Many Americans think that. On April 15, tax day, a national organization held a series of “tea parties”all over the country to commemorate the colonists' resistance to government and specifically to taxation. They are planning more events for the 4th of July. At present, the Republicans in Congress are are resisting the proposal to have government provide health insurance for some Americans. Anything done by the government, they believe, is worse than anything done by private business.
This is an old belief among Americans. The authors of the Constitution wrote that document after having successfully freed themselves from the British government and established their own. The political system they created is very concerned to preserve individual liberties against government attempts to limit freedom. It is, we think, a good system. Citizens have elaborate rights to a protest, to tell the government what they think. The leaders of the government are elected; they hold their jobs by the will of the citizens and can be removed from office if they ignore the citizens' wishes.
These are important institutions, but our country has changed fundamentally since the end of the 18th century. Then a citizen's freedoms were threatened by the government and by lawless fellow citizens. We face a third and much more formidable threat today: big business.
In 2005, WalMart had annual sales of $312 billion. In the current fiscal year the budget of the state of New York – one of the larger states in the US-- amounts to $120 billion. Wal-Mart is almost 3 times as large an enterprise as the state of New York.
The governor, the legislators, the attorney generals, the mayors, the city councils, and other officials are elected. They are therefore subject to a certain amount of control by the citizens. What happens if you don't like a policy at Wal-Mart? Who do you write to? The people who run Wal-Mart are not elected. They sell $312 billion worth of goods every year. So they don't really care a lot what you think.
Things get much worse if you actually work for Wal-Mart. Wages are notoriously low. Employees who try to organize unions get fired – even though that's illegal. The employee has nothing to say, nowhere to complain. The Constitution guarantees all citizens the right to assemble peacefully, that means that we have the right to organize; citizens have the right to petition the government, that means, to say what bothers them. Employees of Wal-Mart do not have those rights. If you complain or try to organize you are out the door. Its like living under a dictatorship. The greatest threat to individual freedom are big employers.
Private business, the enemies of government say, is much more efficient. To be sure, government bureaucracy is horrible. But have you ever tried to get your insurance company to pay for a medication, prescribed by your doctor, which was not on the insurance company's approved list? Everyone has horror stories about the inefficiencies of private insurers.
Everyone knows that. Why do people nevertheless keep coming around to say: don't trust the government, trust private enterprise? Look again at the Republican objection to government insurance. Republicans regularly speak for the interest of large business. The large insurance companies do not want to have to compete against the government. That might be bad for the almighty bottom line. Big business has always been opposed to what they call “big government” because government has had the job of enforcing antitrust legislation passed by Congress at the request of ordinary citizens. If it were not for the government enforcing wage and hour legislation, if it were not for OSHA enforcing (sometimes) health and safety standards, if the government did not limit the hours that children are allowed to work, if the government did not protect workers as imperfectly as it does, you can imagine how much more oppressive ordinary employment would be.
Big business does not like the government protecting workers. Big business does not like the government trying to clean up the environment polluted by business. Big business does not like the government supervising, however imperfectly, the formation of huge companies that have too much power. And so they keep harping on the evils of “big government.” But if you think about what your citizen's freedoms are in relation to the government and what your freedoms are in relation to your employers, may be government doesn't look quite so bad. You have to admit that the greatest threat to individual freedom comes from the folks you work for.
Thursday, June 18, 2009
Wednesday, June 3, 2009
General Motors goes bankrupt
Congratulations, Ms. and Mr. America. Overnight you have become industrialists. You are now owners of what used to be called General Motors, and perhaps should now be called US Motors. GM went bankrupt and now the US gov't—your and my government—owns about 60% of the company.
But then something really odd happened. The man who looks after our interests in Washington—at least that's what he is supposed to do—Barack Obama said that he is not interested in running GM. I presume that means that the previous management will continue to be in charge.
Imagine this: suppose you can't pay your mortgage and the bank repossesses the house. But the bank says “We are not interested in doing anything with that house.” So you stay there, you keep mowing the lawn and tending the flowers. You clean the house and make repairs where needed. The bank is not exercising its ownership rights. It is not taking real possession of the house. In fact, it looks as if it just gave you a chunk of money by allowing you to live in the house even though you are not paying the mortgage.
But of course we are dreaming. Banks don't act that way. If you don't pay what you owe, the banks takes back the house and you have to leave and move back in with the in-laws. There is no such thing as free rent.
Except if you are General Motors and you are in hock for billions of dollars to Uncle Sam.
That strikes me as fishy. The American tax payer—not Barack Obama—has given GM billions of dollars. GM now belongs to the American Taxpayer. But the folks who are elected to mind our affairs refuse to do so. We don't want to run GM, they say. All they want to do is to give GM billions of dollars of our money.
Maybe we should send letters to the White House saying “Barack are you minding the store? First you buy GM with our money and then you don't want to take possession what you just bought for us. This looks a lot like giving our money to General Motors without any return.”
It looks like one more example of different rules applying to big corporations from the rules that apply to you and me. If you or I go bankrupt, we loose the house. If GM goes bankrupt they get to help themselves from the public till—to our money. You figure it.
Who is the President working for anyway: ordinary voters or global corporations?
But then something really odd happened. The man who looks after our interests in Washington—at least that's what he is supposed to do—Barack Obama said that he is not interested in running GM. I presume that means that the previous management will continue to be in charge.
Imagine this: suppose you can't pay your mortgage and the bank repossesses the house. But the bank says “We are not interested in doing anything with that house.” So you stay there, you keep mowing the lawn and tending the flowers. You clean the house and make repairs where needed. The bank is not exercising its ownership rights. It is not taking real possession of the house. In fact, it looks as if it just gave you a chunk of money by allowing you to live in the house even though you are not paying the mortgage.
