| Number 356 | December 15, 2006 |
|
This Week: Immigrants, Venezuela, Mel Gibson (!)
|
|
Greetings, A couple of unusual things in the Notes this week: 1. I comment on some "breaking news," and; 2. I talk about The Movies! Long-time readers know that I don't comment on popular culture much, but I just couldn't let pass Mel Gibson's new movie "Apocalypto." It is, after all, the most popular movie in the nation at the moment, so I expect a lot of Nygaard Notes readers might have plans to go see it, if you haven't already. Take care; although I haven't seen it, I have some comments from some people who give some important context for this blockbuster. As for the breaking news, it has to do with a massive raid by federal agents on some meatpacking plants around the U.S.—the biggest ever, the Feds say. It's such an outrage that this little piece just wrote itself when I sat down to do something entirely different. The piece includes some ideas for taking action. Just a phone call or two would help. Do what you can. The days are getting really short around here in the higher latitudes. I hope people are staying warm and hopeful in the midst of it all. So much to be thankful for! And I am thankful for all the support and feedback I get from the readers of Nygaard Notes. Warmly and hopefully yours, Nygaard |
|
These words are from a Republican Senator from Oregon, Gordon Smith, speaking about Iraq on the floor of the U.S. Senate on December 7th, 2006 "I, for one, am at the end of my rope when it comes to supporting a policy that has our soldiers patrolling the same streets in the same way, being blown up by the same bombs day after day. That is absurd. It may even be criminal. I cannot support that anymore. "...winning a battle, winning a war, is different than winning a peace. "...I, for one, am tired of paying the price of 10 or more of our troops dying a day. So let's cut and run, or cut and walk, or let us fight the war on terror more intelligently than we have, because we have fought this war in a very lamentable way."
|
|
This week a thousand federal agents swooped down on six meat-packing plants across the country and detained more than 1,200 people. The responsible agency, "Immigration and Customs Enforcement" (ICE), is a part of the so-called "Department of Homeland Security," but these raids have nothing to do with "homeland security"—whatever that may mean in the United States of Paranoia these days. According to the New York Times, ICE agents described the vast sweep "as a vast criminal investigation of identity theft." But later reports revealed that "Of the 1,282 workers detained, 65 were charged with identity theft or other crimes, officials said." In other words, about 95 percent of those detained had nothing to do with the official reason for detaining them. All the raids occurred at Swift & Company meatpacking plants, and Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff claimed that the ICE action was an attempt to "enforce the law" against "a business [that] is significantly built on illegal labor." Yet no charges of any sort have been filed against Swift. Kate Randall, writing on the World Socialist Website, reports that "The arrested meatpacking workers are immigrants from Mexico, Guatemala, Honduras, El Salvador, Peru, Laos, Sudan, Ethiopia and other countries." A little-known fact in the cities where our news reports are framed is that immigrants now form a large and growing part of the fabric of small-town life all over the country. That's certainly true in parts of southern Minnesota, where I grew up. That's why Minnesota's newspaper of record, the Star Tribune, reported on Wednesday that "the raid spread panic in homes and schools" in the small town of Worthington, Minnesota, where one of the raids took place. The Rocky Mountain News in Denver, in an article headlined "School Scrambles to Organize Care," reported that "Fear and uncertainty filled the halls of Billie Martinez Elementary School on Tuesday as word spread that some students might not have parents to go home to after [the] massive immigration raid" in Greeley, Colorado. Various news reports support the claim by Randall that "Many relatives of the workers seized at the six plants have been unable to determine their whereabouts and status." So it appears that the federal government is "disappearing" detainees. How about those "family values?" What are these raids REALLY about? A spokesman for the United Food and Commercial Workers Union (UFCW), which represents a lot of these workers, says that "The workers caught in this vise are victims of a failed immigration system." He adds that "It's time for the federal government to stop victimizing workers and reform our immigration system." Another possibility is posed by Randall, who speculates that "The sweep—being called ‘Operation Wagon Train'—was carefully planned and orchestrated for maximum publicity in an effort by Homeland Security authorities to bolster the Bush administration's anti-immigrant chauvinist credentials." That sounds plausible to me but, not being a mind-reader, I can't say for sure what is really motivating these raids. What we do know is that they are happening in an environment in which a great fear of "The Other" has been whipped up. And it has been true throughout the history of this country that "The Other" is very often identified by skin color, language, and place of birth. Using the cockeyed logic of "Homeland Security," all of the hard-working immigrants that were rounded up on Tuesday are guilty of being "not like us." That's why it's particularly important for those who are expected to identify with the authorities because they represent "us"—white, native-born, English-speakers, I presume—take action to reject this assault on human dignity. These workers are "us," and we need to tell our elected officials that they are not a threat to our security, or to anything else. The real threat is the irrational fear that these raids reinforce, and the misuse of the power of the state to criminalize workers and orphan innocent children. The UFCW is seeking an injunction in federal court to stop this madness. Read about that at http://www.ufcw.org/ While you're there, check out the article "ICE Terrorizing Immigrant Workers Because of Failed U.S. Immigration Policy." Contact the UFCW and ask them how you can support their efforts. It may also be useful to contact the American Civil Liberties Union and find out what they plan to do about it. If you're lucky, your community has an immigrant-rights center. Contact them and offer support, as well. (In Minnesota, Centro Legal is seeking funds and lawyers for their effort to take action "against what appears to be blatant constitutional and civil rights violations by ICE. Call Michelle Klatt at 651-393-2467.) Here are a couple of other sources for more information: The full article by Kate Randall that I reference above is found at http://www.wsws.org/articles/2006/dec2006/raid-d14.shtml The Washington DC "Examiner" had a good piece by Jeralyn
Merrit called " Homeland Security's Immigration Raids Ran Amok.
