Category Archives: Liberalism

Body Cameras & the White Gaze

SIDEBAR
In a sense the problem is even worse: to the extent that there is a racist organization and disposition of the visible, it will work to circumscribe what qualifies as visual evidence, such that it is in some cases impossible to establish the ‘truth’ of racist brutality through recourse to visual evidence. (Butler 1993: 17).
Even before the latest episode of Serial was aired in which white reporter Sarah Koenig just can’t quite believe Adnan’s mother, Jay Caspian Kang had written about white reporter privilege:
“I am still disturbed by the thought of Koenig stomping around communities that she clearly does not understand, digging up small, generally inconsequential details about the people inside of them, and subjecting it all to that inimitable “This American Life” process of tirelessly, and sometimes gleefully, expressing her neuroses over what she has found.”
On techno-fetish and questions of racism and who can be believed in the context of the “war on terror,” see my pieces, here and here.
“We revolt simply because for many reasons, we can no longer breathe.” -Frantz Fanon

The discussion about body cameras is taking off. Some liberals have responded to the criticism of techno-fetishism (see my prior post) by claiming that without the camera in Eric Garner’s case, we would be reduced to “unreliable” witness testimony and confusion — as in the Michael Brown case. Let’s unpack this a little.

The video footage made ZERO difference to getting legal justice for Eric Garner’s family. So, for Garner’s family, the footage meant nothing. For African-American communities too, the ruthlessness, racism and rank injustice of the police is not news. For segments of the Muslim community that have been subject to heavy surveillance, this is not news. In fact, I imagine this is not news to significant segments of communities of color who have had first-hand experiences with the police. So, really, when you talk about how “at least” this time Garner’s murder was videotaped so it can be proven, what you really mean is that it can be proven to the white subject, to those people for whom the racism of the police is largely a theoretical matter. That is the implicit subject towards whom you are oriented. And this subject, you say, can now judge for himself; he doesn’t need to rely on the “unreliable testimony” of witnesses. But, if you are a liberal, you know well enough that “unreliable testimony” here is code for testimony given by Black people. After all, the only testimony that actually mattered in both cases was that of the white cop. So, what you are really saying is let’s continue to invest in the racism that got Garner and Brown killed in the first place by continuing to legitimize the white gaze as the site of truth production.

I know this in the context of drone attacks. I have written about it a little here. It’s never enough for Iraqis or Afghans or Pakistanis to say that they are being killed, that their brother or sister or mother or father were killed by American bombs or American empire; it must always be supplemented by the voice/testimony/witnessing of the western journalist, or the voices of officials within the US government or western humanitarians. Those are the sites of production. It’s never the stories centered on people who have survived or families of the dead that make the front page; the big stories are the ones where officials, or some form of westerner leaks internal information. It’s as if we can see the boy with a glass eye and the prosthetic legs, but we refuse to believe his story until someone humanitarian lawyer or some official says, yes, we sometimes bomb young boys too. Journalists — white and otherwise — who are reasonably intelligent know this and discuss it. As one friend/reporter said to me last night expressing the dismal situation of magazine journalism in which the main character must always be white or western. “You have to ask yourself, if this story were a movie what role is Matt Damon going to play?” And that role, better be at the center of your story. Many of us have had stories killed for failing to abide by that rule. This is not a problem solely in the conservative media. This is a problem of the liberal media. This is even a problem of the most visible media on the liberal to left political spectrum.

So – I, for one, am absolutely sick of this shit.

It is not the duty of periled communities to make you the white/westerner believe. It’s not the duty of these communities to continue to be subjected to the white gaze so you can make your crap judgments at your own leisure. Wake the fuck up and confront your own racism. If you approach every testimony by people of color with suspicion, even as the pattern of racism is written in blood, you’re a racist. And, if you are juxtaposing the “clarity” of the Garner case due to the video as against the “confusion” of the Brown case due to the “unreliable testimony,” you’re a racist. Both of these cases are equally clear and are part of a pattern of racism. To sever the Garner case from Brown’s shooting or Travyon Martin’s or hundreds of other cases is to operate on racist assumptions that only things which can be witnessed by you — the white subject — are clear. You are making a highly racially charged argument that relies implicitly on a series of racist propositions in order to make it make sense.