But of course we are dreaming. Banks don't act that way. If you don't pay what you owe, the banks takes back the house and you have to leave and move back in with the in-laws. There is no such thing as free rent.
Except if you are General Motors and you are in hock for billions of dollars to Uncle Sam.
That strikes me as fishy. The American tax payer—not Barack Obama—has given GM billions of dollars. GM now belongs to the American Taxpayer. But the folks who are elected to mind our affairs refuse to do so. We don't want to run GM, they say. All they want to do is to give GM billions of dollars of our money.
Maybe we should send letters to the White House saying “Barack are you minding the store? First you buy GM with our money and then you don't want to take possession what you just bought for us. This looks a lot like giving our money to General Motors without any return.”
It looks like one more example of different rules applying to big corporations from the rules that apply to you and me. If you or I go bankrupt, we loose the house. If GM goes bankrupt they get to help themselves from the public till—to our money. You figure it.
Who is the President working for anyway: ordinary voters or global corporations?
Saturday, May 30, 2009
Business cooperating with government
The Boston Globe reports that big business has recently begun to cooperate with Pres. Obama and his team. The CEO of Dow Chemical praises the president's efforts to control carbon emissions. The healthcare industry is joining Sen. Kennedy to write a healthcare reform bill. The financial services industry is cooperating with representative Barney Frank in regulating banks and other financial institutions.
What a change! In the early 90s Pres. Bill Clinton and First Lady, now secretary of state, Hillary Clinton developed a grand scheme to reform health care for all Americans. The goal was to make sure that everyone had health insurance and that the cost of healthcare would be under control. A coalition of physicians, hospitals, health insurance companies and drug companies mounted a major campaign and shot down that project. With evidence of global warming growing steadily, the government has been trying to regulate carbon emissions and has met with unbending opposition from chemical companies as well as car manufacturers. Banks, mortgage companies, hedge funds have used their access to the then Republican dominated Congress to loosen restraints on the industry. We now experience the effect of this deregulation in the current economic crisis. For a while they made money hand over fist. Now ordinary Americans have to pay the price.
But now Republicans are in the wilderness. The people have spoken against their unquestioning support for big business. The Democrats have a comfortable majority in both houses and businesses are coming around to cooperate with the government.
Hallelujah!
But hold on there. Let's take a closer look. Businesses supported the recent credit card bill that was intended to extend new protections to holders of credit cards against the banks. If the banks support the so-called “Cardholders Bill of Rights” can you now trust the bank to be on your side? The same bank that has in recent months raised all its fees?
The same issue of the Boston Globe tells the other side of the story. The new “Cardholders Bill Of Rights”will not go into effect for another nine months. That gives the banks and credit card companies ample time to raise all their fees before their ability to raise interest rates will be restricted. What were the banks doing when they cooperated with writing this new consumer protection law for credit card holders? They were looking out for number one and made sure that the new bill would not damage their bottom line.
So maybe we need to take a second look at this new era of harmony between government and big business. Perhaps it is the government, once again, cooperating with large enterprises to put the squeeze on customers and ordinary citizens.
Consider just one example. One of the groups consulting with Sen. Kennedy about the new health-care legislation is the lobbying group for the drug companies. Most countries in the world regulate prices for drugs. Not so in the US where they can charge whatever they please. As a consequence, the costs of medications are significantly higher here than anywhere else. The companies say they need to charge high prices in order to do research for developing new medicines for, so far, incurable diseases. But the truth is that the drug companies spend more money on marketing than they do on research. Drug marketing persuades physicians to prescribe the drugs produced by one pharmaceutical company rather than another, or tries to persuade people to take pills they don't need. The cost of that marketing comes out of your and my pocket. The drug company has its eyes firmly on their bottom line not on whether you are sick or well, alive or dead.
Do you think that the drug companies have turned over a new leaf, that they have seen the error of their ways, repented, and are now determined to give us necessary medications at the lowest possible cost? Or are they perhaps at the table with Sen. Kennedy to make sure that medications will remain more expensive in the United States than anywhere else in the world?
The CEO of Dow Chemical explained the new cooperative attitude of business in this way: “You're either at the table or on the menu.” With large companies like Dow, the big banks, the pharmaceutical companies at the table, it may well be you and I who are you on the menu.
What a change! In the early 90s Pres. Bill Clinton and First Lady, now secretary of state, Hillary Clinton developed a grand scheme to reform health care for all Americans. The goal was to make sure that everyone had health insurance and that the cost of healthcare would be under control. A coalition of physicians, hospitals, health insurance companies and drug companies mounted a major campaign and shot down that project. With evidence of global warming growing steadily, the government has been trying to regulate carbon emissions and has met with unbending opposition from chemical companies as well as car manufacturers. Banks, mortgage companies, hedge funds have used their access to the then Republican dominated Congress to loosen restraints on the industry. We now experience the effect of this deregulation in the current economic crisis. For a while they made money hand over fist. Now ordinary Americans have to pay the price.
But now Republicans are in the wilderness. The people have spoken against their unquestioning support for big business. The Democrats have a comfortable majority in both houses and businesses are coming around to cooperate with the government.
Hallelujah!
But hold on there. Let's take a closer look. Businesses supported the recent credit card bill that was intended to extend new protections to holders of credit cards against the banks. If the banks support the so-called “Cardholders Bill of Rights” can you now trust the bank to be on your side? The same bank that has in recent months raised all its fees?
