Happy Birthday, Nelson Rolihlahla Mandela!!

Disclaimer: I am by no means condoning violence. I only ask a question.



Yeah, I'm still on my Michael Jackson kick. Now, apparently no one could get him off drugs. But did anyone at least try to get him out of those tight pants? If you don't like the song, don't play it.

Today, July 18, is Nelson Mandela's birthday. A lot of people, believe it or not, hold him in low regard. I don't know how well known it is that one of the things he was jailed for was bombing government buildings. Since you can get his biography pretty much anywhere, I wanna talk about militant activities, his Umkhonto we Sizwe (MK), translated Spear of the Nation.

I wanna ask you, at what point is violence okay and when does it over-reach? Here's a good introduction on just war theory. Here are two articles that ask the question I ask: what's the difference between (just) war and terror? Admittedly, the question is not new and I'm no special genius for asking.

Don't get it twi'tted. I am a special genius, but asking this question isn't why.

It's just something that gnaws at me, especially when people like Pat-B get on their white, male high horse about who's accomplished what here and around the world. I mean, think about it. Really think about it. You don't actually have to be a historian to realize the only thing the separated white men from everyone else was weaponry. Which isn't to say for fact that there were, or are, better alternatives. That's besides the point. My point is just that there are other, viable alternatives to what European patriarchy, exploration, colonialism, and slavery has begotten us.

Well . . . that's the point in response to the argument that "white men built America!" Right? Cause it's not like there was nothing here they didn't have to destroy and decimate.

So, anyway. Back to Mandela and my question about war and terror.

You know, one of the things that I find most ironic about the "war on terror" is that war itself is terror. Right? Lets ask Iraqis and Afghans and Pakistanis how they feel. Do they not feel terrified?

And what about the Palestinians? Are they not terrorized?

And what about black men? Why shouldn't black American men feel terrified when a police car starts slowing behind them, or beside them? I know Latinos in Arizona gotta live in terror.

So there's that.

I've been wondering about this for years and still don't have a clear answer. The first time the thought crystallized for me was when I learned about the Kikuyu war for Kenyan Independence against Britain. You probably know it as the Mau-Mau Rebellion.

I mean, what makes George Washington any different from the leaders of the militant wing of Hamas? What makes John Adams or Thomas Jefferson any different from Hezbollah?

Why do we so readily accept these simplistic labels like "terrorist" which only describe, at best, one side's "truth." I just think that's something we should start considering before we decide whose violence to sanction and whose violence to forbid. And we should make these judgements based on what's just and what's right, not simply what's in America's best interest.

Some claim that the actions Mandela committed took lives. Mandela says otherwise; but he is rather open and honest about having supported violence in response to government terrorism. The guy isn't a pacifist by any means. He ended up on our "terrorist watch" list because initially, our government supported South Africa's apartheid state. Any group that challenged white minority rule was a "terrorist organization," and a terrorist group for South Africa was a terrorist group for the US. In fact, the US vetoed 4 UN resolutions condemning apartheid in 1982. It wasn't until 1986 that Congress passed legislation restricting trade with South Africa; they overturned President Ronald Reagen's veto, which is but one reason black folks don't too much care for him. In 1991, President George HW Bush opened trade, even though the first fully democratic elections didn't take place until 1994.

In fact, the WMDs Suddam Hussein used against his own people are weapons he got from the US. Osama bin Laden became a hero while fighting "Charlie Wilson's War" against the Soviets. He got his "training" from the US. Fidel Castro came to power because Cubans were tired of Miquel Batista, a US supported dictator. The CONTRA's got their money from the US, not just by the Iran-CONTRA affair, but by the government willfully and knowingly allowing cocaine to flow in to South Central LA.

