Read this -
"Scientists. A minimal, marginalized lot these days. It's almost prehistoric the way we've become immune to the warnings science offers us. As soon as the System realized that the prognosis was bad, and would make them perhaps look bad in turn, voila; they started an intensive propaganda campaign in the press, fostering as much sarcasm as possible with respect to anything scientific. That was when the scornful expression 'scientific paranoia' came into being.
Anything could be labeled 'scientific paranoia,' Being an illustrious, scientist of conscience became tantamount to being a Jew in Nazi Germany. Scientists were debunked, persecuted, and not a few of them went into hiding. Some continued their studies, issuing public announcements, denouncements. Desperately trying to engage public interest.
So most of the scientists were hunted down and silenced. Others accepted invitations to foreign universities and institutes and left the country. Some merely retired and went on to other activities. Research institutions languished and closed, as the new order grew in numbers and power."
This quote is from the 1981 distopian novel And Still the Earth by the Brazilian author, Ignácio de Loyola Brandáo (translation by Ellen Watson). This is one of the first significant novels to deal with the impending disaster of global warming. Water is disappearing and life, particularly near the equator, is becoming unliveable. It is frightening and disturbing.
This passage is eerily reminiscent of our own government's actions as it attempts to marginalize and muzzle scientists and environmental activists in order to continue its disastrous drive toward giving free reign to multinational energy companies.
Pick up the book. It was just reissued in English translation after more than two decades of being out of print.
Saturday, September 21, 2013
Thursday, September 12, 2013
Idi Amin, Pauline Marois and the Race Card. . . .
In 1972 Idi Amin said that he had a dream in which God told him to expel the Indian and Pakistani population of Uganda. It was a terrible act by a terrible man. I used to have a politically radical close friend from Uganda and he used to say that of all the things that Amin did, this was probably the worst thing he did for Uganda as a nation because it had the long term effect of crippling the economy. You see, South Asians only accounted for about one percent of the population but were involved in about a fifth of the nation's wealth production. But Amin knew that Indophobia was a powerful force in Uganda and it seemed that he believed that targeting the South Asians would appeal to his populist base and make him something of a hero in the country.
This is a familiar pattern. A politician takes advantage of racists feelings (sometimes these feelings are overt and sometimes they are quietly seething under the surface) in order to muster feelings of nationalism and bolster their own population. It is a strategy that never ends well and Amin's efforts (though an extreme example) are demonstrative of what such efforts lead to.
This is precisely what makes the recent efforts of the PQ so sad. It seems clear that Pauline Marios is attempting to use relatively quiet, but percolating, racist sentiments to rally nationalist sentiments and create a convenient wedge between Quebec and the rest of Canada. She obviously has calculated that this strategy is one that has a good chance of resurrecting separatism and perhaps finally creating those elusive "winning conditions" for an independence referendum.
But like the efforts of Idi Amin this cannot end well. Even if Marios manages to whip-up the nationalist feelings that she hopes to generate, she is making Quebec a pariah on the world stage. And unlike the situation in France where many radicalized communities have little opportunity to leave, Marois' efforts have a very good chance of motivating a mass exodus from the province. Now, since many (if not most) of the people who could leave will be non-whites, this event will not be mourned by many of those in Quebec who (though they would not admit it) harbour deeply racist feelings. But in the long term it will spell a gross impoverishment of Quebec, both economically and culturally.
I have never liked Quebec nationalism, or any nationalism for that matter. Nationalism in the face of the gross atrocities associated with colonialism are one thing. But Quebec (at least in recent years) has faced none of that. In fact since I came to Canada many years ago the relationship between Quebec and the rest of Canada has been one of active accommodation. I have always insisted that while you can promote culture you cannot legislate it and Quebec nationalism has always fed on feelings of fear and racism. But when politicians (or anyone for that matter) start actively talking about "cultural purity" I get nervous. I don't know how many times in recent weeks I have heard Quebecers who support Marois' charter talk about racial purity and the so-called "watering down" of Quebec culture. And it is interesting that they would use this phrase, 'watering-down,' because this is a phrase so commonly used by white supremacists when they talk about protecting 'white' culture.
