By The Simplistic, For The Simplistic
Nobel Peace Prize winner Desmond Tutu gives his review of the Bush administration in a Newsweek interview by Arlene Getz:
You said George Bush should admit that he made a mistake. Were you surprised at his re-election?
[Laughs] I still can't believe that it really could have happened. Just look at the facts on the table: He’d gone into a war having misled people—whether deliberately or not—about why he went to war. You would think that would have knocked him out [of the race.] It didn’t. Look at the number of American soldiers who have died since he claimed that the war had ended. And yet it seems this doesn't make most Americans worry too much. I was teaching in Jacksonville, Fla., [during the election campaign] and I was shocked, because I had naively believed all these many years that Americans genuinely believed in freedom of speech. [But I] discovered there that when you made an utterance that was remotely contrary to what the White House was saying, then they attacked you. For a South African the déjà vu was frightening. They behaved exactly the same way that used to happen here [during apartheid]—vilifying those who are putting forward a slightly different view.Do you see any other parallels with white-ruled South Africa?
Look at the [detentions in] Guantanamo Bay. You say, why do you detain people without trial in the fashion that you have done? And when they give the answer security, you say no, no, no, this can't be America. This is what we used to hear in South Africa. It's unbelievable that a country that many of us have looked to as the bastion of true freedom could now have eroded so many of the liberties we believed were upheld almost religiously. [But] feeling as devastated in many ways as I am, it is wonderful to find that there are [also] Americans who have felt very strongly [about administration policies]—the people who turned out for rallies against the war. One always has to be very careful not to do what we used to do here, where you generalize very facilely, and one has to remember that there are very many Americans who are feeling deeply distressed about what has taken place in their country. We take our hats off to them.Talking about religion, much has been said about the role it played in the White House race. What do you say to those who believe that Bush was chosen by God?
[Laughs] I keep having to remind people that religion in and of itself is morally neutral. Religion is like a knife. When you use a knife for cutting up bread to prepare sandwiches, a knife is good. If you use the same knife to stick into somebody’s guts, a knife is bad. Religion in and of itself is not good or bad—it is what it makes you do… Frequently, fundamentalists will say this person is the anointed of God if the particular person is supporting their own positions on for instance, homosexuality, or abortion. [I] feel so deeply saddened [about it]. Do you really believe that the Jesus who was depicted in the Scriptures as being on the side of those who were vilified, those who were marginalized, that this Jesus would actually be supporting groups that clobber a group that is already persecuted? That’s a Christ I would not worship. I'm glad that I believe very fervently that Jesus would not be on the side of gay bashers. To think that people say, as they used to say, that AIDS was God’s punishment for homosexuality. Abominable. Abominable.Is this bigotry masquerading as faith?
No. I think there are people who do believe things genuinely. Bush followed the example of President [Ronald] Reagan—to be very simplistic. Bush said we are the goodies, those are the baddies, [just] as Reagan said about the Soviets—that they were the evil empire. President Bush has found much the same kind of thing: that people don't like ambiguities.
Posted by aalkon at December 31, 2004 8:35 AM
Comments
> as Reagan said about the Soviets—that they
> were the evil empire.
Hate to harsh Dez and all, but... Reagan was right.
Posted by: Cridland at December 31, 2004 3:36 PM
ANd not only that...
I didn't follow Amy's link, but this passage from the same Tutu interview was found on another site:
> "I had naively believed all these many
> years that Americans genuinely believed in
> freedom of speech. [But I] discovered there
> that when you made an utterance that was
> remotely contrary to what the White House
> was saying, then they attacked you."
Friends, this is INFANTILE. The point of free speech is not to give everyone a mutually empowering, emotionally nourishing environment of compassionate agreement. The point is to HASH IT OUT. We think our opposing rhetors have every right to say what they believe; when they are nonetheless full of shit, it's not wrong to say so.
Hitchens: "Anyone who comes into the public square for an argument can’t say ‘well I didn’t know it was gonna get, you know, upsetting.’"
Posted by: Cridland at December 31, 2004 4:14 PM
Crid, I'm a free-speech extremist. From hello to hate speech to pornography, I'm all for it. I believe what Tutu is speaking about is the spirit of free speech, vis a vis the nefarious approaches by this administration to discredit people, and the way they got a pass for it from so many people. I am quite disturbed by the lack of common-sense moderates in this country. Matt Welch would be one person I define that way. By that, I mean, people who vote with their brains engaged, who don't just rubberstamp everything the "team" (ie, their chosen party) does. I, for one, am neither a Democrat nor a Republican; merely a disgusted person who votes for the least loathesome idiot running, and the least idiotic proposals.
Posted by: Amy Alkon at December 31, 2004 4:53 PM
Hey, Crid...what about the "misled into a war" bit? You didn't mention that. Is Tutu wrong about that?
