Violence and Insurgency
Following up on a lot of recent posts about the limited utility of brutality for the United States, it's worth noting that the converse is also true -- unrestrained violence doesn't have an especiallly good track record as an insurgent tactic. This is especially true when you consider that a number of movements have been able to expell colonial occupiers (India) or overthrow governments (much of Central Europe) or effect large-scale institutional change (Dixie circa 1954-65) essentially without using any violence at all. Of course, there are lots of other instances of insurrectionary violence working. But it's typically beneficial -- not just moral, but prudent -- to demonstrate considerable restraint in this sort of thing.
One reason is simply that international opinion matters in these conflicts and it's helpful when looking for support abroad for people not to think of your organization as composed of wanton murderers. But more fundamentally, the trouble with brutality on the insurgent side is the same as the trouble on the other side -- your military means need to match up with your political goals.
Normally, an insurgent movement is going to want to eventually strike some kind of a compromise with its enemies. Unrestrained slaughter is fine as a method if your actual goal is to kill everyone on the other side. But if that's not your goal, then killing without restraint merely gives the impression that your goal is total massacre and makes the other side disinclined to bargain.
During the Anglo-Irish war, for example, one thing the Irish side needed to do successfully was convince the English that the price of staying in Ireland was going to be too high. They also needed, however, to convince the English that the price of leaving wouldn't be too high. Nobody wants to leave an occupied territory only to see that territory turn into a lethal security threat. Under the circumstances, it helps if your violence seems clearly related to the political objectives of independence (killing soldiers, police, and officials) rather than indicative of deep-seated bloodlust or hatred. The Palestinians keep failing to win independence in large part because the unrestrained nature of the violence they unleash makes Israelis extremely fearful of what an independent Palestine would mean for them.
This is also a common scenario in a simple government-overthrow scenario. It's easier to convince existing leaders to step aside in the face of mass discontent if they're going to end up like Ceau?escu and one good way of doing this is to avoid killing lots of people during your anti-government mobilization.
Another side of restraint is intra-factional restraint--attacking people on your side for differing in strategy. Palestinians have had no shortage of that.
It's what's so infuriating about conflict in the 21st century--how leaders across the globe are engaged in policies that not only weaken and destroy their enemies but ultimately weaken and destroy themselves. People just refuse to see the obvious: that it doesn't matter how many dollars or guns you have or don't have, the most powerful asset in the world is trustworthiness--the capacity to show other people that you can be trusted as a leader, that you can be trusted to implement your policy objective with integrity and respect for those who follow or cooperate with you.
I can't think of any Mideast faction that understand that principle. In fact, I am sad to admit that I can't think of any domestic American political faction that understands the principle either--conservatives, moderates and liberals all seem more determined to condemn the other guys than to prove their own integrity.
I suppose, though, there is a vicious cycle at work here. I see someone who employs tactics that hurt both themselves and others with no possiblity of benefiting their cause. This fills me with rage. "Why do you have to keep being so freaking stupid?!!!" But passion has caused me to forget that calling someone stupid rarely induces them to rethink their actions, and thus *I* also am employing tactics that have no possibility of benefiting my cause! The whole mess quickly becomes painfully recursive.
So, whether it's Palestinians and their suicide bombs, Israelis and their bombing of airports, American neoconservatives and their disregard for international law, or even ultra-left crazies at protest rallies with Hammer and Sickle insignia, what on Earth can we do about people who are not only hurting us but setting their own causes back? It seems like this is a all too common theme that runs through all modern political conflict--what is to be done with the self-destructive, given that self-destructive impulses seem to prey upon all human beings?
August 2, 2006 1:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
The premise for this discussion is unreal and unrealistic. First of all, it assumes that all insurgent/political groups have the same goal - they don't. Secondly, it assumes that a government is one entity - it isn't. Thirdly, it assumes that people who commit terroristic acts of violence are rational people - they're not.
Iraq is a good example of the first - there are thirty-five different insurgent groups that they know of, operating in Iraq. Their goals are as different as implementing a fundamentalist government to maintaining a criminal enterprise. As different as their goals are, so are their methods - from bribery, kidnapping, assassination, military attacks, they might use some or all, it's dependent on the group leaders, the circumstances and the opportunities. Not all acts are political and sometimes it's impossible to know what they are.