I don't know how this will play out but I know that the PQ and the BLOC have now placed themselves squarely in the camp of American Tea-Baggers and white supremacists who want to "protect" their so-called culture. The people of Uganda learned the hard way what you get when you play the race card for political gain, and I suspect that the people of Quebec will learn the same lesson.
This is a familiar pattern. A politician takes advantage of racists feelings (sometimes these feelings are overt and sometimes they are quietly seething under the surface) in order to muster feelings of nationalism and bolster their own population. It is a strategy that never ends well and Amin's efforts (though an extreme example) are demonstrative of what such efforts lead to.
This is precisely what makes the recent efforts of the PQ so sad. It seems clear that Pauline Marios is attempting to use relatively quiet, but percolating, racist sentiments to rally nationalist sentiments and create a convenient wedge between Quebec and the rest of Canada. She obviously has calculated that this strategy is one that has a good chance of resurrecting separatism and perhaps finally creating those elusive "winning conditions" for an independence referendum.
But like the efforts of Idi Amin this cannot end well. Even if Marios manages to whip-up the nationalist feelings that she hopes to generate, she is making Quebec a pariah on the world stage. And unlike the situation in France where many radicalized communities have little opportunity to leave, Marois' efforts have a very good chance of motivating a mass exodus from the province. Now, since many (if not most) of the people who could leave will be non-whites, this event will not be mourned by many of those in Quebec who (though they would not admit it) harbour deeply racist feelings. But in the long term it will spell a gross impoverishment of Quebec, both economically and culturally.
I have never liked Quebec nationalism, or any nationalism for that matter. Nationalism in the face of the gross atrocities associated with colonialism are one thing. But Quebec (at least in recent years) has faced none of that. In fact since I came to Canada many years ago the relationship between Quebec and the rest of Canada has been one of active accommodation. I have always insisted that while you can promote culture you cannot legislate it and Quebec nationalism has always fed on feelings of fear and racism. But when politicians (or anyone for that matter) start actively talking about "cultural purity" I get nervous. I don't know how many times in recent weeks I have heard Quebecers who support Marois' charter talk about racial purity and the so-called "watering down" of Quebec culture. And it is interesting that they would use this phrase, 'watering-down,' because this is a phrase so commonly used by white supremacists when they talk about protecting 'white' culture.
I don't know how this will play out but I know that the PQ and the BLOC have now placed themselves squarely in the camp of American Tea-Baggers and white supremacists who want to "protect" their so-called culture. The people of Uganda learned the hard way what you get when you play the race card for political gain, and I suspect that the people of Quebec will learn the same lesson.
Wednesday, September 4, 2013
Religious symbols part 2 . . .
I am genuinely at a loss to understand how people imagine that the proposed new legislation in Quebec which seeks to restrict the personal expression of government employees can be believable sold as 'secularization.' Here is the thing - if you believe that restricting the religious expressions of government employees contributes to the secularization of the state, you must necessarily believe the converse argument, to wit, that allowing these people to express their religious views through the wearing of symbolic religious items necessarily contributes to the opposite of secularization. In other words, you must believe that on the spectrum between a theocracy and an entirely secular state, the wearing of religious symbols in itself pushes a state further toward theocracy. But this is not even vaguely believable claim. If I send my daughter to school and her teacher wears a hijab, neither she nor I could possibly see this as the state promoting, advocating, or embracing a particular religious outlook. Even my daughter, at the tender age of nine, understand that the wearing of a hijab is a personal expression of religious belief. The state itself is not, in any meaningful way, made more secular if a government employee is restricted from donning religious garb and, conversely, a state is not made more of a theocracy if such people wear such symbols.
As far as I am concerned, the entire matter is as simply as that. The secular state is simply one that does not advocate a particular religious position. Though much of our traditional legal system has roots in certain Judeo-Christian customs and conventions, one might argue that we can more or less create and entirely secular state apparatus. But I see no argument that such a cause is helped or promoted by the restriction of purely symbolic clothing.
Conversely, within a predominately Christian population, I do see that a substantive argument that efforts to restrict religious symbols will inevitably target particular religions or beliefs. Overall, I continue to see no arguments that these proposed restrictions will contribute to secularization in any way. Instead, I have heard people throw around unsubstantiated assertions much like the religious believers that they are trying to restrict do in religious and philosophical arguments.
As far as I am concerned, the entire matter is as simply as that. The secular state is simply one that does not advocate a particular religious position. Though much of our traditional legal system has roots in certain Judeo-Christian customs and conventions, one might argue that we can more or less create and entirely secular state apparatus. But I see no argument that such a cause is helped or promoted by the restriction of purely symbolic clothing.
Conversely, within a predominately Christian population, I do see that a substantive argument that efforts to restrict religious symbols will inevitably target particular religions or beliefs. Overall, I continue to see no arguments that these proposed restrictions will contribute to secularization in any way. Instead, I have heard people throw around unsubstantiated assertions much like the religious believers that they are trying to restrict do in religious and philosophical arguments.
Wednesday, August 28, 2013
Quebec and Personal Expression. . . .
I have been so offended by the recently proposed legislation in Quebec that I felt compelled, despite a long silence, to speak up, if only for reasons of catharsis. First of all let me say at the outset that I believe that this legislation, supposedly intended to establish so-called Quebec 'values,' is, at best, racially incendiary and, at worst, actually motivated by fascism and racism. For years I have believed that, despite leftist apologism, much of the Quebec legislation that is supposedly intended to "protect" Quebec culture, is, in fact, racism in disguise. And the proposed "Quebec values" legislation confirms my worst feelings about the latent racism that has been gradually emerging from 'la belle province.'
Tonight on CBC the leftist commentator Ian Capstick was swift and assertive in his support for any legislation that outlaws any sort of religious symbol in publicly owned space. Though Capstick is essentially on the left, I often disagree with his arguments. Though he is sometime insightful, I find that Capstick is often pedantic and very seldom demonstrates a deep understanding, sophistication, or a concern for the 'big-picture' in political matters. And while I said that I often disagree with his "arguments," in this case he simply didn't present any. Instead, much like the religious ideologies that I assume he opposes, he simply made the basic assertion that he thought religious symbols had 'no place' in public places (by which, he confirmed to me, he meant publicly owned spaces such as government offices). But, of course, as we all know, an assertion in itself never constitutes and argument. And the problem is that in my thirty five years of political consciousness I have never heard a clear argument (let alone a convincing one) why individual professions of faith in the form of symbols such as, for example, a yarmulke, a cross, or a Sikh turban is in any way problematic. I understand that religious activism can be a problem. I understand that, in a democracy, we can't have the state sanctioning a particular religious belief. But nothing in my experience suggests to me that simple acts of religious self-expression in visually symbolic form, are problematic or threatening to democracy in any way. In fact, I am convinced that self-expression, in personal religious symbols, promotes democracy because it promotes discourse, diversity, and personal understanding between people. If my university professor, say, wears a yarmulke, I am in no way threatened nor is my learning experience diminished. provided he is an effective, open, and supportive teacher. If my doctor wears a hijab, it doesn't undermine her ability to give me proper medical care. And because religious communities are so diverse, these symbolic acts suggest little to me concerning the 'values' of the professor or the doctor. I may share fewer normative values with an atheist doctor or an agnostic professor. Admirable values are certainly not something that belong to any one group, whether religious or otherwise. I have met good Christians, good Muslims, good atheists, good Buddhist, etc; people who share many, if not most of my values.