Finally, you might want to ask yourself why it is that you are so hung up on body cameras, why it is that attempts to point out that body cameras won’t resolve structural racism, lead you to debate the issue of body cameras rather than think, discuss and organize against racism.

Tagged , , , , ,

Bros and Colonialists

Looking at this, I am irresistibly reminded of this:

Not till the mountains were left behind and the American pioneers began to push across the trackless plains, did America cease to be English and become American. In the forests and on the trails of the Frontier, amid the savagery of conflict, the labor of reclamation, and the ardors of the chase, the American nation was born….

Now let us turn to the other side of the world, where…the British Empire may be seen shaping the British character, while the British character is still building the British Empire. There, too, on the manifold Frontiers of dominion, now amid the gaunt highlands of the Indian border, or the eternal snows of the Himalayas, now on the parched sands of Persia or Arabia, now in the equatorial swamps and forests of Africa, in an incessant struggle with nature and man…The Frontier officer takes his life in his hands; for there may await him either the knife of the Pathan fanatic, or the more deadly fevers of the African swamp. But the risk is the last thing of which he takes accountI am one of those who hold that in this larger atmosphere, on the outskirts of Empire, where the machine is relatively impotent and the individual is strong, is to be found an ennobling and invigorating stimulus for our youth, saving them alike from the corroding ease and the morbid excitements of Western civilization.

In this lecture delivered in 1907, George Nathaniel Curzon, the former British Viceroy of India (1898 – 1905) who would go on to become the future British Foreign Secretary (1919 – 1924), discussed frontiers as a critical geography for the development of imperial character. Note how closely the violence of empire is here, entwined with the development of character. That is, the overwhelming force meted out upon “darker” races, is indivisible from the development of the character of the “white” imperial. Going out there in the wilds of the “frontier” zone, whether it is Africa or Persia or wherever, is what ennobles, invigorates and saves them from the “corroding ease” of western civilization. Risk as experience is critical to this venture, for it is through the performance of exposing oneself to harm that the character develops. I say “performance” because of course when the colonialists go to Africa or Persia or wherever, they are backed by the force of empire. On mere suspicion of threat to the white man, entire villages are burned. Entire towns are bombed. Curzon knows this.

For the horrific deaths of 3,000 people on American soil by a murderous gang on 9.11, entire regions have been laid waste — again. It is on the tide of the latest empire that Bro TV’s rides (the link above). (I realize it’s a Kickstarter campaign, but the point of parsing through it is that it’s exactly in such semi-formal locations that the half-submerged racialized and imperial tics, attitudes and practices really flourish. I hope the actual show proves me wrong, but well, let’s see.)

The show’s host Adam Valen Levinson says, they are going to the “most forbidden and unfamiliar places on earth.” But, forbidden and unfamiliar exactly for whom? The staging of western subjectivity as the subjectivity goes uncommented. The co-creator, Marc Iserlis chimes in, “places with the worst reputations imaginable or without any at all.” That the reputation of the country which is in their first episode, Iraq, correlates to its position as a punching bag or (perceived) adversary for American empire also goes uncommented — even though it is that political relationship which delivers the sense of frisson, danger and risk that makes it desirable for a Bro TV episode. The twining of fear and desire circulates empire as entertainment:

When we thought of all the places we could possibly go to kick off the show, we couldn’t think of a better place (with a worse reputation) to have a great time in. While the name Iraq generally dictates images of fear and danger, we’d heard of Iraqi Kurdistan as an easily-accessible, warm-hearted autonomous region with gorgeous landscapes and awesome kebab.

