Current Reading of Note: Writings on the U.S. Civil War by Marx and Engels
The following are selected excerpts from an email conversation I had with my good friend SA, a Swedish social worker currently residing in London, between March 23 and April 3, 2008.
SA wrote: I know that I am very naive when it comes to this racial things and also how people identify with colour etc. I’ve been growing up in Sweden.. I’ve never really talked in the terms of black men, white men, white women and black women… Sometimes I can feel that colour is being stated and I get confused by it…
FB wrote: one of the things i’ve always liked about you is that you don’t think in terms of the racial hierarchy that i’ve grown up with here in america. for me that is refreshing, as is being out of this country, where it can be a burdensome constant. of course we all have our own prejudices (poles and austrians party too much?), but racism is not the same as prejudice, although many people use them interchangeably. at any rate, the answer is not for you to try and see things through the lens of the racial caste system, as in these are “black” people and you are a “white” person. that is a social construct we can both disregard in normal circumstances. this stuff is complicated, but it is in its basic elements no different than struggles over the nature of the social order that are being played out incessantly around the globe. it just so happens that this caste system is organized around the modern definition of race. however, not too long ago brutal wars were fought in europe over definitions of race that were actually more aligned to what we now call ethnicities. the german race, the swedish (scandanavian) race, the french race, etc. when I read nietzsche i was really struck by how often he referred to the “german race”.
even your beloved, peace loving sweden is the product of wars and migrations. in fact, all human societies are. this is the state of man. witness tibet, the balkans, kenya, palestine, and the south side of chicago. the struggle of africa’s descendants in america is but one fairly recent historical strand. obviously this particular struggle is very personal for me, but it always comes down to the personal. and contrary to what you might think, it always comes down to love. people don’t fight for something they don’t love. which is what i was trying to explain to you when i said war is the precursor of peace. the love can be an aggrandized and distorted self-love as in the case of hitler, or a love of liberty as in the case of thomas jefferson, but it’s still love. revolutionary wars are always fought by people who love themselves and their freedom enough to fight against those who would impose some form of tyranny on them.
SA wrote: You are very much more interested in the macro and I am too but I immediately think about how the macro imposes on the micro and vice versa.
I think I understand your perspective.. the true revolutionaries always fight because they love their cause and believe it’s the right way to gain what they love/believe is right. I want to consider this: is it “the goals that makes the means holy”?(swedish expression) I am non-violent and I believe in non-violence. What concerns (maybe wrong word but…) me sometimes with you is that you always read and seem inspired by violent revolutionaries. There are some non-violent revolutionaries that have been able to make powers crumble with peaceful strategies and acts of love and compassion, for example Martin Luther King, Ghandi, Mother Teresa(she made a political difference even if unintended). War does not have to be the precursor to peace. There has been so many peace treaties(?) that has again been the reason for another war. Real peace can never hold humiliation of the opponent. That’s why I believe more in the nonviolence movement. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nonviolence…
What is true love and what is freedom?
FB wrote: first of all, i think about the macro vs. the micro too, but i have some very strong reasons for attempting what i would call a holistic view- which means one that encompasses both the macro and the micro (personal). i have to try and maintain the proper distance from the micro otherwise it’s much too easy to despair and succumb to the weight of the “why me?, why my people?” type questions. i already went through that phase when i was younger. also, understanding the experience of african-americans in a broader human civilization context offers clues on what to do about it. so i can traverse some mental distance from “why me?” to “what have others done in similar situations?” and to “what is really unique or not about this particular situation?” basically i can sum up my entire mental journey on these matters from childhood to the present via these steps:
why am i/we different? (not physically, but in terms of our lives vs. my white peers)-> there is definitely something wrong with this difference -> i have to figure out what the hell is going on-> start learning the truth -> why me/us? -> figure out what must be done about it -> action
remember, that like most african americans, my family and other people close to me told me almost next to nothing about who we are or how we got to this point. we tend not to talk about this type of stuff because it’s painful and people haven’t really figured out what to tell their kids other than go to school and you can be whatever you want (even though that’s not really true). i had to figure it out on my own and it took me until i was 23 to determine a course of action.
when i say “fight” i mean any and all tactics of coercion, including non-violent means. a sit-in or boycott is still coercion, it is still fighting. any active opposition is fighting, is warfare, which is to say anything that is the opposite of acquiescence or ambivalence. my heroes are exemplary to me not because of the means they chose but because of their willingness to fight for the cause of freedom and their brilliance in leading that fight. the fact that the revolutions they participated in were bloody says more about their implacable enemies and the fact that humans on the whole are relentlessly hierarchical, than it does about the revolutionaries themselves. such is the advantage of tyranny that people will kill to achieve and maintain it. and remember that not all revolutions are accompanied by bloodshed http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Velvet_Revolution.
whether or not to wage the battle from inside or outside a system is entirely a matter of strategy and tactics. it’s not a principle, but something to be determined based on the actual realities of the situation. ho chi minh lived in exile for decades, much of it in paris- the heart of the colonial regime he was fighting against. he maintained the fight while in exile and escalated the struggle when the right opportunity to return to vietnam presented itself. sometimes working from within the system is the best course of action and sometimes it isn’t.
