New Republic on the Far Left

[Mike B.]

Interesting take on the far left from "The New Republic" issue of July 21, 2003 entitled, "No ANSWER."

I can not give a link because you would have to subscribe online.
ANSWER is a far left group. The article in particular talks about the strange behavior of the left toward Africa.

"...ANSWER is sympotmatic of the left in general. A LexisNexis search going back to 2000 finds not a single reference to the crises in Congo, Liberia, Sudan, or Zimbabwe from Noam Chomsky, Arundhati Roy, Michael Moore, Michael Lerner, Gore Vidal, Cornel West, or Howard Zinn. In Congo alone, according to the International Rescue Commitee, five years of civil war have taken the lives of a mindboggling 3.3 million people. How can the leaders of the global left - men and women ostensibly dedicated to solidarity with the world's oppressed, impoverished masses not care?

The answer, I think, is that the left isn't galvanized by victims; it's galvanized by victimizers. The theme of ANSWER's upcoming portest, after all, is 'Occupation and Empire.' In a recent essay, Roy explained the greatest threat of all, is the locomotive force that drives the political and economic engine of the U.S. government.' In other words, impearilism, what she elsewhere calls 'a super-power's self-destructive impulse toward supremacy, stranglehold, global hegemony.'

But, if the greatest injustice in the world is U.S. impearilism, the world's greatest injustices must be found where U.S. impearilism is strongest. And here, Africa poses a problem. Africa, after all, has less contact with the Unitesd States than any other part of the world. The continent accounts for less than 1 percent of U.S. foreign investment, it receives less than .1 percent of U.S. military assistance, and it hosts no permanant troop deployments. If you are a left-wing activist scouring the globe under America's 'stranglehold,' you'll pall right over sub-saharan Africa.

...By any reasonable assessment, in fact Africa's post-cold-war disaster zones suffered not from too much U.S. impearilism but from too little. In Rwanda, Congo, and Liberia, the United States stood back while feckless, under-equipped peace-keepers - mostly from the developing world - failed to stanch the bloodletting. Only when a former colonial power has stepped in like Britian has in Sierra Leone, have large numbers of African lives been saved..."


Lest anyone think "The New Republic" is some far right publication, they spend most of their time attacking Bush.

I think this article sums up some of the so-called progressives on this board. They make daily threads about the plight of Palistinians under Israel, but none of the suffering of Arabs under Arab regimes. I think the article is right about some being concerned about "victimizers rather than victims."

Or worry about American bases in Germany as an example of impearilism. (Strangely the American military in Germany has not been able to get Schroeder to support Bush.)

[Malachi151]

I totally agree that Africa has major problems. I myself have been trying to bring up the topic and have done so for a number ofyears. Its certianly the most complex geopolitcal place on earth at the moment.

Trying to hammer the left on it is a little silly though. Americans in general are not very enthusiastic about discussing Africa, other than AIDS issues because that links back to an American agenda.

I'm an advocate of the unification of Africa, like the EU is doing now. Africa is mostly a product of European imperialism, not American imperialism so that is perhaps why there is less American talk about it. I think you'll find most peopel on the right generally unsympathetic when it comes to Africa, and the people on the left have their plates full discussing Asia, the Middle East, and South America. Its natural for Americans to discuss things that America has been most invovled with, thats what we know the most.

I think that now the Cold War is over you will see a shift of focus to Africa. Up to now the focus has been on places where the US is involved in Cold War actions. Also I have read quite a bit from leftist watch groups about Nigeria especially, seeing is its an OPEC nation.

[Charlie Monoxide]

Africa is mostly a product of European imperialism, not American imperialism I agree with this statement. The Europeans have screwed Africa over since the 1500's.

Africa is also a good example of democracy gone bad.

Charlie (Africa, homeland of all homo sapiens) Monoxide

[shuize]

I'm an advocate of the unification of Africa ...
Yes, and when they pool all of their money, they just might have enough cash to pay for either AIDS treatment or plane tickets for a lucky few to get the hell out of dodge ... but not both.

