Article for May 10th

Book Notes In the Name of Identity: Violence and the Need to Belong, By Amin Maalouf. Translated by Barbara Bray. New York: Arcade Publishing, 2000. Pp. 164. $22.95, cloth. How are murderous identities made? If ever there was a time that this question pressed, and pressed hard, on our collective consciousness it is now, in the wake of the devastating events of September 11. The question is the focus of Amin Maalouf’s short and engaging book, first published in France in 1996, and recently issued in its first North American edition. Maalouf’s self-described task in this book is “to try to understand why so many people commit crimes nowadays in the name of religious, ethnic, national or some other kind of identity,” how what he calls “identities that kill” are made and sustained. His answer is simple and straightforward: *** Top of Page 341 ***murderous identities are born of humiliation. Thus, if we want to address the problem of ethnically or religiously motivated violence, we must work to counter the conditions under which people are humiliated or denigrated for being part of some ethnic or religious or national group. For Maalouf, the key condition that makes it possible for some to humiliate others is a failure to understand the true nature of identity. Identity, he reminds us, is neither monolithic nor static, “it is built up and changes throughout a person’s lifetime.” As such, it is a shifting composite of a great number of different, often conflicting, allegiances and attachments, including one’s allegiances to one’s family, neighborhood, village, and country, to one’s religious, ethnic, linguistic, and racial group, to one’s profession, favorite soccer team, or political movement. Maalouf refers to these constitutive allegiances as “genes of the soul” though he cautions that they are in no way understood to be innate. Indeed, time and again, he returns to the point that we are not born but rather made—and make and remake ourselves—in relation to the world in which we live and the choices that it presents to us. It is a point that bears repeating, he says, because a failure to recognize the fluidity, multiplicity and malleability of identity is not only misguided but also dangerous. The danger is twofold. First, a failure to recognize the complexity, the multi-dimensionality, of the Other makes their dehumanization easier. Second, imposing on the Other a rigid, singular (and usually inferior) identity will provoke them, in anger and defiance, to pick up arms to ‘assert their identity.’ This, he says, is how ordinary men are “transformed into butchers.” Maalouf places great theoretical emphasis on the cognitive dimension of the failure to understand the true nature of identity. At times, the text reads as though Maalouf viewed the contemporary problem of identity-based violence primarily as a cognitive distortion that might be solved if we only could find a way of reforming long-standing but unexamined habits of thought that imprison us in outdated and dangerous ways of seeing the world. But at other times, the text suggests that the view he wants to put forth is a little more complex. He discusses at some length the cognitively distorting effects of asymmetrical power relationships—how these cause people on both sides of the relationship to reify the Other, for example. He also discusses the causal importance of what many perceive to be an American-led push toward globalization to generating a sense of humiliation, marginalization and alienation in members of non-western, non-hegemonic ethnic, religious and national groups. In what becomes, after September 11th, a rather chilling passage, he asks: “How can they [non-westerners] not feel their identities are threatened? That they are living in a world which belongs to others and obeys rules made by others, a world where they are orphans, strangers, intruders or pariahs? What can be done to prevent some of them feeling they have been bereft of everything and have nothing more to lose, so that they come, like Samson, to pray to God for the temple to collapse on top of them and their enemies alike?” *** Top of Page 342 ***In response, he proposes what he calls a “moral contract”—a reciprocal agreement of mutual recognition between presently dominant and subordinate groups in the world, such that all people everywhere may legitimately feel that they are equal participants in the emergence of a “common civilization,” that they are reflected in it and reflect it in turn. Within a given society, the moral contract would take the form of an agreement between members of the majority culture and those of minority cultures to treat each other as equals, and to take seriously the constitutive nature of the other’s culture. To this end, each must be prepared to give up his claim to cultural purity. Majority members must not predicate full-fledged membership on a complete abandonment by minority members of their cultural heritage; rather, they must be prepared to accept them as full members in light of—indeed, in celebration of—their cultural (or ethnic or religious) difference. For their part, members of minority cultures must be prepared to adapt, at least minimally, to the basic rules and values of the majority culture, even if this means abandoning some of their cultural practices. It is difficult to try to define the concrete principles according to which a moral contract to be applied within a given society might be structured. What constitutes a “minimal” adaptation by members of cultural minorities to the basic rules and values of the majority culture, for example? How much can legitimately be required of them? And how much can be required of members of the majority culture vis-à-vis minorities? Even more difficult is conceptualizing the structure of Maalouf’s proposed moral contract between the West and the Rest. What would it look like? And, sadly, what hope is there for such a contract given current geo-political realities? Maalouf makes no pretense to even know how to begin to address these important questions. But this is, ultimately, of little consequence, for the book’s principal merit lies in that it raises these questions—and many others—in the first place, and does so in a way that invites his read

Article for May 10th

Belgian Malinois: The Dog That Took Down Osama Bin Laden?