Posted by: Amy Alkon at December 31, 2004 4:54 PM
> Is Tutu wrong about that?
YES, he is. I've written thousands of words about this on your own website, Amy!
Posted by: Cridland at December 31, 2004 5:12 PM
Or, perhaps...is Crid wrong about that?!
Posted by: Amy Alkon at December 31, 2004 5:43 PM
Nope. Do you think W would've won the election if this "lie" were the logical slamdunk you (and Dezi) want to pretend that it is?
OK, fine. Keep telling yourself: 'The people are stupid! The people are stupid!' It rhymes with 'Jeb in 2008!'
Posted by: Cridland at December 31, 2004 6:15 PM
If this country and the world were logical places, we wouldn't be worried about being blown up by religious fanatics, would we? Nor would people believe in god. It seems, however, that most people believe in god -- and some of these nice god-believers are sending me piles of fundamentalist and right-wing-oriented books and magazine subscriptions I didn't order. Fraud in the name of god. How special.
Posted by: Amy Alkon at December 31, 2004 6:22 PM
I agree with you, Crid. Dealing with hostile people is just part of the cost of speaking out. That's a lesson I've learned on this blog many times over (luckily, the hostility is usually mixed with wit and intelligence). Still, I love Bishop Tutu for saying kind things like, "I believe very fervently that Jesus would not be on the side of gay bashers." This is a great counter-balance to the hateful gas passing from the mouth of that old butthole-fearing scumbag in the Vatican. (But, Lena, how do you really feel?)
Posted by: Lena, poised with sledgehammer over the Pieta (circa 1971) at December 31, 2004 9:04 PM
"Do you think W would've won the election if this "lie" were the logical slamdunk you (and Dezi) want to pretend that it is?"
Just because voters jumped off the Brooklyn Bridge doesn't mean that Amy and Dezi have to follow them, Crid. Millions of people can be WRONG. Look at the sales on Britney Spears records as an example. She's easy on the eyes, but that garbage of hers passing as pop music is a LIE! 50 million Britney fans can all be wrong.
Posted by: Lena Cuisina, starring in the remake of Jailhouse Rock!!! at December 31, 2004 10:02 PM
Data-lena to the rescue!
Posted by: Amy Alkon at December 31, 2004 10:33 PM
Awww Helllz Gnaw. I know you ain't dissin' my Brit.
Britney Spears' greatest hits is one of my 5 favorite albums this year. Yeah, the Nirvana box set is waaay better, but don't knock Britney just because you don't wanna do her.
Posted by: LYT at January 2, 2005 12:23 AM
I think Britney looked very pretty in that Herbal Essences Shampoo print ad from a few years back. But it was all downhill after that.
I'll be showing my horribly tamed, middle-aged taste here, but my two favorite pop/rock records of 2004 were by Seal (2003?) and Patti Smith. They've both made me get teary more than a few times -- or maybe that had something to do with quitting drinking?
I saw Patti perform in August at the John Ford Amphitheatre. She's like that crazy old granny from The Beverly Hillbillies now. A lot of the punk chicks in the audience have aged very well too.
Posted by: Lena, A rocker rockin' in her rocking chair at January 2, 2005 7:26 AM
"She's like that crazy old granny from The Beverly Hillbillies now."
I hope people will be saying that about me someday!
Posted by: Amy Alkon at January 2, 2005 7:48 AM
"For a South African the déjà vu was frightening. They behaved exactly the same way that used to happen here [during apartheid]—vilifying those who are putting forward a slightly different view."
Exactly the same way? Hmm, Dez, as I recollect, the way things went down in South Africa during apartheid was just a tad more "frightening." People disappeared, relatives were threatened, and some folks were flat-out murdered in broad daylight for all to see. So, excuse me if I don't hear the violins playing when someone who opposed the Bushies had their patriotism called into question. So long as there was no coercion to prevent the expression of opinions, free speech was fully intact during the campaign.
It's becoming an axiom in political discourse that people who say provocative things and get attacked for them scream that their free speech rights are being violated. That doesn't make it any more right than Britney being considered a musician. Millions, as was so rightly pointed out, can be wrong.
Chris
The Enlightened Caveman
www.enlightenedcaveman.com
Posted by: Chris Wilson at January 2, 2005 10:33 PM
And...while we're talking music - check out Gavin DeGraw. He's an actual musician with actual talent and an actually decent record. In fact, his debut album is called "Chariot", and the version I bought has two discs - one is the studio version (which is what you'll hear on the radio), the other is an all acoustic version of the entire album. Really solid. Wish more artists would do this.
Like can you imagine like Jessica Simpson like breaking it down like that? That would be like soooo fetch.
Happy New Year!
