Beware of the Dolchstosslegende

Hello everyone!

In this post, I plan to bring up a very, very difficult and controversial subject.

Namely how a country can go from the horrors of one war and then start another while it remains in living memory.

Imagine a country that has just experienced a humiliating defeat in war:

Throughout it's duration the reports given by generals to the public said that they were winning the battles and gaining ground. BUT the generals warned in order to truly win this war, the civilian must make the extra efforts to support the soldiers and support the military. Above all they must not cotton to or tolerate various elements in society, that would undermine them and give comfort to the nation's enemies. At the beginning of the war, the Generals and most of the politicians claimed that a quick victory was in the making even using phrases such as "by this Christmas". But as the war dragged on, and the easy victory seemed increasingly elusive more generals, politicians, and members of the public started to blame both the media and various subversive elements.
Finally, the war ended in what much of the public considered a bitter humiliation. Right winged members of society began to claim that the brave soldiers had been "stabbed in the back" by certain well known known scapegoast, and a bitter "culture war" developed between right and left. And within 30 years an extremely reactionary political cabal seized control of the governemnt.

But within the first few years after the war, an increasingly progressive government seemed more or less a foregone conclusions. However looking back it became obvious that the right winged elements of society had begun to quietly organize first few years after the war-before they would become vocal and to many people downright intimidating. In recounting the ways in which they had been betrayed they began to tell certain stories. Some of which were told so many times as to have become mythologized wildly beyond any real incidents on which they may or may not have been based.

One of the most famous was:

"When I came back from the war, I was spat on by a Jew."

"A Jew?" you may ask. "Don't you mean a hippie, a peacenik, or a liberal?"

Nope, I did mean a "A Jew". For this wasn't America after the Vietnam War, but Germany after WWI.

And the right winged factions that told this tale were widely known as The Freikorps, paramilitary organizations that started in Germany after the end of "The Great War". During the early Weimar period they operated largely as mercenaries, but later on more and more of their activities involved attacking and often killing labor unionists, socialists, and other activist groups they didn't like. Indeed this may explain much of the "passivity" of the German people under Hitler:the elements in society that would have resisted the most, were systematically wiped out or driven from the country. And of course, the claims that the Jews (along with the Communists and civilian population at large) were the ones who "stabbed Germany in the back", or were the ones who spat on returning soldiers were already common when Hitler was at most an obscure figure.

Until recently their role in history received almost no attention outside of Germany, but in the past few years they have received more and more recognition for their role in having set the foundations for Nazism. Indeed many high ranking Nazis had Freikorps pasts such as Rudolf Hoess, Heinrich Himmler, Martin Bormann, Adolf Eichman and many others. Also most of the leaders of Hitler's Sturmarbteilung or Stormtroopers, except for Der Fuhrer himself had a Freikorps background.

It's a fascinating and disturbing portion of history for all who wish to read about it.

Which brings us to Iraq. Of course, it's long been noted that Bush went into Iraq without an exit strategy. But the neo-cons did have a plan as to who was going to get the blame if the war in Iraq didn't go well.

They plan to blame YOU. That is if you are an American civilian who did not actually fight in Iraq or Afghanistan. No, this isn't just those of you who protested or at least opposed the Iraq War. I would never make such an assumption about the political beliefs of my readers-indeed one CAN'T make such assumptions about what one posts on the internet. While I know for a fact that many of you did oppose the war, and some were involved in the anti-war movement, the fact is that even those of you who might have gone along meekly, supported the war, supported the President, or even put a yellow ribbon on your car, were all marked as scapegoats from the very beginning. If some of you might have kept your mouths shut about the war for fear that you would be seen as "not supporting the troops", I can tell you that your attempts to avoid being blamed was pointless.

Because I can almost guarantee that at least some factions in our society WILL blame the civilian population for the war. If they don't blame you for protests or "America hating" opposition, they will blame you for not supporting the troops "enough". Failing that they will blame you for not going, or not signing up any adult children to go to Iraq. Of course, adult children are the ones with the authority to sign themselves up, but they won't let such details bother them or perhaps they will blame the way you raised them.

