Yep, that torture evidence thing nails it for me.
And we'd all rather talk about Redbones (the Paris of Sommerville) and BBQ - me more than anyone. Sigh. I don't know what to say about this. It's disgusting and is banking serious problems that our country will have to deal with later. And there's no doubt, ogged, it leaves us a couple big jumps down the slope of repression.
But what to do. Having written to all my congressional reps, what next?
I've been trying to decide why more people aren't upset about this. I thought maybe it was because we were only torturing "them," and they weren't actually people, to most Americans, but maybe this is it.
It's scary and depressing, anyway.
The only problem with your narrative of the soviets is that the Russian peasantry and, to some extent, working class never lived under a free society.
Come to think of it, however, you're right: it's a wonderful anaology for America. Wealthy Northern elites, like the urban cultural bourgeoise of Russia during tsarist times, know freedom from excessive worry, freedom to create and interact and study. The Russian peasants, like some of the rural poor, are pretty used to the Okie-style suffering and grim uncertainty that goes along with having your lifestyle tied to fickle weather patterns.
Therefore, while the artists, writers, politicians and scholars sent to the gulag could remember what they had lost, the peasantry were used to being abused for centuries under tsars and leninists alike, and when presented with a great present threat (in addition to all the hardships you have, imagine the europeans marching over your crops with their boots) they were willing to not fight for the abstract freedoms of an urban artistic elite, even after they became incredibly not abstract.
Of course, only the modern American media allows the downtrodden to mock the consternation of the artistic elite while the taking of freedoms is in progress.
Your choice of words reminded me of Why Did the Heavens Not Darken, a book on the Holocaust. Which in turn reminded me of the Aime Cesare quotation invoked by one reviewer of that book:
And then one fine day the bourgeoisie is awakened by a terrific reverse shock: the gestapos are busy, the prisons fill up, the torturers around the racks invent, refine, discuss.
People are surprised, they become indignant. They say: "How strange! But never mind-it's Nazism, it will pass!" And they wait, and they hope; and they hide the truth from themselves, that it is barbarism, but the supreme barbarism, the crowning barbarism that sums up all the daily barbarism; that it is barbarism, yes, but that before they were its victims they were its accomplices; that they tolerated that Nazism before it was inflicted on them, that they absolved it, shut their eyes to it, legitimized it, because, until then, it had been applied only to non-European peoples.
Thanks for a fine post.
I think that we'll be ok. I say that not out of any particular spirit of optimism or naivete, but because this kind of thing has happened before in this country--the Alien and Sedition Acts, forced conscription in the civil war, the union riots of the 1890s, the forced internment of World War II, Nixon's Enemies List, etc.
Are all of these as bad as what's going on now? Yes and no--depends on your viewpoint. The one thing that ties all of these previous outrages together is the (Malkin aside) later consensus by *everyone* that these things were wrong, and the country must make amends.
One thing that most people don't give enough credit to is Americans' capability for self-criticism after the fact. Eventually, historically, we tend to get things right.
What's going on is horrible, depressing, and degrading, and if enough of us keep talking and writing and being angry about it, eventually it will be brought to light, and fifty years from now everyone will say "hey, those guys were right."
It just sucks to have to the the loud, correct minority now. Keep speaking out, you'll be remembered.
Dan:
I have to disagree in that I'm doubtful that "everyone" universally agrees that all those 'wrongs of the past' were indeed, wrong.
I think of it because just a few of weeks ago, a friend of mine & I got on the topic of the atomic bombs dropped on Japan. She seemed to think that most, if not all, Americans now see that as an egregious stain on American history, and feel ashamed or at least really bad about it. And I don't think most Americans would agree.
Even the seemingly "accepted" majority beliefs... I have no doubt that hoards of people feel "oppressed" that some of these things are "supposed" to be frowned upon "these days". Not just Malkin, and not just about internment... But on slavery, maybe even the Spanish Inquisition. I'm not saying they're in the majority. But they exist.
I believe that most often, the Bible is correct in this...
"Truth stands the test of time; lies are soon exposed." -- Proverbs 12:19
In that no, the propaganda mills and the lies or obsfucations cannot endure for any serious length of time, certainly not forever. But I have absolutely no faith that logic is a surefire outcome of truth's endurance.