[Hypocolius]

Originally posted by Malachi151
I totally agree that Africa has major problems. I myself have been trying to bring up the topic and have done so for a number ofyears. Its certianly the most complex geopolitcal place on earth at the moment.
Interesting then that you don't reply to people with a different viewpoint http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=26959 (http://).
I'm an advocate of the unification of Africa, like the EU is doing now. Africa is mostly a product of European imperialism,
African unification would be an absolute disaster. The most successful African countries politically, socially and economically are all culturally relatively homogenous. Conversely the trouble spots tend to be where different cultural groups are squabbling over the same territory. The lesson to be learned would seem to be that federation leads to conflict, fragmentation leads to stability.

I would agree, however, that many of these problems were created by European cartographers, though maybe not in the way you imagine. Most borders in Africa were agreed between European colonial powers, with no consideration taken for tribal boundaries. Save where an international border happens to be marked by a major geographical feature there is hardly an international border in Africa that does not cut through the middle of some tribe's territory.

What's the solution? I have no idea, though I do know that the solution will have to be generated by Africa, not be imposed upon it.

[Mike B.]

I do think it is telling that 3.3 million dead in Congo and not a peep out of this by some of the big guys on the left.

I think that the reason is that the people doing the mass killings here are not Americans or Israelis, so it does not register to them.

It goes against someone like Chomsky's default position that the third world is inherently noble and peaceful and only is the victim of the US or Israel.

When the third world itself is causing this violence it contradicts their worldview, so it is simply ignored...

[Hypocolius]

Originally posted by Malachi151

I think that now the Cold War is over you will see a shift of focus to Africa.

The US was actually quite interested in Africa during the cold war. It was after all replete with opportunities to fight the USSR by proxy without risking a full-scale WW3. Of course, when the Berlin wall fell, and the USSR started to implode (9/11/89), so did their support for Cuba, who pulled out of Angola (31/5/91) just before the USSR itself collapsed (8/12/91). By then the US had withdrawn its tacit support for the NP government in South Africa at the time, hence the deal with the ANC, Mandela's release (11/02/91), democracy in SA etc. Interesting how the dominoes tumbled.

[Malachi151]

My replies to all of this are here:

http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=1870096035#post1870096035

[Kodiak]

Nice thread topic...five stars.

[headscratcher4]

I do think it is telling that 3.3 million dead in Congo and not a peep out of this by some of the big guys on the left.

I think it telling that nearly 3.3 million dead in Congo, not to mention millions across Africa, and millions more under direct threat, and barely a peep out of the right.

My point is, that the thrust of the article makes an excellent point...the "left" can ignore the victems of repressive regimes in places like Zimbabwe. Hypocracy runs rampent.

However, the right (and middle) in the West also ignores Africa. There are no plans to deal with Africa. THere is no real concern about the bodies pilling up. FOr instance, Sec. Powell yesterday stated that the dead, gassed Kurds were enough justification for the overthrow of Iraq...than why isnt' the West overthrowing several regimes in Africa?

Yes, condemn the left for its hypocracy on this issue, but understand that there is a greater racial, economic, political and cultural hypocracy at work that doesn't really follow some "ideological" bent....IMO.

[Shane Costello]

Bob Geldof (www.guardian.co.uk/famine/story/0,12128,965311,00.html) has an interesting take on political attitudes to Africa.

Bob Geldof astonished the aid community yesterday by using a return visit to Ethiopia to praise the Bush administration as one of Africa's best friends in its fight against hunger and Aids.
The musician-turned activist said Washington was providing major assistance, in contrast to the European Union's "pathetic and appalling" response to the continent's humanitarian crises.

"You'll think I'm off my trolley when I say this, but the Bush administration is the most radical - in a positive sense - in its approach to Africa since Kennedy," Geldof told the Guardian.

The neo-conservatives and religious rightwingers who surrounded President George Bush were proving unexpectedly receptive to appeals for help, he said. "You can get the weirdest politicians on your side."