When our government went to war, it went with different political and financial agendas. The neo-cons had an agenda, the administration had an agenda, the DOD had an agenda, so did the state department and then those individuals who stand to make money off of any conflict and any misery, and since the war has begun, they've all shifted and changed and moved from one position or goal to another. They've all resorted to violence, bribery, malign influence mongering, blackmail and other terroristic type tools to further their aims.
Lastly, these kinds of conflicts draw the disenfranchised, the greedy, the paranoid, the humiliated, the avengers and the most frightening of all, the fanatics. Once in awhile you have a convergence of all of these traits in some people whose goals ARE the terrorist acts. Especially the fanatics, who if they were not fanatical about religion or politics, would find something else to fanatically believe in. These people are never going to be convinced that any solution will be enough or good or right.
This is human nature, for good or ill - trying to understand, justify, rationalize or end violent action or reaction is not going to happen. The only possible way to curtail it is to convince the majority of people that there is hope for a better life for them and their children. And that is always more difficult than putting a boot to their neck.
August 2, 2006 3:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
You seem to believe that you're arguing against Matt, here, which strikes me as wrong -- I'm not seeing a substantive point of disagreement in the meat of either argument.
He's saying, "If people were thinking rationally, they would do these things."
You're saying, "But they're not rational."
No actual disagreement!
One thing that always bugs me, though, is the assertion that all insurgents are irrational. I believe that many of them probably are, but surely we aren't so terrified of these people that we can't admit at least a few of them are perfectly rational, even if they aren't our friends.
You also seem to be conflating all insurgents and terrorists, which again serves to talk past the substance of Matt's post. Note the peaceful examples he provided above. Part of what seperates especially rational people and less rational people is that especially rational people tend to be less interested in violence -- and therefore, less likely to terrorize.
mike
August 2, 2006 6:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
You're not correct. If you had read my post, instead of skimming it, I believe you might have understood that my point was that there are as many different reasons for terrorism and insurgency as there are people. You cannot expect "one side" in an insurgency to behave in a certain way, because there is not "one side". There are many different "sides" in insurgencies, rebellions or terrorist groups, and sometimes it might be an amalgam of all three. Matt wonders why an insurgent group would act against its own interest, but in insurgencies and rebellions, there is never one group. The Russian revolution is a case in point - and why a civil war erupted.
As to Matt's examples, while it is true that Ghandi indeed led the people in a non-violent revolution, he was assassinated and a civil war between Muslims and Hindus was ongoing for quite sometime before and after Ghandi's assassination. (And still occasionally flares up.) Yes, Poland and many of the Eastern European states were peacefully overturned, but the Balkan states were and are basket cases, as is the Russian confederacy.
Nowhere in my response to Matt did I insinuate that all terrorists, insurgents, rebels and/or political groups are all irrational all of the time, or even that they act irrationally all or some of the time. I pointed out that some groups act irrationally, while others don't. The reason for that, of course, is that groups are made of human beings and their behavior is dependent on their natures.
August 2, 2006 7:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Matt, I’ve combined two of your sentences whose proximity seemed to imply connection:
The Palestinians keep failing to win independence in large part because (of) deep-seated bloodlust or hatred.
I don’t think any insurgency has ever had the ultimate goal to “kill everyone on the other side.” You’re buying into the propaganda put out by parties with a biased interest. The problem with your thesis, as BevD points out, is one of generalizing and painting with a broad brush. What of other "insurgents" throughout history (Native Americans, American Colonists, Drunkards)?
August 2, 2006 8:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
No, no, I did understand that you feel there are lots of different motivations for these people.
I just don't see how that contradicts Matt's basic point -- being that, as I read it, for different goals, different levels of violence are effective. I actually think your basic point and his work together.
I'm not sure where you find a disagreement, but it's not a big deal.
mike
August 3, 2006 12:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
This is an interesting post, but needs some work on the terminology in particular.
To explore the issue of "violence" properly, one needs to be clear about whether the use of force (violence) is being analyzed in a moral or a tactical framework, and then decide where the two planes intersect.