But, perhaps most importantly, I believe that freedom of self expression is itself a profoundly important value for a just and decent society. And by undermining such acts (whether they are in the form of restricting religious headwear or some other, secular, expression) the Party Quebecois is engaging in an act of performative contradiction. To outlaw simple, non-threating, acts of symbolic self-expression is a dangerous act of imposition that takes us, as a society, in the very opposite direction than most of us on the left want to go. Such an act is a thin edge of a perilous wedge. For, it begs the question, will we soon be restricted from political self-expression? I am not sure I see a significant theoretical difference between wearing a cross around one's neck and, say, donning a Che Guevara t-shirt. Both the shirt and the cross express certain ideological notions, basic beliefs that might have deep implications concerning one's normative values.
Thus, I contend that, restricting acts of self-expression in a university, a government office, or a hospital, is not only deeply problematic, it is a dangerous precedent. I want to live in a diverse society where people hold different beliefs and we can engage in acts of discursive redemption concerning those beliefs. If Habermas's Theory of Communicative Action taught me anything, it is that we build community through discourse not through the restriction of discourse. And acts of self-expression are essential to discourse. Furthermore, in many cases it is in our publicly owned spaces that are conducive to discourse and understanding.
The PQ is engaging in the kind of political strategy that is, I believe, always dangerous and eventually always fails. Ultimately you cannot protect or promote culture through acts of restriction. The promotion of culture is an organic process that grows out of a rich commitment to language, philosophy, and the arts. What is happening in Quebec is, I believe, a deep act of racism disguised as legislative reason. Ultimately the people who will pay will be non-whites and non-Christians who will become an easy target because of a legislative licence. Military Chaplains will still wear dog-collars and crosses. No one will ask a nun in a hospital to remove her habit. No one in the Catholic studies department at McGill will be compelled to remove their cross. All of this compels us to ask, what are the values that the PQ thinks are Quebec values and what are they really promoting? And, while we are asking questions, what does Ian Capstick think such legal restrictions on personal expression will achieve?
Tonight on CBC the leftist commentator Ian Capstick was swift and assertive in his support for any legislation that outlaws any sort of religious symbol in publicly owned space. Though Capstick is essentially on the left, I often disagree with his arguments. Though he is sometime insightful, I find that Capstick is often pedantic and very seldom demonstrates a deep understanding, sophistication, or a concern for the 'big-picture' in political matters. And while I said that I often disagree with his "arguments," in this case he simply didn't present any. Instead, much like the religious ideologies that I assume he opposes, he simply made the basic assertion that he thought religious symbols had 'no place' in public places (by which, he confirmed to me, he meant publicly owned spaces such as government offices). But, of course, as we all know, an assertion in itself never constitutes and argument. And the problem is that in my thirty five years of political consciousness I have never heard a clear argument (let alone a convincing one) why individual professions of faith in the form of symbols such as, for example, a yarmulke, a cross, or a Sikh turban is in any way problematic. I understand that religious activism can be a problem. I understand that, in a democracy, we can't have the state sanctioning a particular religious belief. But nothing in my experience suggests to me that simple acts of religious self-expression in visually symbolic form, are problematic or threatening to democracy in any way. In fact, I am convinced that self-expression, in personal religious symbols, promotes democracy because it promotes discourse, diversity, and personal understanding between people. If my university professor, say, wears a yarmulke, I am in no way threatened nor is my learning experience diminished. provided he is an effective, open, and supportive teacher. If my doctor wears a hijab, it doesn't undermine her ability to give me proper medical care. And because religious communities are so diverse, these symbolic acts suggest little to me concerning the 'values' of the professor or the doctor. I may share fewer normative values with an atheist doctor or an agnostic professor. Admirable values are certainly not something that belong to any one group, whether religious or otherwise. I have met good Christians, good Muslims, good atheists, good Buddhist, etc; people who share many, if not most of my values.