The same issue of the Boston Globe tells the other side of the story. The new “Cardholders Bill Of Rights”will not go into effect for another nine months. That gives the banks and credit card companies ample time to raise all their fees before their ability to raise interest rates will be restricted. What were the banks doing when they cooperated with writing this new consumer protection law for credit card holders? They were looking out for number one and made sure that the new bill would not damage their bottom line.
So maybe we need to take a second look at this new era of harmony between government and big business. Perhaps it is the government, once again, cooperating with large enterprises to put the squeeze on customers and ordinary citizens.
Consider just one example. One of the groups consulting with Sen. Kennedy about the new health-care legislation is the lobbying group for the drug companies. Most countries in the world regulate prices for drugs. Not so in the US where they can charge whatever they please. As a consequence, the costs of medications are significantly higher here than anywhere else. The companies say they need to charge high prices in order to do research for developing new medicines for, so far, incurable diseases. But the truth is that the drug companies spend more money on marketing than they do on research. Drug marketing persuades physicians to prescribe the drugs produced by one pharmaceutical company rather than another, or tries to persuade people to take pills they don't need. The cost of that marketing comes out of your and my pocket. The drug company has its eyes firmly on their bottom line not on whether you are sick or well, alive or dead.
Do you think that the drug companies have turned over a new leaf, that they have seen the error of their ways, repented, and are now determined to give us necessary medications at the lowest possible cost? Or are they perhaps at the table with Sen. Kennedy to make sure that medications will remain more expensive in the United States than anywhere else in the world?
The CEO of Dow Chemical explained the new cooperative attitude of business in this way: “You're either at the table or on the menu.” With large companies like Dow, the big banks, the pharmaceutical companies at the table, it may well be you and I who are you on the menu.
Tuesday, May 19, 2009
The Crisis in Education
Teachers, school administrators, education experts meet almost any day of the year in one place or another to discuss education. Conferences about education occur almost daily throughout the year. Someone at any of these conferences is bound to talk about “the crisis in education.” For many years now, education in the United States has been deteriorating. Everyone knows it. But all the experts and all the education conferences have not managed to reverse the downward trend. There are unending discussions of schools, buildings and equipment, teachers and teacher training, class size, and many other topics. All of those are important. Many different factors have to come together before children and young persons can receive a good education.
In the United States, however, there is one more problem which does not receive a lot of attention: the vast majority of Americans do not believe that education is important.
How can I say such a thing when we spend huge sums of money on education, on beautiful new school buildings, equipped with computers and the latest audiovisual technology? Yes, it's true that we are willing to spend considerable sums of money on schools and teachers and equipment. But when it comes to education, most Americans think that it has no value except if it prepares you for a better job and for making more money. Most people do not think that education is good in itself. You go to school to enhance your financial prospects, not to learn anything.
Look on the Internet and google "the value of education," "the benefits" or "the importance of education," and you will find article after article explaining how college graduates will earn more money than people who only finished high school and that people who dropout of high school before finishing will earn even less and have more problems finding work. Education makes money; that's what it is good for.
As a consequence, many students at all levels go to school to earn a diploma, not especially to learn anything. In order to earn a diploma you have to pass courses and, preferably, earn a good grade. Learning anything is not the object. Three months after the course is over, most of the content is forgotten. Most importantly, the students did not acquire a thirst for knowledge. Few emerge from school asking questions, looking for answers, trying to understand the world in which they find themselves.
A good education develops the curiosity of children. They discover that learning things about the world is exciting. They learn to ask questions; they learn to wonder about events they do not understand. When they learn to read and write, they learn to formulate questions and articulate their thoughts about the world. When they learn how our government works, they learn one of the important prerequisites for being good citizens. They learn that they live in a society where they can influence their lives together with others. When they learn history, they learn to see themselves as belonging to a human race that has over centuries tried out different ways of living out human lives.
We hear often these days that parents should read books to their children. And so they should. But equally or more important is that parents read books for their own enjoyment and growth. Many American homes have no books except perhaps some college texts that have never been put in the trash. Children in those houses learn that grown ups do not read, that books are only for small kids. Once you have learned how to read, all you need to read is what you have to read in school or at your job.
Children do not learn to be curious if their parents' conversation includes only gossip or last nights' game. Children are encouraged to follow up their own questions when they see their parents talk at dinner about interesting things they found out in the course of the day, or topics they encountered they would like to know more about. Children do not learn to value education if their parents do not ask them what they learned in school, but only ask about their grades. What good are good grades if in earning them your child did not learn anything that will make a difference to the person she is growing up to be? Maybe your child is learning things in school you do not know and you might be glad to find out about. Learning from your children enriches your life and shows them that learning is good in itself.
Education should open everyone's eyes to the immense variety of the world, of persons and places and societies to know, to experience, savor and try to understand. You miss all of that if making and spending money is in the center of your life. You miss what education might provide in your life, if you only go to school to earn more money in the future.
In the United States, however, there is one more problem which does not receive a lot of attention: the vast majority of Americans do not believe that education is important.
How can I say such a thing when we spend huge sums of money on education, on beautiful new school buildings, equipped with computers and the latest audiovisual technology? Yes, it's true that we are willing to spend considerable sums of money on schools and teachers and equipment. But when it comes to education, most Americans think that it has no value except if it prepares you for a better job and for making more money. Most people do not think that education is good in itself. You go to school to enhance your financial prospects, not to learn anything.
Look on the Internet and google "the value of education," "the benefits" or "the importance of education," and you will find article after article explaining how college graduates will earn more money than people who only finished high school and that people who dropout of high school before finishing will earn even less and have more problems finding work. Education makes money; that's what it is good for.