In the months before we left, conflict erupted in Iraq.  On the day our flight was scheduled out of New York, ISIS was reported 30 miles away from Erbil (the airport on our tickets).  It was not at all what we had anticipated — all the dangers of “Iraq” seemed so much more real.  Still, our goal didn’t change: to see what the place felt like at a time when its reputation was worse than ever, and to connect with people on the ground living their day to day lives.  This was the only way we knew how to find out.

And what we found gave us so much hope amidst all the craziness.

ISIS is 30 miles from Erbil. The Taliban are 60 miles from Islamabad, a refrain oft-heard in 2009 and 2010 as the TTP took over Swat, a phrase often-uttered by two sets of people: 1) journalists eager to boost their own war-correspondent credentials and ‘devil-may-care’ bravado and 2) pro-war hawks to stage their own vulnerability, even if the political realities of those miles means that the TTP has little to no-chance of militarily taking over Islamabad. In other words, the instrumentalization of danger twined the journalist with the war-hawk, each using it for his own ends. It is a well-worn, tired, imperial tradition in which Bro TV now partakes. But, it has launched the career of many a western usually white, usually male journalist just as it also launched the careers of colonialists.

The twist is that unlike Curzon who saw “savages” on the frontier, these bros — and by that word, I now mean the rather irritating staging of pseudo-edgy white masculinity (see the smash shots set to pulsating music of jumping off cliffs, riding with soldiers, gun in hand in the Vimeo video) — want to find bros everywhere. (The sexism of this project would require a whole other post.) That is, they want to find people like them everywhere. But, there aren’t in fact people like them everywhere because the rest of us are positioned quite differently vis-a-vis the imperial project. Those living and surviving the violence in Iraq for instance, don’t necessarily have the option of choosing to perform their risk for money, fame, or television fame. Even living next door to ISIS won’t land them a television show, unless of course, it is mediated by a western, usually white subject — like the Bro TV team. In other words, these bros — the ones making the show — are intertwined with the imperial project, even, the privilege of the imperial project. So, they might find allies, even friends in Iraq or wherever they go — but bros? No. What Bro TV  does then is to make imperial force, that is, the very condition for the Bro TV project, invisible. It operates by rendering the privilege and position of the Bro team invisible by presenting bro-dom as some kind of un-located, universal condition in which they are just some of many bros. This is, in fact, exactly how American empire operates.

Empire today is fundamentally liberal.  The imperial project now rests rather heavily on the idea of a globalized single humanity — a globalized “bro” — which then deserves “democracy” and “freedom” or whatever — and hence American empire must enforce it. Levinson notes that in their search for bros, they are going to “all these places we’ve been marking off limits, to connect, to eat the food and find out what it really feels like to be there.” In their search for “bros,” COIN forces also sit around having food and tea with local community leaders in places marked as “off-limits.” What the Bro TV project and COIN share is an imaginary that assumes a global project, that wants to pretend all sides are equal, and expects others to accede to their bizarre delusion. Ignore those uniforms, the guns, the occupation. Ignore the camera. Let’s eat.

The point isn’t that one can’t “connect with people.” The point is, you can’t do it when you go looking a type — the bro — in order to make a terrible television show and cash in on your choice of taking a risk. Yes, sometimes, western journalists get killed, and it’s awful. I still haven’t been able to watch any of the circulating videos. But, the point is that while they are globally mourned, there’s no equivalent for the *many more* local journalists who are killed, and who do this work because they have no choice. The validation of western journalists for making the choice to take risks while locals who have no option to do otherwise rarely get the recognition they deserve, speaks to the utterly racist backdrop of global media circulation. This is what the Bro TV campaign capitalizes on.

This ain’t your grandfather’s racism. It’s hip, it’s cool, it elects Barack Obama and it’s calling you for dinner.

