By Paul Burrows

Origins of American Indians

Societies and Cultures

Warfare

Indian-White Wars

Indian-White Relations

Origins of American Indians

All human societies have versions of their own origins, and the American Indians are no different. Stories of natural or supernatural creation in the Americas or emergence from another world exist among all Indian tribes and, like the biblical narrative in Genesis, are regarded as matters of faith.

Apart from them, and not competing with them, is what is known from the evidence of science and scholarship. Since no remains of a pre-Homo sapiens type have ever been found in the Americas, it is assumed that humans did not evolve in the Western Hemisphere but entered it after the development of modern humans. It is also generally agreed - from the findings of archaeology in Mongolia, Siberia, and North America and studies in physical anthropology, linguistics, and other disciplines - that they came from eastern Asia in one or more migrations, crossing a land bridge that from time to time during the Ice Age connected Siberia with Alaska.

The time of the first arrivals is still in question. During the Wisconsin glacial stage, the last seventy thousand or so years of the Ice Age, the periodic formation of glaciers caused the sea levels to fall as much as three hundred feet. At such times, the retreating waters exposed a vast, flat landmass of tundra and grass (which scholars call Beringia) that extended north and south for up to a thousand miles across the area now covered by the Bering Strait and adjacent seas and provided passage between Asia and North America to migrating animals and humans. Conversely, during periods when the glaciers melted and withdrew, the seas rose again, covering the land bridge and preventing movement by land between the continents.

It is believed that the bridge existed sometime between seventy thousand and thirty thousand years ago; again, continuously, from twenty-five thousand to fifteen thousand years ago; and, once or twice, between approximately fourteen thousand and ten thousand years ago. At any of these times, it is presumed that small hunting bands from Asia, pursuing migrating herds of Ice Age megafauna across Beringia or along its coasts, could have reached Alaska. Whether these first Americans came at one time or in separate migrations at different periods during the Ice Age, once in Alaska, they and their descendants continued to pursue the Pleistocene big-game animals, following them along ice-free routes on the Alaskan coasts, up the Yukon and other river valleys, and gradually south through corridors that existed from time to time between the Laurentian and Cordilleran ice sheets. Eventually, south of the glaciers, the hunting bands spread to the Atlantic Coast and through Central and South America.

From archaeological discoveries, it is certain that human beings were living in almost all parts of North and South America by at least twelve thousand years ago. Still controversial, though gaining increasing acceptance, are various finds from Alaska and the Yukon to Brazil and Chile and from California to Pennsylvania that suggest that humans were present thirty-five thousand years ago or earlier.

Although population at first was sparse, here and there bands undoubtedly met one another, combined, divided into new groups, or drove one another into less hospitable and accessible areas. Until the end of the Ice Age, about ten thousand years ago, the people on both continents lived essentially by hunting mammoths, mastodons, outsized bison, and other now-extinct animals and by fishing and gathering wild foods. After the disappearance of the big Pleistocene fauna, deer and other small game were hunted, and the gathering of nuts, berries, grass seeds, and wild vegetables and fruits became more important.

With the passage of time, physical and cultural variations began to appear as people adapted to the different environments in which they lived. Population increased, and weapons and tools became more sophisticated and varied. A basic Clovis-type, chipped-stone spear point, named for the New Mexican site in which it was first found but used by big-game hunters in many parts of the hemisphere about eleven thousand years ago, was succeeded by numerous specialized regional and local types.

In the millennia following the Ice Age, evolutionary processes and continued migrations within the Americas accelerated the differentiation among the peoples and their developing cultures. Those living along the coasts developed maritime-oriented cultures with economies based largely on harvesting fish and collecting shellfish. In the eastern half of the present-day United States, vigorous Woodland cultures of hunters, gatherers, and fishers emerged, and in the arid West, gatherers of wild foods developed a long-lived Desert Culture. At the same time, more arrivals from Asia, including the ancestors of the Eskimos and Aleuts, seem to have reached North America by crossing the open water in boats.

Less likely, but not to be ruled out, is the possibility of accidental contacts from the Old World - boats blown by winds or carried by ocean currents from Japan, China, Polynesia, Africa, or the Mediterranean. No proof has yet been offered of such an occurrence or of its influence on American Indian cultures. More fanciful claims that Indians are descendants of the Egyptians, the Phoenicians, the Welsh, a Lost Tribe of Israel, or refugees from the lost continent of Atlantis can be dismissed.

The invention of agriculture in the Western Hemisphere - occurring separately in Mexico and the Andean and the northern lowland regions of South America about nine thousand years ago - led to the settling down of the horticultural peoples to tend their gardens. Spreading through large parts of both continents, the growing of corn, squash, beans, manioc, and other crops allowed the storage of surplus food, the concentration and growth of populations, the stratification of societies under religious and secular leaders, and a flourishing of arts and crafts.

Alvin M. Josephy, Jr.

Indians: Societies and Cultures

During the period of European colonization, Native American societies within the present continental United States varied markedly. Despite this diversity, however, almost all the tribes were integrated through interconnecting political, economic, social, and religious obligations provided by extended families or kinship groups. During the next three centuries some of these societies were forced to alter many of their original structures, but others were able to preserve some of their traditional forms. All, however, retained considerable kinship ties, and within both the traditional and the acculturated modern societies, the extended family structures still form the basis for tribal cohesion.

In the Northeast most Indian people lived in small bands that came together in the summer to form larger villages. The people planted corn and other vegetables, which were cultivated by women, and they enjoyed a series of ceremonies marking the ripening of crops and the rhythm of the seasons. Some tribes (such as Senecas and Hurons) relied heavily upon agriculture, whereas others (Ottawas, Kickapoos) depended more upon hunting or fishing. During the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries almost all became dependent upon the fur trade, and by 1750 much of their economic activity focused upon procuring pelts for the Europeans. Their growing association with Europeans and colonists also encouraged a centralization of political power, since whites preferred to deal with a single "chief" rather than a series of band or kinship leaders. Protestant and Catholic missionaries proselytized among the tribes, and some groups were converted. Others integrated Christian doctrines with their traditional beliefs to form new syncretic faiths.

By the early nineteenth century most of these northeastern tribes had been forced to sell their lands, and during the 1830s and 1840s they were moved to new territory west of the Mississippi. Today many of their descendants live in Oklahoma where they have continued the acculturation process. Others (Senecas, Chippewas, Menominees) remain on reservations or tribal lands within their old homelands, where they retain many of their cultural patterns.

The southeastern tribes were more dependent upon agriculture, and many had been heavily influenced by the Mississippian culture, a complex, pre-Columbian way of life characterized by considerable political stratification, culturewide religious organizations, large burial mounds, and relatively large population centers. Although most adherents of the Mississippian culture were gone by the early 1700s, the southeastern tribes remained a sedentary village people held together through a network of primarily matrilineal clans. Like the northeastern tribes, they marked their calendar with a series of feasts and religious ceremonies. Although many southeastern people (Creeks, Cherokees, Choctaws) participated in the British deerskin trade, their adherence to agriculture and later herding (Choctaws) made them less dependent than the northeastern tribes upon the Anglo-Americans.

By 1800 intermarriage between white traders and members of the Five Southern, or "Civilized" Tribes (Cherokees, Choctaws, Chickasaws, Creeks, Seminoles - called "civilized" by whites because they had adopted many white cultural patterns) had produced mixed-blood leaders who championed further acculturation. By the 1820s, for example, many mixed-blood Cherokee leaders were raising cotton or other cash crops on large farms or plantations worked by black slaves. The Cherokees had a tribal government modeled after the federal system, with a bicameral council, an elected chief, and tribal courts. Sequoyah, a Cherokee living in Arkansas, had developed a Cherokee syllabary, and the tribe published a newspaper and books in the language. Although the other southern tribes were less acculturated than the Cherokees, they too had adopted many facets of white culture.

During the 1830s and 1840s, however, the southern tribes were forced to relinquish their lands and remove to Oklahoma. Intratribal arguments over the removal treaties created political divisions within the tribes, and this fragmentation continued to plague the tribes in the West. There the Five Southern Tribes reestablished their tribal governments, and for some the pace of acculturation quickened. Today, many Cherokees, Choctaws, Creeks, Chickasaws, and Seminoles continue to adhere to traditional values, but others, while maintaining their tribal identities, have become integrated into the American mainstream.

In the early contact period two types of tribal societies shared the Great Plains. Ensconced along the banks of major rivers, sedentary tribes such as the Mandans, Pawnees, and Hidatsas lived in villages of large earthen lodges. They tended fields of maize, beans, squash, and sunflowers, supplementing their diet with bison and other animals hunted on the plains. The village people followed a rich ceremonial life that included such rituals as the Okipa (Mandan) and the Morning Star ceremony (Pawnee), which involved the personal sacrifice of the individual for the benefit of the tribe. Kinship networks entailing a series of obligations and support systems provided the village people with social and political cohesion. Since these communities produced and stored agricultural surpluses, their villages prior to the mid-eighteenth century were major trading and political centers.

The plains during this early period were also inhabited by small numbers of wandering pedestrian hunters who would form groups to stalk bison or combine to drive herds of the animals over cliffs or "kill-sites." Carrying their small skin lodges with them, they lived a nomadic existence in search of the herds and may have spent the winter camped on the fringes of the plains or in sheltered river valleys.

The introduction of the horse in the eighteenth century had a profound impact upon both societies. For the nomads, the effect was beneficial. Horses enabled them to cover great distances, and hunters could locate and kill the bison more easily. Women''s tasks were made easier, too, since horses served as beasts of burden. Because horse-drawn travois could drag heavier lodge skins and longer tipi poles, lodges increased in size and larger quantities of food and household possessions could be kept. More time was now available for creative activity, and skin painting, beadwork, and other artistic endeavors flourished. In addition, the tribes'' ceremonial life was enlarged and elaborated; the Sun Dance became the most important communal religious experience on the plains.

The sedentary village people accepted horses, but they refused to adopt a nomadic way of life and now became the target of raids by the bison hunters. As the nomadic tribes (Sioux, Kiowas, Arapahoes, among others) flourished, the village people declined, and by the first decades of the nineteenth century the nomads dominated the plains. Indeed, this was their golden era, and their rich and abundant way of life became a cultural magnet, attracting other tribes to share in their lifestyle.

Tragically, by the last quarter of the nineteenth century, most of these Plains Indians were confined to reservations and subjected to forced acculturation programs by the federal government. Encouraged to abandon their traditional way of life and to become yeoman farmers in a region that would not sustain agriculture, most of the Plains tribes, like other Indian peoples of this period, suffered from disease and a declining birthrate. Recently their populations have increased, and although many of the reservation communities remain economically depressed, they are wellsprings of traditional culture. Many groups have resurrected tribal languages and religious traditions. Others are active in the Native American Church, a pan-Indian religious organization that has incorporated religious traditions from several tribes with Christian doctrines and the use of peyote. Tribal identities among the Plains peoples remain particularly strong.

Many of the Native American people living in the desert Southwest have also been able to retain much of their traditional culture. In the seventeenth century, Spanish immigrants into the region were welcomed by pueblo-dwelling villagers who had built adobe settlements along the Rio Grande watershed. Descendants of the Anasazi people, a widespread pre-Columbian cultural complex extending across the Southwest, the pueblo dwellers were agriculturists steeped in a religious ceremonialism that permeated their lives and was closely associated with the geographic features that marked their homelands. Their villages were governed by gender- and age-graded religious societies whose leaders formed a theocracy. Their followers were admonished to live in harmony both with their gods and with their fellow villagers. They wove cotton cloth and produced an abundance of highly decorated earthen pottery. Their villages attracted Spanish missionaries, and some of the Pueblo people converted to Christianity. But their steadfast adherence to many traditional beliefs forced the priests to incorporate them into Roman Catholic ritual. Still residing in their ancestral villages, the modern Pueblo communities remain cohesive units retaining much of their rich ceremonialism. Although many residents work outside their communities, others produce traditional patterns of jewelry and ceramics that are much in demand. Among the Pueblo tribes, the Hopis of northern Arizona remain one of the most traditional Native American communities in the continental United States.

The Athabascan-speaking people, Apaches and Navajos, compose the other major southwestern group. Unlike the Pueblos they originally were a hunting and gathering people who supplemented their food supply through horticulture. Ranging across the Southwest, the Apaches lived in brush- and hide-covered wickiups. In the seventeenth century, their acquisition of horses increased mobility and probably diminished their already limited reliance upon horticulture.

The Navajos, their close relatives, lived in a similar fashion until they acquired horses and sheep in the same period. Adopting a more sedentary mode of life, the Navajos developed transhumant economic patterns: they followed their flocks and herds into the uplands during the summer and removed them to protected valleys during the winter. They erected hexagonal, dirt-covered hogans as residences and began to plant larger fields of beans and corn and small orchards of peach trees. After migrating westward into the canyon and mesa lands of northeastern Arizona, the Navajos grazed their animals on lands radiating out from Canyon de Chelly, a long, Y-shaped, steep-sided canyon near the modern Arizona-New Mexico border. Prospering in their new environment, the Navajos became successful herdsmen, harvesting wool to be woven into cloth. They also became skilled silversmiths. During the nineteenth century they acquired a very large reservation in their homeland where they still reside, scattered across the desert in small communities or individual dwellings. Clan identification remains important and many Navajos still follow traditional cultural patterns. Most are bilingual (Navajo and English), and in recent decades the question of energy development upon the reservations has stirred considerable interest in Navajo politics. The Navajos are the nation''s largest Indian tribe.

During the early colonial period California held a larger Indian population than any other region, with the population concentrated along the coast and in the great interior valleys. Characterized by relatively small tribes or political units, the native peoples spoke many tongues and manifested a variety of cultural patterns. Most, however, were hunters, fishers, and gatherers, who often relied heavily upon the seasonal catches of salmon or the gathering of acorns. In the eighteenth century the tribes along the southern coast were forced into the Spanish mission system, and during the latter half of the nineteenth century the interior tribes were almost annihilated by the influx of Anglo-American settlers. During the twentieth century, however, economic opportunities in California attracted large numbers of Indian migrants, with both the Los Angeles basin and the San Francisco Bay region supporting relatively large urban Indian communities.

North of California, along the coast of Washington and Oregon, seafaring fishermen, Chinook and Salish, harvested a large variety of marine life and developed one of the most successful hunting and gathering cultures in the world. They lived in large wooden plank structures amid such material abundance that they developed institutional mechanisms, like the potlatch, for the redistribution of wealth. (Potlatches were ceremonies in which individuals gave away much of their wealth in return for the esteem and veneration of their fellow tribespeople.) Skilled woodworkers, they exhibited a fine artistry in intricately carved masks, wooden beams, and totem poles, the last reflecting the clan affiliation of the inhabitants in the extended family residences. These coastal dwellers suffered considerably from diseases introduced during the nineteenth century, but many small reservation communities persisted. Some still rely upon fishing while others have relocated in Seattle, Portland, and other cities in the region.

Indians: Warfare

In spite of many differences, the universality of the art of war is demonstrated by a study of the causes of conflict and the battle methods used by American Indian tribes. As in all armies, hierarchy of rank was important, and rank was determined by demonstrated bravery and proficiency. Most of the tribes had a war leader with lieutenants to aid him. Dress and insignia indicated rank and experience in battle. Accompanying the warriors on long marches or during sieges was a commissary force of hunters to supply food and other requirements. Rituals and dances fanned the martial spirit and celebrated victories. And like many soldiers the world over, warriors carried some sort of amulet into battle to guard them from harm.

Occasionally they raided neighboring tribes for stores of food or for women or slaves. Early in the eighteenth century, for example, Creek Indians, serving as mercenaries for British colonists, attacked and captured several villages of Yamasee and other tribes who were sent to slavery in the Carolinas.

Causes of war varied from tribe to tribe, but usually involved territorial rights, retaliation for aggressive acts, or rituals marking young males'' coming to manhood through the performance of brave deeds. If the rituals resulted in the slaying of members of another tribe, a revenge attack was almost certain, and this could escalate into tribal warfare.

When Europeans brought the horse to North America early in the sixteenth century, that animal became the most prized object for raiders and made it possible for a young man to prove himself by capturing an enemy''s horse rather than having to kill the man. The capture of horses often resulted in running fights, in which other deeds could be performed that added to a warrior''s status. An individual''s standing in a tribe was also measured by the number of captured horses in his possession.

Territorial disputes between tribes had little to do with land ownership; rather, they concerned the wild game and food plants on the land. For example, food shortages during the seventeenth century brought the Pequot into conflict with the Niantic, Narragansett, and other tribes of southern New England. Fearing the presence of the Pequot, the colonists in the area supported the opposition tribes, including a dissident branch of the Pequot - the Mohegan led by the legendary Uncas. So many Pequot were killed or scattered that the tribe virtually ceased to exist.

Any tribe occupying territory with particularly rich food resources was liable to attack by other tribes wandering in search of the essentials of life. From the beginning of European colonization to the ceding of the last tracts in the Far West, Indians had difficulty comprehending the Euro-American concept of ownership of land. But after their living space was taken by artful treaties and removal was forced upon them, they often resorted to war. Examples include the uprising during the 1670s that was planned for almost a decade by Metacom in New England and is known as King Philip''s War. Two hundred years later, the Sioux and Cheyenne on the northern plains were fighting to recover their holy Black Hills. Red Cloud of the Teton Sioux succeeded in holding for almost a decade lands claimed by them along tributaries of the Yellowstone River, but military expeditions and rapid settlement eventually forced the Plains Indians onto reservations.

Efforts by some chiefs to unify tribes for war did little to slow the spread of European settlement. In the seventeenth century, Popé brought the Pueblos together to fight for independence from Spanish rule. During the revolt they killed hundreds of Spaniards and forced the survivors out of their towns. But because of dissension among the Pueblos and attacks from other tribes, the alliance collapsed. Within a dozen years the Spaniards had returned. In the 1760s Pontiac, an Ottawa chief, organized an alliance to drive the British from his people''s Ohio valley homeland, but it failed. Early in the nineteenth century, Tecumseh persuaded warriors from at least fifteen distantly separated tribes to join his confederacy, but they too could not stop the onrush of settlement across Ohio and Indiana.

Only the Iroquois League, a highly advanced combination of tribes in New York State, was able to withstand, for almost two centuries, the efforts of Europeans to seize their living space. The Mohawks, Cayugas, Oneidas, Onondagas, and Senecas - and later the Tuscaroras - were agricultural peoples, living on land rich in crops, venison, and furs. Long before the coming of Europeans, they had put together a federation (similar to the confederation that created the United States). This provided them with a central government that was peaceful in intent but if necessary could apply military pressure to defend against their neighbors, the Hurons and Algonquins. After colonization began, the French, English, and Dutch learned to respect the fierceness of Iroquois resistance.

The Iroquois were among the first Indians to obtain firearms by trading furs and corn. But they overextended their range in search of furs for trading, and the resulting conflicts gradually weakened the league. After the outbreak of the revolutionary war, the Iroquois split into factions. Neutrality failed, and many allied with the British. Their lands became battlegrounds; fields and granaries were destroyed. After the war, those who had not fled to Canada or westward were confined to reservations.

Even with a strong government, the Iroquois civil leaders were never able to control their warriors or change their ancient manner of fighting. To Iroquois warriors, war was individual combat. They did not concentrate their forces on command, as the Europeans had since the days of the Romans. Nor did any of the tribes maintain a standing army as European nations did. Service as a warrior was voluntary, and although there were long-standing enmities between certain tribes, protracted wars were almost unknown. War parties varied greatly in size, but most of them were not much larger than a modern-day platoon. After the warriors and their leaders made a decision to organize a war party, volunteers were called for, and the war chief selected his lieutenants. Four or five days of fasting or feasting, prayer, dancing, singing, and other rituals might follow, and then after weapons were carefully inspected, paint applied to the body, and the proper amulets collected, the warriors departed.

Scouts went out two to four miles ahead of the party, reporting back to the war chief if they found wild game or traces of the enemy. When scouts sighted an enemy village, they quickly brought back information about its location, the number of lodges and horses, and the existence of suitable cover for an attack. If for some reason the party lost the element of surprise, or someone observed a bad luck sign or reported having a warning dream, the attack might be abandoned. But when the war chief decided upon an attack, the time most likely was at daybreak. Various signals directed the advance of the warriors - movements of hands, lances, or guns, or the sounding of eagle-wing or turkey-bone whistles. For signaling over long distances on the spacious plains, the warriors used smoke signals and flashing mirrors.

The Woodland Indians in the East fought mostly on foot, faithfully obeying their war leaders as they silently set ambushes or prepared for surprise assaults upon villages. But from the moment of the signaled attack, each warrior fought independently, seeking honors for himself. In the West, after the introduction of horses, the Plains Indians fought mostly mounted, and although sometimes described as the finest light cavalry in the world, they seldom charged in shock formations. Each horseman attacked as he pleased, often recklessly daring the fire of soldiers by seeking close combat in order to win honors by "striking coup." Warriors of the plains made their coup sticks from wooden poles, usually willow, about six feet long, and decorated with eagle feathers or bits of animal skins. Striking an enemy with a coup stick or weapon was the highest symbol of bravery, ranking above killing or scalping. George Grinnell, who lived with and studied the war customs of several Plains tribes, believed that the ceremony of counting coup was a survival of the times before Indians used arrows, when they fought hand-to-hand with clubs and sharpened sticks.

Scalping is a war practice that dates from antiquity. Before colonization, some North American tribes scalped their war victims, and some did not. The coming of Europeans undoubtedly accelerated the custom. In the struggle for control of North America, various nations offered bounties for the heads of enemy Indians or soldiers. Scalps were easy to remove with European metal knives and easier to transport than heads.

Before they had access to muskets and other firearms, the warriors'' weapons were arrows, clubs, tomahawks, knives, and lances. Arrows were as varied as the tribes, but the heads were generally of two types - narrow and tapering like a lance or triangular. The latter were used in war, the heads often being loosely attached to the shafts so they would remain in the wound when the shaft was withdrawn. Some tribes cut grooves down the shafts to facilitate the flow of blood from the wound. In close encounters, a warrior trained from youth as a bowman could fire far more rapidly and accurately than an enemy armed with a muzzle-loader. After the introduction of breech-loaders and more rapidly firing rifles, arrows could be used effectively only in surprise attacks followed by swift withdrawals.

The war club was in general use across America and differed in material, shape, and decoration. A length of wood with a knob at the end was common among tribes of the forest. Sharp bits of stone or bone were added to the head; as metal became available blades and spikes were used. In the East war clubs developed into tomahawks, a hatchet-shaped weapon that was originally made of stone. After the Europeans came, the blades were metal, some actually made in Europe. Because of its war symbolism, the tomahawk was buried to represent peace and dug up for war.

To obtain greater range, especially on the plains, warriors used lances - poles as long as twelve feet or more with large stone or metal points shaped like arrowheads. Usually they were decorated with fur, eagle feathers, and strips of beads.

During the Civil War, tribes from Indian Territory fought on both sides. This experience, combined with years of observing uniformed soldiers in battle, gradually brought on modifications in their own comportment. In 1834, while approaching a Comanche village with a company of dragoons, George Catlin witnessed the maneuvers of several hundred warriors who galloped out at full speed to meet them. "As they wheeled their horses," he reported, "they very rapidly formed in a line, and ]dressed[ like well-disciplined cavalry."

In 1867, George Armstrong Custer was similarly impressed with the defensive posture of a Cheyenne force outside a tipi village on the Kansas plains: "Most of the Indians were mounted; all were bedecked in their brightest colors, their heads crowned with the brilliant warbonnet, their lances bearing the crimson pennant, bows strung, and quivers full of barbed arrows.... In the line of battle before us there were several hundred Indians, while farther to the rear and at different distances were other organized bodies acting apparently as reserves."

Indians: Indian-White Wars

Suspicion and hostility, stemming from technological and cultural differences as well as mutual feelings of superiority, have permeated relations between Indians and non-Indians in North America. Intertribal antagonisms among the Indians, and nationalistic rivalries, bad faith, and expansionist desires on the part of non-Indians exacerbated these tensions. The resulting white-Indian conflicts often took a particularly brutal turn and ultimately resulted in the near-de-struction of the indigenous peoples.

Warfare between Europeans and Indians was common in the seventeenth century. In 1622, the Powhatan Confederacy nearly wiped out the struggling Jamestown colony. Frustrated at the continuing conflicts, Nathaniel Bacon and a group of vigilantes destroyed the Pamunkey Indians before leading an unsuccessful revolt against colonial authorities in 1676. Intermittent warfare also plagued early Dutch colonies in New York. In New England, Puritan forces annihilated the Pequots in 1636-1637, a campaign whose intensity seemed to foreshadow the future. Subsequent attacks inspired by Metacom (King Philip) against English settlements sparked a concerted response from the New England Confederation. Employing Indian auxiliaries and a scorched-earth policy, the colonists nearly exterminated the Narragansetts, Wampanoags, and Nipmucks in 1675-1676. A major Pueblo revolt also threatened Spanish-held New Mexico in 1680.

Indians were also a key factor in the imperial rivalries among France, Spain, and England. In King William''s (1689-1697), Queen Anne''s (1702-1713), and King George''s (1744-1748) wars, the French sponsored Abnaki and Mohawk raids against the more numerous English. Meanwhile, the English and their trading partners, the Chickasaws and often the Cherokees, battled the French and associated tribes for control of the lower Mississippi River valley and the Spanish in western Florida. More decisive was the French and Indian War (1754-1763). The French and their Indian allies dominated the conflict''s early stages, turning back several English columns in the north. Particularly serious was the near-annihilation of Gen. Edward Braddock''s force of thirteen hundred men outside of Fort Duquesne in 1755. But with English minister William Pitt infusing new life into the war effort, British regulars and provincial militias overwhelmed the French and absorbed all of Canada.

But eighteenth-century conflicts were not limited to the European wars for empire. In Virginia and the Carolinas, English-speaking colonists pushed aside the Tuscaroras, the Yamasees, and the Cherokees. The Natchez, Chick asaw, and Fox Indians resisted French domination, and the Apaches and Comanches fought against Spanish expansion into Texas. In 1763, an Ottawa chief, Pontiac, forged a powerful confederation against British expansion into the Old Northwest. Although his raids wreaked havoc upon the surrounding white settlements, the British victory in the French and Indian War combined with the Proclamation of 1763, which forbade settlement west of the Appalachian Mountains, soon eroded Pontiac''s support.

Most of the Indians east of the Mississippi River now perceived the colonial pioneers as a greater threat than the British government. Thus northern tribes, especially those influenced by Mohawk chief Thayendanegea (Joseph Brant), generally sided with the Crown during the American War for Independence. In 1777, they joined the Tories and the British in the unsuccessful offensives of John Burgoyne and Barry St. Leger in upstate New York. Western Pennsylvania and New York became savage battlegrounds as the conflict spread to the Wyoming and Cherry valleys. Strong American forces finally penetrated the heart of Iroquois territory, leaving a wide swath of destruction in their wake.

In the Midwest, George Rogers Clark captured strategic Vincennes for the Americans, but British agents based at Detroit continued to sponsor Tory and Indian forays as far south as Kentucky. The Americans resumed the initiative in 1782, when Clark marched northwest into Shawnee and Delaware country, ransacking villages and inflicting several stinging defeats upon the Indians. To the south, the British backed resistance among the Cherokees, Chickasaws, Creeks, and Choctaws but quickly forgot their former allies following the signing of the Treaty of Paris (1783).

By setting the boundaries of the newly recognized United States at the Mississippi River and the Great Lakes, that treaty virtually ensured future conflicts between whites and resident tribes. In 1790, Miami chief Little Turtle routed several hundred men led by Josiah Harmar along the Maumee River. Arthur St. Clair''s column suffered an even more ignominious defeat on the Wabash River the following year; only in 1794 did Anthony Wayne gain revenge at the Battle of Fallen Timbers. Yet resistance to white expansion in the Old Northwest continued as a Shawnee chief, Tecumseh, molded a large Indian confederation based at Prophetstown. While Tecumseh was away seeking additional support, William Henry Harrison burned the village after a stalemate at the Battle of Tippecanoe in 1811.

Indian raids, often encouraged by the British, were influential in causing the United States to declare war on Great Britain in 1812. The British made Tecumseh a brigadier general and used Indian allies to help recapture Detroit and Fort Dearborn (Chicago). Several hundred American prisoners were killed following a skirmish at the River Raisin in early 1813. But Harrison pushed into Canada and won the Battle of the Thames, which saw the death of Tecumseh and the collapse of his confederation. In the Southeast, the Creeks gained a major triumph against American forces at Fort Sims, killing many of their prisoners in the process. Andrew Jackson led the counterthrust, winning victories at Tallasahatchee and Talladega before crushing the Creeks at Horseshoe Bend in 1814.

Alaska and Florida were also the scenes of bitter conflicts. Native peoples strongly contested the Russian occupation of Alaska. The Aleuts were defeated during the eighteenth century, but the Russians found it impossible to prevent Tlingit harassment of their hunting parties and trading posts. Upon the Spanish cession of Florida, Washington began removing the territory''s tribes to lands west of the Mississippi River. But the Seminole Indians and runaway slaves refused to relocate, and the Second Seminole War saw fierce guerrilla-style actions from 1835 to 1842. Osceola, perhaps the greatest Seminole leader, was captured during peace talks in 1837, and nearly three thousand Seminoles were eventually removed. The Third Seminole War (1855-1858) stamped out all but a handful of the remaining members of the tribe.

In the United States, the removal policy met only sporadic armed resistance as whites pushed into the Mississippi River valley during the 1830s and 1840s. The Sac and Fox Indians were crushed in Black Hawk''s War (1831-1832), and tribes throughout the region seemed powerless in the face of the growing numbers of forts and military roads the whites were constructing. The acquisition of Texas and the Southwest during the 1840s, however, sparked a new series of Indian-white conflicts. In Texas, where such warfare had marred the independent republic''s brief history, the situation was especially volatile.

On the Pacific Coast, attacks against the native peoples accompanied the flood of immigrants to gold-laden California. Disease, malnutrition, and warfare combined with the poor lands set aside as reservations to reduce the Indian population of that state from 150,000 in 1845 to 35,000 in 1860. The army took the lead role in Oregon and Washington, using the Rogue River (1855-1856), Yakima (1855-1856), and Spokane (1858) wars to force several tribes onto reservations. Sporadic conflicts also plagued Arizona and New Mexico throughout the 1850s as the army struggled to establish its presence. On the southern plains, mounted warriors posed an even more formidable challenge to white expansion. Strikes against the Sioux, Cheyennes, Arapahos, Comanches, and Kiowas during the decade only hinted at the deadlier conflicts of years to come.

The Civil War saw the removal of the Regulars and an accompanying increase in the number and intensity of white-Indian conflicts. The influence of the Five Southern, or "Civilized" Tribes of the Indian Territory was sharply reduced. Seven Indian regiments served with Confederate troops at the Battle of Pea Ridge (1862). Defeat there and at Honey Springs (1863) dampened enthusiasm for the South, although tribal leaders like Stand Waite continued to support the confederacy until the war''s end. James H. Carleton and Christopher ("Kit") Carson conducted a ruthlessly effective campaign against the Navahos in New Mexico and Arizona. Disputes on the southern plains culminated in the Sand Creek massacre (1864), during which John M. Chivington''s Colorado volunteers slaughtered over two hundred of Black Kettle''s Cheyennes and Arapahos, many of whom had already attempted to come to terms with the government. In Minnesota, attacks by the Eastern Sioux prompted counterattacks by the volunteer forces of Henry H. Sibley, after which the tribes were removed to the Dakotas. The conflict became general when John Pope mounted a series of unsuccessful expeditions onto the plains in 1865.

Regular units, including four regiments of black troops, returned west following the Confederate collapse. Railroad expansion, new mining ventures, the destruction of the buffalo, and ever-increasing white demand for land exacerbated the centuries-old tensions. The mounted warriors of the Great Plains posed an especially thorny problem for an army plagued by a chronic shortage of cavalry and a government policy that demanded Indian removal on the cheap.

Winfield S. Hancock''s ineffectual campaign in 1867 merely highlighted the bitterness between whites and Indians on the southern plains. Using a series of converging columns, Philip Sheridan achieved more success in his winter campaigns of 1868-1869, but only with the Red River War of 1874-1875 were the tribes broken. Major battlefield encounters like George Armstrong Custer''s triumph at the Battle of the Washita (1868) had been rare; more telling was the army''s destruction of Indian lodges, horses, and food supplies, exemplified by Ranald Mackenzie''s slaughter of over a thousand Indian ponies following a skirmish at Palo Duro Canyon, Texas, in 1874.

To the north, the Sioux, Northern Cheyennes, and Arapahos had forced the army to abandon its Bozeman Trail forts in Red Cloud''s War (1867). But arable lands and rumors of gold in the Dakotas continued to attract white migration; the government opened a major new war in 1876. Initial failures against a loose Indian coalition, forged by leaders including Crazy Horse and Sitting Bull, culminated in the annihilation of five troops of Custer''s cavalry at the Little Bighorn. A series of army columns took the field that fall and again the following spring. By campaigning through much of the winter, harassing Indian villages, and winning battles like that at Wolf Mountain (1877), Nelson A. Miles proved particularly effective. The tribes had to sue for peace, and even Sitting Bull''s band returned from Canada to accept reservation life in 1881. Another outbreak among the Sioux and Northern Cheyennes, precipitated by government corruption, shrinking reservations, and the spread of the Ghost Dance, culminated in a grisly encounter at Wounded Knee (1890), in which casualties totaled over two hundred Indians and sixty-four soldiers.

Less spectacular but equally deadly were conflicts in the Pacific Northwest. In 1867-1868, George Crook defeated the Paiutes of northern California and southern Oregon. In a desperate effort to secure a new reservation on the tribal homelands, a Modoc chief assassinated Edward R. S. Canby during an abortive peace conference in 1873. Canby''s death (he was the only general ever killed by Indians) helped shatter President Ulysses S. Grant''s peace policy and resulted in the tribe''s defeat and removal. Refusing life on a government-selected reservation, Chief Joseph''s Nez Percés led the army on an epic seventeen-hundred-mile chase through Idaho, Wyoming, and Montana until checked by Miles just short of the Canadian border at Bear Paw Mountain (1877). Also unsuccessful was armed resistance among the Bannocks, Paiutes, Sheepeaters, and Utes in 1878-1879.

To the far southwest, Cochise, Victorio, and Geronimo led various Apache bands in resisting white and Hispanic encroachments, crossing and recrossing the border into Mexico with seeming impunity. Many an officer''s record was scarred as repeated treaties proved abortive. Only after lengthy campaigning, during which army columns frequently entered Mexico, were the Apaches forced to surrender in the mid-1880s.

The army remained wary of potential trouble as incidental violence continued. Yet, with the exception of another clash in 1973 during which protesters temporarily seized control of Wounded Knee, the major Indian-white conflicts in the United States had ended. Militarily, several trends had become apparent. New technology often gave the whites a temporary advantage. But this edge was not universal; Indian warriors carrying repeating weapons during the latter nineteenth century sometimes outgunned their army opponents, who were equipped with cheaper (but often more reliable) single-shot rifles and carbines. As the scene shifted from the eastern woodlands to the western plains, white armies found it increasingly difficult to initiate fights with their Indian rivals. To force action, army columns converged upon Indian villages from several directions. This dangerous tactic had worked well at the Battle of the Washita but could produce disastrous results when large numbers of tribesmen chose to stand and fight, as at the Little Bighorn.

Robert Wooster

Indians: Indian-White Relations

Indian-white relations in the period following the arrival of Columbus can be seen variously as the continuation of a normal process of migration by humans from one part of the world to another, as a genocidal assault by more powerful intruders upon weaker, more "primitive" peoples, or as the process by which Western civilization and Christianity were transferred from the Old World to the New. Whichever perception is adopted will be in accordance with one''s cultural, epistemological, and emotional preconceptions.

The Europeans who followed Leif Eriksson''s Norsemen at the turn of the tenth century (and gave us the first recorded account of European relations with the native peoples of North America) and those who followed Columbus at the end of the fifteenth century were greeted warily by the native population (in a friendly fashion in the case of Columbus''s first voyage), but relations soon turned to hostility and war. In the Spanish case at least, the source of the hostility was Spanish cruelty and greed spurred by the realization that those living in the Caribbean basin were unable to defend themselves from the technologically superior newcomers. This conclusion derives from the evidence provided by the Spanish themselves, however much these accounts were exploited by Spain''s rivals in the New World, whose hypocrisy often concealed similar cruelty and greed.

