Subtle ways we wage war, or war is waged against us.

For a very thought provoking read, I encourage you to read this post by Smithers over at sportsBabel. I think it is very much inline with my recent attempts to initiate a dialogue about the Present State of War.

The Present State of War

This story about the Canadian government’s desire to outfit 17,000 soldiers with the Integrated Soldier System Project really got me worked up again. The simple fact that it is anticipated to take until 2018 to accomplish this “upgrade” for the 17,000 soldiers reminds me of how committed this government is to keeping our soldiers at war … for the long-haul.

So where am I going with this? What I would like to do is to use this site as a forum to assess what people’s views are on the present state of war: in (inter)national politics, in our culture (e.g., messages in film, or music, or visible through sport, etc.), and in our own personal lives.

To kick this off, I’d like to suggest a list of movies that might spark some discussion about some of the more predominant attitudes about war in the contemporary moment. If you’ve seen any of these, offer your readings on the prevailing messages. If you haven’t, try to find the time to watch one (or all) and do the same. In no particular order, some of the films I’m thinking about are:

Lions for Lambs

Redacted

Rambo

The Kingdom

Jarhead

Hotel Rwanda

Of course, feel free to suggest some other relevant films as well. But let’s definitely start this conversation …

Peace & Much Love …

Dig it!

Gone are the Peacemakers

This, from the Regina Leader-Post (2008, June 17, p. A6):

An all-out blitz by the Canadian Forces to promote the
military at last year’s Grey Cup generated “positive momentum” in the
drive to recruit young people, reveals a newly released
military-commissioned poll.

The poll, which cost taxpayers $97,911, demonstrates the extent to
which the military attempts to use sporting and other public events to
attract recruits and influence the attitudes of Canadians.

Three Canadian Forces recruiting commercials aired during the Nov. 25
game in Toronto between the Saskatchewan Roughriders and the Winnipeg
Blue Bombers, which was carried live on CBC and drew an average
national audience of 3.3 million viewers.

The military also bought sideline banners that displayed the Canadian
Forces logo and recruiting Web site, forces.ca.

But the advertising campaign paled in comparison to the show of force
before, during and after the game by all three branches of the
Canadian Forces.

A CF-18 Hornet jet flew low over the Rogers Centre after the national
anthem. Navy members held the flag while the Barenaked Ladies sang the
anthem, and Canadian troops escorted the Grey Cup to the victory
podium.

Viewers who watched the game on TV were far more likely to remember
such on-field activities than the ads, the poll found. For example, 71
per cent of TV viewers recalled the Grey Cup escort by Canadian Forces
personnel. By comparison, only 35 per cent recalled the commercials
and 23 per cent remembered the sideline banners.

Increasing the visibility of Canadian troops at sporting events fits
well into the aggressive recruiting strategy developed under outgoing
Chief of Defence Staff Gen. Rick Hillier, said Bob Bergen, a professor
at the University of Calgary’s Centre for Military and Strategic
Studies.

Under Hillier, who took over as Canada’s top soldier in 2005 and will
step down this summer, Canadian Forces advertising has focused on the
combat aspects of a military career, an approach that appeals to young
“risk takers,” said Bergen.

“Before Hillier, it was ‘Come get a career with us. Continue your
education at 25,000 feet.’ The stress was on learning the trades, not
the fight,” he said. “What Hillier wants is fit young Canadians, which
is why you see the sporting theme.”

All the pomp and circumstance at the Grey Cup actually elicited a
negative reaction among some TV viewers. For example, 10 per cent of
viewers said they were less likely to consider a job with the Canadian
Forces after watching the game. Only seven per cent were more likely
to consider a military job, while 79 per cent reported no change in
attitude.

Still, the military managed to score important points with its key
demographic, namely young people aged 16 to 24. Viewers in that age
group were 11 per cent more likely to visit a Canadian Forces
recruiting centre, while 27 per cent were more likely to visit
forces.ca.