As a consequence, many students at all levels go to school to earn a diploma, not especially to learn anything. In order to earn a diploma you have to pass courses and, preferably, earn a good grade. Learning anything is not the object. Three months after the course is over, most of the content is forgotten. Most importantly, the students did not acquire a thirst for knowledge. Few emerge from school asking questions, looking for answers, trying to understand the world in which they find themselves.
A good education develops the curiosity of children. They discover that learning things about the world is exciting. They learn to ask questions; they learn to wonder about events they do not understand. When they learn to read and write, they learn to formulate questions and articulate their thoughts about the world. When they learn how our government works, they learn one of the important prerequisites for being good citizens. They learn that they live in a society where they can influence their lives together with others. When they learn history, they learn to see themselves as belonging to a human race that has over centuries tried out different ways of living out human lives.
We hear often these days that parents should read books to their children. And so they should. But equally or more important is that parents read books for their own enjoyment and growth. Many American homes have no books except perhaps some college texts that have never been put in the trash. Children in those houses learn that grown ups do not read, that books are only for small kids. Once you have learned how to read, all you need to read is what you have to read in school or at your job.
Children do not learn to be curious if their parents' conversation includes only gossip or last nights' game. Children are encouraged to follow up their own questions when they see their parents talk at dinner about interesting things they found out in the course of the day, or topics they encountered they would like to know more about. Children do not learn to value education if their parents do not ask them what they learned in school, but only ask about their grades. What good are good grades if in earning them your child did not learn anything that will make a difference to the person she is growing up to be? Maybe your child is learning things in school you do not know and you might be glad to find out about. Learning from your children enriches your life and shows them that learning is good in itself.
Education should open everyone's eyes to the immense variety of the world, of persons and places and societies to know, to experience, savor and try to understand. You miss all of that if making and spending money is in the center of your life. You miss what education might provide in your life, if you only go to school to earn more money in the future.
Tuesday, May 5, 2009
Undocumented workers
May 1 has come to be one of the days when the advocates of undocumented workers demonstrate their support for immigrants. It is also a day for their opponents -- mostly persons who feel threatened by the job competition of the immigrants -- to emphasize that the immigrants are here illegally.
Alan Greenspan, for many years the head of the Federal Reserve and now, in his retirement, the grand old man of the business elite of this country, used the occasion to declare that "illegal immigration has made a significant attribution to US economic growth by providing a flexible workforce."
Translate that into English: businesses can pay undocumented workers very low wages. That saves them money. It also allows them to pay less to American workers because there is always a threat of being replaced by the undocumented low-wage workers. Undocumented workers have no protection from laws or from unions. You can hire and fire them at will.
Greenspan represents the point of view of employers. Many of them like undocumented workers. They also like that the undocumented and their supporters fight with American workers worried about their jobs. The presence of undocumented immigrants provides them with one more way of keeping all wages low and thus making more money.
Both American and undocumented immigrant workers make it easier for their employers to depress their wages when they fight with each other. They would be better off trying to support each other. In work places where there are unions, workers should insist that the undocumented be paid the same wages as they themselves. They should talk to their elected representatives about a reasonable immigration policy that would, for instance, allow long-term undocumented workers to get green cards and, eventually, become citizens and that would allow every workers to come here from abroad for a limited number of years.
The real fight is between employers and their employees. Since real 1970 wages for most Americans have hardly gone up. When workers wanted higher wages, business moved the jobs off-shore. Now they can also use the presence of undocumented workers to keep wages low. As a consequence many people today have less buying power than their parents had.
We can no more stop illegal immigration than we can stop off-shoring jobs. It is important to respond to these facts in ways that do not allow employers to use the undocumented to depress all wages.
Alan Greenspan, for many years the head of the Federal Reserve and now, in his retirement, the grand old man of the business elite of this country, used the occasion to declare that "illegal immigration has made a significant attribution to US economic growth by providing a flexible workforce."
Translate that into English: businesses can pay undocumented workers very low wages. That saves them money. It also allows them to pay less to American workers because there is always a threat of being replaced by the undocumented low-wage workers. Undocumented workers have no protection from laws or from unions. You can hire and fire them at will.
Greenspan represents the point of view of employers. Many of them like undocumented workers. They also like that the undocumented and their supporters fight with American workers worried about their jobs. The presence of undocumented immigrants provides them with one more way of keeping all wages low and thus making more money.
Both American and undocumented immigrant workers make it easier for their employers to depress their wages when they fight with each other. They would be better off trying to support each other. In work places where there are unions, workers should insist that the undocumented be paid the same wages as they themselves. They should talk to their elected representatives about a reasonable immigration policy that would, for instance, allow long-term undocumented workers to get green cards and, eventually, become citizens and that would allow every workers to come here from abroad for a limited number of years.
The real fight is between employers and their employees. Since real 1970 wages for most Americans have hardly gone up. When workers wanted higher wages, business moved the jobs off-shore. Now they can also use the presence of undocumented workers to keep wages low. As a consequence many people today have less buying power than their parents had.
We can no more stop illegal immigration than we can stop off-shoring jobs. It is important to respond to these facts in ways that do not allow employers to use the undocumented to depress all wages.
Sunday, April 26, 2009
War and Genocide
Its this time of year again, the season of genocide remembrances and conferences; President Obama went to Turkey and without using the dreaded word “genocide” spoke harshly about the 1915 massacre of Armenians by Turks. It is the time of year to remember genocides and its victims.
