But I've written about death squads before. They're seen as a necessity by the elites if they're going to perpetuate their systems of domination and exploitation. And they put the lie to claims that we're concerned about "development" and "democratization."
Death squads inflict terror and horror on civilian populations, in order to dissuade them from demanding social justice and genuine democracy. They are designed to keep people subservient to systems of mal-development, social inequality and political oligarchy. They are designed to perpetuate a system whereby the wealth of "Less Developed Countries" is priced low for the benefit of the "Developed Countries" and to protect the fortunes of those few compradors who benefit by their relationship with the "Developed Countries" selling them coffee or mining rights or cocoa , or whatever, and who dominate their countries political systems to help the "Developed Countries" to keep them in a pattern of raw materials provision and mal-development.
Here's an example of how death squads work:
On March 7, 1980, two weeks before the assassination, a state of siege had been instituted in El Salvador, and the war against the population began in force (with continued US support and involvement). The first major attack was a big massacre at the Rio Sumpul, a coordinated military operation of the Honduran and Salvadoran armies in which at least 600 people were butchered. Infants were cut to pieces with machetes, and women were tortured and drowned. Pieces of bodies were found in the river for days afterwards. There were church observers, so the information came out immediately, but the mainstream US media didn't think it was worth reporting.
Peasants were the main victims of this war, along with labor organizers, students, priests or anyone suspected of working for the interests of the people. In Carter's last year, 1980, the death toll reached about 10,000, rising to about 13,000 for 1981 as the Reaganites took command.
In October 1980, the new archbishop condemned the "war of extermination and genocide against a defenseless civilian population" waged by the security forces. Two months later they were hailed for their "valiant service alongside the people against subversion" by the favorite US "moderate," Jose Napoleon Duarte, as he was appointed civilian president of the junta.
Okay, ... you can all look for more stuff on your own. ALL of you. This shit is still going on in Colombia, Iraq, and other places.Peasants were the main victims of this war, along with labor organizers, students, priests or anyone suspected of working for the interests of the people. In Carter's last year, 1980, the death toll reached about 10,000, rising to about 13,000 for 1981 as the Reaganites took command.
In October 1980, the new archbishop condemned the "war of extermination and genocide against a defenseless civilian population" waged by the security forces. Two months later they were hailed for their "valiant service alongside the people against subversion" by the favorite US "moderate," Jose Napoleon Duarte, as he was appointed civilian president of the junta.
So, what about the vapid airhead? Well, a while ago, when I wrote about a racist moron's book, a number of that idiot's fan-boys came and condemned me for not knowing what I was talking about.
One of them, a "Mark" fellow, didn't really have anything to add to the discussion other than to note that I said that I didn't have the time to discuss all the points being raised but that I was able to type out several thousand words in my replies. Which was true, I didn't have the time, but I was being polite to the several people who showed up. Besides that, "Mark" (I suppose) tried to argue that the Republican Party of the United States is controlled by its base, among whom, John McCain is a popular candidate.
However, in a later post I wrote the following:
But if we're going to talk about the working class, in this era of globalization that means everyone. From the displaced manufacturing workers of the North, to the underpaid miners of Russia, to the sweatshop workers of Asia, to the oppressed plantation workers of Central America, to the displaced peasants of Mexico, to the exploited miners of Africa.
Every instance where the capitalist system uses its wealth and power to keep commodity prices low, via death squads and corrupt governments and invasions of oil-producing nations, ... all this has to be factored into the "success story" that is globalization.
To which "Mark" in an air-headed attempt at humour replied:
Speaking as one member of the oppressed Canadian Proletariat to another, those death squads in the motherland (I live abroad now) are quite ruthless, eh?
Now, here's the thing. Obviously I never wrote that death squads are operating in Canada. But I don't think "Mark" believed that either. The most charitable interpretation I can give this is that is that "Mark" thought I was indulging in over-the-top leftist rhetoric which he thought he'd puncture. However, it remains a fact that death squads are real. Their atrocities are documented. They were ubiquitous in the US fiefdoms of Latin America, and are a constant presence wherever US interests are threatened by organized and armed opposition. Sometimes they're employed in areas where the opposition isn't armed. And even when the opposition is armed, the death squads usually do their gruesome work on unarmed civilians. And in those places where the opposition is armed, it is usually do to the historically established fact that the US and its puppet-state governments employ violence against any forms of organized opposition.
Meanwhile, "Mark" and other dimwitted denizens of the "developed" countries continue to bitch about their taxes, listen to corporate news propaganda and/or right-wing radio, follow their favourite teams, and vote for the mainstream political parties that sell them and pretty much everyone else down the river. All the while living in blissful ignorance, and putrid, cowardly delusion, about the nature of the system they support.
The existence of death squads, ... the persistent endurance of death squads, says something about a political system. It says that it is inhuman. It says that it is fundamentally undemocratic at its roots. The endurance of death squads has discredited this entire experiment in capitalist "democracy" and the denial of air-heads such as this "Mark" character do nothing to change this. Their denial does help to perpetuate it though.
