tecumsehproject.org
  • Blog
  • home
    • About
  • Capitalism and Unhappiness
    • Unhappiness
  • Pleonexia and Psychopathy
    • Psychopathy
  • Human Nature; Empathy and Equity
  • Happiness/Living Well
  • Economics for the 99%
  • Hippies/Beat
    • Music
  • The Library

Chomsky: How Do We Defend Ourselves from the Corporate and Imperial Forces That Threaten Our Existence?

7/16/2013

0 Comments

 
Picture"Sky Spirits" Pablo Amaringo
July 5, 2013  | by Noam Chomsky, reposted from Alternet.org
(Graphics and links to Indigenous sites added, Editor)

With wrenching tragedies only a few miles away, and still worse catastrophes perhaps not far removed, it may seem wrong, perhaps even cruel, to shift attention to other prospects that, although abstract and uncertain, might offer a path to a better world - and not in the remote future.

I’ve visited Lebanon several times and witnessed moments of great hope, and of despair, that were tinged with the Lebanese people’s remarkable determination to overcome and to move forward.

The first time I visited - if that’s the right word - was exactly 60 years ago, almost to the day. My wife and I were hiking in Israel’s northern Galilee one evening, when a jeep drove by on a road near us and someone called out that we should turn back: We were in the wrong country. We had inadvertently crossed the border, then unmarked - now, I suppose, bristling with armaments.

A minor event, but it forcefully brought home a lesson: The legitimacy of borders - of states, for that matter - is at best conditional and temporary.

Almost all borders have been imposed and maintained by violence, and are quite arbitrary. The Lebanon-Israel border was established a century ago by the Sykes-Picot Agreement, dividing up the former Ottoman Empire in the interests of British and French imperial power, with no concern for the people who happened to live there, or even for the terrain. The border makes no sense, which is why it was so easy to cross unwittingly.

Surveying the terrible conflicts in the world, it’s clear that almost all are the residue of imperial crimes and the borders that the great powers drew in their own interests.

Pashtuns, for example, have never accepted the legitimacy of the Durand Line, drawn by Britain to separate Pakistan from Afghanistan; nor has any Afghan government ever accepted it. It is in the interests of today’s imperial powers that Pashtuns crossing the Durand Line are labeled “terrorists” so that their homes may be subjected to murderous attack by U.S. drones and special operations forces.

Few borders in the world are so heavily guarded by sophisticated technology, and so subject to impassioned rhetoric, as the one that separates Mexico from the United States, two countries with amicable diplomatic relations.

That border was established by U.S. aggression during the 19th century. But it was kept fairly open until 1994, when President Bill Clinton initiated Operation Gatekeeper, militarizing it.

Before then, people had regularly crossed it to see relatives and friends. It’s likely that Operation Gatekeeper was motivated by another event that year: the imposition of the North American Free Trade Agreement, which is a misnomer because of the words “free trade.”

Doubtless the Clinton administration understood that Mexican farmers, however efficient they might be, couldn’t compete with highly subsidized U.S. agribusiness, and that Mexican businesses couldn’t compete with U.S. multinationals, which under NAFTA rules must receive special privileges like “national treatment” in Mexico. Such measures would almost inevitably lead to a flood of immigrants across the border.


Some borders are eroding along with the cruel hatreds and conflicts they symbolize and inspire. The most dramatic case is Europe. For centuries, Europe was the most savage region in the world, torn by hideous and destructive wars. Europe developed the technology and the culture of war that enabled it to conquer the world. After a final burst of indescribable savagery, the mutual destruction ceased at the end of World War II.
continue reading...

Indigenous Links:
Indigenous Environmental Network
La Via Campensina
Navdanya









The legitimacy of borders--of states for that matter--is at best conditional and temporary.





Europe developed the technology and the culture of war that enabled it to conquer the world.




...challenges to the legitimacy of states bring to the fore serious questions about who owns the Earth...Who will defend the Earth...Who will adopt the role of steward of the commons, our collective possession?






At the forefront of the assault on nature are those who call themselves the most advanced and civilized: the richest and most powerful nations...






At the forefront of the defense of nature are those often called 'primitive', members of indigenous and tribal groups...remnants of the peoples who have survived the onslaught.








Picture
Chicago Teachers' Union
0 Comments

Your comment will be posted after it is approved.


Leave a Reply.

    RSS Feed

     

    Archives

    February 2018
    December 2017
    August 2017
    June 2017
    February 2017
    January 2017
    November 2016
    June 2016
    March 2016
    February 2016
    January 2016
    December 2015
    July 2015
    June 2015
    May 2015
    March 2015
    February 2015
    December 2014
    November 2014
    October 2014
    September 2014
    August 2014
    July 2014
    June 2014
    May 2014
    April 2014
    March 2014
    February 2014
    January 2014
    December 2013
    November 2013
    October 2013
    August 2013
    July 2013
    June 2013
    May 2013
    April 2013
    October 2012
    September 2012
    August 2012
    July 2012
    May 2012
    April 2012

    Categories

    All
    Baudrillard
    Capital
    Eugene Fama Nobel Prize
    Neoliberalism
    Phillip Mirowski
    Pleonexia
    Postnatural; Epistemology; Ocean Acidification; Narcissus; Carbon; Climate Change; Jevon's Paradox
    Simulacrum
    Simulations
    Wall Street

    RSS Feed