OpEdNews Op Eds

Worlds Apart

By   Follow Me on Twitter     Message David Swanson     Permalink
      (Page 1 of 3 pages)
Related Topic(s): ; , Add Tags Add to My Group(s)

View Ratings | Rate It

opednews.com

Author 9
Become a Fan
  (125 fans)
- Advertisement -

By David Swanson

The other day I wrote a column that no corporate newspaper would ever dream of printing, but submitted it to all of them anyway in hopes it might jar something loose.  The Editorial Page Editor of Barron's Weekly wrote me back to disagree with my column, and I wrote him back, and he wrote me back, and so forth.  The exchange, reproduced below, suggests that two people can read about the same events for several years and still live in completely different worlds. 
 
In the world I live in, the neoconservatives running our government openly laid out their plans for the Middle East through a think tank called the Project for a New American Century (PNAC).  In 2000 they wrote: "[W]hile the unresolved conflict in Iraq provides the immediate justification [for U.S. military presence], the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein" and "Over the long term, Iran may well prove as large a threat to U.S. interests in the Gulf as Iraq has. And even should U.S.-Iranian relations improve, retaining forward-based forces in the region would still be an essential element in U.S. security strategy given the longstanding American interests in the region [explained by PNAC to include: oil]." 
 
In the world my new editor friend lives in, the President and Vice President mean basically what they say.  And they never say the sorts of things that PNAC said.  They have absolutely no interest in oil.  Etc.  Again, this is not the view of some random uninformed schmuck but of a serious corporate media editor.  Maybe I'm nuts.  Maybe he is.  Maybe it's our communications system.  The column I originally sent him was this:

<b>Slavery, Iraq, and Justice Delayed</b>

The Governor of Virginia, Timothy M. Kaine, has just pardoned Gabriel Prosser for leading a slave revolt in Virginia over 200 years ago. Prosser sought to organize thousands of slaves to accomplish the "wholesale massacre" of whites in Richmond and other slave-holding areas, according to historian Virginius Dabney. Kaine cited Prosser's "devotion to the ideals of the American revolution – it was worth risking death to secure liberty." Kaine concluded that "Gabriel's cause – the end of slavery and the furtherance of equality of all people – has prevailed in the light of history."

So seeking to massacre Americans can come from devotion to the ideals of the American revolution, even if it's done by people not quite considered real Americans? Of course it can. The American revolution involved killing lots of people too. Prosser was not hanged for advocating violence but for opposing slavery and advocating violence against slave owners. Of course, in the light of history, over 200 years too late we can recognize the horror that slavery was and see slave rebellions as acts of self-defense. It is slightly remarkable for a Virginia governor to say so out loud, even today. But it's not a great moral breakthrough.

The moral breakthrough would have been for the slave owners in 1800 to have said "My God, they dislike slavery so much they are willing to kill and die to end it. Slavery must be wrong. We will end it peacefully. We will make amends. We will share the burden together of moving past slavery so as to avoid a future war." That would have been the moral breakthrough.

Rebelling slaves today are called insurgents. They speak a funny language called Arabic. They practice a strange religion. They dress weird. And almost every depiction of them on television is negative. But we've killed an estimated 1,028,907 of them in Iraq alone and driven another 4 million Iraqis out of their homes. They are in utter and desperate poverty. Diseases are sweeping their remaining population. They are dying at twice the rate this year as last year. Their fury at the occupying army of slave owners is immeasurable. Slave owners today are called Mr. President, Mr. Vice President, the Congress, and "our troops."

The moral breakthrough today would be to recognize that Iraqis defending their country against an occupying and murderous force – a force which in fact uses slave labor to construct its gargantuan embassy - is acting in self defense. The moral breakthrough would be to recognize now, before it's too late, that the Iraqi resistance is in fact in line with the ideals of the American revolution and is in fact destined to prevail in the light of history - if we all survive long enough to have that history.

- Advertisement -

My friend Dahlia Wasfi recently said:

"Our so-called 'enemies' in Afghanistan, Iraq, Palestine, our other colonies around the world - and our inner cities here at home - are struggling against the oppressive hand of empire, demanding respect for their humanity. They are labeled 'insurgents' or 'terrorists' for resisting rape and pillage by the white establishment, but they are our brothers and sisters in the struggle for justice.

"Last Sunday, my family's luck ran out, and one of my cousins in Iraq was killed in the violence we have brought upon Iraqis and their children. He leaves behind a wife; a 2 year old son who keeps asking 'Where’s Daddy?'; a heart-broken mother and brother; and an entire family devastated by grief for whom life will never be the same. If there are political differences, then whatever they may be, there's nothing complicated about fighting for Iraqi women and children, who are the majority of the suffering population. And if we respect their humanity, can we not respect their grief as they lose their brothers, fathers, husbands and sons, the same way we mourn with and share the pain of American military families?"

Perhaps we can, Dahlia. It just might take us a couple of hundred years.

<b>THOMAS G. DONLAN, EDITORIAL PAGE EDITOR, BARRON'S WEEKLY REPLIED:</b>
 
Where was the spirit of rebellion in these so-called slaves when they were actually enslaved by a ruthless dictator, who killed millions by leading them into a war of conquest against Iran? Many were complicit in that regime. Others were terrorized then, and not terrorized now by their much gentler enemy. Whom will you blame for the further millions killed in the civil war?

- Advertisement -

It is odious to demand "respect" for people who strap bombs to themselves and kill women and children. I am not learned about the Prosser revolt in Virginia, but I doubt the morality of "wholesale massacre" can be superior to that of slavery.

I reject your op-ed submission.

<b>SWANSON REPLIED:</b>

Next Page  1  |  2  |  3

 

http://davidswanson.org

David Swanson is the author of "When the World Outlawed War," "War Is A Lie" and "Daybreak: Undoing the Imperial Presidency and Forming a More Perfect Union." He blogs at http://davidswanson.org and http://warisacrime.org and works for the online (more...)
 

Share on Google Plus Submit to Twitter Add this Page to Facebook! Share on LinkedIn Pin It! Add this Page to Fark! Submit to Reddit Submit to Stumble Upon


Go To Commenting

The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.

Follow Me on Twitter

Contact AuthorContact Author Contact EditorContact Editor Author PageView Authors' Articles
Related Topic(s): ; , Add Tags
- Advertisement -
Google Content Matches:

Most Popular Articles by this Author:     (View All Most Popular Articles by this Author)

Feith Dares Obama to Enforce the Law

Obama's Open Forum Opens Possibilities

Public Forum Planned on Vermont Proposal to Arrest Bush and Cheney

Did Bush Sr. Kill Kennedy and Frame Nixon?

Eleven Excellent Reasons Not to Join the Military

Holder Asked to Prosecute Blankenship