Thursday, May 30, 2013

Commencement! (2013 Edition)

Following a long, grueling week of grading term papers and final exams, after dealing with C students who received B’s from me in a moment of compassion weakness and were outraged they didn’t get A’s, and in the wake of tidying up a couple dozen end-of-semester administrative loose ends, it is now my dubious privilege to take part in that end of year ritual at Snowflake College, commencement.

Unlike other institutions, we keep it simple.  The attire is business or business casual, depending on your sartorial inclinations.  We don’t fuss with formal academic dress, which is a good thing for me because my gown has been gathering dust in the back of my closet for nearly ten years and, quite frankly, I don’t remember how to don the master’s hood.  I can’t fully explain why I bother to attend each year, except that it reassures me that the travails of the year are finally ended.  It’s also an opportunity to remind my colleagues—and the dean—that no matter how unpopular I am I’m not going away of my own free will.

Although each year’s commencement is much like the ones before it, there’s always some small wrinkle to arouse my easily-stirred ire.  A few days ago, an email circulated among the faculty.  A colleague proposed that we surprise Dr. Kimpossible before the formal part of the ceremony by honoring her for gracing the dean’s office these past few years.  The idea was for each of us to walk on stage and say a single word which described her before walking off.  The message suggested adjectives such as “funny,” “innovative,” “compassionate,” “visionary.”

Words not suggested were the ones circulating in my own mind, words like “flaky,” “superficial,” “condescending,” and “single-minded.”  Reading the email, I knew there was no way in hell I could go through a charade like that.  Harboring no desire to kiss Kimpossible’s ample posterior, I choose to arrive just as the surprise tribute was ending.   I take advantage of the prolonged cheering to unobtrusively seat myself at the back of the faculty section.

Predictably, Kimpossible is overcome by this demonstration of collective sycophancy.  “Thank you, thank you,” she murmurs, tears trickling slowly down her cheeks, casting nods toward the faculty seats as if to acknowledge each of her loyal subjects one by one.  As she gives the opening remarks, Kimpossible makes sure to punctuate them with a couple of carefully placed stifled sobs just in case anyone has failed to notice how deeply moved she is. 

Kimpossible takes a moment to recognize those faculty members who “went above and beyond for our students and inspired the campus community.”  Unsurprisingly, the names are the same as last year’s and provide Kimpossible with an opportunity to get in a plug for the Mavens and Intuitions speaker series.  And so, Professor Duckie gets a pat on the back for his presentation “Disney’s Song of the South: Racism or Just Good Old Fashioned Bigotry?” while Professor Jan is lauded for her talk “Subversive Sex Objects: Belly Dancing as Resistance to Patriarchy.”  The audience applauds vigorously as Kimpossible hugs Duckie and Jan, brushing still more tears from her face.

Of course, Kimpossible would be remiss if she didn’t acknowledge the hard work of the Macaroni Picture Club in decorating the room for commencement.  Please indulge me a digression:

Art is a particular preoccupation at Snowflake.  We have a well-resourced visual arts program run by professors with impressive vitae.  The annual campus art show is a major community event, and our students avail themselves liberally of Snowflake’s art class offerings.  I don’t just mean the art appreciation courses which are an essential part of a balanced general ed diet.  Our learners don’t want to talk about art; they want to make it and so the various oils, watercolors, drawing, ceramics, sculpture, and graphic arts classes consistently run wait lists.  The classroom halls are jammed with people with canvases tucked under their arms.  Student works adorn hallways and offices.

We even tap into students’ artistic proclivities in classes having little to do with visual art.  For instance, Kimpossible requires the “knowledge explorers” in her Introduction to Mesoamerican Mythology class to make phallic objects out of clay.  I must confess I was a little startled the first time I saw people carrying handmade renditions of erect penises through the halls.  All in the name of academic inquiry, I suppose.  