i’m quite familiar with the term “agape” thanks to my dad. what he told me is that the literal meaning is “to serve” and that’s been my working definition of love ever since. i think it all resolves down to that. my core motivation is to help, it is love. you are doing your best to serve those kids, and that’s the essence of love, isn’t it?
when i think of freedom i think of man in his natural state of being. imagine existing without any obligations except those that you choose willingly. to the extent that the will of others is imposed on you that is the measure of your freedom. all modern human societies, nations, are artificial superstructures of the imposition of the will of man on his fellow man. and they are all hierarchies of the most free at the pinnacle to the least at the base. i’m sure how you perceive these realities can be helpful or not, but does being a cheery untouchable literally cleaning shit at the bottom of india’s caste system make one more free? perhaps free from hostility or anger, but not from the core imposition that is at issue. i think it’s simply a matter of personality. there are many people who can live under a serious imposition and do so without recourse to fighting while there are others for which that is simply not acceptable. it is the latter, those for who the only acceptable option other than liberty is death, that ultimately lead the cause for a change in the social order.
that reminds me of a recent quote from fidel castro when he recently stepped down as comandante el jefe and handed the reigns of government to his brother. he was asked if in the scenario that the original revolution he led had failed would he still be in the park on his soapbox giving speeches. his answer was “no, i would be dead”.
i know exactly what you mean when you say that normally your identity does not strongly revolve around ethnic or nationalistic notions. i feel exactly the same when i’m somewhere like japan, for instance. unfortunately, as the current presidential campaign shows, that is impossible to do here in the states. the racial hierarchy is in fact a monstrous imposition, and the reason why i will no longer reside here except under certain very specific circumstances. i want to be more swedish!
the only true remedy to humiliation is restoration of respect, which falls under the general rubric of justice.
SA wrote: Thoughts about the world… I think that it’s easier to find what is wrong with a society if you are a part of it. I can say that Sweden has a lot of problems with prejudice, immigration and integration. It’s a segregated society where immigrants struggle to establish themselves. What I’ve heard of Japan is that it is a very racist society. Japanese people in general are friendly to tourists and guests but if you claim a “spot”, a place as an equal you will encounter problems. I think it is because you are part of the American society you easier can recognize what is wrong with it. You know if you are not allowed to be an equal… the day you try to be one.
I think the way you described your process to arrive to the way you see the world and the american society, your ontology, is exactly the process of freedom.
Civil courage. I often think what I would have done if I would have been a citizen in Nazi Germany. Would I have been a fighter or one that would have helped the Nazis? I hope I would have been a good one but who knows? Have you heard the tale of Joseph Schultz? http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?t=87493… [he] didn’t find any evidence that this german soldier actually put down his rifle and went to stand with the people that were about to be executed. But, that might not even matter because the story lives on… and it is a measure of that people wants to believe in the good. It contains hope of humanity. That people actually rather die than do something they feel is very wrong.
FB wrote: “You know if you are not allowed to be an equal… the day you try to be one.” couldn’t have said it better myself. and yes, japanese people are racist, although the younger folks tend to be less so, as is the case in america and elsewhere. the interesting thing is that the new japanese tolerance is a direct result of losing their imperial war. so the change in attitudes was a result of defeat, just as the evolution in racial attitudes here in america is directly linked to the slow march of progress against those hell bent on maintaining tyranny. martin luther king jr. might have preached his whole life and died in relative obscurity had he not decided to confront jim crow head on through non-violent civil disobedience. the revolutionary serves primarily as an example by being unwilling to accept the status quo and actively fighting against it, thus changing the attitudes of those he is trying to lead, not those who oppose him. the latter’s attitudes are affected primarily, if at all, via fighting.
so now sweden, along with much of western europe aside from the uk, is experiencing an unprecedented wave of african and arab immigrants. the initial result of this new diversity is, of course, conflict. http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/08/05/news/diversity.php?page=1. it will be interesting to see how that will all turn out, especially since the fault lines involve a very secular way of life vs. cultures shaped by what i consider to be a particularly backwards (as opposed to the usual backwardness) religion that has yet to reshape itself in the face of modernity.
like you, i’m an elitist, and like you my designation is one determined by character, not by birth or anything else outside of one’s personal control. anyone can be one of the elite, at least according to my definition, as long as they are committed to certain principles like integrity, for instance. i feel entirely unapologetic about this.
you’re definitely right about increasing voter participation being important, and in fact some of that is happening now as a result of obama’s campaign. i’ve argued for years that african americans could wield much more political power than we do. unfortunately, with the huge amount of immigration in this country in recent years, the demographic landscape is rapidly changing in a way that makes strategic voting less effective. yes, asymmetric, or guerrilla warfare is typically used where one is out gunned and out manned. regardless, i don’t feel violence is either wise or warranted. as you know, entrepreneurship is the path to power that i’m pursuing. and although i certainly can’t accomplish this alone, it does not require mass participation either.
that nazi soldier story could be apocryphal, but it’s still powerful. as you said, it’s the idea of sacrifice, of defiance that resonates. these are the same attributes displayed by the very famous tiannamen square man vs. tank stand off. people respond to the actions of the defiant, of those who put their life on the line for freedom. that’s revolutionary. isn’t it?
Ma Famille 