Self-evident or reserved for the power elite? Part 2.

Fourth of July fireworks seen across the Potomac River at Washington, D.C., USA, July 4, 2011. This file is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported license. Author: Joe Ravi. license CC-BY-SA 3.0 .

by Kathie Malley-Morrison

For our July 4, 2016, post, we asked whether Americans have honored and promulgated the principles stated in our Declaration of Independence. Our answer: Not unless it suited the interests of the ruling powers within the nation to do so. Which is, relatively speaking, almost never.

The grievous failure of successive US governments to promote life and liberty (let alone the pursuit of happiness) is appalling not only in relation to their tolerance of slavery (officially “legal” in this country until the Emancipation Proclamation, illegal but continuing in various forms ever since) but also in their violent opposition to such pursuits in peoples trying to overthrow vicious and unjust governments elsewhere.

The failures to support liberation movements are numerous but here are two ignominious examples that at least some Americans know about:

The Philippines  Over 100 years ago, the United States replaced Spain as the foreign power occupying the Philippines. American forces went to the Philippines in 1898 purportedly to help Filipino rebels achieve independence from the yoke of imperial Spain; instead, the US government, pursuing its own imperialistic goals, initiated a vicious war against the rebels, took over control of the Philippines, and occupied the islands for decades, not until July 4, 1946, did it finally recognize Philippines independence.

Vietnam: Over 50 years ago, the United States replaced France as the imperialistic power occupying Vietnam, purportedly to save “South Vietnam” from the “ruthless Communists” of “North Vietnam” (the  Vietminh).  A lot of good books and articles have been written concerning this particular crushing of an indigenous people’s efforts to gain liberty and justice from foreign occupiers, but Noam Chomsky summarizes it well in this interview with Paul Shannon.

To understand what all those fireworks on the Fourth of July really signify, just check out this Global Policy Forum summary of US military activity since, in the course of events,  the early colonialists declared their independence from Great Britain. Perhaps it is time for the US to pursue a new path, truly honoring life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness with a new holiday and a new symbol (Flag of Peace (Proposal).  Author: Julius C. Licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported license. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Flag_of_Peace_(Proposal).PNG).)

 

There’s Blood on Their Hands—Lots of It

Anti-colonialism demonstrators before the 1945 Sétif and Guelma massacre of Algerians by the French
Image by Vikoula5 and in the public domain.

The recent massacre of civilians in Paris was horrific, unconscionable, and despicable—as has been the response in Paris, the US, and elsewhere in the West. Revenge, revenge, revenge is the resonating cry. The innocent victims of the terrorist attacks did not deserve their fate; nor did the innocent victims of centuries of French—and other Western, including American–colonialism.

The ethic of reciprocity, that “do unto others” Golden Rule, is a life- and fairness-promoting mantra; too often, we hear instead an “eye for an eye” refrain. Here we go again, with violence begetting violence and  it is fool-hardy to think further violence will put an end to the discontent, the rage, the enmity associated in part with centuries of Western exploitation, repression, and violence in other parts of the world.

Let’s take the case of France. During the 1600s, France began establishing colonies in North America, the Caribbean, and India—although “establish” is a euphemism. What France did was aggressively seize control of areas far from its own borders, and rule them until control was seized by someone else, generally Great Britain (another model of ruthless imperialism).

In the mid-nineteenth century, France extended its strong arm into Africa, Indochina, and the South Pacific. When people whose skin is black, brown, or yellow—“people of color”—are ruled over by white people, history has shown us that the rulers do not grasp the hands of the indigenous people in brotherhood, whatever their national mottos might be. The bloody wars in Algeria and Vietnam were in my lifetime. Hard for me to believe that there are nations in these “modern” and “civilized” times whose leaders view it as okay to take over land long occupied by other people, or leaders who do not think of “colonization” as a dirty word.

Historical memory tends to be very long. For many decades after the last rebellious Native American Indian went to his reward, American children played “Cowboys and Indians,” and all those children, like you, knew who the “bad guys” were–at least according to the stories told to them.

Let’s start working on better ways of dealing with violence then engaging in yet more acts of revenge that can only perpetuate the cycle.

P.S. The attacks on Beirut and the Russian plane were just as unconscionable as the one in Paris and should not be brushed aside just because we are better able to see the French as like us.

Kathie Malley-Morrison, Professor of Psychology

Dehumanizing or demonizing the other (Moral disengagement, part 7)

Photo of antisemitic Nazi propaganda
Antisemitic Nazi Propaganda. (Licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Germany license. From WikiMedia Commons)

Dehumanizing or demonizing the other is a particularly common form of moral disengagement, especially during wartime or other types of conflict.

Another moral disengagement mechanism described by psychologist Albert Bandura, it refers to portraying your enemy as less than human, as some sort of vile creature.

During World War II, all factions in the conflict created posters of the enemy as a subhuman monster. In addition, propaganda and feature films of that era–as well as during the Cold War and the Vietnam War–stereotyped, sub-humanized, dehumanized, and demonized the enemy.

Consider this quote: “…[This nation is] aiming at the exclusive domination of the [world], lost in corruption, [characterized by] deep-rooted hatred towards us, hostile to liberty wherever it endeavors to show its head, and the eternal disturber of the peace of the world.”

Who do you think said that? To what nation was he referring?

The answer to the first question is Thomas Jefferson, in 1815, when he was President. The nation in question was Great Britain. Imagine what might have happened if weapons of mass destruction were available back then. Suppose Jefferson, as President, pushed Congress for a preemptive strike against Great Britain. Would a more peaceful world have been achieved?

Kathie Malley-Morrison, Professor of Psychology

Note: This post was adapted from my previously published article in Peace Psychology (a publication of the American Psychological Association), Spring, 2009.