But one way or another the handwriting IS on the wall. Look for these factions to start showing up in America soon after the Iraq War ends. The only remaining questions are how much the people buy into their lies, and how much power we give them. And if you let their attempts to blame you for Iraq as well as Vietnam, the answer could become "quite a lot". And the recriminations over Iraq could lead millions of Americans to remain silent when the next shocking thing happens.

The political machinery for such blame games are entrenched into our political culture, from Vietnam. Much of the population is cowed by it and afraid to speak out.

As history tells us that can be a dangerous things.

Say Goodnight Readers

Sand Dunes Rising

Hello Everyone!

Today I'm going to talk about another, not yet talked about consequence of global climate change. There's been a lot of talk about melting ice caps, rising sea levels, droughts, and problems with crops, but so far one hasn't seen much information on the issue of growing, expanding, and re-mobilizing sand dunes.

As it turns out there is not as much research on the formation of sand dunes, but some estimates hold that it will only take one degree of global warming in order for ancient sand dunes in Asia, North America, Europe, and Africa to "remobilize" and for the existing sand dune systems to grow and expand.

Of course, some people might look upon this as an expanded opportunity to use their recreational vehicles. But once it starts getting into farmland, into forest areas, into important aquatic ecosystems, and even human settlements it isn't such a good thing. In some parts of Africa, the struggle with Dune expansion has gotten to the point where children are literally shoveling the sand out of the house, the family garden, and such on a daily basis. Often this occurs Sahelian towns that were once part of Africa's greatest civilizations and major trade routes. A poignant lesson to those who harbor no doubt that our civilization will be more or less untouched by climate change.

Furthermore recent research on the atmospheric transport of desert dust from one area to another may cause more problems than were previously known, even in locations such as alpine mountains.

In addition to the threat of expanding deserts to crops, to biodiversity, and perhaps even some settlements, there might be subtler problems in the way deserts influence human culture.

One theory of human culture states that people who live in a desert area by and large, develop very different cultural mores than those who inhabit forest areas. Basically the idea is that desert people tend to be more warlike, more patriarchal, more authoritarian, and more fatalistic. Now one must be careful extrapolating between such theories and the effect of global warming on modern humans. After all, correlation is not necessarily causation. And extrapolating between primitive people and modern people might not be simple. Furthermore, this theory looks at only tropical forests and not the more northern ones, among other possible habitations.

On the other hand it's hard to rule out the possibility that desertification could have some negative effects on the culture, and that rather than helping humanity "adapt" to climate change, could make matters worse.

That's it for now.

Say Goodnight Readers!

Why the Bush Era Matters And Should be Scrutinzed

Hello Everyone!

I'd like to talk a bit today about why the Bush era should be investigated and not simply put in the past.

Of course, during the end of the Bush years we were all sick of hearing about him, our minds were on the election, it seemed that all he could do was make the stock market tank when he tried to reassure everyone that the economy wasn't that bad. But most of all Americans from those of us who dislked him from day one, to those who was supported and even liked him, simply wanted to be rid of the man. Those who were calling him "The Shrub" even before the 2000 primaries got going, feel that eight years (or even over eight years) was way to long to have him in the public eye on a daily basis. But those who supported the man and even felt he was "the guy they'd like to have a beer with", may feel disillusioned and less than eager to be reminded of it. Indeed Molly Ivins, the woman who coined the term "The Shrub" didn't live to see the end of the Bush years

When Obama was called declared President Elect, most of us (myself included) were simply eager to wait out Lame Duck Season and hope for the best during the new administration. Most people were afraid of economic mayham, hoping for the fastest reversal of the damages, and just plain sick of the whole era.

And indeed Obama himself has largely come down in favor of focusing on the future rather than digging up the past.

However, history tells us that it might not be that easy. Although at first members of the Bush administration were laying low and keeping quiet, Cheney has become more outspoken in the past few months. Even Bush has broken his silence recently by expressing doubts about closing Gunatanamo, and is also writing a book about the most important decisions of his life.

If the Bush era isn't investigated in depth, there's a risk that people they mentor will come back into power in the future. Also many societies in the past have found that it was hard to close the door on a certain era, without full disclose.