Tagged , ,

Reporting Drones: Consent, Complicity & Racialized Media

Here are my quick observations (3 of them) on some of the articles that have come out in the last few days on drones. These are, I stress, musings/thoughts that I am working out/ notes to myself. So, if you read them, please take them as such–and not my final word.

1. Mark Mazzetti How a Single Spy Helped Turn Pakistan Against the United States (on Raymond Davis) Apr 14.2013

The interesting point about this article is it depicts, quite clearly, how little control the State Department has in trying to establish relationships in Pakistan. Shorter CIA to State: STFU. Why that’s relevant is below this quote:

Munter saw some value to the drone program but was skeptical about the long-term benefits…He would learn soon enough that his views about the drone program ultimately mattered little. In the Obama administration, when it came to questions about war and peace in Pakistan, it was what the C.I.A. believed that really counted.

Munter said he believed that the C.I.A. was being reckless and that his position as ambassador was becoming untenable. His relationship with the C.I.A. station chief in Islamabad, already strained because of their disagreements over the handling of the Davis case, deteriorated even further when Munter demanded that the C.I.A. give him the chance to call off specific missile strikes. During one screaming match between the two men, Munter tried to make sure the station chief knew who was in charge, only to be reminded of who really held the power in Pakistan.

“You’re not the ambassador!” Munter shouted.

“You’re right, and I don’t want to be the ambassador,” the station chief replied.

This turf battle spread to Washington, and a month after Bin Laden was killed, President Obama’s top advisers were arguing in a National Security Council meeting over who really was in charge in Pakistan. At the June 2011 meeting, Munter, who participated via secure video link, began making his case that he should have veto power over specific drone strikes.

Panetta cut Munter off, telling him that the C.I.A. had the authority to do what it wanted in Pakistan. It didn’t need to get the ambassador’s approval for anything.

“I don’t work for you,” Panetta told Munter, according to several people at the meeting.

But Secretary of State Hillary Clinton came to Munter’s defense. She turned to Panetta and told him that he was wrong to assume he could steamroll the ambassador and launch strikes against his approval.

“No, Hillary,” Panetta said, “it’s you who are flat wrong.”

There was a stunned silence,…

There are a series of articles and news reports coming out now elaborating on the complicity between segments of the Pakistani state and the US. For example:

Nic Robertson Musharraf Admits Secret Deal with US on Drone Strikes Apr 12.2013

These reports are of import because there has long been the question of whether the Pakistani state has given consent to the US for drone bombing. First, as the article above clearly shows, the State Department doesn’t even have control of its own agenda, never mind Pakistan’s elected government when it comes to the machinations of the security establishment in the US. In Pakistan, (as in the US), the question of the state must be disaggregated into its various parts. The military, which is by far the strongest arm of the Pakistani state, has been funded, backed, armed and encouraged by the US. That has been the case for decades so much so that the only Pakistani military coup that wasn’t backed by the US was Musharraf. That changed after 9.11.

The structure of the Pakistani state is, therefore, thoroughly conditioned by the arrangements that have existed between the American and Pakistani security establishments. The Pakistani army has its own interests, independent of the US, but however fraught that relationship is, its continuance has been the overriding concern for much of Pakistan’s history.

To put it baldly, the US has spent billions bribing the Pakistani security establishment and thus fundamentally re-structuring the Pakistani state to the detriment of Pakistanis. In that context, talking about “consent” of one allegedly independent state to another, is laughable. These conditions structure the way drone attacks happen and who bears the responsibility. Darryl Li made this point with respect to US secret prisons in other countries.

Therefore contrary to the discussion of consent given, the discussion that ought to be had is about consent bought: from whom and to what effects. The American government dispenses with its responsibility and its crimes, displacing them onto other states. That does not, of course, mean that those governments are not complicit or war criminals. But, it does mean a discussion that is much closer to the character of the actually, existing relationships between the US and other countries rather than the pretense that we are simply dealing with independent, container states.

