R.S.V.P.: A Letter from Mahmoud Amhadinejad to the American People

Message of H.E. Dr. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad
President of the Islamic Republic of Iran
To the American People
In the name of God, the Compassionate, the Merciful
O, Almighty God, bestow upon humanity the perfect human being promised to all by You, and make us among his followers.

Noble Americans,
Were we not faced with the activities of the US administration in this part of the world and the negative ramifications of those activities on the daily lives of our peoples, coupled with the many wars and calamities caused by the US administration as well as the tragic consequences of US interference in other countries; Were the American people not God-fearing, truth-loving, and justice-seeking, while the US administration actively conceals the truth and impedes any objective portrayal of current realities; And if we did not share a common responsibility to promote and protect freedom and human dignity and integrity; Then, there would have been little urgency to have a dialogue with you.
While Divine providence has placed Iran and the United States geographically far apart, we should be cognizant that human values and our common human spirit, which proclaim the dignity and exalted worth of all human beings, have brought our two great nations of Iran and the United States closer together. Both our nations are God-fearing, truth-loving and justice-seeking, and both seek dignity, respect and perfection.
Both greatly value and readily embrace the promotion of human ideals such as compassion, empathy, respect for the rights of human beings, securing justice and equity, and defending the innocent and the weak against oppressors and bullies.
We are all inclined towards the good, and towards extending a helping hand to one another, particularly to those in need. We all deplore injustice, the trampling of peoples’ rights and the intimidation and humiliation of human beings. We all detest darkness, deceit, lies and distortion, and seek and admire salvation, enlightenment, sincerity and honesty. The pure human essence of the two great nations of Iran and the United States testify to the veracity of these statements.
Noble Americans,
Our nation has always extended its hand of friendship to all other nations of the world. Hundreds of thousands of my Iranian compatriots are living amongst you in friendship and peace, and are contributing positively to your society. Our people have been in contact with you over the past many years and have maintained these contacts despite the unnecessary restrictions of US authorities. As mentioned, we have common concerns, face similar challenges, and are pained by the sufferings and afflictions in the world.
We, like you, are aggrieved by the ever-worsening pain and misery of the Palestinian people. Persistent aggressions by the Zionists are making life more and more difficult for the rightful owners of the land of Palestine. In broad daylight, in front of cameras and before the eyes of the world, they are bombarding innocent defenseless civilians, bulldozing houses, firing machine guns at students in the streets and alleys, and subjecting their families to endless grief. No day goes by without a new crime.
Palestinian mothers, just like Iranian and American mothers, love their children, and are painfully bereaved by the imprisonment, wounding and murder of their children. What mother wouldn’t?
For 60 years, the Zionist regime has driven millions of the inhabitants of Palestine out of their homes. Many of these refugees have died in the Diaspora and in refugee camps. Their children have spent their youth in these camps and are aging while still in the hope of returning to homeland.
You know well that the US administration has persistently provided blind and blanket support to the Zionist regime, has emboldened it to continue its crimes, and has prevented the UN Security Council from condemning it. Who can deny such broken promises and grave injustices towards humanity by the US administration?
Governments are there to serve their own people. No people wants to side with or support any oppressors. But regrettably, the US administration disregards even its own public opinion and remains in the forefront of supporting the trampling of the rights of the Palestinian people.
Let’s take a look at Iraq. Since the commencement of the US military presence in Iraq, hundreds of thousands of Iraqis have been killed, maimed or displaced. Terrorism in Iraq has grown exponentially. With the presence of the US military in Iraq, nothing has been done to rebuild the ruins, to restore the infrastructure or to alleviate poverty. The US Government used the pretext of the existence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, but later it became clear that that was just a lie and a deception.
Although Saddam was overthrown and people are happy about his departure, the pain and suffering of the Iraqi people has persisted and has even been aggravated.
In Iraq, about one hundred and fifty thousand American soldiers, separated from their families and loved ones, are operating under the command of the current US administration. A substantial number of them have been killed or wounded and their presence in Iraq has tarnished the image of the American people and government.
Their mothers and relatives have, on numerous occasions, displayed their discontent with the presence of their sons and daughters in a land thousands of miles away from US shores. American soldiers often wonder why they have been sent to Iraq.
I consider it extremely unlikely that you, the American people, consent to the billions of dollars of annual expenditure from your treasury for this military misadventure.
Noble Americans,
You have heard that the US administration is kidnapping its presumed opponents from across the globe and arbitrarily holding them without trial or any international supervision in horrendous prisons that it has established in various parts of the world. God knows who these detainees actually are, and what terrible fate awaits them.
You have certainly heard the sad stories of the Guantanamo and Abu-Ghraib prisons. The US administration attempts to justify them through its proclaimed “war on terror.” But every one knows that such behavior, in fact, offends global public opinion, exacerbates resentment and thereby spreads terrorism, and tarnishes the US image and its credibility among nations.
The US administration’s illegal and immoral behavior is not even confined to outside its borders. You are witnessing daily that under the pretext of “the war on terror,” civil liberties in the United States are being increasingly curtailed. Even the privacy of individuals is fast losing its meaning. Judicial due process and fundamental rights are trampled upon. Private phones are tapped, suspects are arbitrarily arrested, sometimes beaten in the streets, or even shot to death. I have no doubt that the American people do not approve of this behavior and indeed deplore it.
The US administration does not accept accountability before any organization, institution or council. The US administration has undermined the credibility of international organizations, particularly the United Nations and its Security Council. But, I do not intend to address all the challenges and calamities in this message.
The legitimacy, power and influence of a government do not emanate from its arsenals of tanks, fighter aircrafts, missiles or nuclear weapons. Legitimacy and influence reside in sound logic, quest for justice and compassion and empathy for all humanity. The global position of the United States is in all probability weakened because the administration has continued to resort to force, to conceal the truth, and to mislead the American people about its policies and practices. Undoubtedly, the American people are not satisfied with this behavior and they showed their discontent in the recent elections. I hope that in the wake of the mid-term elections, the administration of President Bush will have heard and will heed the message of the American people.
My questions are the following:
Is there not a better approach to governance?
Is it not possible to put wealth and power in the service of peace, stability, prosperity and the happiness of all peoples through a commitment to justice and respect for the rights of all nations, instead of aggression and war?
We all condemn terrorism, because its victims are the innocent. But, can terrorism be contained and eradicated through war, destruction and the killing of hundreds of thousands of innocents?
If that were possible, then why has the problem not been resolved? The sad experience of invading Iraq is before us all.
What has blind support for the Zionists by the US administration brought for the American people? It is regrettable that for the US administration, the interests of these occupiers supersedes the interests of the American people and of the other nations of the world.
What have the Zionists done for the American people that the US administration considers itself obliged to blindly support these infamous aggressors? Is it not because they have imposed themselves on a substantial portion of the banking, financial, cultural and media sectors?
I recommend that in a demonstration of respect for the American people and for humanity, the right of Palestinians to live in their own homeland should be recognized so that millions of Palestinian refugees can return to their homes and the future of all of Palestine and its form of government be determined in a referendum. This will benefit everyone.
Now that Iraq has a Constitution and an independent Assembly and Government, would it not be more beneficial to bring the US officers and soldiers home, and to spend the astronomical US military expenditures in Iraq for the welfare and prosperity of the American people? As you know very well, many victims of Katrina continue to suffer, and countless Americans continue to live in poverty and homelessness.
I’d also like to say a word to the winners of the recent elections in the US: The United States has had many administrations; some who have left a positive legacy, and others that are neither remembered fondly by the American people nor by other nations.
Now that you control an important branch of the US Government, you will also be held to account by the people and by history
If the US Government meets the current domestic and external challenges with an approach based on truth and Justice, it can remedy some of the past afflictions and alleviate some of the global resentment and hatred of America. But if the approach remains the same, it would not be unexpected that the American people would similarly reject the new electoral winners, although the recent elections, rather than reflecting a victory, in reality point to the failure of the current administration’s policies. These issues had been extensively dealt with in my letter to President Bush earlier this year.
To sum up:
It is possible to govern based on an approach that is distinctly different from one of coercion, force and injustice.
It is possible to sincerely serve and promote common human values, and honesty and compassion.
It is possible to provide welfare and prosperity without tension, threats, imposition or war.
It is possible to lead the world towards the aspired perfection by adhering to unity, monotheism, morality and spirituality and drawing upon the teachings of the Divine Prophets.
Then, the American people, who are God-fearing and followers of Divine religions, will overcome every difficulty.
What I stated represents some of my anxieties and concerns.
I am confident that you, the American people, will play an instrumental role in the establishment of justice and spirituality throughout the world. The promises of the Almighty and His prophets will certainly be realized, Justice and Truth will prevail and all nations will live a true life in a climate replete with love, compassion and fraternity.
The US governing establishment, the authorities and the powerful should not choose irreversible paths. As all prophets have taught us, injustice and transgression will eventually bring about decline and demise. Today, the path of return to faith and spirituality is open and unimpeded.
We should all heed the Divine Word of the Holy Qur’an:
“But those who repent, have faith and do good may receive Salvation. Your Lord, alone, creates and chooses as He will, and others have no part in His choice; Glorified is God and Exalted above any partners they ascribe to Him.” (28:67-68)
I pray to the Almighty to bless the Iranian and American nations and indeed all nations of the world with dignity and success.