Encouraging self-expression is a good thing, to be sure.  What I find risible is how seriously some of these kids take themselves.  They can’t all be competent, let alone good.  Much like mathematical or writing abilities, artistic talent varies greatly from person to person.  Nevertheless, I frequently hear students proudly discussing their “art,” as if calling it that makes it so.  It’s too bad the No Child Left Behind law doesn’t mandate testing for self-esteem.  Today’s public school graduates would score off the charts. 

Meanwhile, the ceremony drags on.  Grads stride across the stage to collect their diplomas while Kimpossible shares interesting tidbits and inspiring facts about each: Misty made bead necklaces to send to starving children in Darfur.  Gareth continued to teach downhill skiing to tourists during the peak of the Christmas holiday despite a sprained ankle.  Kelsey courageously tweeted and updated her Facebook status while she and her family were trapped in a six-hour traffic jam during the New Year’s Eve blizzard.  And so on.  We’re also treated to a preview of their post-graduation plans, things like backpacking through the Carpathian Mountains, bungee jumping in Greece, and getting exotic body parts pierced and tattooed.

As the graduates pass before us, I ponder the changes in the student body during my teaching career.  Kimpossible likes to point out Snowflake’s countercultural flair, jokingly calling herself the “Queen of Hippie Hill.”  The truth is that precious few of our kids possess anything resembling the counterculture ethos.  I miss the days when students would casually drop by during my office hours and talk about stuff such as the theme of solitude in Hesse’s Steppenwolf or the viability of a gift economy. 

That time has passed, to my regret and dismay.  Nowadays, you’re more likely to hear the word “hippie” applied to the kidult hacky sack players and ski bums loitering on the quad than to the genuine free spirits possessing a quick intellect, an accepting character, and a capacity to discern and embrace the world’s wonders.  As with so much in Kimpossible’s universe, appearances trump substance.

Diplomas conferred, the ceremony draws to an end.  Last year, the only part of commencement worth sitting through was the sign language and singing performance from the special needs kids in the adaptive living program sponsored by the college.  They were so sweet and guileless that their performance was a sure antidote to the cheesy sentimentality which characterizes virtually every special occasion at Snowflake College. 

No such luck this time.  Instead, we go straight to the obligatory slideshow projected on the mezzanine wall.

Kimpossible is the Mistress of Montage.  Campus events at Snowflake invariably end with slideshows of inspirational stock images culled from the internet, mated with upbeat pop tunes.  This time the slideshow is set to Lady Gaga’s “Born This Way.”  Kimpossible had given a series of talks on LGBT issues, and rather than make up whole a new montage it appears she recycled the one from the lectures.  Still, this is far better than the closing from a couple of years ago, when, instead of a montage, we were treated to that YouTube video of the dancing guy around the world.

“Thanks so much for attending this morning’s ceremony.  Please stay for the reception.  And don’t miss this afternoon’s showing of The Secret by the New Thought Club!

“Have a blessed day!”

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Best wishes for a safe and pleasant summer break to all my fellow toilers in the groves of academe, wherever you may be. 

© 2013 The Unassuming Scholar


Tuesday, May 21, 2013

I Am the Law, So I Won

Even as the news arrived that former Argentinian dictator Jorge Rafael Videla had died in prison, we learn that his contemporary counterpart in Guatemala, Efraín Ríos Montt, may go free after that country’s Supreme Court overturned his genocide conviction and ordered a partial retrial.[1]

Ríos Montt, one may recall, ruled Guatemala during the most vicious period of its long-running civil war during the early 1980s.  His staunchest ally was the United States; President Reagan praised him as a “man of integrity” committed to “social justice.”

The kind of social justice Ríos Montt promoted in Guatemala was, shall we say, very selective.  Even the CIA expressed concern over the mounting death toll as US- and Israeli-supplied and trained troops took the lives of numerous civilians in such atrocities as the Plan de Sanchez Massacre.  Although the campaign against URNG guerrillas took center stage and was used to justify excesses in the name of establishing “democracy,” Ríos Montt’s administration pressured poor farmers and indigenous Mayans to give up their support for the guerrillas and pledge their loyalty to the state.