But, perhaps most importantly, I believe that freedom of self expression is itself a profoundly important value for a just and decent society. And by undermining such acts (whether they are in the form of restricting religious headwear or some other, secular, expression) the Party Quebecois is engaging in an act of performative contradiction. To outlaw simple, non-threating, acts of symbolic self-expression is a dangerous act of imposition that takes us, as a society, in the very opposite direction than most of us on the left want to go. Such an act is a thin edge of a perilous wedge. For, it begs the question, will we soon be restricted from political self-expression? I am not sure I see a significant theoretical difference between wearing a cross around one's neck and, say, donning a Che Guevara t-shirt. Both the shirt and the cross express certain ideological notions, basic beliefs that might have deep implications concerning one's normative values.
Thus, I contend that, restricting acts of self-expression in a university, a government office, or a hospital, is not only deeply problematic, it is a dangerous precedent. I want to live in a diverse society where people hold different beliefs and we can engage in acts of discursive redemption concerning those beliefs. If Habermas's Theory of Communicative Action taught me anything, it is that we build community through discourse not through the restriction of discourse. And acts of self-expression are essential to discourse. Furthermore, in many cases it is in our publicly owned spaces that are conducive to discourse and understanding.
The PQ is engaging in the kind of political strategy that is, I believe, always dangerous and eventually always fails. Ultimately you cannot protect or promote culture through acts of restriction. The promotion of culture is an organic process that grows out of a rich commitment to language, philosophy, and the arts. What is happening in Quebec is, I believe, a deep act of racism disguised as legislative reason. Ultimately the people who will pay will be non-whites and non-Christians who will become an easy target because of a legislative licence. Military Chaplains will still wear dog-collars and crosses. No one will ask a nun in a hospital to remove her habit. No one in the Catholic studies department at McGill will be compelled to remove their cross. All of this compels us to ask, what are the values that the PQ thinks are Quebec values and what are they really promoting? And, while we are asking questions, what does Ian Capstick think such legal restrictions on personal expression will achieve?
Friday, May 17, 2013
Thanks for the Support and please read my new Blog. . .
I would like to thank everyone for the remarkable and surprising support. It is heartening. Rather ironic to stop posting on the very week in which occurs what is arguably the biggest (as in most public) ethical scandal to clearly involve the Prime Minister.
Anyway, for a while I am going to turn my attentions away from politics and to one of my other interests, literature. I am going to start a new blog entitled Footnotes; Adventures in 19th Century Literature. You can see it here. Please visit me there if you have literary interests. (I hope to start posting at the end of the weekend) Well, Marx retreated into the British Museum after the disappointing events of 1848. I am no Marx and my personal library pales in comparison to the British Museum but it will be my own small retreat.
I have two books that I am just finishing on 19th century literature one is about Mary and Charles Lamb and the other is a biography of Mary Mitford. But I hope to use my new blog to develop ideas for a longterm project on the large tapestry of interconnected friendship that existed between the authors of the English Romantic period. It is something I have been working on little by little over the past few years and I will continue to explore on my blog as the project slowly coalesces.
As for politics, I am sure I will explode back into this more political blog sometime in the not too distant future.
Thanks again for all the support.
Anyway, for a while I am going to turn my attentions away from politics and to one of my other interests, literature. I am going to start a new blog entitled Footnotes; Adventures in 19th Century Literature. You can see it here. Please visit me there if you have literary interests. (I hope to start posting at the end of the weekend) Well, Marx retreated into the British Museum after the disappointing events of 1848. I am no Marx and my personal library pales in comparison to the British Museum but it will be my own small retreat.
I have two books that I am just finishing on 19th century literature one is about Mary and Charles Lamb and the other is a biography of Mary Mitford. But I hope to use my new blog to develop ideas for a longterm project on the large tapestry of interconnected friendship that existed between the authors of the English Romantic period. It is something I have been working on little by little over the past few years and I will continue to explore on my blog as the project slowly coalesces.
As for politics, I am sure I will explode back into this more political blog sometime in the not too distant future.
Thanks again for all the support.