The Enlightened Caveman
www.enlightenedcaveman.com
Posted by: Chris Wilson at January 2, 2005 10:39 PM
What concerns me is the truth being told and action being taken based on the truth. What we have is an ongoing stream of nasty propaganda campaigns against anyone who doesn't march in lockstep with the fundamentalists now in power. I'm all for free speech -- and objectionable speech. I think Bishop Tutu's words have to be understood in the spirit in which they were meant -- which I see as the spirit I explained directly above...not as literally as some are taking them about supposedly not saying anything nasty. Nastiness exposed is healthy -- because when it's out in the open it can be disputed. Sadly, the press is less about exposing the truth these days than it is about putting out one brand of opinion or another -- and opinion is fine, when it's not marketed to a gullible public as something else.
Posted by: Amy Alkon at January 2, 2005 10:41 PM
"Nastiness exposed is healthy -- because when it's out in the open it can be disputed."
Oh, Flamey, now you've gone and -- in your brilliance -- reminded me of a character from a short story by Susan Sontag, whose death has been weighing on my mind steadily for days:
"What is upsetting: To read 'Last Letters from Stalingrad,' and grieve for those lost, all-too-human voices among the most devilish of enemies. No one is an enemy if fully heard."
from "Debriefing," 1978
Posted by: Lena's painting it black today at January 3, 2005 2:30 AM
"What concerns me is the truth being told and action being taken based on the truth."
I'm with you on that but...free speech is, in my view, a slippery slope. Sure, the spread of erroneous ideas (like the infallibility of the Pope, for example) often have incalculable costs in human life and happiness. If our focus is on the actions that are taken based upon the ideas floating in the mental marketplace, we have a moral obligation toward censorship. Off we slide...
We can only maintain free speech by diligently educating our population on how to tell truth from fiction. Slinging arrows at propagandists only makes us look like the same. If I weigh the negative impact of the nasty rhetoric during the recent campaigns against the distributed, routine, and ongoing dissemanation of "God's will," I have a hard time getting worked up. Both do harm, but free speech demands that both be propagated freely by virtue of human demand.
Just like addressing the drug problem, you have to focus on decreasing demand for the bad, rather than fruitlessly working toward interrupting the supply.
And as for Bishop Tutu, I think the spirit of his comments is crystal clear - he was maligning the current administration. That he chose to compare its propaganda tactics to those used in South Africa is really pretty appalling. South Africans should have been so fortunate. His statements are insulting to the people who've paid for dissent (of any flavor) in blood. I'm no Bush lover, but intellectual decorum requires the enforcement of perspective. IMHO.
EC
Posted by: Chris Wilson at January 3, 2005 6:10 AM
Great points all through your post, Chris. I think we should set up a conversation between you and Bishop Tutu very soon.
You've struck a theme that comes up frequently in minority communities in this country: The impropriety of equating different experiences of different forms of oppression. Specifically, I'm thinking of the conflicts that arise when the gay/lesbian community borrows (some might say "steals") ideas and rhetoric from the Black civil rights movement, while glossing over the really important (and obvious) historical differences between the two groups. However, I think that there's something to be learned from such comparisons, as long as everyone involved understands that the experiences of gays and Blacks (as though those two groups were mutually exclusive!), or of some Americans and South Africans, are not reducible to each other. It's quite possible that Bishop Tutu couched his comparison of the Bush administration and the South African apartheid system with caveats and qualifiers that didn't make it to the transcript we read. The reason I'd like to hear you in conversation with Tutu is that I think he would welcome the points you made, and thank you for making them, and then proceed to be more specific about the usefulness and limitations of his comparison.
Posted by: Lena can't sleep at January 3, 2005 7:40 AM
Yeah, Lena. You're probably right. All I've ever seen of Tutu has been a magnanimous, soft-spoken guy who seemed fairly with it. It may indeed be that he disclaimed away the offensiveness of his comments. However, ideology does crazy things to people. I'd loooove to get a little discussion going with the Bishop to find out.
Posted by: Chris Wilson at January 3, 2005 5:53 PM
Chris -- Check out the link below. Tutu's general view of the Bush administration is reflected in his recent work on this play. I had the pleasure of hearing this interview back in October, when there still was hope that the atrocities in Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib might have been enough to get Bush fired. Alas...
http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=04/10/05/1411259&mode=thread&tid=25
Tuesday, October 5th, 2004
Archbishop Desmond Tutu on Guantanamo, President Bush and the Invasion of Iraq
Once a leading campaigner against apartheid, former South African Archbishop, Desmond Tutu has become a vocal critic of the U.S. prison in Guantanamo Bay. We speak with the Nobel Peace Prize winner about the similarities between Guantanamo Bay and apartheid in South Africa, President Bush and the invasion and occupation Iraq.
This weekend, former South African Archbishop Desmond Tutu made his debut on the play "Guantanamo - Honor-Bound to Defend Freedom" as a British judge, Lord Justice Steyn who questioned the legal justification of the detention regime.
Posted by: Lena in a tutu too at January 4, 2005 2:39 AM