Spain and Portugal had a century''s head start on France, England, Holland, and Sweden in establishing relations with the peoples of the newfound world; thus the two countries had first choice of which lands to conquer, colonize, and exploit. Although we tend to think of Latin America today as a poor third world area, in the sixteenth century these lands were considered the richest and most desirable because of their valuable resources and their extensive populations who were soon forced to serve the Europeans as slaves, servants, or dependent trading partners. The present areas of the United States and Canada were considered by the Iberian powers the least desirable portions of the New World, hardly worth colonizing except to prevent northern European nations from establishing bases from which to harass the Spanish and Portuguese.

Because of the absence of both mineral wealth and subservient populations in the areas north of Mexico, the English, French, Dutch, and Swedish set up colonies at the beginning of the seventeenth century that were primarily extensions of their own societies and dealt only intermittently with the surrounding native populations. The natural growth of these colonies provided increasing military and economic power vis-à-vis the Indians, whose numerical superiority in the first half-century in almost every colony was lost in the second half-century as European diseases and warfare took their toll.

Cruelty and greed were prevalent in the early history of all the northern European nations'' dealings with the Indians, but the picture was not entirely one-sided: treachery and cunning existed on both sides. Cultural differences - the failure of each side to understand the assumptions of the other - led to frequent misunderstandings that in turn led to warfare. One of the most elementary forms of misunderstanding, for example, was the anger felt by the Indians over the colonists'' allowing their cattle and hogs to roam in unfenced freedom. The consequence was often the destruction of the Indians'' corn, which led to the Indians'' killing the offending animals, which led to retaliation by the settlers upon the Indians who had killed the animals, and so on. And too often those retaliating failed to discriminate between the Indians who were responsible for the "offense" and those who were not.

While Spain and Portugal exploited the labor (through slavery and serfdom) of the large populations of the areas they settled, the northern Europeans made only limited use of Indian labor. Rather, they wanted land; if it had not been acquired through war or simple occupation, they sought to purchase it. But often the Indians assumed they were conferring on Europeans only the right to use the land without losing their own right to continue to use it for hunting, fishing, or gathering food. Northern European governments soon prohibited their colonists from making such purchases for fear that the contracts would compromise the royal assertions of ultimate sovereignty over all the lands.

With the destruction or subordination of most of the coastal tribes, England and France, the two most successful of the northern European colonial powers, extended their jurisdiction into the interior, the English across the Appalachian Mountains hemming in their coastal settlements, and the French down the St. Lawrence River and up the Mississippi. The French, from their interior position, hoped to confine their English rivals to the coastal regions. The French were more adept at forging alliances with the powerful Indian nations in the interior, though they were not averse to wars of extermination, such as that against the Natchez in the Mississippi valley. Because the French had few- er settlers than the English, they tended to rely on a network of military and trade alliances with the Indians rather than developing agricultural and commercial settlements to match those of the English.

With the destruction of French power in the great war for empire that raged across North America and Europe during the 1750s and 1760s, the situation of the Indians was weakened. They were no longer able to play off one European power against another but had to confront England directly. Only with the coming of the American Revolution did they recover the opportunity to play a balancing role. But, unfortunately, most tribes chose to side with the loser, and the victorious Americans treated the Indian nations who had fought with the British as defeated foes. Great Britain made no attempt to secure Indian rights in treaty negotiations with the Americans, and even the objections of Spain (America''s wartime ally) that the area between the Appalachians and the Mississippi River remained Indian territory were dismissed by the victorious revolutionaries. But treating the Indians as defeated enemies was not an entirely successful tactic. After the tribes of the Old Northwest had inflicted a number of stinging setbacks upon the U.S. Army, the new American nation formulated a more moderate policy toward the Indians. The United States recognized the right of the Indian nations to exist as autonomous entities but sought to buy as much of their land as possible. Even the Indian allies of the Americans were pressured to sell off large portions of their lands.

As the United States grew in power in the early nineteenth century, several Indian nations such as the Cherokee were overwhelmed and sent on forced marches to the so-called Indian Territory (later Oklahoma) with significant loss of life. The "Trail of Tears" of the Cherokee migration to the Indian Territory in the 1830s became an enduring symbol of white injustice toward the Indians, particularly since the removal was carried out despite the Cherokee Nation''s legal victory over the state of Georgia in the Supreme Court. Most of the Indians in the eastern United States now moved West, either voluntarily or under duress, with a few remaining in small pockets near their original homelands.

The health and longevity of the Indians had suffered a steady decline since the arrival of the Europeans, for the whites carried diseases, such as smallpox and measles, for which the Indians had no immunity. The diseases and the numbers affected by them is a subject of intense debate among scholars. Estimates of Indian population before the arrival of whites have increased over the years, sometimes by as much as ten times the earlier estimates. Henry Dobyns put the number at some 10 to 12 million in North America north of Mexico and 90 to 112 million for the entire Western Hemisphere. Most scholars have discounted such high estimates, although conceding that earlier estimates (such as the traditional figure of about 1 million for the present area of the United States) were probably too low. In any event, the steady decline of the Indian population in the United States reached its low point of 228,000 in 1890.

This decline coincided with the loss of tribal lands and tribal authority, particularly under the General Allotment Act (Dawes Severalty Act) of 1887. This act imposed a system of individual land ownership upon many of the Indian tribes with the government selling off the surplus lands to white settlers for the presumed benefit of the tribes (some western tribes were exempted or not forced to comply). Contemporary Indians often cite the Dawes Act as legislation that could and should have been avoided, but that is probably an unrealistic assessment. The vast landholdings of small impotent tribes simply could not have been maintained against the millions of well-armed whites moving west. The land rush in 1889 into the Indian Territory (which became Oklahoma as a result) is an example. Even the staunchest friends of the Indian were convinced that the tribes could not survive unless they gave up much of their land claims and secured a portion in severalty (individual allotments) with the security of a "white man''s [fee simple] title."

Although the popular impression during those years was that the Indians were a "disappearing race," the twentieth century saw a dramatic reversal of almost all indexes of decline. Health problems came under increasing control, and diseases like tuberculosis were nearly eliminated. But alcoholism, or alcohol-related events such as car accidents, became the principal cause of death among Indians: no one has determined why Indians seem to be so susceptible to alcoholic stress, and the debate between those favoring a genetic explanation and those a cultural one continues.

The gradual loss of Indian tribal authority was suddenly reversed in 1934 with the passage of the Indian Reorganization Act, which addressed the strengthening of tribal life and government with federal assistance. Although it was subject to bitter debate both at the time and later, the evidence is conclusive that the act, the product of

top

THE ONLY GOOD INDIAN IS A DEAD INDIAN
by Wolfgang Mieder

The interest in the study of national character, stereotypes, ethnic slurs, and racial prejudice as expressed in proverbs and proverbial expressions has a considerable scholarly tradition. Paremiologically oriented folklorists and cultural historians have assembled collections of such invectives, the three standard books being Otto von Reinsberg-Düringsfeld's Internationale Titulaturen (1863), Henri Gaidoz and Paul Sébillot's Blasons populaires de la France (1884), and Abraham A. Roback's A Dictionary of International Slurs (1944).[1] Numerous scholarly articles have also investigated the stereotypical world-view expressed in proverbial speech, notably William Hugh Jansen's "A Culture's Stereotypes and Their Expression in Folk Clichés" (1957), Américo Paredes' "Proverbs and Ethnic Stereotyping" (1970); Mariana Birnbaum's "On the Language of Prejudice" (1971), Alan Dundes' "Slurs International: Folk Comparisons of Ethnicity and National Character" (1975), Uta Quasthoff's "The Uses of Stereotype in Everyday Argument" (1978); and Wolfgang Mieder, "Proverbs in Nazi Germany: The Promulgation of Anti-Semitism and Stereotypes through Folklore" (1982).[2] This selected list of publications alone is a clear indication that considerable attention has been paid to proverbial invectives against minorities throughout the world. These unfortunate and misguided expressions of hate, prejudice, and unfounded generalizations are unfortunately part of verbal communication among people, and stereotypical phrases can be traced back to the earliest written records. Proverbial stereotypes are regretfully nothing new, but perhaps people are more willing today to question such dangerous slurs as they become more aware of their psychological and ethical implications. This at least is what a more enlightened citizenry should be hoping for at a time when tensions among political, racial, and ethnic minorities appear to be increasing.

While much is known about proverbial stereotypes among different nationalities and regions, and while numerous studies have been undertaken to study verbal slurs against Jews and African Americans especially in the United States,[3] there is a definite dearth of interest in the proverbial invectives that have been hurled against the Native Americans ever since Christopher Columbus and later explorers, settlers, and immigrants set foot on the American continent. As people look back at these slurs in the year when the world commemorates the quincentenary of Columbus' discovery of America, it is becoming ever more obvious that the native population suffered terribly in the name of expansion and progress. Native Americans were deprived of their homeland, killed mercilessly or placed on reservations, where many continue their marginalized existence to the present day. The early concepts of the "good Indian" or "noble savage" quickly were replaced by reducing the native inhabitants to "wild savages" who were standing in the way of expansionism under the motto of " manifest destiny".[4] Little wonder that Roy Pearce in his valuable book with the telling title Savagism and Civilization: A Study of the Indian and the American Mind (1967) can quote a thrasonical toast recorded in the journal of Major James Norris in 1779 as having expressed the early frontier truth: "Civilization or death to all American savages."[5] That means, bluntly put, change your ways and assimilate the rules and life-style of the white conquerors and settlers or die. Anybody resisting this policy was "bad", and once the popular white attitude was geared towards the demonization of the Native Americans, the stage was set for killing thousands of them or driving the survivors onto inhuman reservations. The unpublished and little-known dissertation by Priscilla Shames with the title The Long Hope: A Study of American Indian Stereotypes in American Popular Fiction (1969) shows how this cruel treatment of the native population is described in literature,[6] while Dee Brown's best selling book Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee: An Indian History of the American West (1970) gives a more factual account. This latter book contains a telling chapter with the gruesome proverbial title "The Only Good Indian Is a Dead Indian",[7] the word "dead" meaning both literal death, and for those who survived the mass killings, a figurative death, i.e., a restricted life on the reservation with little freedom to continue the traditional life-style.

It is alarming that this awful invective against Native Americans, that became current on the frontier not quite a hundred years after that death threat expressed in the toast cited above, is still in use today, astonishingly enough both by the general population and the Native Americans themselves. Witness for example the book title The Only Good Indian: Essays by Canadian Indians (1970) that was chosen for a collection of short prose and poetic texts in which these native inhabitants from Canada express their frustration with their marginalized life in modern society. How bad must their plight be if the editor Waubageshig decided to choose this invective against his own people as a title! The explanation is given in the introduction as follows:


Police brutality, incompetent bureaucrats, legal incongruities, destructive education systems, racial discrimination, ignorant politicians who are abetted by a country largely ignorant of its native population, are conditions which Indians face daily. Yes, the only good Indian is still a dead one. Not dead physically, but dead spiritually, mentally, economically and socially.[8]

Yes, this is Canada, but the same picture emerges for the United States, especially in the stereotypical view of the Native Americans in the motion pictures, as Ralph and Natasha Friar's study entitled The Only Good Indian ... The Hollywood Gospel (1972) illustrates for just that small sector of American culture. Even though some movies have shown the "good" Indian, most of them are guilty of "the enhancement and perpetuation of stereotype motifs of the Indian as drunken, savage, or treacherous, unreliable or childlike."[9] Similar prejudices can, of course, be observed in other forms of the mass media and everyday verbal communication through the use of jokes, songs, and proverbial slurs.
There is yet a third publication that carries part of the proverb "The only good Indian is a dead Indian" in its title, but this time it is a scholarly dissertation by the folklorist Rayna Green. Herself a Native American, she chose the title The Only Good Indian: The Image of the Indian in American Vernacular Culture (1973) for her voluminous and enlightening study. The proverbial title sets the tone - here is a meticulous account of the "popular" view of Native Americans as expressed by the American population of all age groups, all social classes, and all regions. The result is a shocking stereotypical image that permeates all modes of expression, of which linguistic examples are only a small part. Green includes a few pages on "Sayings, Proverbs, Proverbial Comparisons, and Other Metaphoric Usages"[10] that comment in a stereotypical way about Native Americans. A few lexicographers and paremiographers have also put together small lists of these invectives, and what follows is a selective number of phrases from these different sources with dates of earliest occurrence where they are available. Frequently found proverbial expressions are "To go Indian file" (1754, i.e., to walk in a single line), "To be an Indian giver (gift)" (1764), "To sing Indian" (1829, i.e., to act as one who defies death), "To do (play) the sober Indian" (1832, i.e., to remain sober or drink only very little to get the knives), "To play Indian" (1840, i.e. to not show any emotions), "To see Indians" (1850, i.e., to be in a delirium), "To turn Indian" (1862, i.e., to revert to a state of nature), "To be a regular Indian" (1925, i.e. to be an habitual drunkard), and "To be on the Indian list" (1925, i.e. to not be allowed to purchase liquor). The many proverbial comparisons repeat this negative image of the Native Americans as being of questionable ethical value: "As dirty as an Indian" (1803), "As mean as an Indian" (1843), "To yell and holler like Indians" (1844), "As wild (untameable) as an Indian" (1855), "As superstitious as an Indian" (1858), "To run like a wild Indian" (1860), "To spend money like a drunken Indian" (this text and all others stem from the late 19th century), "To stare (stand) like a wooden Indian", "Straight as an Indian's hair", "Red as an Indian", "Silent as a cigar-store Indian", "Drunker than an Indian", and "Sly as an Indian".[11]

Turning to bona fide proverbs that express slanderous views concerning the Native Americans, Rayna Green in her valuable dissertation observes that the text "The only good Indian is a dead Indian" is "the only genuine proverb with reference to Indians in the [United] states."[12] If only that were true! Unfortunately there are some other proverbs which have gained currency in the folk speech of this country. Already from 1766 stems the equational statement "Indians will be Indians", which despite its lack of a metaphor clearly alludes to the fact that Indians will remain uncivilized savages no matter how hard the white soldiers and settlers try to change them.[13] Another proverb commenting on the impossibility to civilize the original inhabitants of this country is "An Indian, a partridge, and a spruce tree can't be tamed" which was recorded in 1853.[14] And there is also the slanderous proverb "The Indian will come back to his blanket" that was collected in Oregon around 1945.[15] It implies that even those Indians who have assimilated the ways of the white masters will in due time return to their primitive and traditional ways, i.e., "Indians will be Indians" as the proverb says. From the same time there is finally the proverb "Never trust an Indian" that was recorded in Kansas.[16] Who will be surprised then that the Hon. Alfred Benjamin Meacham, ex-superintendent of Indian Affairs, had the audacity to write in his suspect book Wigwam and War-Path; or The Royal Chief in Chains (1875) that it is irrelevant whether Indians are cheated by the Government or not: "It makes no difference. They are Indians, and three-fourths of the people of the United States believe and say that 'the best Indians are all under ground'."[17] At another place in his book Meacham poses the rhetorical question "Do my readers wonder now that so many white men, along the frontier line, declare that all good 'Injins are three feet under the ground'?"[18] And one year later, in his book Wi-ne-ma (The Woman-Chief) and Her People (1876), Meacham cites yet a third variant of this frontier proverb, namely "All good Indians are four foot [feet] under ground".[19] There can be no doubt about the sad fact that Native Americans were declared proverbially dead by the middle of the 19th century, especially after the end of the American Civil War, when United States soldiers joined bigoted frontier settlers in a mercilessly carried out campaign to kill off the native population of this giant land.

Such willfully planned and ruthlessly executed destruction of the Native Americans needed its battle slogan, a ready-made catch phrase that could help the perpetrators to justify the inhuman treatment of their victims. The proverb which gained currency at that time and which can still be heard today is the mindless and absurd American proverb "The only good Indian is a dead Indian." It was indeed a devilish stroke of genius that created this dangerous slur. Its multisemanticity is grotesque to say the least. On the one hand it is a proverbial slogan which justifies the actual mass slaughter of Indians by the soldiers. But it also states on a more figurative level that Indians can only be "good" persons if they become Christians and take on the civilized ways of their white oppressors. Then they might be "good", but as far as their native Indian culture is concerned they would in fact be dead. Be it by physical or spiritual death, Native Americans were doomed victims of perpetrators who acted with manifest destiny on their side while so-called innocent bystanders did nothing to prevent the holocaust of the Native Americans.

The time was ripe for this all-encompassing and all-telling proverb, but whence did it come? Who coined such an invective that unfortunately fit the stereotypical world-view of three quarters of the population of the United States? A glance into The Congressional Globe: Containing the Debates and Proceedings of the Second Session [of the] Fortieth Congress (1868) provides at least for now the terminus a quo for this slur. During a debate on an "Indian Appropriation Bill" that took place on May 28, 1868, in the House of Representatives, James Michael Cavanaugh (1823-1879) from Montana uttered the following despicable words:


I will say frankly that, in my judgment, the entire Indian policy of the country is wrong from its very inception. In the first place you offer a premium for rascality by paying a beggarly pittance to your Indian agents. The gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Butler] may denounce the sentiment as atrocious, but I will say that I like an Indian better dead than living. I have never in my life seen a good Indian (and I have seen thousands) except when I have seen a dead Indian. I believe in the Indian policy pursued by New England in years long gone. I believe in the Indian policy which was taught by the great chieftain of Massachusetts, Miles Standish. I believe in the policy that exterminates the Indians, drives them outside the boundaries of civilization, because you cannot civilize them. Gentlemen may call this very harsh language, but perhaps they would not think so if they had had my experience in Minnesota and Colorado. In Minnesota the almost living babe has been torn from its mother's womb; and I have seen the child, with its young heart palpitating, nailed to the window-sill. I have seen women who were scalped, disfigured, outraged. In Denver, Colorado Territory, I have seen women and children brought in scalped. Scalped why? Simply because the Indian was "upon the war-path," to satisfy the devilish and barbarous propensities. [...] The Indian will make a treaty in the fall, and in the spring he is again "upon the war-path." The torch, the scalping-knife, plunder, and desolation follow wherever the Indian goes.
[...] My friend from Massachusetts [Mr. Butler] has never passed the barrier of the frontier. All he knows about Indians (the gentleman will pardon me for saying it) may have been gathered I presume from the brilliant pages of the author of "The Last of the Mohicans" or from the lines of the poet Longfellow in "Hiawatha." The gentleman has never yet seen the Indian upon the war-path. He has never been chased, as I have been, by these red devils - who seem to be the pets of eastern philanthropists.[20]

The sentence "I have never in my life seen a good Indian except when I have seen a dead Indian" is, of course, a mere prose utterance that lacks many of the poetic and formal markers of traditional proverbs save for its parallel structure. Yet it is easily noticeable that this subjective sentence contains the clear possibility of becoming shortened into the much more proverbial formula "A good Indian is a dead Indian". From what has been said before and from what is known today about the negative attitudes towards Native Americans on the frontier and the Indian territories during the second half of the 19th century, it can be stated with unfortunate certainty that James Michael Cavanaugh was expressing boldly in the House of Representatives what most Americans felt if not said as well.
Indians and death were tragically connected in the frontier world-view, and it should not be surprising that United States soldiers and their officers shared this negative view. Major William Shepherd described the general stereotype in his book Prairie Experiences (1884) as follows:


People who know nothing about Indians look at them at first with curiosity, which soon is mixed with a little contempt; but those who have had much to do with them in wars dislike their presence, and, knowing their habits, are often nervous and apprehensive of treachery. It would be a meritorious deed, from an Indian point of view, for a band to murder a single white man, if it could be done with perfect safety in regard to their skins. [...] The possibility of the Indian being converted to any civilized or useful purposes is a chimera; he will be a wild man, or he will die out; his inherited disposition will prevent his ever being a satisfactory member of a settled community. On the frontier a good Indian means a "dead Indian." Whether the Indians have deserved, or brought on themselves, the injuries they have suffered, and to what extent their treatment might have been ameliorated by honesty in the agents employed by the Government, and by a more humanitarian spirit in the people who have ousted them, can matter little at present. The Indian must go, is going, and will soon be gone. It is his luck.[21]

This cruel passage from 1884 can be contrasted with the thoughts expressed two years later by Vicar Alfred Gurney from England in his book A Ramble through the United States (1886). Notice that while Major Shepherd's statement that "on the frontier a good Indian means a 'dead Indian'" has not quite yet reached the final proverbial form, the Vicar makes it perfectly clear that Americans frequently expressed the proverbial remark "A good Indian is a dead Indian", thus attesting to the fact that the proverb was well established by 1886:

The story of Indian warfare is no doubt one of bloodshed, cruelty, and outrage; but, if they resented with the ferocity of savages the intrusion of the white men who appropriated their hunting grounds and gave them no quarter, let it not be forgotten that they responded generously to the appeal of those who, consecrated by the hands of poverty and pain, spoke to them in the Name of a crucified King, and proclaimed the gospel of peace and goodwill. Not yet, I think, are white men civilized enough to handle savages successfully. And of all savages the red man, perhaps, demands the greatest patience, courtesy, and forbearance. Not yet have we learnt to put in practice the divine method, though the experience of ages demonstrates the futility of every other, of overcoming evil, not with evil, but with good. The Government of the United States is at length earnestly endeavoring to do tardy justice to the conquered race; but it was distressing to hear again and again from American lips the remark that "a good Indian is a dead Indian." For my own part I cannot believe that a people whose dark eyes are so wistful and dreamy, whose speech is so musical, and whose language so full of poetry, can be hopelessly degraded, or doomed to extinction.[22]

Positive as this assessment by a man of the religious order might be at first glance, it does nevertheless endorse the attempts of "civilizing" the Native Americans into Christians, thereby destroying their traditional beliefs and culture. The difference between the soldiers and militant people of the frontier on the one hand, and the Christian missionaries on the other was one of degree, for both groups intended to change or convert the perceived savages by the sword or the word of God.
For the historical survey of the proverb "The only good Indian is a dead Indian", it is of considerable importance to notice for both of the passages cited from 1884 and 1886 that these early proverbial variants do not associate any particular person with having coined them. This was also not the case with the three variants about Indians belonging several feet below the ground that were cited earlier from the 1870's. It is also a well established fact that although "conceivably a proverb may for a time be associated with the inventor's name, all ascriptions to definite persons must be looked upon with suspicion",[23] as Archer Taylor observes correctly in his seminal book on The Proverb (1931). And yet, such an ascription of the proverb under discussion here was in fact started by Edward Ellis in his book The History of Our Country: From the Discovery of America to the Present Time (1895). Entitling a short paragraph "Sheridan's Bon Mot", Ellis relates the following event from an eye-witness account of Captain Charles Nordstrom:


It was the writer's good fortune to be present when General Sheridan gave utterance to that bon mot which has since become so celebrated. It was in January, 1869, in camp at old Fort Cobb, Indian Territory, now Oklahoma, shortly after Custer's fight with Black-Kettle's band of Cheyennes. Old Toch-a-way (Turtle Dove), a chief of the Comanches, on being presented to Sheridan, desired to impress the General in his favor, and striking himself a resounding blow on the breast, he managed to say: "Me, Toch-a-way; me good Injun." A quizzical smile lit up the General's face as he set those standing by in a roar by saying: "The only good Indians I ever saw were dead."[24]

This anecdotal paragraph with its author's obvious delight in telling the gruesomely "humorous" event appears of questionable authenticity at first. It is, of course, understandable that General Philip Sheridan (1831-1888) repeatedly denied having made such a statement, but there is no doubt that Sheridan was known as a bigot and Indian hater, as the historian Paul Andrew Hutton has shown in a chapter of his book on Phil Sheridan and His Army (1985) so appropriately called "Forming Military Indian Policy: 'The Only Good Indian Is a Dead Indian'."[25] It is of interest, however, that Hutton does not quote Sheridan's statement "The only good Indians I ever saw were dead" but rather its more generalized and more powerful proverbial form "The only good Indian is a dead Indian" which became synonymous with the Indian policy of Sheridan and most other generals and soldiers. As Stephen Ambrose puts it so clearly in his account of the parallel lives of the two American warriors Crazy Horse and Custer (1975): "Frontier posts reverberated with tough talk about what would be done to the Indians, once caught, and it became an article of faith among the Army officers that 'you could not trust an Indian.' Sheridan's famous remark, 'The only good Indian I ever saw was dead,' was often and gleefully quoted."[26]
Naturally Sheridan has had his defenders who have tried to disclaim his having coined this proverb, and they are technically correct, for it will probably never be known whether the proverb developed from Sheridan's statement or whether his ill-conceived utterance was a subjective reformulation of the proverb already in currency. It must be remembered that James Michael Cavanaugh from Montana had expressed a quite similar sentence already in 1868 in the United States House of Representatives, and nobody is claiming that he originated this frontier proverb. Perhaps some day someone will in fact locate the proverb in its precise wording of "The only good Indian is a dead Indian" in print before Sheridan's January 1869 statement that could clear his name once and for all as the coiner of the proverb but not as a malicious and hateful Indian killer. Still in 1904 Brig. Gen. Michael V. Sheridan in his new and enlarged edition of the Personal Memoirs of Philip Henry Sheridan writes apologetically that "some 'fool friend' in Montana attributed to General Sheridan the expression that 'a dead Indian is the only good Indian,' and, though he immediately disavowed the inhuman epigram, his assailants continued to ring the changes [sic] on it for months."[27] Another scholar who tried to clear General Sheridan's name was Carl Rister who in his book Border Command: General Phil Sheridan in the West (1944) begins his preface with the following defensive remarks:


Sheridan's foes charged that he had said, "The only good Indian is a dead Indian." It is improbable that he made such a statement. That was not his policy. But he did believe that Indians must be taught that crime does not pay; that, if murder and theft were committed by either red man or white, punishment would be swift and sure. Moral suasion, he argued, could not always be used even among the most enlightened people; courts and law enforcement agencies were necessary. In this, Sheridan had enthusiastic support - not only of his officers and men, but also of the border people. To his enemies, Sheridan was haughty, unbending, and scornful; to his subordinates he was "Little Phil," a man of fiery temperament, caustic, impetuous, savage when his plans were not properly executed, never sparing himself or others, but fair and generous when the occasion demanded. Physically, he was a small man, but every inch a leader, strong and magnetic, honored, loved, and feared.[28]

As can be seen from this paragraph which attempts to whitewash this Civil War general who in the late 1860's turned his attention to fighting Indians, as so many other officers and soldiers did, the proverb "The only good Indian is a dead Indian" has become solidly attached to Sheridan's name, even though he did not state it in this precise wording. Having however said that "The only good Indians I ever saw were dead", and being known as an unscrupulous general who strongly believed in placing all Native Americans on well-guarded reservations and in punishing those mercilessly who did not follow his round-up orders,[29] it is understandable that the frontier's motto and proverb born in the 19th century's Indian wars on the plains became attached to his name in due time.
As already stated, it is not known which individual actually coined the proverbial slogan "The only good Indian is a dead Indian." It certainly was not General Philip Sheridan, nor was it an even more famous, or rather infamous, Indian fighter who made the following incredible remarks at a speech in January of 1886 in New York:


I suppose I should be ashamed to say that I take the Western view of the Indian. I don't go so far as to think that the only good Indians are dead Indians, but I believe nine out of every ten are, and I shouldn't like to inquire too closely into the case of the tenth. The most vicious cowboy has more moral principle than the average Indian. Turn three hundred low families of New York into New Jersey, support them for fifty years in vicious idleness, and you will have some idea of what the Indians are. Reckless, revengeful, fiendishly cruel, they rob and murder, not the cowboys, who can take care of themselves, but the defenseless, lone settlers on the plains. As for the soldiers, an Indian chief once asked Sheridan for a cannon. "What! Do you want to kill my soldiers with it?" asked the general. "No," replied the chief, "want to kill the cowboy; kill soldier with a club."[30]

The person who spoke this incredible passage was that "rough rider" who published his racist and expansionist views and an account of his exploits on the American frontier in his acclaimed book The Winning of the West (1889) - no one less than Theodore Roosevelt (1858-1919) himself who became President of the United States five years after delivering these hateful comments!
The fact that Roosevelt included the proverb in a speech in 1886 in the eastern city of New York, far removed from the racial strife at the frontier, is a clear indication that the proverb and its discriminatory message had permeated the American landscape by that time. It was not, however, until 1926 that Gurney Benham registered Philip Sheridan's utterance "The only good Indians I ever saw were dead" as a political phrase in his Complete Book of Quotations.[31] Other lexicographers did the same, with H.L. Mencken in 1960 and Bergen Evans in 1968 attributing it mistakenly, but more or less fittingly, to another famous Civil War general participating in Indian fighting, namely William Tecumseh Sherman (1820-1891).[32] The editors of two more recent books of quotations from 1988 obviously realized this mistake and have gone back to giving Sheridan his due credit.[33] There are, however, also numerous authors of quotation dictionaries who list the actual proverb "The only good Indian is a dead Indian" rather than Sheridan's phrase. As early as 1934 Burton Stevenson in his Home Book of Quotations has it both ways, citing the proverb as the major heading and then referring to Sheridan's statement in an explanatory note.[34] It is here that the partial identification of the frontier proverb with General Sheridan begins in a major reference tool. Seven years later the editors of the renowned Oxford Dictionary of Quotations (1941) follow suit and go one step further. They merely cite the actual proverb and attach Philip Sheridan's name to it. The subsequent editors of the second and third editions of this classical work have identical entries, thus playing their lexicographical part in spreading the misinformation that Sheridan coined this stereotypical proverb.[35] The American competitor, Bartlett's Familiar Quotations, does the Oxford editors one better. Christopher Morley as the editor of the 11th edition from 1941 lists Sheridan's remark "The only good Indians I ever saw were dead" for the first time in this important reference work. He repeats the same information in the 12th edition of 1949, but the editor of the 13th edition (1955) adds the following comment after quoting Sheridan's statement: "The phrase is more often heard in the version 'The only good Indian is a dead Indian'." Emily Morison Beck as the editor of the two subsequent editions of Bartlett's Familiar Quotations (14th ed. 1968; and 15th ed. 1980) kept the identical entry, thus at least indicating to the readers that there is a difference between General Sheridan's personal quotation and the folk proverb.[36] Yet quotation dictionaries of lesser value and distribution have since 1942 usually just listed the proverb "The only good Indian is a dead Indian" with Philip Sheridan's name attached to it,[37] a scholarly phenomenon that shows how lexicographers blindly copy from each other.

Obviously paremiographers have also played their role in registering the folk proverb in newer proverb collections. It is interesting to note that it was the British scholar Vincent Stuckey Lean who listed the early variant "A good Indian is a dead Indian" as an American proverb for the first time in 1902 in his Proverbs Relating to the United Kingdom [...] together with a few English Estimates of other Nations and Places, after having found it in Alfred Gurney's book A Ramble through the United States (1886) that has been discussed above.[38] The next reference comes only in 1931, this time by the dean of international paremiology Archer Taylor, who in his book on The Proverb includes the terse statement that "'The only good Indian is a dead Indian' breathes the air of our western frontier."[39] Admittedly that does not say much, but it indicates that Taylor recognized this text as a bona fide folk proverb from the American frontier that had long currency throughout the United States without the need for at best an apocryphal attribution to General Philip Sheridan.

In 1944 Abraham Roback includes the slight variant "The only good Indian is a dead one" as an American "slogan originating in the Colonial period, when the Indians became a real menace, massacring hundreds of the new settlers" in his Dictionary of International Slurs.[40] While Roback is incorrect in ascribing the 17th or at least 18th century as the time of origin of the proverb, he does give an authentic picture of the socio-political problems that existed between the Native Americans and the early settlers. In a fascinating book on the Builders of the Bay Colony (1930) of Massachusetts and a specially enlightening chapter on "John Eliot [1604-1690], Apostle to the Indians", the stereotypical tensions are described by citing the 19th century proverbial invective as an appropriate description of this sad state of affairs:


That same autumn of 1646, the General Court appointed Eliot one of a committee to select and purchase land from the Indians, at the colony's expense, "for the encouragement of the Indians to live in a more orderly way amongst us." Yet from the start he encountered suspicion and hostility among his own people, whose attitude was always a heavy obstacle to his work. Frenchmen and Spaniards mingled easily with the American Indians; but the English pride of race forbade [this]. Your New England settler quickly acquired what has become the traditional attitude of the English-speaking pioneer: "A good Indian is a dead Indian." To him the native was a dirty, lazy, treacherous beast: "the arrow that flieth by day." and "the terror that flieth by night."[41]

Things might have become a bit more civilized in the colonies some good hundred years later, when influential thinkers like Patrick Henry in 1787 even advocated interracial marriages between Indians and whites. Reflecting on "The Indian Contribution to the American Revolution" , Leroy Eid comments that "One often hears that the frontier's motto was 'the only good Indian is a dead Indian.' Perhaps this cliché - born in the nineteenth century's plains wars - was true of some frontiers, but it was not anywhere universally true of the earlier frontiers where whites met vibrant and confident Indian cultures."[42] Nevertheless, it is a known fact that Native Americans were also exterminated or marginalized in the Colonies. That is exactly what the bigoted James Michael Cavanaugh meant in his 1868 speech in the United States House of Representatives cited above, when he said to Mr. Butler from Massachusetts:

"I believe in the Indian policy pursued by New England in years long gone. I believe in the Indian policy which was taught by the great chieftain of Massachusetts, Miles Standish [1584?-1656; military defender of New Plymouth and Weymouth colony]. I believe in the policy that exterminates the Indians, drives them outside the boundaries of civilization, because you cannot civilize them."[43]

Starting with Burton Stevenson's large volume The Home Book of Proverbs, Maxims, and Famous Phrases (1948), the major Anglo-American proverb collections all contain the proverb "The only good Indian is a dead Indian" with the notable exception of The Oxford Dictionary of English Proverbs (3rd ed. 1970).[44] Smaller regional collections bear witness to the established proverbiality and currency of this stereotypical frontier wisdom throughout the United States. In fact, folklorist Helen Pearce includes six proverbial invectives with explanatory comments in a list of "Folk Sayings in a Pioneer Family of Western Oregon" which were in current use in her own family (which originally reached Oregon in the 1850's) when she collected them in the early 1940's:

There's no good Indian but a dead Indian.
(This attitude is ungenerous, but it is derived from the experience of some of the early settlers.)
He's an Indian giver.
(He is a person who gives something and takes it back again; an ungracious giver.)
He's off the reservation.
(He is running wild; or doing something unusual; or appears very green and unsophisticated. The saying is derived from the sometimes wild behavior of Indians when permitted to leave their reservations and enter the white man's towns.)
He was drunker than an Indian.
(The pioneers found that Indians did not carry liquor well; hence this pioneer saying about a person obstreperously drunk.)
He works harder than an Indian.
(Often ironically said in western Oregon, where most of the Indians worked very little.)
Wild as an Indian; sly (or cunning) as an Indian.
(These are examples of numerous uncomplimentary comparisons.)[45]

The proverb was also collected in 1963 in Pennsylvania and in 1965 in Illinois,[46] and the Folklore Archives at the University of California at Berkeley contain six additional citations that folklore students collected between 1964 and 1986 in California. The following comments by a fifty year old American informant to a student folklore collector in 1969 are quite telling:

The only good Indian is a dead Indian.
My informant learned this when she was a young girl [c. 1925] growing up in Carson City, Nevada. There was an Indian reservation near where they lived, and the whites of Carson City were very discriminating toward the Indians and looked upon them as quite inferior. She heard this used by many people in town. It was generally said as a comment after someone else would tell of the latest exploits of some "drunken" Indian. This comment meant that they were only good when they were dead, so all Indians alive are bad.
My informant believes that this phrase came out of Indian wars and was first said by either General Grant or Lee, she can't remember which.[47]

While this statement makes clear once again how confused the attribution of a proverb to a certain historical person can get, it is also foremost an alarming testimony of the widespread disrespect for Native Americans. A second text from the Berkeley Folklore Archives is dated from 1977 and includes horrid comments concerning the "humor" of this invective by the informant and insightful reactions by the student collector:

The only good Indian is a dead Indian.
Donald [Geddes] admits that this is a very racist statement. He doesn't really believe but can still find the humor involved with it. He remembers that people at college in Palo Alto used to say it a lot, circa 1955. But he didn't think he learned it from anyone in particular. He is sure that he heard it in a discussion concerning Indians, but always in jest.
I think that Mr. Geddes and his friends believe the saying more than they will admit. It reflects American culture because once long ago the Indians possessed our continent. Then we took it from them. When they protest, a good comeback is "The only good Indian is a dead Indian."[48]

A third student collector obtained the following even more recent information from a Californian informant in 1986 that also illustrates how this prejudicial proverb is part of the world-view of many Americans:

The only good Indian is a dead Indian.
My informant is a native of North Dakota where she tells me there were many Indian reservations. She learned this proverb when she was a very young child (c. 1923). She cannot remember any specific sources for the proverb; it was just something that you would hear at home or at school. People in North Dakota were extremely prejudiced against the Indians because they had the reputation of never working, always drinking. They were not very honest people and were believed by many to be murderers and looters. Indians were not respected by the white people at all. Thus, we can understand the reasoning behind the proverb.[49]

After all of this documentation from various published and oral sources my co-editors and I felt justified in ascribing a general geographical distribution throughout the United States to the proverb "The only good Indian is a dead Indian" in our recent Dictionary of American Proverbs (1992)[50] - blatant reality did not permit us to act otherwise, for exclusion of this proverbial slur would not only have been a scholarly dishonesty, it would also have hidden or whitewashed the ugly truth.
Just as this proverb persists in oral communication, so it also permeates written sources from scholarly books to novels, from magazines to newspapers, and even on to cartoons. In Mary Rinehart's detective novel The Circular Staircase (1908), for example, one finds the grotesque double statement: "Just as the only good Indian is a dead Indian, so the only safe defaulter is a dead defaulter."[51] While the proverb actually serves only to introduce a characterization of a male person obsessed with money, it nevertheless is used to describe this man's dishonesty by comparing him to the stereotypical devious Indian. This early reference also shows already what is to become a pattern in more modern uses of the proverb. Often it is not even cited, but rather it is reduced to the formula "The only good X is a dead X", giving its speaker or author a ready-made proverbial slogan with all the negative and prejudicial connotations of its original proverbial form. Merely four years after Rinehart's formulaic use of the proverb, Edgar Burroughs followed suit in his futuristic novel A Princess of Mars (1912), describing the heroine who despite "her tenderness and womanly sweetness was still a Martian, and to a Martian the only good enemy is a dead enemy; for every dead foeman means so much more to divide between those who live."[52] This variation maintains the victimization of the Native American but generalizes it to include enemies of any type.