The Huffington Post  Dean Praetorius 

 

Of the 80 member team that was deployed to take down bin Laden, few draw more speculation than the one on four legs.
Most likely a Belgian Malinois (though officials say it could also have been a German Shepherd), there was one non-human member of the SEAL team that raided Osama bin Laden's compound, according to the New York Times. The heroic pooch was strapped to a Navy SEAL as they were lowered from a hovering helicopter.
The news of the dog's use in the raid broke Wednesday, but like the other members of the team that was deployed, its identity remains unknown.
While the dog is known for its bomb-sniffing prowess, it has other capabilities that make it a wonderful dog-of-war. According to the Atlantic, the dog may have been trained to "sniff out enemy troops from up to 2 miles away."
The sensory perception brought by these dogs in a wartime situation is unparalleled. “The capability they bring to the fight cannot be replicated by man or machine,” General David H. Petraeus said last year, calling for more use of dogs.
But the coolest thing about these guys? Many SEAL dogs come equipped with "titanium fangs capable of ripping through enemy protective armor," at a cost of "about $2,000 a tooth," according to the Daily. That'll get the job done.

Article for May 10th

Superman becomes a super-rebel – and scourge of the American right

By Guy Adams in Los Angeles

Saturday, 30 April 2011

Reuters

In the 900th edition of Action Comics, Superman declares he is to renounce his American citizenship

Sponsored Links

He's still a firm believer in truth and justice, but the world's foremost superhero is no longer sure he can carry on proudly endorsing the American way. As he approaches his 80th birthday, Superman has made a shock decision: he intends to renounce his US citizenship.

The move, to be announced next week in the 900th edition of Action Comics, comes after a peculiarly topical plot twist: the Man of Steel finds himself being criticised by the White House for joining young Muslims at a rally against the regime of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in Tehran.

"I'm tired of having my actions construed as instruments of US policy," he wearily tells the President's National Security Advisor. "Truth, justice and the American way... It's not enough anymore. The world's too small. Too connected. I intend to speak before the United Nations tomorrow and inform them that I am renouncing my US citizenship."

Related articles

• Leading article: Krypton factor
• Search the news archive for more stories

The comments have sparked heated debate among fans of the superhero, who was created in the 1930s. With his perfect teeth, rags-to-riches story and enduring ability to kick butt, Superman has, until now, represented a red-blooded embodiment of the American Dream.

Born on a fictional planet called Krypton, he was raised by a farmer and his wife in rural Kansas. Since becoming an adult, he's lived a double life in New York as Clark Kent, a "mild-mannered" reporter for The Daily Planet, who uses vacant telephone boxes to change into his patriotically coloured blue jumpsuit and red underpants whenever a wrong needs righting.

But since the end of the Cold War, Superman has increasingly found his philosophy at odds with official US policy. His threat to renounce citizenship, which has yet to be followed through, can perhaps therefore be interpreted as an acknowledgement that modern superheroes can no longer view right and wrong through a prism of narrow patriotism.

That sort of liberal hand-wringing is more-or-less guaranteed to upset Middle America, however. News that Superman's commitment to the USA is wavering sparked comic levels of outrage among right-leaning commentators yesterday.

"We are turning into the biggest bunch of pantie-wasted sissies I've ever seen," wrote one Jimmy Wallingford, of Texas, after reading of the development on the New York Post's website. "Has anyone at DC Comics been to another country? America may have some problems, but there is nowhere I'd rather be!"

Another reader, Bernie Loverde, suggested that the development was part of a plot to indoctrinate children with left-wing beliefs. "Do progressives, with their one global life and political correctness, have no end to what they have to shit all over?" he asked. Such comments conveniently ignore the fact that, since he was never formally adopted, Superman is officially classified as an illegal alien. By the logic of most conservatives, he does not therefore have US citizenship to renounce.

Nonetheless, the publishers of DC Comics, Jim Lee and Dan DiDio, appear to be concerned at the level of hostility their new edition has generated. They released a statement yesterday arguing that, despite his commitment to an increasingly international outlook, Superman will continue to embody the best of America.

"Superman is a visitor from a distant planet who has long embraced American values. As a character and an icon, he embodies the best of the American Way," it read. "In a short story in Action Comics 900, Superman announces his intention to put a global focus on his never-ending battle, but he remains, as always, committed to his adopted home and his roots as a Kansas farm boy from Smallville."

The repositioning certainly makes sense from a commercial point of view, with a new Superman film on the way and Hollywood increasingly dependent on international box office returns.

Defenders of the move have also pointed out that Superman is not the first superhero to thumb his nose at the US. During the Watergate scandal of the 1970s, Captain America also renounced his citizenship.