Crime Without Remorse: A USA Specialty

Dostoevsky's Crime and Punishment is about an individual student in 19th century Russia who murders an old woman. But it also tells the story of the USA . . . .

Dostoevsky, Crime and Punishment

I sat at an antiracism training sponsored by the ELCA Sierra Pacific Synod last week. One of the participants said, "Our country - we adopt the attitude that nothing we do is ever wrong." I thought it was a simple, elegant explanation of what is meant by "American exceptionalism." It certainly resonated with me, as I have been thinking about the question, "What is it that we as Christians need to face up to in this country? at the most fundamental level?"

I've been reading Dostoevsky's Crime and Punishment again. This time I'm enjoying reading it in an old paperback edition -- the same one that was around our house when I was growing up. Every time I read it I'm struck by layers of meaning that I can't remember noticing before. 

As I began reading, I recalled that a few years ago Edward Snowden was given a copy of Crime and Punishment by his Russian lawyer. At the time I suggested the attorney was using the book to subtly raise the question, "Where are the real crimes that we should be focusing on?"

I noticed three things as I read Crime and Punishment this time:

Jacques-Louis David,
The Emperor Napoleon in His Study
at the Tuileries (Art Institute Chicago)

(1) It's about politics. I had never before taken seriously the importance of Napoleon as a model for the kind of actor on the world stage who is "entitled" to bring about suffering, because it is offset by his great accomplishments. Perhaps to us readers today, Napoleon is a caricature; but at the time the novel was written, he had transformed society, and people who wanted to do things in the world pondered his example very seriously. (Consider: who are the "big players" that people look up to today?)

(2) It's about relativism. The murder committed by the book's protagonist is about as horrible as you could imagine. The book relentlessly zeroes in on him and his physical, emotional, and moral state. And yet . . . . I was struck by this statement, a kind of throwaway line from another character in the book: "It's as well that you only killed the old woman. If you'd invented another theory you might perhaps have done something a thousand times more hideous." (Bantam paperback, p. 396) (Consider: what are the theories we use to justify suffering by other people at our hands today?)

(3) It's about our resistance to remorse. Up until the very last pages, the protagonist is unable to simply say, "I was wrong." (Consider: why can't we admit we were wrong? what are we afraid might happen?)

I wonder: what would happen if students were encouraged to read this book and given the following guidance:  "Dostoevsky's Crime and Punishment is about an individual student in 19th century Russia who murders an old woman. But it also tells the story of the USA . . . . " ? ? ?


Related posts

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

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











Now that it is available online, every American should read the Justice Department memo approving the targeted killing of Anwar Al-Awlaki. Let's face it: the Obama administration and the rest of the U.S. government know that they have a big problem: they want to go to war against anyone they suspect is an enemy -- and skip the rule of law. They wish that a miracle could happen and everyone would just let them do it.

(See A Layman Reads Obama's "Targeted Killing" Memo )

A big Hollywood production of Ender's Game is scheduled for release on November 1. It's a perfect opportunity for us to ask: Are we happy seeing our schools turned into "Battle Schools"?

(See "Ender's Game" and the Militarization of Youth: Can We Talk About This? )




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

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








Svetlana Geier, translator of Dostoevsky's "elephants" (The Brothers Karamazov, Crime and Punishment, The Idiot, The Devils, and Raw Youth) into German.

(See Would You Buy an Elephant from This Woman?)

Confronting Permawar: 5 Lessons from Captain Smith

Captain Nathan Michael Smith -- US Army photo

 
US Army Capt. Nathan Michael Smith has sued the commander-in-chief, President Obama, for ordering war in violation of the US Constitution. Therein lie 5 lessons.


(1) What we've got: permawar

"Permawar" (who benefits?)

The US is making war in so many places, and so continuously, that it not longer makes sense to speak of this war or that war; it is a state of permanent war -- "permawar."

George W. Bush's "Mission Accomplished" stunt only serves to underline the fact that it's never mission accomplished -- the US rolls from conflict to conflict to conflict -- Iraq, Somalia, Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, Libya, Somalia, Yemen, Syria, Iraq . . . .

The next war is always just around the corner (e.g. Iran) or being carried out by a proxy (e.g. in Palestine).

Many people seem to have forgotten this is not the way it's supposed to be. But Capt. Smith hasn't. (He remembers the Constitution he's sworn to to uphold.)