First thing to do is differentiate between a pacifist, and someone who believes in non-violence. The former is someone believes in non-violence as a point of principle. The latter is someone who believes that differences should be resolved in a non-violent manner, but is prepared to use violence if it becomes necessary.
Gandhi and MLK are examples of the former; the vast majority of us fall into the latter category.
Next, the key thing to remember is that opposing parties in a war both regard themselves as moral, and the enemy as immoral. Therefore the decision to fight - and how to fight - is not a moral one, but a tactical one. The decision to target Beirut airport, or Haifa station, or Tyre, or Tiberias, or Israeli commuters, or an apartment in Gaza, is tactical, not moral.
International Law of course tries to inject some morality by setting out certain principles - eg the proportionate use of force, need to take reasonable steps not to kill civilians. What has happened with this injection of morality - an unintended consequence, in my opinion - is that it provides a reflexive link between morality and tactics.
So put yourself in the position of a war-planner. Do you regard principles of international law as a moral contraint?
Answer: No.
They are just another tactical dimension to a campaign that you have already decided is moral. (And America, given the totality of our response to 9/11, is in no position to lecture warring parties otherwise.)
So anyways, one thing I am driving at is the term "unrestrained violence" is really pretty meaningless - it doesn't capture either the moral or the tactical dimension to the use of force. I think if you want to work in a moral plane, use the term "unwarranted or excessive violence"; if you are in the tactical plane, use "self-defeating violence".
In the Israeli-Palestinian context, if you want to a heated debate, just start telling someone one side's violence is unwarranted (or excessive). Because that immediately triggers an argument over who occupies the moral high ground.
You have marginally more chance of a sensible discussion if you go down the "self-defeating" route. The thing is, when you engage the topic this way you can introduce the reflexive dimension to the moral-tactical argument without questioning the other person's moral standpoint.
And finally, if there's to be any progress in the Middle East (either Palestine or Lebanon), moral arguments have - for the moment - to be taken off the table. And the most viable way to do that, given the reflexive nature of tactical-moral nexus over the use of force, is to call for an unconditional ceasefire.
And it is imperative we do it, however much we might loathe Hamas and Hezbollah.
August 3, 2006 5:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
Don't forget the Carnation Revolution! Dissolved the first and longest-lasting colonial empire on the planet, and only four people died (killed by PIDE). Truly a fascinating case, check out the film Capitaes de Abril (April Captains), it's good.
August 3, 2006 7:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
This is a really nice analysis. But does your conclusion follow? If Hizbollah and Hamas were to sincerely convert to nonviolence, not only would there be peace, but in relative terms they would enjoy victory - billions in aid to build their futures, and Israel pressured even by the US to be generous. But as long as they will not convert, any ceasefire will be viewed not only by H&H, but by those around the world watching their example, as a victory for strategies of unbridled violence. Thus a ceasefire would be surrender not just to H&H, but to a ramp-up of violent insurrections worldwide, inevitably leading to much worse wars, not to mention further shading towards fascism in first-world societies, than is currently occurring in the Israel-Lebanon dustup.
Non-violence, finally, is a lesson for insurrections, not for states. State actors will need to be resolute in continuing to use violence against violent insurrectionaries, if we on the whole want to see insurrections evolve towards what for them would be the superior tactics of non-violence. Those which will not evolve, must be killed off. Those which do evolve, must be richly rewarded. Anything else is suicide for civilization.
August 3, 2006 7:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
if there's to be any progress in the Middle East (either Palestine or Lebanon), moral arguments have - for the moment - to be taken off the table
Yes.
If you put a proposed peace plan ,e.g. the Taba agreements , on the table and ask any Palestinians whether it's fair, of course something like 99% will answer No. If instead you ask them whether they are willing to accept it and cease hostilities some number , maybe a majority , will say Yes.
Ditto for the Israelis.
And for all other participants in struggles , particulary communal ones.
That doesn't mean that the Peace makers should ignore justice. Conceivably a fair solution will last longer than an unfair one - say Versailles 1919 . Just don't expect either of the participants to admit it's fair.