It is amazing to see how this proverbial formula has been utilized as a slogan against the German enemy in particular during the first and second World Wars. Robert Graves reports the following account by a Canadian-Scot of war atrocities in his book Good-bye to All That (1929):


They sent me back with three bloody prisoners, you see, and one started limping and groaning, so I had to keep on kicking the sod down the trench. He was an officer. It was getting dark and I felt fed up, so I thought: "I'll have a bit of game." I had them covered with the officer's revolver and made 'em open their pockets without turning around. Then I dropped a Mills bomb in each, with the pin out, and ducked behind a traverse. Bang, gang, bang! No more bloody prisoners. No good Fritzes but dead 'uns'.[53]

In another British account by Bombardier "X" (pseudonym) with the title So This Was War! (1930), the editor Shaw Desmond writes in his introduction to this demythologization of World War I:

If you believe that "the only good Germans were dead Germans," and that every British Tommy lusted only to kill the Boche, and was without religion, read this boy [the bombardier] who writes: "We may curse and swear, but it's only bluster. Deep down in our hearts, we pray. The Germans must pray, too. They're in it, the same as we are. They have mothers, and wives, and children, and the same God as we have. It is very difficult, this War. I don't understand it a bit".[54]

From 1930 there is yet another British variant directed against the Germans: "There's only one good Boche, and that's a dead one."[55] There is no doubt that variants of the American proverb were used repeatedly by the British people against their German enemy, as can be seen from the cited examples and the statement "We used to say in the First War - the only good German's a dead German"[56] in Anthony Gilbert's novel Missing from Her Home (1969). Such variants show, of course, also the regrettable internationalization of the slanderous proverb and its underlying proverbial formula.
During World War II, Agatha Christie in her detective novel N or M? (1941) includes the following dialogue between a British woman and a German refugee that once again connects the traditional proverb by means of a telling wordplay with the Germans:


"You're a refugee. [...] This country's at War. You're a German." She smiled suddenly. "You can't expect the mere man in the street - literally the man in the street - to distinguish between bad Germans and good Germans, if I may put it so crudely."
He still stared at her. His eyes, so very blue, were poignant with suppressed feeling. Then, suddenly, he too smiled. he said:
"They said of Red Indians, did they not, that a good Indian was a dead Indian?" He laughed. "To be a good German I must be on time at my work. Please. Good morning."[57]

In yet another British war novel entitled Green Hazard (1945) by Manning Coles, one of the characters is described as a bit suspect by once again varying the proverb to a specific anti-German slogan: "Good chap, isn't he, though I find that placid manner rather terrifying sometimes. I know 'the only good German is a dead German', but he enjoys killing them. I don't. What's a duty to me is a pleasure to him."[58] And C. Day Lewis in his autobiographical work The Buried Day (1960) gives a final view of how British schoolboys knew of this proverbial slogan against the German enemy: "Certainly, racial hatred was not in the curriculum at Wilkie's [school]. We were not encouraged to think along the lines of 'the only good German is a dead German', nor were we affected by the adult hysteria which looted shops with German names above them and banned Beethoven from the concert halls. We played English v. German war games, of course, but they meant little more to us than Greeks v. Trojans [...]".[59] Besides the German enemy there were, of course, also the Japanese soldiers to contend with. It will surprise no one to learn that the proverb was adapted to fit this menace as well, as Richard Butler documents in his novel A Blood-Red Sun at Noon (1980) about the war theater in the Pacific: "'Ye believe all the propaganda our side have stuffed into your head - things like bishops blessing the flag and telling you God's on our side, not theirs. Generals telling you that the only good Jap is a dead Jap'."[60] In the late 1960's there also circulated the anti-Vietnamese variant "The only good gook is a dead gook."[61] And yet another "national" variant of the proverb appears in a book on early Spanish conquests in South America, stating that the native population doubtlessly thought of many of the intruders in terms of "The only good Spaniard was a dead Spaniard."[62] There is clearly no end to applying this powerful slogan against any military enemy as a propagandistic tool. Its adaptability as a national stereotype is clearly without limit.
The same is true for some of the following trivializations of the original proverbial invective. Some of them might even seem "humorous" in their absurdity, but it must not be forgotten that the actual proverb of "The only good Indian is a dead Indian" is subconsciously juxtaposed to these seemingly harmless variations, thus continuing the slur against Native Americans in a camouflaged manner. In the following list it will be noticed that the texts are usually built on the structure "The only good X is a dead X", but there are also some cases where one of the adjectives is altered:


1933: The only good poacher is a dead poacher.[63]
1942: The only good teacher is a dead teacher.[64]
1957: The only good mouse is a dead mouse.[65]
1964: The only good raccoon was a dead one.[66]
1968: The only good cop (pig) is a dead cop (pig).[67]
1970: The only good snake was a dead snake.[68]
1970: The only good body's a dead one.[69]
1970: The only good grades are good grades.[70]
1980: The only good cow's a dead cow.[71]
1986: The only good photojournalist is a live photojournalist.[72]
1990: The only good fish is a fresh fish.[73]
1991: The only good priest [is a dead priest].[74]

As can be readily seen from these variants, they express to a large degree anxieties of people about such things as murders (in detective novels) or animals such as raccoons, snakes, and mice. Of the 12 examples cited above it might be worthwhile to cite at least the "mouse"-variant in its literary context. Paul Gallico in his novel Thomasina (1957) describes in many pages the art of "mousehole watching" that is being practiced by one of his characters for whom this is "a full-time job":

It isn't catching mice, mind you, that is the most necessary. Anyone can catch a mouse; it is no trick at all; it is putting them off and keeping them down [by locating the mousehole(s)] that is important. You will hear sayings like - "The only good mouse is a dead mouse," but that is only half of it. The only good mouse is the mouse that isn't there at all. What you must do if you are at all principled about your work, is to conduct a war of nerves on the creatures. This calls for both time, energy and a good deal of cleverness which I wouldn't begrudge if I wasn't expected to do so many other things besides.[75]

Sure, this is a bit of humor perhaps, especially if one continues to read another two pages of this seemingly futile exercise, but the careful reader might have a rude awakening when the "mouse"-variant of the traditional proverb brings to mind the fate of the Native Americans being hunted down by superior weapons and strength just like a defenseless little mouse. Behind the animalistic trivialization of the slanderous proverb hovers inescapably the historical truth of human extermination.
The step from a mouse to scorning another racial minority besides Native Americans is far too quickly taken, as is documented in Joseph Carr's novel The Man with Bated Breath (1934). There a prejudiced white man from the southern United States makes the following comment about an African American servant named Jesse: "'That is one of the houseboys. Honest enough if you discount the saying in these parts that the only honest nigger is a dead nigger."[76] That this proverb about Native Americans has, in fact, been easily transferred to African Americans is documented in George Bernard Shaw's compelling introduction to his drama On the Rocks (1934). With Nazi Germany on the rise, he prophetically writes about Germany's plans of racial purity and Jewish extirpation in a section entitled "Present Exterminations", and in the next few paragraphs he gives a horrifying account of what he calls "Previous Attempts" of racial or nationalistic purists ridding themselves of unwanted members of society:


The extermination of what the exterminators call inferior races is as old as history. "Stone dead hath no fellow" said Cromwell when he tried to exterminate the Irish. "The only good nigger is a dead nigger" say the Americans of the Ku-Klux temperament. "Hates any man the thing he would not kill? said Shylock naively. But we white men, as we absurdly call ourselves in spite of the testimony of our looking glasses, regard all differently colored folk as inferior species. Ladies and gentlemen class rebellious laborers with vermin. [...] What we are confronted with now is a growing perception that if we desire a certain type of civilization and culture we must exterminate the sort of people who do not fit into it.[77]

Already in 1934 Shaw draws attention to the fact that racial fanatics refer to undesirable people as "vermin", thus robbing them of their basic human dignity. The Nazis did exactly that as time went on, degrading in particular the Jewish population with verbal and proverbial invectives to "vermin", as I have shown in my study on "Proverbs in Nazi Germany"[78] mentioned at the beginning of this essay. In the light of what happened in Germany and Europe under National Socialism in the many concentration camps, and in consideration of the harm done to Native Americans and African Americans or any other minority, any variant of the proverb "The only good Indian is a dead Indian" seems unacceptable, especially the "harmless" one about what to do with mice.
In the meantime the proverb as a direct slur against the Native Americans continues to be in use, an ever ready invective to be cited to keep the painful stereotype alive. In John Buchan's frontier novel Salute to Adventures (1915) a young man is willing to give the native population the benefit of the doubt by exclaiming "'But they tell me the Indians are changed nowadays. They say they've settled down to peaceful ways like any Christian'." But to this a more knowledgeable old-timer answers grimly and without any feeling of reconciliation or understanding about the plight of the original inhabitants of this land: "'Put your head into a catamount's mouth, if you please, but never trust an Indian. The only good kind is the dead kind. I tell you we're living on the edge of hell. It may come this year or next year or five years hence, but come it will'."[79] Fear and hate combine to a point of accepting such blind judgments, and in yet another detective novel by Carolyn Wells with the despicable title The Wooden Indian (1935) a person reacts to "the furious wars they [the Indians] waged" with the piece of wisdom, "'I agree with Ben Jonson [1573?-1637], or whoever said it, that the only good Indian is a dead Indian'."[80] General Philip Sheridan as the authoritative source is forgotten, and Ben Jonson will do just as well to add some credence to this cruel claim, even though he wrote his plays and poems in England in the early 17th century. Observe also such typical paragraphs as the following two: In Laura Ingalls Wilder's celebrated children's book Little House on the Prairie (1935) thousands of young readers found the following passage that must have ingrained the proverb in their minds:


Mrs. Scott said she hoped to goodness they would have no trouble with Indians. Mr. Scott had heard rumors of trouble. She said, "Land knows, they'd never do anything with this country themselves. All they do is roam around over it like wild animals. Treaties or no treaties, the land belongs to folks that'll farm it. That's only common sense and justice." She did not know why the government made treaties with Indians. The only good Indian was a dead Indian. The very thought of Indians made her blood run cold.[81]

And in Rosemary Taylor's novel Chicken Every Sunday (1943) one reads "Miss Gilley was scared to death of Indians. Even though Father told her there hadn't been any bad Indians around Tucson for years, Miss Gilley still felt the only good Indian was a dead Indian."[82] Rationality is not part of stereotyping, but changing the truth and perpetuating lies are definite ingredients. And who would ever have thought that one of America's classical children's books played its part in spreading the frontier stereotype to younger generations who had nothing to fear from Native Americans living on isolated reservations!
There is no end in sight as far as eradicating this proverb from common parlance. Maxwell Bodenheim's comment in his book on My Life and Loves in Greenwich Village (1954) appears to be saying something like that: "There is no good Indian but a dead Indian, we are told by the grandsons of men who have been scalped,"[83] i.e., the image of the Indian savages will always remain among us. The New Yorker magazine in 1957 even published a disgusting cartoon showing several Native Americans around a camp fire, with one of them observing: "I say the only good Indian is a dead Indian. Present company excepted, of course."[84] Is that so-called Eastern intellectual sophistication or rather a sign that even the crème de la crème of this society is not free of prejudice? Who then can be surprised to hear common people making such generalizations as "That only went to show that the only good Indian was a dead Indian"[85] or "'They're the Indians - and the only good Injun is a dead one, you can take that from me'."[86] And is it conceivable that people actually compose jokes around this most hurtful slander against Native Americans, just as terribly sick minds have come up with Auschwitz jokes?[87] The cartoon in the New Yorker just mentioned is a small example of this type of sick humor, but even more upsetting is a short story by Mack Reynolds with the suspect title Good Indian (1964). In its mere nine pages the author describes three Indians coming to see Mortimer Dowling, Director of the Department of Indian Affairs, who thought that "the last Indian died almost ten years ago". Yet here they suddenly are and awaken the Director out of his cushy job of doing nothing. The Indians claim that they have come to sign a treaty for themselves and the fifty-five surviving members of the Seminole tribe, and they are well prepared to do so with LL.D.s from Harvard. After some arguing back and forth they declare that they want Florida, and at the height of frustration the Director comes up with the idea that it is time to have lunch. This is where the author makes a break in his grotesque narrative, only to pick it up again with the Director sitting at his desk the next morning in absolutely miserable bodily shape. His receptionist Millie Fullbright observes how disgusting it was of him to get "absolutely stoned" when he finally had something to do for a change. But the hung-over Director only points with his finger at the signed treaty on his desk, upon which the receptionist exclaims in astonishment:


"Heavens to Betsy, the treaty. And all three of their signatures on it. How in the world did you ever -"
Mortimer Dowling allowed himself a self-satisfied leer. "Miss Fullbright haven't you ever heard the old saying The only good Indian is a dead -"
Millie's hand went to her mouth. "Mr. Dowling, you mean ... you put the slug on all three of those poor Seminoles? But ... but how about the remaining fifty-five of them. You can't possibly kill them all!"
"Let me finish," Mortimer Dowling growled. "I was about to say, The only good Indian is a dead drunk Indian. If you think I'm hanging over, you should see Charlie Horse and his wisenheimer pals. Those redskins couldn't handle firewater back in the old days when the Dutch did them out of Manhattan with a handful of beads and a gallon of applejack and they still can't. Now, go away and do a crossword puzzle, or something."[88]

The joke centers around the proverb "The only good Indian is a dead Indian", but the author does not only base his short story on this terrible stereotype, he also alludes, of course, to the other proverbial invective of being "drunker than an Indian". This is a tasteless, despicable, and racially motivated joke at the expense of Native Americans, and it shows the tenacity of proverbial stereotypes in today's United States of America.
Six years after Mack Reynolds' ill-conceived short story about the proverbial "Good Indian" appeared, Dee Brown published his masterpiece Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee (1970) that contains the already mentioned chapter on "The Only Good Indian Is a Dead Indian" about the savage exploits of General Philip Sheridan and many of his officers and troops. Anybody having read this book and especially this chapter cannot possibly see any humor in this proverb that had its origin during the frontier wars. Far too long has it given justification to the literal and spiritual killing of Native Americans. In its poetic brevity is expressed the national shame of a people whose majority succumbed to the world-view that Native Americans had to give up their identity or be killed. The fact that this tiny piece of folk wisdom is still current today is a very sad comment on this society and its behavior towards Native Americans. As long as there remain prejudices and stereotypes about this minority population, the proverb will not cease to exist. Wherever it will be uttered or written, it will expose blatant inhumanity towards the Native Americans. A conscious attempt to refrain from using the proverb "The only good Indian is a dead Indian" might at least help to bring about some changes towards a better life for Native Americans, one of pride and dignity as is befitting for the indigenous people of this great country - better the proverb die a long overdue death than any Native American get hurt by it again.






Notes

See Otto von Reinsberg-Düringsfeld, Internationale Titulaturen, 2 vols. (Leipzig: Hermann Fries, 1863; rpt. with an introduction by Wolfgang Mieder. Hildesheim: Georg Olms, 1992); Henri Gaidoz and Paul Sébillot, Blasons populaires de la France (Paris: Léopold Cerf, 1884); and Abraham A. Roback, A Dictionary of International Slurs (Cambridge/Massachusetts: Sci-Art Publishers, 1944; rpt. Waukesha/Wisconsin: Maledicta Press, 1979).

See William Hugh Jansen, "A Culture's Stereotypes and Their Expression in Folk Clichés," Southwestern Journal of Anthropology, 13 (1957), 184-200; Américo Paredes, "Proverbs and Ethnic Stereotyping," Proverbium, no. 15 (1970), 511-513; Mariana D. Birnbaum, "On the Language of Prejudice," Western Folklore, 30 (1971), 247-268; Alan Dundes, "Slurs International: Folk Comparisons of Ethnicity and National Character," Southern Folklore Quarterly, 39 (1975), 15-38; Uta Quasthoff, "The Uses of Stereotype in Everyday Argument," Journal of Pragmatics, 2 (1978), 1-48; and Wolfgang Mieder, "Proverbs in Nazi Germany: The Promulgation of Anti-Semitism and Stereotypes through Folklore," Journal of American Folklore, 95 (1982), 435-464.

See for example J.C.H. Duijker and N.H. Fridja, National Character and National Stereotypes (Amsterdam: North-Holland Publishing Company, 1960); Bruno Bettelheim and Morris Janowitz, Social Change and Prejudice, Including the Dynamics of Prejudice (Glencoe/Illinois: Free Press, 1964); George E. Simpson and J. Milton Yinger, Racial and Cultural Minorities: An Analysis of Prejudice and Discrimination (New York: Harper and Row, 1965); and Sander L. Gilman, Jewish Self-Hatred: Anti-Semitism and the Hidden Language of the Jews (Baltimore/Maryland: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1986).

See Elizabeth Arthur, "The Concept of the Good Indian: An Albany River 19th Century Managerial Perspective," Canadian Journal of Native Studies, 5 (1985), 61-74; and Albert K. Weinberg, Manifest Destiny: A Study of Nationalist Expansionism in American History (Baltimore/Maryland: Johns Hopkins [University] Press, 1935).

Quoted from Roy Harvey Pearce, Savagism and Civilization: A Study of the Indian and the American Mind (Baltimore/Maryland: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1967), p. 55. The banquet where the toast was given is reported in the journal of Major James Norris, in Frederick Cook (ed.), Journals of the Military Expedition of Major General John Sullivan (Auburn/New York: Knapp, Peck & Thomson, 1887), pp. 225-226.

See Priscilla Shames, The Long Hope: A Study of American Indian Stereotypes in American Popular Fiction, 1890-1950 (Diss. University of California at Los Angeles, 1969).

Dee Brown, Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee. An Indian History of the American West (New York: Henry Holt and Company, 1990 [1st ed. 1970]), pp. 147-174.

Waubageshig (ed.), The Only Good Indian: Essays by Canadian Indians (Toronto: New Press, 1970), p. vi.

Ralph E. and Natasha A. Friar, The Only Good Indian ... The Hollywood Gospel (New York: Drama Book Specialists, 1972), p. 264.

See Rayna Green, The Only Good Indian: The Image of the Indian in American Vernacular Culture (Diss. Indiana University, 1973), pp. 56-65. A mere short paragraph (pp. 56-57) is dedicated to a general remark concerning the proverb "The only good Indian is a dead Indian".

For references see Roback (note 1), p. 181; Burton Stevenson, The Home Book of Proverbs, Maxims, and Famous Phrases (New York: Macmillan, 1948), p. 1236; Mitford Mathews, A Dictionary of Americanisms on Historical Principles (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1951), pp. 866-876; Archer Taylor and Bartlett Jere Whiting, A Dictionary of American Proverbs and Proverbial Phrases, 1820-1880 (Cambridge/Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 1958), p. 199; William and Mary Morris, Dictionary of Word and Phrase Origins (New Yorker: Harper & Row, 1962), pp. 189-190; Ramon F. Adams, Western Words: A Dictionary of the American West (Norman/Oklahoma: University of Oklahoma Press, 1968), pp. 159-161; Eric Partridge, A Dictionary of Catch Phrases (New York: Stein and Day, 1977), p. 88; Bartlett Jere Whiting, Early American Proverbs and Proverbial Phrases (Cambridge/Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 1977), p. 233; Neil Ewart, Everyday Phrases: Their Origins and Meanings (Poole/Dorset: Blandford Press, 1983), p. 77; James Rogers, The Dictionary of Clichés (New York: Facts on File Publications, 1985), p. 141; Laurence Urdang, Walter Hunsinger, and Nancy LaRoche, Picturesque Expressions: A Thematic Dictionary (Detroit: Gale Research Company, 1985), pp. 82, 560, and 709; Bartlett Jere Whiting, Modern Proverbs and Proverbial Phrases (Cambridge/Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 1989), p. 337; and Doris Cray, Catch Phrases, Clichés and Idioms (Jefferson/North Carolina: McFarland, 1990), pp. 114-115.

Green (note 10), p. 57.

Whiting, Early American Proverbs (note 11), p. 233.

Stevenson (note 11), p. 2507; Taylor and Whiting (note 11), p. 199; and Wolfgang Mieder, Stewart A. Kingsbury, and Kelsie Harder, A Dictionary of American Proverbs (New York: Oxford University Press, 1992), p. 329.

Mieder et al. (note 14), p. 329.

Mieder et al. (note 14), p. 329.

Hon. Alfred Benjamin Meacham, Wigwam and War-Path; Or the Royal Chief in Chains (Boston: John P. Dale, 1875), p. 515 I owe the following three important references from Meacham to Jan Harold Brunvand, A Dictionary of Proverbs and Proverbial Phrases from Books Published by Indiana Authors before 1890 (Bloomington/Indiana: Indiana University Press, 1961), p. 75.

Meacham (note 17), p. 198.

Hon. Alfred Benjamin Meacham, Wi-ne-ma (The Woman-Chief) and Her People (Hartford/Connecticut: American Publishing Company, 1876), p. 35.

Quoted from The Congressional Globe: Containing the Debates and Proceedings of the Second Session [of the] Fortieth Congress (City of Washington: Office of the Congressional Globe, 1868), p. 2638. I owe the reference to this significant quotation to Stevenson (note 11), p. 1236. See also Mieder et al. (note 14), p. 329.

Major William Shepherd, Prairie Experiences in Handling Cattle and Sheep (London: Chapman and Hall, 1884), pp. 61-63.

Alfred Gurney, A Ramble through the United States. A Lecture Delivered (in part) in S. Barnabas' School, February 3, 1886 (London: William Clowes, 1886), pp. 28-29.

See Archer Taylor, The Proverb (Cambridge/Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 1931; rpt. Hatboro/Pennsylvania: Folklore Associates, 1962; rpt. again with an introduction and bibliography by Wolfgang Mieder. Bern: Peter Lang, 1985), p. 38.

Edward S. Ellis, The History of Our Country: From the Discovery of America to the Present Time (Cincinnati/Ohio: Jones Brothers, 1900 [1st ed. 1895), p. 1483.

See Paul Andrew Hutton, Phil Sheridan and His Army (Lincoln/Nebraska: University of Nebraska Press, 1985), pp. 180-200 (esp. p. 180).

Stephen E. Ambrose, Crazy Horse and Custer: The Parallel Lives of Two American Warriors (New York: Doubleday, 1975), p. 310. I owe this reference to my colleague James Lubker.

Brig.-Gen. Michael V. Sheridan, Personal Memoirs of Philip Henry Sheridan. With an Account of His Life from 1871 to His Death, in 1888. New and enlarged edition (New York: D. Appleton, 1904), vol. II, pp. 464-465.

Carl Coke Rister, Border Command: General Phil Sheridan in the West (Norman/Oklahoma: University of Oklahoma Press, 1944; rpt. Westport/Connecticut: Greenwood Press, 1974), pp. VII-VIII.

See Rister (note 28), p. 127.

I was unable to locate the entire speech in any of the many volumes on Theodore Roosevelt that I checked. The passage is quoted from Hermann Hagedorn, Roosevelt in the Bad Lands (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1921), p. 355. Parts of this passage (always citing Hagedorn) are also cited in Albert B. Hart and Herbert R. Ferleger (eds.), Theodore Roosevelt Cyclopedia (New York: Roosevelt Memorial Association, 1941), p. 251; Richard Hofstadter, The American Political Tradition and the Men Who Made It (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1968), p. 209; Shames (note ), p. 32; and Thomas G. Dyer, Theodore Roosevelt and the Idea of Race (Baton Rouge/Louisiana: Louisiana State University Press, 1980), p. 86. The latter book includes an important chapter on Roosevelt's prejudicial views of the "Indians" (pp. 69-88). It might be of interest that this statement did not make it into W.M. Handy's Maxims of Theodore Roosevelt (Chicago: Madison Book, 1903; rpt. Upper Saddle River/New Jersey: Literature House, 1970), but the compiler does cite Roosevelt's slogan "A good American is a good American" (p. 81).

See W. Gurney Benham, Complete Book of Quotations (New York: G.P. Putnam's Sons, 1926), p. 459b.

See H.L. Mencken, A New Dictionary of Quotations on Historical Principles (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1960), p. 585; and Bergen Evans, Dictionary of Quotations (New York: Avenel Books, 1968), p. 345.

See Gorton Carruth and Eugene Ehrlich, The Harper Book of American Quotations (New York: Harper & Row, 1988), p. 55; and John Daintith et al., Who Said What When: A Chronological Dictionary of Quotations (London: Bloomsbury, 1988; rpt. New York: Hippocrene Books, 1991), p. 167.

See Burton Stevenson, The Home Book of Quotations, 5th ed. (New York: Dodd, Mead & Company, 1947 [1st ed. 1934]), p. 976.

See The Oxford Dictionary of Quotations (London: Oxford University Press, 1941), p. 400a; 2nd ed. (London: Oxford University Press, 1953), p. 499; and 3rd ed. (London: Oxford University Press, 1979), p. 505. See now also Paul F. Boller and John George, They Never Said It: A Book of Fake Quotes, Misquotes, and Misleading Attributions (New York: Oxford University Press, 1989), p. 118.

See Christopher Morley (ed.), Familiar Quotations, 11th ed. (Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 1941), p. 594; 12th ed. (1949), p. 594; 13th ed. (1955), p. 653b; Emily Morison Beck (ed.), Familiar Quotations, 14th ed. (Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 1968), p. 742a; and 15th ed. (1980), p. 610.

See Henry Davidoff, The Pocket Book of Quotations (New York: Pocket Books, 1942), p. 153; and J.M. and M.J. Cohen, The Penguin Dictionary of Quotations (Middlesex/England: Penguin Books, 1960), p. 364.

Stuckey Vincent Lean, Lean's Collectanea (Bristol: J.W. Arrowsmith, 1902; rpt. Detroit: Gale Research Company, 1969), vol. I, p. 282.

Taylor (note 23), pp. 9-10.

Roback (note 1), p. 181.

Samuel Eliot Morison, Builders of the Bay Colony (Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1930), pp. 295-296.

Leroy V. Eid, "Liberty: The Indian Contribution to the American Revolution," The Midwest Quarterly: A Journal of Contemporary Thought, 22 (1981), 290-291 (the whole essay on pp. 279-298). I owe this reference to my colleague Dennis Mahoney.

See note 20.

See Stevenson (note 11), p. 1236 (with 6 references from 1868-1943); Mathews (note 11), p. 715 (with 4 references from 1868-1948); Ramon (note 11), p. 128 (with 1 reference, but no date); John A. Simpson, The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Proverbs (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1982), p. 98 (with 8 references from 1868-1980); Whiting, Modern Proverbs (note 11), p. 337 (with 24 references from 1908-1970); and Mieder et al. (note 14), p. 329 (with references to Simpson and Whiting).

Helen Pearce, "Folk Sayings in a Pioneer Family of Western Oregon," California Folklore Quarterly, 5 (1946), 236-237 (the whole article on pp. 229-242).

See Mac E. Barrick, "Proverbs and Sayings from Cumberland County [Pennsylvania]," Keystone Folklore Quarterly, 8 (1963), 170 (the whole article on pp. 139-203); and Frances M. Barbour, Proverbs and Proverbial Phrases of Illinois (Carbondale/Illinois: Southern Illinois University Press, 1965), p. 98. Stewart A. Kingsbury also includes the proverb as an example of "Names in Proverbs and Proverbial Sayings," Festschrift in Honor of Allen Walker Read, ed. by Laurence E. Seits (DeKalb/Illinois: North Central Name Society, 1988), p. 130 (the whole article on pp. 116-132).

This text was collected by Candace Bettencourt from Patricia Davis on March 6, 1969, in Berkeley, California. The student has added a note with a reference to Stevenson (see note 11), who mentions that the proverb is usually attributed to General Philip Sheridan. I would like to thank Frances Fischer and Alan Dundes for making this and the following two texts available to me.

This text was recorded by Linda Armstrong from Donald Geddes on November 19, 1977, in Palo Alto, California.

This text was collected by Anne Artoux from Marge Donovan on November 28, 1986, in San Mateo, California.

See Mieder et al. (note 14), p. 329. It is interesting to note that David Kin's unscholarly Dictionary of American Proverbs (New York: Philosophical Library, 1955) does not include this proverb.

Mary Roberts Rinehart, The Circular Staircase (New York: Grosset & Dunlap, 1908), p. 354. I would like to thank Patricia Mardeusz, Barbara Lambert, and Ruth Nolan from the Reference Department of the Bailey/Howe Library at the University of Vermont for getting many of the novels cited below for me through interlibrary loan.

Edgar Rice Burroughs, A Princess of Mars (New York: Ballantine Books, 1987), p. 72. The book was originally published with the title Under the Moon of Mars by Norman Bean (pseudonym) in All-Story Magazine as a six-part serial, February through July, 1912.

Robert Graves, Good-bye to All That (Garden City/New York: Doubleday, 1957 [1st ed. 1929]), p. 184-185.

Bombardier "X" (pseudonym), So This Was War! The Truth about the Western and Eastern Fronts Revealed, ed. by Shaw Desmond (London: Hutchinson, 1930), pp. 11-12 (preface).

Cited from Whiting, Modern Proverbs (note 11) p. 337. Whiting claims that this variant is cited in Siegfried Sassoon, Memoirs of a Fox-Hunting Man (London: Faber & Faber, 1930), p. 16, but I was not able to find it in that work.

Anthony Gilbert, Missing from Her Home (New York: Random House, 1969), p. 124.

Agatha Christie, N or M? (New York: Dell, 1941), p. 27.

Manning Coles, Green Hazard (London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1945), p. 237.

C. Day Lewis, The Buried Day (New York: Harper & Brothers, 1960), p. 86.

Richard Butler, A Blood-Red Sun at Noon (Sydney: William Collins, 1980), p. 207.

I owe this reference to my colleague Kevin McKenna who remembers it from his student years at Oklahoma.

L. Sprague and Catherine C. de Camp, Ancient Ruins and Archeology (New York: Ballantine Books, 1964), p. 270.

Vernon Loder, Suspicion (London: William Collins, 1933), p. 173.

Stephen Leacock, My Remarkable Uncle and Other Sketches (New York: Dodd, Mead & Company, 1942), p. 64.

Paul Gallico, Thomasina (London: Michael Joseph, 1957), p. 40.

Leonard Lee Rue, The World of the Raccoon (Philadelphia: J.B. Lippincott, 1964), p. 82.

I owe this text to my colleague Kevin McKenna who remembers it from oral use as a student in Oklahoma.

Arthur H. Lewis, Carnival (New York: Trident Press, 1970), p. 101.

Tony Kenrick, The Only Good Body's a Dead One (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1970), book title.

Ernest Priestley, "The Only Good Grades Are Good Grades. A New Teacher Confronts the Grading System and Tells What He Finds," Changing Education, 4, no. 4 (Spring 1970), p. 17 (title of magazine article).

Barry Wilson, "The Only Good Cow's a Dead Cow. Huge Profits from Subsidized slaughter for EEC Farmers on the Fiddle," New Statesman (February 29, 1980), p. 317 (title of magazine article).

Howard Chapnick, "Since the Only Good Photojournalist is a Live Photojournalist, Beirut Underlines the Difference Between Dedication and Damnfoolishness," Popular Photography, 93 (January 1986), p. 18 (title of magazine article).

Jacques Pépin, "Bluefish Fans Know This: The Only Good Fish Is a Fresh Fish," The New York Times, 140 (October 17, 1990), p. C10 (title of newspaper article).

Mark Richard Zubro, The Only Good Priest (New York: St. Martin's Press, 1991), shortened book title.

Gallico (note 64), p. 40.

Joseph B. Carr, The Man with Bated Breath (New York: Grosset & Dunlap, 1934), p. 33.

Quoted from Bernard Shaw, Plays Political (London: Penguin Books, 1986), pp. 144-146

See Mieder (note 2).

John Buchan, Salute to Adventures (New York: Thomas Nelson, 1915), pp. 74-75.

Carolyn Wells, The Wooden Indian (New York: Blue Ribbon Books, 1935), p. 35.

Laura Ingalls Wilder, Little House on the Prairie (New York: Harper & Brothers, 1953 [1st ed. 1935]), p. 211. The reference is located in chapter 17: "Pa Goes to Town".

Rosemary Taylor, Chicken Every Sunday. My Life with Mother's Boarders (New York: Whittlesey House, 1943), pp. 6-7.

Maxwell Bodenheim, My Life and Loves in Greenwich Village (New York: Bridgehead Books, 1954), p. 130.

New Yorker (January 19, 1957), p. 38.

Mignon G. Eberhart, El Rancho Rio (Roslyn/New York: Walter J. Black, 1970), p. 128.

Anthony Price, The '44 Vintage (Garden City/New York: Doubleday, 1978), p. 118.

See Alan Dundes, "Auschwitz Jokes," Western Folklore, 38 (1979), 145-157; rpt. with a postscript in A. Dundes, Cracking Jokes: Studies of Sick Humor Cycles & Stereotypes (Berkeley/California: Ten Speed Press, 1987), pp. 19-38.

Mack Reynolds, Good Indian, included in John W. Campbell (ed.), Analog II (Garden City/New York: Doubleday, 1964), p. 54 (the entire short story on pp. 46-54).
Wolfgang Mieder
Department of German and Russian
University of Vermont
Burlington, Vermont 05405
USA

top

A Future Worth Living!
by Chaz Bufe
1998
published by See Sharp Press
Box 1731
Tucson Arizona 85702
 

Preface

For the last quarter century, the American left has been in disarray. The
(unfounded) optimism of the 1960s has given way to the pessimism of the70s,80s
and90s. As we near the year 2000, the left simply doesn't exist on the national
level except as a myriad of single-interest groups - pro-choice, environmental,
animal rights, and gay rights groups being the most prominent. To put it another
way, since the 1960s the focus of the left has narrowed. In the60s there was, at
least in some quarters, a feeling (however delusional) that real, major change -
a social revolution - was possible, indeed inevitable; and many activists of the
time had hope in their hearts and revolution as their goal. In contrast, most
activists today have no hope for major change (at least any time soon), and the
single-issue battles they're fighting are almost exclusively defensive battles,
which seem very unlikely to foster broad social change. As well, because their
struggles seem, ultimately, so hopeless, single-interest groups are plagued by
burnout and membership turnover. The end result is that corporate capitalism
reigns triumphant, and what little opposition to it that exists is weak and
divided.
How did this come to pass? And what can we do about it? Answering these
questions is the purpose of this pamphlet. Because we're in such a disorganized
state, I do not consider grand schemes for the reorganization of society;
instead, I look at principles, practices, and projects that can help the left
rejuvenate itself, and that can, I believe, lead to real social change, if
widely adopted. (Those interested in blueprints for a future social/economic
order should look at the valuable works of Murray Bookchin, Cornelius
Castoriadis, Michael Albert, and Tom Greco.)
In order to bring about meaningful change, it's first necessary to understand
the society in which we live. So, I begin by looking at the social and economic
conditions that induce fear, loneliness, violence, and economic insecurity. I
then examine the conditioning processes and agents that produce the masses of
people who accept such conditions with hardly a whimper. Those that I examine
include sexual repression, the patriarchal family, the education system,
organized religion, and the mass media.
Continuing from there, I take a brief look at the two major revolutionary
ideologies of the past century, anarchism and marxism; and I analyze the very
different reasons why both have failed. I then look at some of the
self-generated problems that have rendered the American left so impotent. And,
finally, I suggest a number of principles, procedures and projects that, if
widely adopted, could lead to a resurgence of the left and, eventually, to
social revolution - a juster, freer, happier world.
These suggestions are _not_ a call to self-sacrifice. Rather, they recognize
that means determine ends, and that making oneself miserable is not a good way
to eliminate social misery. Thus, my suggestions are designed as much to help
social activists lead happier, more productive lives in the here and now as they
are to transform society in the long run.
- Chaz Bufe, March 21, 1998
 

A Future Worth Living!
 