Nelson Rolihlahla Mandela and other members of the ANC are heroes and heroines because he fought for freedom and justice. There's no question that the loss of life is terrible, but what other means did they have? We have to ask ourselves, still, what's the difference (just) war and terror? Why do we demand so much more of people fighting justice and freedom than we do of people who start wars? Is it the expectation that those who fight for good are good and pure themselves? That's just a simplistic way of understanding the world.

Don't get it twi'tted. I'm not suggesting that violence be the first weapon against injustice. I only ask when is violence justified, and what, exactly, should be the last weapon against injustice? The nonviolent Black Freedom Movement (or Civil Rights Movement) accomplished a great, great deal.

After all, just 40 years after Martin Luther King, Jr, symbol of the Movement in collective memory; and, after 40 years (and continuing) of white backlash; and, 8 years of George W Bush, we have our first black president! Who, by the way, faced public oppositional "Taxed enough already!" parties and talk of secession not 4 months into his presidency, and who chastises the black community publically more than he talks about racism.

My Two Soldiers

Blagojevich smalojevich. Barack Obama has had nothing to do with this pay-for-play scandal. Whatever Blago had in mind, it's clear he knew that bleeping Obama was only interested in giving him bleeping appreciation.

And to the US Senate Republicans: come of it! Stop hating on the UAW. The labor union isn't the problem. US auto companies haven't been making cars people want to buy. When I buy a car, I don't even have intentions of buying from the US auto industry. So, if you wanna clear out the ranks of upper-level, executive management, please do. But leave the union alone. Cause the way I see it, you're coming up against to philosophical contradictions. One is that the cost of workers in the North is too high, especially do to healthcare cost. One way to get rid of the healthcare cost burden on employers would be some sort-of "socialized medicine" via national medicaid/medicare for all, some sort-of single payer system. At the very least, we got to get rid of the system we have know: healthcare for profit. Sorry. People's lives shouldn't depend on insurance companies' bottom lines. And some form of "socialized medicine" will help cut costs for American business - and that's important to you, right?

The other contradiction you're up against is this notion of the free-market. The way I've understood it, in a free market, labor is a form of capital. Why are you so willing to help one side of the free market, business, but not the other, labor? In a truly free market, labor is allowed to make the same self-interested decisions that business is allowed to make. So, in the end, quit hating on a system you purport to support.

Now that I've expressed my feelings about that, I'm moving on. The Republicans are idiots. They're being obnoxious to block the American auto bail-out, or rather, bridge loan. And they're being especially obnoxious to demand Obama come clean about any contact and talk he or his staff or any emissary may have had with Blagojevish. I repeat: if we know nothing else, we do know that Blagojevich was angry that Obama wouldn't play game with him. Doesn't that clear Obama? Quit trying to paint him with Illinois corruption and call me when the Cubs win the Series, or the Bulls win the Finals. I have bigger fish to fry.

My cousin and her husband are due to be ship out to Afghanistan in early January. Hence, my title. And, quite frankly, I'm conflicted about the situation. I understand we need to finish the job in Afghanistan's, and I'm pissed that lame-a, er, -duck Bush didn't do so in the beginning. And the latest reports are that Afghans aren't do any better than they were before. For some, especially women, the situation has become worse. Just a few months ago, I watched part of a special about Afghan women setting themselves on fire as acts of rebellion against someone, be it an abusive husband or an abusive mother-in-law. (I don't know whether or not they had access to guns. But I do know that women aren't likely to use guns to commit suicide. And, I suppose, watching "your" woman burn to death at her decision can stick in the craw of the men who claim control of them.) I only watched part of the special because my stomach couldn't take it. Many of these women were unsuccessful at the quick suicide they intended and eventually died slow, painful deaths. They lived long enough to tell their story, so I guess that's something to support. But watching these talking faces with charred skin and lips noses burned off was more than I can take. Don't get me wrong. When it comes to the crime dramas I love so much, I can stomach stuff like that. I know it's fake. But when it's real, it causes not just my stomach to ache, but my heart as well.

So, part of me understands we may need the military to stabilize the situation enough so that, I would hope, we could send in more nonmilitary aid. But I hate that my cousin and her husband's lives are at risk. Now, I must confess, my cousin, who I'll call Lauren, and I aren't that close. I haven't really spoken to her in almost a year. But she's my cousin, and I love her. And I think she was dumb to have joined the army in the first place. I mean. First of all, I don't believe the myth that for this country is all that honorable. I mean, for me, it kinda depends on the war. I don't know. I just don't think America is worth my life. It's kind of hard to explain, so I'll leave it for a later post. Suffice it to say I think dying for America means you've died to maintain a system that cause more harm than good. And, I just can't accept the notion of dying for America in the face of having committed my life to Christ. I and anyone else who professes to be a Christian is supposed to be seeking God's kingdom and righteousness, and I just don't think America represents either one.

Plus, all the military deaths I can think of post-WWII haven't been for "freedom." They've been for oil or just maintaining control of the world. All this hype about winning the Cold War without bloodshed is just that - hype. Hundreds of thousands have died in the "Cold" War between Russia and America. Don't get me wrong, it's a good thing the situation never came to a war of nuclear weapons, but really. Do you really think someone would've turned America into a communist nation against our will? If you do, it's no wonder you think Al Qeada or any other terrorist organization could turn us into a Muslim country against our will. Or that the immigrants from south of the border will suddenly turn us into a Spanish-speaking 3rd world country. You're delusional.

Did I mention I'm actually angry at Lauren for having joined the Army in the first place? That's why I'm a bit conflicted about her and her husband, who I'll call Jamie, being called to Afghanistan. That's a choice they made as much as a mess BushCo. created. Now, from what I understand, the army was a way out for him. But her? She just initially joined the National Guard for the grad school money. It's not like she couldn't have earned scholarships or my aunt and uncle couldn't have chipped in. In fact, another aunt of ours said they would've gone door to door raising money for my cousin to go to school. For generations, our family has supported education, starting with my great-grandfather who opened a school.

And here's what really bothers me. Lauren and Jamie have three children. Three. One child should be two-years-old by now. Another turns three after Christmas. The oldest turns four in February. So, with 12-16 month tours, my cousin and her husband are going to miss the birthdays of their children, and the missing starts right away.

And what happens if Lauren and Jamie die? I know all of my family will do whatever we can to take care of the children. In fact, that's not even anything I personally have to worry about. But it's something the children will have to deal with. One memory I have of the oldest when she wasn't quite one is of her picking up telephones and remote controls and saying into them, "Elno. Doing!" as though she were expecting Lauren on the other end. And I can hear my cousin always answering the phone, "Hello? How you doing?" I'm not sure the children are old enough to understand death. In my mind, I can only imagine how long they'll expect their parents to be on the other side of a ringing phone or opening door.

Then again, what happens if Lauren and Jamie both survive? We know that post-traumatic stress disorder is under-reported and undertreated. Are they going to be the same parents the children remember?

I'm just conflicted about this whole thing.

And to top it off, cause I feel it needs to be, bin Laden has lived to see his nefarious plan come to fruition. At this point, over 4200 American soldiers have died in Iraq alone. That's more than the number of people who died in the 9/11/01 attacks. 540 Americans have died in Afghanistan. I haven't even started on the number of dead, injured, or displaced Iraqi and Afghan civilians. The total is well over 2 million. Closer to 3 million I would venture to guess. And for what? Are we really any safer? Isn't Obama still sending out messages? And last I heard, this whole Gitmo/torture/rendition method has been working against us; and, according to someone who's talked to foreign insurgents in Iraq, there's an untold number of American deaths due to US torture of so-called enemy combatants.

And now, the Mumbai attacks.

What of my cousin? What of her husband? What of their children? What of them and other families like them. Has this venture really been worth it? If you think it has, you're either delusional or evil. Maybe both.