Showing posts with label Anti-Imperialism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Anti-Imperialism. Show all posts

04 September 2012

BOOKS / Ron Jacobs : Richard Seymour's 'American Insurgents'


Opposing the eagle’s talons
"And so I am an anti-imperialist. I am opposed to having the eagle put its talons on any other land." -- Mark Twain
By Ron Jacobs / The Rag Blog / September 4, 2012

[American Insurgents: A Brief History of American Anti-Imperialism, by Richard Seymour (2012: Haymarket Books); Paperback; 230 pp.;  $17.]

When my book The Way the Wind Blew: A History of the Weather Underground was published in 1997, at least one of its critics challenged my use of the terms imperialism and its opposite, anti-imperialism. These terms, he wrote, were specific to a time and no longer relevant.

My response was simple. These words would be irrelevant only when there were no more imperialist nations. Fifteen years and two wars and occupations later, these words are part of the general discourse and the concept of imperialism is considered by those who champion it and those who oppose it.

A book titled American Insurgents: A Brief History of American Anti-Imperialism, by Richard Seymour, is a recent and important addition to this discourse. Seymour, who also wrote The Liberal Defence of Murder wherein he discusses the currently popular humanitarian rationale for imperial intervention, provides the reader of American Insurgents with a historical survey of the antiwar and anti-imperialist efforts throughout U.S. history.

Within this discussion, Seymour includes religious and feminist opposition; leftist and conservative; and various coalitions of all of the aforementioned manifestations.

From the beginning of the book, it becomes clear how fundamental racism is to the U.S. mission of Empire. If it weren’t for the historical fact of African slavery in the U.S. this would not be a cause for special consideration, since most European empires utilize racism and racial superiority as reasoning for their empires.

However, the special history of men and women of African descent in the United States makes the fact of racism in the U.S. pursuit of empire especially heinous and unusual. In addition, the internalized racism of most U.S. whites, even in the anti-imperialist movement, often made alliances across the color line difficult. Consequently, this limited the effectiveness of these movements.

According to Seymour, it wasn’t until the movement against the U.S. war in Vietnam that white and black Americans worked together in a substantial way to oppose the U.S. Empire. Even though the links between the racism of slavery and U.S. Empire had been made earlier, it was not until the anti-Vietnam war movement acknowledged and learned from the civil rights and black liberation movements in the United States that the union of black and white made a difference.

While Seymour does discuss the libertarian and paleoconservative elements of the anti-imperialist movement in the U.S. -- even praising the role those elements have played in the past 20 years with the website Antiwar.com and other endeavors -- he focuses primarily on the left and pacifist elements. Given the predominance of groups with these sentiments in the movement throughout history, this makes sense. Although a longer discussion of the conservative side of the movement would have been useful, its absence does not detract from the book.

Addressing a discussion very familiar among those to the left of anybody in the Democratic Party, Seymour provides an ultimately tragic history of the role Democrats have played in diverting and destroying anti-imperialist sentiment.

It was during the Spanish-American War that the future Democratic presidential candidate William Jennings Bryan would oppose that adventure and align with the Anti-Imperialist League most famous for the membership of Mark Twain, John Dewey, Samuel Gompers, and Andrew Carnegie. In 1900, the League would hitch its star to Bryan’s candidacy. He lost to the empire-builder McKinley, rendering the League essentially moot.

A remarkably similar situation exists today, except that the candidate of the liberals in the Iraq and Afghanistan antiwar movement won the election. Of course, I mean Barack Obama. As Seymour points out (and as most everyone knows), the war in Afghanistan saw an escalation soon after Obama’s inauguration and the occupation of Iraq by the U.S. continues, albeit with considerably less bloodshed.

Efforts to build a movement against a possible war on Iran have failed to excite everyone but the most dedicated pacifists and anti-imperialists, while U.S./NATO military and intelligence operations against the regimes of Gaddafi in Libya and Assad in Syria have even been tacitly supported by some in the antiwar movement.

It is my belief that a good part of the reason for the disintegration of the movement against the war in Iraq has to do with that movement’s politics. Seymour agrees, pointing out that the millions willing to hit the streets to oppose the war when George Bush was president have not even called their Congressperson now that a Democrat is in the White House.

The presence of Democratic Party allies on the coordinating committee of the largest antiwar network combined with the acquiescence of former Communist Party members to the Democrats' agenda ensured this disintegration. There was never a genuine anti-imperialist politics that guided the majority of the movement. That fact explains not only the belated opposition to the Afghanistan occupation but also the seeming refusal to address the belligerent role played by Israel in the wars against Muslim and Arab nations and peoples.

Any future antiwar movement must keep the Democratic Party at an arm’s length. Organizing amongst those who vote Democrat makes sense. Taking money and leadership from donors and operatives dedicated to the party’s domination of left-leaning politics doesn’t. In fact, as Seymour makes clear in his history of U.S. anti-imperialist movements, doing so is suicide for the movement in question. The Democrats cannot be anti-imperialist because they are essential to the very empire anti-imperialists oppose.

In the weeks and months ahead, as the nations of the Middle East remain in turmoil and Washington, Tel Aviv, and various European capitals debate how they want to control the region, the need for an anti-imperialist movement will grow. If we are to avoid making mistakes already made in the past, American Insurgents becomes essential reading.

[Rag Blog contributor Ron Jacobs is the author of The Way The Wind Blew: A History of the Weather Underground. He recently released a collection of essays and musings titled Tripping Through the American Night. His latest novel, The Co-Conspirator's Tale, is published by Fomite. His first novel, Short Order Frame Up, is published by Mainstay Press. Ron Jacobs can be reached at ronj1955@gmail.com. Find more articles by Ron Jacobs on The Rag Blog.]

The Rag Blog

[+/-] Read More...

14 December 2009

Caracas : Bolivar is Inspiration for New Peoples' Movement in Latin America

The founding congress of the Movimiento Continental Bolivariano (MCB) in Caracas, Dec. 7, 2009. Photo from kaosenlared.net

Movimiento Continental Bolivariano:

'Take the open road of hope'

By Marion Delgado / The Rag Blog / December 14, 2009

CARTAGENA DE INDIES, Colombia -- Students, workers, peasants, indigenous movements and leftist groups from 30 countries gathered at Caracas last week to found the Movimiento Continental Bolivariano (MCB), seeking a "union of the peoples of the Americas" to oppose "imperialist encroachment," according to organizers.

Under the motto, "Take the open road of hope," a quote from the Liberator, Simón Bolívar, the founding congress of MCB on Monday, December 7, expressed determination to "defend the Venezuelan Revolution against imperialists threats," and "strengthen the fight against the military bases the Yankees have established in Colombia"; this last refers to a recent agreement between Bogotá and Washington allowing U.S. troops to operate in seven military bases in the South American country.

During the meeting, which ended Wednesday, a video of "Alfonso Cano," the nombre de guerra of a leader of the Fuerzas Armadas Revolucionarias de Colombia -- Ejército del Pueblo, (FARC or FARC-EP; Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia -- Peoples Army) was shown. In it, Cano said that adopting a constitution for MCB is a "duty that cannot be postponed," and reiterated that the pact between Colombia and the U.S. will "destabilize" democratic processes in Latin America.

"[MCB] constitutes a continental political movement of Bolivarian essence, just when the American empire has deployed its military strength in Colombia and is threatening democracy. The U.S. now has its equipment of war and terror deployed against the Latin America and Caribbean peoples. Formation of the new group and adoption of its constitution is a historical necessity” wrote the fugitive guerrilla leader.

He added that MCB's formation signals a new dawn of South Americans' defense of their dignity, independence, history, values, culture, territory, human resources, and a "natural and inalienable right to a sovereign design of our rich future."

The Venezuelan Continental Movement (VCM), born more than five years ago, will provide a founding structure, expanding to include a Bolivarian Continental Coordinator (BCC) to represent MCB, as a platform for Latin American anti-imperialism.

The Commander of the armed forces of Colombia, General Freddy Padilla de León, requested the group to publicly reject the greeting message and accusations of the FARC.

Reaction in Colombia

Colombia has formally asked Venezuela to clarify its position towards the MCB. "The Government and the people of Colombia consider the recognition made by the Bolivarian Continental Coordinator (BCC) of the narcoterrorista organization 'the FARC' an affront to democracy and human rights," the Ministry of Foreign Affairs said. Colombia stated that the MCB is guaranteeing, by its acceptance of the FARC, the murders, kidnappings, and atrocities against civilians committed by the rebel group in a civil war that has lasted over 45 years.

"Faced with this recognition, the Government of Venezuela should clarify to the international community if it recognizes, adopts, or tolerates the existence of movements or parties that support terrorism and that make apologies for organized crime," the Colombian government said.

Colombia registered its protest while diplomatic relations with Venezuela are already in crisis, following the latest U.S. military pact.

The current diplomatic crisis is considered the worst since 1987, when the two countries, sharing a land frontier of 2,219 kilometers, were on the brink of war after a Colombian warship was intercepted by the Venezuelan army in a disputed maritime border area.

Previously, Colombian military and political leaders have asked the international community to refrain from giving credibility to FARC in forums such as the meeting in Caracas.

"We cannot accept that, after we have achieved significant success in the tranquility and peace among Colombians, these organizations of pseudopolíticans should give exposure to terrorist organizations," said General Padilla.

The President of Venezuela, Hugo Chávez, the leading regional critic of Washington, denounced the U.S. as building a platform on Colombian foundations to invade his country and curb his so-called "Bolivarian revolution" that favors the poorest members of society.

Chávez, in the past has denied links with or support for the guerrillas, charged by his opponents, and denied that they use Venezuela as a sanctuary.

In the FARC video shown in Caracas, Cano rejected the military accord of Bogotá and Washington and announced FARC's support for the newborn pan-South American organization.

The video is the second from Cano, who assumed the position of maximum FARC leader in 2008 after the legendary Manuel Marulanda Velez, died of a heart attack.

In recent months, guerrilla forces have intensified their attacks in an apparent attempt to demonstrate military power and political force. An offensive (Plan Patriota), launched by the Uribe government in 2003, that forced the FARC into a strategic retreat to remote mountainous and forested areas. In that offensive, several important guerrilla leaders such as Raúl Reyes, Martin Caballero, and Tomás Medina Caracas were killed, while thousands of FARC combatants defected, according to the Colombian Government.
  • For previous reports from Colombia by Marion Delgado, go here.
The Rag Blog

[+/-] Read More...

Only a few posts now show on a page, due to Blogger pagination changes beyond our control.

Please click on 'Older Posts' to continue reading The Rag Blog.