"There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil to one who is striking at
the root." - Henry David Thoreau, Walden

We live in a world which is deeply unsatisfying for most people, a world in
which many of our most basic needs - for love, peace, freedom, security, and
meaning in life - are not being met. Most of us face constant worry about
economic survival, loneliness and isolation, or fear of it, and a constant
feeling that there's never enough of anything good to go around, be it love, sex
or money.
As well, for many - probably most - people, there's a constant fear of violence.
And for even more, there's a feeling of powerlessness. The end result is
hopelessness, apathy, and often bitterness, meanness, and, all too often,
outright sadism.
Why do these conditions exist? There's no grand conspiracy, but there are a
number of reasons for this lousy situation, and it's important to understand
what we're dealing with if we're going to change it.
Insecurity and Perceived Scarcity
The economic situation is a major reason for our present societal difficulties.
At present, most people in this country own almost nothing. The top 1% of the
population own more than the bottom 90% of the population combined. The top 1%
own 40% of the nation's wealth and the next 9% own another 30%, which means that
the top 10% own 70% of the nation's wealth; that leaves another 30% of the
wealth for the remaining 90% of us, with most of that distributed toward the top
end. So, the bottom 50% of the population own nearly nothing - maybe a car and,
if we're lucky, a heavily mortgaged house. It's also worth noting that there has
been a distinct trend over the last 20 years or so toward a redistribution of
wealth toward the upper end of the scale. In other words, since around the time
Reagan was elected president, the rich have been getting richer and the poor
have been getting poorer; and this trend is continuing under Clinton.
At the same time - notwithstanding the recent small increases - real wages have
declined roughly 15% since the mid 1970s. The end result is that people are
having to work harder and longer to make ends meet. To top things off, the era
of job security is long gone. Instead, we live in the era of corporate
takeovers, "downsizing," and "restructuring," and in which our job skills
seemingly become obsolete every few years.
All of this leads directly to feelings of loneliness, insecurity, and scarcity.
Most of us are so preoccupied with paying the rent or mortgage and with keeping
our families fed that we have little time for social contacts and, since we're
in such a hard space, naturally assume that we live in a world of scarcity.
Another result is that because of very real economic insecurity, artificial
scarcity, and feelings of personal powerlessness, a great many of us spend our
entire lives working at jobs we barely tolerate, if not outright hate. To put it
another way, we're stuck on the bottom rungs of Maslow's hierarchy of needs, and
never move up the ladder to satisfy our creative needs and the need for
self-actualization.
The Problem of Violence
Compounding the economic insecurities most of us face is the problem of physical
danger, and the fear of it. Many of the reasons for violence can be traced to
economic inequalities, but even more basic is the common belief in violence and
coercion as means to an end. This belief is so pervasive that we're often not
even aware of it. Perhaps the most important example of this is government.
Belief in the necessity of coercion is the foundation of government. Belief in
the necessity of coercive organization, that is, government, springs from the
belief that people are incapable of voluntary cooperation, and that the only way
to get them to behave in a civilized manner is to force them to do so - at the
point of a gun if necessary. This leads to things such as extortion (that is,
taxation) and military conscription. Ultimately, it all boils down to the belief
that it's OK to push people around if you're powerful enough to do it.
This belief is, of course, reflected in daily life. All too many of us consider
violence a means to get what we want, be it money, possessions, or dominance.
There are millions of petty criminals who use violence - muggings, armed
robberies, and car jackings - to get what they want. And there are literally
millions of other thugs who intimidate, beat and rape those weaker than
themselves - often, their wives and children - in order to (temporarily) feel
the power and dominance that they crave. What makes this even more destructive
than it is in and of itself is that children see this type of behavior modeled
by their parents and other adults, and then imitate it when they're adults, at
which point their children see it modeled, and later imitate it, continuing the
chain through generation after generation. The end result is that we live in a
culture of violence, in which many, many people live with violence on a
day-to-day basis, and in which almost everyone stands at least some risk of
being violently assaulted.
Compounding all of this, psychologically, is the constant portrayal (and often
glamorization) of violence in the media. The end result is that even those of us
at low risk of becoming victims are often at least unconsciously preoccupied by
the possibility of it, and almost no one can see any solution to violence except
more violence, usually in institutional form - more cops, more prisons, more
sadistic sentencing, and more barbaric prison conditions. That these things do
nothing to eliminate the roots of violence is hardly surprising.
The Role of Patriarchal Religions
What makes things even worse is that most people not only see violence as the
solution to violence, but that they think they have the right to use violence
and coercion to force other people to be "moral." This belief comes squarely
from the "thou shalls" and "thou shall nots" of patriarchal religions such as
christianity and islam, both of which have long and bloody histories of
murdering and torturing nonbelievers, nonconformists, and heretics. So, it's no
surprise that those who adhere to such religions have no hesitation in using
violence to force others to submit, or simply use it for the sheer joy of
inflicting pain. A couple of quotes from the bible illustrate the religious
submit-or-die attitude:
But these mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring
hither, and slay them before me. - Luke 19:27
And he that blasphemeth the name of the Lord, he shall surely be put to death.
- Leviticus 24:16
The ironic thing about all this is that many of the religious folk most intent
upon using violence and coercion to enforce "morality" are themselves quite
fearful of becoming victims of violence. Yet the cruel policies they support
produce violence.
A good example of this association of violence with "morality" is the war on
drugs. It's painfully obvious that drug prohibition is not only destroying our
civil liberties, but is also producing a lot of violence and property crime
because of the combination of illegality and high profit margins; this results
in turf wars by dealers, and crimes committed by drug addicts to support the
high price of their habits. All of this should be, and is, obvious, but there is
so much fear, authoritarianism and sadism in the general population, and so
little ability to analyze data, that the war on drugs continues. And we all pay
the price for it through destruction of our liberties, sky-high taxes, and the
creation of what could well become a police state.
This, however, should be no surprise, given that another effect of patriarchal
religions is the degradation of human reason. One of the primary messages of
patriarchal religions seems to be, "You have a brain, but don't use it. Believe,
don't think." Two of the most famous manifestations of this attitude are the
Catholic Index of Prohibited Books, which was in force for hundreds of years,
and the contract that Iran's fundamentalist government put out on Salman
Rushdie's life over a decade ago.
The following quote from Pope Gregory XVI's encyclical, Mirari Vox, provides a
good example of the religious attitude toward the human intellect:
From the polluted fountain of indifferentism flows that absurd and erroneous
doctrine, or rather, raving, which claims and defends liberty of conscience
for everyone. From this comes, in a word, the worst plague of all, namely,
unrestrained liberty of opinion and freedom of speech.
(This encyclical, incidentally, was written in relatively modern times, in the
mid-19th century; Gregory XVI was pope from 1831 to 1846.)
An even more direct statement deriding human intellect comes from Martin Luther
in his Table Talk: "Reason is the greatest enemy that faith has."
This distrust and depreciation of human intelligence has influence far beyond
the religious sphere. It results in a general inability to think critically, in
contempt for logic and reason, and in the widespread holding of absurd beliefs
that can't stand up to a moment's critical examination. In the United States,
the most christian country in the western world, this is especially pronounced.
In regard to even slightly complex questions, most people in this country are
simply incapable of applying logical processes to observed facts in order to
arrive at the most probably correct conclusions. Worse, they don't even care
that they can't do this, and often have contempt for those who can. Many people
actually believe that their own wishful thinking and uninformed opinions are
every bit as valid as scientific theories formulated after years of careful
study and testing. (Probably the most blatant current example of this tendency
is the equation of religious dogma with scientific theory in so-called
scientific creationism, which presents biblical myths as "science.") The end
result of all this is that we have a population which is not only frustrated,
fearful and mean, but that doesn't think very well.
Put another way, our society faces a grave spiritual crisis: most people feel so
alienated, hopeless, and out of control, that they've abandoned (if they ever
pursued) intellectual honesty and the search for truth, and instead blindly grab
at any concepts and any movements, no matter how absurd, that seem to offer an
easy way out of (or even a glimmer of hope in) what they perceive as a hopeless
situation. Cults such as Heaven's Gate and the People's Temple are only the most
obvious manifestation of this desperate longing for certainty in an uncertain
world. Astrology, fundamentalist christianity, and narcissistic,
you-create-your-own-reality belief systems are less dramatic, but equally real,
manifestations of this desperate, facts-be-damned longing for certainty. What
all of these things have in common is that while they can't stand up to a
moment's critical scrutiny, they provide easy answers. To some extent they
relieve their believers of the "burden" of being critically minded adults; and
many of them almost entirely relieve their believers of that "burden." What
makes many providers of easy answers, especially fundamentalist religions, truly
dangerous is that they not only appeal to the most intellectually craven parts
of the human psyche, but that they organize their believers into herds intent on
imposing their beliefs on others.
(Even though they may appear very dissimilar to the irrational beliefs of those
searching for certainty, other absurd common beliefs, such as those in alien
abductions and widespread satanic ritual abuse, serve a similar function.
Although many believers in alien abductions and satanic ritual abuse cast
themselves as victims, their beliefs, like those of new-age narcissists, provide
them comfort - their beliefs supply a handy excuse for personal insecurity,
neuroses, and lack of accomplishment in life. Like other irrational beliefs,
these particular beliefs provide their holders with a means of escaping the
"burden" of being responsible, critically minded adults.)
Of course, there are other factors involved in producing current social reality,
and we'll get to them shortly. But patriarchal religions and the degradation of
human reason have played a larger role than is commonly recognized.
Patriarchal Religions and Competition-Based Economics
At the dawn of the modern state, patriarchal religion combined with
competition-based economics to produce some truly toxic effects. Put briefly,
these effects were the degradation and sexual enslavement of women, and the
creation of the patriarchal family.
The available evidence indicates that relations between the sexes in human
societies tended to be relatively egalitarian during prehistoric (hunting and
gathering) times. But that all changed about 8,000 years ago when human beings
began to practice agriculture (large-scale food production). That made it
possible, for the first time in human history, for people to create and to
accumulate surplus goods on a relatively large scale. There's fairly convincing
evidence that almost as soon as this happened inequalities arose (or at least
greatly intensified) between the sexes, and that a ruling elite first appeared.
There are various theories to explain this sudden inequality. The one that makes
the most sense to me is the theory that during prehistoric times woman's primary
economic role was that of gatherer. Once man began to practice agriculture, the
primary economic role of woman disappeared, and with it the basis for her
equality with man. With that, man began to call the shots.
Since one of the functions of a ruling class is to perpetuate itself - and
because the early ruling classes consisted of royal families - female sexual
exclusivity soon became mandatory. The ruler wanted to know that his children
were, in fact, his. A similar thing happened in the lower classes with the
advent of private property. Men who accumulated even small amounts of wealth
wanted to pass it on to their heirs. So, the patriarchal family was born.
(At this point it's probably good to mention that, largely because of this
enslavement of women, a lot of people tend to romanticize pre-historic
societies. This is a mistake. While there were undoubtedly a lot of good aspects
to prehistoric societies, there were also a lot of bad ones. The most obvious is
the early age of death. The average age of death in prehistoric societies,
according to many forensic studies, ranged from about 25 to about 35. As well,
women suffered greatly from preventable [in modern times] health problems; due
almost certainly to the lack of safe, effective contraception, the life
expectancy of women was several years shorter than that of men in prehistoric
societies.)
Regardless of the positive and negative aspects of such societies, we know that
early historic societies were rigidly hierarchical and authoritarian, and that
women in them were degraded and sexually enslaved. Naturally, this inequality,
degradation and enslavement needed justification, and patriarchal religions
arose to provide it. Judeo-christianity is a good example. In many
judeo-christian "holy" texts, women are treated as unclean, as property, as
inferior to men, and, as such, subject to rule by men. Here are a few divinely
inspired words on women:
How then can man be justified with God? or how can he be clean that is born of
a woman? - Job 25:4
These [redeemed] are they which were not defiled with women. - Revelation 14:4

Neither was the man created for the woman, but the woman for the man. - 1
Corinthians 11:9
Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. For the
husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church... -
Ephesians 5:22
Thus, the contribution of patriarchal religion to our social situation includes
not only contempt for the human intellect, an authoritarian, thou-shall-not
"morality," and the embracement of violence as a means to enforce that
"morality," but also (along with competition-based economics) the subjection and
degradation of women. The contributions of patriarchal religion and
competition-based economics hardly end there, though.
Social Ramifications of the Patriarchal Family
We've seen that female sexual enslavement and the rise of monogamy (at least for
women) arose with the advent of agriculture and private property, and that the
justification for this was provided by religion. Just as important, however, was
the concurrent advent of the patriarchal family - also sanctioned by religion.
While the form of the patriarchal family has changed over the ages - from large
extended families (of married adult brothers, ranked by age) to isolated,
nuclear families - it has retained its most important feature: male domination
and female subservience. And it has retained its role as a bulwark in
maintaining an authoritarian, hierarchical social order.
Only over the last century or so has anyone made a serious study of the role of
the patriarchal family in society. Probably its most acute observer was Wilhelm
Reich, a prominent psychologist and political radical who fled Germany upon
Hitler's rise to power. Here, in a nutshell, is Reich's view of the function of
the patriarchal family:
Its cardinal function, that for which it is mostly supported and defended by
conservative science and law, is that of serving as a factory for authoritarian
ideologies and conservative structures. It forms the educational apparatus
through which practically every individual of our society, from the moment of
drawing his first breath, must pass. - The Sexual Revolution.
Reich posited that the obedience and deference to parents inculcated in children
in the patriarchal family is transferred in their adulthood to other authority
figures - bosses, politicians, and, in a more general sense, to the entire
governmental and economic apparatus. It seems equally likely that the social
identification with the family developed in childhood is later transferred to
other social entities, such as employers and the state. We're all familiar with
workers who fiercely identify with their employers, even when their employers
are paying them lousy wages or are causing great and obvious social harm - for
example, through clear-cutting forests or by producing land mines. We're equally
familiar with the multitudes who, especially in time of war, blindly identify
themselves with "their" governments, who ardently support suppression of dissent
and destruction of civil liberties, and whose most fervent desire seems to be
submersion in the "patriotic" herd.
As is obvious, such misguided loyalty is seldom returned in kind. Employers
usually think nothing of abandoning sick or injured employees, and mass firings
- to use the current euphemism, "downsizings" - are simply business as usual.
Most governments do little to reward their partisans either, as the often-shabby
treatment of veterans demonstrates; and the powers ceded to government by
"patriots" are often turned against them when the "patriots" cease to serve the
government's needs. Clearly, rational thought plays equally little part in
obedience/deference to authority figures and in identification of the self with
external entities.
But what replaces rational thought in modern society? Reich's answer is that
powerful, largely unconscious psychological forces are at work, and that the
source of these psychological forces lies in sexual repression. Maurice Brinton,
a modern interpreter of Reich, paints an entertaining portrait of the repressive
conditioning process:
Rigid and obsessional parents start by imposing rigid feeding times on the
newborn. They then seek to impose regular potting habits on infants scarcely
capable of maintaining the sitting posture. They are obsessed by food, bowels,
and the inculcating of good habits.' A little later they will start scolding
and punishing their masturbating five year old . . . They are horrified at
their discovery of sexual exhibitionism between consenting juniors in private.
Later still, they will warn their 12-year-old boys of the dire danger of real
masturbation.' They will watch the clock to see at what time their 15-year-old
daughters get home, or search their sons' pockets for contraceptives. For most
parents, the child-rearing years are one long anti-sexual saga. - The
Irrational in Politics.
According to Reich and Brinton, most children - who originally, innocently
engaged in normal childhood sexual exploration - rebel against this anti-sexual
crusade by masturbating or engaging in other sexual "misbehavior." They are then
repeatedly punished until they submerge their sexual feelings (or at least
actions). But the submerged feelings (and resentments) don't go away; instead,
they resurface in nonsexual forms of rebellion, which are again punished. So,
sexual feelings and rebellion - in all forms - become associated with
punishment, and thus associated with fear. To survive, children become
compliant; often, children become so afraid of their sexual feelings, and indeed
of revolt in any form, that punishment becomes no longer necessary in producing
obedience. Another form of adaptation is overcompensation. To win parental
favor, children become servile and, especially when their families are members
of anti-sexual religions, puritanical. They identify themselves strongly with
their families, with their (subservient) place in their families, and with their
families' prudish, authoritarian belief systems.
But this adaptation is far from stable, because the children's new behaviors and
beliefs are fundamentally in conflict with their deeper, suppressed desires for
individual and sexual expression. And the longer the suppressive adaptations
continue, the greater the tension in the individual. For this reason, sexually
repressed individuals are almost always hypersensitive to the sexual behaviors
and sexual expressions of others, because these expressions and behaviors arouse
anxiety; they threaten to arouse deeply suppressed sexual longings fundamentally
at odds with expressed beliefs. So, the sexually repressed are often noticeably
rigid, and are always at the forefront of "moral" crusades for censorship and
for suppression of individual sexual freedom.
But, in addition to producing fear of rebellion, fear of sexuality, obedience,
servility, abandonment of self, identification with external entities, and
repressive, authoritarian behavior, sexual repression has another unfortunate
effect as well: a blunting of reason and intelligence. In Brinton's words, "it
produces, by inhibiting sexual curiosity and sexual thinking in the child, a
general inhibition of thinking and of critical faculties."
He sums up: "In brief, the goal of sexual repression is that of producing an
individual who is adjusted to the authoritarian order and who will submit to it
in spite of all misery and degradation . . . [The individual] has developed a
whole system of reactions, repressions, thoughts, rationalizations, which form a
character structure adapted to the authoritarian social system." Aggravating
Factors
This type of familial repression and conditioning is pervasive. It affects
nearly everyone to a greater or lesser extent. To make matters even worse, it's
reinforced by other, albeit less powerful, forms of authoritarian conditioning
in the religious, educational, and mass media spheres. Familial repression ties
in neatly with anti-sexual patriarchal religions, whose "thou shalls," "thou
shall nots," believe - don't - question teachings, and hierarchical,
authoritarian structures reward their sexually repressed followers with feelings
of superiority over their "animalistic" fellow humans. Members of such religions
feel several rungs up on the rest of us morally, and thus feel no compunction -
indeed, they often feel pleasure - when attempting to impose their repressive
beliefs on those they consider beneath them.
The educational system is also an important authoritarian conditioning agent. In
primary and secondary education, children are subjected to a type of Pavlovian
conditioning utilizing bells and buzzers, interspersed with domination and
submission rituals. They are quickly forced to become aware of their "natural"
place in the administrator-teacher-student pecking order, and to accept it
unquestioningly. All of this serves as a powerful reinforcement to the sexually
repressive, authoritarian conditioning that they receive at home and at church,
and it helps to prepare them for "normal" roles in adult life.
To a great extent higher education retains the authoritarian structure of
primary and secondary education, the seeming purpose of which is to habituate
children to life in a hierarchical, authoritarian society. It is true that some
academic disciplines, especially the fine arts and sciences, often encourage
students to express themselves, to think for themselves, and to develop
questioning attitudes. (It's no accident that the leading dissidents in the
former Soviet Union were in the arts and hard sciences.) But in most other
academic disciplines, for example, business administration and engineering, the
emphasis is purely on learning utilitarian skills useful in making money. As
well, higher education retains the hierarchical administrator-teacher-student
pecking order, and there is, if anything, an even greater emphasis on grades
(that is, competition among students) than there is in primary and secondary
education. So, despite some mitigating factors, the overall role of higher
education is to reinforce the authoritarian lessons learned in grade school and
high school.
The third important conditioning agent is the mass media. In addition to
presenting violence and coercion as acceptable, desirable, or even the _only_
means of solving problems (as on TV cop shows), the media reinforces
authoritarian structures in a more subtle way: it routinely presents such
structures as not only being normal, but as being _inevitable_. Even at the
height of the Cold War, when power-grubbing sociopaths in Washington and Moscow
stockpiled enough nuclear weapons to turn the Earth into a burned out cinder -
and came within an eyelash of doing so in 1962 - one never found even the
faintest suggestion that there was any way to organize social life other than
through coercive, hierarchical structures controlled by power-mad politicians
holding the power of life and death over the rest of us. In part because of the
media, most people won't even consider the possibility that there are
alternatives to domination, submission, hierarchy, and coercion. Some Failed
Attempts at Change
At present, we're faced with what we've been faced with ever since the dawn of
what passes for civilization: an authoritarian, hierarchical society in which
women are oppressed, in which sexuality is repressed, in which it's dangerous to
have unorthodox ideas or to engage in unorthodox behaviors, in which there's a
gross maldistribution of wealth and income, in which a small elite controls all
of the major institutions - and in which most people see all of this as normal.
Over the last hundred years, there have been many attempts to create a new
society through political means. Some have partially succeeded, some have been
ineffectual, and some, almost unbelievably, have made things worse - in some
cases, far worse. Marxism & Leninism
The most important of these attempts at change has been marxism, more
specifically, leninism and its variants. While some portions of the marxist
analysis of capitalist economics are valid, the political approach of leninism
has been so hideously and obviously wrong that it merits little discussion.
Suffice it to say that the many leninist attempts to build free, peaceful,
egalitarian societies through the systematic use of coercion, violence, and
terror by small elites have not been huge successes. The contradictions between
means and ends doomed the leninist project to failure - but not, unfortunately,
before leninism doomed tens of millions to prison, concentration camps, and
death. (It's also worth noting that almost all leninist societies have been
pronouncedly sexually repressive.)
Non leninist marxist approaches haven't been very successful either. The most
important of these, social democracy - in which "socialist" political parties
take over government through democratic elections - has fallen far short of its
followers' expectations. It's largely delivered more of the same-old-same-old,
sugar coated with a few mild reforms. Anarchism
The other major revolutionary ideology of the last century has been anarchism.
Many of anarchism's ideas should be fundamental to any new culture. These
include the concepts of mutual aid, non coerciveness, voluntary cooperation
rather than competition, nonhierarchical organization, decentralization, and
individual freedom coupled with individual responsibility. Still, anarchism has
not succeeded and has, rather, remained a marginal, misunderstood, largely
ineffectual ideology. Given the attractiveness of many anarchist concepts, why
is this so?
Neglecting the baleful influence of irresponsible, mean-spirited,
anti-organizational, and just plain crazy "anarchists" (a problem I dealt with
in _Listen Anarchist!_, and which Murray Bookchin has dealt with more recently
and at greater length in _Social Anarchism or Lifestyle Anarchism_), the most
likely explanation is that anarchism has failed because it addressed, and for
the most part continues to address, only political and economic (that is,
external ) issues. It ignores the psychological factor, and so is, by and large,
ineffective. Anarchists seem unaware that the people they address are, for the
most part, lonely, insecure, and have a scarcity mentality which makes them
afraid of each other. Anarchists appeal to reason and ignore the fact that most
people never learned to think very well in the first place. And they ignore the
fact that most people are sexually repressed and fearful, and that as a result
have poor self-images, crave "strong leaders," and feel at home in rigid
hierarchies based on domination and submission. In short, anarchism has failed
because it has relied on education and intellectual persuasion, an approach that
deals with _external_ social realities. As long as it continues to do so, it
will continue to fail. To put it another way, anarchism has failed because it
expects people to act as responsible, rational, self-directed adults without
giving them a means of getting from here to there. (This isn't to say that the
educational approach is useless - far from it; rather, it's to say that up till
now the educational approach has been fragmentary and is not sufficient in
itself to produce fundamental change.)
A cogent explanation of the failure of the purely rational, educational approach
to social change is contained in Michel Cattier's biography of Wilhelm Reich,
_La Vie et l'Oeuvre du Docteur Wilhelm Reich_: It would be wrong to believe that
working people fail to revolt because they lack information about the mechanisms
of economic exploitation. In fact, revolutionary propaganda which seeks to
explain to the masses the social injustice and irrationality of the economic
system falls on deaf ears. Those who get up at five in the morning to work in a
factory, and have on top of it to spend two hours of every day on underground or
suburban trains, have to adapt to these conditions by eliminating from their
minds anything that might put such conditions in question again. If they
realized that they were wasting their lives in the service of an absurd system
they would either go mad or commit suicide.
Maurice Brinton adds (in _The Irrational in Politics_), "They repress anything
that might disturb them and acquire a character structure adapted to the
conditions under which they must live. Hence it follows that the idealistic
tactic consisting of explaining to people that they are oppressed is useless, as
people have had to suppress the perception of oppression in order to live with
it." Avenues to Change
Obviously, any approach that will produce fundamental social change must address
psychological realities - and not in a purely theoretical, educational way. How
is this to be done? How are we to produce a movement that will create real
change? Here are a few avenues worthy of exploration:
First, a workable approach must take into account the individual's sexual
longings and repressions. These are at the core of the average individual's
identity and desires - and at the core of his or her authoritarian personality
structures. It's almost certain that Wilhelm Reich was right when he said (in
_The Mass Psychology of Fascism_) that, "The interest of the mass individual is
not political, but sexual." So, any realistic movement toward real social change
must address sexual issues.
Second, such an approach must be both theoretical and experiential. It must be
theoretical if it's to be cohesive, and if those in it are to understand its
goals, purposes, and to maintain their motivation - that is, to have a
motivating higher vision. And it must be experiential if any real change is to
occur in the psyches of those in it, and in those of the people they're trying
to reach. Lacking such psychological change, the old authoritarian structures
will continue to reproduce themselves no matter what the level of theoretical
understanding.
Third, a successful movement for change must be self-sustaining. Probably the
most desirable way to achieve this self-sustainability is that those in the
movement derive enough benefits and support from participating in it, and
understand its purposes well enough, that they remain motivated and active. And
the experiential aspects can provide the motivating benefits.
Fourth, in order to provide those benefits, any successful movement will need to
provide its members considerably more pleasure than pain. One of the main
reasons that the left is so dull is its emphasis on self-sacrifice to the
exclusion of pleasure, and its use of guilt as a means of manipulation; many
leftist groups are outright puritanical, and even the most enlightened usually
treat pleasure as something frivolous, as something unworthy of attention. As a
result, participation in most political groups is about as enjoyable as a visit
to the dentist. The results of this are a high dropout rate and the continued
participation of only the most self-sacrificing members - who, of course, feel
justified in demanding (or at least expecting) similar self-sacrifice from
everyone else, which contributes to the high dropout rate, and so on.
Historically, leftist groups have never recognized that people are, by and
large, _not_ altruistic. Instead, they're fearful, insecure and, above all,
lonely; and most join political groups as much to meet their own social needs as
they do to advance the causes of the groups. When their needs aren't met or,
worse, are ridiculed, they leave in droves. What this means is that any
successful movement for social change must pay considerable attention to the
social and emotional spheres - it should provide forums in which its members can
explore their desires and motivations, and it should also organize many
primarily social events. Of course, this approach would be unworkable under
extreme circumstances, as in Nazi-occupied Europe, but in relatively open (and
atomistic) western societies, it makes eminent good sense.
Fifth, a workable movement for change _must_ have clearly delineated _positive
goals_. One of the primary reasons for the failure of the left in the United
States is that it never put forth a positive, clearly outlined vision of a
better society; and, given the lack of a clear vision, it has done very little
to create positive alternatives. Instead, the left has concentrated on campaigns
_against_ the various excesses of capitalism - _against_ the Viet Nam war;
_against_ nuclear power; against racial and sexual discrimination; _against_
environmental despoliation; etc., etc., etc.
When the left has outlined positive alternatives, they've been fragmentary and
unconnected (as with the solar power and the pro-choice movements). Worse, at
times the left's vision has been so myopic that it's promoted destructive
programs (for example, so-called affirmative action) that implicitly accept the
concept of a scarcity economy and that are seemingly designed to put the working
class at war with itself. (Affirmative action is an approach made in heaven for
the ruling class. It produces no fundamental social change. It hides the
economic nature of exploitation under a racial veneer. And it takes the price of
the small improvements it produces out of the hide of the white working class -
thus setting workers of different races at each other's throats.) Given this
lack of a holistic positive vision, it's little wonder that the left is
dispirited and disorganized. This situation will change only when we outline a
comprehensive, positive vision based on daily life, a vision that will address
the real needs and desires of the average person.
Sixth, any meaningful movement toward social change must have a utilitarian
side. It must have actual, ongoing projects not related to its own maintenance
in which members can actively participate. One of the primary reasons that the
American left has been so dead for so many years is that leftist organizations
almost invariably have been fixated upon themselves. The primary goal of a good
many - especially political parties - has seemingly been merely to sign up new
members and to "build the organization," which largely accounts for why leftist
groups and meetings are almost always deadly dull. Other leftist groups are
organized so that a small staff does all of the real work (if any), while the
inactive "members" are looked upon merely as cash cows. Both approaches are
recipes for lifeless, do-little organizations.
Other groups, especially antinuclear groups, have sporadic projects, come to
life during the projects, and then fall apart as soon as they're over. The
Livermore Action Group (LAG) in the San Francisco Bay Area in the 1980s is a
good example. LAG had no ongoing projects, but rather lurched from one
nonviolent direct action to another (against the Lawrence Livermore Lab - a
nuclear weapons development facility). During the time leading up to the action,
LAG came alive; but as soon as the action was over, all energy drained from the
group. There are lessons to be drawn from this.
It certainly appears that having _some_ kind of outward-focused, ongoing project
- especially one related to the group's aims - is vital to any political group.
There are many possibilities. Projects that I'm aware of that have helped to
cement groups include bookstores, cafes, coffee houses, bars, lecture series,
meeting/lecture/dance halls, pirate radio stations, and publishing projects.
Food Not Bombs, which is organized around delivering food to the hungry and
homeless (while exposing the reasons that there are so many hungry and
homeless), is an excellent example of a political group with a solid utilitarian
side.
Seventh, and importantly, means determine ends. The methods and organization of
a movement toward real change must mirror its goals. This means, among other
things, the embracement of voluntary cooperation and non coerciveness;
nonhierarchical organization; decentralization (that is, local autonomy); and
spontaneous leadership. Voluntary Cooperation / Non coerciveness
Voluntary cooperation is an important principle. At present, our most important
social institutions - government, business, and religion - are all organized
around a diametrically opposed principle: coercion. All of these institutions
rely upon coercion to achieve their ends. Government does this directly through
the threat (and often the use) of armed force. Business relies on governmental
coercion to maintain an inequitable social system in which it can flourish; it
often battens off contracts funded by the monies that the government extorts
from the public (through taxation); and it often influences the government to
give it unfair advantages, either through subsidies or through artificial
limitation of competition. As for religion, when they've had the power to do so,
patriarchal religions such as christianity and islam have invariably used
coercion to enforce their "moral" dictates. In the West, the declining power of
the christian churches has forced them over the past 200 or 300 years to rely
upon government to do their coercive dirty work. In recent years, however,
religious zealots have again taken to direct use of violence and coercion to
achieve their ends. This is most noticeable in the activities of the so-called
right to life movement, which has employed physical harassment, arson, bombings,
and murder to achieve its ends.
The end result of all of this institutionalized violence and coercion is a
seemingly endless cycle of authoritarian attempts to control others, with
attendant resistance, followed by further increases in the use of violence and
coercion by the controllers. The truly sad thing about all this is that those
who are the victims of violence and coercion often see no other way to resist
but through their own use of violence and coercion (either directly or via the
government) - and so the cycle continues, generation after generation.
Given that means determine ends, it's essential to abandon coercion if a
peaceful, free, and nonviolent society is the goal. This means that any movement
for fundamental change cannot rely on violence and coercion (governmental or
direct) to achieve its ends. It must, instead, rely upon persuasion, education,
and psychological understanding, and must also provide models of voluntary
cooperation for others to emulate.
The ZEGG intentional community in Germany provides a good example of the
voluntary approach. One of the primary reasons that participation in social
change groups is so stultifying is that most such groups - if they do anything
other than meet - sponsor _group_ projects in which all members are _expected_
to participate. The result is that members often participate in projects in
which they have little if any interest; so, many of them become resentful and
drop away from the projects and groups. Another result is that such
group-projects, and the groups sponsoring them, very often lack dynamism and end
up mired in internal power struggles and squabbling (with the different factions
wanting everyone to work on _their_ projects). ZEGG has avoided this trap. ZEGG
largely functions as an umbrella organization in which individual and small
group projects arise. At ZEGG, individuals and small groups originate projects,
and only those who feel drawn to the projects participate in them. This avoids
the group-projects trap. Nonhierarchical Organization and Decentralization
In addition to relying on coercion, all of our major social institutions are
also hierarchically organized. The destructive effects of such an organizational
structure are manifold. The first and most obvious is that it results in a lot
of stupid decisions, with a lot of resultant harm and waste. The most important
reason for this is that those at the top, the decision makers, cannot have a
full grasp of the facts when they make decisions. To give an example, let's take
a large corporation with 100,000 employees. Let's say that this corporation has
a small research branch employing 100 people working on one particular problem.
Who will be better informed about possible solutions to the problem - the 100
people working on it, or the 10 people on the corporation's board of directors
who receive their boiled-down information through a chain of command?
Complicating matters is the tendency of those in positions of command to blame
the messenger when bad news arrives. This often - one is tempted to say always -
results in those in subordinate positions hiding anything negative, and thus
those at the top often receive very skewed information. It's little wonder that
hierarchies are plagued with inefficiencies and that those at the top so often
make bad decisions.
There are also harmful psychological aspects to hierarchical organization. The
most obvious are the development of abusive personalities among bosses and
festering resentments among their subordinates. Even when bosses are relatively
decent individuals, it's very difficult for real friendship to develop between
them and those below (and above) them. In such situations, the boss always has
to be sensitive to the possibility that he'll be perceived as abusing his power,
as pushing his subordinate around, and the subordinate always lives with the
fear that should he say or do anything to displease his boss, the boss will
retaliate. To put it another way, hierarchical structure results in social
insularity; it makes it nearly impossible for those with different amounts of
status and power - that is, those on different levels of the hierarchy - to
relate genuinely to each other.
To get away from the stupid decision making, waste, lack of genuineness, and
social isolation engendered by hierarchy, nonhierarchical, decentralized
organization is necessary. In a social change group, this implies several
things: 1) that organization be kept to the minimum necessary; 2) that all
members have an equal say in decisions affecting the group as a whole; 3) that
local groups be autonomous - that is, that they be independent groups bound only
by common ideals, that they be unbeholden to any central authority, and that the
individuals in the independent groups voluntarily cooperate on common projects,
with only those who feel called to do so taking part.
A familiar example of this type of nonhierarchical, decentralized organization
is the religious group, Alcoholics Anonymous (AA), which despite its destructive
social effects and its pronounced cult-like characteristics is a model of
anarchist organization. Anyone interested in de-centralized, nonhierarchical
organization would do well to study AA's organizational structure and its
organizational principles. On a mass, industrial scale, the Spanish
anarcho-syndicalists demonstrated the practicality of this type of organization
during the Spanish Civil War. Those interested in this organizational model
would also do well to study the many books available on the constructive work of
the Spanish anarchists. Spontaneous Leadership
Spontaneous leadership is also important. Rather than adopt the old model of a
fixed leadership in a hierarchy telling everyone else what to do, social change
groups would do well to adopt a new model of spontaneous leadership in a
horizontal, that is decentralized, organization.
In the60s and70s many leftist and feminist groups agonized over how to eliminate
leadership, equating all leadership (including temporary, task-based leadership)
with authoritarian leadership. Their fruitless efforts confirm what the more
astute anarchists have been saying for over a century - that it's a mistake to
think that any kind of group or organization can exist without leadership; the
question is, what kind of leadership is it going to be? The old model insists
that a static leadership direct everything, regardless of the interest,
motivation, or expertise of the leaders, and that others follow the orders of
these leaders, no matter how stupid. In the new model, those who have the most
expertise, the most interest, and the most commitment provide the leadership.
The key here is that they derive their authority not through coercion, but
precisely through their interest, expertise, and commitment; as well, only those
who feel attracted to their projects will (temporarily) follow them - and,
ideally, these temporary followers will, at one time or another, be leaders of
other projects. Another key element is that, in this new model, leadership is
_permeable_ - anyone who has sufficient motivation and commitment will likely
become part of the multifaceted, de facto, and ever-changing leadership within a
nonhierarchical organization.
To coordinate activities, nonhierarchical organizations often create service
positions, with those entrusted with the positions taking on certain routine
administrative and secretarial functions. To help ensure that such positions do
not metamorphose into power positions in a hierarchy, nonhierarchical groups
normally install the safeguards of mandatory rotation of offices and immediate
recall ability. That is, any individual can only serve a limited term and then
must exit any given position, and the group as a whole can dismiss office
holders at any time should they abuse their positions. Sexual and Psychological
Issues
Finally, any political movement that hopes to fundamentally restructure social
life must openly address sexual issues (and the psychological issues they give
rise to). Not only are such issues at the bottom of the average person's
identity and desires, but failure to address them cripples political movements.
Obviously the degree to which groups need to address sexual and psychological
matters varies with the aims of the groups and with how tightly they're
organized. But even in the loosest groups with the most limited aims, it's
harmful to ignore sexual and emotional issues when they arise, because when
ignored these matters can create a tense, poisonous atmosphere. In tightly knit
groups with ambitious aims, such as intentional communities, it's a dreadful
mistake not to address sexual issues and the personal tensions they give rise
to. TheZEGG political project/intentional community in Germany provides a good
example of a tightly knit group that successfully addresses sexual and
psychological questions.
Perhaps the primary reason that ZEGG has succeeded to the extent that it has is
that, almost uniquely among such projects and communities, ZEGG has treated
sexual matters openly - making them "transparent." Individual freedom and
individual choice are honored at ZEGG, but when potentially disruptive sexual
issues and tensions arise (for example, jealousy), these matters are openly, and
sometimes publicly, addressed, and the individuals involved are helped, if they
so desire, to work through their emotions.
In virtually all other political groups and intentional communities, sexual
questions are ignored, or even considered a "distraction" from the "serious"
purposes of the group or community. (This is a telling indication of the
puritanical, anti-pleasure bias of all too many leftist groups and intentional
communities.) Because sexual issues will inevitably arise in any human project,
failure to deal with them ensures that when sexual tensions arise they'll leak
out in all sorts of destructive, often indirect ways. One would hope that other
social change groups will learn this lesson quickly, will begin to recognize the
importance of sexual issues (and the psychological issues they give rise to),
and will begin to address them openly. Realistic Tactics
Any successful movement toward real change will provide models to be emulated,
based on the above-listed principles. If this decentralized, non coercive
approach is to succeed, clearly the only way it will succeed is if it's
voluntarily adopted by people the world over. You can't achieve a non coercive
society through the use of coercion. Thus, one of the tasks of any movement
toward real change is to provide models attractive enough that others will want
to adopt them.
There are several advantages to this approach. First, it actually has a good
chance of succeeding - eventually. Second, it should help those taking part in
it lead happier, more meaningful lives while the process of change occurs. And
third, such a movement stands less chance of being attacked by the government
than more overt political movements dedicated solely to making external changes
through political means. The reason for this is that even though old-style
political-change movements are not a real threat to the hierarchical,
authoritarian structure of society, the government often _perceives_ them as
such.
So, the government attacks them with all the means at its disposal, including
disinformation campaigns, frame-ups, infiltration, agents provocateur, and,
occasionally, outright murder. A few famous instances that come to mind are the
Haymarket frame up, the Sacco & Vanzetti case, COINTELPRO during the Viet Nam
War, and the hundreds of FBI burglaries of CISPES offices during the 1980s.
Thus, direct attempts to impose external political change not only don't produce
fundamental structural change, but they can be dangerous to participate in. This
makes a non coercive, evolutionary approach all the more attractive.
Abandoning old-fashioned political movements that cannot produce fundamental
change is no sign of cowardice. (One could just as easily argue that avoiding
pointless physical danger, as in skydiving or mountain climbing, is
"cowardice.") Rather, it's realism. It's recognizing that one has limited time
and resources, and that investing them in confrontational campaigns (no matter
how real the evils confronted) diverts one from the fundamental task of building
better alternatives to the present social structure. Practical Approaches
There is no one single way to change society. But, fortunately, there are many
different, mutually reinforcing approaches, all incorporating the concepts of
non coerciveness, voluntary cooperation, nonhierarchical organization,
decentralization, and spontaneous leadership, and all recognizing the
psychological realities that make authoritarian, coercive "solutions" so
attractive to so many people. Among the many possibilities are free schools
aimed at educating children in non coercive, non-hierarchical environments;
educational efforts in the print and electronic media advocating anarchist
concepts and, importantly, exposing the psychosexual roots of authoritarian
attitudes and conditioning; theater, musical and artistic projects with the same
aims; workplace (anarcho-syndicalist) groups with the aim of restructuring work
life along non-hierarchical, decentralized lines; and model intentional
communities aimed at putting all of these values into practice in daily life -
at helping their members overcome their own authoritarian conditioning, at
dealing openly with sexual issues, and at serving as launching pads for other
projects aimed at social liberation. Positive Models
At present, projects - albeit small ones - exist in the United States pursuing
the first four of these five approaches (and others as well), but at present
there is no project pursuing the fifth approach. One recent attempt to organize
model communities called Network for a New Culture is all but dead for a number
of reasons: 1) excessive emphasis on sexual liberation and intentional community
in outreach materials; 2) incorporation of new-agey, "feminist" elements
(basically sociobiology from a female-superior viewpoint) borrowed from
Germany's ZEGG experiment; and 3) insufficient emphasis on the social,
psychological and political goals of the project. The end result was that
Network for a New Culture attracted very few people with social/political
understanding and commitment. Instead, it attracted a large number of
individuals (mostly men, of course) interested primarily, if not exclusively, in
sex; a large number of new age types; and a large number of individuals
attracted to intentional community for no other reason than that they saw it as
an easy means of meeting their economic, social, and intimacy needs. It's small
wonder that such people contributed little to the project, and that most of
those doing the real work necessary to maintaining the Network burned out.
Probably the best thing to be said for Network for a New Culture is that it
provided a number of object lessons in what not to do.
The situation in Europe is somewhat better. There, the ZEGG experiment is made
up largely of individuals with political understanding and political backgrounds
(many from the student, feminist, and anti-nuclear movements). It's apparently
prospering and spawning offshoots, despite its being burdened with a "feminist"
sociobiological ideology (that posits that attitudes and traits such as
cooperativeness, non competitiveness and nurturance are inherently female, and
that women, therefore, must lead the way for men),(1) a disturbing reverence for
the project's founder (which, to his credit, he does not encourage), and a
generally uncritical acceptance of the sometimes exotic, unsupported concepts of
the group's leaders.
While there's a need for model communities presenting a positive alternative to
authoritarian, sexually repressed, hierarchical society, none exist in the
United States at present. The relatively few nonhierarchical communities that do
exist are all small, and they mostly ignore the psychological and sexual
questions at the root of authoritarian conditioning and personality structures.
So their effectiveness is severely limited, and the need for positive
alternatives still exists.
The essential elements of such positive alternatives would be a minimum of
organization, a minimum of rules, direct democracy, non-coerciveness, voluntary
cooperation, self-exploration, individual development, and a willingness to face
sexual and psychological issues. The purpose of such communities would be not
only to provide a supportive atmosphere in which members could discover who they
are and what they want, but to serve as models for a new society.
The nearest thing that we have to such a community at present is the ZEGG
experiment in Germany. While it's far from perfect (see above comments), ZEGG is
an exciting place, filled with idealistic, mutually supportive people pursuing
their passions, and which incorporates many of the healthy, anti-authoritarian
elements outlined above. One can only hope that a similar experiment comes into
being sometime soon in the North America.(2)
There's a clear need for one. It would be tremendously useful to have even a
small-scale model that would demonstrate - at least to the extent possible given
our larger social context - life in a free society. It's one thing to read
descriptions of free societies; it's entirely something else to visit even a
very imperfect model of such a society, as I did in Germany two years ago. I
found that experience more motivating than all of the anarchist theoretical
texts I've ever read. It's a very good bet that others would find a similar
model here equally motivating. Many Roads, One Destination
There are many valid approaches to a free society - though I believe that any
successful approach will incorporate the principles outlined above - and
different approaches will appeal to different people. By following our
individual inclinations, while adopting common principles, we can help to
realize our common purpose - a free society.
In the end, the goal of our various projects must be to produce large numbers of
self-directed, conscious, determined people who know what they want and will
work to make it reality. When that happens, real change will occur in all areas
of society. Authoritarian society _cannot_ meet fundamental human needs (for
meaning, love, peace, and freedom), and it's our task to help our fellow human
beings to understand that, and to offer them _positive alternatives_.