Meanwhile, their elders were more likely to recommend a military
career to young people after watching the game. Thirty-seven per cent
of viewers over 65 were more likely to recommend such a career–the
highest proportion of any age group.

“The better you are at developing something your target market likes,
the more successful you are selling your product,” said Ken Wong, a
marketing professor at Queen’s University. “The fact they’re getting
some negative reaction wouldn’t concern me. If you don’t like
McDonald’s, you don’t like McDonald’s.”

Fans who attended the game were much less likely to react negatively
to the military, the poll found. Such fans were also more likely to
recall Canadian Forces activities, partly due to a large exhibit
outside the Rogers Centre with tanks, aircraft and guns.

Those who attended the game were overwhelmingly in favour of military
participation at sporting events, with 97 per cent in favour. By
comparison, 85 per cent of TV viewers supported military
participation.

Sgt. Indira Thackorie, a Canadian Forces spokeswoman, said the Grey
Cup activities were part of “Operation Connection,” a program created
in the last few years to raise awareness about the military within the
Canadian public. In addition to sporting events, the program is
planning a major presence at this year’s Canada Day festivities in
Ottawa and the Canadian National Exhibition in Toronto, she said.

The Canadian Forces hired polling firm TNS Canadian Facts to conduct
the survey, which was completed in December and has a sample size of
803 respondents.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper has pledged to expand the military by
13,000 full-time troops to meet the growing demands of the war in
Afghanistan.

Some of you may recall that I’ve dealt with this issue before. What I’m wondering is this: is anyone else frightened by the open and yet relatively unchallenged admission that there is “an aggressive recruitment” campaign going on. That targeted demographics are being wooed by the sexy ads. That even a report like this seems to lack sufficient critical dialogue about why we’re doing this in the first place. Apparently, the growing demands in Afghanistan are not worth questioning. Apparently, the seduction of our children to go and fight war has nothing more than statistical relevance for pollsters. I guess war is a reality we must accept, as is the seductive power of advertising. Or do we?

My closing words are not my own, but rather, those from the book of Matthew (5:9):

Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called the children of God.

Dig it!

A New Consciousness?

But it is not enough to stand on the opposite river bank, shouting questions, challenging patriarchal, white conventions. A counterstance locks one into a duel of oppressor and opressed; locked in mortal combat, like the cop and the criminal, both are reduced to a common denominator of violence. The counterstance refutes the dominant culture’s views and beliefs, and, for this, it is proudly defiant. All reaction is limited by, and dependent on, what it is reacting against. Because the counterstance stems from a problem with authority–outer as well as inner–it’s a step towards liberation from cultural domination. But it is not a way of life. At some point, on our way to a new consciousness, we will have to leave the opposite bank, the split between the two mortal combatants somehow healed so that we are on both shores at once and, at once, see through serpent and eagle eyes. Or perhaps we will decide to disengage from the dominant culture, write it off altogether as a lost cause, and cross the border into a wholly new and separate territory. Or we might go another route. The possibilities are numerous once we decide to act and not react.

…

It is the work that the soul performs. That focal point or fulcrum, that juncture where the mestiza stands, is where phenomena tend to collide. It is where the possibility of uniting all that is separate occurs. This assembly is not one where severed or separate pieces merely come together. Nor is it a balancing of opposing powers. In attempting to work out a synthesis, the self has added a third element which is greater than the sum of its severed parts. That third element is a new consciousness–a mestiza consciousness–and though it is a source of intense pain, its energy comes from continual creative motion that keeps from breaking down the unitary aspect of each new paradigm.

En unas pocas centurias, the future will belong to the mestiza. Because the future depends on the breaking down of two paradigms, it depends on the straddling of two or more cultures. By creating a new mythos–that is, a change in the way we perceive reality, the way we see ourselves, and the ways we behave–la mestiza creates a new consciousness.

~Gloria Anzaldua, 1997, pp. 100-102.

