…to democratize power in all its forms.
This is the second entry in a series of posts where I attempt to put the Empire’s complex language into laymen terms so we can all understand what U.S. politicians and pundits really say. Read Part 1 here.
Introduction to the Dictionary
When you hear Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, General Petraus, John McCain, Wolf Blitzer, and other leaders of the United States as well as political pundits speak, it can often be confusing to understand – as though their words and phrases don’t actually reflect reality. The primary reason for this is that these leaders and media talking-heads are in fact speaking a different language that transcends normal dictionary definitions. In fact, they are speaking what is called the “Language of Empire,” a language in which words and phrases often have complex sub-layers or mean exactly the opposite of their normal definition.
Therefore, in order to help everyday people better understand the intentions of the United States’ media and political figures, I have begun to compile a list of phrases and words that the Empire uses and what they mean in normal words. This is a “Dictionary of the Empire.” Of course, this will have to be an ongoing project, as the Empire’s language constantly evolves and grows in order to suit its purpose at any given moment.
***
People that our bombs accidentally blow up who aren’t white.
Important Note: This phrase is often perceived by leftists to be a synonym of “state terrorism.” In the eyes of the Empire, however, this is a false equivalency because non-American lives are less valuable than American lives – after all, they’re “collateral” and not “people.”
You are not allowed to say this word on TV. And if you do, you’re a radical-Marxist-communist-anarchist-Lenninist-Maoist-terrorist.
See also: imperialism, colonialism.
Used as: We call for a national dialogue in the country where protesters are rising up against the oppressive regime we support and being shot by weapons that we supplied.
“We talk with a gun, you listen.”
Reads: "No Foreign Intervention / Libyan People Can Manage It Alone"
Right now, I’m suffering from a severe hypocrisy headache that no medicine can cure. Across blogs, social media, news outlets, and even conversations with friends and family, we’re hearing calls for a no-fly zone over Libya in the wake of the brutal suppression of the uprising tearing across the country. Not only is this a dangerous call – unless it is specifically requested by Libyans (and to be fair, there does seem to be disagreement among those who are rebelling about whether this is desired) – but it is a completely hypocritical stance for anyone in the United States to be taking.
The logic behind the no-fly zone is that the Gaddafi Regime in Libya is using its air force to decimate the uprising, but, more importantly, it is also killing and maiming civilians as a result of its offensive. This is completely true and indefensible, but there are a number of ways that governments and the “international community” can support the Libyan people’s uprising without implementing a no-fly zone. And here in the U.S., the charge for a no-fly zone is being led by War Hawks and neo-conservatives. Those clamoring for it primarily include notorious war-mongers such as Paul Wolfowitz, John McCain, and Joe Lieberman (go here to read more about the neo-cons calling for the No-Fly Zone). And on Slate.com, Michael Lind sheds light on the reality of the true intentions of those in the U.S. demanding a no-fly zone over Libya, which is essential to understand:
[Wolfowitz’s, McCain’s, Lieberman’s, etc.] implication is that the enforcement of “no-fly zones,” by the U.S. alone or with NATO allies, would be a moderate, reasonable measure short of war, like a trade embargo. In reality, declaring and enforcing a no-fly zone in Libya would be a radical act of war. It would require the U.S. not only to shoot down Libyan military aircraft but also to bomb Libya in order to destroy anti-aircraft defenses. Under any legal theory, bombing a foreign government’s territory and blasting its air force out of the sky is war.
Could America’s war in Libya remain limited? The hawks glibly promise that the U.S. could limit its participation in the Libyan civil war to airstrikes, leaving the fighting to Libyan rebels.
These assurances by the hawks are ominously familiar.
