Individualism, And The Dog (Satire)

Individualism,and The Dog

The liberality of the American public in bestowing pecuniary favours on the animals in a Kabul zoo betrays the preference for animals over humans in western civilisation. This satire takes a look at the western obsession with animals. 

Excerpt:

"Now for the political reason, and this is closely tied to the historical. Animals, we have noted, are all of a piece, and so are birds: a myna is a myna is a myna. Association with the dog began just before the imperial expansions – before the ‘discovery’ and destruction of the ‘Red’ Indians, for instance. By identifying with a lesser creature – the dog – the European was able to assuage his guilt at the torment of an equal – the human being in North America or Africa. By being kind to the former, he could be savage with the latter. Notice the case of the Afghans: people are individuals, and that’s a fact that Americans did not wish to take into account. Animals are uniform: they are the same in every hemisphere. Marjan could equally have been an American lion. Not so the Afghan – heaven forbid! She is Muslim, veiled, says her prayers five times a day, wears her hair long, and has never seen the inside of a Wal-Mart store."

The Mind of a Zionist

Louis Brandeis has been described as "A Robin Hood of the law" (The Economist, 26th September, 2009). And well might he be called that, for one of his cases has gone down in history as a fight for the little man, or, rather, the little woman.

Curt Muller, a laundry owner, was charged in 1905 with permitting a supervisor to require Mrs. E. Gotcher to work more than 10 hours and was fined $10.An Oregon law passed in 1903 prohibited women from working more than 10 hours in one day. The case went to the Supreme Court, where Muller's lawyer argued that the statute violated Mrs. Gotcher's Fourteenth Amendment right to due process by preventing her from freely contracting with her employer.

Brandeis produced data to establish that women needed to work fewer hours than men: the court agreed, stating that a woman “is properly placed in a class by herself, and legislation designed for her protection may be sustained, even when like legislation is not necessary for men, and could not be sustained.”

Again, in 1905, to remedy abuses by life-insurance firms, Brandeis devised a system, used in Massachusetts (from 1907), New York, and Connecticut, whereby life insurance was offered over the counter by savings banks at rates within the means of the average working man.

He became known as the people's attorney.

He was the first Jew to sit on the US Supreme Court (1916 - 1939). He must have been a remarkably sensitive as well as intelligent person. Although never a practicing Jew, he dedicated himself to supporting the Zionist cause of setting up a Jewish state in Palestine.

A man of his sensitivity must have lamented the lot of the American Indians as well as that of the Arabs who were to be displaced. It seems not.

He wrote: "As against the Bedouins, our pioneers are in a position not unlike the American settlers against the Indians."

He had an atom of pity for neither the Native Americans nor the Arabs: truly, a people's attorney, a veritable Robin Hood of the Law.

A Bangladeshi Bluestocking

http://www.opednews.com/articles/A-Bangladeshi-Bluestocking-by-Iftekhar-Sayeed-090223-9.html

(click above for article)

Nationalism in Bangladesh is shot through with contradictions, some ludicrous and some dangerous. A local columnist has championed local culture by sounding off against Arab culture – claiming that the hijab is an import from the latter. This would be risible but for the political consequences for that embattled Arab people, the Palestinians.

jamhoorie islamie iran zindabad

The Iranian mullahs may sometimes do what appears silly – such as clamping down on 'bad hijab'; but we must keep in mind that the elite of Iran are very pro-Israel, pro-American and anti-Palestinian (I know, I have many friends among them); and if you look at a military map of the Middle East, you'll find that the only country that has no US military bases is Iran.

Iran has been a close friend of the Palestinians, and the Iranian elite (those tempted to show off their coloured hair in public) hate the mullahs for it.

When American presidents wish to be popular, they kill civilians in a distant country; when Iran's mullahs wish to be popular, they crack down on the elite. Which one is worse?

Far from demonising Iran, we should appreciate its lone attempt to help Muslim countries: it took in Afghan refugees, despite its own economic problems and despite the drugs that came in their wake; it has financed and aided Hamas and Hezbollah, offering the only resistance to Israel's expansionism. It is in constant threat of being bombed by Israel and/or the US.

Iran's planes frequently crash - why? Because America won't let it buy the parts it needs to keep them safe. Despite American and European intransigence, Iran has a great record in promoting health and education. Today, more women are enrolled in universities than during the Shah's time.

I for one know that if Bangladesh is ever bombed by the west, only one country will come to our aid - Iran

the perils of civil society

Dear Michael,

Thank you for your reasoned response: I agree with many of the things you say.

America is plural, no doubt: otherwise, how could someone like Finkelstein or Chomsky have ever written what they have.

I have nothing against America per se: there are aspects of the western civilisation that are disquieting.

I'm sure many Americans dislike the Israel lobby: but that doesn't help the Palestinians or the Iraqis at all.

In fact, I don't blame the Israel lobby one iota, either. The problem is deeper than that: the problem is pluralism itself.

I'm sure you're familiar with the theory of civil society: I have written quite a lot on the subject, and if you visit my web page, you will come across most of them (http://www.geocities.com/if6065/farvardin).

A plural society is characterised by a constant struggle among interest/lobby groups: it's a Darwinian struggle: some lobby groups prosper at the expense of others. Take farmers: US and European farmers have lobbied to make sure third world farmers remain in poverty, and also that US and European consumers pay eight times the world price of sugar, for instance. As you'll find in Finkelstein's book, the Israel lobby has made gains, not only at the expense of the Palestinians, but also at the expense of black Americans. This is normal in a pluralist society.

It took the Israel lobby years (decades) to assert itself in America (during the first Arab-Israeli war, the US didn't lift a finger to help Israel; it was Stalin who supplied Czech
weapons and saved the infant state from destruction.)

Finkelstein observes that it was the Israeli success in the 1967 war that clinched America's support for Israel – this is wrong.

In the book, THE AMERICANISATION OF HE HOLOCAUST, the firs chapter observes how Jewish writers in the early 20th century downplayed their Jewishness. Saul Bellow, in Dangling Man, makes a passing remark on Jewishness; later, however, in What Kind of A Day Did You Have (good story!), Jewishness is prominent. Moral: it takes years for civil society to assert itself. Incremental measures, such as, notably, the radio broadcast of the Eichman trial, led to the lodgement of the Israeli identity (not Jewish identity) in the American psyche. I avoid "Jewish identity" because many devout Jews, such as Rabbi Goldstein and Jews Against Zionism, are against Israel: this is a problem that stems from the French revolution: nationalism (http://onlinejournal.com/artman/publish/article_2607.shtml)

The parallel with trade unions will make it very clearer. Trade unions were banned in 19th century Britain on competition grounds. Then they were legalised, workers got the vote and prominent writers (the Fabian society being the most famous), took up their case, and they became a sacred coy.

Forward tot he 1960s and 1970s. The stranglehold of the unions on Britain was obvious (I was thee during the coal-miners strike in the 70s). Britain "was not working" but government were powerless to do anything. This is a superb example of the tail wagging the dog, how a civic group can control the state itself. What about the business lobby? They were powerless.

Then came Mrs. Thatcher – and she used devious and ruthless measures to crush the inions (hence, Iron Lady). I've nothing against British trade unions – this is merely an example of hoe pluralism can be dangerous.

I have written a great deal: I'm sorry about that. But please bear with me. There are two things I wish to say further.

First, the word 'freedom' is so important in western civilisation because it was the only civilisation to practice slavery on a large scale (I know what you're thinking: who built those pyramids!). Pleas see my article: http://people.brunel.ac.uk/~acsrrrm/entertext/5_3/ET53SayeedEd.doc

The only noble exceptions were the Roman Empire (NOT the Republic) and the Hellenistic world – precisely because they were monarchies.

Secondly, there is a widespread perception among westerners, and especially Americans, that the Muslim world hates them. Now, I live in a country of 140 million Muslims (the second largest after Indonesia). Among my friends, all are passionately in love with the west (especially America). Despite all the evidence I have tried to garner and share, not one person has ever evinced any displeasure with the west. I know you will find this incredible: but it is a fact. Most Muslims LOVE America.

I was once planning to go and live in the UAE: I was told by friends there that if I had an American passport, not only would I have better pay, but far greater prestige.

I don't know how this misconception has arisen that Muslims hate the west: SOME do; MOST love the west. Not only for financial reasons; most people I know think western civilisation (especially America) is the fountainhead of all that's good and great.

You can see my pathetic attempts to "enlighten" my compatriots in this essay: http://poeticdiversity.org/main/prose.php?recordID=1176&date=2007-12-01

I will end this overlong piece with a quote from a Palestinian who was resident in Dhaka: "Our biggest enemy is the ummah; I don't blame America."

Huxley, and the meaning of words

Huxley, and the meaning of words




(article at above link)

This essay is a tribute to the victims of democracy: the long-suffering Palestinians, the traumatized Iraqis, ...black Americans, Native Americans. We're trained since childhood to ignore victims of democracy and to associate democracy – the word – with feelings of well-being and bonhomie. Aldous Huxley was well aware of the conditioning behind the emotive aspects of the word, as long ago as the 1920s: he knew it was sheer falsehood.



Excerpt:


When a Palestinian uses the word ‘democracy’, he means oppression. When a white, middle-class American uses the same word – well, he or she feels the reverse. When a Hindu uses the word ‘beef’, he definitely does not have the same sensations as a Muslim. And when a Frenchman says soixante-neuf, well, we have a fairly clear idea of what he is getting up - or down – to.