The result was a swath of destruction which put Billy Sherman’s March to the Sea to shame, with hundreds of villages razed.  The population escaping death in the attacks was left homeless and bereft of means of subsistence.   Now, more than thirty years later, Ríos Montt faces at least the possibility of being held accountable for his actions.  As his case returns to trial, we (and his thousands of victims) should be cautiously hopeful for a just outcome.  But, while times have changed for the better throughout Central and South America, we must also remember that having been the law for so long, these aging military rulers expect, and too often receive, a large measure of deference from their civilian successors.   

Don’t be surprised when Ríos Montt goes free.


© 2013 The Unassuming Scholar



[1] Apparently, the Supreme Court upheld the conduct of and the evidence submitted at the trial through April 21st, but quashed subsequent proceedings.

Sunday, May 19, 2013

Problem Child

Checking my voicemail, I found a message from my department chair.

Of course, I knew what it was about.  After the better part of a decade teaching, I’d had my first real classroom confrontation with a student.  Naturally, she decided I was in the wrong and lodged a complaint.  My heart sank.  Up until this point, I’d had the first truly good year of my college teaching career.  Now, on the very last day of classes, this student had taken a raw, foul dump on what had been up until then a pleasantly memorable experience.

Her name was Jayrene.  (Well, not really, but let’s just say it was one of those names you never encounter outside a trailer park or The Jerry Springer Show.)  Jayrene was slightly older than the traditional college student, and her backstory would make the most jaded country music fan weep.  Her teenage mother had stuck Jayrene in foster care shortly after she was born and Jayrene spent her childhood bouncing among various homes.  Shortly after her own teenage pregnancy, Jayrene aged out of the foster system.  She remained mum about what she had done in the intervening eight or ten years before enrolling in college, though it didn’t take a leap of imagination to fill in the blanks.

Jayrene, despite her early hardships, was full of high ambitions.  She aspired to be a social worker, tending to kids like one she had once been.  I could get behind that; my own short stint working for the local social services department had left me with considerable sympathy for foster kids and social workers alike.   

Unfortunately, while Jayrene was bright enough and applied herself to her studies, she was also hard to get along with.  She wasn’t difficult in the way most of my students, praised from birth and brought up in an atmosphere of affluent entitlement, are difficult.  Rather, she was hostile in a white trash, “shut-the-fuck-up-or-I’ll-bust-you-over-the-head-with-a-Jim-Beam-bottle” sort of way. She had an enormous chip on her shoulder and was consistently moody and ill-mannered to the point where no one was ever sure exactly what to say to her. (Think Aileen Wuornos minus the trail of corpses behind her.)

I suspected Jayrene had deep-seated emotional problems, but I was being paid to teach her and not minister to her psychic booboos.  Taking a deep breath, I phoned Daniel, my department chair.  Daniel is a decent sort of guy and I’ve always gotten on well with him, so I knew there would be few, if any, recriminations.  Still, I wasn’t relishing the prospect of the ensuing discussion.

“Hey, Unassuming, thanks for returning my call.  Say, I wanted to talk to you about a student in your Thursday 7:00 section.  Name’s Jayrene something-or-other.”

“Yeah, I know her.”  Unfortunately.

“Well, she came to see me about a problem with you.”

“Yes, I know what you’re talking about.”

“Oh, good.  Anyway, could you tell me about her?  And what happened last night?  She says you were rude to her in class and docked her the three participation points she was supposed to have gotten for coming to class.”

“Not much to tell, I’m afraid.  Jayrene’s bright enough, but she doesn’t play well with others.”

“Hmmm.  Yeah, I kind of got that idea from talking with her.”

“Anyway, I was giving my usual just-before-the-final spiel about when I’d have grades posted.  Usually, it’s perfunctory and there aren’t any questions.  But, then, Jayrene asked whether I gave + / - grades.”