The local paper displayed a bar graph of different genocides: 200,000 persons killed in Bosnia-Herzogovina in 1992- 1995; 800,000 in Ruanda in 1994; 2 million in Cambodia under Pol Pot in 1975 – 1979; 6 million in the Nazi Holocaust 1938 – 1945; 300,000 killed by the Japanese in Nanking, China in 1937- 1938; 7 million killed in Stalinist Russia during the forced collectivization of agriculture; 1.5 million killed in Armenia in 1915.
In this chart the word “genocide” is applied very loosely. The Nazis set out to wipe out the Jews. They were aiming to destroy a people. Stalin was trying to rid Russia of perceived enemies of the modernization project set in motion by the Communist party. The large loss of lives had nothing to do with ethnic identities. If they were seen to be enemies of the Stalinist state, they would be killed whether they were Russian or belonged to some other nation. Similarly the killers and killed in Cambodia were for the most part Cambodians (Khmer). National identities were not the primary issue. The word genocide is here simply a synonym for “mass murder.”
But if that is what genocide has come to mean—the killing of large numbers of people in a fairly short time, why does the chart not mention Word War II which is reputed to have cost the life of 50 million people? Why is there no mention of the Korean war (2,800,000 victims) or the war in Vietnam 3,500,000 victims)? It is common to distinguish genocide from wars. Genocides are deplored and remembered tearfully. Many holocaust museums and commemorations have been erected. There are some but many fewer war memorials or remembrances of its many, many victims. Few, if any, university institutes study war; more study genocide. But if genocide refers to mass killings, wars should surely also be included.
Wars are different from genocide, but not that different. The carpet bombing of German cities, the methodical bombing of London and other cities in England had as their goal the destruction of civilian populations. In genocide the destruction of a people is the end; in methodical bombing of cities the destruction of a people is a means. For the persons who fall victims to either, the difference is non-existent. All die a horrible death. Modern wars in which the distinction between combatant and non-combatant has disappeared involve genocide. The distinction between war and genocide becomes blurred.
Of course we Jews should mourn our dead. But we must strenuously resist the temptation to think that death of our people is a more serious tragedy than that of others. We must not be tempted to acquiesce in the killing of more than a thousand residents of Gaza in retaliation for 14 Israelis killed by the rockets of Hamas. We must not for a moment accept the argument, often offered to justify dropping atomic bombs in Hiroshima and Nagasaki at the end of World War II, that these bombs served to save American lives. Upward of 700,000 persons died in these twin bombings. The number of American lives saved would certainly have been much smaller. The justification for dropping those two atomic bombs assumes that American lives are worth much more than the lives of Japanese.
But that sort of thinking—that some lives are worth a lot less than ours—legitimates genocide: Jews could be killed because the Nazis called their lives worthless. That sort of thinking stands behind slavery—including the sexual slavery of our day. That sort of thinking makes war and mass killing thinkable.
Holocaust remembrances and museums thus are very ambiguous. They allow us Jews to mourn our terrible losses and to mourn, and protest, the hatred so many people have felt for us in the past and still feel for us in the present. But when these remembrances reinforce the belief that Jewish lives are more valuable than the lives of Palestinians, they become a justification for repeating genocide, only this time the Jews are not the victims.
Holocaust remembrances accompanied by the strident insistence that genocide is different from war, conceals the evil of war, conceals the millions and millions of persons who die miserably in war, and allow us to continue to use violence as our chief tool in international relations.
When Holocaust remembrances remember only “our” dead, they support the widespread nationalist assumptions that “our” lives—whether they be American, or German, or Israeli, whether they be Sunni or Shia, Hindu or Muslim, Chinese or Tibetan—are worth more than those of our enemies. A people that believes that, will ruthlessly kill its enemies and not shrink back from genocide. The cry “Never again” is emptied of all content once we fail to accept the value of all human lives as equal.
Until we learn to consider every human death a tragedy whatever the victim's ethnic affiliations , the world will continue to suffer bloodbath after bloodbath. Hundreds of thousand, millions will die whether we call it genocide or not.
The local paper displayed a bar graph of different genocides: 200,000 persons killed in Bosnia-Herzogovina in 1992- 1995; 800,000 in Ruanda in 1994; 2 million in Cambodia under Pol Pot in 1975 – 1979; 6 million in the Nazi Holocaust 1938 – 1945; 300,000 killed by the Japanese in Nanking, China in 1937- 1938; 7 million killed in Stalinist Russia during the forced collectivization of agriculture; 1.5 million killed in Armenia in 1915.
In this chart the word “genocide” is applied very loosely. The Nazis set out to wipe out the Jews. They were aiming to destroy a people. Stalin was trying to rid Russia of perceived enemies of the modernization project set in motion by the Communist party. The large loss of lives had nothing to do with ethnic identities. If they were seen to be enemies of the Stalinist state, they would be killed whether they were Russian or belonged to some other nation. Similarly the killers and killed in Cambodia were for the most part Cambodians (Khmer). National identities were not the primary issue. The word genocide is here simply a synonym for “mass murder.”
But if that is what genocide has come to mean—the killing of large numbers of people in a fairly short time, why does the chart not mention Word War II which is reputed to have cost the life of 50 million people? Why is there no mention of the Korean war (2,800,000 victims) or the war in Vietnam 3,500,000 victims)? It is common to distinguish genocide from wars. Genocides are deplored and remembered tearfully. Many holocaust museums and commemorations have been erected. There are some but many fewer war memorials or remembrances of its many, many victims. Few, if any, university institutes study war; more study genocide. But if genocide refers to mass killings, wars should surely also be included.