Lind points to the Balkans, Afghanistan, and Iraq, and argues perfectly that all three of these “quick” wars easily evolved into much larger and disastrous wars – especially the last two. When selling the American public and the world on the Afghanistan and Iraq wars (or “military operations”) less then 10 years ago, the Bush administration repeatedly proclaimed these “military actions” would be simple, smooth, and easy. (There too they promised we would be greeted as liberators). Last time I checked, however, the U.S. is still bogged down in both countries. Lind goes on to explain how many of the arguments that have kept us in Afghanistan and Iraq far longer than promised, despite destroying the nations’ infrastructures and taking the lives of hundreds of thousands (if not millions) of innocents, would destine to keep us in Libya as well:
The lesson of these three wars is that the rhetoric of lift-and-strike is a gateway drug that leads to all-out American military invasion and occupation. Once the U.S. has committed itself to using limited military force to depose a foreign regime, the pressure to “stay the course” becomes irresistible. If lift-and-strike were to fail in Libya, the same neocon hawks who promised that it would succeed would not apologize for their mistake. Instead, they would up the ante. They would call for escalating American involvement further, because America’s prestige would now be on the line. They would denounce any alternative as a cowardly policy of “cut and run.” And as soon as any American soldiers died in Libya, the hawks would claim that we would be betraying their memory, unless we conquered Libya and occupied it for years or decades until it became a functioning, pro-American democracy.
The U.N. will ultimately decide if a no-fly zone should be imposed over Libya, as the Obama Administration wouldn’t dare to act alone. And such a decision from the administration would depend on the American public’s willingness (or perceived willingness) to get involved in another international military conflict. Here, the War Hawks are counting on exploiting two forms of American ignorance and cognitive dissonance in their aims for a no-fly zone that, in their minds, would hopefully avalanche into a much larger military campaign. Most Americans: 1) forget (or don’t know) that our military is already involved in numerous conflicts all across the region – ranging from full scale occupations and wars to secretive bombing campaigns and undercover ops; and 2) don’t understand that the rationale for applying a no-fly zone over Libya would require implementing a no-fly zone against the U.S. and its allies in the region as well.
Ever since I first listened to this TEDx talk, “The World Becomes What You Teach,” I’ve repeatedly returned to a question the presenter – Zoe Weil of the Institute for Humane Education – brings up:
“What if instead of having debate teams we had solutionary teams?”
What if, indeed.
I don’t see eye to eye with every argument Weil makes in her presentation (more on this below), but I feel that this one particular point is of significant importance and should be drawn out further. Hierarchal education – in schools, universities, and other settings (workshops, trainings, etc.) – is in many ways a replication of our economic structure. It is based off the philosophy of extreme competition, where there are winners (straight A students; CEOs and bosses) and losers (those who flunk out; workers making minimum wage and who have no rights) as well as everyone in between. Extreme competition is exercised in classrooms formally through debates and informally/indirectly through tests and grades (where some succeed and some fail). On a slightly more macro level, most schools have one or a few valedictorians who are recognised as “the best of the best” by their institutions. And, just like with capital, the higher GPA you have, the easier it will be for you to get into the university/college of your choice and then, consequently, the job/career path of your dreams.
And, of course, many of our society’s classically classist tropes also exist within the education system, e.g. people from disadvantaged backgrounds only need to “pull themselves up by their boot straps” (by working hard; by studying hard) and they will “make it” in school and then life – even though it’s long been established that students from disadvantaged backgrounds often face seemingly insurmountable odds in their educational careers.
Extreme competition-based education therefore replicates an exploitative economic system that only has an interest in promoting individualistic (and corporate) desires, rather than cultivating the ability of learners to make an impact in their communities and world. In education and in life, a few come out on top while the rest are fodder for the system (or “good foot soldiers in the economy”).
That’s why this idea of “solutionary teams” that Weil has proposed strikes me as so interesting. It’s by no means a revolutionary discovery, but it is certainly a uniquely framed concept within the larger community-based education movement. Instead of pitting students against each other formally and informally when thinking about problems, why don’t we put them in situations where they collaboratively work to improve each others’ lives?
Liberate Knowledge 