1. At present, it's far from certain to what extent typically "male" and typically
"female" traits are the result of biology, and to what extent they're the result
of social conditioning. Even in areas where there do seem to be biological
differences, as with males, on average, having better spatial perception than
females, the average differences between individuals are not great. When one
graphs such biological differences, one normally sees two bell curves (one for
males, one for females) that almost entirely overlap, with major differences
showing up only on the extreme high and low ends and involving relatively few
individuals. Because of this overlap, it's nonsensical to argue, for instance,
that women _as a category_ should not became airline pilots because of their
"lesser" spatial-perception abilities. It's equally nonsensical to argue that
women must "lead the way" for men because of men's "lesser" ability to
cooperate. It makes far more sense to simply insist upon, and to model, such
forms and values as cooperation, non competitiveness, nurturance, and
nonhierarchical organization in both sexes.

 2. I'd like to hear from others with a desire to create such an experiment here in North America.

 Anyone interested can contact me via See Sharp Press, Box 1731, Tucson, AZ 85702,

or via See Sharp Press's e-mail address: seesharp@seesharppress.com

top

Anti-globalization Activism Cannot Ignore Colonial Realities
By Aziz Choudry, August 2001

http://www.arena.org.nz/globcoln.htm

"We are faced with a two-fold challenge, to struggle as best we can to deal
with the immediate consequences of globalization. Secondly, and more
difficult, to contextualize those problems within the 500-year-and-more
history of the culture of colonization"

Moana Jackson, Ngati Kahungunu / Ngati Porou, lawyer and Maori sovereignty
advocate.

"For us, as Indigenous Peoples, we have noticed an interesting thing happening
in the last twenty years. We see the colonization process has been redirected.
It is now directed towards the non-Indigenous citizens. The companies are
cannibalizing their own settlers. Now, the shoe is on the other foot. Where do
you go for help against the multinationals who are going to swallow up your jobs
and your lifestyle? Indigenous Peoples are not really interested in keeping
companies within Canadian control. These companies have been abusing our lands.
What does it matter if the company is Canadian or American or German or Japanese
owned? All these companies are abusing our lands and resources. Why should
Indigenous Peoples help non-Indigenous People protect their jobs and security
when these same people have been destroying our lands and waters?
Globalization for us is colonization continued without any letup. The question
is to the colonizers. What are the colonizers doing about addressing the issues
of colonization and its continued oppression of Indigenous Peoples?" Sharon
Venne, Cree lawyer and scholar.
Many on the left point out that opposition to free trade and the neoliberal
agenda is not necessarily anti-capitalist. They're right, of course - it
comprises a diverse range of organizations, movements, motivations, agendas and
goals.
Among anti-globalization networks there is widespread coinage of the terms
"colonization" or "decolonization" to describe the current manifestations of
globalization. But does that mean that the mobilizations and activism against
globalization are anti-colonial? For the most part, I don't think so.
If those of us living in colonial settler states like New Zealand, Australia,
Canada and the USA are prepared to take on transnational corporations, the
Bretton Woods institutions, and the neoliberal agenda we must also address
Indigenous Peoples' struggles for decolonization and self-determination.
There are relatively few anti-globalization initiatives where the perspectives
and struggles of Indigenous Peoples located in the "western democratic" colonial
settler states have taken centre stage. Their analyses and challenges are
all-too-often relegated to the anti-free trade movement's equivalent of a social
clause or an environmental side agreement; side issues to be partitioned off
into a different space from unity statements and conference declarations which
tend to articulate noble-sounding demands about people power, taking back "our"
country, regulating corporations, genuine participatory democracy, etc.
In his recent book, Human Rights Horizons, Richard Falk writes of the USA's
"perpetual rediscovery of its own perceived innocence....Despite the
dispossession of the Indigenous Peoples of North America, despite slavery and
its aftermath, despite Hiroshima and Vietnam, this self-proclaimed innocence
remains untarnished". I've talked with activists from several countries about
this kind of phenomenon as it impacts on the perspectives of "civil society" in
the USA, Canada, Australia and New Zealand. Many social justice campaigns, NGOs
and activists in these countries operate from a state of colonial denial and
refuse to make links between human rights abuses overseas, economic (in)justice,
and the colonization of the lands and peoples where they live.
The doomsday scenario of corporate rule, transnational plunder, environmental
and social disaster which many opponents of the global free market economy warn
of has long been everyday reality for many Indigenous Peoples. Modern
transnational corporations are after all the heirs to the Hudson Bay Company,
the New Zealand Company, the East India Company - major players in earlier waves
of colonization and the commodification of peoples, lands and nature.
In our meetings, analyses, speeches and demonstrations we can talk about
transnationals, the WTO, globalization as decolonization, and perhaps even the
neoliberal agenda in the context of colonialism in the Third World. But to
advocate Indigenous Peoples' right to self determination closer to home often
seems a surefire way to fast tracking one to extremist or pariah status - even
among social and environmental justice activists. It might "alienate" people,
I've been told.
Many struggles against globalization taking place in the South are connected to
anti-imperialist, anti-colonial mass movements with long histories. However, the
voices heard most loudly and insistently in the international media and at most
major international gatherings opposing the neoliberal agenda and building
alternatives are rarely those of grassroots community activists from the South,
let alone Indigenous Peoples in the countries of the global North.
Well-resourced NGOs and trade unions usually based in the West, tend to command
considerable power to set the parameters of the debate and direction of the
campaigns against corporate globalization.
Far too many times have I heard the history of globalization - and the
resistance to it - compressed into the last two or three decades, and related in
a way which downplays or ignores anti-imperialist movements in the South and
especially the resistance of indigenous nations in territories claimed by
Canada, New Zealand, Australia and the USA. In Canada and the USA I have shared
platforms with North American speakers who curiously trace the history of
globalization back to the Trilateral Commission. Here in New Zealand, I have
seen white environmentalists accuse Maori of "reverse racism" for daring to
assert their rights to protect indigenous flora and fauna under threat from
bioprospectors and the TRIPs agreement. At other international conferences on
globalization, activists have dismissed Indigenous Peoples' perspectives on
globalization as "narrow" and "nativistic", arguing that they do not attach
enough importance to class analysis.
Naturally we feel outrage at security clampdowns against popular Mobilizations
in Auckland, Vancouver, Seattle, Melbourne, Quebec City and Washington DC. But
shock and surprise? Colonial governments have always used police and military as
an army of occupation against Indigenous Peoples. State-sanctioned abuses
against indigenous communities have long been a dime-a-dozen but have frequently
failed to register with many folk.
I have heard the fairy story, told with passion, authority and a touch of
nostalgia, by non-indigenous New Zealanders, North Americans and Australians who
speak earnestly of the freedoms and democratic rights enjoyed in their
countries. Apparently things were pretty good until the neoliberal ideologues
and big business seized control, opened up the economy, started hocking
everything off to the transnationals, and saw Joe and Jill Citizen dispossessed
of things that they thought were theirs. So say dozens of activists, academics,
politicians as they state their opposition to the neoliberal agenda. This
version of history begins when globalization started impacting non-indigenous
peoples. The words "democracy" and "sovereignty" crop up time and time again in
their talks, and in anti-globalization literature and campaigns in these
countries. What do such appeals to democratic traditions, concepts and values
mean when they ignore past and present-day realities of colonization in these
countries?
While attending the 1997 Peoples Summit on APEC in Vancouver I remember being
struck by how speaker after speaker attacked transnationals, and identified them
as the driving force behind APEC, yet utterly ignored struggles like that of the
Lubicon Cree Nation in Northern Alberta - the nex t province - against gas, oil
and timber transnationals invading their unceded territory with the complicity
of the Canadian state. Nor did the fact that a "liberal democratic" government
of Canada, like the one which through hosting APEC hoped to influence Asian
trading partners with "Canadian values", had sent more armed forces against
Mohawk people defending their lands in the 1990 standoff near Oka, Quebec than
it sent to the Gulf War rate a mention. But then again, the Vancouver Peoples
Summit itself was part-funded by the same NDP British Columbia provincial
government which in 1995 initiated a massive military operation at Gustafsen
Lake only a few hours drive away, against a small group of Indigenous Peoples
defending their sacred lands.
Many critics of globalization play down the role and relevance of the
nation-state, attributing power almost solely to transnational corporations and
international institutions like the Bretton Woods triplets. Yet this takes the
focus away from the nature and power of the state and even romanticizes it. Such
global campaigns run the risk of distracting people's gaze from long-standing
injustices underfoot. In delegitimizing these global actors we must be very
aware of the dangers in uncritically legitimizing nation-states which are
themselves based on the dispossession of Indigenous Peoples. We cannot ignore
the centuries of resistance by many indigenous nations against incorporation
into the colonial state. We cannot ignore the colonial foundations of the
countries in which we live. To do so is to mask the true nature of our
societies, and the extent to which they are built on colonization and
exploitation.
How can Indigenous Peoples be expected to validate, affirm and seek
incorporation into national or international movements dominated by
non-indigenous activists, organizations and agendas which are reluctant to
address domestic issues of colonization with the same vigor and commitment that
they put into fighting transnational capital or the WTO?
Of course some important alliances have been forged between Indigenous Peoples
and non-indigenous organizations confronting globalization. Many (usually small,
under resourced) activist groups struggle hard to draw the connections between
corporate globalization and colonization, to support local indigenous
sovereignty struggles and educate non-indigenous peoples about these issues.
Movements to expose and oppose corporate globalization have a very real
potential to mobilize support from non-indigenous people for meaningfully
addressing the issues of colonization in New Zealand, Australia, Canada and the
USA. We should be challenging the jurisdiction of these colonial settler state
governments as they move to sign international trade and investment deals, in
the light of their continued denial of Indigenous Peoples' rights, jurisdiction,
and title.
The centuries-old culture of colonization holds the key to understanding and
defeating the current wave of globalization. If we understand how "democratic"
governments like Canada can sanction the ongoing assault on indigenous lands and
communities it isn't hard to understand why such governments subscribe to
freemarket international trade and investment policies.
In determining the values and foundations on which we build alternatives to the
neoliberal agenda our movements must be prepared to examine our own propensity
to oppress. We cannot build alternatives to globalization on the rotten
foundations of the denial of occupying indigenous lands and the ongoing
suppression of Indigenous Peoples' rights. "The colonizers are always building
rotten foundations and expecting us to step into a completed building" says
Sharon Venne.
If anti-globalization activists and organizations do not address these questions
with some urgency then I fear that the growing resistance to neoliberalism in
the global North risks being as inherently colonialist as the institutions and
processes which it opposes. Our usage of the term colonization will be little
more than empty rhetoric if our analysis does not acknowledge the context in
which corporate globalization - and the worldwide opposition to it - is taking
place.
Those of us active in anti-globalization struggles in Canada, the USA, New
Zealand and Australia need to examine our role in the colonization and
globalization of the earth. Only then can we seriously talk about liberation and
real alternatives to the neoliberal agenda.

http://www.arena.org.nz/globcoln.htm

movement discussions | www.agp.org
 

top

Global Movement: Interviewing Adamovsky
by Andrej Grubacic and Ezequiel Adamovsky

ZNET June 19, 2003

http://zena.secureforum.com/Znet/sustainers/content/2003-06/19grubacic-adamovsky.cfm

This is the first part of a series of discussions on movement perspectives,
written for Z sustainer program, and as a part of my forthcoming book, Global
Movement.
Ezequiel Adamovsky is an anti-capitalist writer and activist. He has written
books and articles published in Argentina and other countries. He is currently
member of the Popular Assemblies' movement in Buenos Aires.

What is the movement?

I think "the movement" is only in the making. For the moment, it is nothing but
the multitude of local movements and people committed in different ways to
defend life from capitalist aggression, and who are beginning to realize that
some sort of global articulation is needed, and to explore ways to do so. The
movement is our desire to make the movement come true; it is diffuse, but
powerful at the same time.
I believe we are witnessing the first steps of a new wave in the history of
human emancipation. The movement draws from a long tradition of anti-capitalist
struggles, but it is also new and different in many ways. However, its new
features are still hard to perceive, and we can only guess what it will look
like. For my forthcoming book Anticapitalismo para Principiantes
(Anti-capitalism for Beginners), I made the effort to imagine how the movement
will be, and in which respects it will distance itself from that tradition. I
have summarized the key "mutations" of the movement in eight "words":
1 - Counterpower and Autonomy
The new anti-capitalism seems to have a less naïve approach to power. We no
longer believe that the key to changing the world is as simple as "seizing the
power". For all its differences, the Leninist, Social-democratic and "national
liberation" traditions had one view in common: that we need to gain control over
the state first, and then change society from above. But things do not seem to
be so simple for us any more. For power is not located in the national states
alone, but disseminated throughout society (including our minds).
Moreover, it is not very much constrained by national boundaries. In other
words, if we "storm the Winter Palace" today, we would not "have the power" as a
result, but only a nice empty building.
But also, the traditional left failed to see that, in trying to "seize power",
political parties and movements often end up reproducing and expanding
structures of power, rather than struggling against them. Leninist and
social-democratic parties alike tended to reinforce the people's passivity
and/or authoritarian practices, instead of contributing to liberate and empower
all of them equally. Power is not a "neutral" tool that you simply use for any
purpose (whether good of evil), but always an unfair and oppressive type of
relationship.
In order to overcome these shortcomings, the new anti-capitalism seems to be
more interested in undermining power than in accumulating it for its own
designs. In other words, the new anti-capitalism struggles not to "seize power",
but avoid being "seized by power". This means to build and expand autonomy, that
is, our capacity to live according to our own rules. In this respect, the "new
world" is not only what comes in the future, after the revolution, but what we
create every day while we struggle for our lives and rights.

2- Multiplicity

The traditional left tended to believe that there was one and only one
"privileged subject" -the working class- who, due to the special role it played
in society, would lead the whole of humankind to emancipation. All the other
groups -women, students, aborigines, gays, ecologists, and so on- were meant to
"follow" the working class, and somehow "renounce" or at least "postpone" their
own needs and interests. The "worker's revolution", it was said, would bring
liberation for all.
As a result of such belief, the diversity of interests and social identities was
often repressed or forced to adapt to the worker's plans -actually, to the
doctrine and party that were supposed to "represent" the workers.
On the contrary, the new anti-capitalism does not seek to enforce one and only
one identity, doctrine, or project, for no group is considered to be more
important that the others. For the new anti-capitalism it is not a matter of
unifying and achieving homogeneity, but of negotiating and articulating
differences on an equal basis. The more voices, styles, ideas, interests the
movement has, the stronger it will grow. Far from being a handicap, multiplicity
is the very source of our strength.

3- Globalization from below; Horizontality and networks

In order to struggle against power and for autonomy, while encouraging
multiplicity, the new movements are exploring new forms to organize and make
decisions. The new anti-capitalism tends to reject the hierarchical and
centralized organizations typical of the traditional left. Many of the new
movements prefer to make decisions in "horizontal" ways, that is, ways in which
nobody has more say that the rest, and there is no permanent distinction between
leaders and followers.
Likewise, different groups coordinate actions through flexible and voluntary
networks, rather than centralized or "rigid" institutions. This permits to reach
wide consensus, which do not rely on the enforcement of a single identity or
political "program".
The global nature of capitalist domination is more evident now that it ever was.
That is why the networks that the movement is weaving seek to go beyond national
boundaries and identities; I believe we are witnessing the beginnings of a real
"globalization from below".

4- Direct Action and Creativity

Another feature of the new movement is that it employs a "plurality of tactics".
However, the methods of direct action and civil disobedience seem to be
preferred, especially when democracy and so-called "representative" governments
are more and more unwilling to address the needs and interests of the vast
majorities. In the new anti-capitalism, political action and artistic creation
are intimately linked: after all, both art and resistance are about creating new
worlds and expanding the limits of the possible.
In Argentina, more and more movements are organizing in the ways I have just
described, specially after the rebellion of the 19th and 20th of December 2001.
The peasants of the MoCaSE occupy private lands and set up their own autonomous
communities in one of the poorest areas of the country.
The unemployed of the MTD Aníbal Verón blockade roads and organize collective
forms of production with the subsidies they gain from the government.
The neighbors of some cities gather in Asambleas Populares (Popular Assemblies)
and engage in direct action of many types. Industrial workers in some factories,
like Brukman (textile) and Zanón (ceramics), refuse to become unemployed when
the owners decide to withdraw their capital; instead, they occupy the plants,
kick the managers out, and run production themselves.
New unions, like SiMeCa, reject the bureaucratic methods of the "official"
unions and decide in horizontal ways, just like the peasants, unemployed, and
neighbors.
Students, independent journalists, artists, aborigines, and other groups explore
similar ways to organize, create, and resist. Little by little, strong networks
are being built, not only between all these groups in Argentina, but also with
similar movements abroad.
Although Argentina is special in that it was completely ruined by neoliberal
policies and a strong popular reaction took place, I believe similar movements
are mushrooming all over the world. These are still weak, and to a great extent
remain poorly interconnected in the global and even in the local level. But I
have no doubts that "the movement" is already happening. In its forms and
contents, in its methods, values, and forms of organization, the new movement
anticipates the society of the future. That is, I think, what will make it
irresistible in the next years.
-------
Ezequiel Adamovsky (1971) is an anti-capitalist writer and activist.
Andrej Grubacic is a historian and social critic, from Belgrade ,
post-Yugoslavia; author of the book Globalization of the Refusal. He can be
reached at zapatasezampro.yu



movement discussions | www.agp.org
 

top

 PGA -  PEOPLES´ GLOBAL ACTION  Organisational Principles

Organisational Principles

Main ideas (for the changes made at the conference in Cochabamba) based on
that we would emphasize on autonomy and decentralization in each region.
Therefore, each region will decide how they want to organize between the
participating movements and organisations (one main convenor, different
co-convenors, collective participants, etc.). Nevertheless, we agreed
that it is necessary to have one point of contact and coordination for
every region, known to all the participating movements and
organisations;
All proposals for actions, themes and issues discussed at the
international conference will come from the regional conferences. We
will have international conferences when necessary;
There will be an equal participation of men and women in the
international and regional conferences. The gender issue will be
discussed at all of the PGA conferences, both at the international and
regional levels;
We will reinforce exchanges and debates at the regional level through
caravans, exchange of people, products and experiences to initiate
discussions at the local level and share the result of these debates on
the global network;
Reinforce technical support at the regional level by augmenting the
number of people involved and giving them clear mandates and functions;
Add an appendix to the organisational principles to clarify the first
steps of each international conference;
Add the struggles of the indigenous people to principle 1.3 (wording
accepted by the plenary);
Change principle 7 on information (wording accepted by the plenary).
Organisational Principles
The PGA is an instrument for co-ordination, not an organisation. Its
main objectives are:
Inspiring the greatest possible number of persons and organisations to
act against corporate domination through civil disobedience and
people-oriented constructive actions.
Offering an instrument for co-ordination and mutual support at global
level for those resisting corporate rule and the capitalist
development paradigm.
Giving more international projection to the struggles against economic
liberalisation and global capitalism, as well as to the struggles of
indigenous people and original cultures.


The organisational philosophy of the PGA is based on decentralisation
and autonomy. Hence, central structures are minimal. Following the same
idea, each region's participating organisations and movements will
decide how to organize locally. Nevertheless, there needs to be a point
of contact and coordination for each of these regions, decided at
regional level and known to all the participating organisations and
movements of the network.

The PGA has no membership.

The PGA does not have and will not have a juridical personality. It will
not be legalised or registered in any country. No organisation or person
represents the PGA, nor does the PGA represent any organisation or
person.

There will be conferences of the PGA when judged necessary by the
participating organisations and movements. The functions of these
conferences will be:
Updating the manifesto (if necessary)
Advancing in the process of co-ordination at global level of the
resistance against "free" trade
Co-ordinating decentralised actions according to the global days of
action and the sustained campaigns of the PGA.

There will be an equal participation of women and men in the
international and regional conferences. The gender issue will be
discussed at all of the PGA conferences, both at the international and
regional levels.

The conferences of the PGA will be convened by a committee conformed by
representative organisations and movements of each region, including the
points of contact named for each of these regions. The composition of
this committee must show a regional balance, and a balance regarding the
areas of work of the organisations and movements that conform it. The
local organisers will be part of the committee.
This committee will fulfil the following tasks:
Coordinating the programme of the conference according to the
proposals for themes, actions and issues emerging from the regional
conferences
Coordinating the selection of the delegates, in respect with the
principle of decentralization and autonomy of each region as well as
in accordance with the decisions taken on this matter at the regional
conferences
Deciding about the use of resources; especially, deciding which
organisations will receive help to pay the travel expenses to attend
the conference
Advising the local organisers in technical and organisational
questions
Interpreting the manifesto if this would be necessary (the whole part
on publications and info to be taken out)

The committee, just like any other participating organisation or
movement, cannot speak in the name of the PGA.

Each conference of the PGA will be coordinated by a committee conformed
of different organisations and movements. Also, the points of contact
named for each region will change in each regional conference (used to
be in each international conference but it is now a problem to leave it
like that if we're going to have international conferences only when
judged necessary...). The old committee will choose a small group that
will act as advisers of the new committee. It will also provide
technical support at the regional level. This advisory group will not
have decision- making power.

(English)
In keeping with PGA's philosophy, all communication processes will be
diverse, decentralised and coordinated. There will be at least one point
of contact in each region to be decided at regional level.

Whilst recognising there are limits to the internet, the PGA website
will comprise of PGA documents including conference notes and contact
lists. All documents will be translated into as many diverse languages
as possible. For all this communication to work effectively,
responsibility must be taken at the regional level by as many groups as
possible.

(Espanol)
En acuerdo con la filosofia del AGP, todos procesos de comunicaciones
seran diversos, descentralizados y coordinados. Habra por lo menos un
punto de contacto en cada region, que se decidra al nivel regional.

Mientras reconozcamos los limites del internet, la pagina web del AGP
tendra todas las documentaciones del AGP, incluyendo relatorios de
conferencias y listas de contactos. Todos los documentos seran
traducidos en las mas diversas idiomas posibles. Para que toda esa
comunicacion sea efectiva, debe ser responsabilidad del mas grande
numero de grupos posible al nivel regional.

(Français)
En accord avec la philosophie de l'AMP, tous les processus de
communications seront divers, décentralisés et coordonnés. Il y aura au
moins un point de contact pour chaque région, choisi régionalement.

Bien que reconnaissant les limites du système internet, le site web de
l'AMP comprendra tous les documents du réseau, incluant les notes de
conférences et les listes de contact. Tous les documents seront traduits
dans le plus de langues possibles. Afin de rendre cette communication
effective, la responsabilité sera assumée par le plus grand nombre de
groupes possible au niveau régional.

The PGA will not have any resources. The funds needed to pay the
conferences and the information tools will have to be raised in a
decentralised way. All the funds raised for the conference will be
administered by the committee. The publications will have to be
self-financed.

The PGA has a rotative secretariat, which changes every year. Each
committee, during it's term, will decide where the secretariats will be.


The conferences of the PGA will not include the discussion of these
organisational principles in the programme. If there is a concrete
request, a discussion group on organisational questions will be formed.
This discussion group will meet parallel to the programme of the
conference, to elaborate concrete modification proposals which shall be
voted upon in the plenary.

The PGA hopes that it will inspire the creation of different platforms
(both regional and issue-based) against "free" trade and the different
institutions that promote it. There will not be, however, a relationship
of pertenence between these platforms and the PGA. The platforms will
hence be completely autonomous.

The PGA also aims to initiate discussions at the regional level through
various means, emphasizing on the organisation of caravans, as well as
the exchange of people, products and experiences between regions. The
results of these debates will then be shared at the global level with
the whole network.

3rd PGA Conference (Results) | PGA/AGP

top

 Arming Outer Space by Ruth Rosen

November 14, 2003



Published on Thursday, November 13, 2003
by the San Francisco Chronicle



LOOK UP at the sky. Imagine space-based weapons orbiting the
globe, ready to zap or nuke any country declared an imminent
threat to the United States.
No, this is not science fiction. It is Defense Secretary
Donald Rumsfeld's vision of global domination.
Before he headed the Pentagon, Rumsfeld was chairman of the
Commission to Assess U.S. National Security Space Management
Organization. In its final report, submitted to Congress on
Jan. 11, 2001, it warned, "If the United States is to avoid a
'Space Pearl Harbor,' it needs to take seriously the
possibility of an attack on U.S. space systems." The
commission recommended the creation of a U.S. Space Corps that
would defend our space-based "military capability."
Rumsfeld's report was actually a tamer version of an earlier
Department of Defense Space Command document -- "Vision for
2020" -- that, on its Web site, showed laser weapons shooting
deadly beams from space, zapping targets on Earth. Beneath
this sci-fi image crawled the words "U.S. Space Command
dominating the space dimension of military operations to
protect U.S. interests and investments."
"Vision for 2020" rightly predicted that the global economy
would widen the gap between "the haves" and "the have-nots."
By deploying space surveillance and weaponry, the United
States would have the ability "to control space," and, from
this higher ground, "to dominate" the Earth below.
By appointing Rumsfeld as his defense secretary, President
Bush chose a man whom the Washington Post described as "the
leading proponent not only of national missile defenses, but
also of U.S. efforts to take control of outer space."
Since then, the Air Force Space Command has issued a progress
report, "Strategic Master Plan FY04 and Beyond (SMP)," which
puts forth the U.S. intention to dominate the world by turning
space into a crucial battlefield.
In the introduction, Gen. Lance W. Lord proudly writes, "As
guardian of the High Frontier, Air Force Space Command has the
vision and people to ensure the United States achieves space
superiority today and in the future. A new space corps will
fight from and in space."
"Space," according to the SMP, "is the ultimate high ground of
military operations . . . . Our vision calls for prompt
global-strike systems with the capability to directly apply
force from or through space against terrestrial targets. Space
superiority is essential to our vision of controlling and
fully exploiting space to provide our military with an
asymmetric advantage over our adversaries."
The immediate goal, according to the SMP, is to prevent anyone
else from launching space-based weaponry. To dominate the
globe, the United States must dominate outer space.
Clearly, this space-based vision is useless against terrorist
attacks in Iraq or Afghanistan. China, however, believes it is
the unnamed enemy who might be the target of this country's
newly articulated policies of pre- emptive war and global
supremacy.
Last September, China fought hard at the U.N. Conference on
Disarmament in Geneva for an agreement that would prevent an
arms race in outer space. The Bush administration, as usual,
insisted that an international treaty was unnecessary.
Rumsfeld's dream is dangerous. It not only violates the 1967
Outer Space Treaty, which wisely prohibited the militarization
of space, but also threatens to reignite the arms race, this
time in space. It is also hugely expensive, costing hundreds
of billions of dollars that could be used to care for people
who live right here on Earth.
Look up at the heavens. Do we really want to leave future
generations with a legacy of space-based warfare? If not,
let's pressure every presidential candidate, as well as
President Bush, to keep the heavens free of weapons of mass
destruction.

©2003 San Francisco Chronicle



FAIR USE NOTICE
This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always
been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such
material available in our efforts to advance understanding of
environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific,
and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use'
of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US
Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the
material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have
expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for
research and educational purposes. For more information go to:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use
copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go
beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.