Wednesday, May 15, 2013
Farewell to You All, I just Can't Do it Anymore. . . .
I have always been something of a reluctant warrior for the left. My reluctance was not motivated by lack of belief in principles because I really believe that corporatism and the rightwing ideology are spectacularly wrong and will lead to nothing but disaster. Furthermore, I believe that the only way forward for our race and our planet is a genuine pursuit of greater cooperation and equality. But my reluctance was motivated by the early realization that the majority of people not only tolerate their own exploitation and oppression, but they actually seem to revel in it. For reasons that I am sure I will never understand, the majority of people seem to actively court their own exploitation and want to cede power to those who will keep most people poor and powerless. And even when people work together to make things better, as when they form unions, they are surprisingly quick to create institutional frameworks that further solidify structural inequalities and hierarchies.
Of course, on the other side of the argument, there has always been an indispensable group of tireless activists who have pushed back the tentacles of power and the only reason that we have any justice and generalized prosperity is because of these activists who have dragged the world forward despite the stupidity and reluctance of the majority.
But I feel like I have been fighting for a long time and on days like this I am looking into an abyss of depression and desperation. At least for now, I don't think I can fight any more. In my dark moments I just think that most people are stupid and probably deserve to be exploited and oppressed. If they can't act in their own interest (as the rich and powerful do all the time), I have to ask myself why I should bother.
With this in mind, I leave the rest of you to it, and wish you good luck. I am done.
Of course, on the other side of the argument, there has always been an indispensable group of tireless activists who have pushed back the tentacles of power and the only reason that we have any justice and generalized prosperity is because of these activists who have dragged the world forward despite the stupidity and reluctance of the majority.
But I feel like I have been fighting for a long time and on days like this I am looking into an abyss of depression and desperation. At least for now, I don't think I can fight any more. In my dark moments I just think that most people are stupid and probably deserve to be exploited and oppressed. If they can't act in their own interest (as the rich and powerful do all the time), I have to ask myself why I should bother.
With this in mind, I leave the rest of you to it, and wish you good luck. I am done.
Saturday, May 11, 2013
Guatemalan Dictators, and Brutes of our Own. . . .
Yesterday the former dictator of Guatemala, Efrain Montt, was convicted of 80 years in prison for Genocide. The sentence is, in a sense symbolic considering that Mr. Montt is now 86 years old and very unlikely to survive any significant time in prison. But the sentence is interesting at least because it is one of the very few examples in which a nation is actually trying to come to grips with its fascist past. The sad fact is that Guatemala has seen a string of dictators and brutal militarists (the current president was an military officer under the Montt regime). Central America (and Latin America in general) is awash with former dictators and political murderers, almost none of which have been brought to justice. In 1954 the CIA orchestrated a coup in Guatemala and in 1973 they orchestrated another in Chili. But few (and certainly no one in the US) has ever been properly brought to account for these events. The sad truth is that Montt is a drop in the bucket.
As the years have past I have come to realize that, for the most part, nations really don't really want to come to terms with their past. Nations (and nationalists) want to wave flags and sing anthems and are very good at ignoring the negative aspects of their country's past. I was shocked with I visited Spain with my partner (who was born and raised there) and realized that not only was it a country that had not come to terms with the fascism of the Franco but the country is full of young people who think he was a pretty good guy. If good ol' George Santayana was right, then counties that fail to come to grips with their past are in real danger of slipping back into the fascism that their country once embraced.
I grew up amid the Watergate scandal and as I have gotten older I have been amazed at the way that people in the US have gradually rebuilt the public image of Richard Nixon. Now, as countries go, the US is surely one of the most rabidly nationalistic and as a result even the so-called left in the US is not eager to keep the memories of Nixon's crimes in the public mind because they feel that it hurts the nation in general. A couple of nations (including South Africa and El Salvador) have used national reconciliation commissions in an attempt to come to grips with their past while avoiding the logistical mess of bringing potentially tens of thousands of people to justice. But it seems almost that, as a general rule, countries want to ignore the anti-democratic, brutal, dictatorial elements in their past. And in many cases they are inclined to even vocal defend such misdeeds. (I think that there is little question that George W. Bush and Dick Cheney could, and should, have been brought up on charges of crime against humanity be we all knew that wouldn't happen.) It is not just that the victors write history but nationalists and so-called patriots simply don't want the "wrong" kind of history written.
