This post on different narratives between the "West" and the Third World got 83 comments. The link is here: A Third World Perspective for Kossacks
The content is below:
Reading about foreign policy diaries in DKos and debating American foreign policy with some AMericans has led me to write this diary - it is obvious your narrative of world history is vastly different from a citizen of the Third World (as you call it). I have been called radical by some of my friends - but my opinions are shared by many millions around the world. I read counterpunch, and most Americans and Israelis writing in counterpunch express the same views. I will start with the difference in narrative and then address some talking points.
In the views of most Americans (trained by History as taught in American text books and popular history books), there is no better way human society could have evolved than the stage in which America and the "West" find themselves in. The frequent use of the term Western democracy implies not that another form of democracy is present in the east - but that democracy is a Western invention. The use of this term is aligned with a repeated emphasis on Greece as the birth place of democracy and any democratic ideals that the "West" currently follows. This is stretched to such an extent that books have been written about the Battle of Thermopylae (as shown in the movie "300") as the pivotal event that "saved" Western civilsation - meanwhile, Alexander's invasions of the East are themselves considered positive efforts in spreading civilsation. I think you can see the discord here - one invasion is termed evil while another is glorified. This is NOT unusual, different sides in a war always provide different versions of history. What IS unusual, is the extent to which present day "Westerners" identify themselves with Greeks and Romans. See quote below on the movie 300 (from this link )
That freedom of expression explains why we rightly consider the ancient Greeks as the founders of our present Western civilization - and, as millions of moviegoers seem to sense, far more like us than the enemy who ultimately failed to conquer them.
This is unusual particularly because there is little evidence that ancient Greece or Rome were in any way similar to present day United States or England. Greece and Rome were not even unique in social structure compared to other civilisations of that time.
The narrative for Western civilisation starts with Greece, moves onto Rome and claims exclusivity and identification of the term Western as a single homogenous group. I think this is historic revisionism. This claiming of a 3000 year democratic value system for the West has enabled (to some degree) politicians like Bush to wave it around while following a colonial mission.
The narrative for the West, in the 20th century focusses on the Second World War and the rise of fascism. The extent to which this narrative is distorted can be seen in present day America in a couple of issues:
1. The identification of the Second World War as the primary just war of the 20th century.
2. And the consequent glorification of Britain and Winston Churchill.
I see this in DailyKos also - when Iran seized the British sailors, many of the diarists considered Britain as the mature power (compared to the USA).
Let us consider the following quotation from Winston Churchill about the Palestinians (in 1937):
I do not agree that a dog in a manger has the final right to the manger, even though he may have lain there for a very long time. I do not admit, for instance, that a great wrong has been done to the Red Indians of America or the black people of Australia. I do not admit that a wrong has been done to these people, by the fact that a stronger race, a higher grade race, a more worldly wise race, to put it that way, has come in and taken their place.
The narrative for the West, thus, justifies the current patrolling of the Iraqi waterways by Britain; the sanctions against Iran for exercising her rights under the NPT; and the existence of the UN Security Council.
This is because the narrative for the West does NOT consider the primary just war of the 20th century - the fight against colonialism and exploitation by the peoples of the Third World.
Alternative Narrative
Now consider an alternative narrative:
Conquering other nations and exploiting their resources was not new in history. What is different about the slavery in the USA or the colonies of Britain and France was its coupling with Industrialization; the mass scale of exploitation; and the xenophobia surrounding this evil enterprise.
Nationalism did not exist in the countries of the East or the South. So they were fair game for drawing borders in the sand.
Colinialism and its effects have been blunted in the Western narrative - one American asked me, "Don't you think you would have been better off with Britain ruling you?"
That is, colonialism's effects were interpreted as purely benign - this is so surprising in the USA. The USA went through colonialism and overthrew it - the length of time the USA was under colonial rule roughly equals the time that India was. Yet Americans obviously consider their own colonial struggle as a brother-against-brother fight - primarily because of race.
As an example, during the late Victorian famines in India it is estimated that 30 million died. India's last famine was in 1942 - when a million Indians died in Bengal because the British government diverted food grains to the war effort.
The fundamental misery of slavery or colonialism is lost on Americans and most Westerners.
In the narrative of the Third World, there is death, destruction in the 20th century in a war between colonial powers. Meanwhile, a greater fight for self-determination and freedom from oppression was being fought by the citizens of the colonized world. This was the just war for us; and our greatest generation fought violently and non-violently against Britain and France and Portugal.
This difference is vital, because most rhetoric that Americans employ sound familiar to us - we have already heard enough spin from the British. When Gandhi was working to create non-violent agitaions, he was still called a trouble maker and arrested and beaten up multiple instances. The British accused Indian freedom fighters of terrorism; tortured them in prisons; claimed a civilisng mission; cited that we were never really a nation. Note that the Palestinians are now in same plight we were in. It never stops.
In one famous instance, in the Nothern state of Punjab, General Dyer of the British Army shot a thousand unarmed protesters to death in a massacre at Jalian Wala Bagh. The peace-loving, democratic, brave citizens of Britain collected money to defend him.
Colonialism is never benign.
