a woman, a man, love & war

"We are flying into a black hole where we have already been, one in which we condemned dissidents only because they thought differently from the majority. And it is no exaggeration to say that we are 'flying' there: the time has already arrived when the persecution of human rights defenders has become common once again, and when human rights committees in the country are de facto being liquidated."

~ anna politkovskaya



"Never, never, never believe any war will be smooth and easy, or that anyone who embarks on the strange voyage can measure the tides and hurricanes he will encounter. The statesman who yields to war fever must realize that once the signal is given, he is no longer the master of policy but the slave of unforeseeable and uncontrollable events."

~ winston churchill

... expand the post to read my words ...

Do you know the woman? She was killed for speaking out against Vladimir Putin, the leader of her country. They found her body in the lift of the building where she lived, a year ago. Is this the world we want to call our own? A world that indicts people for harbouring beliefs and thoughts that differ from the rulers? Or, for looking different ... for looking like our vision of that which we call "the enemy" ...? It seems to me, we should take a close look at this case ... and cases like it ... anywhere in the world. North America seems far less free than we think. If we're so free and liberated, then why does GITMO exist?

Do you remember the man? And what he said and did? He lived an amazing life ~ born 10 years after the end of the American Civil War, and died around the time of Malcolm X's assassination. He fought in the Boar War, was a POW, led the British Navy in early WWI, rode in the last cavalry charge of WWI, and was the only leader in those early thirties that saw right through Hitler and Nazism. He wrote about the failings of trying to reorganzation the fallen Ottoman Empire, and apparently George Bush cannot read or thinks himself too big to learn from history. Churchill's perhaps laughing his ass off at Dubya's Gunsmoke Gang! Either that, or he's terribly saddened. Or maybe a bit of both. Or ... maybe he's musing in that sardonic British way of his. Like we all do, sometimes, about Dubya.

Do you want to be Anna? Neither do I. Do you want to be Churchill, who saw the writing on the wall, when no one else would listen? Do you want to be Dubya, who allowed vengence and intolerance to blind him to the wisdom of reality? Perhaps you are Dubya, and do think Iraqis, Iranians and Palestinians must "pay" for the carnage of 9/11. Then ... why do you find it so incredulous that many Iraqis, Iranians, and Palestinians view us with similar sentiment?

Do you want to be MLK, whom, I feel, knew his destiny involved dying so his people could LIVE? So, what do we do about it? We'd best decide, coz none of us is free as long as some of us are oppressing others. And as long as we allow hatred and intolerance to colour the lenses thru which we view the world. Do you think your enemies should receive entitlement to human rights? Or are rights only for those with whom we agree? Do we dissolve all disagreement thru oppressive and violent means?

Why don't we produce great world leaders like Churchill anymore? Why don't our current leaders understand humanity ... suffering ... the human condition ... the way those of our past did? Why don't we elevate noble people like Politkovskaya, instead of the ego-driven and substance-less Paris Hilton's of the world? Does happiness really occupy such importance as to become an end to which we all strive ... at all cost? Is there nothing more, beyond hedonism and ego, for which we should reach? Why did anyone think that a FUCKING WAR would serve as the answer to global disagreements? Are these the same people that think you just go around beating dissenters, and all those who follow said dissenters? why?

Here's something for your listening pleasure ~ listen to tracks 2 ... America needs to hear that message about the cup of bitterness, once more. Then, listen to track 5 ~ do you remember? Do you ... love your enemy? Did MLK die for nothing ...? Did Politkovskaya?


Have we forgotten? Do we want to forget? Let us remember ... not just speak of remembering, but live it ~ feel it ~ DO IT!

history ~ upon the shoulders

I have recently discovered this man. He rocks and rolls, people. If you're into history conversation, the type you'd find among history nerds at the water cooler, then check out his podcasts. If you don't have an iPod, you can still get iTunes ~ its free ~ and download the casts and listen to them on iTunes. Anyway, here's what his words have stirred up in me so far. Expand the post to read more.

We, existing fully and consciously in the now, stand upon the shoulders of those who have gone before us ~ of those actors who have played out our history. Human nature binds us all into this matrix, in which we find ourselves. Do the winners write history? If so, then, how can we really know history? For, what of those who lost ... what of the worthy, yet much obscured, lost cause? What of men such as Tecumseh? And Vercingetorix? Did their outcomes - loss - render their cause, their vision worthy of knowing?

Are the winners, in history, necessarily correct? Don't we need to see both sides, before really learning the lessons that history begs to teach us? Why do we revere Alexander the Great, and Constantine, yet despise Hitler? Does the same distance which provides objectivity, also remove the passionate context from these figures? In 2500 years, will humans view Hitler in the same light that we, today, view Alexander the Great and Constantine? What's real? I remember learning about Constantine in Catholic school as a great man, not a brute who had his wife and son, among others, killed. How do we, who find ourselves here, and not there, know? Can we ever achieve accomplish the production of an accurate historical record? How do we utilize the stories of history ... to move forward?

Does it matter so much how the Cold War transacted itself over four decades? Or does it matter more that certain key moments and individuals in history provided the hinge upon which the Cold War swung? Can we really analyze historical events without considering their context, and the context of the major players? Do we need to consider that each person, each decision-maker, represents an entire vision, an entire culmination of life experiences and moments? Does this make a difference ... in what we grasp from history? And how it shapes us in the here and now?

I find myself drawn to dialectical process of analysing events that occur in society ~ past and present. I find history most fascinating when I pick at it ... bits and pieces that seem to fit together, despite existing in different time realms. Such as these . We forget, in our haste to react, that this has happened before to humanity ... at some point. Why do we harbour such conceit and arrogance about our superiority? So much has gone before us ... and yet, in some ways we remain blinded to the real lessons of humanity. Intriguing. How we understand so much of the universe, yet fail to understand the most important element ~ humanity. I wonder what would happen if we stopped destroying each other long enough realize that our individual self-awareness exists, only due to the existence of other humans, different or alike.

without a national identity: iraq

in march of 1933, feisel I, then british-assigned monarch of iraq, had this to say about his country:

'There is still -- and I say this with a heart full of sorrow -- no Iraqi people but an unimaginable mass of human beings, devoid of any patriotic idea, imbued with religious traditions and absurdities, connected by no common tie, giving ear to evil, prone to anarchy and perpetually ready to rise against any government whatever.'

in 1959 historian hanna batutu wrote the following of iraq:

"For four days and four nights Kurds and Yezidis stood against Arabs; Assyrian and Aramaean Christians against Arab Muslims; the Arab tribe of Albu Mutaiwat against the Arab tribe of Shammar; the Kurdish tribe of al-Gargariyyah against Arab Albu Mutaiwat; the peasants of Mosul country against their landlords; the soldiers of the Fifth Brigade against their officers; the periphery of the city of Mosul against its centre; the plebeians of the Arab quarters of al-Makkawi and Wadi Hajar against the aristocrats of the Arab quarter of ad-Dawwash; and with the quarter of Bab al-Baid, the family of al-Rajabu against its traditional rivals, the Aghawat."

so ... if we read these thoughts correctly, we begin to see the tribal forces at play in the region known as iraq. did you know, dear reader, of such a tangled and complex historical context in iraq? did you really think it would simply take removal of saddam hussein to "correct" the region? how naive, indeed! and did the region need correcting at all, any more than the usa needed 'correcting' during its own civil war? any more than canada required 'correcting' during the FLQ crisis?

and ... dear reader, what do you think happened to this region in the post WWI period, when victors of the great war carved up the lands of the defeated ottomans? well, exploitive distribution, of course. with western interests in mind. does it surprise you to know that little regard was given to involving the iraqi people in the formation of their own fate?

its interesting, isn't it? learning that colonial interest in mosul-kirkuk did not surface until AFTER discovery of oil in this region? and that oil - and western dependence on same - motivated the brits' invasion and subsequent occupation of iraq during WWII?

historical context. sociologic context. tribal underpinnings of the populace. when one considers iraq, one MUST consider context. and so, that means ... what? simply, that one must consider the current uprising of insurgents in its context. the region and peoples of iraq have suffered occupation and domination for very much of the past 748 years. knowing this, king feisel I's remarks, made 73 years ago seems so very fitting today.

and ... it leads me to ask. what does america think its doing, in iraq? and why are we, the world, so surprised at the reaction of iraqis?

and, more importantly. this begs me to ask. through what process does a mass of humans become a nation of people? can external and culturally alien entities impose such a process on the population of iraq? how much of a nation's development and social progress must simply originate from WITHIN? and what can the west do to assist? and that line separating domination from guidance? do we know where it exists? do we even know it exists, at all?