FORCED UNIFORMITY

Wars make Societies into Hostages of the Government. Growing Mistrust toward the Policy of the White House

By Mumia Abu-Jamal

[This article published in: junge Welt, 1/08/2005 is translated from the German on the World Wide Web, www.jungewelt.de/2005/01-08/010.php.]


In light of the last US presidential election, the next four years will stand under the sign of continuous wars. Nothing will change even in 2008 regardless of who is elected president. The largest supposed opposition party will not dare to effectively oppose the present government line because it essentially depends on the gifts of large corporations. The Democratic Party is afraid of posing as “unpatriotic” or even worse as “too soft on terrorism”. The democrats know that millions of Americans are ready to bear the burdens of war, even of a “dirty war” instigated under pretexts and with one of the worst motives: greed.

There is the opinion that the population of the US may be too dumb to recognize the true reasons for the Bush administration waging war against Iraq. I am not really convinced of that. Rather I believe that many people were completely indifferent. Declaring Arabs as the “enemy” was simple since the majority adheres to a foreign faith. That Iraq actually had nothing to do with the attacks of September 11, 2001 doesn’t matter any more even if this was argued initially.

The author and social critic Randolph Bourne described the character of war very correctly in his 1918 essay “The State”. “War helps the recovery of the state. War automatically sets in motion irresistible forces of uniformity in the whole society, that passionate agreement of the majority with the state leadership against minorities and individuals who lack the necessary herd instinct forcing them to obedience. The machinery of the government creates the legal framework for enforcing drastic punishments. The minorities will either be so intimidated that they persist in silence or turn around in a nearly imperceptible process and seemingly voluntarily change their convictions.” (from: Howard Zinn, Anthony Arnove, “Voices of a People’s History of the United States”, New York 2004). War, Bourne explains, creates radical social divisions. The part of the population that is for the war turns against those fellow-citizens who are against the war and brands them traitors – as though the “land” were identical with the political leadership!

Even if Bourne describes events around the First World War, his insights mirror our present ruled by the “uniformity of feelings..in war times”.

Bourne explains: “No religious impulse could have produced such a massive submission or such readiness to sacrifice and toil in the American nation. No worldly good like a complete education or the exploitation of nature could have induced the nation to so squander wealth or life or allow such strict coercive measures as seizing money and war-zealous citizens. However the highest degree of collective effort is required in waging war as an offensive self-defense for such a difficult matter as democracy.” We are all so conditioned that we largely accept this. We should swim with the stream, not against it.

On the other hand, millions took to the streets to oppose the threatened war before the first shot was fired. A great mistrust appeared toward political promises and assertions justifying wars. The US presidents of the 20th century offered enough reasons for this skepticism of the population. People experienced how men returned from “glorious” wars with mangled bodies and destroyed minds. That glory had nothing to do with the reality of war was clear to them.

Taking to the streets in protests against the war in February 2003 was a good beginning. It would have been better if this had continued in an even larger extent in the last election year. Unfortunately that did not happen. Still people are teachable particularly when they have had painful experiences. This gives us hope that they will not stop in the future before the politicians are forced to tackle the demands.