Wars are different from genocide, but not that different. The carpet bombing of German cities, the methodical bombing of London and other cities in England had as their goal the destruction of civilian populations. In genocide the destruction of a people is the end; in methodical bombing of cities the destruction of a people is a means. For the persons who fall victims to either, the difference is non-existent. All die a horrible death. Modern wars in which the distinction between combatant and non-combatant has disappeared involve genocide. The distinction between war and genocide becomes blurred.
Of course we Jews should mourn our dead. But we must strenuously resist the temptation to think that death of our people is a more serious tragedy than that of others. We must not be tempted to acquiesce in the killing of more than a thousand residents of Gaza in retaliation for 14 Israelis killed by the rockets of Hamas. We must not for a moment accept the argument, often offered to justify dropping atomic bombs in Hiroshima and Nagasaki at the end of World War II, that these bombs served to save American lives. Upward of 700,000 persons died in these twin bombings. The number of American lives saved would certainly have been much smaller. The justification for dropping those two atomic bombs assumes that American lives are worth much more than the lives of Japanese.
But that sort of thinking—that some lives are worth a lot less than ours—legitimates genocide: Jews could be killed because the Nazis called their lives worthless. That sort of thinking stands behind slavery—including the sexual slavery of our day. That sort of thinking makes war and mass killing thinkable.
Holocaust remembrances and museums thus are very ambiguous. They allow us Jews to mourn our terrible losses and to mourn, and protest, the hatred so many people have felt for us in the past and still feel for us in the present. But when these remembrances reinforce the belief that Jewish lives are more valuable than the lives of Palestinians, they become a justification for repeating genocide, only this time the Jews are not the victims.
Holocaust remembrances accompanied by the strident insistence that genocide is different from war, conceals the evil of war, conceals the millions and millions of persons who die miserably in war, and allow us to continue to use violence as our chief tool in international relations.
When Holocaust remembrances remember only “our” dead, they support the widespread nationalist assumptions that “our” lives—whether they be American, or German, or Israeli, whether they be Sunni or Shia, Hindu or Muslim, Chinese or Tibetan—are worth more than those of our enemies. A people that believes that, will ruthlessly kill its enemies and not shrink back from genocide. The cry “Never again” is emptied of all content once we fail to accept the value of all human lives as equal.
Until we learn to consider every human death a tragedy whatever the victim's ethnic affiliations , the world will continue to suffer bloodbath after bloodbath. Hundreds of thousand, millions will die whether we call it genocide or not.
Monday, April 20, 2009
The US and Cuba
Last week President Obama relaxed the previous restrictions on Cuban-Americans returning to their native land to visit their families. He also eased telephone communications between the two countries. Over the weekend, at the summit of the Organization of American States bringing together all the heads of governments in the hemisphere—except Cuba-- President Obama reached out to President Chavez of Venezuela and signaled that he wanted to try for better communication with Cuba.
For more than 50 years, successive US government have been more or less hostile to Cuba. There have been some thaws before, but the embargo on Cuba has been in existence since the early 1960's. US companies have been forbidden to do business in Cuba and in periods of heightened anti-Cuban sentiment, the US also attempted to force European businesses to refrain from doing business in Cuba.
US hostility to Cuba has at least three different sources: The Cuban government is in the hands of the Communist party of Cuba. Even before Fidel Castro himself declared himself to be a Communist, American observers called him one. Secondly, the Cuban government, American politicians say, is not elected democratically. Although Cuba does hold elections, there is only one party and the electoral procedures are quite different from our electoral system. Finally, the US has always regarded Cuba as our own, or in our sphere of interest and influence.
From 1934 on Cuba was ruled directly, or indirectly, by General Fulgencio Batista, a violent dictator, friend of underworld criminals who made Havana into a paradise of gambling, prostitution, and illegal drug traffic, with generous kick-backs to Batista and his cronies. In the early fifties, Fidel Castro mounted an attack on Batista but failed. In the late fifties, a second attack succeeded and Batista fled. The US government had supported Batista until it became evident that his regime had come to an end.
The first wave of Cuban immigrants to the US(1959–62) consisted of Cuba’s elite: executives and owners of firms, big merchants, sugar mill owners, cattlemen, representatives of foreign companies, and professionals. They left Cuba when the revolution overturned the old social order through measures such as the nationalization of American industry and agrarian reform laws, as well as through the United States’ severance of diplomatic and economic ties with Cuba. In the US they have had a significant influence on domestic US politics, especially policies concerned with Cuba and Latin America. Together with the CIA, they have hatched a long series of failed plots against Fidel Castro including exploding cigars and similar attempts that could only have been invented by script writers for James Bond movies. Some people claim to have counted 638 assassination attempts. There have also been various attempted invasions of Cuba, all of which failed miserably.
Batista was hated by most Cubans the majority of whom were poor; they supported Castro and his young rebels. They were not troubled by Castro's left-wing politics and leaning to Communism. But to the US, at the beginning of the Cold War with the Soviet Union, his leftism made Castro unacceptable. Recall that in the 50ties America was in the midst of a hysterical hunt for communists, with politicians holding hearings looking for communists, state governments and private employers demanding that their employees swear loyalty to the US or lose their job. Led by the sleazy Senator McCarthy, the hunt for communists in the government and private employ made the 1950s one of the dark periods for freedom and civil liberties in the US. With that climate at home, a Latin leader who leaned towards communism needed to be overthrown.
Then and now, many leaders in the have US justified the embargo against Cuba by saying that Cuba is not a democracy. But why then did our government amply support the dictator Batista for 25 years? The persons most hostile to Castro--American conservatives—had no problems with the dictator Batista. Our commitment to democracy in Latin America is very weak.