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by Shane Costello
Bob Geldof (www.guardian.co.uk/famine/story/0,12128,965311,00.html) has an interesting take on political attitudes to Africa.




:jaw: Knock me over with a feather...

[Mike B.]

Originally posted by headscratcher4


I think it telling that nearly 3.3 million dead in Congo, not to mention millions across Africa, and millions more under direct threat, and barely a peep out of the right.

My point is, that the thrust of the article makes an excellent point...the "left" can ignore the victems of repressive regimes in places like Zimbabwe. Hypocracy runs rampent.

However, the right (and middle) in the West also ignores Africa. There are no plans to deal with Africa. THere is no real concern about the bodies pilling up. FOr instance, Sec. Powell yesterday stated that the dead, gassed Kurds were enough justification for the overthrow of Iraq...than why isnt' the West overthrowing several regimes in Africa?

Yes, condemn the left for its hypocracy on this issue, but understand that there is a greater racial, economic, political and cultural hypocracy at work that doesn't really follow some "ideological" bent....IMO.

Indeed Headscratcher.
The article was not kind to the right for turning its back on Africa after the cold war.

What I do find interesting as the article states is that many of these people on the far left are always speaking of the oppressed third world people, but do not seem to speak of Africa. To make a generalization many on the far right would make no pretense to caring about any third world people.

I do not think it is racism. It is just that it can't easily be fit into an anti-American or anti-Israeli worldview.

[DavidJames]

"Knock me over with a feather..."

I don't follow, I thought Geldof's comments were very interesting. Are you suprised someone like him was complimentory of Bush?

[Chaos]

So what is the U.S. really doing in Africa? Last thing I heard is that the U.S. soldier in Sierra Leone are packing up again. Great help that is. In the end, everything will be as is has been before their arrival, or worse - like we are seeing in Afghanistan.

I´m not saying that Europe is any more help than that. Only Europe doesn´t claim they want to help (and they don´t let themselves be celebrated for their empty promises).

[originalgagster]

Originally posted by Mike B.
I do think it is telling that 3.3 million dead in Congo and not a peep out of this by some of the big guys on the left.

I think that the reason is that the people doing the mass killings here are not Americans or Israelis, so it does not register to them.

It goes against someone like Chomsky's default position that the third world is inherently noble and peaceful and only is the victim of the US or Israel.

When the third world itself is causing this violence it contradicts their worldview, so it is simply ignored...

There are alot of people on the "left" who have spoken out about poverty, war and famine in Africa. They dont get the publicity of a Finkelstein a Chomsky or a Roy, because taking a staunch anti-US stance is likely to garner alot more publicity and notoriety than speaking out for Africa.

Also it is silly to use this idea as a rod to bash Chomsky. Chomsky is a critic of US foreign policy, so why is it hypocritical of him not to give time to issues that don't pertain to US foreign policy?

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by DavidJames
"Knock me over with a feather..."

I don't follow, I thought Geldof's comments were very interesting. Are you suprised someone like him was complimentory of Bush?

Pleasantly, but surprised none the less. :)

[Skeptic]

So what is the U.S. really doing in Africa? Last thing I heard is that the U.S. soldier in Sierra Leone are packing up again. Great help that is.

What, you want to imperialistic USA to stay and occupy Sierra Leone???

Seriously, though, the fact that all that matter is to most "protestors" somehow blame the USA (or israel) is seen in what the protests signs say. It is a well-known bruhahaha, which usuall goes something like this:

(The US is doing nothing about country X's problems)

US IGNORING THE SUFFERING OF MILLIONS!

(the US sends Aid)

US SUPPORTING EVIL DICTATORSHIP WITH ITS "HUMANITARIAN" AID!

(the US sends money to rebel groups to get rid of the dictator)

US STIRRING UP TROUBLE IN PEACEFUL AFRICAN NATION WITH ITS MILITARY AID!