August 3, 2006 7:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
I have no idea as to what it is you're trying to say here. I'm not "arguing with Matt." I'm pointing out that his claim is based on false arguments. Matt argues that the Palestinians are acting against their own interests in using violence. Of course, people who use violence are generally acting against their own self interest, but there is no one entity that is "the Palestinians." Different groups may claim to represent Palestinians, but the Palestinians per se, cannot be accused of using violence against their own interests, because that implies that they are one group united in one cause with one goal. These groups act independently of each other and there are no such things as "effective levels of violence" because no one group has the same goal as the other. It is also impossible to know what goals they might have, because one stated goal might be for public consumption, while their real goal might be something hidden or changing.
August 3, 2006 9:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
Indulging myself in a second comment.
Eddie-George's post equals the best of anything I've read here. Mildly interesting that no one chose to rate it. Certainly a 4 in my opinion altho I think it's not overkill for me to both apply that rating and also make this comment.
Like Whit I puzzled over whether the conclusion is a necessary consequence of
the argument but finally decided it is.
August 3, 2006 9:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm a little confused here, but that may be because we are using different definitions of "war planner". I am thinking of the military staff officers doing the plans, who often have a military lawyer advising in planning meetings, and sometimes even operations. Some of the basic references are on my shelf, and right along with the standard order formats, tables of organization & equipment, etc., is FM 27-10, Laws of Land Warfare.
For example, there definitely were cases, when using drones to track and attack enemy vehicles or where they stopped, that the Judge Advocate General had the final say if a target was valid or not.
I do not suspect the civilian policymakers who make the decision to go to war pay nearly this much attention. Clearly, while it isn't an area that I'd call "war planning", there were certainly violations in the planning for handling and dispositions of prisoners.
Again, I'm confused, and again I suspect it's partially a matter of definitions. To me, "tactical" has a fairly specific meaning, at various levels of organization and command, of how you run battles. Decisions to go to war, and in what countries/areas you operate, put overt or clandestine bases, etc., are at a level above tactics.
"Totality of our response"? The immediate response was, given the range of mechanisms available, was a quite limited action against Afghanistan. Indeed, given Tora Bora, it may have been too limited.
Iraq was quite another matter, but even there, while the decision to go in clearly had legal and policy problems, the actual attacks were limited and the forces, if anything, too small.
With all respect, and please think of this as a request for information, how familiar are you with military capabilities? In much of the blogosphere, I hear various weapons described as immense, which puzzles military professionals that know about much more powerful weapons not being used.
--
Howard
*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*
August 3, 2006 9:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
It is not an issue of converting them into a bunch of pacifists. It is an issue of getting Israel's enemies not to use violence. And that means making terrorism/violence etc self-defeating. This might have passed you by, but Hezbollah is currently more popular than it was at the start of hostilities with Israel. Which is just the opposite of what we want.
On your argument that a ceasefire ends up rewarding violence... not so much. Take Northern Ireland for example - acts of sectarian violence are categorically NOT rewarded these days.... Remember that being non-violent does not mean rejecting, forever, the use of violence - what makes violence effective as a tactic is if you can carry broad popular support that you are morally justified in using it. (and as the other side feels equally morally justified, you get your stalemate)
Now genuinely, you need to read this back to yourself:
State actors will need to be resolute in continuing to use violence against violent insurrectionaries, if we on the whole want to see insurrections evolve towards what for them would be the superior tactics of non-violence. Those which will not evolve, must be killed off. Those which do evolve, must be richly rewarded. Anything else is suicide for civilization.
Isn't that the kind of argument the world's worst dictators use to brutalize their opponents? Seriously, it seems to me to be most important that the moral framework surrounding (non-)violence applies to governments.
August 3, 2006 9:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well, I'm truly flattered - thank you. I've actually not fully agreed with Whit, but being non-violent, I hope to clarify things without resorting to, erm, violence.
I must confess the idea of a ceasefire seems to me to be optimal in cases like this... although in diplomatic speak they quite often favor the term "cessation of hostilities" which is a kind of halfway house between ceasefire and war. But I figure if you call for a ceasefire you improve the odds of getting a cessation of hostilities.