X might be true, and proven. But many might still believe that X is not true, and that instead Y is true. Perhaps Y won't last so long... but that doesn't mean that people will believe X, they might just switch to Z.
And let's not even get started about history being written by the victors. Some truth does get lost forever, I believe, in history, and lays in mystery and confusion indefinitely with uncertainty.
For example, when I visited Mayan ruins in the Yucatan, some descriptions were given for what they believe went on there. They're not extremely sure of the details of general life among the Mayans. Most of what they do know were the quite violent and barbaric bits. And those people find difficult to reconcile in contemporary terms. But we simply don't know the entire circumstances. It's very easy to say "people were barbaric in the past" or "they were steeped in superstition that made them do horrible things". But I don't buy that crapola. People are just as barbaric now, in my opinion. It just changes faces with the eras. And there's still plenty of superstition to be had. And for all our technological advances and scientific knowledge and academic pursuits, the base human condition has not changed much.
If you mean by "ok" that eventually these atrocities will cease to exist in the future, I think that is rather cock-eyed optimism and naivete.
If you mean by "ok" that the human race will survive despite atrocities continuing on indefinitely, it makes sense, though it's not a sure bet.
But yes, I do usually rest easy in the idea that I'm not making myself complicit in any atrocities, and try to be part of the solutions.
I've been tempted in the past to take the position that things can't get too bad, if only because we've gotten through worse, and clearly, whatever our current faults, we are more modern now than we were then. But I now think that that line of reasoning is mistaken. It seems clear that things like the creeping assualt on civil liberties and the slow evisceration of norms against torture are related to the culture wars, at least at the level of political psychology. Those who feel that our nation's core values are under assualt by a godless, pagan culture are also likely to think that no restrictions at all should be placed on the government in its prosecution of the war on terror, and that anyone who thinks otherwise is a godless pagan who lacks the resoluteness to call evil what it is and to defend what is good against an existential threat. The problem this presents is that the culture war has recently become intensified precisely because of our country's increasing modernism. That is, rather than being held back by liberalism's progress, it is being propelled by it, as people are defending something that see as under grave threat. That suggests to me that we as a nation are potentially on the verge of a period of "reactionary modernism" -- the classic recipe for fascism. Between the culture war at home and the war on terror abroad -- which is, of course, real, but is also obviously being used for nefarious purposes -- we may be facing a perfect storm from which may or may not emerge whole.
"I think that we'll be ok."
Let me guess, you doubt you're likely to get locked up, right?
--K
I think part of the problem is that there is much outrageous stuff going on, people don't know where to look, how to focus. There is a brilliant documentary available on DVD called "Unconstitutional," which runs down "detainees," "enemy combatants," Guantanamo, the suspension of habeas corpus, etc, and then directly highlights the parts of the constitution that are being violated. Somehow, it was a great organizational tool. At the end of the film, they showed excerpts of town meetings from localities that have voted to ban any of the Patriot Act activities (eg, the sneak and peek searches) that violate the Consitution. In fact, many of these localities have a rule that if local law enforcement are evn asked to particpate by the FBI, they must notify the town council.
I get the feeling from even those papers that nominally care (eg, the New York Times), that there's just so much corruption, lawbreaking, and lying going on that they report on an outrage but don't follow, don't tie the ends together, weave the ongoing narratives that would wake people up.
Remember when Walter Cronkite used to give the day count for the hostages? Jim Lehrer does the highly subversive act of posting the week's names and faces of the US military dead at midnight. What we need is for someone like the Times or even prominent blogs to keep a running box dealing with civil liberties suspensions, maybe a Case for the Day, which the ACLU or Center for Constitutional Rights could provide.
People need reminding, they need conituity, they need narrative threads like the one used in "Unconsitutional."
Keep writing about this.
Here's a relevant post over at Making Light about the We Never Knew website.
Okay, another relevant link (and yes, I know, I should get my own blog if I want to do all this linking all the time). Although sometimes (often) her "hick schtick" gets tiresome, Molly Ivins can be a very powerful writer when she wants to be. Not to mention that she's just a really cool and nice person.