Totalitarian Information Awareness

"They see you when you're sleeping.
They know when you're awake.
They know if you've been bad or good
So be good for goodness' sake!"

Our colleague and friend Charngchi Way conducted an interview with Historian and Activist Howard Zinn recently via email. The following is the correspondence we received from Charngchi:

Historian and activist Howard Zinn is the author of a new book, A Power Governments Cannot Suppress (City Lights Books, ISBN 0-87286-475-8) I had a chance to conduct this interview via email, due to his busy speaking schedule. I received the reply on December 10^th, 2006. Get it at City Lights Books

Charngchi Way: Do you think having a “mercenary army of the disadvantaged” changes the approach of the antiwar movement, as opposed to having a “citizen’s army” as we had in the past?

Howard Zinn: Not really. In both cases, whether the young person is drafted into a “citizen’s army” or is induced to enlist because of economic benefits, it is an army composed largely of working-class people risking their lives for the benefit of the nation’s rulers.

Charngchi Way: What was your reaction to the US-Israeli attacks on Lebanon and Gaza? Especially to the US efforts in blocking a cease-fire and speeding up arms shipments. Do you think the much lowered standing of the Israeli leadership with the population can move the peace settlement process along?

Howard Zinn: Those attacks only illustrated the closeness of Israeli policy and U.S. policy, their common ruthlessness, their common addiction to military solutions. My hope is that every obviously immoral act of aggression educates more and more people about the situation.

Charngchi Way: Most mainstream criticism of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan seems to be narrowly focused on the operational side of the wars, never questioning the legitimacy of the invasion and the moral implications, and at times openly supporting the invasion of Afghanistan while denouncing actions in Iraq. I have seen this even in activist circles. Do you think it is essential that the antiwar movement and scholarship have a principled opposition to the wars rather than a pragmatic one? Do you think some pragmatic opposition can be useful for the peace movement?

Howard Zinn: If there are people whose only opposition is a pragmatic one, well, we must accept that, and be willing to add their voices to ours. But our voice must be a principled one, in which we point to the fundamental issues—the expansion of the U.S. empire as behind the entire Mid-east policy, the need to abolish war totally, not just this war.

Charngchi Way: What form of nonviolent resistance can you imagine working in the present climate here in the United States? What about activists in a more repressive state, like China for example?

Howard Zinn: Every situation requires different tactics. And everyone can only be asked to go as far as he or she can, and we must welcome any level of disobedience. In the U.S. refusal to serve in the military is the most important form of resistance. In China, resistance may take more subtle forms, perhaps in the culture, in literature, for instance, because often rumblings in the culture precede political change.

Charngchi Way: You wrote that “The term ‘just war’ contains an internal contradiction. War is inherently unjust, and the great challenge of our time is how to deal with evil, tyranny, and oppression without killing huge numbers of people.” Can you comment on the modern Just War theories from the likes of Michael Walzer and others?

Howard Zinn: Keep in mind that for Michael Walzer and others the Jewish issue, the Israeli situation, lean them more easily to acceptance of “just war.” And so, Walzer accepted certain atrocities of World War II because of that. I believe he supported the first Gulf War and the war against Afghanistan, thinking always of Israel. Many people are still living in the aura of World War II and can’t rid themselves of the idea of “just war” even though the technology of war has reached the point where war inevitably is a war against innocent people and therefore no war can be just.

Charngchi Way: The United States has overwhelming military advantage over the rest of the world combined; it consciously drives policy towards the military arena. Many would argue that this is a good situation, and act to maintain this dominance. Do you ever think that this enormous power can be wielded for good, not just in rhetoric but in reality?

Howard Zinn: This enormous military power cannot do any good, because military action is inevitably harmful. Economic power is another matter, and yes, the U.S. can use its great economic resources to help people in the Third World.

Charngchi Way: Eqbal Ahmad said “You do not solve social problems by individual acts of violence. Social problems require social and political mobilization.” How do we mobilize the population as effectively as states do, and staying clear from employing violence, coercion and deception?

Howard Zinn: Look at history. Look at the Civil Rights Movement in the U.S. and the movement against the war in Vietnam, and the movement in South Africa to overthrow Apartheid—all largely nonviolent movements. We can learn from them.

Charngchi Way: You’ve said that we should be ashamed for not having eliminated war, but “that shame should not immobilize us. It should provoke us to action.” Often when I talk to friends and family about some of these grotesque facts we have touched on, they resign to powerlessness and despair, and resist the call to action. How can we best overcome this sentiment?

Howard Zinn: By showing how in history, apparently powerless people have at certain moments been able to bring down mighty corporations, even governments. Also, it’s important for them to know that when you don’t act you will be frustrated and unhappy. If you act, even if the chances of victory are small, just participating in a struggle for justice makes your life more interesting, more worth living.

Charngchi Way: Obligation to the state is the essence of totalitarianism. Most of the time that obedience also means inclusion into the managerial class, and we see many talented and otherwise good hearted people acting like moral monsters in their institutional role. Are there ways to reverse this trend?

Howard Zinn: Have them read Tolstoy’s story: “The Death of Ivan Illich,” where a very successful judge, who has done all the “right things” in his life, is on his deathbed and wonders why, with all his “success” he feels bad, unfulfilled.

Washington Post, January 1, 2006

[ N.B. This webmaster was one of those arrested, hog-tied for thirty hours,  and abused that day. Our class action suit is still in the works. If you have any semblance of freedom of speech in this country THANK A PROTESTER.]

THAT DAY IN September 2002, when D.C. police arrested hundreds of anti-globalization protesters in Pershing Park, continues to hang like a dark cloud over the city. The arrests, carried out even though demonstrators and bystanders had not been given an order to disperse, cost the city plenty. As part of a settlement, seven people caught in the roundup were paid a total of $425,000 by the city, Police Chief Charles H. Ramsey had to write a letter of apology to each plaintiff in a lawsuit against the city, and new police procedures -- induced by the D.C. Council -- were put in place.

The cloud, however, has not lifted. Last week, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit ruled that Assistant Police Chief Peter J. Newsham, who ordered the cordoning off of the park and the arrest of the hundreds inside, can be held personally liable for his actions. Mr. Ramsey is not off the hook, either. The three-judge panel said more information is needed regarding the chief's participation in the event before the court can decide whether he can be granted personal immunity in the class-action lawsuit. Reverberations from the Pershing Park debacle are far from over.

The police action against the protesters was indefensible, although the chief and Mayor Anthony A. Williams defended the behavior of Assistant Chief Newsham and his officers at the time. Arresting people assembled in the exercise of their First Amendment rights without warning that an arrest was imminent or before issuing a request to disperse; retaining them with plastic handcuffs; taking them away in buses; and detaining them for as long as 36 hours not only violated their constitutional rights, it also seriously blemished a police department with an outstanding record in handling demonstrations. The chief issued a letter of apology to D.C. residents that we published a year ago. The court ruling makes it clear, however, that the city has some distance to go before police conduct with peaceful demonstrators is no longer an issue of public concern.

The treatment at the Third Precinct is not as bad as the above photo. Yet.