10 comments:
I defy you to find a single post on my blog where I complain about taxes or explicitly endorse any political party.
I think in the end you wrote close to 5,000 words total on Mark Steyn, which I found strange, given the number of times you said that you didn't really have any time to waste on all the "fanboys" commenting on your blog. For someone without a lot of time, you managed to write the equivalent of a feature article in The New Yorker.
Well, I defy you to point out where I mentioned death squads operating in Canada.
And I wonder if you could address the point of this post, that your inane dismissal of the significance of death squads only allows a sick system to continue to destroy people's lives.
Well, I'm more interested in why you bother to respond to a comment that was twenty-five words long with a post that was about 631 words long. I might very well be an airhead, but I really struck a nerve.
Hunh.
Well then. I'm happy to explain. To repeat, I stated:
"Every instance where the capitalist system uses its wealth and power to keep commodity prices low, via death squads and corrupt governments and invasions of oil-producing nations, ... all this has to be factored into the "success story" that is globalization."
And you replied:
"Speaking as one member of the oppressed Canadian Proletariat to another, those death squads in the motherland (I live abroad now) are quite ruthless, eh?"
Which I interpret (correct me if I'm wrong) as a snarky attempt to deflate the pompous, over-the-top, loony leftist.
Now, it's possible that you might have genuinely interpreted me as having said that there were death squads in Canada. But when I asked you where you thought I said that, I got no reply. You did tell me though that you'd managed to reconnect with an old contact via my blog, ... as if I was supposed to care, ... but you didn't explain where you got the impression that I was describing the work of Canadian death squads.
So, once again, I'm left to assume that you were just merrily teasing the silly leftist again.
And, yes, that certainly did strike a nerve.
As I've tried to explain, death squads are horrible. They do horrible things. And I've stated repeatedly that I think that death squads are integral to the functioning of our entire economic system. Which is to say that I think they're a systemic problem, not an aberration. I believe that death squads are fostered, trained, armed, and protected by the very same people that mainstream society refer to as democratic politicians.
Now, you might deign to sweep together a few facts and arguments and try to explain to me why I'm wrong about that. You could try to prove to me that death squads are just aberrations arising out of the local conditions of backward, under-developed countries with no traditions of democratic government or respect for human rights.
But you didn't do that. Leaving me no recourse but to go on assuming that I'm right about death squads.
Which is to say that I believe that Western governments (mainly the US government) assist in the creation of groups of armed psychopaths who execute children and mutilate their remains. Who rape and dismember and kill women. Who torture, humiliate and murder men.
They do this so that there are no protests against Western mining corporations. Western agricultural corporations. Western textile assembly factories. So that there is no autonomous economic development outside of the control of the corporations and the "developed" ["imperialist" in left-speak] countries.
So, yes, it strikes a nerve with me to have such a serious topic airily dismissed with an incoherent, unfunny one-liner.
Because your attempts at humour notwithstanding, these horrors are going to continue.
And, no, I had no idea whether you really bitch about taxes or watch sports or anything like that. I was just trying to imagine the pursuits of someone who felt compelled to respond so flippantly to an (at least earnest) offering on such a serious subject.
I mean, you could dispute what I say. You could try to show me that I'm wrong. (You'd fail of course.) But to simply make a stupid joke?
I'm not always so serious and humourless. I'm actually pretty committed to chemical indulgences and overall dissipation. But there's some things that I don't find funny at all. The subject of death squads is one of those things.
El Salvador Truth Commission
Guatemala
Colombia
While I'm sure death squads are still operating all over the world, if you are that concerned with human rights, why are you focusing on atrocities that happened almost thirty years ago? If it bleeds, it leads - couldn't you have found something a little more topical to draw attention to the issue? Reading Chomsky is commendable, but it looks like you are more interested in settling old scores and using "compassion" as window dressing for your petty vitriol.
El Salvador and Guatemala are just particularly extreme examples. And I was using the reports of national truth commissions from those countries as the best sources that I could find of these examples.
Those truth commissions are the accepted version of the violence in Central America, so I thought they'd be good.
But, as usual, you're wrong about an important area. I've also included Colombia, where death squads are particularly active, right now, and not coincidentally, where the bulk of US financial and military support is going at the moment.
That's a pattern that Chomsky pointed out back in the 1970s and 1980s, that wherever US "aid" is targeted most, tends to be where you'll find the most extensive human rights violations.
If Colombia is where the story is now, why were you using El Salvador, Guatemala, and the Reagan and Carter administrations as your most current examples? I don't really care what Chomsky pointed out back in the 1970 and 1980s, I'm more interested in what he is talking about now.
Let me put it to you another way. I might very well be an airhead. But what are your claims to superior intelligence based on? You'll write over 5,000 words about and in response to people that you deem to be your intellectual inferiors.
Yeah, sure I was playing bait the pinky brain when I commented on that earlier post. Judging from your response, you've fallen for it hook, line, and sinker. I might be an airhead, Thwap, but if I am, than you are definitely a chump for taking the bait.