Common Dreams NewsCenter
A non-profit news service providing breaking news & views for the
progressive community.
© Copyrighted 1997-2003
www.commondreams.org
 

top

PGA -PEOPLES GLOBAL ACTION MANIFESTO


We cannot take communion from the altars of a dominant culture which confuses
price with value and converts people and countries into merchandise.
-- Eduardo Galeano

If you come only to help me, you can go back home. But if you consider my
struggle as part of your struggle for survival, then maybe we can work
together.
-- Aboriginal woman



Part 1
Economic globalisation, power and the "race tothe bottom"
Exploitation, labour and livelihoods
Gender oppression
The indigenous peoples' fight for survival
Oppressed ethnic groups
Onslaught on nature and agriculture
Culture
Knowledge and technology
Education and youth
Militarisation
Migration and discrimination
Part 2



 Part 1

We live in a time in which capital, with the help of international agencies
like the World Trade Organisation (WTO), the International Monetary Fund
(IMF), the World Bank (WB) and other institutions, is shaping national
policies in order to strengthen its global control over political, economic and
cultural life.
Capital has always been global. Its boundless drive for expansion and profit
recognizes no limits. From the slave trade of earlier centuries to the imperial
colonization of peoples, lands and cultures across the globe, capitalist
accumulation has always fed on the blood and tears of the peoples of the
world. This destruction and misery has been restrained only by grassroots
resistance.
Today, capital is deploying a new strategy to assert its power and neutralize
peoples' resistance. Its name is economic globalization, and it consists in
the dismantling of national limitations to trade and to the free movement of
capital.
The effects of economic globalization spread through the fabric of societies
and communities of the world, integrating their peoples into a single gigantic
system aimed at the extraction profit and the control of peoples and
nature. Words like "globalization", "liberalization" and "deregulation" just
disguise the growing disparities in living conditions between elites and
masses in both privileged and "peripheral" countries.
The newest and perhaps the most important phenomenon in the globalization
process is the emergence of trade agreements as key instruments of
accumulation and control. The WTO is by far the most important institution for
evolving and implementing these trade agreements. It has become the vehicle of
choice for transnational capital to enforce global economic governance. The
Uruguay Round vastly expanded the scope of the multilateral trading system
(i.e.the agreements under the aegis of the WTO) so that it no longer
constitutes only trade in manufactured goods. The WTO agreements now also
cover trade in agriculture, trade in services, intellectual property rights,
and investment measures. This expansion has very significant implications for
economic and non-economic matters. For example, the General Agreement on Trade
in Services will have far-reaching effects on cultures around the world.
Similarly, the TRIPs (Trade Related Intellectual Property Rights) agreement and
unilateral pressures, especially on biodiversity-rich countries, are forcing
these countries to adopt new legislations establishing property rights over
forms of life, with disastrous consequences for biodiversity and food
security. The multilateral trading system, embodied in the WTO, has a
tremendous impact on the shaping of national economic and social policies, and
hence on the scope and nature of development options.
Trade agreements are also proliferating at the regional level. NAFTA (North
American Free Trade Agreement) is the prototype of a regional legally-binding
agreement involving privileged and underprivileged countries, and its model is
sought to be extended to South America. APEC (Asia-Pacific
Economic Cooperation) is another model with both kinds of countries involved,
and it is being increasingly used to force new agreements into the framework
of the WTO. The Maastricht Treaty is of course the main example of a
legally-binding agreement among privileged countries. Regional trade
agreements among underprivileged countries, such as ASEAN (Association of
Southeast Asian Nations), SADC (Southern African Development Cooperation),
SAFTA (South Asian Free TradeAgreement) and MERCOSUR (Southern Common Market),
have also emerged. All these regional agreements consist of the transfer of
decision-making power from the national level to regional institutions which
are even more distant from people and less democratic than the nation-state.
As though this was not enough, a new treaty is being promoted by the
privileged countries, the Multilateral Agreement on Investments (MAI) to widen
the rights of foreign investors far beyond their current positions in most
countries and to severely curtail the rights and powers of governments to
regulate the entry, establishment and operations of foreign companies and
investors. This is currently also the most important attempt to extend
globalization and "economic liberalization". MAI would abolish the power and
the legitimate sovereign right of peoples to determine their own
economic, social, and cultural policies. failed october 1998 (note by the
editor)
All these institutions and agreements share the same goals: providing mobility
for goods, services and capital, increasing transnational capital's control
over peoples and nature, transferring power to distant and undemocratic
institutions, foreclosing the possibility to develop community-based and
self-reliant economies, and restricting peoples' freedom to construct
societies based on human values.




Economic globalisation, power and the "race to the bottom"

Economic globalization has given birth to new forms of accumulation of riches
and power which violate the human and work rights of women and men. The
accumulation takes place on a global scale, at increasing speed, controlled by
transnational corporations and investors. While capital has gone global,
redistribution policies remain the responsibility of national governments,
which are unable, and most of the times unwilling, to act against the
interests of transnational capital.
This asymmetry is provoking an accelerating redistribution of power at global
level, strengthening what is usually referred to as "corporate power". In this
peculiar political system, global capital determines (with the help of
"informal" and extremely influential lobby groups, such as the World Economic
Forum) the economic and social agenda on a world-wide scale. These corporate
lobby groups give their instructions to governments in the form of
recommendations, and governments follow them, since the few that refuse to obey
the "advice" of corporate lobby groups find their currencies under attack by
speculators and see the investors pulling out. The influence of corporate lobby
groups has been strengthened by regional and multilateral agreements. With
their help, neo-liberal policies are being imposed all over the world.
These neo-liberal policies are creating social tensions at global level
similar to the ones witnessed at national level during the first stages of
industrialization: while the number of billionaires grows, more and more
people around the world find themselves in a system that offers them no place
in production and no access to consumption. This desperation, combined with
the free mobility of capital, provides transnational investors the best
possible environment to pit workers and governments against each other. The
result is a "race to the bottom" in social and environmental conditions and
the dismantling of redistribution policies (progressive taxation, social
security systems, reduction of working time, etc). A vicious circle is
created, wherein "effective demand" concentrates increasingly in the hands of
a transnational elite, while more and more people cannot meet their basic
needs.
This process of world-wide accumulation and exclusion amounts to a global
attack on elementary human rights, with very visible consequences: misery,
hunger, homelessness, unemployment, deteriorating health conditions,
landlessness, illiteracy, sharpened gender inequalities, explosive growth of
the "informal" sector and the underground economy (particularly production and
trade of drugs), the destruction of community life, cuts in social services
and labor rights, increasing violence at all levels of society (particularly
against women), accelerating environmental destruction, growing racial, ethnic
and religious intolerance, massive migration (for economic, political and
environmental reasons), strengthened military control and repression, etc.

back to contexts


Exploitation, labour and livelihoods

The globalization of capital has to a very significant extent dispossessed
working women and men of their ability to confront or bargain with capital in
a national context. Most of the conventional trade unions (particularly in the
privileged countries) have accepted their defeat by the global economy and are
voluntarily giving up the conquests won by the blood and tears of generations
of workers. In compliance with the requirements of capital, they have traded
solidarity for "international competitiveness" and labour rights for
"flexibility of the labour market". Now they are actively advocating the
introduction of a "social" clause in the multilateral trading system, which
would give privileged countries a tool for selective, one-sided and
neo-colonial protectionism, with the effect of increasing poverty instead of
attacking it at its root.
Right-wing groups in privileged countries often blame "social dumping" from
underprivileged countries for the rising unemployment and the worsening labor
conditions. They say that southern peoples are hijacking northern capital with
the help of cheap labor, weak or non-existent labor and environmental
regulations and low taxes, and that southern exports are forcing northern
producers out of the market. While there is a certain degree of relocation to
underprivileged countries (concentrated in specific sectors like textiles and
microelectronics), the teenage girls who sacrifice their health doing unpaid
overtime in transnational sweatshops for miserable salaries can hardly be
blamed for the social havoc created by the free mobility of goods and capital.
Moreover, most relocation happens between rich countries, with only a fraction
of foreign investment going to underprivileged countries (and even some
investment flowing to the north from countries traditionally considered as
"underdeveloped"). And the threat of relocation to another rich country (by
far the most usual kind of relocation) is as effective in blackmailing working
women and men in the North as the threat to relocate to an underprivileged
country. Finally, the main cause of unemployment in privileged countries is the
introduction of "rationalization" technologies, over which underprivileged
peoples certainly have no influence at all. In short, increasing exploitation
is solely the responsibility of capitalists, not of peoples.
Many advocates of "development" welcome the free movement capital from
privileged to underprivileged countries as a positive contribution to the
improvement of the living conditions of the poor men and women of the South,
since foreign investment produces jobs and livelihoods. They forget that the
positive social impact of foreign investment is limited by its very nature,
since transnational corporations will only keep their money in underprivileged
countries as long as the policies of these countries enable them to continue
exploiting the misery and desperation of the population. The financial markets
impose extreme punishments to the countries that dare to adopt any kind of
policy that could eventually result in improved living standards, as
exemplified by the abrupt end to the shy redistribution policies adopted in
1981 by Mitterand in France. Also, the Mexican crisis of 1994 and the recent
crises in East Asia, although presented by the media as the result of
technical mismanagement, are good examples of the impact of a corporate
economic rule which gains strength every day both in underprivileged and
privileged countries, conditioning each and every aspect of their social and
economic policies.
Those who believe in the beneficial social effects of "free" market also
forget that the impact of transnational capital is not limited to the creation
of exploitative jobs. Most of the foreign direct investment (two thirds
according to the United Nations) in both privileged and underprivileged
countries consists of transnational corporations (TNCs) taking over national
enterprises, which most typically results in the destruction of jobs. And TNCs
never come alone with their money: they also bring foreign products into the
country, sweeping great numbers of local firms and farms out of the market, or
forcing them to produce under even more inhuman conditions. Finally, most of
the foreign investment provokes the unsustainable exploitation of natural
resources, which results in the irretrievable dispossession of the livelihoods
of diverse communities of indigenous peoples, farmers, ethnic groups etc.
We reject the idea that "free" trade creates employment and increases welfare,
and the assumption that it can contribute to the alleviation of poverty. But
we also very clearly reject the right-wing alternative of a stronger national
capitalism, as well as the fascist alternative of an authoritarian state to
take over central control from corporations. Our struggles aim at taking back
control of the means of production from the hands of both transnational and
national capital, in order to create free, sustainable and community-controlled
livelihoods, with equal rights and opportunities for women and men, based on
solidarity and peoples' needs and not on exploitation and greed.

back to contexts


Gender oppression

Globalization and neo-liberal policies build on and increase existing
inequalities, including gender inequality. The gendered system of power in the
globalised economy, like most traditional systems, encourages the exploitation
of women as workers, as maintainers of the family and as sexual objects.
Women are responsible for creating, educating, feeding, clothing and
disciplining their sons and daughters to prepare them to become part of the
global labor force. They are used as cheap and docile labor for the most
exploitative forms of employment, as exemplified in the maquilas of the
textile and microelectronics industry. Forced out of their homelands by the
poverty caused by globalization, many women seek employment in foreign
countries, often as illegal immigrants, subjected to terrifying working
conditions and insecurity. The world-wide trade in women's bodies has become a
major element of world commerce and includes children as young as 10. They are
used by the global economy through diverse forms of exploitation and
co modification.
Women are expected to be actors only in their households. Although this has
never been the case, this expectation has been used to deny women a role in
public affairs. The economic system also makes use of these gender roles to
identify women as the cause of many social and environmental problems. Hence,
women having too many babies (rather than the rich consuming too many
resources) is seen as the cause of the global environmental crisis. Similarly,
the fact that women get low wages, since their remuneration is supposed to be
only supplementary income for the household, is used to blame them for the
unemployment of men and the reduction in their wage levels. As a result, women
are used as scapegoats, declared guilty of creating the very misery that is
oppressing them, instead of unmasking global capital as responsible for social
and environmental havoc. This ideological stigmatization adds to the physical
violence suffered on a daily basis by women all over the planet.
Patriarchy and the gender system rest firmly on the idea of the naturalness
and exclusivity of heterosexuality. Most of the social systems and structures
violently reject any other form of sexual expression or activity, and this
limitation of freedom is used in order to perpetuate patriarchal gender roles.
Globalization, although indirectly contributing to the struggles for women's
and sexual liberation by introducing them in very oppressive societies, also
strengthens the patriarchy at the root of violence against women and against
gays, lesbians and bisexuals.
The elimination of patriarchy and the end of all forms of gender
discrimination requires an open commitment against the global market.
Similarly, it is vital that all those struggling against global capital
understand and confront the exploitation and marginalization of women. We must
struggle actively, with a personal and public commitment - in both word and
deed - against the exploitation, discrimination and oppression of women,
including their most subtle forms, including the important struggle against
homophobia. We need to develop new cultures that represent real alternatives
to these old and new forms of oppression.

back to contexts


The indigenous peoples' fight for survival

Indigenous peoples and nationalities have a long history of resistance against
the destruction provoked by capitalism. Today, they are confronted with the
neo-liberal globalization project as an instrument of transnational and
financial capital for neo-colonization and extermination. These new actors of
the globalization process are violently invading the last refuges of
indigenous peoples, violating their territories, habitats and resources,
destroying their ways of life, and often perpetrating their genocide. The
nation states are permitting and actively encouraging these violations in
spite of their commitment to respect indigenous peoples' rights, reflected in
diverse declarations, agreements and conventions.
Corporations are stealing ancient knowledge and patenting it for their own gain
and profit. This means that indigenous people and the rest of humanity will
have to pay for access to the knowledge that will have thus been co modified.
Furthermore, the indigenous peoples themselves are being patented by
pharmaceutical corporations and the US administration, under the auspices of
the Human Genome Diversity Programme. We oppose the patenting of all life
forms and the corporate monopolistic control of seed, medicines and traditional
knowledge systems and human genomes.
The fights of indigenous peoples to defend their lands (including the subsoil)
and their forms of living, are leading to a growing repression against them and
to the militarization of their territories, forcing them to sacrifice their
lives or their liberty. This struggle will continue until the right of
indigenous peoples to territorial autonomy is fully respected throughout the
world.

back to contexts


Oppressed ethnic groups

The black communities of African origin in the Americas suffered for centuries
a violent and inhuman exploitation, as well as physical annihilation. Their
labor force was used as a fundamental tool for accumulation of capital, both
in America and Europe. Faced with this oppression, the Afro-American men and
women have created community-based processes of organization and cultural
resistance. Currently the black communities are suffering the effects of
"development" mega projects in their territories and the invasion of their
lands by big landowners, which lead to massive displacement, misery and
cultural alienation, and often to repression and death.
A similar situation is being suffered by other peoples, like Gypsies, Kurds,
Saharouis, etc. All these peoples are forced to struggle for their right to
live in dignity by nation-states that repress their identity and autonomy, and
impose on them a forced incorporation into a homogeneous society. Many of
these groups are viewed as a threat by the dominant powers, since they are
reclaiming and practicing their right to cultural diversity and autonomy.

back to contexts


Onslaught on nature and agriculture

Land, water, forest, wildlife, aquatic life and mineral resources are not
commodities, but our life support. For decades the powers that have emerged
from money and market have swelled their profits and tightened their control
of politics and economics by usurping these resources, at the cost of the
lives and livelihoods of vast majorities around the world. For decades the
World Bank and the IMF, and now the WTO, in alliance with national governments
and corporate powers, have facilitated manoeuvrings to appropriate the global
commons. This now includes the atmosphere.
Climate change is a result of capitalist resource exploitation. It reinforces
existing global inequalities initiated by colonialism. As the climate warms,
essential resources will further become the privilege of the elite, who will
use increasingly military force to acquire them.
Also, the very problem of climate change is being seen as a profit-making
opportunity. Market-based "solutions" include carbon trading (in which
governments and transnationals buy and sell their "rights" to pollute) and
carbon sinks (e.g. appropriated forest areas or genetically modified
plantations which will theoretically absorb the carbon pollution) to avoid
reducing their own emissions.
The result is environmental devastation, tragic and unmanageable social
displacement, and the wiping out of cultural and biological diversity, much of
it irretrievably lost without compensation to those reliant on it.
The disparities provoked within and between countries by national and global
capital have widened and deepened as the rich spirit away the natural
resources from communities and farmers, farm laborers, fish workers, tribal
and indigenous populations, the socially disadvantaged - beating down into the
earth the already downtrodden. Women, as members of all these sectors, suffer
doubly this oppression. The centralized management of natural resources imposed
by trade and investment agreements does not leave space for intergenerational
and intergenerational sustainability. It only serves the agenda of the powers
that have designed and ratified those agreements: to accumulate wealth and
power.
Unsustainable and capital-intensive technologies have played a major role in
corporations' onslaught on nature and agriculture. Green revolution
technologies have caused social and environmental havoc wherever they have
been applied, creating destitution and hunger instead of eliminating
them. Today, modern biotechnology is emerging, together with patents on life, as
one of the most powerful and dangerous weapons of corporations to takeover the
control of the food systems all over the world. Genetic engineering and patents
on life must be resisted, since their potential social and environmental
impact is the greatest in the history of humanity.
Waging struggles against the global capitalist paradigm, underprivileged women
and men work towards the regeneration of their natural heritage and the
reconstruction of integrated, egalitarian communities. Our vision is of a
decentralized economy and polity based on communities' rights to natural
resources and to plan their own development, with equality and self-reliance
as the basic values. In place of the distorted priorities imposed through
global designs in sectors such as transport, infrastructure and energy, and
energy-intensive technology, they assert their right to life and the
fulfillment of the basic needs of all men and women, excluding the greed of the
consumerist minority. Respecting traditional knowledge and cultures consonant
with the values of equality, justice, and sustainability, we are committed to
evolving creative ways to use and fairly distribute our natural resources.

back to contexts


Culture

Another important aspect of globalization, as orchestrated by WTO and other
international agencies, is the commercialization and co modification of
culture, the appropriation of diversity in order to co-opt it and integrate it
into the process of capitalist accumulation. This process of homogenization by
the media not only contributes to the breakdown of the cultural and social
networks in local communities, but also destroys the essence and meaning of
culture.
Cultural diversity not only has an immeasurable value of its own, as
reflections of human creativity and potential; it also constitutes a
fundamental tool for resistance and self-reliance. Hence, cultural
homogenisation has been one of the most important tools for central control
since colonialism. In the past the elimination of cultural diversity was mainly
accomplished by the Church and by the imposition of colonial languages. Today
mass media and corporate consumerist culture are the main agents of
co modification and homogenisation of cultural diversity. The result of this
process is not only a major loss of humanity's heritage: it also creates an
alarming dependence on the capitalist culture of mass consumption, a
dependence that is much deeper in nature and much harder to eliminate than
economic or political dependence.
Control over culture must be taken out of corporate hands and reclaimed by
communities. Self-reliance and freedom are only possible on the basis of a
lively cultural diversity that enables peoples to independently determine each
and every aspect of their lives. We are deeply committed to cultural
liberation in all areas of life, from food to films, from music to media. We
will contribute with our direct action to the dismantlement of corporate
culture and the creation of spaces for genuine creativity, and to the active
and productive participation of women in cultural activities as bearers of
cultural identity.

back to contexts
 

Knowledge and technology

Knowledge and technology are not neutral or value-free. The domination of
capital is partly based on its control over both. Western science and
technology have made very important contributions to humankind, but their
domination has swept away very diverse and valuable knowledge systems and
technologies based on centuries-long experience.
Western science is characterised by the production of simplified models of
reality for experimental purposes; hence, the reductionist scientific method
has an extremely limited capacity to produce useful knowledge about complex
and chaotic systems like agriculture. Traditional knowledge systems and
knowledge-production methods are far more effective, since they are based on
generations of direct observation of and interaction with unsimplified,
complex systems. Therefore, capital-intensive, science-based technologies
invariably fail to achieve their goals in complex systems, and many times
provoke the disarray of these systems, as green revolution technologies,
modern dam technology and many other examples demonstrate.
Despite their many failures, capital-intensive technologies are systematically
treated as superior to traditional, labour-intensive technologies. This
ideological discrimination results in unemployment, indebtedness and, most
important, in the loss of an invaluable body of knowledges and technologies
accumulated during centuries. Traditional knowledge, often controlled by
women, has until recently been rejected as "superstition" and "witchcraft" by
western, mostly male, scientists and academics. Despite this, women have
maintained, as much by necessity as resistance, traditions and cultures as
empirical doctors, agronomists, administrators and historians. Masculine
"rationalism" and "modernization" has for centuries aimed at destroying it
irretrievably. However, pharmaceutical corporations and agribusiness have
recently discovered the value and potential of traditional knowledge, and are
stealing, patenting and co modifying it for their own gain and profit.
Capital-intensive technology is designed, promoted, commercialized and imposed
to serve the process of capitalist globalization. Since the use of
technologies has a very important influence on social and individual life,
peoples should have a free choice of, access to and control over technologies.
Only those technologies which can be managed, operated and controlled by local
peoples should be considered valid. Also, control of the way technology is
designed and produced, its scopes and finalities, should be inspired by human
principles of solidarity, mutual co-operation and common sense. Today, the
principles underlying production of technology are exactly the opposite:
profit, competition, and the deliberate production of obsolescence.
Empowerment passes through people's control over the use and production of
technology.

back to contexts


Education and youth

The content of the present education system is more and more conditioned by
the demands of production as dictated by corporations. The interests and
requirements of economic globalization are leading to a growing
co modification of education. Women are educated for sexually defined roles,
having less opportunities since their education is considered less important.
If they are educated, it is in order to serve as school teachers, nurses,
social workers, secretaries, etc. The diminishing public budgets in education
are encouraging the development of private schools and universities, while the
work conditions of people in the public education sector are being eroded by
austerity and Structural Adjustment Programs.
Increasingly, learning is becoming a process that intensifies inequalities in
societies. Even the public education system, and most of all the university,
is becoming inaccessible for wide sectors of societies. The learning of
humanities (history, philosophy, etc.) and the development of critical
thinking is being discouraged in favour of an education subservient to the
interests of the globalization process, where competitive values are
predominant. Students increasingly spend more time in learning how to compete
with each other, rather than enhancing personal growth and building critical
skills and the potential to transform society.
Education as a tool for social change requires confrontational academics and
critical educators for all educational systems. Community-based education can
foster learning processes within social movements. The right to information is
essential for the work of social movements. Limited and unequal access to
language skills, especially for women, hinders participation in
political activity with other peoples. Building these tools is a way to
reinforce and rebuild human values. Yet formal education is increasingly being
commercialisedas a vehicle for the market place. This is done by corporate
investment in research and by the promotion of knowledge geared toward skills
needed for the market. The domination of mass media should be dismantled and
the right to reproduce our own knowledges and cultures - without sexism - must
be supported.
However, for many girls and boys throughout the world, the co modification of
education is not an issue, since they are themselves being co modified as
sexual objects and exploited labour, and suffering inhuman levels of violence.
Economic globalization is at the root of the daily nightmare of increasing
numbers of exploited children. Their fate is the most horrible consequence of
the misery generated by the global market.

back to contexts


Militarisation

Globalization is aggravating complex and growing crises that give rise to
widespread tensions and conflicts. The need to deal with this increasing
disorder is intensifying militarization and repression (morepolice, arrests,
jails, prisoners) in our societies. Military institutions, such as
U.S.-dominated NATO, organizing the other powers of the North, are among the
main instruments upholding this unequal world order. Mandatory conscription in
many countries indoctrinates young people in order to legitimate militarism
and patriarchy which excludes women, domination and militarism having always
been justified with images of a white, masculine, patriotic and military god.
Similarly, the mass media and corporate culture glorify the military and exalt
the use of violence. There is also, behind facades of democratic structures,
an increasing militarization of the nation-state, which in many countries
makes use of faceless paramilitary groups to enforce the interests of capital.

At the same time, the military-industrial complex, one of the main pillars of
the global economic system, is controlled by huge private corporations. The
WTO formally leaves defense matters to states, but the military sector is a
fundamental part of the hunt for private profit.
Military hierarchies, practicing forced recruitment, reproduce the ethnic
and sexual discriminations which already exist in all states. For this reason,
women who enter armed forces never reach higher ranks, thus reproducing
precisely and obediently the model of domination and forsaking the aim of
popular autodetermination.
We call for the dismantling of nuclear and all other weapons of mass
destruction. The World Court of The Hague has recently declared that nuclear
weapons violate international law and has called all the nuclear-weapons
countries to agree to dismantle them. This means that the strategy of NATO,
based on the possible use of nuclear weapons, amounts to a crime against
humanity, as is the use of the bodies of women, girls and boys as weapons or
objects of war.

back to contexts


Migration and discrimination

The neo-liberal regime provides freedom for the movement of capital, while
denying freedom of movement to human beings. Legal barriers to migration are
being constantly reinforced at the same time that massive destruction of
livelihoods and concentration of wealth in privileged countries uproot
millions of people, forcing them to seek work far from their homes.
Migrant women and men are thus in more and more precarious and often illegal
situations, and even easier targets for their exploiters. They are then made
scapegoats, against whom right wing politicians encourage the local population
to vent their frustrations. Solidarity with migrants is more important than
ever. There are no illegal humans, only inhuman laws.
Racism, xenophobia, sexism, the caste system and religious bigotry are used to
divide us and must be resisted on all fronts. We celebrate our diversity of
cultures and communities, and place none above the other.
* * *
The WTO, the IMF, the World Bank, and other institutions that promote
globalization and liberalization want us to believe in the beneficial effects
of global competition. Their agreements and policies constitute direct
violations of basic human rights (including civil, political, economic,
social, labour and cultural rights) which are codified in international law
and many national constitutions, and ingrained in people's understandings of
human dignity. We have had enough of their inhuman policies. We reject the
principle of competitiveness as solution for peoples' problems. It only leads
to the destruction of small producers and local economies. Neo-liberalism is
the real enemy of economic freedom.

back to contexts


Part 2

Capitalism has slipped the fragile leash won through centuries of struggles in
national contexts. It is keeping alive the nation-state only for the purposes
of peoples' control and repression, while creating a new transnational
regulatory system to facilitate its global operation. We cannot confront
transnational capitalism with the traditional tools used in the national
context. In this new, globalised world we need to invent new forms of
struggle and solidarity, new objectives and strategies in our political work.
We have to join forces to create diverse spaces of co-operation,
equality, dignity, justice and freedom at a human scale, while attacking
national and transnational capital, and the agreements and institutions that
it creates to assert its power.
There are many diverse ways of resistance against capitalist globalization and
its consequences. At an individual level, we need to transform our daily
lives, freeing ourselves from market laws and the pursuit of private profit.
At the collective level, we need to develop a diversity of forms of
organization at different levels, acknowledging that there is no single way of
solving the problems we are facing. Such organizations have to be independent
of governmental structures and economic powers, and based on direct democracy.
These new forms of autonomous organization should emerge from and be rooted in
local communities, while at the same time practicing international solidarity,
building bridges to connect different social sectors, peoples and
organizations that are already fighting globalization around the world.
These tools for co-ordination and empowerment provide spaces for putting into
practice a diversity of local, small-scale strategies developed by peoples all
over the world in the last decades, with the aim of delinking their
communities, neighbourhoods or small collectives from the global market. Direct
links between producers and consumers in both rural and urban areas, local
currencies, interest-free credit schemes and similar instruments are the
building blocks for the creation of local, sustainable, and self-reliant
economies based on co-operation and solidarity rather than competition and
profit. While the global financial casino heads at increasing speed towards
social and environmental disintegration and economic breakdown, we the peoples
will reconstruct sustainable livelihoods. Our means and inspiration will
emanate from peoples' knowledge and technology, squatted houses and fields, a
strong and lively cultural diversity and a very clear determination to
actively disobey and disrespect all the treaties and institutions at the root
of misery.
In a context in which governments all over the world act as the creatures and
tools of capitalist powers and implement neo-liberal policies without debate
among their own peoples or their elected representatives, the only alternative
left for the people is to destroy these trade agreements and restore for
themselves a life with direct democracy, free from coercion, domination and
exploitation. Direct democratic action, which carries with it the essence of
non-violent civil disobedience to the unjust system, is hence the only
possible way to stop the mischief of corporate state power. It also has the
essential element of immediacy. However we do not pass judgment on the use of
other forms of action under certain circumstances.
The need has become urgent for concerted action to dismantle the illegitimate
world governing system which combines transnational capital, nation-states,
international financial institutions and trade agreements. Only a global
alliance of peoples' movements, respecting autonomy and facilitating
action-oriented resistance, can defeat this emerging globalised monster. If
impoverishment of populations is the agenda of neo-liberalism, direct
empowerment of the peoples though constructive direct action and civil
disobedience will be the programme of the Peoples' Global Action against
"Free" Trade and the WTO.
We assert our will to struggle as peoples against all forms of oppression. But
we do not only fight the wrongs imposed on us. We are also committed to
building a new world. We are together as human beings and communities, our
unity deeply rooted in diversity. Together we shape a vision of a just world
and begin to build that true prosperity which comes from human empowerment,
natural bounty, diversity, dignity and freedom.

Geneva, February-March 1998
(Modified in September 2002, at the Third PGA Conference in Cochabamba, Bolivia)

back to contexts



manifesto-related questions, information about PGA, action proposals, press
questions, web editing:


www.agp.org

top

Where Have All the Flowers Gone?
Reflections on the Spirit and Legacy of the Sixties by Fritjof Capra

December 1, 2002

The 1960s were the period of my life during which I experienced the most
profound and most radical personal transformation. For those of us who identify
with the cultural and political movements of the sixties, that period represents
not so much a decade as a state of consciousness, characterized by
"transpersonal" expansion, the questioning of authority, a sense of empowerment,
and the experience of sensuous beauty and community.
This state of consciousness reached well into the seventies. In fact, one could
say that the sixties came to an end only in December 1980, with the shot that
killed John Lennon. The immense sense of loss felt by so many of us was, to a
great extent, about the loss of an era. For a few days after the fatal shooting
we relived the magic of the sixties. We did so in sadness and with tears, but
the same feeling of enchantment and of community was once again alive. Wherever
you went during those few days — in every neighborhood, every city, every
country around the world — you heard John Lennon's music, and the intense
idealism that had carried us through the sixties manifested itself once again:
You may say I'm a dreamer,
but I'm not the only one.
I hope some day you'll join us
and the world will live as one.
In this essay, I shall try to evoke the spirit of that remarkable period,
identify its defining characteristics, and provide an answer to some questions
that are often asked nowadays: What happened to the cultural movements of the
sixties? What did they achieve, and what, if any, is their legacy?
expansion of consciousness
The era of the sixties was dominated by an expansion of consciousness in two
directions. One movement, in reaction to the increasing materialism and
secularism of Western society, embraced a new kind of spirituality akin to the
mystical traditions of the East. This involved an expansion of consciousness
toward experiences involving nonordinary modes of awareness, which are
traditionally achieved through meditation but may also occur in various other
contexts, and which psychologists at the time began to call "transpersonal."
Psychedelic drugs played a significant role in that movement, as did the human
potential movement's promotion of expanded sensory awareness, expressed in its
exhortation, "Get out of your head and into your senses!"
The first expansion of consciousness, then, was a movement beyond materialism
and toward a new spirituality, beyond ordinary reality via meditative and
psychedelic experiences, and beyond rationality through expanded sensory
awareness. The combined effect was a continual sense of magic, awe, and wonder
that for many of us will forever be associated with the sixties.


questioning of authority


The other movement was an expansion of social consciousness, triggered by a
radical questioning of authority. This happened independently in several areas.
While the American civil rights movement demanded that Black citizens be
included in the political process, the free speech movement at Berkeley and
student movements at other universities throughout the United States and Europe
demanded the same for students.
In Europe, these movements culminated in the memorable revolt of French
university students that is still known simply as "May '68." During that time,
all research and teaching activities came to a complete halt at most French
universities when the students, led by Daniel Cohn-Bendit, extended their
critique to society as a whole and sought the solidarity of the French labor
movement to change the entire social order. For three weeks, the administrations
of Paris and other French cities, public transport, and businesses of every kind
were paralyzed by a general strike. In Paris, people spent most of their time
discussing politics in the streets, while the students held strategic
discussions at the Sorbonne and other universities. In addition, they occupied
the Odéon, the spacious theater of the Comédie Française, and transformed it
into a twenty-four-hour "people's parliament," where they discussed their
stimulating, albeit highly idealistic, visions of a future social order.
1968 was also the year of the celebrated "Prague Spring," during which Czech
citizens, led by Alexander Dubcek, questioned the authority of the Soviet
regime, which alarmed the Soviet Communist party to such an extent that, a few
months later, it crushed the democratization processes initiated in Prague in
its brutal invasion of Czechoslovakia.
In the United States, opposition to the Vietnam war became a political rallying
point for the student movement and the counterculture. It sparked a huge
anti-war movement, which exerted a major influence on the American political
scene and led to many memorable events, including the decision by President
Johnson not to seek reelection, the turbulent 1968 Democratic Convention in
Chicago, the Watergate scandal, and the resignation of President Nixon.
a new sense of community
While the civil rights movement questioned the authority of white society and
the student movements questioned the authority of their universities on
political issues, the women's movement began to question patriarchal authority;
humanistic psychologists undermined the authority of doctors and therapists; and
the sexual revolution, triggered by the availability of birth control pills,
broke down the puritan attitudes toward sexuality that were typical of American
culture.
The radical questioning of authority and the expansion of social and
transpersonal consciousness gave rise to a whole new culture — a
"counterculture" — that defined itself in opposition to the dominant "straight"
culture by embracing a different set of values. The members of this alternative
culture, who were called "hippies" by outsiders but rarely used that term
themselves, were held together by a strong sense of community. To distinguish
ourselves from the crew cuts and polyester suits of that era's business
executives, we wore long hair, colorful and individualistic clothes, flowers,
beads, and other jewelry. Many of us were vegetarians who often baked our own
bread, practiced yoga or some other form of meditation, and learned to work with
our hands in various crafts.
Our subculture was immediately identifiable and tightly bound together. It had
its own rituals, music, poetry, and literature; a common fascination with
spirituality and the occult; and the shared vision of a peaceful and beautiful
society. Rock music and psychedelic drugs were powerful bonds that strongly
influenced the art and lifestyle of the hippie culture. In addition, the
closeness, peacefulness, and trust of the hippie communities were expressed in
casual communal nudity and freely shared sexuality. In our homes we would
frequently burn incense and keep little altars with eclectic collections of
statues of Indian gods and goddesses, meditating Buddhas, yarrow stalks or coins
for consulting the I Ching, and various personal "sacred" objects.
Although different branches of the sixties movement arose independently and
often remained distinct movements with little overlap for several years, they
eventually became aware of one another, expressed mutual solidarity, and, during
the 1970s, merged more or less into a single subculture. By that time,
psychedelic drugs, rock music, and the hippie fashion had transcended national
boundaries and had forged strong ties among the international counterculture.
Multinational hippie tribes gathered in several countercultural centers —
London, Amsterdam, San Francisco, Greenwich Village — as well as in more remote
and exotic cities like Marrakech and Katmandu. These frequent cross-cultural
exchanges gave rise to an "alternative global awareness" long before the onset
of economic globalization.


the sixties' music

The zeitgeist of the sixties found expression in many art forms that often
involved radical innovations, absorbed various facets of the counterculture, and
strengthened the multiple relationships among the international alternative
community.
Rock music was the strongest among these artistic bonds. The Beatles broke down
the authority of studios and songwriters by writing their own music and lyrics,
creating new musical genres, and setting up their own production company. While
doing so, they incorporated many facets of the period's characteristic expansion
of consciousness into their songs and lifestyles.
Bob Dylan expressed the spirit of the political protests in powerful poetry and
music that became anthems of the sixties. The Rolling Stones represented the
counterculture's irreverence, exuberance, and sexual energy, while San
Francisco's "acid rock" scene gave expression to its psychedelic experiences.
At the same time, the "free jazz" of John Coltrane, Ornette Coleman, Sun Ra,
Archie Shepp, and others shattered conventional forms of jazz improvisation and
gave expression to spirituality, radical political poetry, street theater, and
other elements of the counterculture. Like the jazz musicians, classical
composers, such as Karlheinz Stockhausen in Germany and John Cage in the United
States, broke down conventional musical forms and incorporated much of the
sixties' spontaneity and expanded awareness into their music.
The fascination of the hippies with Indian religious philosophies, art, and
culture led to a great popularity of Indian music. Most record collections in
those days contained albums of Ravi Shankar, Ali Akbar Khan, and other masters
of classical Indian music along with rock and folk music, jazz and blues.
The rock and drug culture of the sixties found its visual expressions in the
psychedelic posters of the era's legendary rock concerts, especially in San
Francisco, and in album covers of ever increasing sophistication, which became
lasting icons of the sixties' subculture. Many rock concerts also featured
"light shows" — a novel form of psychedelic art in which images of multicolored,
pulsating, and ever changing shapes were projected onto walls and ceilings.
Together with the loud rock music, these visual images created highly effective
simulations of psychedelic experiences.


new literary forms

The main expressions of sixties' poetry were in the lyrics of rock and folk
music. In addition, the "beat poetry" of Allen Ginsberg, Lawrence Ferlinghetti,
Gary Snyder, and others, which had originated a decade earlier and shared many
characteristics with the sixties' art forms, remained popular in the
counterculture.
One of the major new literary forms was the "magical realism" of Latin American
literature. In their short stories and novels, writers like Jorges Luis Borges
and Gabriel Garcea Márquez blended descriptions of realistic scenes with
fantastic and dreamlike elements, metaphysical allegories, and mythical images.
This was a perfect genre for the counterculture's fascination with altered
states of consciousness and pervasive sense of magic.
In addition to the Latin American magical realism, science fiction, especially
the complex series of Dune novels by Frank Herbert, exerted great fascination on
the sixties' youth, as did the fantasy writings of J. R. R. Tolkien and Kurt
Vonnegut. Many of us also turned to literary works of the past, such as the
romantic novels of Hermann Hesse, in which we saw reflections of our own
experiences.
Of equal, if not greater, popularity were the semi-fictional shamanistic
writings of Carlos Castaneda, which satisfied the hippies' yearning for
spirituality and "separate realities" mediated by psychedelic drugs. In
addition, the dramatic encounters between Carlos and the Yaqui sorcerer Don Juan
symbolized in a powerful way the clashes between the rational approach of modern
industrial societies and the wisdom of traditional cultures.


film and the performing arts

In the sixties, the performing arts experienced radical innovations that broke
every imaginable tradition of theater and dance. In fact, in companies like the
Living Theater, the Judson Dance Theater, and the San Francisco Mime Troupe,
theater and dance were often fused and combined with other forms of art. The
performances involved trained actors and dancers as well as visual artists,
musicians, poets, filmmakers, and even members of the audience.
Men and women often enjoyed equal status; nudity was frequent. Performances,
often with strong political content, took place not only in theaters but also in
museums, churches, parks, and in the streets. All these elements combined to
create the dramatic expansion of experience and strong sense of community that
was typical of the counterculture.
Film, too, was an important medium for expressing the zeitgeist of the sixties.
Like the performing artists, the sixties' filmmakers, beginning with the
pioneers of the French New Wave cinema, broke with the traditional techniques of
their art, introducing multi-media approaches, often abandoning narratives
altogether, and using their films to give a powerful voice to social critique.
With their innovative styles, these filmmakers expressed many key
characteristics of the counterculture. For example, we can find the sixties'
irreverence and political protest in the films of Godard; the questioning of
materialism and a pervasive sense of alienation in Antonioni; questioning of the
social order and transcendence of ordinary reality in Fellini; the exposure of
class hypocrisy in Buñuel; social critique and utopian visions in Kubrik; the
breaking down of sexual and gender stereotypes in Warhol; and the portrayal of
altered states of consciousness in the works of experimental filmmakers like
Kenneth Anger and John Whitney. In addition, the films of these directors are
characterized by a strong sense of magical realism.


the legacy of the sixties

Many of the cultural expressions that were radical and subversive in the sixties
have been accepted by broad segments of mainstream culture during the subsequent
three decades. Examples would be the long hair and sixties fashion, the practice
of Eastern forms of meditation and spirituality, recreational use of marijuana,
increased sexual freedom, rejection of sexual and gender stereotypes, and the
use of rock (and more recently rap) music to express alternative cultural
values. All of these were once expressions of the counterculture that were
ridiculed, suppressed, and even persecuted by the dominant mainstream society.
Beyond these contemporary expressions of values and esthetics that were shared
by the sixties' counterculture, the most important and enduring legacy of that
era has been the creation and subsequent flourishing of a global alternative
culture that shares a set of core values. Although many of these values — e.g.
environmentalism, feminism, gay rights, global justice — were shaped by cultural
movements in the seventies, eighties, and nineties, their essential core was
first expressed by the sixties' counterculture. In addition, many of today's
senior progressive political activists, writers, and community leaders trace the
roots of their original inspiration back to the sixties.