For example in South Africa the Truth and Reconciliation Commission has made it possible solve a lot of mysteries about the fates of certain people, and bring a lot of the smaller crimes committed under Apartheid out of the closet.

By the same token has the truth of everything done during the Bush era, been revealed to the public? We know about Bagram, Guantanamo, and Abu Ghraib, but are there not other stories that perhaps the administration kept the public and media in the dark about? I'd say there's a good chance that there are.

What are they? And what might the consequences be if the truth is not brought to light?

Say Goodnight Readers!

Is the World Water Crisis a Feminist Issue?

Hello Readers!

Today, I'm going to discuss an issue over which many people have very strong opinions. Of course, many feminist publications such as Ms. Magazine discuss the World Water Crisis, as much or more than say "Newsweek" or "The Economist".

Why is this? Is it because the world water crisis is a feminist issue? Or is it simply because self-identified feminists are more likely to take an interest in such issues than most of the population at large.

The simplest answer would be "probably a bit of both". Obviously in a time period where a high percentage of women (and to a lesser extent men) agree with most feminist principles, but very few will use the term "feminist" to describe themselves, that people who buy and read explicitly feminist magazines would likely tend to be more political and more interested in global issues, than the population average.

Is the global water crisis a feminist issue. As it turns out this is a common debate among feminists. Many of which argue that women suffer more from the water crisis, on average, than men do. Some of the more essentialist ecofeminists go further to argue that women are innately more connected with nature. Of course, many anti-essentialist feminists reject this and claim that such arguments about the "nature" of women would be a great one-way ticket right back to the "barefoot and pregnant" paradigm. Often pointing out that women can do things like engage in mindless consumerism, glorifying war, or adopting right wing politics, "just as well as men". (However, some misogynists and anti-feminists go over board with this claim and argue that women are the ones who are "really" driving these things, and men are duped into going along by their "female wiles".)

The less well known anti-essentialist argument in feminism is that patriarchy has prejudicially equated women with nature, and in the process have managed to mystify, misunderstand, obfuscate, and devalue both. As one proponent of this view pointed out, "To use the term 'rape' to speak of the destruction of a forest by logging, is to trivialize both acts." Ancient Greece in particular is often pointed to, as an example of a culture that both equated women with nature and where men dreaded both (As a result many feminists and environmentalists have questioned Jungian notions of looking to Greek mythology for an understanding of the human psyche and a model for psychotherapy and personal growth.) Furthermore, the ideal of an "earth mother" was very fashionable in both Victorian Britain and Nazi Germany.

As an anti-essentialist feminist myself, I'd have to think the most relevant question is whether or not the world water crisis, hits women harder than men.

And the answer depends heavily on how male dominated society is. Also on how severe the water crisis hits the people in general.

In the US and most of Europe, men and women largely experience water and environmental issues in ways that are more alike than different. To some extent issues such as wage inequality and the "feminization of poverty" as it's been called, can tie in with the fact that the poor generally hit harder by these issues than the more middle classes and the affluent. But leaving more complex analysises of class and gender to other people, I'd call that a minor. Also some of the medical problems that can result from drinking contaminated water are sex specific, many others are not. Furthermore, cases of large numbers of people getting sick from local pollutant and their tap water, is NOT something that the majority of Americans experience-fortunately. And in general men and women, boys and girls experience these things in ways that are drastically more alike than different.

However this is not the case in much of the world. In many countries if somebody has to spend many hours a day walking to the safest water source and carrying it for often miles, that someone is not likely to be male. In most of Asia, Africa, Latin America, the Carribean, and the Pacific Islands carrying water is a woman's job (as it was in Colonial America contrary to popular images), and men often consider it beneath them. Sometimes women are unable to look for paying work or make/grow things they can sell because they spend so much time carrying the water. This not only means less income, but it also means the men keep control of the money. Also in countries where there is a large gender gap in school attendance, many girls are being kept home to help their mothers. And spending hours a days fetching the water is not unusual.

In 2001, there were news reports of a Turkish town called Sirt where the water system broke down and apparently was not fixed promptly. The women who were expected to fetch the water during this time, felt that the men didn't care about how promptly it was fixed, and decided to launch a "sex strike" where they would refuse to have sex with their husbands until the water system was fixed.

