Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post

roachboy · 05-15-2007, 12:27 PM

well, a couple things.

it seems that the debate has moved away from the op onto more rational grounds--the question of whether political violence can be justified--to my mind exclusively on the part of oppositional movements--is quite different from that of any question involving "terrorism"...what is curious is that the a priori violence=>always necessarily unacceptable seems to revert back to the logic implicit in that terminology ("terrorism")--so maybe this is the differend, from a certain angle--that the discussion flits back and forth over the edge of debate structured around political violence and one structured by "terrorism" as a substitute for that.

so i take it that you are a pacifist. mm.

i'd like to be--but there are conditions that obviate it as an alternative, i think.

fanon characterized colonialism as pathological--the context is pathological and that is reflected in the modes of thinking and acting on all sides of such a situation---all sides--even calls for peace end up having their meanings shifted, fractured in such a space. and the cause is colonialism itself, occupation itself.

i can imagine myself in gaza right now, and i doubt seriously that i would be arguing that we should all try to get along. i would be arguing for an end to the occupation. i would be arguing for a change in the political context. i'd be arguing that the israeli presence is the cause of violence and that the only way out of the cycle engendered by it would be a dismantling of the occupation itself. short of that--you reap what you sow. i'd like to think that pacifist style actions would work--but if such actions are crushed violently and remain invisible, then there is no action, there are no politics, there is only suicide. pacifist-style tactics presuppose visibility. they are theater that presuppose the dignity of the participants and one effect of them is to bring down what looks on tv like exemplary acts of dehumanization in the attempts to suppress them. but without visibility, what are these actions? it is precisely this lack of visibility that lay behind most actions undertaken by palestinian groups from balck september onward. the arguments from the balck september people hinged on this fact: that the oppression being endured by the palestinians was invisible insofar as the world was concerned--they died in great number and no-one knew. the conflict with the israelis had moved through a number of phases and no-one knew who wasnt very tightly linked to the immediate situation. had this invisibility not been the case, then i doubt the action would have happened. invisibility erases the possibility of non-violent civil actions.

do i condone the tactics (the attack on the israeli olympc team in munich 1972)?
hell no.
do i understand what lay behind it? i think so.
would i have done such an action, participated in it?
i cannot imagine living under conditions such that an action like that would even occur to me. i dont think any of us do.
but i know there are such conditions.

who's to blame then?

but you cannot fuck with people forever and expect them to simply roll over. you cannot pulverize a community forever, strip them of their dignity, offer them no recourse, put them in a situation wherein the only thing they can imagine for the future is more pulverization, more humiliation and not expect fucked up consequences. the problem are the regimes that create such situations. the rationalization that is a problem is the rationalization that allows these situation to happen, to continue. that the response is generally moves to eliminate even the minimal space for manoever that enables violent actions to take place is nothing more or less than an extension of the pathology of occupation/domination to an extreme. people who are totally dominated, who are completely broken by it at best end up the object of charity shows and telethons that allow us to sit around and deplore how bad their lot boo hoo arent you glad you arent there?

oppression breeds violence: it IS violence.
in such a context, it seems that arguing from a pacifist position is, well, i dont know what it is. i expect that anyone in their right mind would prefer peace to violence. it is not always an option, however. it simply isnt.

05-15-2007, 12:27 PM	#48 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	well, a couple things. it seems that the debate has moved away from the op onto more rational grounds--the question of whether political violence can be justified--to my mind exclusively on the part of oppositional movements--is quite different from that of any question involving "terrorism"...what is curious is that the a priori violence=>always necessarily unacceptable seems to revert back to the logic implicit in that terminology ("terrorism")--so maybe this is the differend, from a certain angle--that the discussion flits back and forth over the edge of debate structured around political violence and one structured by "terrorism" as a substitute for that. so i take it that you are a pacifist. mm. i'd like to be--but there are conditions that obviate it as an alternative, i think. fanon characterized colonialism as pathological--the context is pathological and that is reflected in the modes of thinking and acting on all sides of such a situation---all sides--even calls for peace end up having their meanings shifted, fractured in such a space. and the cause is colonialism itself, occupation itself. i can imagine myself in gaza right now, and i doubt seriously that i would be arguing that we should all try to get along. i would be arguing for an end to the occupation. i would be arguing for a change in the political context. i'd be arguing that the israeli presence is the cause of violence and that the only way out of the cycle engendered by it would be a dismantling of the occupation itself. short of that--you reap what you sow. i'd like to think that pacifist style actions would work--but if such actions are crushed violently and remain invisible, then there is no action, there are no politics, there is only suicide. pacifist-style tactics presuppose visibility. they are theater that presuppose the dignity of the participants and one effect of them is to bring down what looks on tv like exemplary acts of dehumanization in the attempts to suppress them. but without visibility, what are these actions? it is precisely this lack of visibility that lay behind most actions undertaken by palestinian groups from balck september onward. the arguments from the balck september people hinged on this fact: that the oppression being endured by the palestinians was invisible insofar as the world was concerned--they died in great number and no-one knew. the conflict with the israelis had moved through a number of phases and no-one knew who wasnt very tightly linked to the immediate situation. had this invisibility not been the case, then i doubt the action would have happened. invisibility erases the possibility of non-violent civil actions. do i condone the tactics (the attack on the israeli olympc team in munich 1972)? hell no. do i understand what lay behind it? i think so. would i have done such an action, participated in it? i cannot imagine living under conditions such that an action like that would even occur to me. i dont think any of us do. but i know there are such conditions. who's to blame then? but you cannot fuck with people forever and expect them to simply roll over. you cannot pulverize a community forever, strip them of their dignity, offer them no recourse, put them in a situation wherein the only thing they can imagine for the future is more pulverization, more humiliation and not expect fucked up consequences. the problem are the regimes that create such situations. the rationalization that is a problem is the rationalization that allows these situation to happen, to continue. that the response is generally moves to eliminate even the minimal space for manoever that enables violent actions to take place is nothing more or less than an extension of the pathology of occupation/domination to an extreme. people who are totally dominated, who are completely broken by it at best end up the object of charity shows and telethons that allow us to sit around and deplore how bad their lot boo hoo arent you glad you arent there? oppression breeds violence: it IS violence. in such a context, it seems that arguing from a pacifist position is, well, i dont know what it is. i expect that anyone in their right mind would prefer peace to violence. it is not always an option, however. it simply isnt. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite