What Does Columbus Have to Do with Me?

Today in my Facebook newsfeed I’ve seen lots of “Rethink Columbus Day” posts. Rethinking Columbus Day is an excellent idea. Yes, let’s do. Celebrating Indigenous Peoples Day sounds great to me. But let’s give indigenous peoples—and our children—more than just a day off in the fall.

The “Ocean Blue” story so many of us were told about Columbus was not just a story about someone who lived in the fifteenth century. It was a story about ourselves. Here’s how the story goes: We, Americans of western European descent, are explorers, adventurers, and, yes, conquerors. We are bold and sophisticated, excelling in written language, technology, and learning. We are the good guys in the white hats. We are rugged individualists who rely on our own ingenuity and resourcefulness to cross the ocean, the continent, the world.

But just under the surface of the myth lies the bloody truth: western Europeans raped and pillaged the people Columbus “discovered”; they terrorized them with their brutality and forced them into slavery. The truth should make us squirm. This is a discomfort we need to sit with for a while.

We are not who we were told we are. We are not who we thought. No white horses, no white hats. We are descendants of arrogant, avaricious imperialists who thought the only possible value of indigenous peoples of any continent was their monetary value as slaves. I am not saying that we are culpable for our ancestors sins, but I am saying that we are still living with their effects. And until we realize that, and soberly weigh our ancestors’ beliefs and culture—and our own, which stem at least in part from theirs—we will not be able to adequately address the violence, greed, and arrogance from which we sprang.

No, not everything we inherited from our predecessors’ culture is bad. But neither is it nearly so squeaky clean nor so heroic as we once believed. If we believe the lies we tell about our ancestors, we will believe the lies we tell about ourselves. But if we honestly and soberly assess our forebears, we’re much more likely to be able to honestly and soberly assess ourselves. Imperialism is not just a sin of the past. It has not vanished; it has changed its form and focus. Neither are racism, arrogance, and greed confined to the past. There is no virtue in wallowing in guilt or angst, but a sober and truthful assessment of who we were and who we are is necessary if we are to make real progress in the things that really matter. And I believe that when all is said and done, what really matters is how we treat each other, and by “each other” I mean our fellow human beings.

If how you see your ancestors affects how you see yourself (and it does), then so too does how you treat others—all others. If you treat all those you encounter in your life—whether in person, online, in the media, or even just in your imagination—with respect and openness, if you assume that everyone is worthy of your time and attention, then you will also know that you too are worthy. We are not defined by the sins of our ancestors. But the sins of our ancestors will live on until we look at them squarely and see them for what they really are. Then, perhaps, we will be free to cultivate respect and humility and compassion—not only for others, but for ourselves and for our children.

Moral war?

Every so often someone applauds what he calls a "moral" war, as Krugman does once again here: "the Civil War and World War II are the two great moral wars of our history, and they should be remembered with pride."

Once again, I have to respond:

The Civil War was never about slavery. "If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that."--Lincoln Lincoln preserved the union to preserve its power. Shame on you, Professor Krugman, for calling Lincoln's war moral. You know better. If Lincoln had permitted the states to dissolve the union, we would not have the power to do the great evil we have wreaked in every small country we've meddled in since the end of WWII.

We entered WWII to punish the Japanese, who attacked our war-making capability in the Pacific. We prided ourselves in fighting the evil Hitler. In beating him, we became him. The list of countries the U.S. has attacked with our military, CIA, gifts and sales of weapons, gifts of money for weapons and military . . . is almost endless. The tail of war profiteering has wagged the dog of U.S. policy since Eisenhower succeeded in his quest, begun in WWI, to create the military-industrial complex he warned us of too late. "I object to violence because when it appears to do good, the good is only temporary; the evil it does is permanent."--Mohandas Gandhi The enemy is not an evil dictator. The enemy is evil itself. We do not win by doing evil.

--TomRW

Thank you, Joe Parisi!

I wrote to my Wisconsin state representative, Joe Parisi, for the very first time this week. I confess that I don't follow state and local politics very closely. When they do gain my attention, it seems I am always playing a game of catchup until the national players regain my attention.

But recently the Wisconsin Network for Peace and Justice sent me a message via its Facebook group asking that I contact my state representatives to ask them to cosponsor state bill LRB 1256, which would require that the governor ensure that no Wisconsin Guard unit is unlawfully released into national service. "It directs the governor to review every federal call-up of the National Guard for its legality, and where there is no lawful basis for Guard federalization, to take action to keep the Wisconsin Guard at home."

Given our deep concern for our daughters and sons, brothers and sisters, and mothers and fathers who have been deployed and redeployed to Iraq and Afghanistan, and given the apparent difficulty of extricating ourselves from those destructive and costly military actions that aren't helping anyone or keeping anyone safer, it seems reasonable enough to ask the governor to review the deployment of Wisconsin's National Guard for national service.