And the saddest part of all is that Montt, his supporters (and his ilk elsewhere) actually believe that their crimes against humanity were not crimes in the first place, but that their deeds were harsh but necessary.
This brings us to our own dear leader. As far as I am concerned, Stephen Harper is a criminal. He has actively contravened the constitution, he has operated through electoral fraud, he has attempted to dismantle our democratic institutions, he is destroying the environment in ways that will be a terrible burden on future generations, and he has poisoned the political discourse in Canada to a degree from which it may never recover. But despite the fact that Harper makes the previous Liberal government (which he never tires of condemning) like a bunch of honest and honourable public servants, a good swath of Harper supporters believe that ANYTHING Harper does is justifiable and continue to hold to the untenable postion that he is an excellent Prime Minister.
I have no sympathy for a brute like Efrain Montt. But the truth is that this 86 year old man is little more than a scapegoat, a meaningless symbol for people to hold on to as though dictators and brutes really are held responsible for their murderous and anti-democratic past. As a general rule they aren't and perhaps never will be.
As the years have past I have come to realize that, for the most part, nations really don't really want to come to terms with their past. Nations (and nationalists) want to wave flags and sing anthems and are very good at ignoring the negative aspects of their country's past. I was shocked with I visited Spain with my partner (who was born and raised there) and realized that not only was it a country that had not come to terms with the fascism of the Franco but the country is full of young people who think he was a pretty good guy. If good ol' George Santayana was right, then counties that fail to come to grips with their past are in real danger of slipping back into the fascism that their country once embraced.
I grew up amid the Watergate scandal and as I have gotten older I have been amazed at the way that people in the US have gradually rebuilt the public image of Richard Nixon. Now, as countries go, the US is surely one of the most rabidly nationalistic and as a result even the so-called left in the US is not eager to keep the memories of Nixon's crimes in the public mind because they feel that it hurts the nation in general. A couple of nations (including South Africa and El Salvador) have used national reconciliation commissions in an attempt to come to grips with their past while avoiding the logistical mess of bringing potentially tens of thousands of people to justice. But it seems almost that, as a general rule, countries want to ignore the anti-democratic, brutal, dictatorial elements in their past. And in many cases they are inclined to even vocal defend such misdeeds. (I think that there is little question that George W. Bush and Dick Cheney could, and should, have been brought up on charges of crime against humanity be we all knew that wouldn't happen.) It is not just that the victors write history but nationalists and so-called patriots simply don't want the "wrong" kind of history written.
And the saddest part of all is that Montt, his supporters (and his ilk elsewhere) actually believe that their crimes against humanity were not crimes in the first place, but that their deeds were harsh but necessary.
This brings us to our own dear leader. As far as I am concerned, Stephen Harper is a criminal. He has actively contravened the constitution, he has operated through electoral fraud, he has attempted to dismantle our democratic institutions, he is destroying the environment in ways that will be a terrible burden on future generations, and he has poisoned the political discourse in Canada to a degree from which it may never recover. But despite the fact that Harper makes the previous Liberal government (which he never tires of condemning) like a bunch of honest and honourable public servants, a good swath of Harper supporters believe that ANYTHING Harper does is justifiable and continue to hold to the untenable postion that he is an excellent Prime Minister.
I have no sympathy for a brute like Efrain Montt. But the truth is that this 86 year old man is little more than a scapegoat, a meaningless symbol for people to hold on to as though dictators and brutes really are held responsible for their murderous and anti-democratic past. As a general rule they aren't and perhaps never will be.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