2. Mark Mazzetti A Secret Deal on Drones Sealed in Blood (on Nek Mohammed) Apr 6, 2013

The deal, a month after a blistering internal report about abuses in the C.I.A.’s network of secret prisons, paved the way for the C.I.A. to change its focus from capturing terrorists to killing them, and helped transform an agency that began as a cold war espionage service into a paramilitary organization.

Ok, this article shows what I have been saying for a while now. Accountability and transparency are weak procedures. The demand for these procedures in the context of secret prisons meant that the CIA shifted its tactics to drone attacks. The state learns, and adapts. Another example was Israel’s shift towards torture tactics that left no marks on the bodies of Palestinians following human rights reports documenting torture using bodily wounds, scars and marks as evidence.

3. Jonathan Landay Obama’s Drone War Kills ‘Others,’ not Just al-Qaida Leaders (on secret papers received by McClatchy) Apr 9.2013

Jonathan Landay US Collaborated with Pakistan Spy Agency in Drone War Apr 09.2013

Micah Zenko An Inconvenient Truth Apr 10.2013

Zenko’s article is subtitled, “Finally, proof that the United States has lied in the drone wars.” It’s useful that these reports are out there, but I find it troubling that liberals and leftists have been touting these reports as “Finally! proof!” which is how some have also tweeted about it.

For one, the bodies of dead kids should’ve been enough proof. Even the little wire service stories –even as they are largely driven by various interested parties –have also occasionally noted the confusion on the ground about who was killed. That these stories –those of the government’s own pronunciations and declarations– continually grab the major headlines when it comes to Pakistan rather than stories from the ground, perfectly rehearses the spectacle of secrets. It invests a kind of legitimation and power in the American government to determine the line between the truth and a hunch, between the visible and the invisible. I wrote about this in my New Inquiry piece.

This is also what happens when the major voices, even among liberals and leftists, are those of white males, with journalists or analysts from the country in question either entirely missing or brought on for bit parts in the narrative that is written largely by those in empire. I am not accusing Zenko or indeed anyone else of maliciousness or even support for American empire, but I do think these stories would look quite different if they were being told by people from the countries in question. It would shift perspective, and it would highlight as well as marginalize different aspects of the issue. As it is, the conversation is had among largely American, largely white, largely male voices, and the only real options for the rest of us are either to enter that conversation by agreeing or disagreeing, or risk irrelevance.

Finally, the intense focus on the government’s narrative lets journalists and the media off-the-hook for not doing the hard work of actually reporting the stories of those on the receiving end of America’s war in Pakistan. I say “in Pakistan” as a caveat because, interestingly, the recent gruesome, shocking murders of 11 Afghan children by NATO did get its own full-length articles, complete with photos. In the Afghanistan context, this happens much more frequently. And this is, I suspect, because there are western, largely white reporters on the ground. In other words, it speaks to the racist structural underpinnings of the modern media, and about those we think can serve as legitimate witnesses and those whose stories are always cast in doubt because there were no western (white) bodies in the vicinity to lend them credibility.

Tagged , , , , ,

To Think With

There are some great videos out on the interwebs, so here are few of what I’ve been watching, thinking about as I report the terror war(s). Oh yes – and there’s David Harvey, just because.

Critique of Humanitarian Reason | Didier Fassin:

Video of the House Judiciary Committee Hearing on drones here and witness testimonies here.

The Everwhere War | Derek Gregory

The Everywhere War – RT with Derek Gregory – 10 November 2011 from Forensic Architecture on Vimeo.

Reading Marx’s Capital | David Harvey:

Tagged , , , , , , , ,

The headlines according to race

Thousands of police stops and searches were done without the legal justification needed to do so, a new study conducted by a law professor at Columbia University finds. According to its findings, force was 14 percent more likely when police stopped Blacks and 9.3 percent more likely when stopping Hispanics as compared to whites. And–again in comparison to whites–weapons and other contraband were seized nearly 15 percent LESS often in stops of Blacks and almost 23 percent LESS often in stops of Hispanics. Blacks were 31 percent more likely to get a summons.

