Thomas Jefferson, co-writer of
the American Declaration of Independence and 3rd president of the
United States once remarked that the introduction of slavery into a
society was akin to "grabbing a wolf by the ears," in that the
person grabbing the wolf must never let go for fear that if he did
the wolf would devour him. Jefferson should not have limited his
statement merely to the crime of enslavement, but rather, should
have expanded the idea to include the crimes of oppression and
systematic brutality of people as well. After all, enslavement could
be argued to be any system wherein one person or a group of persons
imposes their will upon others, which in its most common form is
recognized as government, and that therefore enslavement as a word
by itself does not suffice to explain the hideousness of the
situation imposed upon its victims. Rather, the stigma of
enslavement, that thing which makes it odious and which has earned
it its rightful place in human understanding as a crime which calls
out to heaven for justice is to be found in its oppression of people
and in their subjugation to a life of violence and indignation. And
he was right, you dare not let go, for if you do you are dead.
In essence what Jefferson (a slave
owner himself) was saying is that human nature is such that people have
long memories and that they are all imbued with the instinct to survive.
Therefore, when someone or a group of people are subjected to oppression
for any extended period of time, they will remember with perfect clarity
the circumstances surrounding what was done to them and by whom it was
done. Human nature, also imbued with the need for justice, will at
sometime come calling for it, and given the level of violence with which
the life of an oppressed individual was marked, it is safe to say that one
can expect the same to be meted out in return, or put in simpler terms,
"an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth." History has born the obvious
proof of this out in the various slave revolts that have occurred from the
time of Rome to the post-colonial age areas wherein Europeans were
responsible for subjugating indigenous peoples to lives of oppression.
If examples from the past do not
convince the reader of the truth in Jefferson’s prediction, than the
present should, in examining the relationships that exist between white
Americans and those whose ancestors were the victims of the kind of
oppression which he names. Beginning with the Native Americans, it would
be difficult if not impossible to find any sense of overall favorable
sentiments by the majority of them towards white Americans, and how could
one expect otherwise? They, the Native Americans, are today a group of
people whose ancestors were forced out of their lands, starved, shot, and
lied to at almost every turn by a group of people intent first on
enslaving them and later on stealing their lands. To say that the white
Americans of today do not bear any responsibility for the suffering of
those in the past holds obvious merit in its most basic sense, but at the
same time, means nothing to the average Native American who today is born
on a reservation in circumstances of poverty and want. If the
aforementioned relationship exemplifies the tendency of a formerly
oppressed people to rely on long memories and the mistrust that these long
memories create, then as well there is no better proof of the accuracy in
Jefferson’s predictions than in examining the situation that exists today
within those communities of black Americans who, just like their Indian
counterparts, are born into circumstances of poverty and violence and who
inescapably direct their gaze towards the whites of the past who were and
are responsible for their present condition.
All this discussion about oppression
and long memories couldn’t take place at a better time than now, given the
items in the news concerning the events in the Middle East and in
particular Palestine. Bush’s "Roadmap for Peace" and all the extolling of
a "liberated" Iraq are events that are inextricably entwined within
Jefferson’s remarks, despite the fact that they are taking place thousands
of miles away and concern peoples who have never set foot on American
soil. And while those in the US may (at the prodding and insistence of
their programmers in the media/government complex) look with hope towards
those ideas which are discussed in bringing the current situation to a
peaceful end, perhaps they should also factor into the equation the
inescapable truth that these people also have long memories and that they
thirst for justice, and that their captors know this all too well. And if
the first step towards bringing an end to the violence of the region
exists in Jefferson’s symbolic act of letting go the wolf’s ears, it is
then safe to say that those parties who have been holding the ears
understand better than anyone what it is that they stand to lose by so
doing, and with this in mind, it should then be concluded that there is no
intention of bringing any peace to the region, whether it involves the
Americans or the Israelis.
Despite the public relations circuses
that have taken place recently with various leaders smiling and shaking
hands and making promises, there is no intention of giving Iraqis their
freedom nor the Palestinians their land. In the first case, Iraq and her
oil are now the defacto property of Bush & Co, a conglomeration of
business interests whose existence is denied only by the most naive or the
most intellectually dishonest. The program of bringing "liberty" to the
Iraqis is identical to the program of bringing liberty to the former
slaves of the American south by unscrupulous Northerners who sought their
own personal gain in exploiting the unfortunate situation that existed
Reconstruction-era America. The Americans, through their corporations and
threat of military force, are re-shaping Iraqi society and her
infrastructure to suit their own purposes of extracting her wealth while
at the same time keeping her people pliant. They will talk of freedom, but
only the kind of freedom that suits American purposes, and in like
fashion, as the blacks in America were moved from one form of enslavement
to another, the Iraqis now are graduating from one form of oppression to
something new and more efficient, but enslavement, exploitation and abuse
nonetheless.