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad
President of the Islamic Republic of Iran
29 November 2006

The Phonograph and My Existential Crisis

Today, November 29th, 2006 (the 333rd day of 2006) is the 119th anniversary of the day that Thomas Edison first demonstrated his invention for recording and replaying sound, the phonograph ("sound writer"). This first phonograph recorded on tinfoil cylinders that had low sound quality and destroyed the track during replay so that one could listen to it only a few times. A few uses for the phonograph that Edison proposed include: recording books for blind people to hear, preserving the last words of dying people, announcing the time, and teaching spelling. The reproduction of music was not very high on Edison's list. A few years past without the phonograph really catching on, and eventually Edison proclaimed that the phonograph had no commercial value. After a few more years, Edison changed his mind and began selling phonographs as office dictating machines. However, other inventors wanted to take the phonograph in a different direction and they created jukeboxes by arranging phonographs to play popular music at the drop of a coin. Edison saw this as a debasement of his serious invention. Eventually, after 20 years, Edison conceded that the phonograph's purpose is to record and play music. I do not claim to be an expert on Edison's life, but it seems to me that he began inventing because he enjoyed inventing. It seems to me that he made money in order to continue what he loved to do; invent. He survived to continue inventing. As the years went on, however, his love seemed to change. With his improvement of the incandescent light bulb, Edison was a promoter of DC (direct current) for electric distribution. He went to extremes to put his new adversary, George Westinghouse, out of business. Westinghouse was a promoter of AC (alternating current). Edison went so far as to electracute animals, including an elephant, to show the "danger" of AC. He even went so far as promoting the electric chair and the death penalty to delegitimate AC. I don't want to go into the details, but it seems that Edison's focus shifted here, from making money in order to continue inventing to continue inventing in order to make money. (I don't really care if this isn't exactly true. This story about Edison is merely a means to an end, and I feel that the end justifies the means, at least in this blog post.)And this is the point that my existential crisis arises. What do I want to do? What do I want to survive in order to keep doing? Instead of keep doing in order to survive? What do I want to do that I will make money to continue doing and not continue doing in order to make money? This is where I am stuck. Especially since I have become rather disenchanted with graduate school (apparently reading Habermas will do that to you). So here I am crossing the threshold into the yet-to-be determined future, and as I do, I am trying to find my passion in life. Because right now, I am growing evermore passionate about apathy.

Natality and the Detroit Tigers

The Detroit Tigers are appearing in the MLB playoffs for the first time since 1987 (I was 5 years old). Since winning the division title in '87, the team had a sucessful year in '88 leading the AL East for most of the season before entering a late season slump. In '89, the Tigers held the worst record in baseball with a 59-103 record. In '90 - '93, the team began to improve thanks to Fielder's bat, but the team lacked pitching and the players were beginning to age. From '94-'05, the Tigers did not post a winning record.
However, this year, 2006, the Tigers have made it at least to the American League Championship Series.
The '06 Tigers are a young team. With the likes of Granderson (MLB debut in '04), Monroe (MLB debut '01), Thames (MLB debut '02), Verlander (rookie), Zumaya (rookie), Bonderman (MLB debut '03), Robertson (MLB debut '02), Maroth (MLB debut '02), and Miner (rookie) among others, the Tigers are a team that may be less experienced than other teams, but "every newcomer possesses the capacity of beginning something anew."
This reminds me of Hannah Arendt's notion of natality (contra Heidegger's notion of mortality). Arendt writes of the "human condition of natality" is "the new beginning inherent in birth [that] can make itself felt in the world only because the newcomer possesses the capacity of beginning something anew".
"The miracle that saves the world, the realm of human affairs, from its normal, 'natural' ruin is ultimately the fact of natality, in which the faculty of action is ontologically rooted. It is, in other words, the birth of new men and the new beginning, the action they are capable of by virtue of being born. Only the full experience of this capacity can bestow upon human affairs faith and hope...It is this faith in and hope for the world that found perhaps its most glorious and most succinct expression in the few words with which the Gospels announced their 'glad tidings': 'A child has been born unto us.'"
These newcomers on the Tigers give me faith and hope and they have brought and are capable of bringing new beginnings to my favorite baseball team. Let's go Tigers!

With Dick in Hand: Dick Devos, Michigan, and Economic Masturbation

With mid-term elections coming up on November 7, I'm sure the gubernatorial elections in America's high five (Michigan) are becoming more and more ominous and the reminders to vote are increasing toward ubiquity. Thankfully, I am in Toronto and no one will be riding me for not voting and then telling me that since I don't vote, I can't complain. First, if you vote for a candidate or a proposition, and said candidate or proposition loses, what good is it to have "a right to complain"? Exactly who do you complain to? Why do I have to have a "right" in order to complain? Do people under 21 have no right to complain? If in good conscience you can't vote for any candidate in a presidential election, it would seem that you have legitimate grounds for complaint.
Secondly, I'm not a political romantic. America, Michigan, and Grant Township will always do things that I disagree with whether I vote or not. You can't say you are politically active simply because you fill in a dot next to someone's name. But because you filled in that dot and I didn't, you have the right to complain and I don't? Politics aren't going to change the world for the better. Get off your tuckus more than just to travel down to the polls and actually do something to change the world. Ways of life only change in living...and it begins at home. Because politics aren't going to change the world for the better and, if even it could, there is no one I can support and still sleep at night, I'm not going to vote and I think I have the "right" to complain.
Sorry about the pseudo-rant, I'm sure I will be lambasted by the "politically-aware" readers (oh, I forgot, no one reads this blog anymore).
My actual intent for this post was to talk about Dick Devos and his "The Michigan Turn Around Plan". So, basically, said plan can be (and has been by Devos himself) divided into four sections or "missions" (which are actually one "mission", but enough of these parenthetical statements); 1) Create a Job Climate Second to None, 2) Overhaul State Government, 3) Diversify our Economy, and 4) Conquer the International Marketplace.
Let's begin at the beginning. Dick Devos wants to create a job climate second to none. How (besides getting rid of the Business Tax), you ask? I'll focus on a few "jobs" that Devos says he hopes to do. I'll start off with one I like, Mission #1 Job#2 focuses on helping small businesses. Which I like, but helping them how? Implicitly, it seems that he wants to "help" small businesses by making them big businesses. Nevermind, I don't like it anymore.
Mission #1 Job #2 - Devos wants to "Improve Education: Give Our Kids the Skills They Need". I agree. Improve education and give them the skills they need! Right on! Wait a minute. Devos is reducing education to economics. Give them the skills they need so that they "are able to meet the requirements of the 21st Century economy - and get high quality jobs." But if everyone is getting this "improved education", can everyone get these "high quality jobs"? Who is going to bag groceries or clean toilets? We are already keeping kid's from flooding the job market by keeping them in school until they are 18. What would happen if they get the high quality jobs when they are finally released into the job market? What would happen to all the people who are, in the job market, obtaining the skills they need and working their way up to those jobs?
Mission #1 Job #5 - Protect and Promote Michigan's Environment. Sounds good. Again, I agree. But why Mr. Devos? "I believe our environment is an engine for job creation and quality of life." This is the point where I hang my head.
Let's move to Mission #2, "Overhaul State Government". You may be thinking of that good ol' Sesame Street (ADD-inducing) shorts and singing to yourself, "one of these things is not like the others". The other three are about the economy, this one is about the government. But you would be wrong because "The Governor's Job is Jobs" and as our Governor, "Devos would be the CEO of Michigan's economic efforts."
Maybe we should move along to Mission #3 - "Diversify our Economy". Here he talks of universities, but again he is only interested in how it will help the economy; "I will get more job-creating ideas from our universities to the marketplace."
In Job #14, Devos wants to "Support Michigan Agriculture" and he "knows that we can
protect the environment and grow Michigan’s family farms at the same time." I like what I hear. Wait...what does he mean by "grow"? What is all this talk of "Agriculture business leaders will always have a seat at my table" and "agriculture industry" and "Michigan’s agriculture businesses"? I thought we were talking about Michigan's family farms not Michigan's agribusinesses?
I don't even want to talk about Mission #4 - "Conquer the International Marketplace". It just sounds ridiculous. But he talks about Fair Trade in Job #17, my interest is peaked. "Enforce trade agreements. Michigan workers can compete anywhere, but we need a level playing
field. When these agreements are not enforced, our job providers struggle, and we lose jobs"... "Stand up to countries whose laws discriminate against American-made products"... "Fight for the protection of intellectual property rights"..."Stop currency manipulation that harms our Michigan made products." What does this have to do with doing justice to those who are mistreated because of their status as a farmer in a periphery country being trammeled by the global capitalist economy?

It seems that Dick Devos believes two things. 1. Everything (education, agriculture, government, the environment...etc.) is a means to the end of "stimulating" the economy. 2. If the economy is being "stimulated", then everything is working as it should be. This may be too simplistic, but I don't care. I'm glad that I can complain. All I'm saying is that when I come home I don't want to catch you all with Dick in Hand "stimulating" the economy.

German

Apparently no one checks my blog anymore, but I don't really care. If I keep writing posts on this blog, is it like talking to myself? If it is, I don't really care.
Anyway, I started learning how to read German last Wednesday. Today, I had my second German class. I've had a great time learing Nominative, Accusative, Genitive, and Dative cases, and the corresponding articles for Masculine, Feminine, Neutral, and Plural. Anyway (again), German is a weird language (but its not like English isn't weird). It seems that Germans don't like to use the space bar or move their hand over between nouns. These are called compound nouns. One such compound noun I learned this week was (are you ready for this?)..."staatsangestelltenkrankheitsversicherungsgesellschaft". Yes, that's one word! It means: State Employees health insurance company, and yes, it has 55 letters!
What is it with Germans and spaces? Do they not get along?