During the years that we tried to subvert the Cuban government by prohibiting trade with Cuba and foreign investment in the country, we fomented military takeovers in several Latin American countries where the people had elected leftist leaders who promised to redistribute land, to use the country's resources to benefit the large masses of poor people and who threatened the huge profits made by US companies. In 1954 the people of Guatemala elected Jacobo Arbenz, an avowed leftist. The CIA fomented a successful military uprising that cost the lives of many opponents of the military. In neighboring Nicaragua, the US Marines, who had occupied the country between 1912 and 1936, established Somoza as dictator; the US supported him and his son until their overthrow by the Sandinistas in 1979. President Reagan then waged a covert war against the Sandinistas. In Haiti we supported the Duvaliers—father and son-- as dictators from 1957 to 1986. The Dominican Republic was under the thumb of dictator Rafael Trujillo for many years with full and open support of the US government. In 1972, the Chilean people elected Salvador Allende, an avowed socialist, in a free democratic election. The CIA managed to have him overthrown by the military under the leadership of Augusto Pinochet. Hundreds of thousands of Chilean died in the repression that followed. The list of US sponsored dictators who overthrew of legitimately elected governments is still longer.
The US has been bitterly hostile to Cuba and Fidel Castro for 50 years or more because theirs' is not a democratic government. But at the same time, the US government has been supportive of one brutal military dictator after another and has helped them to get rid of democratically elected leaders.
We can understand that puzzle once we recognize that Cuba—and the same is true in many other Latin American countries—was at one time largely owned by US companies. In 1958, US interests controlled 80% of Cuba’s railroads and 90% of its electrical and telephone services. Ian Chadwick's history of US-Cuban relations summarizes the situation as follows:
“In January of 1960, Cuba expropriated 70,000 acres of property owned by US sugar companies, including 35,000 acres owned by United Fruit Company (UFC owned approximately 235,000 acres more). United Fruit (later United Brands and Chiquita Brands) was a powerful organization with strong ties in the US administration and the CIA. The UFC was instrumental in overthrowing the elected Arbenz government in Guatemala, in 1954. US Secretary of State John Foster Dulles was both a stockholder and longtime legal adviser for the company. He prepared contracts in 1930 and 1936 between UFC and the Ubico dictatorship in Guatemala. Allen W. Dulles, his brother and director of the CIA, was once president of the company. UN Ambassador Henry Cabot Lodge was a member of its board of directors. Walter Bedell Smith, head of the CIA before Dulles, became president of United Fruit after the overthrow of Arbenz.”
Latin America, in general, and Cuba, in particular, was a fertile ground for US investment and super profits for US companies. The populations of Latin American countries toiled for US companies; huge profits were sent back to the US while working populations remained mired in poverty, ill health, poor education, without prospects for improving their lot. No wonder that they voted again and again—the few times they got a chance to vote—for left wing candidates who promised to limit the sway of foreign investors in order to improve the lot of the local people. But US leaders, deeply involved in sucking profits out of Latin America, managed to maintain the power of their companies by sponsoring local strong men to protect the foreign investors and profits.
Against this background of US exploitation of Latin America, maintained through a string of right wing military dictators, the sometimes hysterical enmity towards Fidel Castro becomes intelligible. Cuba—whatever its faults and short comings—has turned its energies toward making life better for ordinary Cubans in spite of 50 years of US efforts to damage its economy and its government. Cubans have better medical services than almost everyone else in Latin America—and many people in the US. Cubans are better educated than many other Latin Americans and many people in the US. Most important of all, Cuba has refused to submit to US bullying. It has exposed the real reasons behind US opposition to its way of running its country-- the threat to US investments in Latin America and the super profits made by US companies to the detriment of large masses of terribly poor people who must struggle daily to stay alive.
President Obama seems committed to a more civil and less macho foreign policy than his predecessor. But his attempt at a balanced foreign policy will try to do justice to all sides—to American businesses in Latin America and to the just demands of large masses of the poor. It is not clear today how this balancing act with turn. After all the basic mission of the US government remains unchanged: to make the world safe for US investments and profits without regard to the men and women whose work produces those profits.
For more than 50 years, successive US government have been more or less hostile to Cuba. There have been some thaws before, but the embargo on Cuba has been in existence since the early 1960's. US companies have been forbidden to do business in Cuba and in periods of heightened anti-Cuban sentiment, the US also attempted to force European businesses to refrain from doing business in Cuba.
US hostility to Cuba has at least three different sources: The Cuban government is in the hands of the Communist party of Cuba. Even before Fidel Castro himself declared himself to be a Communist, American observers called him one. Secondly, the Cuban government, American politicians say, is not elected democratically. Although Cuba does hold elections, there is only one party and the electoral procedures are quite different from our electoral system. Finally, the US has always regarded Cuba as our own, or in our sphere of interest and influence.
From 1934 on Cuba was ruled directly, or indirectly, by General Fulgencio Batista, a violent dictator, friend of underworld criminals who made Havana into a paradise of gambling, prostitution, and illegal drug traffic, with generous kick-backs to Batista and his cronies. In the early fifties, Fidel Castro mounted an attack on Batista but failed. In the late fifties, a second attack succeeded and Batista fled. The US government had supported Batista until it became evident that his regime had come to an end.
