Unappeasable Grievances
Harry thinks Galloway may have done for himself now.The thought had occurred to me. I saw both his grandstanding (get me, I’m defiant, I’m brave, I’m passionate, I’m taking the unpopular view) in Parliament and his ridiculous performance on Newsnight – thanks to good old C-Span which (amid the desert of dreck that is US cable tv) has shown Newsnight in its entirety the last couple of days, and the news conference with Ken Livingstone and Ian Blair yesterday. What can I say? He comes across as an obstinate buffoon. (Of course, I already thought he was that, a predisposition which must shape how I view him now.)
Hitchens is a relief from obstinate buffoonery. (Drink-soaked ex-Trotskyist popinjayism goes head-to-head with obstinate buffoonery. How I wish Galloway had accepted that challenge.)
I remember living in London through the Provisional IRA bombing in the 70s. I saw the very first car-bomb explode against the Old Bailey in 1972. There was no warning that time, but after a while a certain etiquette developed. And, even as I detested the people who might have just as soon have blown me up as anyone else, I was aware there were ancient disputes involved, and that there was a potential political solution. Nothing of the sort applies in this case. We know very well what the “grievances” of the jihadists are.
Well, some of us do. Others of us apparently don’t. Others insist that the ‘grievance’ is the war in Iraq and that if it weren’t for that, all would be peace and harmony. A view which at the very least overlooks some hard facts about chronology, as many people have pointed out.
The grievance of seeing unveiled women. The grievance of the existence, not of the State of Israel, but of the Jewish people. The grievance of the heresy of democracy, which impedes the imposition of sharia law. The grievance of a work of fiction written by an Indian living in London. The grievance of the existence of black African Muslim farmers, who won’t abandon lands in Darfur. The grievance of the existence of homosexuals. The grievance of music, and of most representational art. The grievance of the existence of Hinduism. The grievance of East Timor’s liberation from Indonesian rule.
The grievance of seeing, I would add, not just unveiled women, but mobile women, out of the house women, working women, studying women, autonomous women, talking women, thinking women, arguing women, free women, running women, lawyer women, doctor women, scholar women, strong women, teacher women, journalist women – unsubmissive women. Women who own themselves as opposed to being owned by men, women who decide for themselves rather than asking men for permission. That’s a huge, colossal, festering, obsessive grievance; clamping down on wild out-of-control women is the first thing that happens when Talibanists win.
The grievances I listed above are unappeasable, one of many reasons why the jihadists will lose. They demand the impossible – the cessation of all life in favour of prostration before a totalitarian vision. Plainly, we cannot surrender. There is no one with whom to negotiate, let alone capitulate.
Just so. The grievances are unappeasable. That was the point of my rhetorical questions to Tariq Ali yesterday. It’s not possible to surrender, because the demand is for a nightmare life. A life of being buried alive – almost like being stuck in a Tube tunnel 250 feet below ground, forever.
Just to follow up on my last comment in the previous thread. This is exactly what I’m arguing against. They did not attack us because our women walk about unveiled!
We’re not your women. I think you mean something like ‘women here.’
They probably didn’t attack solely because women walk around unveiled and unsupervised – but that’s not completely irrelevant, either. If it were, then locking up women would not be the first thing Islamists do. But it is. If you think it’s not at the top of their agenda – think again.
Hmm, by our ‘our women’ I was trying to adopt their voice, but it does come out sounding a bit like an extract from ‘they come over here taking our jobs and our women’
“We’re not your women. I think you mean something like ‘women here.'”
In fairness, “our” does not always mean the same thing as owned by. The terrorists blew up “our” people. Some people are asking for “our” boys to be brought back home. Many people would like to see a better world for “our” children. It could of course be that PM meant “our women” in the same sense that mysogynists do ;-) however, judging from his contributions in general, I strongly suspect he did not.
Chris, I know, so do I – that’s why I said I thought he meant something else. (And is PM a he? I was thinking yesterday, I can’t remember if that’s ever been established – so I avoided pronouns.)
Yeah, I know ‘our’ doesn’t always mean ‘owned by’ – but as PM xself says, it came out sounding a little like that. ‘Our women’ is an inherently ambiguous phrase that way.
I’m a he, otherwise I’d probably be less worried about sounding like I possessed the women of Britain.
True, but you could have been double-bluffing! Or something.
I am hardly a fan of Abrahamic religions, but cant like this does forget that the West is NOT blameless in its dealings with the Middle East. Western colonialism certainly helped create conditions in which this kind of theocratic thinking can thrive (or, for that matter, the Baathist fascism that has been for too long the primary alternative). Hitchens and his friends become a little too congratulatory: “look at these forces of evil which we, the virtuous, must oppose.” That attitude does bother me, as it certainly can be used to justify the debacle in Iraq or a variety of other intrusive, even neo-colonial policies. Remember, the American CIA largely helped promulgate the Mujahadeen movement, which has now turned around to bite us.
“(And is PM a he? “
Possibly not. However, I thought PM was Phil Mole?, and usually Phil is short for Phillip which is usually a male name. (I suppose it could be short for Phillipa, which is usually a female name). There is also the fact that PM responded a little defensively rather than defiantly pointing out that she was a woman as well, and therefore her comments could not really be seen as posessive (a pont I see he has made too).
“Remember, the American CIA largely helped promulgate the Mujahadeen movement, which has now turned around to bite us”
Indeed, a point Condaleeza Rice herself conceeded when she pointed out for too long the US had promoted stability instead of democracy, and ended up with neither. Now it is large sections of the “left” which promote stability (or reflexive anti-americanism anyway). Many of the anti-war left point out that once upon a time the US propped up Sadaam Hussein (presumably they disapproved of this). Now that the US has decided that propping up despots is not a good idea those same people seem to be against this course of action too. It seems some on the left can be a little too self congratulatory at times as well. “Look at these forces of western hegemony which we the supporters of underdogs must oppose in whatever they do”.
ChrisM
“Look at these forces of western hegemony which we the supporters of underdogs must oppose in whatever they do”.
-yes, and without wanting to sound too thick, exactly why were we on the left fervently in favour of sanctions against S Africa in the 80s (while our govts propped up despots all over the globe), and yet expected by the same people on the left to rail against sanctions on Iraq in the 90s (while Saddam built scores of royal palaces and bunkers with his people’s money), and then, somewhat confusingly, why were we expected to disapprove of the prosecution of regime change when sanctions were found inadequate after 10 years ? It’s all a bit, inconsistent really, the anti-war side -just basically anti whatever the govt of the time is doing. Has everyone in the anti-war movement decided to only read their side of the script ? Is it easier just to blame those in power than actually look at the complexities ?
Good points, of course, Nick. Increasingly, I guess I take the “libertarian” (or maybe isolationist) anti-war view which is suspicious of ALL meddling-especially when it involves propping up tyrannies or any type.
But then, you get things like Darfur…or Rwanda. Where does one draw the line? Given that there doesn’t seem to be an easy “line” to be drawn, is it incorrect to impose an intervention when it is supported by a political movement or government whose motives are suspect and whose political ideology is appalling? In that case, then, intervening in Srebenicia might be more justifiable than Iraq? No answers, just questions :) I’m not sure consistency is possible in a world of “complexities.” I know that I distrust vehemently almost everything PNAC and the Bush cabal do and say, so….