August 3, 2006 9:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
I use the term "war-planner" in a generic sense (if it has a specific legal meaning, that wasn't my intent). Quite simply, someone who plans a war - either the person making the decision to go to war, or the person executing it, and there's no real reason to differentiate. Recall, my intention is to look at the use of force (i.e. violence) in a tactical sense; then to look at it in a moral sense, and then to explain how they intersect.
In the piece you excerpt, my line of thinking was this: you are planning to do x; x is in violation of the Geneva Conventions; so you choose not to do x, because it would be regarded as immoral and is thus a tactically unsound decision.
(Unfortunately, in Bushland, the thinking has not exactly followed that pattern.)
Again, definition wise, I am using tactical in a generic, not strictly military, sense - for a political movement to take up arms, that's a tactical decision. To ignore Geneva Conventions - in one sense, it is a tactical decision too.
"Totality of our response" is meant to encompass Afghanistan, Gitmo, Iraq, everything done in the name of the "war on terror". Choose to analyze each of these morally however you wish, but my thinking here is that given our practically messianic response to 9/11, right now it's kind of hard to lecture others about "restraint" when they are engaged in a war.
Ps. I have no military background, so I always try to stay clear of using precise military terminology.
August 3, 2006 10:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
I believe that the major impediment to any peace settlement is the fact that neither side will acknowledge any kind of immorality or wrongdoing.
August 3, 2006 10:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
I vaguely want either a old-style Tammany boss or a nun with a ruler to slap them every time they wander into morality, and away from an ugly deal that everyone can, grumblingly, accept. The ideal of a negotiation is everyone believing they weren't screwed worse thn the other guy.
Should any Administration ideologues or theocrats attempt to mediate, which is about as logical as recommending a jogging coach for a broken leg, and they start talking about the Rapture, misunderstand and hand them an athletic supporter.
--
Howard
*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*
August 3, 2006 10:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
Why ?
Not being argumentative, just curious.
Where there is a clear winner , it usually claims to have behaved morally . At least until the revisionists come along. The loser
says what it is told to say.And for better or worse there is a peace settlement.Some work,some don't for whatever reasons which could possibly include that lack of contrition.
Where it ends in a "scoreless tie" as in Vietnam nobody admits doing wrong and after a couple of generations it doesn't seem to matter that much any more.
August 3, 2006 11:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well, first of all, Viet Nam still matters very much and probably is the cause for the stupidity and very bad planning that we have today in Iraq. It certainly drove the 04 election.
In my opinion, the most important aspect of this conflict is the humiliation that the Muslims/Arabs/Palestinians feel. That is real and ongoing and while it is easy for us to disdain it or think it's not important (which it isn't to us) to the people of the Middle East it is very important. For both sides to acknowledge wrongdoing would be a first step in a lasting reconciliation
August 3, 2006 11:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
Howard, the art of selling any deal is to make both parties see that they're receiving something of value, not to make them believe they weren't screwed worse than the other guy.
It is impossible for the U.S. to act as an "honest broker" in this situation or the arbiter of morality. It has been amply demonstrated that this is not true. However, it both the Israelis and Palestinians were to acknowledge that wrongdoing has occurred on both sides, and a neutral country was found to act as mediator, there might be a sliver of a chance that this could be resolved. But I doubt it...
August 3, 2006 11:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
More and more, I'm wondering if Wilma Mankiller (first female Paramount Chief of the Cherokee) is in sufficiently good health to participate, or if she could recommend a mediator. Without getting into fingerpointing at US Indian policy, given both the stellar record of Indians in the US military, as well as their civilian reservation status, this might be a very good source for people that could talk to both sides.
--
Howard
*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*
August 3, 2006 11:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
This is a consistent blindspot of the American left. Palestinians aren't fighting for independence. They are fighting for the obliteration of Israel. It's not a secret. I have no idea how the left remains ignorant of this basic fact. As the second paragraph of the Hamas Covenant says:
August 3, 2006 12:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh good. Well, that clears things up.
August 3, 2006 12:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
That isn't a fair reading.
August 3, 2006 12:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Quit trolling.
August 3, 2006 1:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
"I believe that the major impediment to any peace settlement is the fact that neither side will acknowledge any kind of immorality or wrongdoing."