“Hmmm, okay…”

“I said, yes, it’s in the syllabus.  So, she asked why.  I said it was because it enabled me to grade students more accurately based on their relative performance since I curve the final grade.  At this point, Jayrene turned red in the face, her voice took on a decidedly hostile tone, and said that wasn’t fair, because an A-minus would pull down her average.”

“Okay.  So far, so good…Strange she would get mad over that.”

“That’s what I thought.  So, when she continued to argue with me I said that in college, as in life, not everyone is first across the finish line.  That’s when she snapped, ‘Keep digging.’”

“Oh, she never mentioned that.” 

“Well, she wouldn’t, would she?  I just can’t let this slide, Daniel.  I can’t imagine having acted that way toward a professor when I was a student.”

“No, I can’t, either.”  Daniel stammered a moment, searching for words.  “Um, well, it sounds kind of like a he said/she said sort of thing…”

“Yes, except I have less of an incentive to lie.” 

Daniel seemed uncomfortable at the implication that any of our students would ever be less than forthright.  “Sure, yeah.  But you know, Unassuming, I’d feel better about this whole thing if you gave her the participation points.”

“Even after mouthing off to me in front of the class?”

“Well, I can’t tell you to give her the points, but…”

“Losing those points shouldn’t affect her final grade.  Taking them away was a symbolic gesture.”

“Wellll…I’m not so sure I’m comfortable with the symbolism here…”

“The idea was to discourage bad behavior.”

“I’m just asking you to reconsider, that’s all.”

“I’ll think it over.”

“Great.  I know you’ll do the right thing.”  As if there was any doubt as to what the “right thing” was.

And, so, once again, we’ve empowered the problem children.  A sad start to a much anticipated summer break…

© 2013 The Unassuming Scholar

Wednesday, May 8, 2013

Stultus Valley Days - II: Meeting the Neighbors

The first thing I noticed was the stares.

I’d just come from my hiring interview with the county.  Deciding to get my bearings, I strolled Linden’s mostly deserted, windswept main street.  After a few minutes I felt that uneasy frisson one gets when someone is looking intently at him.  A couple of rough-looking characters in worn boots and weathered Stetsons were standing just outside the doorway of the Linden Inn, the town’s sole restaurant, bar, and motel.  I quickly realized I stood out: I was a stranger.   

Of course, I knew folks in Stultus Valley were rough spun.  I actually looked forward to working with them precisely because of this quality.  I recalled a book I read in a college anthropology class, Yesterday’s People by Jack Weller.  Weller had been a social worker in Appalachia during the War on Poverty in the early 1960s.  A cultural trait he noticed among the people he worked with was that they tended to live in the moment, were family- rather than community-oriented, and deeply distrusted outsiders.  Like Weller, I harbored the notion that I could break down any resistance with hard work and personal concern for people’s troubles.  Looking back, I suspect I idealized my neighbors in a rather condescending way.  That is my sole regret from my time in the Valley. 

Once I’d settled in, I began to learn the quirks, peculiarities, and idiosyncrasies of the Valley’s denizens.  One of the first things I noticed is that many of their names ended in vowels.  It was soon explained to me that Stultus Valley had been settled by Italian immigrants who herded cattle.  Italian cowboys, if you will.  Italian…cowboys.

I’ll admit I had a difficult time wrapping my mind around the whole idea of an Italian cowboy.  Still do, in fact.  “Italian” and “cowboy” were simply two words I never expected to share the same phrase unless the name Sergio Leone appeared elsewhere in the sentence.

Now, lest you think me narrow minded, please know that I attended public school during the heyday of historical revisionism.  I knew Western settlers came from all kinds of backgrounds.  I learned, for instance, that many cowboys after the Civil War were African-American freedmen.  Hailing from territory which once belonged to Spain and Mexico, I was aware from an early age that the vaqueros were the original cowboys.  But this detail of the Stultus Valley backstory was a bit novel for me.