Christology with a Dash of Freud and a Pinch of Marx

Here are some excerpts from Erich Fromm's essay "The Dogma of Christ" in The Frankfurt School on Religion and the collection of essays entitled The Dogma of Christ. This is an extremely interesting essay, Fromm employs two of the "Masters of Suspicion" to read (and critique) the doctrine of Christology for the early Church and later its shift away from the early Church's Christology to the Christology of the Catholic Church. Both doctrines of Christ are rooted in the Church communities' social and economic standings.
I want to include enough to interest people to read it, but not too much to give it all away. The parts that I focus on a Marxian reading of first century Palestine which sets up for a Freudian reading of the doctrine of Christ for the first century Christian community. Without further ado, dear reader, let's get started.
In the first century C.E., "Palestine was a part of the Roman Empire and succumbed to the conditions of its economic and social development".
Economically, there were basically three classes. First, "the rural population was exhausted by an extraordinarily heavy tax burden" and either became debt slaves, or as the farmers lost their means of production or their small land holdings, they "swelled the ranks of the large-city proletariat of Jerusalem" or "resorted to desperate remedies, such as violent political uprising and plundering." Second, just above the impoverished proletariat there arose a middle economic class, "though suffering under Roman pressure, was nevertheless economically stable." Third, there was a "small but powerful influential class of the feudal, priestly, and moneyed aristocracy." Within the Palestinian population, there was a corresponding social differentiation to this severe economic cleavage. Sadducees represented the rich upper class, Pharisees represented the middle economic class, and the Am Ha-aretz (literally, land folk), corresponded to the "lowest stratum of the urban Lumpenproletariat and the oppressed peasants." There was much hatred between the lowest class and the Pharisaic circles (if you question this, ask me for some literary instances where this arises), and the conflict increased as "Roman oppression became heavier and the lowest classes [became] more crushed and uprooted." This is where we see the rise of national, social, and religious revolutionaries; mainly embodied in political attempts at revolt like the Zealots and Sicarii (dagger carriers), and religious-messianic movements (but "there is by no means a sharp deperation between these two streams moving toward liberation and salvation; often they flow into each other).
Out of these lowest classes - "the masses of uneducated poor, the proletariat of Jerusalem, and the peasants in the country", those who "because of the increasing political and economic oppression and because of social restriction and contempt, increasingly felt the urge to change existing conditions" - arose the kind of people who supported early Christianity.
Do passages like Luke 6:20 ff, then, not only "express longing and expectation of the poor and oppressed for a new and better world, but also their complete hatred of the authorities - the rich, the learned, and the powerful"?
How did the early Christian community view Christ? In Acts 2:36, wee see that "God made him [Jesus] both Lord and Christ". This "is the oldest doctrine of Christ that we have, and is therefore of great interest, especially since it was later supplanted by other, more extensive doctrines." This is called the "adoptionist" theory "because here an act of adoption is assumed". "The thought present here is that Jesus was not the messiah from the beginning; in other words, he was not from the beginning the Son of God, but became so only by a definite, very distinct act of God's will. This is expressed in the fact that the statement in Psalms 2:7, 'You are my son, today I have begotten you," is interpreted as referring to the moment of the exaltation of Jesus (Acts 13:33)." According to the ancient Semetic idea, the king is a son of God on the day he mounts the throne. "It is therefore in keeping with the oriental spirit to say that Jesus, as he was exalted to the right hand of God, became the Son of God."
"We see thus that the concept of Jesus held by the early community was that he was a man chosen by God and elevated by him as a 'messiah', and later as 'Son of God'. This Christology of the early community resembles in many respects the concept of the messiah chosen by God to introduce a kingdom of righteousness and love, a concept which had been familiar among the Jewish masses for a long time." Except there are a few new elements: "in the fact of his exaltation as Son of God to sit at the right hand of the Almighty, and in the act that this messiah is no longer the powerful, victorious hero, but his significance and dignity reside just in his suffering, in his death on the cross."
This is where we add the dash of Freud, and may get a little controversial.
"The first Christians were a brotherhood of socially and economically oppressed enthusiasts held together by hope and hatred." "While the Zealots and Sicarii endeavored to realize their wishes in the sphere of political reality, the complete hopelessness of realization led the early Christians to formulate the same wishes in fantasy." "If there was nothing left for the Zealots but to die in hopeless battle, the followers of Christ could dream of their goal without reality immediately showing them the hopelessness of their wishes. By substituting fantasy for reality, the Christian message satisfied the longings for hope and revenge, and although it failed to relieve hunger, it brought a fantasy satisfaction of no little significance for the oppressed."
1. A man is rased to a god; he is adopted by God. "We have here the old myth of the rebellion of the son, an expression of hostile impulses toward the father-god." "These people hated intensely the authorities that confronted them with 'fatherly' power. The priests, scholars, aristocrates, in short, all the rulers who excluded them from the enjoyment of life and who in their emotional world played the role of the sever, forbidding, threatening, tormenting father - they also had to hate this God who was an ally of their oppressors, who permitted them to suffer and be oppressed. They themselves wanted to rul...but it seemed hopeless to try to acheive this in reality and to overthrow and destroy their present masters by force. So they satisfied their wishes in fantasy. Consciously they did not date to slander the fatherly God. Concious hatred was reserved for the authorities, not for the elevated father figure, the diving being himself. But the unconscious hostility to the divine father found expression in the Christ fantasy. They put a man at God's side and made him a co-regent with God the father. This man who became a god, and with whom as humans they could identify, represented their Oedipus wishes; he was a symbol of their unconscious hostility to God the father, for if a man could become God, the latter was deprived of his priveleged fatherly position of being unique and unreachable. The belief in the elevation of a man to god was thus the expression of an unconscious wish for the removal of the divine father.
2. The figure of the suffering savior was determined "by the fact that some of the death wishes against the father-god were shifted to the son. In the myth of the dying god (Adonis, Attis, Osiris), god himself was the one whose death was fantasied. In the early Christian myth the father is killed in the son."
3. "Since the believing enthusiasts were imbued with hatred and death wishes - consciously against their rulers, unconsciously against God the father - they identified with the crucified; they themselves suffered death on the cross and atoned in this way for their death wishes against the father. through his death, Jesus expiated the guilt of all, and the first Christians greatly needed such an atonement."

9/11: In Memoriam

Prior to the commencement of his presidency, George W. Bush’s campaign slogan was “Bringing America Together”. Apparently, according to the Republican Party in general, and Bush in particular, the grand old U.S. of A. was experiencing a crisis of national identity. Whether there was an internal conflict of Us/Them in the United States or not, Bush’s dreams were answered at the precise moment that two planes crashed into the national monument known as the World Trade Center, five years ago. The “crises of national identity found its provisional resolution by displacing the internal conflict of Us/Them on an external screen.” (Richard Kearney) The body politic known as the United States was (re)united on September 11, 2001, just like the separatist Puritans and the non-religious adventurers were united under the Mayflower Compact or like how frontiersmen put there differences aside while expanding America’s borders westward. This time, however, “we” were not arriving to the New World on the Mayflower or pushing the frontier further west in stagecoaches or covered wagons and uniting against the savage “Indians”, instead, “they” were the savages arriving on airplanes, crashing into buildings, nevertheless, again we united against “them”. Our crises of national identity, our differences were put behind us; America had been brought together against “them”; against savage terrorists. We were once again the United States of America.
However, it was indeed a “provisional resolution”. Between the attack upon the World Trade Center and today, five years later, we have seen the Bush administration declare preemptive war on Iraq, declare an endless “war on terrorism”, curtail civil rights, defy laws, resort to overwhelming force, and other actions, like these, that are “ready products of fear and hasty thought.” (Wendell Berry) Again we are experiencing crises of national identity; Americans are no longer united over the issues of war in Iraq (how is this connected to 9/11 again?), war in Afghanistan, or war on terrorism. Words like “freedom” are evoked to reunite the body politic, because who is against “freedom”? Terrorists. This administration is fighting for “freedom” against those who are against “freedom”, so if you are against this administrations actions, you are against “freedom” (you are no better than a terrorist) because this administration is fighting for “freedom”. This logic disintegrates public dialogue into ad hominem arguments, words like “freedom” disintegrate into rhetoric of self-righteousness and self-justification, and critical self-appraisal is thrown out with the bathwater. We are implored to remember the victims aboard the planes and in the towers who died on this fateful day, but these are just disguised calls to revenge and resentment, to increase military funding (recall Eisenhower’s warning against the military-industrial complex), to give our endless support to the thriving bureaucracy, in order to stamp out these “embittered few”, these “thousands of trained terrorists” so “innocents” who died on 9/11 and others will not have died in vain (The National Security Strategy). But will retaliating in immature and dangerous ways, will the slaughter of hundreds of thousands of “innocents” in Iraq and Afghanistan, will the deaths of thousands of American, Canadian, English, Iraq, and Afghan soldiers, will the severed head of Osama bin-Laden, save the victims deaths from banality? It doesn’t look like America’s typical unoriginal and uncreative response of war and violence will save or is saving the victims death from be(com)ing trivial. Perhaps it is now, five years out, to start thinking of different ways to handle the crises that 9/11 has placed in our laps. When should we start forgiving? When is it right to remember and when is it right to forget? How much should we remember and how much should we forget? Is this a time and place (like Northern Ireland, Bosnia, or Rwanda) where we should take note of Nietzsche’s call to “actively forget the past” in order to surmount revenge and resentment? To rework Adorno’s question about Auschwitz (which he later retracted), “Is poetry possible after 9/11?” Or is this a time and place (like Auschwitz) in which “it is essential to remember the past in order to honour our ‘debt to the dead’ and try to insure that it never happens again” (Kearney)? If we are to remember the past, if we are to narrate the events of half a decade ago, how do we do so without “losing the unique character of unspeakable horror” (Kearney)? Let’s not follow the easy path of many Christians, both conservative and liberal, and create or subscribe to some Master Narrative that attempts to explain it away. 9/11 did not happen because God called down destruction on America because of homosexuals, or gay marriage, or whatever. We must avoid “banalising” it “by reducing it to voyeuristic spectacle or kitsh” (Kearney) or a commodity of the culture industry (a real and present danger with the appearance of numerous emotive 9/11 films).
Either way, we must take seriously both the September 11th attack on the Twin Towers and the dissent of the populace concerning the subsequent actions taken by the Bush administration in order to make occasion for strenuous self-appraisal. First, what has the United States done to stimulate such an attack? Could it be that we are trespassers in the Islamic holy land, not just Mecca, but the whole Saudi Arabian peninsula? Could it be because of the untrammeled spread of the global market leaving the Islamic people maimed in its path? Second, why are citizens dissenting? Obviously, some people aren’t pleased with the way this administration is handling things. Instead of hijacking, raping, and using religious vocabulary to justify your actions and arrogantly proclaiming the superiority of your stance while ignoring the critique, why not actually engage the critique and confront the disagreement? How could there possibly be a quandary if your stance and actions are divinely sanctioned? Displacing internal conflict onto an external screen is only a temporary cover-up for crises of national identity, attention cannot be diverted ad infinitum from the internal conflicts (though an endless war on terror was a creative attempt), eventually these crises will have to be dealt with.
If America is to be brought together, let it be brought together not by identifying outside enemies like America did in the 20th century with communists, fascists, Cubans, Iraqis, Vietcong, or North Koreans nor by trivializing the deaths of victims by using their deaths as a method to continually fuel the military-industrial machine to satiate our perceived need for revenge. Perhaps, it is time to think of new ways to “bring America together”. But first it is time to think of new descriptions as to what is meant by “America”, both ideally and in actual performance, or whether or not America should be “brought together” at all.