And if you go to prison: Inmates and employees at 10 federal prisons were exposed to toxic metals and other hazardous substances while processing electronic waste for recycling according to a report from the Justice Dept. And in case giving health problems and killing a disproportionate number of non-whites within the US wasn’t enough, unspecified amounts of that toxic waste has been shipped overseas, possibly to third-world countries where it can leach into the groundwater and harm local populations.

A white woman, who is named, surrounded by a halo of brown kids who are unnamed gets the cover of NYT’s Sunday Magazine. Racism works by saving brown women, hunting brown men and making sure none of them ever come over here.

Tagged , , ,

Liberal Betrayals

(Update below)

Garry Willis bemoans Obama’s latest betrayal over Afghanistan at the NYRB blog. He writes:

Others I respect have given up on him before now. I can see why. His backtracking on the treatment of torture (and photographs of torture), his hesitations to give up on rendition, on detentions, on military commissions, and on signing statements, are disheartening continuations of George W. Bush’s heritage. But I kept hoping that he was using these concessions to buy leeway for his most important position, for the ground on which his presidential bid was predicated.

There was only one thing that brought him to the attention of the nation as a future president. It was opposition to the Iraq war….

And then Willis says something–I’ve put in boldface below–that really left me dumbfounded:

He [Obama] said that he would not oppose war in general, but dumb wars. On that basis, we went for him. And now he betrays us. Although he talked of a larger commitment to Afghanistan during his campaign, he has now officially adopted his very own war,…

Um, so the problem here is that he’s doing something he said he was going to do? Really? Wow. Whatever one may think of Obama, that pretty straightforwardly does NOT qualify as a betrayal. What it is is the sound of the liberals self-constructed grand delusions about America’s first (half)-Black President crashing all around them. It’s the sound of boots marching to Afghanistan and drones killing in Pakistan. And as usual, it will be the Other folks who’ll pay with blood for the fuzzy feel-good fantasies that liberals and many progressives draped on Obama.

Now, I’m sure Willis believes what he says. The hegemony of the system depends on the ritual of aggression and apology, of re-categorizing moments of naked truth as outliers, bad apples, and betrayals. The problem is not the alleged ‘betrayal’; the problem is that liberals believe there is one.

***

Update

Chris Hedges has an intelligent, excoriating critique of liberals over at Truthdig. An excerpt:

I am not disappointed in Obama. I don’t feel betrayed. I don’t wonder when he is going to be Obama. I did not vote for the man. I vote socialist, which in my case meant Ralph Nader, but could have meant Cynthia McKinney. How can an organization with the oxymoronic title Progressives for Obama even exist? Liberal groups like these make political satire obsolete. Obama was and is a brand. He is a product of the Chicago political machine. He has been skillfully packaged as the new face of the corporate state. I don’t dislike Obama—I would much rather listen to him than his smug and venal predecessor—though I expected nothing but a continuation of the corporate rape of the country. And that is what he has delivered.

Read the whole piece, Liberals are Useless, here.

***

Phil Ochs’ wrote his song, Love Me, I’m a Liberal in 1966 amidst the civil rights and anti-war movements.  It’s a searing critique of the liberal attitude, (worth listening to for his voice alone). Two of my favorite stanzas:

Phil Ochs

Phil Ochs

I go to civil rights rallies
And I put down the old D.A.R.
I love Harry and Sidney and Sammy
I hope every colored boy becomes a star
But don’t talk about revolution
That’s going a little bit too far
So love me, love me, love me, I’m a liberal…

I read New republic and Nation
I’ve learned to take every view
You know, I’ve memorized Lerner and Golden
I feel like I’m almost a Jew
But when it comes to times like Korea
There’s no one more red, white and blue
So love me, love me, love me, I’m a liberal

Tagged , , , , ,