“You are all welcome to stay”

Mara himself rode a massive bull elephant that held writhing souls between its jaws. At first he remained aloof, waiting for his army to annihilate Gautama by sucking it into a maelstrom of torment. But when he saw the calmness of Guatama’s gaze, Mara became agitated.

“Resist me all you like. I will never depart from you, and neither will my subjects. This spectacle is what you will see for the rest of your life.”

“I am not resisting. You are all welcome to stay,” said Gautama. “You cannot attack what isn’t here, and I am not here.” (Chopra, 2007, p. 226)

For anyone who might be a regular visitor to this site, you will have noticed a change or two. First of all, this site is no longer apandanhandad, but rather “Total Detachment: the one great healer of karma”. Inspired, as I have been for a long time, by the story of Buddha … it was time for a change in my life–for a serious meditation on attachment. In the past several months, I have become aware of many attachments I was holding that were the source of much suffering. As well-intentioned as my academic life was for bringing about positive social change, I found that I was trapped by delusional thoughts and becoming more and more self-absorbed. The irony is that my postmodern/poststructural theory is underpinned by a deconstruction project of the “self”. The “ivory tower” was becoming, for me, more of a cage than a privileged space. There was a carrot dangling at the end of a stick called a P, and an H, and a D, that I was supposed to secure for myself with the hopes or assumptions that it would result in a “better life”.

However, this thinking goes against my own better judgment. To long for anything, even a better life, implies that it is something that I do not possess. At this realization, it became clear to me that my dharma would be much better served outside of the academy, where I can be free of the attachments that my continued existence there would require. I know, you are probably citing my own favorite saying back to me right now: “when your mind stays the same, your environment doesn’t matter”. But, again inspired by the story of Buddha … it was not until leaving the confines of his palace that Prince Siddhartha awoke to suffering in the world. 

In short, I like to think of the university, in a metaphoric sense, as my Mara. It tempted me with many desireable things. But, with a clear mind, I saw the demon at its most grotesque … and it no longer held anything I wished for. And in close, with peace in my heart, I say to the academy, “If you can find my soul, it’s yours. I have stopped caring, myself.”

On that note, welcome to my new site. I’m glad you stopped by. And remember, you are all welcome to stay!

Dig it!   

Bringin’ It “Home”: First Nation Protests @ 2010 Games

Dick Pound must be writhing in his perch atop the moral high ground he has self-proclaimed is his to speak from, but as he said himself, “this comes as no surprise” (Pound, 2008, April 10). AFN National Chief Phil Fontaine said that native leaders “will use any opportunity to highlight aboriginal poverty.”  That may well include the 2010 Vancouver Olympic Games.

All I can say is, “Now that’s what I’m talkin’ about!” See my previous two posts (or older ones) if you’re not up to speed. If and when you are, I say let’s get it on! Let’s make sure that the global issues of Tibet and Sudan, et cetera, do not overwrite our own domestic issues. Peaceful protests can be POWERFUL protests. But more than simply points being made, or awareness raised, CHANGE and ACTION need to be the results.

Dig it! 

Keeping the Flame of Protest Alive

The following is a response to the article “Shut up or stay home” by Gary Kingston in Saturday’s Canwest papers, in which it was reported that Dick Pound issued a stern warning to Canadian athletes who may be wrestling with the moral dilemma of competing in the Beijing Olympics due to, most notably, China’s role in the human rights issues in Tibet, and the humanitarian crisis in Darfur.

 

At present, many of the prominent IOC member nations have gone on record stating that there are no official plans to boycott these Games. And while he is not attending the opening ceremonies himself, Stephen Harper made it clear that it was not for the purpose of political statement (an official delegation is scheduled to be in attendance). As such, the proverbial baton has been ultimately passed to the hands of the athletes and their own moral judgment as to whether or not to participate in any political actions of protest or boycott.

 

Kingston mentions a couple of the activist groups and actions already in process, including Nikki Dryden (Team Darfur) and Romain Mesniol (pole vaulter, France) who are encouraging the use of the Olympic venue as a forum to speak out, or to display symbols of awareness and protest, however discreet. It is because of this kind of thoughtful action that I am reminded of a couple of important teachable moments relevant to these issues. 

 

Dryden’s points about the need to take the entire Olympic Charter document under consideration is a valid and important one. Perhaps Dick Pound should heed that advice and consider more than the few lines of Rule 51, Subsection 3 about what is not acceptable at the Games and recall Rule 2 which outlines the Mission and Role of the IOC that Dryden cites. But there are more lessons here than simply those for Dick Pound. 

 

Yes, the Olympic Charter should be cited more thoroughly in relation to the headline news events brought on by flashmob attacks on the Olympic torch relay, or reports of violent outbreaks against demonstrators in Tibet. Rule 2, sections 4 and 6 of the Charter are relevant here. They state that the mission and role of the IOC is to “cooperate with the competent public or private organisations and authorities in the endeavour to place sport at the service of humanity and thereby promote peace” and “to act against any form of discrimination affecting the Olympic Movement.”

 

While it may be difficult to note the direct relevance of these Charter mandates to these cases in particular, what should not be lost is the fact that people have been sufficiently motivated to take action to raise awareness of important socio-political issues. Governments have been sufficiently motivated to use extreme force to subdue discontented populations. And still larger, more widespread hunger, poverty, homelessness, violence and unrest goes relatively unmentioned. For many, the thought of even the most peaceful Games and their concomitant elaborate, excessive spectacles are hard to take when there is still so much suffering and inequality in the world.

 

It may sound like a novel concept, but we may need to be reminded that while the Olympic Games may be a celebration of human excellence, the mandate that it be done to such excess does highlight the fact that it is indeed nothing more than a decadent excess in contrast to the real living conditions of countless around the globe. Maybe, just maybe, we could reappropriate the Olympic ideal of celebrating human sporting excellence of an elite few and actually direct our efforts more towards a global humanity, and this might still be as glorious when the finish line is crossed. Perhaps even the avid fan of the Games could get a similar inspiration knowing that a greater good was being done, even at the expense of a fast run, high jump, or heavy lift.

 

The other teachable moment is found in Kingston’s reference to the “black power salute” by Tommie Smith and John Carlos at the 1968 Mexico City Olympics. Pound’s stern warning that anyone breaking Rule 51 “will be dismissed” has historical precedent. Smith and Carlos were given a mere 48 hours to leave Mexico following their powerful gesture on the medal podium. Despite repeated attempts to intimidate them by the U.S.O.C. and the U.S. coaching staff, they did not break from their mission to make their statement.

 

You see, theirs was something more than a mere desire to “advance political beliefs.” They were at the heart of a much larger movement (Olympic Project for Human Rights) with an extended family including such notable figures as: Lew Alcindor (Kareem Abdul-Jabbar), Elvin Hayes, Bill Russell, Bob Beamon, John Wooten, Jim Brown, and Muhammad Ali—all of whom were actively involved at the height of the Civil Rights movement in the U.S.. Racial inequality in America at that time was a ‘serious’ issue and theirs was an incredibly powerful display made at great personal expense. For this to be recounted as a reason not to use the Games for political purposes 40 years later, I think the opposite effect might be the result.

 

Also worth noting is the fact several athletes have made political statements in the past without censure. Some have even been cause for various forms of celebration. “Canadian” (Mohawk) kayaker Alwyn Morris had an eagle feather on the podium in Los Angeles as a tribute to Aboriginal people in Canada, and to the lessons he learned from his father. “Australian” Cathy Freeman ran victory laps draped in the Aboriginal flag before adding the Australian version for good measure. Why are some of these symbolic acts punishable and not others? It can only testify to the complexity of global (political, economic, and cultural) power relations in and between nations.

