| JSalloum on Fri, 3 Mar 2000 08:34:53 +0100 (CET) |
[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]
| [Nettime-bold] Reflections on American injustice by Edward Said |
Al-Ahram Weekly, 24 Feb. - 1 March 2000
Issue No. 470, Cairo, AL-AHRAM established in 1875
Reflections on American injustice
By Edward Said
A few days ago the third United Nations official in charge of the oil for
food program in Iraq, Jutta Purghardt, resigned the job in protest, preceded
in the same sense of outrage and futility by the two men who had filled the
post before her, Dennis Halliday and Hans von Sponeck, both of whom had also
resigned. So terrible are the results of the US-maintained sanctions against
that country's civilian population and infrastructure that not even a
seasoned international humanitarian official can tolerate the agony of what
those sanctions have wrought. The toll in human life alone on a daily basis
is too dreadful even to contemplate; but trying also to imagine what the
sanctions are doing to distort the country for years and years to come simply
exceed one's means of expression. Certainly the Iraqi regime seems largely
untouched by the sanctions and, as for the Iraqi opposition being cultivated
by the US to the tune of $100 million, that seems pretty laughable. A profile
of Ahmad Chalabi, that opposition's leader, that appears in a recent Sunday
supplement of the New York Times is intended I think to balance the actual
disaster of US Iraq policy with a portrait of the person supposedly battling
for the future of his country. What emerges instead is a picture of a shifty,
shady man (wanted for embezzlement in Jordan) who in the course of the
profile says not a single word about the sufferings of his people, not a
single syllable, as if the whole issue was just a matter of his grandiose
(somewhat silly) plan to try to take Basra and Mosul with 1,000 men.
Purghardt's resignation may bring the matter of sanctions back to awareness
for a little while, as may a stiff letter of objection sent by 40 members of
the House of Representatives to Madeleine Albright about the cruelty and
uselessness of the policy she has defended so vehemently. But given the
presidential campaign now underway, and the realities of American social and
political injustice over the years, the sanctions against Iraq are likely to
continue indefinitely. The Republican contender George W Bush has just won
the South Carolina primaries by basically appealing to the most hard-headed,
stiff-necked, reactionary and self-righteous segment of the American
population, the so-called Christian Right (Christian, in this instance, being
an adjective rather woefully inappropriate to the sentiments this group and
its chosen candidate habitually express). And what is the basis of Bush's
appeal? The fact that he sticks up for and symbolises such values as applying
the death penalty to more people than any other governor in history, or
presiding over the largest prison population in any state in the US.
It is the organised, legalised cruelty and injustice of the American system
that many of the country's citizens actually cherish and, in this electoral
season, want their candidates to defend and support, not just the cynical
machismo of its random acts of violence like the gratuitous bombing of Sudan
or last spring's sadistic offensive against Serbia. Consider the following: a
recently released report reveals that, with five per cent of the world's
population, the US at the same time contains 25 per cent of the world's
population of prisoners. Two million Americans are held in jails, of whom
well over 45 per cent are African American, a number that is
disproportionately higher than the black population itself. (The US also
consumes 30 per cent of the world's energy and ravages a rough equivalent of
the earth's environment). Under Bush's tenure as governor of Texas, the
number of prisoners rose from 41,000 to 150,000: he actually boasts about
these numbers. So in light of this contemporary savagery against its own
citizens, one should not be surprised that the poor Iraqis who undergo
long-distance starvation, absence of schools and hospitals, the devastation
of agriculture and the civil infrastructure are put through so much.