At the end of the Second World War, when the UN was created, UN Security Council was formed with former colonial powers as members. In the Western narrative, this was to make sure nobody does what Hitler did earlier. But from the Third World perspective, the composition of UNSC was unacceptable - because our fight was against colonialism and the colonialists still decided which invasions should be sanctioned.
Now consider an alternative narrative:
Conquering other nations and exploiting their resources was not new in history. What is different about the slavery in the USA or the colonies of Britain and France was its coupling with Industrialization; the mass scale of exploitation; and the xenophobia surrounding this evil enterprise.
Nationalism did not exist in the countries of the East or the South. So they were fair game for drawing borders in the sand.
Colinialism and its effects have been blunted in the Western narrative - one American asked me, "Don't you think you would have been better off with Britain ruling you?"
That is, colonialism's effects were interpreted as purely benign - this is so surprising in the USA. The USA went through colonialism and overthrew it - the length of time the USA was under colonial rule roughly equals the time that India was. Yet Americans obviously consider their own colonial struggle as a brother-against-brother fight - primarily because of race.
As an example, during the late Victorian famines in India it is estimated that 30 million died. India's last famine was in 1942 - when a million Indians died in Bengal because the British government diverted food grains to the war effort.
The fundamental misery of slavery or colonialism is lost on Americans and most Westerners.
In the narrative of the Third World, there is death, destruction in the 20th century in a war between colonial powers. Meanwhile, a greater fight for self-determination and freedom from oppression was being fought by the citizens of the colonized world. This was the just war for us; and our greatest generation fought violently and non-violently against Britain and France and Portugal.
This difference is vital, because most rhetoric that Americans employ sound familiar to us - we have already heard enough spin from the British. When Gandhi was working to create non-violent agitaions, he was still called a trouble maker and arrested and beaten up multiple instances. The British accused Indian freedom fighters of terrorism; tortured them in prisons; claimed a civilisng mission; cited that we were never really a nation. Note that the Palestinians are now in same plight we were in. It never stops.
In one famous instance, in the Nothern state of Punjab, General Dyer of the British Army shot a thousand unarmed protesters to death in a massacre at Jalian Wala Bagh. The peace-loving, democratic, brave citizens of Britain collected money to defend him.
Colonialism is never benign.
At the end of the Second World War, when the UN was created, UN Security Council was formed with former colonial powers as members. In the Western narrative, this was to make sure nobody does what Hitler did earlier. But from the Third World perspective, the composition of UNSC was unacceptable - because our fight was against colonialism and the colonialists still decided which invasions should be sanctioned.
Let us try an exercise here:
Islamic women banned from wearing burqa in France - seems a natural, right thing to do. But from our perspective (I am not Muslim), it is merely another attempt to acquire hegemony over cultural minorities. With what moral right does France, the occupier of Algeria, (and the French people who have enjoyed the rich fruits of colonialism) even talk about what Muslims should do?
You see? This is how we think, when we hear any attempt by "Western" powers to acquire the moral high ground.
Iran seized British sailors, and then Britain said they were in Iraqi waters. My immediate reaction was that Britain had no business to be in Iraqi waters. This will be the reaction of most citizens of the Third World.
The argument that Britain used, of course, was that it was on a UN mandated mission. So that becomes the second issue:
Modern Nations and the UN
One commenter in one of my previous diaries argued that aerial bombing was not terrorism - because the people who do it wear uniforms. This and a variety of other arguments are used to justify military action by the powers.
The problem is that modern nation states and their rights were not created in an equal world. Not all of the peoples of this world are organized into nations. That does not mean they do not have rights. They do have the right to struggle for their freedom in violent or non-violent ways. We should note that the USA and Britain do not respect sovereignty of other countries - they have tried to pretend that countries ruled by dictators are not really soveriegn nations. Thus the whole system of international law is not respected by colonial powers themselves.
When I hear Bush complaining about Saddam - I want to ask, "How are you any different?" America or Britain have no right to talk about democracy or exporting democracy - their democracy has not prevented them from violating international law and launching aggressive war.
Who has the right to talk about democracy? Nobody.
We have to realize that the current state of the world is not ideal - it is not ideal for citizens of the Third World; it is not ideal for citizens of "Western democracies" either. We need to have a clearer goal - for example a world without immigration laws should be the goal; no set of people should suffer from lack of resources.
Let me finish with a note on Israel and Palestine:
Frequent rants by pro-Israelites talk about Israel's right to exist.
I do not think Israel has the right to exist - mind you, I am talking about the nation not the race. It is useless going into UN resolutions to seek justification for the creation of Israel.
There is constant pretense by the Western media and pundits that only radical Islamists are against Israel. Let me inform you - I am not a radical Muslim. I have no connection with Israel or Palestine - but I AM a Third World citizen and I can assure you that most of us do not think Isreal should exist as a nation. The reason is the whole narrative I described above - Israel was created by a movement hat considered Paletinians as "the dog in the manger". Palestinians did not have a nation, so anybody can take over their land. The Jews do need a nation - how about giving Scotland? Or Utah? Why was Britain's generosity unbounded when giving away Palestine?
Every news report, every speech by Bush and Blair remind us of the fight ahead against colonialists. Bush has served a purpose though - he has helped pulled the veil of the whole setup.
No comments:
Post a Comment