Green politics

In the sixties we questioned the dominant society and lived according to
different values, but we did not formulate our critique in a coherent,
systematic way. We did have concrete criticisms on single issues, such as the
Vietnam war, but we did not develop any comprehensive alternative system of
values and ideas. Our critique was based on intuitive feeling; we lived and
embodied our protest rather than verbalizing and systematizing it.
The seventies brought consolidation of our views. As the magic of the sixties
gradually faded, the initial excitement gave way to a period of focusing,
digesting, and integrating. Two new cultural movements, the ecology movement and
the feminist movement, emerged during the seventies and together provided the
much-needed broad framework for our critique and alternative ideas.
The European student movement, which was largely Marxist oriented, was not able
to turn its idealistic visions into realities during the sixties. But it kept
its social concerns alive during the subsequent decade, while many of its
members went through profound personal transformations. Influenced by the two
major political themes of the seventies, feminism and ecology, these members of
the "new left" broadened their horizons without losing their social
consciousness. At the end of the decade, many of them became the leaders of
transformed socialist parties. In Germany, these "young socialists" formed
coalitions with ecologists, feminists, and peace activists, out of which emerged
the Green Party — a new political party whose members confidently declared: "We
are neither left nor right; we are in front."
During the 1980s and 1990s, the Green movement became a permanent feature of the
European political landscape, and Greens now hold seats in numerous national and
regional parliaments around the world. They are the political embodiment of the
core values of the sixties.


the end of the Cold War

During the 1970s and 1980s, the American anti-war movement expanded into the
anti-nuclear and peace movements, in solidarity with corresponding movements in
Europe, especially those in the UK and West Germany. This, in turn, sparked a
powerful peace movement in East Germany, led by the Protestant churches, which
maintained regular contacts with the West German peace movement, and in
particular with Petra Kelly, the charismatic leader of the German Greens.
When Mikhail Gorbachev came to power in the Soviet Union in 1985, he was well
aware of the strength of the Western peace movement and accepted our argument
that a nuclear war cannot be won and should never be fought. This realization
played an important part in Gorbachev's "new thinking" and his restructuring
(perestroika) of the Soviet regime, which would lead, eventually, to the fall of
the Berlin Wall, the Velvet Revolution in Czechoslovakia, and the end of Soviet
Communism.
All social and political systems are highly nonlinear and do not lend themselves
to being analyzed in terms of linear chains of cause and effect. Nevertheless,
careful study of our recent history shows that the key ingredient in creating
the climate that led to the end of the Cold War was not the hard-line strategy
of the Reagan administration, as the conservative mythology would have it, but
the international peace movement. This movement clearly had its political and
cultural roots in the student movements and counterculture of the sixties.
the information technology revolution
The last decade of the twentieth century brought a global phenomenon that took
most cultural observers by surprise. A new world emerged, shaped by new
technologies, new social structures, a new economy, and a new culture.
"Globalization" became the term used to summarize the extraordinary changes and
the seemingly irresistible momentum that were now felt by millions of people.
A common characteristic of the multiple aspects of globalization is a global
information and communications network based on revolutionary new technologies.
The information technology revolution is the result of a complex dynamic of
technological and human interactions, which produced synergistic effects in
three major areas of electronics — computers, microelectronics, and
telecommunications. The key innovations that created the radically new
electronic environment of the 1990s all took place 20 years earlier, during the
1970s.
It may be surprising to many that, like so many other recent cultural movements,
the information technology revolution has important roots in the sixties'
counterculture. It was triggered by a dramatic technological development — a
shift from data storage and processing in large, isolated machines to the
interactive use of microcomputers and the sharing of computer power in
electronic networks. This shift was spearheaded by young technology enthusiasts
who embraced many aspects of the counterculture, which was still very much alive
at that time.
The first commercially successful microcomputer was built in 1976 by two college
dropouts, Steve Wosniak and Steve Jobs, in their now legendary garage in Silicon
Valley. These young innovators and others like them brought the irreverent
attitudes, freewheeling lifestyles, and strong sense of community they had
adopted in the counterculture to their working environments. In doing so, they
created the relatively informal, open, decentralized, and cooperative working
styles that became characteristic of the new information technologies.


global capitalism

However, the ideals of the young technology pioneers of the seventies were not
reflected in the new global economy that emerged from the information technology
revolution 20 years later. On the contrary, what emerged was a new materialism,
excessive corporate greed, and a dramatic rise of unethical behavior among our
corporate and political leaders. These harmful and destructive attitudes are
direct consequences of a new form of global capitalism, structured largely
around electronic networks of financial and informational flows. The so-called
"global market" is a network of machines programmed according to the fundamental
principle that money-making should take precedence over human rights, democracy,
environmental protection, or any other value.
Since the new economy is organized according to this quintessential capitalist
principle, it is not surprising that it has produced a multitude of
interconnected harmful consequences that are in sharp contradiction to the
ideals of the global Green movement: rising social inequality and social
exclusion, a breakdown of democracy, more rapid and extensive deterioration of
the natural environment, and increasing poverty and alienation. The new global
capitalism has threatened and destroyed local communities around the world; and
with the pursuit of an ill-conceived biotechnology, it has invaded the sanctity
of life by attempting to turn diversity into monoculture, ecology into
engineering, and life itself into a commodity.
It has become increasingly clear that global capitalism in its present form is
unsustainable and needs to be fundamentally redesigned. Indeed, scholars,
community leaders, and grassroots activists around the world are now raising
their voices, demanding that we must "change the game" and suggesting concrete
ways of doing so.


the global civil society

At the turn of this century, an impressive global coalition of nongovernmental
organizations (NGOs), many of them led by men and women with deep personal roots
in the sixties, formed around the core values of human dignity and ecological
sustainability. In 1999, hundreds of these grassroots organizations interlinked
electronically for several months to prepare for joint protest actions at the
meeting of the World Trade Organization (WTO) in Seattle. The "Seattle
Coalition," as it is now called, was extremely successful in derailing the WTO
meeting and in making its views known to the world. Its concerted actions have
permanently changed the political climate around the issue of economic
globalization.
Since that time, the Seattle Coalition, or "global justice movement," has not
only organized further protests but has also held several World Social Forum
meetings in Porto Alegre, Brazil. At the second of these meetings, the NGOs
proposed a whole set of alternative trade policies, including concrete and
radical proposals for restructuring global financial institutions, which would
profoundly change the nature of globalization.
The global justice movement exemplifies a new kind of political movement that is
typical of our Information Age. Because of their skillful use of the Internet,
the NGOs in the coalition are able to network with each other, share
information, and mobilize their members with unprecedented speed. As a result,
the new global NGOs have emerged as effective political actors who are
independent of traditional national or international institutions. They
constitute a new kind of global civil society.
This new form of alternative global community, sharing core values and making
extensive use of electronic networks in addition to frequent human contacts, is
one of the most important legacies of the sixties. If it succeeds in reshaping
economic globalization so as to make it compatible with the values of human
dignity and ecological sustainability, the dreams of the "sixties revolution"
will have been realized:
Imagine no possessions,
I wonder if you can,
no need for greed or hunger,
a brotherhood of man.
Imagine all the people
sharing all the world...
You may say I'm a dreamer,
but I'm not the only one.
I hope some day you'll join us
and the world will live as one.

top

What Will Anarchism Mean Tomorrow ?
A Difficult Question To Answer by Colin Ward

At a party in Amsterdam to celebrate the 100th issue of De AS, which is an
anarchist journal with the same format as THE RAVEN, I met a group of people
intent on discussing the anarchist press. There were, for example, the group who
produce De RAAF, the paper of the Amsterdam Federation of Anarchists, and those
who still issue a bulletin called De Vrije Socialist, the title of a famous
Dutch anarchist paper started in 1898. I thought I had escaped without making
any of those rash promises we tend to give in a convivial atmosphere, but then I
was cornered by a nice bunch of people who had just issued the 28th number of
their anarchist quarterly Perspectief, from Ghent in Belgium. They wanted me to
tell them my response to the question "What will anarchism mean tomorrow?" It is
a topic I would be happy to evade, but, having been asked, this is what I have
sent them.
To answer this question I have to begin with a series of propositions about the
history of anarchism:
1. As a political ideology, anarchism was formulated in the l9th century by its
founding fathers who, like those of other varieties of socialism - Marxist,
Fabian, Social- Democratic - had an optimistic view of inevitable progress
towards their goal. They all believed that the conquest of power by 'the
people', whether through parliamentary means or through direct action in the
streets and factories or through armed struggle, would bring the changes they
sought in society. In considering the failure of the anarchists to achieve this
goal, we have to remember that bureaucratic state socialism of both
social-democratic and Marxist types has failed too. Indeed, anarchists could
claim that seventy years of experience of state socialism has delayed the
socialist cause by a century.
2. The l9th century anarchists were unique in their rejection not only of
capitalism but of the state itself. This was seen as proof that they were not to
be taken seriously. Yet the whole history of the 20th century had justified
them. It has been the century of total war, where the elimination of civilians
has become accepted as the consequence of sophisticated weaponry, while the
great powers have rivaled each other in selling the means of destruction to
every little local dictator in the rest of the world. It has been the century in
which mass extermination became the accepted policy of civilized states.
3. The l9th century anarchists looked forward confidently to popular revolutions
that would open the way to what they saw as a 'free society'. Events were
different. The Mexican revolution of 1911 resulted in the deaths and posthumous
glorification of anarchist heroes like Zapata and Magon and the dominance for
eighty years of the ironically-named Party of Revolutionary Institutions. The
Russian revolution of 1917 resulted in the brutal suppression of the anarchists,
and any other dissidents, by 1921 and then seventy years of Leninist-Stalinist
dictatorship from which a new generation of anarchists have only recently
emerged. The Spanish revolution of 1936 brought the suppression of the
anarchists long before the end of the civil war, and was followed by 35 years of
Fascist dictatorship. How would Mexicans, Russians or Spaniards today respond to
calls for revolution?
4. By the end of the l9th century some anarchists were beginning to formulate
the doctrine of anarcho-syndicalism, seeking to turn every workshop dispute into
a battle for control of the means of production. It denounced as a betrayal
every agreement that the reformist trade unions won over wages, hours and
conditions of work. The gains of the unions were written into the law in many
countries. (In Franco's Spain as much as in social-democratic Sweden.) By the
1990s employers all over Europe are seeking to avoid the rules with the aim of
reducing the cost of labour to that in Taiwan or Colombia. Every Ford worker
knows that industrial militancy will result in the multi-national company moving
production to another country. This issue is at the heart of the British
government's abolition of minimum wage agreements, at the decision, as I write,
of the Hoover company to shift production from France to England, and of the
British government's rejection of the ' Social Protocol' of the EC Maastricht
treaty, and it affects the future strategy of the political left including the
anarchists.
5. The l9th century anarchists, like the whole of the left, assumed that
nationalism was a superstition that the 20th century would outgrow. They thought
the same about religious beliefs. The last thing that they or anyone else
envisaged was the late 20th century rise of militant religious fundamentalism,
whether Christian, Jewish, Islamic or Hindu. The result is that, like other
non-religious, non-nationalistic people, we have no idea of how to approach
these unwelcome phenomena. Do we attack religious revivalism with the risk of
feeding rather than reducing its divisive power? Or do we anarchists, hostile
though we are to the state, find ourselves defending the secular state against
those organized minorities who want to use it for their own purposes? This may
not yet be an issue for us but it is an issue in the United States in defending
the secular state against Born Again Christians or for anarchists in Israel
defending the secular state against ultra-orthodox Judaism or for Egyptian
anarchists defending the institutions of the secular state against Islamic
fundamentalism or in India defending the secular state against Hindu extremism.
To my mind, these five propositions about the difference between the world of
the anarchists at the end of the l9th and of the 20th centuries result in the
need for a different style of anarchist propaganda at the dawn of the 21st
century. Faced by the eclipse not merely of anarchism but of the mainstream of
socialism I think it important to stress, as I did twenty years ago in the book
Anarchy in Action, that anarchism is not a theory of utopia but a theory of
organization. I agree with Paul Goodman's remark that "A free society cannot be
the substitution of a 'new order' for the old order; it is the extension of
spheres of free action until they make up most of social life".
This belief automatically excludes me from the ranks of those who think in terms
of mass revolutions (whose first victims, whether in China or Cuba. have been
the anarchists) but it includes me among those who, in the useful polarity posed
by Murray Bookchin, in social ecology rather than in deep ecology. I think that
the new support for anarchism in the 21st century will come not from Green
parties but from the broader Green movement.
Inevitably the ideas of the l9th century anarchists were Eurocentric, even when
they were brought to Japan, China and the cities of Latin America by students
and immigrants. But one of the anarchist enlargements of the late 20th century
is the contribution from a different style of anarchist thinking, with a
different label, from the Sarvodaya movement in India and from the evolution of
self-help self-employed settlements in Africa, South Asia and Latin America. The
triumphs of the unofficial economy, keeping society going in the hopeless
climate of South America in the face of a predatory ruling class and a military
caste which shifts periodically into state terrorism, is now classified as
basismo, a society which has to build itself from the base.
I believe that an intelligent 21st century anarchism will draw on its links with
the worlds of the Green movement and with the unofficial and informal economies
of the poor world, as well as those of the poor in the rich world, to draw
anarchist lessons on human survival. I think that the lessons of the 20th
century enhance the anarchist message, but that our language has to take account
of new and complicated social order.

Aucune reproduction à caractère commercial n'est autorisée.
Modif. : 2001-01-28 (554)
 

top

 Another world is possible... but what kind, and shaped by whom? by Cindy Milstein

Date:
Mon, 4 Mar 2002

During the World Economic Forum (WEF) meeting and related demonstrations in New
York from Jan. 31 to Feb. 4, the Village Voice put its finger to the shifting
political winds. That week's cover headline read, "Passing the Torch: Anarchists
Pick Up Where Progressives Left Off," and the corresponding image depicted a
middle-aged white male running in a business suit while handing off a Molotov
cocktail to the young white male in "anarchistic" attire sprinting along behind
him. While this front page could be critiqued for its damaging stereotype - that
all anarchists are youthful, violent Caucasian guys - the article inside
sympathetically acknowledged that "the anarchist fringe is fast becoming the
movement's center." Anarchists are indeed outstripping progressives because they
offer a form of contestation and transformation that speaks to the times - a
form in explicit opposition to the world's powerful elites, but one that also
acts as a thorn in the side of social justice activists.
This is especially apparent when comparing the WEF to its critics: the
simultaneous gathering in Porto Alegre, Brazil of the World Social Forum (WSF)
and the anti-capitalist convergence on NYC's streets.
The WSF maintains in its slogan that "another world is possible." It is in fact
not only possible but certainly probable, given that the process known as
globalization, among numerous other remappings, is fundamentally reconfiguring
power relations. And far from settled, the ability to (re)shape the world is
being both openly and surreptitiously fought over by nation-states as well as
transnational corporations, nonprofit organizations as well as the millions
ravaged by the globalizing process, and many others.
Some potential worlds could, of course, be more dystopian than today's - say,
those asserted to be the divine word of a god or prophet by fundamentalists of
all creeds. Yet even the more humane visions, like that of the WSF's, beg the
questions, Whose world will it ultimately be? Who will make social, economic,
political, and cultural decisions, and how? While there are multiple answers,
they all emanate from one of two distinct poles of governance: centralist versus
decentralist, or to put it more starkly, authoritarian versus
anti-authoritarian.
Of all the new authoritarian models, the WEF's can be said to be the most
avant-garde. The WEF is ahead of its day in forging an organizational culture
and structure capable of stylish world dominance in the age of globalization. It
is certainly not alone in its quest to "further economic growth and social
progress" for a limited few - social progress being measured by economic growth.
Institutions from the World Bank to the European Union to the U.S. government
share the same pursuit. What sets the WEF apart is its innovative means,
potentially making it all the more dangerous. To borrow its own language, the
WEF's membership meets in "a unique club atmosphere," always luxurious, "to
shape the global agenda," "to mold solutions," with the aim of controlling
sociopolitico-economic processes to its own advantage.
Such maneuverings have been militantly challenged at the WEF's past couple
annual meetings in Davos, Switzerland. Part of the alleged reason that the WEF
ventured for the first time from its secluded retreat was to avoid this mounting
resistance. The social costs, especially for the Swiss authorities, had gotten
too high. WEF leaders also likely hoped to discredit such opposition altogether
by meeting in New York City so soon after Sept. 11. They could claim to be both
mourning the dead and doing their bit to rebuild NYC by convening at the opulent
Waldorf-Astoria hotel. In contrast, so the WEF probably assumed, the protesters
would be seen as funeral crashers, dishonoring the dead by running wildly
through the streets of a still-grieving city without regard for property or
propriety. Once and for all, resistance would be tainted, thereby allowing
institutions such as the WEF to go about the lofty mission of governing
capitalist society without any pesky interference from "anti-globalist
marginals," to cite one WEF member.
To extend these speculations further, though, the best reason for trooping to
Manhattan was to highlight the growing global influence of this relatively
small, young organization. As 9-11 and the subsequent anthrax scare revealed,
fixed and visible centers of power can be targeted and attacked. The physical
places housing those who have played such a large role in determining the
postwar world economy (like the New York Stock Exchange) and geopolitics (like
D.C.'s Capitol building) are at risk of being shutdown. The U.S. government,
complacent with overconfidence in its own preeminence, still has the might to
lash out violently at home and abroad, yet like all bloated empires, it tries to
preserve its authority in the same tired ways, even as its leaner adversaries
dream up new strategies to assume the mantle of global power broker. It could
thus be argued that the WEF came to NYC precisely because Sept. 11 exposed
America-the-superpower's vulnerability, thereby allowing the WEF to flaunt
itself as heir to institutions like Wall Street and nation-states. Or at least
hold itself up as a potentially more resilient form of domination - flexible,
savvy, and placeless. The WEF boasts of being a trendsetter, and indeed it is.
Started as a nongovernmental organization (NGO) in 1971, it brings together the
best and brightest of the global power elites: 1,000 business leaders, 250
political leaders, 250 academic leaders, 250 media leaders, along with a
sprinkling of labor, social justice, and entertainment leaders. They are leaders
not because an electorate or the public says so but by virtue of their wealth,
influence, and power, and their farsightedness in being able to maintain all
three. This ensures that those most adept at foreseeing where the globalizing
world might go, and hence most able to engage in steering its course, will
constitute the WEF's fluid and, if needed, easily rearranged membership (witness
the summary disinvitation of Enron's Ken Lay). These privileged few are bound to
neither space nor place, geography nor nation-state. They are accountable to no
one but themselves, and when it serves their self-interests, each other. In the
WEF's own words, this NGO "is tied to no political, partisan or national
interests" - although "beholden to" would be more descriptive. It is as
transnational and elastic as the form of capitalism it promotes. And in its
extremely exclusive and private global clubhouse, glamorous hobnobbing among WEF
members legislates real-world economic and social policy.
Take just one iconic participant: Bill Gates. Money can't be his only goal; for
eight years, he's been the world's richest individual. More pointedly, having
achieved the near-monopolistic power to determine how humanity communicates
electronically, Gates has now taken a philanthropic turn. He is busily deciding
health care policies for whole countries and even continents by funding his
version of wellness. This grand gesture includes creating mass dependency on a
healthy dose of his corporate buddies' designer pharmaceuticals, particularly
after Bill's donations run out. Even if he had only benevolent motivations, can
one person know what's best for billions of peoples' bodies? As radical
feminists have long contended, control over one's body relates to
self-determination and social freedom as well as health.
The "representative" democracy of many nation-states almost begins to look good
by comparison, at least as a way to keep the WEF in check. But these same
allegedly democratic countries, along with a host of blatantly undemocratic
ones, are partners in and frequently under the sway of the WEF itself. Even at
the tender age of three, the WEF could already claim in 1973 to have "grown from
humble beginnings" to be "the leading interface for global business/government
interaction." Now in its yuppie prime, this NGO has developed its muscle by
integrating countries - from those in Latin America, the Middle East, and
Africa, to Eastern and Central Europe, Asia, and even North America - into its
institutional frame, often well ahead of the so-called international community.
As the "premiere gathering of world leaders in business, government, and civil
society," an autonomous supranational body such as the WEF looks to limit the
power of nation-states, not vice versa, and increasingly has the clout to do so.
This is the hazy yet ever-sharper organizational outline for a potential form of
one-world, nongovernmental governance, where a handful of individuals judge
right and wrong by the bottom line of buy-sell relationships, unimpeded by
constituents, much less ethical considerations, cultural constraints, or even
anti-capitalist convergences.
In this context, the WSF is held up as a promising candidate to stand against
the WEF and campaign for a better world. Pulled together by eight NGOs as the
socially oriented counterweight to the WEF, the WSF first convened last year in
Porto Alegre during the WEF's Davos session. This year, the Brazilian meeting
again purposefully coincided with the WEF. As a "forum for debate" for all who
seek an "alternative to [the] neoliberal model," the WSF "brings together and
interlinks . . . organizations and movements of civil society from all the
countries of the world" along with "those in positions of political
responsibility, mandated by their peoples, who decide to enter into the
commitments resulting from those debates." Certainly, the WSF and those who
participate in this alternate forum place "special value on all that society is
building to centre economic activity and political action on meeting the needs
of people and respecting nature," to again cite the WSF. And much-needed social
justice work has and will come out of the WSF's relatively (in comparison to
other global gatherings) open meetings.
But wittingly or not, in trying to parallel the WEF's meetings as its
alternative, the WSF ends up mimicking its hierarchical structure: a
supranational, nongovernmental body that seeks to shape the global agenda, with
no accountability to and far removed from those whose daily lives are affected.
Like the WEF, the WSF offers an informal, fluid, and centralized networking
environment for the globally influential - in this case, those in the
"nonprofit" and "movement" sectors. Such influence on the world stage, as the
WEF wells knows, can soon translate into a power that rivals or exceeds that of
nation-states.
Once the WSF's annual meeting is seen as the premiere gathering of socially
concerned leaders, which in two short years is already becoming apparent, its
statements will carry extraordinary political weight and its "debates" will soon
map out public policy. Big, bureaucratic NGOs will continue to flock to the WSF
in ever-greater numbers; and unlike activists and community-based organizations
operating on a shoestring, they will be able to attend meetings annually and
serve as members of the organizing council in between. These NGOs, then, will
largely set the themes and strategies discussed at the WSF, limiting from the
start the concerns of grassroots groups and radical movements. Moreover, these
NGOs have the financial and organizational resources to, at a minimum, lobby
governments and corporations - who are often involved with or monetarily
supportive of these NGOs - to implement their notions of social change, thereby
assuring that any "change" accords nicely with the status quo. Or a la Gates,
the NGOs can attempt to directly implement the ideas they themselves have
developed at the WSF's annual gathering through global social service projects.
Since these NGOs have their own agendas, such projects will always carry
political, social, and/or cultural price tags. This might not be a problem were
it not for the fact that as private, nongovernmental bodies, NGOs don't have to
worry about participatory processes, accountability, or transparency. So much
for representative democracy, much less community control or even public
scrutiny.
As the WSF gains in global influence it will even be courted, as it already was
this year, by the very entity it set out to challenge, the WEF, which is perhaps
able to recognize a kindred spirit well before the rest of us. This may have
something to do with the WSF's mission itself, in that it neatly inverts that of
the WEF's. Whereas the WEF views everything through an economic lens, and is
thus concerned with social issues insofar as they hinder economic growth, the
WSF views everything through a social lens, and is thus concerned with economic
issues insofar as they hinder social justice. The WEF, for instance, troubles
itself over a lack of water, education, or transport in countries because these
basic necessities serve as vital infrastructure for economic expansion.
(Besides, the utterly destitute don't make particularly robust markets and can
even get unruly.) Conversely, the WSF strives to reduce economic exploitation
because it limits peoples' access to essentials like jobs, food, or housing.
Socioeconomics, or more precisely capitalism, can therefore be utilized for
opposite ends: in the WEF's eyes, it is good for business; in the WSF's, it can
instead help bring about social justice. The WSF displays the best of aims: to
meet human needs in a just manner. But because it accepts only those
possibilities obtainable within a capitalist society (say, higher wages) rather
than those that may be generated by but also dismantle present-day social
relations (like the end of the wage system altogether), the other world that is
possible is already circumscribed, already damaged.
Such thinking leads the WSF to attempt to ensure social equity by partnering
with nation-states and international agencies. For example, the WSF was joined
this year by the Forum of Local Authorities (including big-city mayors and
administrators) and World Parliamentary Forum. These political leaders come from
the same countries sending participants to the WEF; most political leaders have
friendly if not intimate ties to the military-corporate complex via investment,
consulting, or board of director seats; and they represent the same political
entities that help perpetrate social injustice. True, the WSF's hope is to
heighten citizen participation in "democratic" (representative) nations and
international bodies, and this would likely be an improvement for many people.
More input is nevertheless a far cry from actual power. "Participation" is the
polite way of squashing popular movements by making people feel they finally
have a place to be heard by those in positions of authority, who actually do
listen carefully in order to incorporate just enough of people's concerns to
neutralize their discontent. But those at the top still get to have the final
say. A glimpse of this strategy can be seen in the WSF's International Council,
which resolved on Jan. 28B29, 2002, to continue to hold the "annual centralized
WSF event," but as "the WSF takes on a worldwide character and acquires more
support [that is, power], there must be more mobilization in the regions to
encourage more participation from all the continents."
If unaccountable, free-floating supranational bodies like the WEF and WSF prove
themselves better able to determine "public" policy than so-called public
servants elected in democratic republics, participation becomes even more
meaningless (leading some to the regressive demand to strengthen nation-states).
An influential few will have set themselves up as untouchable "leaders" more
capable of knowing what's good for humanity than the vast majority of the
world's peoples, who will be completely shut out of shaping the societies they
want to live in. Indeed, eerily similar to the WEF's notion of a "corporate
citizenship" voting on the allegedly better society, the WSF proposes a
"planetary citizenship." Who, pray tell, would govern this global citizenry?
Lost in the WSF's mission to bring about social justice, no matter how noble, is
the very notion of freedom itself, of self-determination and self-governance,
without which there can be no social justice. Surely the possible world of the
WSF would be far preferable to the WEF's. Yet in attempting to oppose the WEF,
the WSF only succeeds in offering a kinder, gentler version of top-down decision
making, and hence offers no real alternative at all.
Which brings us back to the anti-authoritarian "keepers of the flame" explored
in the Voice article mentioned above, where writer Esther Kaplan observes that
anarchists don't oppose "the WEF just because their policies exploit the poor,
but because their power is illegitimate. [Anarchists] envision an egalitarian
society without nation states, where wealth and power have been redistributed,
and they take great pains to model their institutions in this vein." David
Graeber echoes this in his recent In These Times piece: the anti-capitalist
convergence during the WEF meeting held out "new forms of radically
decentralized direct democracy [as] its ideology. If nothing else, the 'bad'
protesters have managed to prove that they can do anything the (hierarchical)
NGOs or unions can, probably much better."
As NGOs and social justice activists bailed out of the WEF demonstrations from
fear in the postBSept. 11 climate and/or the desire to be part of the more
high-profile, safe WSF in Brazil, a variety of anti-authoritarians were handed
the reigns of the U.S. direct action movement (re)birthed in Seattle. They
became the main organizers and spokespeople for the pivotal NYC convergence.
Thus, even the mainstream media were forced to cover anarchist beliefs and
visions - which, of course, have been there all along - if they wanted to report
on the convergence at all. So despite the usual demonizations in the corporate
press (as in the case of another Voice article, titled "Law of the Fist," that
basically labeled anarchists "Al Qaeda-like"), it became a fairly hegemonic
assertion that anarchism was openly opposed to capitalism and just as openly for
direct democracy.
This was especially so among the participants themselves. While for
anti-authoritarians direct democracy can include anything and everything from
collectives and affinity groups to worker and/or neighborhood councils, acting
in networks or confederations that keep power at the grass roots, most concur
that self-governance must be part and parcel of present as well as future forms
of social organization. Nowhere at the North American convergences of the past
few years has this been more palpable, more public.
Instead of signaling the death knell for resistance and reconstruction, New
York's demonstration may just have "normalized" anti-authoritarians' notions of
social and political contestation, whether one is an anarchist or not. The use
of substantively participatory decision-making processes before and during the
WEF convergence, while not perfect, were nonetheless able to settle on street
tactics that were sensitive to the feelings generated by Sept. 11, especially in
NYC, and hence thoughtfully somber and restrained. Though comparatively dull for
the marchers, not to mention the media and police, this explicitly
anti-capitalist event not only reasserted that resistance is permissible again
after 9-11's tragedy but that it is increasingly necessary and courageous in
light of new, rapidly consolidating forms of global authoritarianism. More
important, it helped to vindicate and validate liberatory alternatives.
Such alternatives have of late flickered momentarily though brightly at
anti-capitalist convergences and in localized anarchist projects, but also in
everything from the spontaneous gatherings of diverse New Yorkers in Union
Square right after Sept. 11 to the banging of pots and pans during protests in
Argentina by the middle class. Catalyzing the desire for self-organization,
however, is not enough. As the WEF's and WSF's of the world duel it out to gain
centralized power for themselves, anarchists must struggle for popular
self-government as a dual form of power, and support those who are doing
likewise.
The Zapatistas, along with other revolutionaries before them, have already shown
that declarations of "democracy, freedom, justice" resonate. But they have
proved as well that municipalities can strive to become autonomous from
statecraft and capital, to put human and ecological concerns first, while
retaining regional and global links of solidarity and mutual aid. Such is one
form of dual power emanating from an anti-authoritarian vision of social
transformation.
There are now hints of others, still in their infancy: the European Social
Consulta (ESC) and the neighborhood assemblies in Argentina. While the ESC is
being intentionally organized by those who already consider themselves radical
and the assemblies have been organically established by many who have never seen
themselves as political before, both imply that all are capable of
self-legislating, self-managing, and self-adjudicating the good society.
The ESC is doing this explicitly by attempting to create a common meeting space
that connects local and regional groups and social movements in a "horizontal
and decentralized fashion." As the ESC's proposed hallmarks insist, this
requires "a call for critical reflection, debate, direct action and the
development of alternatives to the current system as tools for social
transformation." It entails the rejection of capitalism as well as "all forms
and systems of domination and discrimination." Significantly, both in its
internal structure and how it hopes to engage society at large, the ESC affirms
"direct and participatory democracy and the capacity of all human beings to
create the world in which they want to live and to actively participate in the
decisions that most affect them." Still in the formative stage, the ESC may fail
to live up to its own aspirations, much less reach out beyond a small circle of
radicals. In the meantime, though, it is an inspiring example of a prefigurative
effort aimed at forging another possible world. For instance, one ESC proposal
is to bring issues raised at local assemblies together at a European-level
social consulta during the European elections of 2004, thereby dramatically
contrasting direct to quasi-representative democracy and perhaps unleashing dual
power institutions in the process.
Argentina's neighborhood assembly movement is already asserting itself as such.
A spiraling sense of desperation and powerless have combined to force people not
only out onto the streets to loudly demonstrate but into an empowering dialogue
with their neighbors about what to do next - on the local, national, and global
levels. Since late Dec. 2001, some fifty neighborhoods have been holding weekly
meetings and sending delegates every Sunday to an inter-neighborhood general
coordinating gathering. The anarchist Argentine Libertarian Federation Local
Council writes that the assemblies have been "formed by the unemployed, the
underemployed, and people marginalized and excluded from capitalist society:
including professionals, workers, small retailers, artists, craftspeople, all of
them also neighbors." As the Libertarian Federation notes, "The meetings are
open and anyone who wishes can participate," and common to all assemblies is the
"non-delegation of power, self-management, [and a] horizontal structure." It is
too early to say whether these assemblies will function as participatory
stepping stones to a reformed version of the same old governmental structures or
supply Argentineans with a glimpse of their own ability to make public policy
together, all the time. But for the moment, the Libertarian Federation reports
that "the fear in our society has turned into courage. . . . There is reason to
hope that all Argentineans now know for certain who has been blocking our
freedoms."
At worst, such fragile experiments will serve as reminders to future generations
that anti-authoritarian ways of making social, economic, political, and cultural
decisions are a tangible alternative. At best, they will widen into dual powers
that can contest and perhaps even replace not only old but also new forms of
domination. Anarchists and like-minded others have been handed a torch that
points beyond what is possible today, toward an impossibly wonderful tomorrow.
How far can we now run with it?

Sources:
Esther Kaplan, "Keepers of the Flame," Village Voice, 5 Feb. 2002
(www.villagevoice.com/issues/0205/kaplan.php).
World Economic Forum (www.worldeconomicforum.com).
World Social Forum (www.forumsocialmundial.org).
David Graeber, "Reinventing Democracy," In These Times, 20 Feb. 2002
(www.inthesetimes.com/issue/26/08/feature3.shtml).
Richard Esposito, "Law of the Fist," Village Voice, 22 Jan. 2002
(www.villagevoice.com/issues/0204/esposito.php).
European Social Consulta (www.consultaeuropea.org).
Argentine Libertarian Federation Local Council, "Argentina: Between Poverty
and Protest," trans. Robby Barnes and Sylvie Kashdan
(www.ainfos.ca/en/ainfos08566.html).
Thanks to Rob Augman for his helpful comments. Cindy is a faculty member at the
Institute for Social Ecology (www.social-ecology.org), a board member for the
Institute for Anarchist Studies (flag.blackened.net/ias), and a columnist for
Arsenal: A Magazine of Anarchist Strategy and Culture
(http://www.azone.org/arsenal). She can be reached at
cbmilstein@aol.com.



wsf (2002) | www.agp.org
 

top

Re-envisioning "Development"
A Buddhist Perspective

Prepared by the Think Sangha for Sulak Sivaraksa as part of the Lambeth, UK
meeting with the World Bank and religious leaders (February, 1998)

The following draft attempts to re-evaluate the process of "modern development"
from a "Buddhist" perspective. As such, it draws largely from the "development"
experience within Asia while incorporating insights into the recent Asian
financial crisis. The paper, however, is also intended to re-envision
development as it concerns not only the rest of the "developing" world but
integrally the way all societies in the world have been pursuing "development".
It consists of three parts: a critique of "modern development", a "Buddhist"
vision, and propositions for present engagement. While the critique may at times
be rather acerbic, the intention of this paper is to broaden dialogue with
disparate groups in the "development" process and to avoid pigeon holing those
perceived "at fault".