"If Colombia is where the story is now, why were you using El Salvador, Guatemala, and the Reagan and Carter administrations as your most current examples?"
I already explained it to you. Those national truth commission reports are to be considered the last words in what happened in those countries during the height of the violence and the height of death-squad activities.
They are what the political systems of El Salvador and Guatemala themselves regard as the official word about those events.
As such, they are excellent sources for pointing to what the death-squads did. Which is important, as I'll explain ...
"I don't really care what Chomsky pointed out back in the 1970 and 1980s, I'm more interested in what he is talking about now."
Well, what he was saying in the 1970s and 1980s still holds true today for the issue that I'm talking about. Chomsky wasn't writing about some historical particularisms in individual countries at a particular moment in time.
Chomsky was describing current events at the time and demonstrating how they're systemic problems related to capitalism and imperialism.
And if you're really interested in what Chomsky is saying now (I doubt it), let me help you ...
Colombia
"The worldwide total of murdered union leaders for 2003 was reported to be 123, three-quarters of them in Colombia. The proportions have been consistent for some time. Not only has Colombia been the most dangerous place for labor leaders anywhere in the world (insofar as statistics are available), but it has been more dangerous than the rest of the world combined.
...
It remains to be seen whether the September 2004 concession of the army murders leads to any action. If the past is a guide, nothing will happen beyond the lowest levels, though the evidence for higher military and civilian responsibility is substantial. There have been a few occasions when major massacres were seriously investigated. The most significant of these was the Trujillo massacre in 1990, when more than 60 people were murdered in a particularly brutal army operation, their bodies cut to pieces with chain saws.
...
There is nothing particularly novel about the relation between atrocious human rights violations and US aid. On the contrary, it is a rather consistent correlation. The leading US academic specialist on human rights in Latin America, Lars Schoultz, found in a 1981 study that US aid 'has tended to flow disproportionately to Latin American governments which torture their citizens,... to the hemisphere's relatively egregious violators of fundamental human rights.'"
"Let me put it to you another way. I might very well be an airhead. But what are your claims to superior intelligence based on?"
Superior analysis. The ability to mount a coherent argument and counter-argument.
"You'll write over 5,000 words about and in response to people that you deem to be your intellectual inferiors."
1. Well, I type really fast.
2. I write about people who I think are stupid and wrong because they're so goddamned prevalent. Because the damage they do in their blinkered state of deluded ignorance is vast. Because the results of being so enormously wrong are things like the invasion of Iraq, the starvation in Haiti, the polluting of the earth, the perpetuation of death squads, and on and on.
And I'm writing in response to you, and others who I don't respect, because a) I have a comments/discussion section to my blog, b) I might actually change somebody's mind, and c) There are others who might be reading this exchange and who might find it interesting.
"Yeah, sure I was playing bait the pinky brain when I commented on that earlier post."
Okay. There it is. But goddamn it, I hope you'll at least admit to yourself that you don't have a fucking clue about what you're talking about.
And I hope you can at least try to see things from my perspective; that this is a terrible thing that I'm discussing, and that vapid "tease the leftist" snark is really just a dopey way for you and the millions of people like you to remain in ignorance or denial, which means that these atrocities and these sufferings are only going to continue.
So yeah, I get a little pissed-off with such a flippant response.
"Judging from your response, you've fallen for it hook, line, and sinker. I might be an airhead, Thwap, but if I am, than you are definitely a chump for taking the bait."
You aren't important. Your opinions (ignorance really) on this topic aren't all that remarkable. What's important is the subject itself and the fact that ignorance such as yours is so common. That's why a case-study such as yourself is worth debating with. To engage with a manifestation of this ignorance and test its limitations.
And if you're feeling "hurt" or angry, or whatever from my tone, I can assure you that it would probably hurt more to be tortured. To be hacked to death with a machete. To watch as a female family member or friend of yours is raped and murdered before your eyes.
Which, at the end of the day, is what it means when our governments take some of our tax-dollars and direct them towards military training and equipment to the dictatorial puppet-governments that they support.
Let's remember; some people thought that the US was going to go into Iraq, find the WMDs and bring democracy and Western values to that country.
People like me thought that was moronic at the time, and we've been proven right in spades.
Some people thought that we'd go into Afghanistan, bring Osama bin Laden to justice, smash the Taliban-terrorist network and bring peace and democracy to Afghanistan.
People like me thought that wasn't going to happen. Here it is, over 5 years later, and we're still there, killing more people than our enemies, propping-up an increasingly unpopular government.
Some people believed (when they thought about it at all) that Canada, the USA, and France were ridding Haiti of an incompetent, corrupt, dictator, and that we'd bring democracy and development to that poor country.
People like me thought that was all a crock of shit, and now, 5 years later, the UN, Haitian security forces and paramilitaries are killing at will, and crushing the political movement that represents the majority of the people, and the people themselves have been reduced in too many instances, to actually eating dirt.
I don't think that I'm really all that smart. It's just that the ideas that I oppose are so evidentially stupid and ignorant.
Post a Comment