American Fire: Still Spreading, Still Inextinguishable

The New York Times ran an obituary of Harun Farocki the other day.

Was it a coincidence that I had just been talking about his provocative film, Inextinguishable Fire, which is about napalm? Perhaps not; I find myself talking about that film a lot.

As we work day after day to try to get Americans to recognize some responsibility for the injury done to others in their name -- by drones, for instance, or by various warplanes made by Chicago's star corporate citizen, Boeing -- I frequently think about Farocki's film.

First, there is the famous recognition that being made to look at the injury one is doing is something that one will almost certainly feel a desire to resist.

How can we show you the injuries caused by napalm?

If we show you pictures of napalm burns, you’ll close your eyes.

First you’ll close your eyes to the pictures.

Then you’ll close your eyes to the memory.

Then you’ll close your eyes to the facts.

Then you’ll close your eyes to the entire context.

If we show you someone with napalm burns, we will hurt your feelings.

If we hurt your feelings, you will feel like we’d tried napalm on you.

We can give you only a hint of how napalm works . . . .

(Translation from the German, reproduced from "Harun Farocki’s Inextinguishable Fire" by Ben Davis on ArtNetNews)

This feels so familiar to me from the work we do throughout the country, trying to get people to  confront such phenomena as drone assassinations.

The other part of Inextinguishable Fire that feels so familiar to me is the "interviews" with "employees" of Dow Chemical.

"Because of the intensified division of labor," the narrator explains, "many technicians and scientists can no longer recognize the contribution the have made to weapons of destruction."

"Our department extracts lareic, oleic, and naptha acids . . . . "

"I'm a chemist. What should I do? If I develop a substance, it can be good for humanity . . . ."

"Besides napalm, Dow Chemical produces 800 other products . . . ."

Does this familiar to you?

I invite you to watch Inextinguishable Fire for yourself. I hope that I won't hurt your feelings.


Related posts

"Once the boat went to full pressure, there was really no other option."

(See In Whose Machine Will YOU Be a Cog? )

It is time now to turn to the dirty secret of American life and the primary dilemma of the antiwar movement: the military money that flows to EVERY Congressional district, and in particular the "good jobs" that members of Congress think they are protecting when they vote for ever-higher levels of military spending.

(See Drones, Permawar, and the Problem of "Good Jobs")









People in Chicago like to walk down the street and look the other way, saying, "This doesn't have anything to do with me." When you ask them to take a flyer, or to learn more about this problem, they wave it away with a bland, "I'm good . . . ."

(See This is YOUR War, Chicago! (Boeing F/A-18's Begin Strikes in Iraq) )



As we think about and discuss issues such as distancing ... authority, collateral damage, and pre-emptive violence ... surveillance ... and technology, does theology (e.g. the Creed) help us make choices about responsibility? Does it move us effectively from the "something oughta be done" stage ... through the "I can do something" stage ... up to and including the "I am doing something" stage?

(See Drones: Am I Responsible?)








With drones, people become just dots. "Bugs." People who no longer count as people . . . .

(See Drone Victims: Just Dots? Just Dirt? )

In my opinion, the reason to focus on drones is this: when we focus on drones, the general public is able to "get," to an unusual extent, the degree to which popular consent has been banished from the process of carrying out state violence. (Sure, it was banished long ago, but the absence of a human in the cockpit of a drone suddenly makes a light bulb go off in people's heads.) It takes some prodding, but people can sense that drone use somehow crosses a line. And that opens up the discussion about how our consent has been eliminated from the vast range of US militarism.

(See "Why focus on drone attacks?")

Now that the Israeli government's killings in Gaza are front-page news -- particularly the way military aircraft is being used to mow down innocent men, women, and children -- Boeing's involvement is in everyone's face.

(See Boeing Has an Israel Problem . . . and Chicago Has a Boeing Problem)







When you think "terror" and "gaza," think "Boeing, Lockheed, General Dynamics."

(See USA: Proud Sponsor of T E R R O R in Gaza!)