The Israelis, despite the tactical use
of promises which are nothing but repeats of the same lies which they have
employed for purposes of deflection in the past, have no intention of
giving up one inch of ground that they consider to be rightfully theirs by
virtue of the violence they expended in acquiring it. Theirs has been a
history of expansion in the region, not contraction, an expansion fueled
by many interests and ideologies, not the least of which is religious in
nature, and which has been shown by history to be the most powerful of all
prime movers. They would just as willingly part with some of their booty
as would any pirate or predator, whose driving force is not justice and
equity, but rather the law of the jungle or of the streets. Were the
Palestinians fortunate enough to acquire some power or influence which
would bring about a leveling of the situation, the Israelis would simply
bide their time until some future event would present itself in such a way
as to allow them to gain the upper hand again. Apologists for Israel would
attempt (in common and predictable fashion) to argue away this assertion
by attacking it as an ideologically-driven diatribe, however,
unfortunately for them and for their argument, the history of how Israel
has conducted business in past situations similar to these is the best
indicator of how she would do things in the future, and given this
history, there is no reason to suspect that the leopard has suddenly
changed her spots. Furthermore, it should be remembered that many
Israelis, including Ariel Sharon and others like him who hold the seats of
power there, believe in the "biblical borders" concept concerning the area
known as Ersatz Israel, an area which in their estimation includes not
only the post 1967 borders, but as well the areas of Lebanon, Jordan,
Syria, and parts of Iraq and Northern Saudi Arabia. This concept of
"biblical borders" is but another example of the Manifest Destiny ideology
first adopted by the Americans and now adopted by the Chosen People, and
with this in mind, one should not contemplate with too much gullibility
the idea that Israel is intent on giving the Palestinians their land back
in any permanent fashion.
However, the biggest reason for a
discerning person not to surrender to any undue optimism concerning the
peace process lies in the understanding that people have long memories,
and there certainly are a lot of memories for those in the Middle East to
consider when everyone gets together to talk about peace. In consideration
of those living in the Occupied Territories, optimists who wait with
baited breath over the possibility of peace should remember that every
inch of the territory in which the Palestinians now exist is a shouting
testimony of the 50 years in which they have been shot, blown up,
poisoned, and bulldozed out of their homes. Every child who has been
maimed by Israeli bullets or bombs is a prosecutorial witness to the
nightmare that has been the minute by minute oppression of these people.
Every picture of a dead relative on the mantle in each home is a roadblock
to the roadmap. If these do not serve as any indicators as to why the
peace process cannot take place as long as the present situation in Israel
exists, then perhaps those who are gambling on this hope should consider
the fact that Israeli violence against the Palestinians (as well as the
deliberate destruction of any infrastructure that they manage to achieve)
continues unabated while these talks are taking place. With this in mind,
it is safe to assume that the most important component of any discussion
or negotiation, trust, is absent, and that therefore the vehicle necessary
for bringing an end to hostility is absent any fuel.
Bush and Sharon know perfectly well
what awaits them by letting go of the wolf’s ears. They realize that
despite whatever promises are made by their victims to "forgive and
forget" that nevertheless memories of people being killed by occupying
armies (whether in Iraq or in Palestine) will override any sense of
amnesia which their oppressors hoped their victims would develop. After 50
years of systematic brutality against the Palestinians and over 10 years
of the same for the Iraqis, to expect that suddenly everyone would decide
to just "get along" is folly. As well, the two leaders can forget about
any help from neighboring countries in that region, as they have witnessed
for themselves what has been done to the subject peoples of Iraq and
Palestine, and who therefore have no reason to trust that there is any
genuine desire for peace and justice on the part of the Americans or the
Israelis. It is for these reasons that Bush and Sharon, despite their
public display of devotion to the peace process, nevertheless have no
intention of letting these people go. Instead, they will draw things out,
making demands which are impossible for their victims to meet, and will
blame the unavoidable violence on an unbending, unreasonable mindset that
they assert their victims possess. And if the violence is not forthcoming
in such a way as to bolster their position at the appropriate time, they
will see to it that something manages to "pop up" through their own
channels of influence.
One would think that educated men had
considered the domino effect of history and the violence which is produced
whenever a people are oppressed before engaging in brutal behavior. There
simply are too many instances throughout history that confirm this
tendency for one to assume that it would be any different. An intelligent
person at some point must ask the question "Why do they do it? They know
they can’t hold on to the wolf forever, and they must know what awaits
them when they let go." The only answer that suffices in understanding
this condition lies in the age-old saying about vice and greed breaking
down the intellect. Whether it is the sudden, short-lived violence
perpetrated by a rapist or an assailant upon an individual, or the
prolonged, systematic application of violence and oppression upon a group
of people, the root cause of this willingness to inflict the worst upon
mankind is derived from the individual’s surrender of his own sense of
humanity over to the lower passions of greed and malice, and the
willingness to believe that he can get away with it indefinitely.
In the interest of tempering our
optimism about the proposed solution for the problems in the Middle East,
we must remember that history is the best teacher of all, and that she has
already spoken about what is sure to be the present outcome in some
varying degree. The wolf will not go away quietly, and there is no reason
to suspect that her captor will be able to outrun or outfight her.
Therefore, with this image in mind, one should assume that the peoples of
the Middle East who are and have been subjected to an existence of
oppression and violence must resolve to stay that way indefinitely, or
else prepare to be completely destroyed by their captors.
Mark Glenn is an American and former high school teacher turned writer / commentator.
"Our Enemies They Are Not" is
an excerpt of the recently completed work by the author entitled "Not
My Words, But Theirs : An American Christian’s Defense of Middle Eastern
Culture and its people"
(www.notmywords.com).
For information regarding the purchase of
this book, please contact the author at:
MGlenn@mediamonitors.org. He contributed above article to Media Monitors Network (MMN).
Source:
by the same author:
