From: Maria Olmedo (MOlmedo@icp.edu)
Date: 09/25/01-03:43:09 PM Z
Thank you Janet. It needed to be said. I found these recent personal
attacks on Judy to be way over the top. What is more "American" than
being able to voice different opinions? My USA is not "down" and anyone
who thinks New York did not take a hit should spend some time here to
hear accounts of TRULY HORRIFIC personal experiences, of which I will
spare the list. Perhaps the following article by Noam Chomsky will help
fill in some blanks, although it is a bit brief.
*****************************************************
September 18, 2001
Interviewing Chomsky
Radio B92, Belgrade
Q: Why do you think these attacks happened?
Chomksy: To answer the question we must first identify the perpetrators
of the crimes. It is generally assumed, plausibly, that their origin is
the Middle East region, and that the attacks probably trace back to the
Osama Bin Laden network, a widespread and complex organization,
doubtless inspired by Bin Laden but not necessarily acting under his
control. Let us assume that this is true. Then to answer your question a
sensible person would try to ascertain Bin Laden's views, and the
sentiments of the large reservoir of supporters he has throughout the
region. About all of this, we have a great deal of information. Bin
Laden has been interviewed extensively over the years by highly reliable
Middle East specialists, notably the most eminent correspondent in the
region, Robert Fisk (London _Independent_), who has intimate knowledge
of the entire region and direct experience over decades. A Saudi Arabian
millionaire, Bin Laden became a militant Islamic leader in the war to
drive the Russians out of Afghanistan. He was one of the many religious
fundamentalist extremists recruited, armed, and financed by the CIA and
their allies in Pakistani intelligence to cause maximal harm to the
Russians -- quite possibly delaying their withdrawal, many analysts
suspect -- though whether he personally happened to have direct contact
with the CIA is unclear, and not particularly important. Not
surprisingly, the CIA preferred the most fanatic and cruel fighters they
could mobilize. The end result was to "destroy a moderate regime and
create a fanatical one, from groups recklessly financed by the
Americans" (_London Times_ correspondent Simon Jenkins, also a
specialist on the region). These "Afghanis" as they are called (many,
like Bin Laden, not from Afghanistan) carried out terror operations
across the border in Russia, but they terminated these after Russia
withdrew. Their war was not against Russia, which they despise, but
against the Russian occupation and Russia's crimes against Muslims.
The "Afghanis" did not terminate their activities, however. They joined
Bosnian Muslim forces in the Balkan Wars; the US did not object, just as
it tolerated Iranian support for them, for complex reasons that we need
not pursue here, apart from noting that concern for the grim fate of the
Bosnians was not prominent among them. The "Afghanis" are also fighting
the Russians in Chechnya, and, quite possibly, are involved in carrying
out terrorist attacks in Moscow and elsewhere in Russian territory. Bin
Laden and his "Afghanis" turned against the US in 1990 when they
established permanent bases in Saudi Arabia -- from his point of view, a
counterpart to the Russian occupation of Afghanistan, but far more
significant because of Saudi Arabia's special status as the guardian of
the holiest shrines.
Bin Laden is also bitterly opposed to the corrupt and repressive regimes
of the region, which he regards as "un-Islamic," including the Saudi
Arabian regime, the most extreme Islamic fundamentalist regime in the
world, apart from the Taliban, and a close US ally since its origins.
Bin Laden despises the US for its support of these regimes. Like others
in the region, he is also outraged by long-standing US support for
Israel's brutal military occupation, now in its 35th year: Washington's
decisive diplomatic, military, and economic intervention in support of
the killings, the harsh and destructive siege over many years, the daily
humiliation to which Palestinians are subjected, the expanding
settlements designed to break the occupied territories into
Bantustan-like cantons and take control of the resources, the gross
violation of the Geneva Conventions, and other actions that are
recognized as crimes throughout most of the world, apart from the US,
which has prime responsibility for them. And like others, he contrasts
Washington's dedicated support for these crimes with the decade-long
US-British assault against the civilian population of Iraq, which has
devastated the society and caused hundreds of thousands of deaths while
strengthening Saddam Hussein -- who was a favored friend and ally of the
US and Britain right through his worst atrocities, including the gassing
of the Kurds, as people of the region also remember well, even if
Westerners prefer to forget the facts. These sentiments are very widely
shared. The _Wall Street Journal_ (Sept. 14) published a survey of
opinions of wealthy and privileged Muslims in the Gulf region (bankers,
professionals, businessmen with close links to the U.S.). They expressed
much the same views: resentment of the U.S. policies of supporting
Israeli crimes and blocking the international consensus on a diplomatic
settlement for many years while devastating Iraqi civilian society,
supporting harsh and repressive anti-democratic regimes throughout the
region, and imposing barriers against economic development by "propping
up oppressive regimes." Among the great majority of people suffering
deep poverty and oppression, similar sentiments are far more bitter, and
are the source of the fury and despair that has led to suicide bombings,
as commonly understood by those who are interested in the facts.
The U.S., and much of the West, prefers a more comforting story. To
quote the lead analysis in the _New York Times_ (Sept. 16), the
perpetrators acted out of "hatred for the values cherished in the West
as freedom, tolerance, prosperity, religious pluralism and universal
suffrage." U.S. actions are irrelevant, and therefore need not even be
mentioned (Serge Schmemann). This is a convenient picture, and the
general stance is not unfamiliar in intellectual history; in fact, it is
close to the norm. It happens to be completely at variance with
everything we know, but has all the merits of self-adulation and
uncritical support for power.
It is also widely recognized that Bin Laden and others like him are
praying for "a great assault on Muslim states," which will cause
"fanatics to flock to his cause" (Jenkins, and many others.). That too
is familiar. The escalating cycle of violence is typically welcomed by
the harshest and most brutal elements on both sides, a fact evident
enough from the recent history of the Balkans, to cite only one of many
cases.
Q: What consequences will they have on US inner policy and to the
American self-deception?
Chomsky: US policy has already been officially announced. The world is
being offered a "stark choice": join us, or "face the certain prospect
of death and destruction." Congress has authorized the use of force
against any individuals or countries the President determines to be
involved in the attacks, a doctrine that every supporter regards as
ultra-criminal. That is easily demonstrated. Simply ask how the same
people would have reacted if Nicaragua had adopted this doctrine after
the U.S. had rejected the orders of the World Court to terminate its
"unlawful use of force" against Nicaragua and had vetoed a Security
Council resolution calling on all states to observe international law.
And that terrorist attack was far more severe and destructive even than
this atrocity.
As for how these matters are perceived here, that is far more complex.
One should bear in mind that the media and the intellectual elites
generally have their particular agendas. Furthermore, the answer to this
question is, in significant measure, a matter of decision: as in many
other cases, with sufficient dedication and energy, efforts to stimulate
fanaticism, blind hatred, and submission to authority can be reversed.
We all know that very well.
Q: Do you expect U.S. to profoundly change their policy to the rest of
the world?
Chomsky: The initial response was to call for intensifying the policies
that led to the fury and resentment that provides the background of
support for the terrorist attack, and to pursue more intensively the
agenda of the most hard line elements of the leadership: increased
militarization, domestic regimentation, attack on social programs. That
is all to be expected. Again, terror attacks, and the escalating cycle
of violence they often engender, tend to reinforce the authority and
prestige of the most harsh and repressive elements of a society. But
there is nothing inevitable about submission to this course.
Q: After the first shock, came fear of what the U.S. answer is going to
be. Are you afraid, too?
Chomsky: Every sane person should be afraid of the likely reaction --
the one that has already been announced, the one that probably answers
Bin Laden's prayers. It is highly likely to escalate the cycle of
violence, in the familiar way, but in this case on a far greater scale.
The U.S. has already demanded that Pakistan terminate the food and other
supplies that are keeping at least some of the starving and suffering
people of Afghanistan alive. If that demand is implemented, unknown
numbers of people who have not the remotest connection to terrorism will
die, possibly millions. Let me repeat: the U.S. has demanded that
Pakistan kill possibly millions of people who are themselves victims of
the Taliban. This has nothing to do even with revenge. It is at a far
lower moral level even than that. The significance is heightened by the
fact that this is mentioned in passing, with no comment, and probably
will hardly be noticed. We can learn a great deal about the moral level
of the reigning intellectual culture of the West by observing the
reaction to this demand. I think we can be reasonably confident that if
the American population had the slightest idea of what is being done in
their name, they would be utterly appalled. It would be instructive to
seek historical precedents.
If Pakistan does not agree to this and other U.S. demands, it may come
under direct attack as well -- with unknown consequences. If Pakistan
does submit to U.S. demands, it is not impossible that the government
will be overthrown by forces much like the Taliban -- who in this case
will have nuclear weapons. That could have an effect throughout the
region, including the oil producing states. At this point we are
considering the possibility of a war that may destroy much of human
society.
Even without pursuing such possibilities, the likelihood is that an
attack on Afghans will have pretty much the effect that most analysts
expect: it will enlist great numbers of others to support of Bin Laden,
as he hopes. Even if he is killed, it will make little difference. His
voice will be heard on cassettes that are distributed throughout the
Islamic world, and he is likely to be revered as a martyr, inspiring
others. It is worth bearing in mind that one suicide bombing -- a truck
driven into a U.S. military base -- drove the world's major military
force out of Lebanon 20 years ago. The opportunities for such attacks
are endless. And suicide attacks are very hard to prevent.
Q: "The world will never be the same after 11.09.01". Do you think so?
Chomsky: The horrendous terrorist attacks on Tuesday are something quite
new in world affairs, not in their scale and character, but in the
target. For the US, this is the first time since the War of 1812 that
its national territory has been under attack, even threat. Its colonies
have been attacked, but not the national territory itself. During these
years the US virtually exterminated the indigenous population, conquered
half of Mexico, intervened violently in the surrounding region,
conquered Hawaii and the Philippines (killing hundreds of thousands of
Filipinos), and in the past half century particularly, extended its
resort to force throughout much of the world. The number of victims is
colossal. For the first time, the guns have been directed the other way.
The same is true, even more dramatically, of Europe. Europe has suffered
murderous destruction, but from internal wars, meanwhile conquering much
of the world with extreme brutality. It has not been under attack by its
victims outside, with rare exceptions (the IRA in England, for example).
It is therefore natural that NATO should rally to the support of the US;
hundreds of years of imperial violence have an enormous impact on the
intellectual and moral culture.
It is correct to say that this is a novel event in world history, not
because of the scale of the atrocity -- regrettably -- but because of
the target. How the West chooses to react is a matter of supreme
importance. If the rich and powerful choose to keep to their traditions
of hundreds of years and resort to extreme violence, they will
contribute to the escalation of a cycle of violence, in a familiar
dynamic, with long-term consequences that could be awesome. Of course,
that is by no means inevitable. An aroused public within the more free
and democratic societies can direct policies towards a much more humane
and honorable course.
-----Original Message-----
From: Janet Neuhauser [mailto:jneuhauser@silverlink.net]
Sent: Tuesday, September 25, 2001 1:26 PM
To: alt-photo-process-l@sask.usask.ca
Subject: Re: Traveling Portfolio
To All,
I thank Judy for her as always astute comments about what it is like
being on the
front lines. I am even farther from NYC than Dave Rose--I live in a
bucolic
setting in western Washington an hour by ferry from Seattle. But I have
family
and friends in New York many directly involved, though thankfully none
injured.
My nephew is a NYC firefighter, on the front lines, a 24 year old who is
willing
to risk his life for a career and city that he loves. (Ironically, it
is always
the young men in our society who are so dedicated).
My point though and I will try to be brief, is that we now live in a
time of
fear. The day of the disaster I was working on a one person show of my
work
which goes on the wall today. (If you are in the area, it is at
Kittridge Gallery
at University of Puget Sound in Tacoma. Not alt processes, except that
they are
silver gelatin prints tone with Liam Lawless' sepia/gold toner receipe
in I
believe, PF#3). But I felt that day that I wanted to cancel the show,
that a
part of me that made art had been killed along with the souls of the
6000. What
was important to me changed. I don't know how this will affect my work
in the
future. I do know though that art, both the making of it and
appreciation of it
by society is more important now than at any other time in our history.
On that
note, none of the discussions on this list about what is happening to
our world
is off topic as far as I am concerned. A very urgent topic to the list
as
artists (and perhaps more importantly as photographers) is our role in
recovery.
As a fairly apolitical person, I now feel the need to be involved, to
hear from
those who are there and suffering the most, and to keep a clear head
about what
will happen next.
In some sense, America with all its follies has survived 200+ years
because we
have had a more open forum of free speech than other parts of the world.
This
may seem simplistic and it is, but now more than any other time, we need
the
Judy's of the world, who are not afraid to speak from the heart. I know
that
Judy was/is deeply affected by what has happened. But thank God, she
has the
courage to speak her mind. I want terrorism to be wiped out, I want
those (fill
in the blank) people responsible to be destroyed but I pray and hope
that we can
somehow use this disaster as a way to strengthen freedom in the world,
not
destroy any more innocence people and yes to be critical of our
"leaders" who it
seems likely, will use this disaster to curtail many of our rights. We
all have a
responsibility and yes a right to say what we think without the
additonal fear of
being personally attacked for our beliefs. And I will thank Mr. Rose
for
speaking his mind without personal, vicious attacks on another list
member---none
of us need this type of communication ever again.
Perhaps we can use the list, not to just exchange techniques, but as a
place to
address issues of being artists, of the place of the artist as a
political entity
and how all of this has affected us as artists and photographers. I
welcome your
thoughts because, though I know life must go on, I need to deal with
what is
happening now. The fear I was talking about above is not just of
terrorist acts,
but of our own inability to see clearly, act thoughtfully and use this
time in
history to actually make changes that will unite us as a planet and not
just a
country. It is not God Bless America that I want to hear, but God Bless
the
Earth.
Janet Neuhauser
I wasn't going to address individual comments in the posts below but I
must say
as regards to insensitive attacks on President Bush, that is one of my
biggest
fears, that he is President, a non-leader when we need one so badly.
God help us
if we can not be critical of our government. Isn't that what the
Taliban wants
most?
Judy Seigel wrote:
> On Fri, 21 Sep 2001, Dave Rose wrote:
>
> > This is an excellent idea. It is very appropriate, and your timing
could
> > not be better. I would love to participate. I have a beautiful
photo of
> > the World Trade Center, taken from Liberty State Park in Jersey
City. This
> > image is very special to me, and it would be suitable for inclusion
in a
> > travelling portfolio. In this time of terrible sorrow, grief, and
anger,
> > this kind of project is exactly what we need, as we move towards
healing and
> > understanding.
> >
> > If your idea is "offensive" to anyone on this list, shame on them!
It's too
> > bad that you'd be hesitant or have doubts in presenting this
proposal, but I
> > can guess why. After all, one list member could not even wait for
the ashes
> > to settle on 6,000+ dead/dying New Yorkers before launching an
insensitive
> > attack upon President Bush, the police, the World Trade Center
towers,
> > SUV's, oil companies, USA foreign policy, etc...... I strongly
believe
> > that this 'kick America while she's down' mentality is limited to a
very,
> > very small number of individuals. ...
>
> > "God Bless America" is a great title. I have a few suggestions as
well:
> > "Unbroken Spirit", "United We Stand", "Glory of America", "A
Cherished
> > Nation".
>
> Truthfully, Dave,I thought by now the "list minders" would have chided
you
> for personal attack. Since this hasn't happened , I feel called upon
to
> correct some misapprehensions -- and to suggest where your patriotism
> might be better directed.
>
> For one thing, you should e-mail the New York Times at
letters@nytimes.com
> and give them your schedule for when it's OK to mention which ideas
and
> information: their pages have been full of your *verboten* since Day
Two.
>
> For another, there's our local weekly, vilpaper@aol.com, which has
> discussed the same issues -- amid the obits for our neighbors, and
details
> of the devastation to our fire companies. You might also want to
curtail
> your contributions to National Public Radio, which has beamed even
MORE
> disquieting facts and discussions to the nation since day 2 or 3, as
would
> surely give one with a sense of the fitness of things as acute as your
own
> apoplexy. They even quoted E.B. White saying the Twin Towers looked
like
> "cigar boxes upended" (so you might want to rip his books off your
shelf).
>
> As a lifelong reader of the Times, however, I declare this their
finest
> hour-- still a two kleenex affair (the Sunday issue bigger, more like
3
> kleenex): a fine balance of feeling & news, sentiment and ugly fact.
For
> the latter, I recommend today's (Sunday's) article in section 4 by
John
> Kifner: "Forget the Past: It's a War Unlike Any Other." I think you,
> Dave, need this more than any other: if you can't access it I'll copy
&
> send. (While reading it at the kitchen table, however, I had to shut
the
> window -- the stench of smoke, burning whatever, and ash suddenly
> overpowering -- as it can be when the wind changes.)
>
> In fact whoever can get a copy of today's Times really should -- among
> other memorable reports, Vivian Gornick on the "story" of those
"missing"
> messages of which we have walls and walls, and which neighbors return
to
> again and again, also, in case you have tears left, a double spread of
> missing fire fighters, all seemingly young and impossibly beautiful. I
> didn't count, maybe it's 100 of the 350 or thereabouts.
>
> Meanwhile, I confess I have relayed your sentiments far and wide, for
> instance Friday at my gym, where the sharing of horror stories is
typical
> of almost every gathering of New Yorkers -- except these folks, from
> Tribeca, Soho and the Village are/were closer than most to the scene
of
> devastation. Out of consideration for the list, I censor their
comments,
> but share their body English:
>
> A. rolling of eyes or,
>
> B. closing of eyes, shaking head slowly left, right, left right.
>
> However, I fear that I myself have been at fault for not making my
point
> about the World Trade Center clearly enough, being still (and forever)
> shaken and not my usual articulate self. Now is exactly the time to
give
> witness to origins and safety defects of WTC & their cause, while the
> horror is still fresh and the future replacement still up for grabs...
And
> -- perhaps not according to your schedule either -- the jockeying has
> already begun (as reported in paper last week & about which more
below).
>
> The 1993 bomb in WTC underground garage killed 6, and in boilerplate
of
> the papers "injured thousands." Those thousands were "injured" by
smoke
> inhalation, exiting by the stairs -- most were OK after a few whiffs
of
> oxygen, a couple of hundred were briefly hospitalized.... The reason
for
> those "injuries" as the Times explained on day 2 or 3 after that event
> (perhaps also with unseemly haste) was that the Port Authority, a law
unto
> itself, had refused to follow NYC fire regs in the matter of
pressurizing
> stairways -- so the smoke poured in. PA did in time grudgingly upgrade
in
> that respect, but the basic design was still fatally flawed.
>
> For instance, a woman interviewed on radio this past Friday told that
when
> the first plane hit, at her floor but other side of the building, the
> doors to her office were locked from the outside. Someone came along &
let
> them out -- into the pitch black crumbling hall, with NO EMERGENCY
LIGHT.
> They held hands and, guided only by light of one man's cell phone,
found a
> stair & began the descent. After a few floors, the stairs ended at a
> landing. There lights were on, but they faced two unmarked stairways.
> Choosing one entirely at random they followed it all the way down,
> stumbled into the air, and were told to RUN, without looking back. The
> other stairway, they learned later, ended a few floors below, with no
> ready connection to continued egress.... Does one have to be
Nostradamus
> to think that interior configuration contributed to fact that (so far
as
> is known) no one from top floors escaped?
>
> Meetings now about "rebuilding" (also covered in the Times) point out
> that-- surprise!-- the state wants a state "authority," that is, likes
of
> Port Authority, free from city or other oversight, again, answerable
to no
> one. City wants at least equal say. (The assumption that folks would
take
> offices in a rebuilt even HIGHER simulacrum is, to me, another sign of
the
> phenomenon of denial, of which you are poster child.)
>
> Meanwhile, in case I didn't make perfectly clear (I have been gentler
than
> you deserve, for sake of the list) your dictats on how to be a patriot
> from 2200 miles behind the lines are appreciated. But may I suggest
you
> put your money where your mouth is? Come to NYC and spend money.
That's
> what Mayor Giuliani is telling everyone who wants to "help." If crowds
> don't return, we might as well be... (fill in your own blank).
>
> And finally, ..... brace yourself !! I too have a wonderful photograph
of
> the WTC, better I bet than yours -- Nyah nyah! However, I'm not going
to
> send it to the travelling portfolio because I'm saving it for cover of
> Post-Factory #7 (assuming I find it, last seen at my show in 1984).
It's
> taken from the east, probably City Hall Park. Title is "Sun Takes a
Bite
> Out of the World Trade Center": the setting sun, partly behind first
> tower, seems to do just that. It was solarized, toned with plating
toner
> (as P-F #3, page 29) and very briefly blue toner.
>
> For another world-class photo: Ig Mata has an emulsion on glass scene
of
> the skyline with twin towers she'll be selling at Grand Central gift
show
> at Christmas... it is exquisite (as are all her photographs on glass
> objects) but now assumes more meaning than expected. There's been
ample
> disruption of services around here, so it's not yet on her website,
but
> you can get the general look & feel at www.igmata.com.
>
> I won't mention that your words in favor of "healing and
understanding"
> seem not to compute in view of your other expressions. I'll just add
my
> plea that whoever is moved to send a flame or kvetch that my
commentary is
> "off topic" do so offlist.
>
> Judy
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : 10/01/01-01:41:32 PM Z CST