporting of > my comments which referred to Bush*s invocation of the American nation as > a vengeful one deliberately took my words out of this context, repeating > them in one television broadcast after another in a grossly distorted > fashion. > > My choice of language was, again, deliberate. I wanted to bring attention > to Bush*s right wing, fundamentalist leanings and to the > neo-colonialist/imperialist practices of his administration. The words > *bloodthirsty* and *vengeful* are designations most people are quite > comfortable attributing to *savages* and to the *uncivilized,* while the > United States is represented as the beacon of democracy and civilization. > The words *bloodthirsty* and *vengeful* make us confront the nature of the > ideological justification for this war, as well as its historical roots, > unsettling and discomforting as that might be. > > THE POLITICS OF LIBERATING WOMEN > > I have been taken to task for stating that there will be no emancipation > for women anywhere until western domination of the planet is ended. In my > speech I pointed to the importance of Afghanistan for its strategic > location near Central Asia*s vast resources of oil and natural gas. I > think there is very little argument that the West continues to dominate > and consume a vast share of the world*s resources. This is not a > controversial statement. Many prominent intellectuals, journalists and > activists alike, have pointed out that this domination is rooted in the > history of colonialism and rests on the ongoing maintenance of the > North/South divide, and that it will continue to provoke violence and > resistance across the planet. I argued that in the current climate of > escalating militarism, there will be precious little emancipation for > women, either in the countries of the North or the South. > > In the specific case of Afghanistan, it was the American administration*s > economic and political interests which led to its initial support for, and > arming of, Hekmatyar*s Hezb i Islami and its support for Pakistan*s > collaboration in, and organization of, the Taliban regime in the > mid-1990s. According to the Pakistani journalist Ahmed Rashid, the United > States and Unocal conducted negotiations with the Taliban for an oil > pipeline through Afghanistan for years in the mid-1990s. We have seen the > horrendous consequences this has had for women in Afghanistan. When > Afghan women*s groups were calling attention to this U.S. support as a > major factor in the Taliban regime*s coming to power, we did not heed > them. We did not recognize that Afghan women*s groups were in the front > line resisting the Taliban and its Islamist predecessors, including the > present militias of the Northern Alliance. Instead, we chose to see them > only as *victims* of *Islamic culture,* to be pitied and *saved* by the > West. Time and time again, third world feminists have pointed out to us > the pitfalls of rendering invisible the agency and resistance of women of > the South, and of reducing women*s oppression to various third world > *cultures.* Many continue to ignore these insights. Now, the U.S. > administration has thrown its support behind the Northern Alliance, even > as Afghan women*s groups oppose the U.S. military attacks on Afghanistan, > and raise serious concerns about the record of the Northern Alliance in > perpetuating human rights abuses and violence against women in the > country. If we listen to the voices of these women, we will very quickly > be disabused of the notion that U.S. military intervention is going to > lead to the emancipation of women in Afghanistan. Even before the > bombings began, hundreds of thousands of Afghan women were compelled to > flee their homes and communities, and to become refugees. The bombings of > Kabul, Kandahar, Jalalabad and other cities in the country will result in > further loss of life, including the lives of women and children. Over > three million Afghan refugees are now on the move in the wake of the U.S. > attacks. How on earth can we justify these bombings in the name of > furthering women*s emancipation? > > My second point was that imperialism and militarism do not further women*s > liberation in westerm countries either. Women have to be brought into > line to support racist imperialist goals and practices, and they have to > live with the men who have been brutalized in the waging of war when these > men come back. Men who kill women and children abroad are hardly likely > to come back cured of the effects of this brutalization. Again, this is > not a very controversial point of view. Women are taught to support > military aggressions, which is then presented as being in their *national* > interest. These are hardly the conditions in which women*s freedoms can be > furthered. As a very small illustration, just witness the very public > vilification have been subjected to for speaking out in opposition to this > war. > > I have been asked by my detractors that if I, as a woman, I am so critical > of western domination, why do I live here? It could just as readily be > asked of them that if they are so contemptuous of the non-western orld, > why do they so fervently desire the oil, trade, cheap labour and other > resources of that world? Challenges to our presence in the West have long > been answered by people of colour who say, We are here because you were > (are?) there! Migrants find ourselves in multiple locations for a myriad > of reasons, personal, historical and political. Wherever we reside, > however, we claim the right to speak and participate in public life. > > CLOSING WORDS*. > > My speech was made to rally the women*s movement in Canada to oppose the > war. Journalists and editors across the country have called me idiotic, > foolish, stupid and just plain nutty. While a few journalists and > columnists have attempted balanced coverage of my speech, too many sectors > of the media have resorted to vicious personal attacks. Like others, I > must express a concern that this passes for intelligent commentary in the > mainstream media. > > The manner in which I have been vilified is difficult to understand, > unless one sees it as a visceral response to an *ungrateful immigrant* or > an uppity woman of colour who dares to speak out. Vituperation and > ridicule are two of the most common forms of silencing dissent. The > subsequent harassment and intimidation which I have experienced, as have > some of my colleagues, confirms that the suppression of debate is more > important to many supporters of the current frenzied war rhetoric than is > the open discussion of policy and its effects. Fortunately, I have also > received strong messages of support. Day by day the opposition to this > unconscionable war is growing in Canada and all over the world. > > I would like to thank all of my family, friends, colleagues and allies who > have supported and encouraged me. > > > > --- from list postcolonial-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu --- > > --- from list postcolonial-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005