As one might expect this story was often compared to the Greek play Lysistrata, and inspired it's share of jokes. Plenty of people debated whether this story reflects some eternal "battle of the sexes", the dynamics of power in that community, or whether the women were simply not in the mood because they were tired and/or mad at the men for their indifference.

Either way, it seems that the fact that the men of the community didn't start to push the authorities to fix the pipes or give them the parts, until the sex strike says something about their attitudes. Namely that they didn't care when it was simply their wives having so much extra work as long as it didn't affect them getting what they wanted. When it first made the news my then boyfriend quickly pointed out that gender roles must be fairly rigid, since the women apparently didn't seem to see fixing the pipes or directly appealing to the local authorities themselves as options.

I can't comment on how representative this village is of Turkish society at large. But I think, it does illustrate a situation in some of the more male dominated societies, where as long as water as deemed as a "woman's problem" it is not likely to be taken seriously.

Even in the US or Europe where water problems are usually not that serious (yet!!), and where gender is not that large of a factor in how they effect people, politicians might also take a more subtle but equally "macho" form of indifference . As psychoanalyst Stephen Ducat pointed out in his book "The Wimp Factor" many sexist and conservative male voters, see a laundry list of issues which include things like preserving the environment, helping the poor, and domestic "kitchen table" issues such as infrastructure (as opposed to foreign wars!!) as "feminine". And the obsession of some politicians with "macho" politics goes way beyond what their corporate sponsors think.

While one could question whether or not Ducat's Freudian explanation for these guys' problem is the correct one, he makes it very clear that such attitudes are not to limited to village men in the poorer parts of the world.

That's my take on a complex issue.

Say Goodnight Readers!

Debates About World Hunger

When you talk about issues such as hunger, planetary survival, and human rights certain debates inevitably come up, involving the causes of famine and hungers first of all. Secondly what should be done about it.

To a large extent debates over world hunger come down to two different schools of thought. Of course both have their share of variations, but there are two basic categories.

1) Political:

According to this view there is and at least since the 19th century, has always been more than enough food to feed humanity. Starvation is fundamentally based on inequality, failed policies, devious political motives, distribution problems, and sometimes even intentional genocide rather than a lack of food. According to this view most damage to environment is the result of greed rather than need. Some proponents of the humanistic view such as the Roman Catholic Church go so far to argue that even concerns about population are simply a cover for racism and eugenics. However, not everyone who is opposed to population control endorses shares the Catholic Church's views about contraception and family planning. Many feminist especially in the developing world see birth control, family planning, and even access to safe abortions as essential a health and human rights issue. To such feminists both policies seeking to limit births and those seeking to limit birth control and safe abortions are equal violators of women's rights, and putting their ideological purism over medical needs and personal freedom. And while they differ with the Vatican on the ethics of human reproduction, they fully agree that population control is fundamentally racist and anti-human.

2) Malthusian:

According to this view most famines are the result of overpopulation. In this view things such as natural disasters, droughts, blights, dictators, war, and bad policy were simply the strawhat broke the camel's back. Many proponents of this view consider famine aid unethical because they believe it will simply prolong the inevitable, and ultimately mean that larger numbers of people will die of starvation. Some even argue that war evolved as means of getting rid of excess population, and that peaceniks were actually setting humanity up for mass starvation. However, other Malthusians point out that wars actually tend to bring on "baby booms" and ultimately mean a larger population.
Furthermore studies that lowering infant mortality and raising literacy in the poor communities tends to bring down birth rates has led to something of a kinder and gentler Malthusianism. Whereas previous Malthusians might have considered providing medical care to children of the destitute misguided and otherwise "part of the problem".

Needless to say that these two drastically different views, have provoked some very bitter controvery for at least two centuries. And proponents of both views have spent 150 years arguing over Ireland's notorious "Great Famine" (aka An Gorta Mor, "The Potato Famine"), and just about every well known case of mass starvation that's happened since. (The debate often differed when the famine happened in a Communist country, but that's a another story.)

After so many decades of bitter disagreement is any common ground possible?