Having given the idea some thought, however, I quickly realized its potential as a mashup of stale pop culture stereotypes.  Just consider the possibilities: Cowboy Tony.  Cowboy Vinnie.  Cowboy…Don Corleone!  (“Ah made him an offer he couldn’a refuse, pardner.”) 

There are so many questions about how these hardy pioneers lived.  Did they live at home with their mothers?  Did gold chains and crucifixes accessorize well with Western wear?  Was it possible to get an authentic New York slice from the back of a chuck wagon?  What was the equine equivalent of the Chevy Camaro?  Did they whack their rivals with six-shooters?  Could they dance like John Travolta and his buddies in Saturday Night Fever?  Did the women in their lives all have names like Donna, Angie, and Gina?

Oh, I could go on, but you get the idea.  Truth was, they weren’t much different from the garden variety rednecks I grew up around in my own small town: Weathered, resentful, beaten down by life, the descendants of Europe’s social refuse routinely bashed by comedians and eulogized by the likes of Jim Goad and the late Joe Bageant.  Nevertheless, folks in Stultus Valley took this heritage thing seriously.  It wasn’t as if there were many people to dispute them.  So, in the interest of maintaining harmony with my new neighbors I kept my smartass observations to myself.

Besides, their self-image proved rather fragile in the face of strangers.  I got the impression that they saw themselves as like the denizens of TV’s Mayberry, simple but honest folk possessing a homespun wisdom superior to that of the city slicker who would ride into town looking to rook the local rubes but who instead meets his comeuppance at the hands of good Sheriff Andy and friends.

They clearly needed this illusion to sustain their tenuous sense of self-worth.  For many of its natives, the Valley was their whole universe.  The outside world was a scary place hardly acknowledged.  One got the impression they believed if they took one of the two state highways leading out of the Valley that once over the mountains they would fall off the edge of the world and be eaten by dragons.  Consequently, they suffered from a xenophobia which made them quite myopic when beholding outsiders.

An important fact I had to consider was that, unlike the rest of contemporary society, where economic and cultural capital are the yardsticks of position, family relationships dictated Stultus Valley’s social hierarchy.  A question I heard frequently after my arrival was, “Who are you related to?”  Family, whether through blood or marriage, defined you and your place, as well as how other people treated you.  If your stepdaddy’s first cousin once removed had a dispute with the member of another clan, you and everyone else in your family were expected to shun or otherwise show hostility to anyone you met from the rival house. 

Like the Hatfields and McCoys, these feuds, often over petty, insignificant matters, could last for years or, occasionally, across generations.  Given the absence of any meaningful extracurricular pursuits, however, these protracted disputes served as a sort of drearily malign pastime for an isolated population with way too much time on its hands.  Navigating the thorny terrain of familial relationships in Stultus Valley would prove a formidable challenge for an outsider like me, as I was soon to learn.

Next installment: Family Style


© 2013 The Unassuming Scholar

Saturday, May 4, 2013

Funny Guy

With apologies to Marty Scorsese


About five minutes into the class discussion, the inevitable happens.

I hear a sharp, loud laugh from the back of the room.  It’s one of my “knowledge explorers,” as the dean insists on calling them.  It appears he’s captivated by a witticism from his seatmate, a pretty young lady whom he’s been courting on the class’ time since the beginning of the term.  Previous warnings have gone unheeded, even after I once made him leave the room after a particularly disruptive outburst.   

The following exchange ensues:

Me: Jeremy, kindly share with the class just what it is you find so amusing?

Student: (smirking)  Uh-h-h-h-h…It’s you?

Me: (unimpressed)  Really?  Tell us about it.

Student: (suddenly anxious)  Uh-h-h-h-h…You're a pistol, you're really funny. You're really funny.

Me: What do you mean I'm funny?

Student: It's funny, you know. It's a good story, it's funny, you're a funny guy.
(laughs nervously)

Me: What do you mean, you mean the way I talk? What?