(2) Why we've got it: Congress is asleep

One explanation for the
Congressional coma . . .

People can disagree over Congress' performance in general, but there can be no disagreement that Congress has failed to do it's job with respect to war. Under Article I, Section 8, of the US Constitution, the Congress shall have Power...:

* [Clause 10] To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;

* [Clause 11] To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

* [Clause 12] To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

* [Clause 13] To provide and maintain a Navy;

* [Clause 14] To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

* [Clause 15] To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

* [Clause 16] To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

(3) PS: WE're asleep!

Tell Congress: say NO to war!

And before we ordinary citizens get all huffy, we need to remember: Congress works for us!

Ask yourself:

* do you know the details of Congress' war powers under the US Constitution?

* when was the last time you told your congressman in detail how you wanted her/him to represent you in war deliberations?

* which advocacy group(s) do you work with on issues of war and peace?

(4) It's not hopeless

FLASHBACK:
On Syria, It's Time for Congress
to Remember Who They Represent

It's important to remember that there is a very recent example of the People telling Congress, and then Congress telling the President, that the US should not go to war.

In summer/fall 2013, President Obama was on the verge of going to war in Syria. Congress debated the issue and the US public resoundingly told their members of Congress they opposed war.

The US finds all kinds of ways to contribute to war and violence in places like Syria. But there's no question that US citizens and the US Congress can slow it and stop it when they try.


(5) It will take courage

I am (I will become) Bradley Manning

I can't imagine the courage that Capt. Nathan Michael Smith has mustered to challenge his commander-in-chief.

However, I've noticed we're seeing more and more people come forward to put the truth and justice above their own personal convenience and comfort.

For those of us who lack the opportunity and/or courage to make such big contributions, we can still ask: what can I do to lift up and support the work of such citizen leaders?



Related posts

In four hundred and thirty-five Congressional districts, there is an inseparable relationship between campaign funding for Congressional races and the military contractors. How do we push back?


(See IT'S A LOCK: Why the US Can't Break Its Addiction to War)





Anyone who has had to write a speech knows that the hardest part is to land on the main idea. Once you've got that right, the rest practically writes itself.

(See "The way to respond to ISIS is not through violence." )





First Reps. Raúl M. Grijalva (D-AZ) and Keith Ellison (D-MN) called the U.S. on the carpet for dodging the call from the international community to come clean about its drone killings. Then Reps. Adam Schiff (D-CA) and Walter Jones (R-NC) submitted a bill calling for drone transparency. So ... are we finally going to get the truth?

(See REAL Progressives Demand that the U.S. Come Clean on Drone Killings) 

Peace Day 2016: 3 Ways Climate Action is Vital

The UN International Day for Peace 2016 has been tied to the 17 Sustainable Development Goals. Why is goal #13 -- Climate Action -- so vital to peace?

Sustainable Development Goal 13:
Climate Action

I think it is very possible to question whether many of the Sustainable Development Goals can be achieved before achieving substantial reductions in militarization, starting with the militarization of the US.

But there's no question in my mind that Climate Action (goal 13) goes hand in hand with antiwar activity.

Here are three big reasons . . .


(1) Climate Action ends the Global North's rationale for military dominance of the Middle East.

Ever wonder why the name of the US game is #permawar?

As a result of Climate Action, people have woken up to the fact that the world has far more fossil fuels than we can ever possibly burn.  People like Bill McKibben and his organization, 350.org, have made it clear that there is a carbon bubble, and the vast majority of oil, gas, and coal reserves are going to have to stay in the ground.

And once people in the US and other countries realize oil and gas will soon be a thing of the past, their very next question is "So why should we continue to try to militarily dominate the Middle East?"

Who knows? They may even begin to question whether it was just to fight for oil in the first place . . . .


(2) Our progress on Climate Action calls into question all resource-driven conflict -- the entire "race for what's left."

We need more BASES so we can get more STUFF ! ! !

Prof. Michael Klare has characterized the posture of the Global North as a "race for what's left" -- a race into which the Global South is being unwillingly dragged, and a race that is intimately tied to militarism.

A crucial element of Climate Action is recognition of our addiction to more and more and more stuff, and our inadequate attention to the possibilities of lowering consumption and moving toward economies of conservation, sustainability, and sharing.

It is inevitable that, as we do that, we will recognize the role of militarism in feeding the vicious cycle of acquisition and consumption. We have bases, therefore we must have important interests to protect; our important interests having been protected than a steady flow of economic activity -- raw materials, finished goods, investments, travel, and more?