To understand the continued punishment of Iraq -- and also to understand
why Mrs Albright was so "understanding" of Israel's totally unwarranted and
gangster-like bombing of civilian targets in Lebanon -- one must pay close
attention to an aspect of America's history mostly ignored by or unknown to
educated Arabs and their ruling elites, who continue to speak of (and
probably believe in) America's even-handedness. The aspect I have in mind is
the contemporary treatment of the African American people, who constitute
roughly 20 per cent of the population, a not insignificant number. There is
the great prior fact of slavery, first of all. Just to get an idea of how
deliberately buried this fact was beneath the surface of the country's
official memory and culture, note that until the 1970s no program of
literature and history paid the slightest attention to black culture or
slavery or the achievements of the black people. I received my entire
university education between 1953 and 1963 in English and American
literature, and yet all we studied was work written and done by white men,
exclusively. No Dubois, no slave narratives, no Zora Neal Hurston, no
Langston Hughes, no Ralph Ellison, no Richard Wright. I recall asking a
distinguished professor at Harvard, who lectured for 30 more or less
consecutive weeks during the academic year on 250 years of American
literature, from the Puritan 17th-century preacher Jonathan Edwards to Ernest
Hemingway, why he didn't also lecture on black literature. His answer was:
"There is no black literature." There were no black students when I was
educated at Princeton and Harvard, no black professors, no sign at all that
the entire economy of half the country was sustained for almost 200 years by
slavery, nor that 50 or 60 million people were brought to the Americas in
slavery. The fact wasn't worth mentioning until the civil rights movement
took hold and pressed for changes in the law -- until 1964 the law of the
land discriminated openly against people of colour -- as a result of a mass
movement led by charismatic men and women. But it bears repeating that when
such leaders became too visible and powerful -- Malcolm X, Paul Robeson,
Martin Luther King preeminently -- as well as politically radical, the system
had to destroy them. Be that as it may, there is a Holocaust Museum in
Washington, but no museum of slavery which, considering that the Holocaust
took place in Europe and slavery here, suggests the kind of priorities that
still govern the official culture of the US. Certainly there should always be
reminders of human cruelty and violence, but they should not be so selective
as to exclude the obvious ones. Similarly, no museum in Washington
commemorates the extermination of the native people.
As a living monument to American injustice, therefore, we have the stark
numbers of American social suffering. In relative but sometimes absolute
terms, African-Americans supply the largest number of unemployed, the largest
number of school drop-outs, the largest number of homeless, the largest
number of illiterates, the largest number of drug addicts, the largest number
of medically uninsured people, the largest number of the poor. In short, by
any of the socio-economic indices that matter, the black population of the
United States, by far the richest country in recorded history, is the
poorest, the most disadvantaged, the longest enduring historically in terms
of oppression, discrimination and continued suppression. This is by no means
about only poor African-Americans. A recent television documentary about
black opera singers in which I participated displayed an ugly picture of
naked discrimination at the very highest levels. Just because a singer is
black, he or she is expected to perform in Gershwin's appallingly
condescending opera Porgy and Bess (every one of the singers interviewed on
the programme expressed cordial loathing of the opera, which is always
performed by travelling American opera troupes, even in Cairo, where I recall
it was given in the late '50s) and, when they are given roles in works like
Aida, seen as essentially OK for "coloured" people, although it was written
by an Italian composer who hated Egypt (see my analysis in Culture and
Imperialism), they are treated as less equal than white singers. As Simon
Estes, the distinguished black baritone, said on the programme: if there are
two absolutely equal singers, one black, one white, the white will always get
the role. If the black is much better, he will get the role, but will be paid
less!
Against the background of so vicious a system of persecution, then, it is
no wonder that as non-Europeans the Arabs, Muslims, Africans, and a handful
of unfortunate others receive so poor a treatment in terms of US foreign
policy. And it is not at all illogical that the New York Times abets Mrs
Albright in being "understanding" of Israel's violence against Arabs. One of
its editorials around the time of the Beirut bombing urged "restraint" on
both sides, as if the Lebanese army was occupying Israel, instead of the
other way round. The wonder of it, as I said earlier, is that we still wait
for the US to deliver us from our difficulties, like some benign Godot about
to appear in shining armour. Left to my devices as an educator, I would
stipulate across the Arab world that every university require its students to
take at least two courses not in American history, but in American non-white
history. Only then will we understand the workings of US society and its
foreign policy in terms of its profound, as opposed to its rhetorical,
realities. And only then will we address the US and its people selectively
and critically, instead of as supplicants and humble petitioners. Most
importantly, we should then be able to draw sustenance from the struggle of
the African-American people to achieve equality and justice. We share a
common cause with them against injustice, but for some reason our leaders
don't seem to know it. When was the last time an Arab foreign minister on a
visit to the US pointedly refused to address the Council of Foreign Relations
in New York and Washington and requested instead to visit a major African
American church, university or meeting? That will be the day.
weeklyweb@ahram.org.eg
_______________________________________________
Nettime-bold mailing list
Nettime-bold@nettime.org
http://www.nettime.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nettime-bold