Student: It's just, you know. You're just funny, it's... funny, the way you tell the story and everything.

Me: (as silence falls over the classroom)  Funny how? What's funny about it?

Student #2:  Hey, Professor Scholar, no, you got it all wrong.

Me: Uh-uh, Anthony. He's a big boy, he knows what he said. What did ya say? Funny how?

Student: Jus...

Me: What?

Student: Just... ya know... you're funny.

Me: You mean, let me understand this cause, ya know maybe it's me, I'm a little messed up maybe, but I'm funny how, I mean funny like I'm a clown, I amuse you? I make you laugh, I'm here to freakin' amuse you? What do you mean funny, funny how? How am I funny?

Student: Just... you know, how you tell the story, what?

Me: No, no, I don't know, you said it. How do I know? You said I'm funny. How the flip am I funny, what the frack is so funny about me? Tell me, tell me what's funny!

Student: (long pause) Aw…Get the flip outta here, Mr. Scholar!

Me: No, Jeremy, you get the flip out of here, ya stuttering prick ya!  Stop interrupting my goddam class!   And take your friggin’ girlfriend with you!   Now, where was I…?  

End vengeful reverie.

Me: Jeremy, settle down.  Believe it or not, there are a few people here who are trying to learn.

Student: (mumbling resentfully)  Sorry…

Perhaps if we’re lucky, we’ll go at least another ten minutes without a significant interruption.  God, I can’t wait until finals…


© 2013 The Unassuming Scholar

Friday, May 3, 2013

Branded

It appears we are getting ever closer to the day when workers are truly little more than two-footed livestock.  A real estate firm in New York City has offered pay raises for employees who get tattooed with the company logo…

The T-Word Revisited

In the aftermath of the Boston Marathon bombings and the arrest of Dzhokar Tsarnaev on terror charges, I thought it appropriate to repost an entry from last year:

Under Every Bed


I made a faux pas in class the other night. 

Discussing how news coverage affects perceptions of events, I compared headlines describing a Baghdad bombing attack.  One described the incident as Shiite on Sunni violence.  The other (from Fox News, naturally) merely said that terrorists had killed a number of people.  My point was that the American media tend to throw the T-word around indiscriminately, and that this inhibits our issue knowledge.

After class a group of students came up to me, a couple of them Iraq war veterans.  They took exception to what I had said.   Didn’t I know Iraq was the frontline of the war on terror?  Without waiting for an answer they walked off, muttering bitterly among themselves.

I suppose I should have explained myself better, but I don’t know how I could have.  Things have calmed down considerably from the collective paranoia immediately following 9/11, but I still can smell a whiff of latter day McCarthyism in the air.  One thing that hasn’t changed in our national debate over the war on terror is its proponents’ preference for mutually exclusive, either/or arguments, encapsulated in George W. Bush’s dictum, “You’re either with us or with the terrorists.”    

Deep down, I’ve always feared that Saul Bellow moment that would get me fired.  I don’t kid myself about where I stand with my students.  To them I’m just another service worker, a Starbucks barista minus espresso machine and tip jar.  That’s why they’re sometimes upset when I tell them things they don’t want to hear.  I’ve made a few genuine gaffes I’ve regretted, but I believe what I teach.  It is my responsibility to ensure my students at least know there are alternatives to the conventional wisdom, even if they choose not to accept them.

I’ve alluded before to our propensity to embrace policies wrapped in the flag.  We love freedom, which we define as sharing the same beliefs as everyone else and deferring to authority.  It’s hardly a surprise, then, that we have no problem with practices such as extraordinary rendition, drone killings, and the denial of habeas corpus and due process rights even when the suspects are U.S. citizens.  Because, you see, they’re terrorists, and we will never be safe as long as even one is left.  No real American would question the necessity of fighting them or the means.  Our leaders always know what’s right and it’s not your place to question them.

