How far have we come?
While in the process of reading Rebecca Solnit’s “A Paradise Built in Hell”, it has become apparent that one of the recurrent themes throughout the book is not just the negative perceptions that lead to abusive behavior, but a certain socialist perspective she has in pointing out that the major abuses come not from evil people, but from altruistic-appearing, powerful entities who use their stature and power to push their own status quo agenda upon those who might act against them, even if that is just their perception rather than reality.
The San Francisco earthquake example is the first she uses, but what was very obvious throughout this entire section of the book is that all of the major abuses that took place were power play operations that were designed to maintain a certain status quo of power, not necessarily of status quo circumstances. The military responded with force not because of a need to suppress looters and evil happenings, but because of a desire of the local post commander to keep a certain state of power in operation, something that could only be done by having soldiers act with violent actions towards victimized citizens, often as a prelude to perceived threats that were probably never going to occur.
She follows this up by showing that some of the major political figures who existed in San Francisco at the turn of the century were individuals who were already caught up in class politics with challengers, and that the reaction to the earthquake was used as further leverage in long-running battles. The acts of political figures against Universal Railroad and other union suffragists were waged as preemptive strikes to keep power from changing hands, even though much of the power in question was economic, rather than political and military. The political forces in place used the opportunities presented to them from the earthquake to make sure that such economic forces did not act against them, and that when the emergencies were over, that they would not have the chance to rise up again.
The military’s cooperation in this whole mess is scary, because often it is discussed how the dichotomy of the military and civilization power structure serves to keep the United States in its state of citizen-first separation. In her reporting, it is observed that the military often acted with the mindset that the citizens were to be feared and subjected to violence rather than protected. In history books, and especially in the words of the military, the reaction of the US armed services during this period was exemplary, saving the people, but in reality the reaction of the US military was one of violence, where citizens were seen as secondary citizens, subject to the whims of individual soldiers who had little problem with opening fire on citizens seen in the ruins, treating them as looters, thieves and criminals before ever considering why they might be there in the first place. This sort of mentality still exists within the military, and no one ever really questions it, because it is the exact type of wording we receive when we hear that the US military has attacked “insurgents” whenever an air strike takes place where the victims are often unknown because strikes of that nature are not known for their exactness. Quite often, our military treats any skirmish and death as “us versus them” where those who make up the “them” have to prove themselves to be worthy of victim status, or they are forever considered enemy combatants who are casualties of war. That is the exact approach the military took towards San Francisco after the earthquake. Today, many citizens who were shot and killed by soldiers, acting on their own decisions, are still seen as the guilty party. What no one bothers to point out is that soldiers in the United States, even back then, were not authorized to open fire on citizens unless they were acting in the interests of an actual martial law situation. There was no official martial law declared in San Francisco back then; the military acted on its own, taking its orders from a military general who declared martial law in theory alone. The president, the governor, and even the mayor (the last two not actually having the power to do so) never instigated martial law in that emergency. The deaths that were caused happened as a result of soldiers taking the law into their own hands. No, that fact has never really been discussed all that much. It’s not really just a footnote in history, but it doesn’t even get treated as that.
The book, although somewhat condemning in its style of writing, does present a pretty strong case for why we really should be paying more attention to these sorts of things. It took only an unannounced emergency to turn a civilized city into a stomping ground for injustice. When it finally ended, no one was really held accountable, and to this day, we don’t even teach what really happened.
If anything should come out of a book like this, that should be the lesson. We’re still the victims of “the winner writes the text books” philosophies in this country. We haven’t moved that much further than such barbaric actions. Unfortunately, every time we try to take a step back and pretend that we’re some enlightened society that is so distanced from the bad days, we should remember that we’re really only a disaster away from falling down that rabbit hole again, even in the greatest, freedom loving societies all around us.
One of my biggest criticisms of modern name America is that I don’t believe we’re all that as enlightened as we like to think we are. It was only a century ago when we enslaved a great deal of the population, actually arguing that it was the “right” thing to do. It was less than four decades ago that we were quite willing to separate parts of the population from drinking from the same water fountain, convinced that there was some morality involved in such decisions. Every day, we find ourselves facing our own selves in the fact that we do not believe we could ever be like that again, yet everywhere around us, someone is still acting in that type of interest. Granted, the victims keep changing, but the attitudes do not. And the reasoning still exists just as much as it always did. We always claim morality, either through religious grounds or through some other equally mundane process of whatever makes us feel better.