What happens when we recognize a strategic imperative to do less, spend less, consume less?


(3) Climate Action is essential to our movement building.

Peace and Planet 2015 - model of cross-movement organizing

One of the big lessons to me of 2015 was that the peace movement and the environmental movement have realized that they are not separate movements, and they cannot accomplish their goals as separate movements.

An excellent example of this was the Peace and Planet event in New York City in April, 2015. It brought activists together from around the world to work on peace issues (particularly nuclear disarmament) and climate action.

Another example was the World Nuclear Victims Forum, which I attended in Hiroshima in November, 2015.

Yet another example is the integrated Alternative Global Security System from World Beyond War.


The closer we get to taking serious action on the climate crisis and global warming, the clearer it becomes that it is part and parcel of putting a stop to our militaristic ways.


Other Related Posts

It will benefit us antiwar activists in the US to attend to and reflect upon the importance of these Sustainable Development Goals to achieving the goal of ending war.

(See PEACE DAY 2016: What comes first? Demilitarization? or Development?)












Far more important than the historic performance of fossil fuel stocks is the future correlation of fossil fuel stocks to generalized, systemic risk in the market, and their negative correlation to the few sectors of the market that stand apart from that risk.

(See The Feel-Good Folly of Fossil-Fuel Valuation )




What if we had a massive region in the heart of the country pushing back against the war-crazed conventional wisdom of "more weapons," "more consumption," and "more destruction of the environment"?

(See Another Modest Proposal: A Green, Demilitarized Midwest! )

IT'S A LOCK: Why the US Can't Break Its Addiction to War

"Technicians at Poway [CA]-based General Atomics Aeronautical Systems
worked on the fuselage of a Sky Warrior drone . . . . The company’s unmanned-
aerial-vehicle program includes the Sky Warrior, the Predator and the Predator B."
(2009 photo - John Gibbins / Union-Tribune)

The new film about the arms trade, Shadow World, screened last night in Berkeley.

There is much that is provocative in the film, and everybody who cares about ending war should see it and share it with others in their community.

In particular, the segment about the Pentagon whistleblower Franklin Spinney caught my attention. Spinney talked about the systemic nature of the problem -- military spending that penetrates every single Congressional district. In effect, we're stuck. To break the hold of war on the US, we need to break the hold of military spending on every Congressional district.

Let's admit it: we've got a problem.

This was reinforced in the discussion following the screening, when Andrew Feinstein -- author of the book on which the film is based -- pointed to the inseparable relationship between campaign funding for Congressional races and the military contractors.

This idea is not new to me. I moved to California last year, fully aware that much of the beautiful California lifestyle is built on weapons manufacturing. The Concise Untold History of the United States by Oliver Stone and Peter Kuznick tells us that, between 1951 and 1963, California benefited from $67 billion in defense contracts (p. 218-9). In my own work on the problem of drones, I've come to learn that a relatively new player in defense, General Atomics, has become a star in the San Diego area economy by building Predator and Reaper drones.

Can drone jobs be "good jobs"?

But the question of how to push back against the problem has seemed gargantuan. Four hundred and thirty-five Congressional districts: how to begin?

It occurred to me that I could start by looking into California's 53 Congressional districts. But that alone is a huge job . . . and it's still just one state.

By coincidence, yesterday I was also thinking about another question: the readership of my blog is growing very fast . . . but where is it all headed? What do I hope the outcome is?

And then I realized that what I hope for is actually quite simple: I hope to suggest to people that they can use simple tools like blogs to get important information out to a wider audience.  In effect, these blogs and other social media are our answer to the complaint that the mainstream media doesn't report the important stories, and distorts the stories they do report. We need to be our own media.

Chicago activists are taking on Boeing

None of us has to do the whole job his/her self. We're a swarm.

So here's my promise: I will knuckle down and get to work on those 53 districts in California. And if you're writing about the hold of defense contractors and the Pentagon on those or other districts around the country, share your work with me via Twitter at @scarry. I'll make sure that it gets a big audience.

Posts related to California congressional districts

13th (East Bay): 21st c. Berkeley: More Relevant Than Ever to Antiwar Movement

17th (Silicon Valley): Worldwide War and Conflict (Brought to you by Silicon Valley)



More related posts

There's been a lot of talk in recent weeks and months about the problem of gun trafficking in Illinois, and how we will never meet our goal of stopping the violence in our communities if we can't stop the flow of guns. Maybe it's time for us to eat our own dog food . . . .

(See What If Illinois Became a "War-Profiteer-Free Zone" ? )






How might an uprising against inequality and dismantling the military-industrial complex dovetail?

(See WHERE'S MINE? Inequality in the US and the Military-Industrial Complex )

I've realized that when we ask ourselves, "What is it that we hope people will do?" we must include an element of recursivity: One of the things we want people to do is to involve more people in doing it. In a way, that element of recursivity -- dare I say "evangelism"? -- defines what it means for people to really become part of a movement.

(See Invite More People into Activism! (Pass It Along!) )








 

More than anyone else, the beneficiaries of permawar are the politicians who thrive on the power to make and control wars. The number one prime beneficiary is the President, as well as presidential aspirants. But it doesn't end there . . . .

(See J'ACCUSE: The Beneficiaries of Permawar )

Hunger Games: Hunting vs. Healing

The Hunger Games is everywhere. (What is it good for?)

The kids are back in school, and my mind turns to the question of how we are preparing the next generation to create a better world.

In particular, I'm fascinated by The Hunger Games trilogy -- with sales of something like 50 million copies of the book and global box office over $500 million for the first film, plus who-knows-how-many-dollars in tie-in merchandise sales -- and I want to know: Is The Hunger Games laying the foundation that we want and need for resistance to war?

I've just finished Book I. It's clear to me why so many people can't stop turning the pages of these books, and it's obvious that there is an enormous amount of material that addresses the real world problems of war in our 21st century world.

I'll just mention two big themes here.


Hunting vs. healing

Healing plants -- including boneset, which "was introduced to
American colonists by Indians who used the plant for breaking
fevers by means of heavy sweating." (Wikipedia)
See "The Eupatorium Story; Joe Pye Weed, Boneset and White
Snakeroot-Part One" for a fascinating dive into these
and other healing plants.

A major theme of The Hunger Games is the way people dissociate themselves from injury they are causing.

As the protagonist talks about the upcoming "contest," her friend tries to reassure her:

"Katniss, it's just hunting. You're the best hunter I know," says Gale.

"It's not just hunting. They're armed. They think," I say.

"So do you. And you've had more practice. Real practice," he says. "You know how to kill."

"Not people," I say.

"How different can it be, really?" says Gale grimly.

The awful thing is that if I can forget they're people, it will be no different at all.

" . . . if I can forget they're people . . . . "

(This is a constant concern to those of us who are alarmed about the way modern warfare, particularly using drones, is accomplished by placing a veil of separation between the person doing the injury and the victim.)

There is a striking contrast between the call to hunt and harm, and the urgency of acts of healing. Katniss' mother is a healer, who cares for the people in the community who have suffered the most grievous injurious. In Book I we learn that Katniss' first impulse is to flee these situations. But we also see her learning the importance of being a healer, herself.

The contrast between hunting and healing in The Hunger Games is hard to ignore.


Socio-economic underpinnings of war culture 

Philipinos cutting lettuce, Salinas, California, 1935.
(Photographer: Dorothea Lange.)
Sourced from "A Photo Essay on the Great Depression"

You aren't more than a few pages into The Hunger Games before you realize that what this is really about is a system that combines violent repression and economic oppression, all through a complex of social structures and cultural practices.

Among many telling details, there is this conversation between two allied contestants in The Games who have the rare opportunity to learn from each other about their respective homelands:

"I'd have thought, in District Eleven, you'd have a bit more to eat than us. You know, since you grow the food," I say.

Rue's eyes widen. "Oh, no, we're not allowed to eat the crops."

Permanent hunger and permanent war are all wrapped up together.


These two themes -- hunting vs. healing and the socio-economic underpinnings of war culture -- are just two of the ones that have leapt out at me as I've ready Book I of The Hunger Games. What do you think? Please share your comments below.

As for me, I'm off to buy Book II . . .!


(Psst! Check out these 8 Hunger Games lesson plans, resources, and activities, too!)


Related posts

I recently wrote that "the means available to us today for eliminating war vary greatly from those available from those working to eliminate war in decades past." One of those means is popular literature and film!

(See War Resistance: Is "The Hunger Games" Laying the Foundation That We Want? )

What's really interesting is the way Book II depicts people becoming aware of their own oppression, including the forces of state repression, and developing consciousness of the need to resist.