So I wrote the following letter to Joe Parisi:

Dear Representative Parisi:

Please join as a cosponsor for LRB 1256, a bill that would require the governor to ensure that no Wisconsin Guard unit be unlawfully released into national service.

According to the law as set forth by the U.S. Congress, the states can assert their historic national defense responsibilities. Having a newly elected administration in Washington does not change the need for this legislation. In fact, this is exactly when we should emphasize the rule of law as a moral and practical requirement for the use of military force.

Thank you for your consideration of this very serious matter.

Best regards,

Mary Ray Worley

So today I heard back from him:

Dear Ms. Worley:

Thank you for your e-mail requesting my support for LRB 1256, which would allow for the Governor to review federal call-up of our state's National Guard. I apologize for the delay in responding to your e-mail. I wanted to discuss the bill with its author, Representative Spencer Black, and learn more about the proposal. I spoke with Representative Black this morning and have signed on as a co-sponsor of this legislation.

Thank you for bringing it to my attention. If you have other questions or need more information about this proposal or any other pending legislation, please let me know.

Sincerely,

JOE PARISI

State Representative

48th Assembly District

Amazing! I actually got the response I wanted. Now I'm feeling all powerful and buff. Further bulletins pending!

To Investigate Bush or Not

In response to William Fisher's "To Investigate Bush or Not" in the February 16, 2009, Huffington Post

This divergence of viewpoints - from doing nothing to appointing a special prosecutor - is putting President Obama in an uncomfortable position. ... But Obama appears reluctant to take any action that might further divide the country. Moreover, he may be loath to antagonize Republicans, whose support he may need on many other issues in the future.

There is always a divergence of viewpoints. Justice should not have to depend on consensus. Nevertheless, you say yourself that "a sizable majority of Americans favor an investigation into Bush-era misconduct."

Investigations and prosecutions are never pleasant. There will never be a convenient time. "Further divide the country?" It was the Bushies who were deliberately divisive. The November election and popular support for Obama since then shows that we are currently less divided than we have been for a long time.

Obama is in quite a lot of uncomfortable positions. That's what he signed up for.

Republicans have just as many reasons, if not more, to want an investigation into Bush-era misconduct. Weren't they doing everything they could to put distance between themselves and Bush during the election? And isn't it the fault of the Bushies that the Republicans performed so abysmally in the election?

The bottom line is that if we don't investigate and prosecute Bush-era crimes, we set ourselves up for more of the same in the future. There will be absolutely nothing to prevent future leaders from doing the same unless we go forward with the investigations.

Don't Underestimate Your Power

As it turns out, Barack Obama did indeed answer our question on Sunday, on ABC's This Week with George Stephanopoulos:



Obama's answer is similar, but not identical, to the response posted on Change.gov, the Dec. 21 quotation from Joe Biden, which leaves the door open a tiny little bit for an investigation of crimes committed by the Bush administration.

The notion of avoiding this question by looking "forward as opposed to looking backwards" is patently ludicrous. As Biden said in the vice-presidential debates, "past is prologue." We cannot go forward effectively, in the direction we want to go, without paying close attention to what has gone before.

You can't possibly go from point A to point B unless you know where both points are. Knowing the location of point B won't do you any good at all unless you know where you're starting from, the location of point A.

And the concern about CIA operatives "looking over their shoulders"? All government employees should be looking over their shoulders to some extent. They're working for us, aren't they? They must always pursue their work in ways that uphold the Constitution and the Rule of Law. If that means "looking over their shoulders," then fine. Let them look.

A vindictive witch-hunt designed to satisfy partisan bloodlust could very well engender paranoia, not to mention doing more harm than good. But that is not at all what we're advocating. We're advocating a nonpartisan, measured, thorough investigation to find clear breaches of the law on the part of policy makers, especially those at the highest levels.

We're not looking for "a few bad apples"; we're looking for a few big kahunas. Given their bigness, they shouldn't be too hard to find, especially since a couple of them have already gone on national television and essentially boasted about having condoned torture.

Here's what Obama said on Sunday that I find most encouraging:

[The] attorney general ... is the people's lawyer. Eric Holder's been nominated. His job is to uphold the Constitution and look after the interests of the American people, not to be swayed by my day-to-day politics.

I think what Obama is saying here is that he's going to leave this question up to Eric Holder, who will not be as constrained by politics as Obama himself is. But he's also saying that, given that the attorney general is "the people's lawyer," it's up to the people to make their demands known to their lawyer.

He's talking about us, folks. "We the people" and all that. If we don't push for this, and push hard, it just isn't going to happen. But if we do push, it may very well happen. What Barack Obama did in that interview was to leave the door open—for us.

In the January issue of the Progressive, John Nichols tells an apt story about Franklin Roosevelt.