Some day, we’ll get it right. We’re just not there yet.
Stumble It!
The San Francisco earthquake example is the first she uses, but what was very obvious throughout this entire section of the book is that all of the major abuses that took place were power play operations that were designed to maintain a certain status quo of power, not necessarily of status quo circumstances. The military responded with force not because of a need to suppress looters and evil happenings, but because of a desire of the local post commander to keep a certain state of power in operation, something that could only be done by having soldiers act with violent actions towards victimized citizens, often as a prelude to perceived threats that were probably never going to occur.
She follows this up by showing that some of the major political figures who existed in San Francisco at the turn of the century were individuals who were already caught up in class politics with challengers, and that the reaction to the earthquake was used as further leverage in long-running battles. The acts of political figures against Universal Railroad and other union suffragists were waged as preemptive strikes to keep power from changing hands, even though much of the power in question was economic, rather than political and military. The political forces in place used the opportunities presented to them from the earthquake to make sure that such economic forces did not act against them, and that when the emergencies were over, that they would not have the chance to rise up again.
The military’s cooperation in this whole mess is scary, because often it is discussed how the dichotomy of the military and civilization power structure serves to keep the United States in its state of citizen-first separation. In her reporting, it is observed that the military often acted with the mindset that the citizens were to be feared and subjected to violence rather than protected. In history books, and especially in the words of the military, the reaction of the US armed services during this period was exemplary, saving the people, but in reality the reaction of the US military was one of violence, where citizens were seen as secondary citizens, subject to the whims of individual soldiers who had little problem with opening fire on citizens seen in the ruins, treating them as looters, thieves and criminals before ever considering why they might be there in the first place. This sort of mentality still exists within the military, and no one ever really questions it, because it is the exact type of wording we receive when we hear that the US military has attacked “insurgents” whenever an air strike takes place where the victims are often unknown because strikes of that nature are not known for their exactness. Quite often, our military treats any skirmish and death as “us versus them” where those who make up the “them” have to prove themselves to be worthy of victim status, or they are forever considered enemy combatants who are casualties of war. That is the exact approach the military took towards San Francisco after the earthquake. Today, many citizens who were shot and killed by soldiers, acting on their own decisions, are still seen as the guilty party. What no one bothers to point out is that soldiers in the United States, even back then, were not authorized to open fire on citizens unless they were acting in the interests of an actual martial law situation. There was no official martial law declared in San Francisco back then; the military acted on its own, taking its orders from a military general who declared martial law in theory alone. The president, the governor, and even the mayor (the last two not actually having the power to do so) never instigated martial law in that emergency. The deaths that were caused happened as a result of soldiers taking the law into their own hands. No, that fact has never really been discussed all that much. It’s not really just a footnote in history, but it doesn’t even get treated as that.
The book, although somewhat condemning in its style of writing, does present a pretty strong case for why we really should be paying more attention to these sorts of things. It took only an unannounced emergency to turn a civilized city into a stomping ground for injustice. When it finally ended, no one was really held accountable, and to this day, we don’t even teach what really happened.
If anything should come out of a book like this, that should be the lesson. We’re still the victims of “the winner writes the text books” philosophies in this country. We haven’t moved that much further than such barbaric actions. Unfortunately, every time we try to take a step back and pretend that we’re some enlightened society that is so distanced from the bad days, we should remember that we’re really only a disaster away from falling down that rabbit hole again, even in the greatest, freedom loving societies all around us.
One of my biggest criticisms of modern name America is that I don’t believe we’re all that as enlightened as we like to think we are. It was only a century ago when we enslaved a great deal of the population, actually arguing that it was the “right” thing to do. It was less than four decades ago that we were quite willing to separate parts of the population from drinking from the same water fountain, convinced that there was some morality involved in such decisions. Every day, we find ourselves facing our own selves in the fact that we do not believe we could ever be like that again, yet everywhere around us, someone is still acting in that type of interest. Granted, the victims keep changing, but the attitudes do not. And the reasoning still exists just as much as it always did. We always claim morality, either through religious grounds or through some other equally mundane process of whatever makes us feel better.
Some day, we’ll get it right. We’re just not there yet.
Labels: Ethics, Military, Philosophy, Politics
Stumble It!
posted by Duane @ 12:11 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home