(See Hunger Games II: What does it take for coal to catch fire? )





 

When will more people begin to ask about the connections between inequality and the military-industrial complex?

(See WHERE'S MINE? Inequality in the US and the Military-Industrial Complex )







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

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

More than anyone else, the beneficiaries of permawar are the politicians who thrive on the power to make and control wars. The number one prime beneficiary is the President, as well as presidential aspirants. But it doesn't end there . . . .

(See J'ACCUSE: The Beneficiaries of Permawar )

AMERICAN MIDEAST M.O.: "When in doubt, attack SOMEBODY!"

U.S. missile launch

I can't seem to get over the fact that exactly a year ago at this time, the antiwar community was striving to prevent the Obama administration from attacking Syria -- the forces of Syrian ruler Bashar al-Assad, that is. That move to attack Syria was thwarted, thanks to the American public raising its voice and members of Congress forcefully resisting the aggression. But now the Obama administration has succeeded in carrying out attacks on Syria -- only by now the attacks are against the opponents of the Assad regime, and are being done in cooperation with Assad.

This has led me to two conclusions:

(1) It's way too easy to launch U.S. missiles. (Maybe if it were a little more costly, challenging, or painful to carry out these attacks, they would at least require someone to give an explanation that makes sense first.)

(2) Americans are happy as long as they're blowing something up. (At least this is how it must look to the rest of the world.)

"ALERT: Pentagon update on new U.S. military operations in Syria"
(Gen. William Mayville shown in screen capture of Fox broadcast.)

Some of us spend so much time going to Federal Plaza in Chicago to protest, I've begun to think we could just set up a generic protest in advance ("Protest U.S. Attack Against __________") and then fill in the blank closer to the time of the actual event.

Chicago, September 23, 2014:
"No More U.S. Criminal Attacks on SYRIA OR Iraq!"
"No More Wars for US Empire"
(Photo courtesy FJJ.)

I am shocked by the glee with which the Chicago Tribune pronounced yesterday "We're at war!" -- as if that were a wonderful thing.  ("Why America Is At War")

Given the reach of mainstream media like the Tribune, that's why it's especially important that we get out in public and deliver a counter-message. Federal Plaza and the corner of State and Jackson is a good place to do it.

Nick Egnatz, NW Indiana Veterans for Peace, speaking against US attacks
on Syria (and more). (Photo courtesy FJJ.)

How else are we going to get the message out?


(Additional photos at Emergency Rally to oppose Bombing of Syria courtesy Roger Beltrami.)


More resources

"U.S. military leaders: Strikes in Syria are just the start of a prolonged campaign" by Craig Whitlock in the Washington Post


Related posts

September 10, 2014 in Chicago - Andy Thayer introduces speakers from 8th Day Center for Justice, Anti-War Committee of Chicago, Gay Liberation Network, No Drones Network, Veterans for Peace, Voices for Creative Nonviolence, and World Can't Wait, all speaking against the Obama administration's latest war escalation.

(See Obama Didn't Invent Permawar. He Just Perfected It.)

It's reasonable to ask what the titans of media who sit high atop the Tribune Tower think of the rest of us. Sometimes they let us know loud and clear.

Everybody needs to read the editorial that appeared in the Chicago Tribune yesterday. The editorial appears online under the title "America's drone program needs to keep flying."

(See DRONE LOVE: If the Chicago Tribune Represents American Public Opinion, the Republic is in Trouble )


In other words, pretty much anybody and everybody gets lumped together with "terrorists"; the vaunted "precision" of U.S. military strikes isn't precise at all.

(See U.S. "Precision Strikes" in a Nutshell )

Many people will argue that it was only because the U.S. made a threat of force that Syria offered to enter into an agreement on chemical weapons. The sequence of events certainly suggests some relationship between the two.

(See "OR ELSE!" (What the U.S. threat of force against Syria teaches us) )

How do you formulate a statement that can somehow convince the United States to eliminate its threatening nuclear weapons?  How do you formulate the 10th request? Or the 100th? Knowing all the time that the United States is in the position -- will always be in the position -- to say, "No" ?  At what point does it dawn on you that the United States will never give up its nuclear weapons, because it has the power and the rest of the world doesn't?

(See 360 Degree Feedback in New York (2014 NPT Prepcom and How the World Views the United States))