Its worse than that. One side raises its children to believe that blowing themselves up in a pizza parlor full of childrenis not only moral but the ticket to paradise.
The sons of the prophet are noble and bold,
and quite unaccustomed to fear.
But the bravest by far in the ranks of the Shah
was Abdul Abulbul Amir
August 3, 2006 2:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is exactly what I mean - it's always the other guy...
August 3, 2006 2:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
And the other side feels its perfectly fair to plow a rocket into a building full of sleeping children. Ahh, but it is regrettable. They might swallow, shed a manly tear, meditate on the cruelties of war and find some way to blame the other guy... but still and all, they'll push that button and kill those children.
Yeah, it's a funny old world, ennit?
August 3, 2006 2:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*
August 3, 2006 2:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Whit - If Hamas were to turn to non-violence would Israel give them the entire West Bank? If not, why bother. I suspect if Hamas were to turn non violent, Israel would put them into little "pens" and use them as a cheap source of labor.
August 3, 2006 5:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't know if a native American would be the right choice.
August 3, 2006 6:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not arguing, but why not? It strikes me that someone who can be respected in both the larger and tribal culture has some relevant experience.
--
Howard
*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*
August 3, 2006 6:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
My reason why not is that from what I've read, most NAs seem to sympathize with the Palestinians. I don't know if the Israelis would see that as being neutral.
August 3, 2006 6:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
You do realize that after the Indians get finished telling the Palestinians what the 'reservation' system did to them for the last hundred years, and how much Israel's 'peace plan' resembles the 'reservation' system...
We can expect the Palestinians to rise up and fight to the last drop of blood. That's what they've got to look forward to for the next sixty years? Hell, I'd fight to the bitter end.
You really don't want Indians walking around and giving the benefit of their experiences to the Palestinians.
August 3, 2006 6:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
I see your point. The problem, of course, is that almost any source seems to sympathize with one side or the other. Tom Clancy's fictional idea of having the Vatican take the lead in negotiations may not be so absurd.
--
Howard
*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*
August 3, 2006 6:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Vietnam only matters because some self-obsessed baby-boomers, on both sides of the ideological divided, refuse to let go of it. People like me (born in 1967 with only the vaguest recollection of that war) and younger are turned off by this obsession and wish you'd all just move on, finally. The Civil War was at least 100 timesmore imnportant in our nation's history, yet by the election of 1904 almost no one was still dragging it into contemporary politics in any way.
August 3, 2006 6:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
The Civil War? In the Museum of the Confederacy in Richmond, the genteel docents refer to it as "the late unpleasantness between the states." Further south, you'll still hear "War of Yankee Aggression".
Santayana's observation that those who forget the past are condemned to repeat it doesn't only apply to Viet Nam. Serious students of politicomilitary affairs haven't forgotten the lessons of the Punic Wars, the War of the Spanish Succession, the naval campaign leading to Jutland, or the lessons taught by Task Force Smith and Task Force Faith in Korea.
--
Howard
*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*
August 3, 2006 7:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Frankly, Howard, I don't see any other solution than the one they're trying now - to wipe each other off the face of the earth. People keep calling for a solution, but it seems to me they've chosen a solutiona and this is it.
p.s. off topic, but have you read Carhart's book "Lost Triumph"?
August 3, 2006 7:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, I'm sorry it bores you.
August 3, 2006 7:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
The Civil War still fascinates as history, I didn't deny that. However the "Bloody Shirt" was pretty much retired after the election of Grover Cleveland in 1884 and the war ceased to be an issue in American politics.
August 4, 2006 3:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
Really? My impression is that the American South has never stopped re-fighting the civil war. Certainly the political movements which emerged directly out of white southern resistance to the civil war, the KKK, the Jim Crow Laws, segregation and the disenfranchisement of blacks were live and dangerous up to the 60's and 70's, and arguably are live today. When you look at the statistics of black employment, black health care, black infant mortality, black education, de-facto segregation, black voter suppression, black incarceration they all suggest that America today is making war on black people.
August 4, 2006 5:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
The South has no serious political movement advocating secession and not even an unserious Onionesque movemment for restoring slavery. Good grief!
August 4, 2006 10:41 PM | Reply | Permalink