 

As Harry Edwards, the organizer of the 1968 Olympic Boycott/Project for Human Rights reminds us, “the Olympic games are political, if nothing else. The fact that all participating nations do not compete under a single flag, the Olympic flag, but under their respective national flags, heightens their political flavor.”

 

To those athletes and citizens to whom Pound made his address, do not be intimidated by a hollow threat of dismissal by the IOC. This posturing is indicative of a paranoia that a tarnish will be left on the Games. I think we all know that what has gone on already can assure us that these Games are not innocent or unblemished. Regardless of where you stand on these broad and specific issues, you will be confronted with having to make a choice. Whatever decision you reach is a deeply personal one, and only you will have to live with the consequences. Smith and Carlos may have been sent home and not given NFL offers immediately after those ’68 Games, but who else do you remember from that year? Who else has become as ubiquitous a symbol for resistance and change? Who else made a difference?

 

You can shut up and stay home if you want. Or you can stand up, and show us what citius—altius—fortius really means when talking about the human spirit, not just bodies. The choice is yours, not Dick Pound’s.

Dick Pound: Shut up or stay home: Olympians who speak out in Beijing ‘will be excluded’

  Dick Pound, told the Canadian Olympic Committee’s board that “Canadian athletes whose concerns about China’s human rights record might lead them to speak out during the Beijing Olympics should just stay home.” 

Two quick things in response to this article: (1) Who made Dick Pound the sole moral authority to dictate what athletes with a moral/social conscience should do in response to the issues surrounding Beijing’s hosting of the 2008 Summer Olympics? Yes, there are rules in place to deal with Olympians who use the podium or the Games as a political platform. Rule 51, Subsection 3 states that “No kind of demonstration or political, religious, or racial propaganda is permitted in any Olympic sites, venues or other areas.” Fair enough. Rules are rules. But (a) the athletes will clearly be informed of these rules and can make autonomous decisions about whether to follow them or not. Dick, it’s a bit of a grandstand move to issue your typical “obey, or else …” warning; (b) the article suggests that this is to deter the kind of “demonstration” still famous after the 1968 Games in Mexico City. As such, I thought it would be appropriate to correct Gary Kingston that this “salute” was a bit more than simply an effort to “advance political beliefs.”

 (2) To do that, I thought it would be only fitting to hear it from Harry Edwards:

As we have mentioned many times, the Olympic games are political, if nothing else. The fact that all participating nations do not compete under a single flag, the Olympic flag, but under their respective national flags, heightens their political flavor. … The Star Spangled Banner, the national anthem of the United States of America, was to be the focal point of the victory stand protests [by the members of the Olympic Project for Human Rights]. It has been felt for many years among the more determined segments of the black liberation movement that the Star Spangled Banner was a monument to hypocrisy of America. For the black man in America, the national anthem has not progressed far beyond what it was before Francis Scott Key put his words to it–an old English drinking song. For in America, a black man would have to be either drunk, insane, or both, not to recognize the hollowness in the anthem’s phrases. To expose this hypocrisy, we intended to inject a small bit of truth and honesty in the name of black dignity into the 1968 Olympic games. …

Then came the victory ceremonies for the 200-meter dash. Tommie Smith, the gold medalist, and John Carlos, the bronze medalist, had made it crystal clear that they intended to go through with their planned protest at the victory stand. Subtle attempts at intimidating the two had been made by members of both the U.S. Olympic Committee and the U.S. track and field coaching staff. But Carlos and Smith would not bend. They climbed to the victory stand shoeless, each wearing a black glove. Smith had a black scarf tied around his neck. They were joined on the victory stand by Peter Norman, the silver medalist from Australia, who wore the official badge of the Olympic Project for Human Rights to underscore his support of the black liberation struggle. The men were presented with their medals and each turned toward the flag of the country representing the gold medal winner. The U.S. National Anthem was played. Smith and Carlos immediately raised their gloved fists and bowed their heads. In a taped interview with Howard Cosell, Smith explained the pair’s protest gestures. He stated, “I wore a black right-hand glove and Carlos wore the left-hand glove of the same pair. My raised right hand stood for the power in black America. Carlos’ raised left hand stood for unity of black America. Together they formed an arch of unity and power. The black scarf around my neck stood for black pride. The black socks with no shoes stood for black poverty in racist America. The totality of our effort was the regaining of black dignity.” Smith later confided to me that the gesture of the bowed head was in remembrance of the fallen warriors in the black liberation struggle in America–Malcolm X, Martin Luther King, Jr., and others.

The impact of the protest was immediate. The U.S. Olympic Committee, acting hastily and rashly, warned all other U.S. athletes, black and white, that “severe” penalties would follow any further protests. Smith and Carlos were given 48 hours to get out of Mexico and were suspended from the Olympic team (Edwards, 1969, pp. 102-104). 

 

Why These Aren’t Comparable

In the aftermath of the LeBron Vogue cover, a surely well-intentioned member of the NASSS community posted this billboard image from the 2008 WNBA’s Minnesota Lynx ad campaign depicting who I’m assuming is the Lynx’s Seimone Augustus juxtaposed to a wild lynx. Okay, I can see how someone would want to draw a comparison between this and the LeBron cover. A semiotic analysis of the two should be done the very same way. Yes, we have a black female athlete being juxtaposed with a wild animal. This is not unlike the juxtapositioning of King LeBron versus the King Kong or the US Army recruitment posters (see previous posts). However, in order to read this ad critically, one must go far beyond this superficial analysis. There are significantly different processes (discourses) operating in these two images.

To put it simply, I’ll turn to the words of Sojourner Truth (ca. 1848):

That man over there say that women needs to be helped into carriages and lifted over ditches, and to have the best places everywhere. Nobody ever helped me into carriages, or over mud puddles, or gives me any best place and ain’t I a woman? I have plowed, and planted, and gathered into barns, and no man could head me–and ain’t I a woman? I could work as much, and eat as much as a man (when I could get it), and bear the lash as well–and ain’t I a woman? I have borne thirteen children and seen ‘em most all sold off into slavery, and when I cried out with a mother’s grief, none by Jesus heard me–and ain’t I a woman? (Rhoden, 2006, p. 228).

What we are talking about here, is what’s often referred to as the “double burden” or the double diaspora. This is the condition under which women of color have had to suffer the indignities of both oppression of women, and of people of color.

A relevant case study that will be unveiled in my dissertation is that of Latasha Byears. That chapter is intended to flesh out these differences in black male and female sexuality, and the compounded floating signifier that is “race” when “gender” and “sexuality” is added to the mix. In short, Latasha Byears is an openly lesbian player who was charged with sexual assault of a teammate at an after-party to the LA Sparks’ WNBA championship win. Immediately, she was released by the Sparks’ ownership group, who coincidentally only months later had to deal with another sexual assualt (rape) charge against their own Kobe Bryant. The political salience of black masculinity (in the ideal form of Kobe Bryant) far outweighed the worth of ”the Dennis Rodman of the WNBA” in Latasha Byears, despite her import and role in their championship run. In the end, the charges against both Bryant and Byears were dropped (or cases settled out of court), and Byears reached an undisclosed settlement with the LA owners in her lawsuit against them for wrongful dismissal (their clear exhibition of holding a double-standard).

In close, suffice to say that the reading of black female athleticism cannot be simply mapped the same way it can be for males. The history and the contexts that inform both are far too complex and different to simply say that the “same things” are at play. That is not to discount any critical reading of this image. In fact, I strongly encourage it be done. What I am saying, however, is that it is likely to be more effective if one were to analyze this imagery in question through a somewhat modified lens (gender, race, and sexuality all still are important, just ordered differently). Make sense?

Dig it!

MSNBC Video: Is the Vogue Cover Racist?