I would submit that the reality does not conform entirely to either view. It is obviously true that theoretically it is possible for the number of people to outstrip the amount of food that can be grown, and the amount of water required to provide a minimal standard of living. The earth has only so much arable land, and there is no denying that unless we can have enough space colonies (which are extremely expensive) that can grow their own food ala Biosphere II, to considerably lower earth's population, that we can run into such limits.
And it is possible debate exactly how many people the earth can support. At the moment, I don't think we know the answer with any certainty, because there is some genuine disagreement about the number among scientists. Not to mention the fact that we can't predict every variable involved from new technologies, to how much global warming will affect food production.
But that uncertainty shouldn't detract from the fact that limits do exist.

Furthermore, I think we can agree that war is not an effective "solution". First of all, war consumes massive resources in and of itself, and destroys ecosystems, watersheds, farmland, and human settlements. So even if war could "control the population" it would also largely defeat the purpose. Secondly, war isn't really a means of population control, because after they end birth rates tend to rise.

Perhaps the most controversial point, that I think can be demonstrated is that the idea of limits on human population is not exclusive with the idea that most famines are the result of political issues, distribution, and inequality rather than a lack of food. One major source of evidence for this is the fact that so far no famine has ever occurred in a solidly Democratic nation with a free press. This fact, was first highly by Nobel Prize winning economist Amatrya Sen, who has extensively researched various famines and found that issues of distribution, and failed policies were the major causes. His interest grew out of his own experiences growing up in British controlled India, where he witnessed the Bengal Famine of 1943 as a nine year old.

In short, it is reasonable to conclude that although it is possible for human population to cause a food shortage, that most food shortages are not caused by overpopulation. And letting people starve is not a solution to overpopulation.

Finally, I think it can be agreed that a woman's right to family planning and birth control need not be predicated on population control. There are many health issues, as well as the matter of personal liberty to support the idea that women should not be forced into a position where having sex voluntary or not, should not mean they are obligated to spend most of their adult lives pregnant. This may be controversial in some circles, but the case can stand up on the basis of women's rights, rather than depending on the population issue.

I know that this is perhaps the most controversial topic I've raised. And I would like to hear some feedback. I've been asked questions by some readers over e-mail, which not all of you know. But you can leave a comment on this blog if you are registered with blogspot.

Say Goodnight Readers!

Myth of Middle America

Who's idea was it that certain parts of the USA were somehow more "real" or "authentic" than others in the first place?

Despite ample evidence that regional divides are neither anything new, or unique to the US nobody seems able to give a definitive answer.

Perhaps a better question would be whether there is any truth in the idea that some parts of the US represent "patriotism and traditional values" (translation the Red States and the South) while others parts are, well, a little bit questionable at best (translation Blue States and more liberal areas). Some people would say that Middle America or the heartland refers to the middle of the country and to areas that are further away from the coasts and the borders, where there are too many, you know, foreign influences, liberal wackos, and those people. Of course, such reasoning may make sense for a country like France where the border has moved a number of times. However it not only makes less sense for a nation made up of immigrants, but also fails to explain why Texas would be considered a part of "middle America" and the "heartland" when it has a larger share of both the US-Mexican border and the Gulf coast in its outline than any other state.
Others have suggested that the key issue is more urban/suburban vs. rural. Fine if that is the case why would most people include the suburb Orange county, with a population of 3 million on top of it's proximity to both the coast and the Mexican border? Also why would so many exclude towns like Arcata, California or Jerome Arizona? Or smaller Midwestern cities such as Madison, Wisconsin?

To which many people would respond that it really comes down to having those Middle American Values (translation being a conservative).

And when you ask the self appointed authorities on who isn't and isn't an authentic Middle American whether or not skin color or ethnic background matters, they become a little more hesitant. Often they will insist that these factors are not in themselves important and that one needn't be white to be a middle American pointing to some of the more conservative African American churches or various signs that certain Asian and Latino demographics appear to have adopted those Middle American Values (translation voting Republican).