(the US stops sending money to the rebel groups)

US ABANDONING BRAVE FREEDOM FIGHTERS!

(the US decides to invade the country to remove the dictatorship)

EVIL US IMPERIALISM TAKES OVER INDEPENDENT NATION! IT'S ALL FOR THE OIL!

(the US wins the invasion and ousts the dictator)

EVIL IMPERIALISTIC PUPPET GOVERNMENT SET UP BY US WORSE THAN THE DICTATORSHIP!

(the US take some casualties from disgruntled supporters of the dictator)

NO BLOOD FROM OUR CHILDREN TO SUPPORT EVIL US IMPERIALISM! SEND THE BOYS HOME!

(the US leave the country)

COWARDLY US WILL NOT DEAL WITH THE PROBLEMS IT CREATED!

(US does nothing)

US IGNORING THE SUFFERTING OF MILLIONS!

...and repeat ad infinitum.

No matter WHAT the US does (or doesn't do), or WHO it supports (or doesn't support), the protestors will blame it for whatever goes wrong. Victims, you say? Who gives a damn about a few million lousy Africans! We are fighting the "racist US government" here!

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by Skeptic
So what is the U.S. really doing in Africa? Last thing I heard is that the U.S. soldier in Sierra Leone are packing up again. Great help that is.

What, you want to imperialistic USA to stay and occupy Sierra Leone???

Seriously, though, the fact that all that matter is to most "protestors" somehow blame the USA (or israel) is seen in what the protests signs say. It is a well-known bruhahaha, which usuall goes something like this:

(The US is doing nothing about country X's problems)

US IGNORING THE SUFFERING OF MILLIONS!

(the US sends Aid)

US SUPPORTING EVIL DICTATORSHIP WITH ITS "HUMANITARIAN" AID!

(the US sends money to rebel groups to get rid of the dictator)

US STIRRING UP TROUBLE IN PEACEFUL AFRICAN NATION WITH ITS MILITARY AID!

(the US stops sending money to the rebel groups)

US ABANDONING BRAVE FREEDOM FIGHTERS!

(the US decides to invade the country to remove the dictatorship)

EVIL US IMPERIALISM TAKES OVER INDEPENDENT NATION! IT'S ALL FOR THE OIL!

(the US wins the invasion and ousts the dictator)

EVIL IMPERIALISTIC PUPPET GOVERNMENT SET UP BY US WORSE THAN THE DICTATORSHIP!

(the US take some casualties from disgruntled supporters of the dictator)

NO BLOOD FROM OUR CHILDREN TO SUPPORT EVIL US IMPERIALISM! SEND THE BOYS HOME!

(the US leave the country)

COWARDLY US WILL NOT DEAL WITH THE PROBLEMS IT CREATED!

(US does nothing)

US IGNORING THE SUFFERTING OF MILLIONS!

...and repeat ad infinitum.

No matter WHAT the US does (or doesn't do), or WHO it supports (or doesn't support), the protestors will blame it for whatever goes wrong. Victims, you say? Who gives a damn about a few million lousy Africans! We are fighting the "racist US government" here!

TRUE

:dl:

[Mike B.]

Originally posted by Chaos
So what is the U.S. really doing in Africa? Last thing I heard is that the U.S. soldier in Sierra Leone are packing up again. Great help that is. In the end, everything will be as is has been before their arrival, or worse - like we are seeing in Afghanistan.

I´m not saying that Europe is any more help than that. Only Europe doesn´t claim they want to help (and they don´t let themselves be celebrated for their empty promises).

I was in no way denigrating Europe. I think the French deserve credit for trying to do something about the Congo.

[headscratcher4]

Originally posted by Mike B.


I was in no way denigrating Europe. I think the French deserve credit for trying to do something about the Congo.

Becaue, of course, the French -- unlike, for example, the US -- only act internationally and with respect to Africa in particular, in a completely self-less, benign and altruistic fashion. Good bless the French for showing the rest of the world how to act completely by ignoring their own self interest. ;)