Here's that long internet address: |
|
On June 27, 1970, Henry Kissinger, in a National Security Council meeting, said "I don't see why we need to stand by and watch a country go communist because of the irresponsibility of its own people." This same colonial mindset is evident throughout the U.S. coverage of the Venezuelan elections of December 3rd, as the media struggles to understand what seems pretty simple to this observer: A large majority of Venezuelans want Hugo Chavez to be the President of Venezuela. Hugo Chavez had already been elected and re-elected twice (or three times, if you count a failed recall election.) Then, a couple of weeks ago, Hugo Chavez was re-elected again. His main challenger got 37 percent of the vote, while Chavez received 63 percent. These types of numbers constitute a "landslide" in journalism circles, and so it was in this case. Free And Fair, By All Accounts Was the election rigged? I mean, that's a pretty big margin. The consensus among the many international observers in the country is that it was free and fair. For the record, here are a few comments from various barely-visible-in-the-U.S. media sources: * The German wire service Deutsche Presse-Agentur reported that "The head of the Mercosur delegation, Carlos Alvarez, said Sunday that there was no possibility of electoral fraud." In a separate story DPA reported that "The OAS mission headed by Juan Fischer issued a statement in which it praised the atmosphere of normality in which voting took place... OAS stressed that the election took place ‘in a general framework of legality.'" * The Associated Press reported on December 6th that "The EU observers said in a preliminary report Tuesday that overall the vote was carried out smoothly and securely. ... The EU delegation was the largest, with more than 150 observers..." * The "PR Newswire" reported, also on December 6th, that "...the results of Sunday's Presidential election in Venezuela were certified by the National Election Commission (CNE), as well as by international observers from the Organization of American States and the European Union. Perhaps more importantly, the results were accepted by all of the political parties and players involved as accurate and representing the will of the Venezuelan people." Never mind all that. The Wall Street Journal insisted on December 8th that "it is difficult to judge the race fair." The headline on that story was "The Best Election Money Could Buy." (I'm not making this up!) Landslide victory? The U.S. media says: Let's focus on the LOSING side. Here's the NY Times on December 4th: "Chávez Wins Easily in Venezuela, but Opposition Protests." And here's the next day's London Financial Times: "Chavez Cruises to Victory but Not Every Voter Shares His Dream." Imagine an election where the losing side "protests" and "not every voter" agrees with the winner. Bizarre! The LA Times started out their report thusly: "There are plenty of reasons for Venezuelans not to like Hugo Chavez." Could it be that winning a free and fair election means you are ANTI-democracy? Here's a Los Angeles Times' headline "Venezuela's Chavez Reelected; the Leftist Aims to Alter the Constitution So He Can Serve Indefinitely." And on and on it goes. Another media theme I didn't touch on is the theme captured in a headline in my local paper: "It's Six More Years for Anti-U.S. Chavez." That fits with the Bush idea that "You're Either With Us or Against Us." That's an important theme, one not as simple as it sounds, and one to which I will return in a future issue of Nygaard Notes. |
|
Speaking of colonial mindsets... For those who haven't seen Mel Gibson's new blockbuster movie, "Apocalypto," the publicity says that it is "a heart-stopping mythic action-adventure set against the turbulent end times of the once-great Mayan civilization." It's gotten praise for its indigenous cast, and some see the movie as a metaphor for modern U.S. imperial policies. Referring to the scenes of human sacrifice practiced by the Mayans in the movie, Gibson himself said at the premiere of the movie, "What's human sacrifice if not sending guys off to Iraq for no reason?" I, myself, was immediately suspicious of a movie made by this particular white guy about indigenous people. I mean, I saw "Dances With Wolves" (different white guy, I know). So I was relieved when an Associated Press story reported that some people "among the 800,000 surviving Mayans are worried that Gibson's hyper-violent, apocalyptic film could be just the latest misreading of their culture by outsiders." My worry, exactly! I cannot see the movie myself, as I have a remarkably low tolerance for graphic violence, with which this movie is loaded, by all accounts. So I can't speak from direct experience, which made me a little hesitant to pass judgement on the film. But then I read a news report that spoke about indigenous activists in Guatemala—Maya territory—who have "condemned Mel Gibson and Apocalypto as being inaccurate and racist." Then Reuters quoted Ignacio Ochoa, director of the Nahual Foundation that promotes Mayan culture, saying this: "Gibson replays, in glorious big-budget Technicolor, an offensive and racist notion that Maya people were brutal to one another long before the arrival of Europeans and thus they deserved, in fact, needed, rescue." Good enough for me. I don't think I need to see it myself. If you do plan to see this movie, I want to pass on a few words from an assistant professor of anthropology at the University of Miami named Traci Ardren. Ardren attended an advance screening of Apocalypto, then published a brief article in an archaeology magazine (for some reason). Anyhow, wherever it was published, Ardren's article is worth reading. Find it online at http://www.archaeology.org/online/reviews/apocalypto.html For those who don't want to read the whole thing, here are a few excerpts. Arden started out by saying that, "I anticipated a heavy-handed cautionary tale wrapped up in Native American costume. What I saw was much worse than this." She went on to say: "Gibson's efforts at authenticity of location and language might, for some viewers, mask his blatantly colonial message that the Maya needed saving because they were rotten at the core. Using the decline of Classic urbanism as his backdrop, Gibson communicates that there was absolutely nothing redeemable about Maya culture, especially elite culture which is depicted as a disgusting feast of blood and excess." "To think that a movie about the 1,000 ways a Maya can kill a Maya—when only 10 years ago Maya people were systematically being exterminated in Guatemala just for being Maya—is in any way okay, entertaining, or helpful is the epitome of a Western fantasy of supremacy that I find sad and ultimately pornographic."
|