The first wave of Cuban immigrants to the US(1959–62) consisted of Cuba’s elite: executives and owners of firms, big merchants, sugar mill owners, cattlemen, representatives of foreign companies, and professionals. They left Cuba when the revolution overturned the old social order through measures such as the nationalization of American industry and agrarian reform laws, as well as through the United States’ severance of diplomatic and economic ties with Cuba. In the US they have had a significant influence on domestic US politics, especially policies concerned with Cuba and Latin America. Together with the CIA, they have hatched a long series of failed plots against Fidel Castro including exploding cigars and similar attempts that could only have been invented by script writers for James Bond movies. Some people claim to have counted 638 assassination attempts. There have also been various attempted invasions of Cuba, all of which failed miserably.
Batista was hated by most Cubans the majority of whom were poor; they supported Castro and his young rebels. They were not troubled by Castro's left-wing politics and leaning to Communism. But to the US, at the beginning of the Cold War with the Soviet Union, his leftism made Castro unacceptable. Recall that in the 50ties America was in the midst of a hysterical hunt for communists, with politicians holding hearings looking for communists, state governments and private employers demanding that their employees swear loyalty to the US or lose their job. Led by the sleazy Senator McCarthy, the hunt for communists in the government and private employ made the 1950s one of the dark periods for freedom and civil liberties in the US. With that climate at home, a Latin leader who leaned towards communism needed to be overthrown.
Then and now, many leaders in the have US justified the embargo against Cuba by saying that Cuba is not a democracy. But why then did our government amply support the dictator Batista for 25 years? The persons most hostile to Castro--American conservatives—had no problems with the dictator Batista. Our commitment to democracy in Latin America is very weak.
During the years that we tried to subvert the Cuban government by prohibiting trade with Cuba and foreign investment in the country, we fomented military takeovers in several Latin American countries where the people had elected leftist leaders who promised to redistribute land, to use the country's resources to benefit the large masses of poor people and who threatened the huge profits made by US companies. In 1954 the people of Guatemala elected Jacobo Arbenz, an avowed leftist. The CIA fomented a successful military uprising that cost the lives of many opponents of the military. In neighboring Nicaragua, the US Marines, who had occupied the country between 1912 and 1936, established Somoza as dictator; the US supported him and his son until their overthrow by the Sandinistas in 1979. President Reagan then waged a covert war against the Sandinistas. In Haiti we supported the Duvaliers—father and son-- as dictators from 1957 to 1986. The Dominican Republic was under the thumb of dictator Rafael Trujillo for many years with full and open support of the US government. In 1972, the Chilean people elected Salvador Allende, an avowed socialist, in a free democratic election. The CIA managed to have him overthrown by the military under the leadership of Augusto Pinochet. Hundreds of thousands of Chilean died in the repression that followed. The list of US sponsored dictators who overthrew of legitimately elected governments is still longer.
The US has been bitterly hostile to Cuba and Fidel Castro for 50 years or more because theirs' is not a democratic government. But at the same time, the US government has been supportive of one brutal military dictator after another and has helped them to get rid of democratically elected leaders.
We can understand that puzzle once we recognize that Cuba—and the same is true in many other Latin American countries—was at one time largely owned by US companies. In 1958, US interests controlled 80% of Cuba’s railroads and 90% of its electrical and telephone services. Ian Chadwick's history of US-Cuban relations summarizes the situation as follows:
“In January of 1960, Cuba expropriated 70,000 acres of property owned by US sugar companies, including 35,000 acres owned by United Fruit Company (UFC owned approximately 235,000 acres more). United Fruit (later United Brands and Chiquita Brands) was a powerful organization with strong ties in the US administration and the CIA. The UFC was instrumental in overthrowing the elected Arbenz government in Guatemala, in 1954. US Secretary of State John Foster Dulles was both a stockholder and longtime legal adviser for the company. He prepared contracts in 1930 and 1936 between UFC and the Ubico dictatorship in Guatemala. Allen W. Dulles, his brother and director of the CIA, was once president of the company. UN Ambassador Henry Cabot Lodge was a member of its board of directors. Walter Bedell Smith, head of the CIA before Dulles, became president of United Fruit after the overthrow of Arbenz.”
Latin America, in general, and Cuba, in particular, was a fertile ground for US investment and super profits for US companies. The populations of Latin American countries toiled for US companies; huge profits were sent back to the US while working populations remained mired in poverty, ill health, poor education, without prospects for improving their lot. No wonder that they voted again and again—the few times they got a chance to vote—for left wing candidates who promised to limit the sway of foreign investors in order to improve the lot of the local people. But US leaders, deeply involved in sucking profits out of Latin America, managed to maintain the power of their companies by sponsoring local strong men to protect the foreign investors and profits.
Against this background of US exploitation of Latin America, maintained through a string of right wing military dictators, the sometimes hysterical enmity towards Fidel Castro becomes intelligible. Cuba—whatever its faults and short comings—has turned its energies toward making life better for ordinary Cubans in spite of 50 years of US efforts to damage its economy and its government. Cubans have better medical services than almost everyone else in Latin America—and many people in the US. Cubans are better educated than many other Latin Americans and many people in the US. Most important of all, Cuba has refused to submit to US bullying. It has exposed the real reasons behind US opposition to its way of running its country-- the threat to US investments in Latin America and the super profits made by US companies to the detriment of large masses of terribly poor people who must struggle daily to stay alive.
President Obama seems committed to a more civil and less macho foreign policy than his predecessor. But his attempt at a balanced foreign policy will try to do justice to all sides—to American businesses in Latin America and to the just demands of large masses of the poor. It is not clear today how this balancing act with turn. After all the basic mission of the US government remains unchanged: to make the world safe for US investments and profits without regard to the men and women whose work produces those profits.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)