Insurgency, Decaffeinated

One of the major crises facing the U.S. occupation of Iraq is that of the insurgency, and even without being aware of the ideologico-political specifics of the insurgency itself, it is obvious to anyone who at least reads newspapers (or even more passively, catches a glimpse of network news whilst waiting for one’s plane to board) that the conflict is embroiled in an almost impossibly complicated paramilitary brawl—a civil war—, ranging from former Ba’athist loyalists to Marxist revolutionaries. Perhaps then it is interesting to note, as Mahmood Mamdani eloquently does in his The Politics of Naming: Genocide, Civil War, Insurgency, the problematic differentiation between the civil war in Iraq and the civil war in Sudan, namely in the Darfur region.

In 2003, the Darfur Liberation Front (DLF) initiated the conflict (though I must qualify this statement—the conflict itself stems from decades of political, social and economic inequality within Sudan itself) when it claimed credit for attacking the town of Golo. The DLF insurgency was then met by a mostly poor, nomadic counter-insurgency—the Janjaweed—contracted by the Sudanese government as part of a three-fold plan to end factional resistance in the Darfur region, (1) being military intelligence, (2) the air force, and (3) the Janjaweed. Though most of the violence in the conflict has come from the Janjaweed, gross violations have come from both sides.

However, this did not prevent the U.S. from proclaiming a “genocide alert” with regard to the Darfur conflict. In response to claims of “ethnic cleansing” in Darfur and mounting pressure from the U.S., the U.N. launched its own commission to investigate these claims, which reached a far more ambiguous conclusion. In September 2004, the Nigerian president Olusegun Obasanjo and then-chair of the African Union was asked at a press conference to respond on whether or not he considered the violence in Darfur to be genocide:

Before you can say that this is genocide or ethnic cleansing, we will have to have a definite decision and plan and programme of a government to wipe out a particular group of people, then we will be talking about genocide, ethnic cleansing. What we know is not that. What we know is that there was an uprising, rebellion, and the government armed another group of people to stop that rebellion. That’s what we know. That does not amount to genocide from our own reckoning. It amounts to of course conflict. It amounts to violence.

Thus, right now the central symbolic gap resides in the current political classifications of the two conflicts: of Iraq as “civil war,” and Darfur as “genocide.” Why this split? The conflict in Darfur is, at its core, nearly identical to Iraq—an insurgency vs. a counter-insurgency, factions combatting one another for economic and political power; a highly unstable region due to the history of colonial exploitation, and so on. What perhaps makes Darfur so appetizing as a source of humanitarian interest is, in fact, its similarity to the Iraqi conflict, except of course for one thing: in our current occupation of Iraq, our very presence, our proximity to the conflict itself, has engendered a cynical attitude towards the confusing violence and chaos, a dismal outlook towards an unsolvable ethico-political conundrum mired in the obfuscated mess of a history that we are now fully aware of and thus, at the level of decisiveness on any sort of resolution, properly disengaged. Thus, Darfur is a kind of half-hearted and silly replacement for the confusing Real found in Iraq. Our distance from the Darfur conflict allows us to ignore the complex historical, political, social and economic problems it contains. “Save Darfur!” thus must mean “Forget Iraq!” No wonder both conservatives and fake liberals are both supporting ending “genocide” in Darfur! For paleoconservatives it is an opportunity to distance themselves from the vilified neocons and for pseudo-Leftist Habermasians, an attempt to rectify what remains of the misguided humanitarian calling.

To go back to this idea of a conflict deprived of its history, of all of the ethico-political and ideological complications that engender the necessity to weigh all options or look at all sides of a phenomenon, let us consider Darfur once more. What makes Darfur the “easy” conflict is not that it is some great humanitarian disaster that no one with a heart could ignore, but the very fact that it is a conflict deprived of its malignant properties: it is, in essence, decaffeinated coffee. This is of course not true in reality, but instead found in the emerging discourse on the conflict, which attempts to cast itself as that of choosing to intervene and end “genocide” (in which case the moral and ethical choices become immediately apparent) or ignore it and go about our daily lives, watching TV and so on and let the people be killed.

There is also a racial-ethnic subtext to Darfur, one that is usually not enunciated, but instead must be read between the lines, a kind of “wink wink, nudge nudge, say no more.” The blame for simplifying the Darfur conflict into the classification of the violence as ‘Arab’ against ‘African’ must rest on the shoulders of the woefully misguided Save Darfur campaign. Not only is this characterization summarily wrong, as it presents the violence as one-sided, etc., but it attempts to depoliticize the conflict by naturalizing it. Here we should be suspect: what purpose does this racial-ethnic naturalization really serve? While there is one side to this which is certainly true, namely Western/’white’ guilt towards African(-American)s (slavery, Hurricane Katrina, Rwanda, just to name a few), there is the other, (perhaps) more obvious ideological aspect: to demonize ‘Arabs.’

Could this be why Nicholas Kristof, the New York Times op-ed columnist who devotes most of his time to harping on Darfur, has enframed the conflict as one between the primordial forces of good and evil? Does this rhetorical device not simply force us to draw the rather disturbing parallel between ‘Arab’ and ‘evil’ itself? Perhaps this is why Darfur gets far more public attention (across both political spectrums, as a reminder) than the actual, legitimate genocide that has been going on in the Congo since 1998, of which millions, rather than thousands (as in Darfur), have lost their lives (the highest death count since World War II!). It is not in fact, as some would claim, an apolitical and purely moral humanitarian campaign—it is instead, like Iraq, part of the continuing global War on Terror which seeks to vilify Arabs as the Big Other, the great opposition to Western Enlightenment. As Mamdani caustically writes, “It seems that genocide has become a label to be stuck on your worst enemy, a perverse version of the Nobel Prize, part of a rhetorical arsenal that helps you vilify your adversaries while ensuring impunity for your allies.” Here, of course, ‘allies’ refers to our African Allies, Rwanda and Uganda, who have been training child soldiers to fight in the Congo civil war. The seemingly objective, depoliticized stance that many groups have taken thus serves rather quintessentially Machiavellian political intentions: to further the obvious agenda of the war on terror.

In deciding on a course of action, it is perhaps useful to evoke Lacan’s subject of enunciated and subject of enunciation (for instance, even though I am saying things, there are reasons why I choose to say not just what I say, but when and how). It is crucial to understand this aspect in acknowledging both the cruel political intentions of past colonialism (found in the quote below) as well as our current/future political intentions (depoliticized humanitarian relief functioning as a mask for anti-Arab fantasies):

…Peace cannot be built on humanitarian intervention, which is the language of big powers. The history of colonialism should teach us that every major intervention has been justified as humanitarian, a ‘civilising mission’. Nor was it mere idiosyncrasy that inspired the devotion with which many colonial officers and archivists recorded the details of barbarity among the colonised – sati, the ban on widow marriage or the practice of child marriage in India, or slavery and female genital mutilation in Africa. I am not suggesting that this was all invention. I mean only to point out that the chronicling of atrocities had a practical purpose: it provided the moral pretext for intervention. Now, as then, imperial interventions claim to have a dual purpose: on the one hand, to rescue minority victims of ongoing barbarities and, on the other, to quarantine majority perpetrators with the stated aim of civilising them. Iraq should act as a warning on this score. The worst thing in Darfur would be an Iraq-style intervention. That would almost certainly spread the civil war to other parts of Sudan, unravelling the peace process in the east and south and dragging the whole country into the global War on Terror.

—Bryan Klausmeyer

Hilton Humiliation and the Penal System

If one wanted to sell magazines to old people, one could simply put a picture of Paris Hilton on the cover with the words “Generation Hilton” next to her. Then include some statistics that say things like “today’s generation is crankier than ever” and “they have too much sex.” Control over generational representation seems to be gained only when the generation is almost dead– see Greatest Generation. Until then we’re likely to suffer a litany of attacks about our propensity to use computers, play hip-hop and wear white belts with that “I just don’t care” swagger. Meanwhile as the baby boomers approach their golden age, the news services are sure to tell us how great Buffalo Springfield was and that the 60s were the most important time in the history of America.

Since this will be our destiny for the next 40 or so years, let’s focus on the issue at hand: Humiliation. In the court’s effort to exact cultural revenge on one “Paris Hilton,” which I’m guessing is the taken name of a transsexual prostitute, they have placed her in a minimum security prison where she is afraid to urinate. I’m up for water-boarding Hilton as much as the next neanderthal, but why can’t a minimum security prison provide a curtain, a half wall, or a stall for inmates to use when they’re on the toilet? This seems fodder for the zany socialist liberal commie belief that prisons in this country are a system of humiliation rather than a system of rehabilitation. And while you may dismiss that statement because it rhymes, keep in mind that not only does it have some credence, but rhyming political catch-phrases have been used by def poets Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson for years.

Since so many seem to be strident about moral degradation and dehumanization for higher-eschellon criminals, for the sake of this argument we’ll just be talking about minimum security prisons. What rehabilitative value does removing a right to privacy when peeing possibly afford the inmate? Why is it an accepted cultural assumption that if you enter a prison facility you’re going to be raped and brutalized? This should be of great concern for any American human being since it’s not totally out of the realm of possibility that you’ll be serving some time in your lifetime. In fact, “If recent incarceration rates remain unchanged, an estimated 1 of every 15 persons (6.6%) will serve time in a prison during their lifetime.¹ There is no legitimate reason for humiliation on the toilet or an acceptance of sexual assault in prison for people who have done things like driving with a suspended license or selling marijuana.

According to a study of state prison systems…

On average, 21.2 percent of female inmates reported experiencing some form of sexual victimization by other inmates and 7.6 percent by staff. Of the women who were victimized, a little over three percent said they had been sexually assaulted by an inmate and 1.7 percent said they’d been sexually assaulted by a staff member.²

and…

Among prisons housing men, rates of victimization varied by facility. A man might be housed in a prison where the risk of inmate-on-inmate sexual victimization was as low as 3.0 percent or as high as 6.4 percent. Likewise, he might be in a facility where the risk of sexual victimization by a staff person ranged from 3.7 to 11.8 percent. While the percentages of sexual victimization may seem low, they indicate that a significant number of prisoners are the victims of sexual misconduct in prisons nationwide. In 2003, 1,368,866 men were imprisoned in the United States, which translates into almost 22,000 male inmates experiencing a forced sex act. There were 101,179 women in federal and state prisons, which translates into over 3,200 experiencing a forced sex act.³

If there’s one institution in this country that is in need of reforms it is most definitely the prison system. Even if you are Paris Hilton, you deserve not to live in fear of rape and assault, and you certainly deserve some potty privacy.

1. Bureau of Justice Statistics: Criminal Offenders Statistics ↩
2. Journal of Urban Health: Bulletin of The New York Academy of Medicine ↩
3. Journal of Urban Health: Bulletin of The New York Academy of Medicine ↩

—Mark Elliot Cullen

Reasons I Don’t Support Ron Paul

He’s all the rage on the internet (as if that mattered) but I’m troubled by leftist friends who swoon over Ron Paul without really exploring his policies. Then again, a lot of them aren’t on his main website, which is where a quick Google search and OnTheIssues.org came in handy. Sure, he’s the only Republican who’s right on Iraq, but here are some reasons I don’t support Ron Paul:

Immigration:

“The talk must stop. We must secure our borders now. A nation without secure borders is no nation at all. It makes no sense to fight terrorists abroad when our own front door is left unlocked.”¹

and…

“Voted YES on building a fence along the Mexican border. (Sep 2006) Voted YES on preventing tipping off Mexicans about Minuteman Project. (Jun 2006) Voted YES on reporting illegal aliens who receive hospital treatment. (May 2004)”²

Guns:

“He has never voted for a federal restriction on gun ownership.”³

Reagan: This is on his front page….

Abortion:

“Q: What is the RLC’s position on abortion? A: Neutral. We have both pro-lifers to pro-choicers, and in between. As far as libertarian groups go, you’ll find that we are probably the most tolerant of the pro-life viewpoint. Our immediate past chairman, Cong. Ron Paul (R-TX, 14th Dist.) is very pro-life. Many other members are pro-choice.”⁴

Gay rights:

“Voted YES on banning gay adoptions in DC. Vote on an amendment banning adoptions in District of Columbia by gays or other individuals who are not related by blood or marriage.”⁵

School prayer:

“Supports a Constitutional Amendment for school prayer. Paul sponsored a resolution for a School Prayer Amendment: H.J.RES.52 (2001), H.J.RES.66 (1999), S.J.RES. 1, H.J.RES.12, H. J. RES. 108, & H. J. RES. 55: Nothing in this Constitution shall be construed to prohibit individual or group prayer in public schools or other public institutions. No person shall be required by the United States or by any State to participate in prayer . Neither the United States nor any State shall compose the words of any prayer to be said in public schools. H. J. RES. 78 (1997): To secure the people’s right to acknowledge God according to the dictates of conscience: Neither the United States nor any State shall establish any official religion, but the people’s right to pray and to recognize their religious beliefs, heritage, or traditions on public property, including schools, shall not be infringed. Neither the United States nor any State shall require any person to join in prayer or other religious activity, prescribe school prayers, discriminate against religion, or deny equal access to a benefit on account of religion.”⁶

Kyoto Protocol:

“Voted NO on starting implementation of Kyoto Protocol. Vote on an amendment that would allow the implementation of the portions of the Kyoto climate change treaty that are already allowed under law. The Kyoto protocol of 1997, which aims to reduce emissions of certain greenhouse gases, particularly carbon dioxide, has not been ratified by the United States. The amendment would allow federal agencies, particularly the Environmental Protection Agency [EPA] to implement procedures already allowed under law that are also part of the Kyoto accord before the treaty is ratified by Congress.”⁷

Campaign Reform:

“Voted NO on campaign finance reform banning soft-money contributions. (Feb 2002) Voted NO on banning soft money and issue ads. (Sep 1999) Limit federal power, per the 10th Amendment. (Dec 2000) Unlimited campaign contributions; with full disclosure. (Dec 2000)”⁸

Most of these tidbits aren’t available on Paul’s campaign website, and I tend to think it’s left intentionally vague so that he doesn’t alienate any of his MyFaceDiggNocrati base. Then again, if you’re capable of doing a Google search you can easily find this information and know that it just doesn’t make sense to support Paul if you’re left-leaning or liberal. If your’e still looking for an underdog, I suugest the slightly less elfish candidate Dennis Kucinich?

1. Ron Paul 2008 ↩
2. On The Issues ↩
3. Ron Paul 2008 ↩
4. On The Issues ↩
5. On The Issues ↩
6. On The Issues ↩
7. On The Issues ↩
8. On The Issues ↩

—Mark Elliot Cullen 12 Comments

CONFLICT! Music’s Future

With sites like Wikipedia, Digg and YouTube coming into their own in the last few years, the power of collective groups on the Internet has received its fair share of press. While the power of collectives may be on the rise, the recent White Stripes leak and subsequent backlash from said band has highlighted an often overlooked sacrifice to collective power—individual artistic control.

Having read several blog posts and news agency accounts on the leak of Icky Thump, the latest White Stripes album, on a Chicago radio station, I came back with a negative impression of Jack White. Though I love his music and fearless eccentricity, his response seemed unnecessarily drastic and angry. In his reprimand of the DJ who leaked the album, White reportedly said she was responsible for “ruin[ing] the music industry.”¹ While at first it seems odd that White would even be concerned with this, rather than a loss of sales, I think he was referring to a loss of artistic control. Though White would probably prefer to present his songs in a certain format, at a certain time, and in a certain way, the speed of communication and accessibility of layman distribution systems makes even a sample demo given out to maybe 25 individuals likely to find its way onto the Internet. While the music itself may remain unchanged from the vision the artist intended, the context in which it is released moves out of their hands.

With the increase in sampling, remixing and musical borrowing and editing, the work of an individual artist is far less likely to be preserved. However, this is not radically different from the way a song is produced in the first place. For many artists, there is constant manipulation on the part of their label, producer or engineers. While the White Stripes may come close, it’s difficult for most starting artists and even established artists to create an individual vision because of the collaboration inherent in musical culture. The difference with sampling is that, while previously the musician had some amount of say in his collaborators, the sampled musician does not and since the floodgates of audio editing and layman musical collaboration have been opened there has been little to stem the tide of borrowing.

As I see it, there are two options for musicians trying to create an album or song. The first involves tight-fisted control, limiting who you work with, what you allow others to hear at what times and actively pursuing leaks with punishing lawsuits and (somehow) stopping leaks after they start. The result of this position would be an increase in animosity between the audience and the musician, the label and the musician, and the musical press and the musician. It’s also likely to be expensive… very expensive when you consider not just legal and technological costs, but also the strains this would put on album promotion due to alienation of the audience. The only advantage of this method, if it works, is that the musician would be confident that they have “final cut.”

The other option is the “open” method that Creative Commons licenses afford. Instead of limiting what can be done with your music, you essentially allow others to interact with it and distribute either your copy or their manipulated copies at will. You gain buzz, open your music to new creative possibilities and satisfy your fans who get your music for free, all while maintaining the majority of your income, which you make from touring.

What’s to lose? Well, publishing rights for one, and that’s going to be the hardest part of a transition from a closed system to an open system. While this won’t have a big affect on the artist, it will on the label. This leads to another big drawback: loss of label promotion. Ever heard of Jessica Simpson? Can you whistle (or hum) any of her songs? People like Jessica Simpson, Marylin Manson and Britney Spears (who hasn’t released music in five years) are famous because of good artist promotion—they stay in the news with the help of advertisers, labels and publicists. Because there’s no incentive to promote an artist who doesn’t ship units, many labels would be unwilling to fund publicity for artists who don’t ship CDs and don’t get royalty checks for films and advertisements.

While I’m not going to try to argue that there’s the same amount of money to be made from sales when the product is available essentially free on the Internet, there’s no guarantee that this is “the end” for the album as a product. From personal experience I can admit to downloading an album from a torrent and then buying the album in physical form later if it has cool packaging and neat linear notes (Arcade Fire, White Stripes) or some compelling features that I couldn’t get from just a torrent (DualDisc DVD, Beck’s sticker encrusted The Information), and while this market would be smaller, it would still clearly be a market. Another factor to consider is the marketability of distribution through online media services—who am I kidding?—through iTunes.

In any case, record companies as we know them are going to either remake themselves or die slow, painful deaths. One interesting idea would be to shift their focus into a sort of music promotion company, taking their share out of touring income, but that’s for another post. Similarly, artists are going to have to rewire their habits for an age when your house is on Google Street View and your song is getting ripped and dubbed at breakneck speeds. Or they can build a big wall and see where that gets them.

1. DJ Electra, So Does This Make Me A Pimp And A Prostitute Too?, 30 May 2007. ↩

—Mark Elliot Cullen 2 Comments