After his election in 1932, FDR met with Sidney Hillman and other labor leaders, many of them active Socialists with whom he had worked over the past decade or more. Hillman and his allies arrived with plans they wanted the new President to implement. Roosevelt told them: "I agree with you, I want to do it, now make me do it."

As then, so now. We have to make Obama do what I believe he wants to do. He's facing enormous political pressure from those who just want to let it all go, to let bygones be bygones and other such claptrap. But if he can point to the pressure coming from us, it will give him the political impetus he needs to do exactly what he wants to do. This is the nature of politics. The noisier the clamor, the more likely it is to have the desired effect.

In October of last year, Robert Borosage wrote, "If Obama is elected, he will have the moment, mandate, momentum, and moral armament to launch a new era of bold progressive reform." And I wrote in response that the mandate, momentum, and moral armament were not only for Obama, but for us. Obama cannot possibly effect bold progressive reform without noisy, clamorous, bold progressives pushing for that reform. Here's what I said in October:

The work that needs to be done to recover from the devastation wrought by the neocons is much too much for just one guy. ... To restore the Constitution, the balance of power, our civil liberties, a just and fair immigration system, a tortured economy, our standing in the world -- just to name a few -- we need to continue to be as engaged after the election as we are now.

I would add that actually we have to be more engaged now than we were during the election. We must not give in to the temptation to rest on our laurels. It's not enough to have elected Obama. We have to push now for what we know is right. We have to make use of the many avenues available to us to make our demands known. And after we've pushed, we need to push some more. This isn't going to be easy. That doesn't mean that it's not worth doing.

The support Obama needs from us is not our silent admiration but our noisy clamor for what is needed to move forward, from point A to point B. He's counting on our noisy goading. Some may say that we should just wait and see what he does before we voice our "criticisms." Don't think for a minute, though, that Obama isn't already experiencing plenty of pressure to maintain the status quo. To accomplish all that he wants to accomplish, he needs us to rouse the rabble and push like hell.

He cannot possibly accomplish all that needs doing on his own or with a bunch of half-baked politicians in Washington. Politicians are indeed constrained by politics. How could they be otherwise? But we are constrained only by the number of hours in the day and our convictions and passion for peace and justice and equity and the Rule of Law.

We are the ones who will make it happen. We really are the ones we've been waiting for. It would be a terrible mistake for us to underestimate our power at this critical juncture.

* * *

With that in mind, I want to encourage you, please, if you haven't already done so, vote for your top ten ideas for change in America at Change.org. I am especially urging you to vote for these two: (1) Appoint a Special Prosecutor for the Crimes of the Bush Administration, which is currently in 18th place and needs another 2,689 votes to make it to the top ten. (2) Get FISA right, repeal the PATRIOT act, and restore our civil liberties, which is currently in 8th place. Voting ends at 5 pm Eastern Time on Thursday, January 15. After you've voted, please encourage your friends and family to do the same.

Not All the News Is Bad

On the first day of the 111th Congress, Representative John Conyers (D-MI) introduced H.R. 104:

HR 104, National Commission on Presidential War Powers and Civil Liberties
Will establish a Blue Ribbon Commission comprised of experts outside government service to investigate the broad range of policies of the Bush administration that were undertaken by the Bush administration under claims of unreviewable war powers.

You can read the complete text of the bill here. According to the Free Dictionary, a "blue ribbon commission" is "an independent and exclusive commission of nonpartisan statesmen and experts formed to investigate some important governmental issue." Sounds good to me.

Although having a special prosecutor appointed by the attorney general would be optimal, work on this issue from any quarter is most welcome. We can't afford to wait ten or twenty or thirty years before the truth comes out. We need to reclaim our identity as a nation that upholds the Rule of Law as quickly as possible.

According to the Library of Congress Thomas website, the following representatives co-sponsored the bill:

• Jerrold Nadler (D-NY),
• Hank Johnson (D-GA),
• Sheila Jackson-Lee (D-TX),
• Steve Cohen (D-TN), and
• Bill Delahunt (D-MA),
• Luis Gutierrez (D-IL)
• Bobby Scott (D-VA)
• Rick Boucher (D-VA)
• Tammy Baldwin (D-WI)
• Debbie Wasserman Schultz (FL)

The bill has been referred to committee.

Please write to your representative and ask her or him to support this bill.

An interesting resource I discovered while researching this bill is WashingtonWatch.com, a wiki site that gives information about legislation in the Senate and the House of Representatives, gives users a chance to vote on bills, comment on them, and track them. I added a widget on the right so that you can give HR 104 the thumbs up from here (please do!). You can also go here to comment on the bill and add it to your own watch list.

Update: The co-sponsors of the bill have been updated above. Apparently some of the co-sponsors didn't sign on until Jan. 7 (the bill was introduced on Jan. 6).