This part of the post is dedicated to a single rhetorical tactic: the scare tactic. Every politician in contemporary history has used it. A lot of us use it. How many children would stay up late if their parents didn't tell them the story of the swamp monster that eats children who are awake past their bedtime? But back to those politicians. The easiest example of scaring people into supporting someone is probably Communism during the Cold War. The rhetoric went: This candidate is "weak on Communism", so vote for me because I'll make sure to give them a (nuclear) whallop if they so much as look at us wrong.
But that's all in the past right? Well, ok there was that terrorism thing in the 2000s. Oh that's still kind of going on?
The new tool of U.S. politicians' desire to gain support (by playing on people's fears) is Iran (and China...and basically anyone they don't really like). Ron Paul's stance of non-intervention (a split from the more neo-conservative line) as often drawn this kind of "soft on X" criticism. John Huntsman was also the target of criticism in the form of a controversial attack ad depicting him as chummy with China. I guess that "fear Communism" stuff isn't quite dead yet then. Older voters being a probable target audience of the ad since it harkens back to the days when China wasn't the bustling capitalist-socialist hybrid it is now.
Am I saying that Iran isn't a dangerous place to be? That the regime doesn't follow an oppressive doctrine that restricts freedoms and goes against many principles we as humans have been trying to cultivate? No, I'm not saying that. But I don't trust any other state to intervene and promote an image of themselves as some kind of Prometheus of all things democratic and good. I've said it before, but it deserves repeating: Look at Iraq. Between freeing the people and making billions of off rebuilding what they destroyed (rather than build better infrastructures at home) and extracting resources at whim. With a little help from their new, very, very friendly administration.
Such is the way of empires since industrialization (British, American, Japanese). What is profitable and allows the maintenance of empire is the way that must be followed. I'm not anti-American, I simply don't think that imperialism (whatever form it takes) is sustainable or in the interests of most human beings. I think we should prioritize well-being over the material. I'm sure virtually everyone would, if they saw it in front of them. If you buy a new cell phone (get a Blackberry, with RIM tanking it should be a steal), then I ask you to give me the cell phone, knowing that giving up the new cell phone (presuming your old one was still functional or easily repairable) would save someone's life, would you do it?
Most people would answer yes. If not...you might want to get that checked.
But what a silly example, I mean, it's not like people are killed over cell phones. In that you are right. They are killed over something much much smaller inside the cell phone. Parts made from coltan. A mineral found in immense quantities in the Democratic Republic of Congo. You know, that super poor country that consistently ranks at the bottom of every list on the standard of living, peace and anything desirable in general. Which is very, very unfortunate and partially due to its history. But again, empire comes into play. Multinational companies from Western countries are very keen to extract coltan, and are even happier to buy it cheap which saves them the effort and danger from conflict. There's a whole backstory to how they got there and how they're buying coltan from warring factions inside the country that helps perpetuate a vicious ethnic and resource war in the East (which can be seen also as a result of imperialism in the 19th century). But I'll leave that for one to investigate on one's own.
And I'm not insane. Well, if I am, I'm not the only one. The UN published a report in 2001 saying exactly what I've said about this cycle of conflict minerals maintaining many bad things in the DRC.
There was also a video made, based on a victim of the war, to raise awareness about this issue. But the title perfectly describes the content. It is Unwatchable. Shocking in the superlative and a sure way to induce horror and indignation. It epitomizes the ruthlessness of a theocratic regime, the unethical profit that corporations can make and the violence (physical and metaphysical) that ties it all together.
This all sounds quite grim, but I remain optimistic because, overall, things are changing for the better. Is it too late? Perhaps, but what are we going to do, give up? That's hardly a plan worthy of the millions of years of progress life has made.
And that is why I
No comments:
Post a Comment