[OPE-L] Anthropologists are replacing economists as the hired prize-fighters for capital

From: Jurriaan Bendien (adsl675281@TISCALI.NL)
Date: Sat Oct 13 2007 - 15:40:32 EDT

I heard anthropologist Montgomery McFate on BBC radio and she made the argument that using anthropologists to spy on the local population enabled the command to reduce patrols and reconnoitres by up to two-thirds. She denied however that anthropologists were necessary to tell friend from foe. The enemy was simply any kind of terrorist planning or executing any kind of violence or contravening public order. There is a NYT article on the topic here: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/05/world/asia/05afghan.html?pagewanted=1&_r=19
The root problem with the Bush-Cheney-Rice racist-imperialist military strategy is that "the enemy" is dehumanised. In order to justify a war to grab the oil and the long-term business profits, there has to be an enemy, and the enemy has to be dehumanised, so that the troops will fight the "uncivilised barbarians, terrorists" etc. with the belief America's christian goodness is in the right. All the grunts are really doing is protecting Anglo-American business interests, but they do not know that, it's beyond them. Colin Powell said once he did not mind the idea that America would be the world's supercop, the "bully on the block". But this cop is a lawless cop, a corrupt cop who loots the victims of his arbitrary interventions, a cop who does the dirty work for rich people who stay well out of harm's way.

Point is if the enemy is dehumanised, then you can no longer understand the enemy, because the enemy is not human, the enemy does not function "like we do". The enemy is simply concentrated evil that could strike anywhere at any moment for any reason, or no reason at all. This makes the war incomprehensible, mystical. There is no analysis of what it is really about. Hence the idea of bringing in the anthropologists, to make the war more meaningful to those who actually have to fight it or try to good some good in a bad situation. Once you understand more about the people you are oppressing, you can do it with more efficiency (and hopefully with less loss of life and material).

The Bush-Cheney-Rice team does not fight with political arguments, only with brute force. Because they have no political arguments, only lies. The real motives are never stated. They started their wars with lies, and they keep changing their story about what the wars are really about. They keep telling more lies to justify themselves. Sometimes it's about God, or democracy, or freedom, or civilisation, or christianity, or protecting the sea-lanes, or anything like that.  What the wars are really about, is defending and advancing Anglo-American business interests in the region (with spin-offs for Europe). There are obstructions to the expansion of markets, you have to protect market-shares and profits, and then you have to wipe out anything that stands in the way to further business civilisation. If millions of people are maimed or killed as a result, then that's just because they don't know what's good for them - had they co-operated with the "liberators" then they would still be alive. Anybody who disagrees is "soft". The Israeli establishment loves this, they lap it all up. It gives license to brutalize people in the name of an eternal battle of good and evil, in which the justification for what you do now, will be revealed only long after you're no longer around. Which is to say you don't have to justify yourself anymore.

The result of the Bush-Cheney-RIce racist-imperialist military strategy is however the exact opposite of what it says it intends. If you want to create inter-ethnic solidarity and harmony among the peoples, you have to build on the specific strengths that each ethnic group has, on the things they do well. But what these people achieve is only more killing and maiming, they rake up religious hostilities and fear, they sell or give away weapons everywhere at taxpayers expense, and promote the hatred of nations for each other, they powerfully stimulate terrorism and tensions all around the world. So it is an utterly reactionary policy they pursue, even although they claim to do with the best of "christian love". Their "christian love" stinks to high heaven. It spells death and destruction. The irony is, that they strengthen all their enemies with it, i.e. all the problems they said they would solve, they make worse.

If there are no political arguments and no meaningful dialogue, there is only dumb-down Wild West propaganda for the grunts. The latest in this respect is the Hollywood movie "The Kingdom" (The film has so far grossed an estimated $36,763,000 in 2,802 theatres http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?page=weekend&id=kingdom.htmew Yorker Lou Lumenick reports: "Hollywood provides the Islamic world another reason to hate America with "The Kingdom," a xenophobic, overblown, revenge-driven action thriller that exports the "Rambo" mentality to the contemporary Middle East.  (...) The implicit message of "Rambo" and its many imitators is that we would have won the Vietnam War if we had simply bombed that country back to the Stone Age. "The Kingdom" seems to be arguing - consciously or not - that there's a risk of the same thing happening in the Middle East unless heavily armed Americans with a vendetta are given license to perform executions at will." http://www.nypost.com/seven/09282007/entertainment/movies/the_king_dumb.htm Incidentally, Sylvestor Stallone is currently in post-production on the fourth installment of his Rambo franchise, in which Rambo goes to Burma to rescue it from itself. That film was said to experience "a very positive buzz" due to a favourable reception of its rough cut trailer for Cannes. And so it continues.


This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Oct 31 2007 - 00:00:19 EDT