Many post-9/11 policies have been more symbolic than substantive.  A case in point: Driving to the airport where I live, approaching the passenger terminal there used to be a sign on a light post announcing the current “security advisory” level.  I never fully understood what this was supposed to mean.  Yes, I’d looked up the definitions of the various security advisory levels on the Department of Homeland Security website and understood what they meant in principle.  But really, what did level Yellow, or Red, or Mauve, mean to me or anyone else reading the sign driving by?   The truth is that someone in charge was trying to convince us that they were doing something so we would feel more secure.   

Are we more secure?  Maybe, maybe not.   There hasn’t been an attack on American soil since 2001, and you can make a case that this has been due to increased security measures.  But is this cause or correlation?  Only time will tell.  This is one situation where I actually hope I’m wrong, and that the security obsession has made us safer.  Because we’ve been down this road a couple of times already.

I came of age during the Cold War.  I grew up believing Communism and the Russians and Chinese were bad.  This is because that’s what I learned from my family, my teachers, and from what I saw and heard in the media.  On the whole, though, it was a mild, watered-down anticommunism I was exposed to.  The worst excesses of anti-Red hysteria happened before I was born.  The Smith Act, HUAC, loyalty oaths, blacklisting, and summary firings of so-called security risks were among the excesses of the time, and there is no credible evidence that any of these measures made the country safer.  Decades before that, the Palmer Raids, mass deportations of immigrants, and the Schenck decision after the First World War set the stage for the Cold War national security state whose legacy we live with today. 

I do not dispute that the Soviet Union and “Red” China posed a military threat to the United States in those days.  Nor do I dispute that there are in fact individuals, organizations, and countries that seek to do us real harm today.  What I question is our malleable definition of “terrorism.”  While I accept the general meaning of terrorism as violence meant to create fear in furtherance of political goals, I also know governments are apt to apply the label only to that political violence which works against them. 

Let’s consider some past examples.  South Africa imprisoned Nelson Mandela as a terrorist.  (He remained on the U.S. terrorist watch list until 2006.)  Rhodesia’s army used the recruiting slogan, “Terrorism Stops Here!”  The Germans summarily executed captured partisans as terrorists during World War II.  And the military regimes in Argentina, Chile, and Brazil imprisoned hundreds of their opponents on terrorism charges in the 1970s.

Let’s consider a few more examples, along with the oft-disparaged cliché, “one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter.”  The Zionist groups Irgun and Haganah waged a campaign of bombing, kidnapping, and murder against the British authorities and Palestinian Arabs prior to the formation of Israel.  Were they terrorists or freedom fighters?  Anti-Castro exile Luis Posada Carriles and his associates planted a bomb on a Cubana airliner, causing it to crash with no survivors.  Was he a terrorist or a freedom fighter?  The Nicaraguan Contras killed judges, doctors, and labor leaders in their insurgency against the Sandinistas.  Terrorists or…?  You get the idea.

I’m not necessarily arguing moral equivalency here.  But the distinctions can get pretty blurry.  I’ll stipulate once more the definition of terrorism I gave above.  It’s a threat we have faced for several decades from a variety of sources.  The main difference is that since the Berlin Wall came down the Islamic terrorist has supplanted the communist as national bogeyman and all-purpose enemy.  Where we once faced an ideological foe, we now face a poorly differentiated set of religious militants.  Confronted with that fact, it’s a short leap to conflate the relatively small number of militants with hundreds of millions of their coreligionists.  In fact, popular support for the war on terror is largely rooted in anti-Muslim, anti-Middle Eastern bigotry.  Why bother telling Sunnis apart from Shiites, or Arabs from Persians, Turks, Kurds, et al., when you can just hang a single label on them and leave it at that? 

As Americans we have internalized fear and suspicion as our default approach to the rest of the world.  Coupled with our penchant for reductionist thinking, I wonder if it will be our own undoing.   Until we can consider our national security challenges rationally, we will continue to look for monsters under every bed.

© 2013 The Unassuming Scholar