Dear friends,
I might add another twist, I think, on Linda's posting. I'm thinking
about it from the standpoint of "technology" (knowledge-in-use? hmmm.
well I don't really want to open up a definitional discussion of
technology, but bear with me briefly). And what I'm about to post is
surprisingly analytic in tone (even to me), but my heart, emotions,
empathy, fear (for our response and racist backlash) have been more
prominent in me the last few days.
What has struck me is how the U.S. government constructs its deals and
alliances with the likes of Bin Laden, Noriega, Hussein, etc.,
"creating" the Frankenstein monsters that turn back on the U.S..
It is an "intsrumental" view of other people or groups, seeing them as
an extension of our military and intelligence "technology." We do not
seem to learn the lesson that "technology" can and generally will be
turned to other than intended purposes (not that our original purposes
demonstrate a worthy or savory ethic either). It just seems to me there
is some blindness in there, perhaps linked to notions of progress and
technological determinism that (a) if we treat other human beings like
technology that (b) we can control them like a technology and (c) the
results will always be progress on one's own terms (in this case the
U.S. govt's/military's terms).
This approach, of course, fails on all counts, and now has failed
horrifically. In seeking to win this "new war" how many more unsavory
alliances will be made and funded only to reproduce the next generation
of Bin Ladens? And will there be no "glasnost?" No serious reflection
and renouncement of our consumerism/corporate capitalism as both cause
and Achilles heel in this debacle?
I'm sounding naive now, but I think I've expressed some of what I wanted
to.
In Peace,
K.
In Peace,
K.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Oct 10 2001 - 15:49:15 PDT