Also they will remind you just how many white people don't fit the bill by pointing to all those elitist Hollywood liberals, and coffee sipping Boston Democrats. Of course, once you point out tthat bluest of states Massachuesetts, gets this distinction more from Irish Catholics than coffee sipping Boston Brahmins, they may become a little hesitant. Usually they are prepared to accept that Irish Catholics are "Middle Americans" as long as they believe the myth that most of us, are single issue anti-abortion voters. But the minute you show them the evidence that Irish Catholics are among the most liberal of all the major white gentile ethnic groups, all of a sudden they start to look just a little bit "too ethnic" to be real Middle Americans. After all, can a people who's key historical ambition was freedom from England and it's imperial designs, really understand the motives upon which America was founded? Many cultural conservatives would doubt it very much.

Perhaps more troubling still are some of the double standards as to who can do what without having their patriotism called into question. A lifelong resident of Georgia can display a Confederate flag (a symbol of the South's attempt to leave the US entirely) and it is considered a sign that he is among the most salt of the earth, honest to God, hardworking of Middle Americans. Meanwhile a mother in Connecticut, a school teacher from Ohio, or a labor unionist from Seattle are likely to face accusations of being unpatriotic, disloyal, and basically marginal members of American society, for publicly stating that they believe wars such as Vietnam or Iraq are wrong. And that remains true no matter how much concern they express for American lives or their country's good name.

What is one to make of all this? In the final analysis it seems that the designation of Middle American is a massive act of social and geographic Gerrymandering in which populations, demographics, or communities that tend to vote conservative are portrayed as authentic Middle Americans. And their more liberal counterparts end up labeled as marginal, unpatriotic, flaky, lacking substance, and just plain not as "authentic". And believers in this designation can ALWAYS come up with some new rule, clause, or rationale to keep liberals out of the "Middle American" column, and conservatives out of the "unpatriotic flakes" column.

Certainly there may be no definitive moment where our country went from a sensibility where Woody Guthrie sang of a country that stretched from California to the New York Islands, and from the redwood forest to the gulf stream waters, to the divisions and double standards that marked the Bush years in particular.

But the botton line is that no matter what the origin of these notions, we don't have to believe it.

Say Goodnight Readers!!

Science Teacher Talks Planetary Survival

Hello Everyone!

As many of my long term (that is a few months in this case) readers may have noticed a major theme of this blog is planetary survival. Of course this largely ends up meaning human survival, along with that of any number of other species (since the planet itself is much more durable and has had many mass extinctions). While it is a less familiar idea than say environmentalism or even the ecology movement, one very basic issue comes down to this:

Often one has to make very serious decisions on incomplete information. The second is that humans may have to learn to mitigate various situations when certain "experiments" go wrong.

So today, I'm going to listen to my mother and promote a stronger role for teachers in public discourse. Namely the science teacher is a man named Greg Craven of Independence Oregon, who has earned a small ration of fame for putting together some entertaining, but deadly serious videos about Global Climate change. He has also recently published a book called "What's the Worst That Could Happen: A Rational Approach to Climate Change".

In his first video, Craven argues that with global warming we don't need 100% certain to make a choice and might in fact not even have that luxury. Of course, as he points out later in response to a number of rebuttals, the margin of uncertainty for global warming isn't all that high.

It's likely that many of the readers who follow this blog do not need any major convincing that global warming is real or at least highly probable.

So what can you take from this post:

First of all, as the man says you can spread the word. You now have Greg Cravens quirky but sincere videos talking about the "score" if you will regarding global warming. If you know people who are still on the fence, still have doubts about the veracity of climate change, or even are listening to those who call it "religion" or some such, you know where to send them.

Secondly there may be times when we have to make a decision about something with a good deal less certainty. While the Giant Mutant Space Hamsters are unlikely to become the next hot issues, there is a chance that we may have to deal with other situations such as the risk of an asteroid hitting the earth, how much we should prepare for massive geological events (not human caused), and of course Obama's suggestion that the world should seek nuclear disarmament. Also with genetic engineering we may have look at the risks of having the world's wheat, rice, corn, or soy crops as say the European potatoes were in the 1840's.

And it's likely at this point that we don't entirely know what uncertainties and decisions tomorrow will bring.

So that's all for tonight, and try not to worry too much about the Giant Mutant Space Hamsters.

Say Goodnight Readers!!