I. The Crisis of "Development"

A) Incompleteness of the Modern Development Model

In re-evaluating the role of "development" for the 21st century, we need to make
a fundamental re-assessment of the values and methods of envisioning human and
social development which have evolved during the modern period of the last 200
hundred years. From perspectives which stand outside of the modernist approach,
such as Buddhism, the over reliance on quantitative and structural frameworks
for envisioning and enacting the "development" process appears suspect. This
appears most notably in the domination of economic models for engineering human
and social well being and the preponderance in development agency staffs of
economists and other "experts" trained in the modern social "sciences". It is
also further manifested in the pervasive use of quantitative evaluation of human
and social well being, such as infant mortality rates, life expectancy rates,
literacy rates, consumption rates, poverty rates and so on. From a Buddhist
point of view, such fragmentation and abstraction belittles the immense
diversity and complexity of the human condition .
Such a framework presupposes the concepts of capital markets, nation state
structures, the "free individual" (i.e. consumer), and the linear and unlimited
procession of growth. These are the foundations of a world view for the vast
majority of the West, large segments of Japan, and increasing numbers of
southern elites who study abroad. However, for the larger percentage of the
human race, these concepts are still alien. Barter and community economies still
predominate. Feudal patronage systems are the common political means. The
individual is subsumed within roles of duty and obligation. Growth is a cyclical
movement of indulgence and renunciation.
In the past fifty years of the modern development era, we have seen the
increasing clash of these world views. Although the modern structural approach
has brought great promise with it in material prosperity, democratic government,
and individual social mobility, the preponderance of a purely structural
approach has been self defeating. This top down mechanism for enacting the
abstract and structural upon the real and diverse has empowered still
feudal-style elites to use the modern nation state to consolidate their power
over clients now referred to as citizens. Further, the belittlement and
replacement of indigenous values and systems by these "scientific" and modern
values and structures has complemented this process of disempowerment by
estranging the larger mass of citizens from their own cultural foundations.
What is taking place today in the "developing" world then is not the modern
ideal of the free individual enjoying material prosperity amidst democratic
government, but rather a tragic warping of this vision: material prosperity
exists for a small group of patron elite in government and business circles;
feudal cronyism is disguised as representative democracy; and a mass of
disempowered citizens are increasingly cut off from their historical and
cultural identities. These identities are replaced with modern consumer
identities which they have few personal or communal resources for coming to
grips with. A typical example of this process comes from the "development" of
the Lake Songkhla region in Southern Thailand:
The rural, agricultural based culture and the values that are inseparable from
it continue to lose ground in most places to the urban consumer non-culture
and all that it breeds. This trend is exemplified by the automated harvester
combines. It is extremely rare to find anyone in this region who does not hire
a combine to harvest the rice. It's quicker, yes, but when the laborious hand
harvesting is gone, so too are many rich traditions and customs which provided
the bonding cement for village life, as each family was dependent on the
others for their help in harvesting his rice. Vanishing are the songs, the
dances, the communal meals, the cooperation, the sense of the whole village
being one's home. Instead there is a quick swap of money to the stranger from
up north who rents out the combine; the grinding, mechanical monsters
lumbering over the lands; competitiveness; and feelings of isolation and
separateness. Most villages are no longer self-sufficient and naturally
cooperative institutions. For one thing, most working-age people go into
factories around Songkhla and Had Yai each day, leaving only the very young
and old in the villages. In many cases, whole families or villages have
immigrated permanently to the urban areas for low paying jobs and often wind
up living in the most unhealthy, dangerous places. We stopped in Songkhla and
talked with the residents from one of the ten major slum areas -- yes, quaint,
quiet little Songkhla is packed with slums! -- who have organized themselves
to call on the government to provide various services (services which they
used to take care of by themselves), and to provide support for each other.

B) The Moral Rot within Structures

The clash of modern and traditional has led to a lowest common denominator where
non-egalitarian feudal values graft with modern competitive market ones. The
result of such "development" is an increasing deterioration of moral and
cultural values. The Asian economic crisis has highlighted this corruption in
the government and business sectors. Feudalistic leaders (Thai politicians, the
Suharto family) have used their patron status to take advantage of modern market
and state systems to embezzle large amounts of development aid for themselves
and to see that the aid that is implemented is used for their personal business
interests. This has had a cascading effect on the societies at large as all
sectors of society, especially government officials, seek to get their own slice
of the pie at the expense of the public welfare.
When our monastery recently upgraded it's quarterly journal (the longest
continuously running Buddhist periodical in Siam), our publisher offered it to
schools along with other Buddhist books they carry. The librarians in many of
these government schools demanded a "commission," 10 per cent of the sale to
go into their own pockets. Everyone knows that the generals take their
multi-million baht commissions from big weapons and plane purchases (as well
as government officials from development aid allocations). Are we to be
shocked when ordinary teachers also want a cut from religious books?
On the citizen level, this break down of cultural values and replacement by
market ones has led to a gross and unbounded consumerism on display in largely
unlivable cities like Bangkok, Jakarta, and Manila. With economists calling for
greater consumer demand to create domestic growth, urban citizens displaced from
their cultural roots in the countryside embrace consumption as a new means of
identity. Results have been intolerable environments from industrial waste and
consumer pollution and an explosion of HIV/AIDS from booming sex industries.
Crime and religious fundamentalism and violence (e.g. Indonesia) have been
further responses to reassert the identity of those increasingly alienated in
the development process.

C) The Role of Development Agencies

The essential difficulty in this "development" process appears to be that
structural reform has come before the development of human capacity to deal with
it. World Bank President James Wolfensohn on his recent visit to Thailand
said,"We have the strong belief that people in this country don't want charity.
They want to hope, work and do it themselves". However, recent Bank initiatives
in "community development" to meet the Thai crisis such as irrigation projects
and supporting development in food processing still disregard the need for
individuals to make sense of the development process on their own terms.
The World Bank and IMF have properly attacked government corruption in
"developing" countries, but they have yet to address the more fundamental
dissonance with modern structural models and indigenous cultural systems. The
moral and cultural corruption undercutting the "development" process will
actually only increase with the IMF's "structural re-adjustment" packages.
Dismantling government patronage systems (however flawed) and the unbridled
plunging in of the world market and global consumerism will strip away any
lingering vestiges of indigenous frameworks by which "developing" societies make
sense of their world. Some see such "structural re-adjustment" as the freeing up
of markets. Others might view it as a cultural "clear cut". Expecting foreign
multi-nationals to have more concern than feudal bosses have for their own
clients is a flawed perception brought to light by the tarnished record of
northern corporations in the "developing" world (e.g. Nike in Indonesia and
Vietnam, Union Carbide in India).
As the developing world is being constantly reminded to reevaluate its operating
systems towards greater structural openness and freedom in markets and
government, so too must development agencies reevaluate their openness to new
ways of envisioning the development process. These agencies need to expand their
perspectives for interacting with donor groups. Policy planning and evaluation
based on purely quantitative analysis (e.g. GNP, doctors/square kilometer, etc.)
does not address the full range of human concerns which create prosperity and
happiness. Nor does it resolve, but rather entrenches, the power hierarchies in
these societies. Further, in the process of such a perspective change, there
will be a need to develop a common language between donor agencies and their
recipients which gives account to human and social diversity and respects
cultural self-determination.

II. Buddhism - An Inside Out Approach To Development

A) "Human Resource Development" as Personal Transformation
As an indigenous perspective with over two and a half millennia of practice and
application in Asia, Buddhism offers a complimentary perspective on human and
social "development". In the early development years of post World War II Asia,
Buddhism was stereotypically viewed as an anathema to "modern development".
While Buddhism does indeed have reservations about the course of "modern
development", its finely tuned practices of internal transformation as well as
the recent emergence of "development monks" in countries like Thailand belie the
notion that Buddhism is complacent either about individual or social
transformation.
These finely tuned practices of internal transformation offer important
resources in developing the internal capacity of individuals towards social
transformation. They also present a culturally appropriate model for "human
resource development" in Asia as opposed to the present model of education for
industrial labor and consumption. In these practices, Buddhism has balanced the
need for structural models to envision and guide growth and development and the
need for the unfolding of diverse and unique characteristics in each situation.
The Buddha's essential teaching of "middle way" points to such a balance
between:
* Wisdom & Compassion - compassion is the vital "subjective" pair which guides
technological wisdom towards the qualitative benefit of people.
* Personal Responsibility And Independence & Relationship With Teacher And
Community - this emphasizes developing one's self to answer one's unique
problems with support from others rather than becoming dependent on the
technology and expertise of a teacher or group of already advanced students.
* Meaning And Form - this emphasizes the timing of instruction and passing on of
technology. More skills are not helpful if the student is not ready to digest
and use them.
From such a Buddhist standpoint, we might reconceptualize "development aid" in
terms of the way the aspirant follows the spiritual path. Through balancing head
and heart, independence and interdependence, quantity and quality, a teacher
does not solve a student's problems but empowers him/her to answer his/her own.
In the same way, "development aid" as loans to increase material prosperity en
masse can never SOLVE the problems of a particular society. Rather such "aid"
must be timely, aimed correctly and work dynamically with the unique subjective
factors of a society.
As Buddhist practice begins to effect the inner core of the individual,
transformation will manifest itself in the physical world. An initial level is
that an individual's relationship to material goods and technology is radically
altered, and they begin to relearn the meanings of simplicity and renunciation.
Renunciation is not a shunning of the material but rather transforming our
relationship with the material from the highly defined desires and "needs" of
the market and state to requisites. Four such central requisites are food,
clothing, shelter and medicine. Transforming these into requisites means that as
these are basics for life, we should be simple, frugal and direct in our
treatment of them. As others depend on these for their livelihood as well, they
are things to be taken seriously and not to be wasted or treated selfishly. In
consumer society, we waste much time indulging in cuisine, fashion, interior
decorating, and intoxication in drugs and alcohol. As we begin to see the
material as means to building a mental and spiritual ecology and not as ends for
material growth, we begin to see the burden that they can create in our lives.
Renunciation then becomes the practice of making our lives lighter and freer
through material simplicity.
Beyond our relationship with the material, we obviously have emotional and
spiritual requisites. These are the food, clothing, shelter and medicine for our
spirits which give us sustenance towards reaching our higher goals. Humans have
a fundamental requisite of connection, to feel comforted and nurtured by the
world around them. The four material requisites provide this on a physical
level. On the spiritual emotional level, we also require this comfort and
nourishment. Life, Society and Nature become three fundamental requisites for
the individual to experience their interconnection with reality. In modern
culture, however, Life has become the "need" for personal indulgence in media,
entertainment and technology; Society the "need" for sex and consumer
experience; and Nature the "need" for environment as consumable experience. As
requisites, Life becomes the process of self-discovery and self-knowledge
through solitude, meditation or prayer, and art and learning. Society becomes
the way people connect together and reaffirm their cooperative nature through
proper partnership, family and community. Nature becomes the way all beings
connect, and this is practiced through a constant immersion where "environment"
no longer exists as an idea indicating the separation of man from nature. In
this way, the spiritual requisites extend the process of inner transformation
and "development" outwards to others and society.

B) Personal Transformation Extends to the Social and "Structural"

The social, "structural" form of Buddhist practice is called "sangha", the
community of individuals following such a process of internal transformation
together. Sangha incorporates the above individual practices on a larger scale
to include:
* sociability, sense of fairness, sympathy and duty. Although two hundred years
of history have done much to nurture institutions for freedom and equality, very
little has been done for the fraternity and solidarity that hold societies
together.
* a human-scale collective at which it is possible to encounter people face to
face and within which people can feel at home.
* an assertion of ethics. Without a strong sense of personal ethics, societies
require an unacceptable level of policing and contracts; and without a strong
sense of personal responsibility it is inevitable that costs will be shunted out
on to the natural environment and on to future generations.
From these fundamentals of individual and community transformation and
"development", we can begin to envision a new mandate for "development" which
involves individual and community capacity building as the foundation for
"structural development".

1. Education (wisdom)
For any structural improvements to be made in society, there is the fundamental
need to build the capacity of each individual and each community in a way which
balances head and heart, independence and interdependence, and quantity and
quality. The use of a "buddhist" style of "human resource development" which
emphasizes communities and individuals coming to terms with their own needs and
issues is an essential base for "structural development".

2. Culture (moral conduct)
For "development" to engender healthy societies, all facets of a society must be
addressed, not simply the economic. Economic issues must be reprioritized within
the overall structure of societies. This overall structure is what we can
understand as "culture" which includes art, history, language, medicine and
other aspects which combine to form healthy and self-sufficient societies

3. Dynamics of Interrelation or Politics (concentration)
For individuals and communities to create the space for their own "development",
the dynamics for interaction must be clear and healthy. We have seen how
structural reform has not changed the fundamental feudal nature of "developing"
countries nor that democracy is a finished product in "developed" countries.
More must be done to bring out cooperation and proper monitoring in political
systems
In such a way, the NGO movement has been a positive development to community
disempowerment in the "developing" world. NGOs have done well on the second
level of culture by reaffirming community values and bringing in other "soft" or
subjective factors into the "development process". Their failures, however, have
been in the first and third areas of education and interrelation. Firstly, their
own inability to practice personal transformation amidst their structural agenda
for "alternative" development has created organizations imbued with the same
feudal patronage structures and megalomaniac personalities as their government
counterparts. Further, as they have struggled for social space amidst the
patronage systems of government, they have been unable to create proper
horizontal connections with other NGOs and vertical connections with government
and business sectors. However, a system of networking which is developing among
NGOs, citizens groups, development agencies and even government offices suggest
one alternative model.
This model is the network, and one such example can be found in the Buddhist
metaphor of Indra's Net. Indra's Net is a spider's web in which at each node
appears a mirror which reflects all the other mirrors and vice versa infinitely.
In this way, each infinitesimal part encodes all of the whole within it. From
such a metaphor, we can envision a form of political organization which
emphasizes:
a) inter & independence in which power is not centralized but exists equally in
every node. This of course presupposes the capacity of each individual and
community must be uniquely empowered by the practice of internal transformation.
b) While emphasizing individual integrity, the whole is not the simple amassing
of the parts. Rather the interaction of the whole more strongly determines the
nature of the parts. Relationship and connection between groups is thus vital,
so there must be an emphasis cooperation and the procedures of communication.
This model of organization is being further explored in the work of quantum
physics, particularly holographic models of the mind which posit a
decentralized, multiply interactive model of the universe. Such a model puts a
strong emphasis on the democratic and dynamic interplay of its parts and thus
requires individuals to have their own critical perspectives. Individuals and
communities must able to think for themselves, determine their own directions
and development and then perhaps receive structural support in a timely manner.
Such a model de-emphasizes the feudal patronage systems with which development
agencies have become partners in state run development projects. This framework
is one still in the making and not without its difficulties, principally clearer
and efficient decision making methods among groups.

C) Incompleteness of the Buddhist Model

An essential aspect of the Buddhist (and quantum) critique of the modern
structural model is the insufficiency of any one approach, model or framework to
answer all questions. According to the pervasive dynamic of impermanence, we
must continue to make adjustments to the models and frameworks we have developed
according the flux of causes and conditions. In this way, Buddhism and other
movements which seem to oppose large development agencies like the World Bank
and IMF must also engage in their own internal critique.
One of the principal problems of Buddhist approaches to development has been
precisely the inability to engage with development agencies and others involved
in the important work of structural change in our societies. Typically,
Buddhists have held up fuzzy models of utopic small community as an answer to
all our social ills. Yet, especially in parts of the "developed" world like the
U.S. and U.K., citizens groups have been fighting passionately AGAINST the small
government agenda which seeks to leave communities to themselves while
disregarding the large number of people yet unable to fend for themselves and
still dependent on government social support. The call for "small community"
then plays right into the conscious negligence by elites in "developed"
countries to disregard the welfare of the whole. In such a way, Buddhists share
the Bank's and other development agencies' responsibility to develop new
perspectives and a mutual dialogue of depth and understanding.

III. The Role of The Bank

The above obviously presents some distance between the Bank's and a Buddhist
approach to development. Clearly each side has gaps in their approach which need
to be filled in and perhaps supplemented by the other side. At the end of such
an envisioning process, we must ask,"what can be done to enact change now?"

A) Policy Reform

The short term policy objectives for the Bank and other major donor agencies
remain problematic. If the Bank and such agencies truly wish to expand the scope
of their work, they will have to contemplate their present limitations. The Bank
and such agencies have an expertise in hard infrastructural development, and as
lending bodies, they function as banks. It is therefore unrealistic within their
mandates to suddenly become immersed in human resource development as personal
transformation. Furthermore, is it truly in anyone's interest to borrow money
for such programs?
These questions return us to the need to develop the languages and dialogues
with a wider variety of social sectors and to explore the possibility of new
frameworks for connection and cooperation, for example, the system of networking
outlined above. In this way, the Bank could play a role in fostering more just
relations between the various sectors of the "developing" societies it touches,
across governmental, business, NGO and community lines. It has been witnessed
that the Bank is exploring such ideas, for example, its proposal for "Research
Capacity Building Through North-South Cooperation." For the mandate of poverty
reduction to be realized, space must be created in society for the silent poor
to articulate their own vision.

B) Internal Reform

At the same time, the existing structures which dominate social space and
exhibit such a deterioration of moral standards must be confronted. This
includes governmental offices, corporations, and donor agencies such as the Bank
itself. We have seen how modern structure building has neglected the
transformation of individuals within these structures and how large structural
bureaucracies inhibit the important communal factors for growth in personal
connection and intimacy. Therefore, to begin the moral reform of corrupted
structures we must shift our focus away from more structural reform towards the
transformation of the individuals within them. Such practices have been outlined
above and already exist in the some of the brightest and most compassionate
companies which understand that healthy workers do good work and that a healthy
working community makes a successful business.
In order to aid the process of enlarging perspectives and creating common
languages, the notion of the "expert" must be expanded from those with abstract
specialized knowledge to include those with an integrated knowledge of various
fields and those with experiential knowledge from years immersed in the daily
lives of donor communities. The "participatory development" trend is a timid
step in this direction. Aid agencies must more aggressively develop staffs with
a wide range of experiences and knowledge who are not only intelligent but
compassionate. Like the environment, an organization needs a bio-diversity of
thinking and experiences in order to function in a healthy way.
Such an integration of staff with its target communities can be an important
step in creating an environment of mutual trust and respect. It can also be a
critical step in redressing the one-way polemic of the "developed" helping the
"underdeveloped" and in understanding what essential skills and knowledge the
"underdeveloped" world offer the "developed". An "expertise" in "human resource
development" skills such as renunciation, simplicity, and connection is probably
one of them. Finally, in drawing on a last Buddhist metaphor, we might
re-envision the Bank in the form of the traditional Buddhist "millionaire"
(setthi) who is not known for how much she has but how much she gives (not
lends) to the community. Practicing the parami (perfection) of dana (generosity)
she becomes well loved rather than well endowed for her forgiveness of all
outstanding debt and her loaning of capital with no collateral or interest.
 

top

The Four Noble Truths of Dharmic Socialism
by Santikaro Bhikkhu

The following is an excerpt from Ven. Santikaro's chapter
THE SOCIAL MANIFESTATIONS OF DUKKHA

I would like to deal with each of the four noble truths in so far as they are
relevant to a vision for a Dhammic Society. To explore the first "Social Noble
Truth," I would like to briefly review some of the many forms of social dukkha.
Throughout this discussion, we must never forget that what we are calling
"social problems" can never be separated from what we might call "personal
dukkha." There is an inter-relationship between the dukkha that manifests in us
as individuals, which supports and co-creates the collective problems of our
societies, and, conversely, how the structures in society that manifest these
collective problems impinge us in so many ways, therefore contributing to the
personal or inner dukkha that torments us.
One set of problems can be grouped under the heading of morality, values, and
culture. Primary, is the consumerism sweeping the world. People no longer rely
on their own wisdom, culture, and experience, rather they seek pleasure and
happiness in material things produced and advertised by the consumer culture.
This spawns problems such as the breakdown in community. As individual families
are focused more on their own comfort and acquisition of commodities, they are
less willing to put time and effort into maintaining the bonds and
responsibilities that nurture and foster community. So, we find the breakdown of
community coming with the spread of industrialization and consumerism. The decay
does not stop there. It continues not only between families but within families
whenever the level of individuality becomes excessive and obsessive such that
people no longer try even to sustain the bonds of family, or do so only in
superficial ways. Further, the individuals of the modern society, trapped within
their hyper-individuality, are increasingly alienated from their families and
their communities, even their own bodies.
The arrogant assumption that we can own and control nature has alienated us from
the natural world that we come from and from which we can never escape. This
mental, emotional, and spiritual alienation then has given rise to the vast
number of environmental problems, such as pollution, climate change, the absence
of wild and untouched places, overcrowding, urban and suburban ugliness, the
disappearance of species, and the loss of bio-diversity. Related to this is the
world view that sees things only in terms of their immediate utility or material
value - and often simply as money - for example, when a forest is seen only as
board feet or dollars. Human beings become "consumers," that is, are relevant
according to their purchasing power, which is the amount of profit that can be
exploited out of them. With this dehumanization, we are also alienated
spiritually, a tremendous problem that shows in the breakdown of religion and
morality today, including within Buddhism.
Related problems are the inability of education to instill human, moral, and
religious values; the thoughtless often violent garbage lacking in any human
value that floods the TV Channels and airways; the lack of transparency,
honesty, accountability, and leadership in politics; the people who make huge
sums of money on financial markets, not producing anything for the benefit of
humanity while sucking up tremendous resources through speculation on stocks,
futures, bonds, commodity prices, and other forms of so-called investment; the
genocide of indigenous peoples everywhere; gender injustice; and many more.

STRUCTURES OF SELFISHNESS

I believe that the profound and detailed Buddhist teachings on self (atta),
defilement (kilesa), attachment (upadana), and the other causes of dukkha are a
tool that humanity must use to get out of its mess. A simple perspective from
which to examine the causes and origins of social dukkha is selfishness. When we
analyze our personal dukkha using the principle of dependent co-origination
(paticca-samuppada), we see that all of it is linked with our own
self-centeredness or selfishness. Similarly, when we examine social problems we
find that they are rooted in social selfishness, what I call "structures of
selfishness." Here, selfishness means a concern above all with one's self, one's
family, or one's group (company, class, religion, race, nationality, sports
club) such that one disregards the needs and well-being of others, or even goes
so far as to consciously harm others when selfishness is out of control. In the
Buddhist analysis, such selfishness comes from tanha (craving) and upadana
(attachment to that craving) that there is some "me" or "self" who craves; this
gives rise to the identifications and egoistic states of mind around which our
selfishness forms. This "causal nexus" happens not only personally, it also
happens collectively as certain forms of craving become endemic in our society.
Certain forms of attachment are built into our social structures. We have
certain collective identities to skin color, language, religion, history,
ideology, and so on. We form collective egos and we are collectively selfish,
what is sometimes called "national interest" (or "class interest" or whatever
"interest"). These give rise to "structures of selfishness," some of which I
would like to explore here.
A rough equivalent of the word "selfishness" is the Pali kilesa (defilement,
that which tarnishes or pollutes the mind). Therefore, we can take the primary
defilements that we investigate and uproot in Buddhist practice and use them to
investigate certain social structures. This gives us a simple yet powerful
analytical tool, one grounded in morality and spirituality.
Greed (lobha): Capitalism & Consumerism
Anger (kodha):Militarism & Injustice
Hatred (dosa): Racism, Classism, & Exclusivism
Lust (raga): Prostitution In Entertainment, Tourism, & Business
Delusion (moha): Education & The Media
Competition: Capitalism, Sports, & A Way Of Life
Fear (bhaya): Medicine & Religion
Sexism: All Kinds Of Kilesa

IGNORANCE: THE ULTIMATE CAUSE

To take this analysis a little deeper, we should investigate what Buddhism
considers to be the ultimate cause of dukkha. Might it also be the ultimate
cause of our collective social dukkha? The basic cause of all these structures
of kilesa is ignorance: not seeing things as they really are.
Nowadays, one of the most common forms of ignorance can be called
"pseudo-science" or "scientism," an illusion of investigating the reality of
things that ignores important parts of the reality. For example, pseudo- science
is reductionist; it breaks things into their parts and assumes that things are
nothing more than the sum of their parts, ignoring the holistic, integrated
nature of things. Pseudo-science is obsessed with material phenomena and
material causes, therefore ignoring the mental, ethical, spiritual, and
value-based phenomena in the causes of social problems. Further, the mechanistic
tendency of pseudo-science; the blind belief in progress, evolution, and
positive development; the assumption that the observer is separate from the
observed, thus subjectifying and objectifying reality; have all combined to turn
science into pseudo-science.

DHAMMIC SOCIALISM & THE END OF DUKKHA

Ajarn Buddhadasa called his vision of the nibbanic society, "Dhammic Socialism."
For him, Dhammic Socialism expressed two basic facts. One is that we are
inevitably and inescapably social beings who must live together in a form of
society that gives priority to the ways we inter-relate, work together, and help
each other solve the problems and dukkha of life. Thus, the principle of right
relationship or right inter-relatedness is the heart of such a society. Tan
Ajarn understood such forms of society to be the meaning of Socialism, which may
differ from the understanding of political scientists and Marxists.
The second fact is that Socialism can go wrong. There have been various
approaches to Socialism and some have been incorrect, that is, authoritarian,
violent, and corrupt. Ajarn Buddhadasa insists that Socialism must be modified
by Dhamma to keep it honest, moral, and nonviolent. Thus, we speak of Dhammic
Socialism. We do not want a Socialism that is primarily materialistic or
economic. He did not espouse a Socialism based on class conflict or class
revenge. Rather, we seek a Socialism that is in harmony with Dhamma. To be in
harmony with Dhamma means that it is based in the realization of human
interdependence.
In other words, our Socialism must be moral, rooted in siladhamma (morality,
normalcy). Siladhamma consists of relationships and activities that do not
oppress or take advantage of anyone, even oneself, and that are for the mutual
benefit of ourselves, others, and the collective. As we saw earlier, social
oppression is rooted in personal and structural kilesa, that is, selfishness.
Eliminating such selfishness is the task of siladhamma, religion, and Dhammic
Socialism. Whether our Socialism can go further than the moral level and achieve
a society in which all are free of not only selfish behavior but selfish
thinking need not be discussed here. I think it is enough for now to set our
sights on a society in which selfish behavior is minimized. Nonetheless, as we
will discuss later, importance must be given to a deeper morality that short
circuits selfishness and a spirituality that eliminates selfishness, if people
are to control and transform their behavior for the sake of the Dhammic Society.
People require a vision that shows how true happiness lies in Dhammic Socialism
and a nibbanic society rather than in selfishness, consumerism, materialism, and
the like.

DHAMMIC SOCIAL STRUCTURES

Then what is society like when the defiled selfish structures have been removed?
What will be the structures composed of values and virtues esteemed and honored
by Buddhists and other religions? For one, when the greedy structure of
capitalism is removed, the economic structure will be one of dana (generosity,
sharing), santutthi (contentment with what one has), caga (sacrifice,
liberality), mattannuta (moderation, sufficiency), and self-reliance. This alone
would be a radical change from the current society, although past cultures came
close, especially in rural areas and amongst indigenous peoples. In traditional
societies, generosity and sharing are very important, bonding the members of the
community together in mutual good-will. Contentment with what nature and life
provides is much healthier than endless hunger, for us as well as the eco-
system. Lastly, by practicing right livelihood (samma-ajiva) people will supply
their needs in ways that are non-destructive, non-exploitative, and sustainable.
In the place of anger and militarism, society will be based on metta (kindness)
and karuna (compassion). In most schools of Buddhism, we find legends of the
Maitreya Buddha, the Buddha to come, who will usher in an era of universal love
and compassion. Other traditions have similar beliefs and images, for example,
the second coming of Christ. While many people nowadays will laugh at such an
ideal, Dhammic Socialism will contain structures that enshrine the values of
metta, karuna, sympathy, and empathy.
Instead of competitive structures, society will exist through samaggi, (harmony,
unity), cooperation, and mutual support. There will be many forms of groups,
organizations, and communities where people exchange knowledge, skills,
resources, and experiences. This will not be a tit-for-tat kind of helping.
Rather, samaggi, will inspire us to help spontaneously; whenever someone is in
need other people will be there. This is not unknown in the world; there are
still many communities where the word goes out and help arrives.
In place of the hate systems of racism, classism, religious sectarianism, and
other forms of exclusiveness there will be respect (garava) and appreciation
(anumondana) for differences and diversity in age, gender, race and ethnicity,
religion, language, backgrounds, talents, strengths, and so on. Attempts to
impose conformity will cease and differences will not be used to foster fear and
hatred. They will be understood as resources and causes for joy; we will know
how to learn from them. The need to form group identities and group egos will
vanish. At least, if some level of identity remains it will no longer be
exclusive, it will be open to dialogue and creative partnerships with other
groups.
Healthy sexuality within healthy families will replace sexism, the sickly
structure of fear, hatred, and lust. Thus, children will be raised and
socialized without all the fears, obsessions, suppressions, and prejudices of
patriarchy and sexism. Here, a healthy family means that husband and wife have a
mature love based in respect and shared responsibility, the proper container for
sex. Each couple has only as many children as they can give adequate time,
energy, and love. People will do some spiritual work on themselves before
undertaking this important enterprise of reproduction. Certain roles may tend to
be the province of one sex or the other, but never exclusively or rigidly. Men
will be able to appreciate and develop their feminine qualities; women will be
able to appreciate and nurture their own masculine qualities.
The Dhammic Society will encourage many of its citizens in nekkhamma,
renunciation or the moving away from sensuality. Not only ascetics and
celibates, but students, mature adults, and people from all walks of life will
be supported in living a life based on more refined forms of happiness, that is,
the non-sensual kind. Even married people will be helped to spend significant
parts of their reproductive years enjoying freedom from sensual enslavement.
This is not so farfetched once consumerism is conquered and people are no longer
buffeted by structures of anger, hatred, and fear.
Those mis-education and mass media structures of delusion will be transformed
into structures of awareness, wisdom, and cultural vitality. A variety of
enabling activities and resources will help allow people to know and understand
themselves, others, society, nature, and Dhamma. These activities may not come
in the traditional packages of schools and universities, although such
institutions may still exist. Education will be seen as a life long process;
instead of just getting a degree and making money, it will be oriented towards
ending dukkha. It will focus on understanding what is really important in human
life and in human society, to enable each person to find their place and role in
society, to enjoy that place and role without any self deception or "consensus
trance," and to commit her or himself to that role or responsibility for the
betterment of society. Most important, education will be in the hand of the
communities where it takes place and will involve partnerships between learners
and enablers.
Similarly, the media will serve a function of exchanging genuinely useful
information. While there will still be things like the Internet, TV, and some
form of newspapers, they will no longer be under the control of patriarchy,
capitalism, and militarism. They will no longer be under the control of vast
impersonal bureaucracies, whether state, corporate or religiously owned. Freed
of such structures the media will be used creatively to allow people to find out
about things that really benefit them. The media will then be part of the
Dhammic learning process, helping people to continue their learning throughout
life. Instead of information being fed to us in a one way flow, Dhammic
information systems will be truly interactive. The learner will be able to
control content, pace, style, etc. Further, the media will help living people to
exchange their knowledge and experiences.
The structures of fear that have created the disease and insurance industries
will be transformed into systems that help people understand life and death,
adapt to change and illness, and live with pain. With such understanding, people
will not be afraid of body changes, yet will have an array of strategies to help
avoid unnecessary pain, unnecessarily early death, confusion, and so on. Such a
system will focus on health rather than disease. If we understand life, society,
nature, and Dhamma we will know what health is. The medical system will be a
health system covering all aspects of life and cease being an "industry."
Insurance will be purchased by good diet, sane living and working conditions,
exercise, and Dhamma. Drugs and technological interventions will only have a
support role.
Similarly, genuine religion - which already exists in pockets here and there -
will come to the forefront. It will not require elaborate, rich, powerful
institutions, for it will live in people's hearts, in their values, and in their
relationships. It will support and advise the other bodhi structures, no longer
sucking up to the kilesa structures or trying to lord it over society. Its sole
concern will be the diverse expressions of spirituality and morality.
Lastly, the competitive systems will be replaced with cooperative ones. The old
self-reliant communities will return, often in new forms. Creative forms of
organization will enable cooperation through mutual responsibility, respect,
participation, and consensus. For example, the Sangha system of the Buddha will
take on new life in diverse ways fitting local conditions. Without adversarial
politics, we will not require political parties. Government will be
decentralized, bottom-up, transparent, non- hierarchical, and based on
Schumacher's principle of subsidiarity which says that "nothing should be done
centrally if it can be done equally well, or better, locally".
In short, Dhammic Socialism is a society no longer based in selfishness. Its
foundation is awareness-understanding of our interdependence and the need to
work together, care for each other, make sacrifices, let go of self, and give up
selfish interests for the good of society, for the well-being of the planet, and
for the sake of Dhamma. Dhammic Socialism is a vision for a non-selfish society,
one that is nibbanic or cooled. Because of the biases of modern social theory,
going back to Hobbes and Locke, these ideas may seem farfetched or impossible to
many people who have been raised assuming that life and society are vicious
dog-eat-dog competitions. Buddhists, however, have faith in Buddha Nature and
take it as the guiding principle in society. All of us are Buddha. All of us are
capable of awakening to our true nature through the path of mindfulness,
compassion, and wisdom. Fundamentally, we are OK. We must condemn the wrong
understanding imbedded in social and political theories that assumes the worst
of human beings, because they become self-fulfilling prophecies. Instead, we
need to articulate in open-minded, flexible, and non-sectarian ways the
possibilities for the unselfish society, or, if you like, Dhammic Socialism.

NOBLE TWELVE FOLD SOCIAL PATH

There remains one last noble truth to cover here, the path we are following in
order to realize the non-selfish society. Each aspect of the four noble truths
is necessary in solving problems. As we deepen our understanding of where we are
coming from, the problems and their causes, and where we are going - that is,
the nibbanic society - we must find practical, effective ways to get started and
to sustain progress. As always in our practice, we work in the present moment.
That does not mean ignoring the past and future, only that we deal with reality
here and now as it is. So, how do we get there from here?
The key word accompanying every factor of the path is "right" or "correct"
(samma). Correctness is not to be defined in dogmatic terms. Nothing is correct
but by the grace of Dhamma, that is, when it is in harmony with natural law and
appropriate to the causes, purpose, time, society, individuals involved, and
oneself. Thus, the meaning of "right" or "correct" depends on the causes and
conditions of each case. We must be mindful, sensitive, open-minded, flexible,
creative, and insightful to keep track of and respond to the diverse changing
circumstances.
The nobility of our path is also crucial. We, of course, do not mean "noble"
(ariya) in the ordinary hierarchical or classist way. Literally, the Pali word
means "to go (ya) away from one's enemies (ari)." Traditionally, "enemies"
refers to the kilesa. Above, we have made it clear that kilesa social structures
are the enemies of all beings. Further, the path is noble in that only noble,
skillful means are used. For example, we avoid violence. Let us give careful
thought to "noble means."
Right Religion
Right Education
Right Leadership
Right Organization & Government
Right Communication
Right Culture
Right Sexuality & Family
Right Economics
Right Ecology
Right Play
Right Monitoring
Right Sangha & Solidarity
Ajarn Buddhadasa often stressed that the noble Eightfold path in itself is not
enough. The eight factors are merely the set of causes; we are not finished
until the set of fruits arise. Thus, he reminded us to seriously consider the
ten rightnesses (sammatta). Although the Buddha taught the ten rightnesses many
times in the Tipitaka, Theravada tradition has largely overlooked the last two
factors. Once the path is fully and correctly developed, there will arise right
insight knowledge (samma-nana) and right liberation (samma-vimutti). Right
insight knowledge would mean that we know the fundamental truths and secrets of
living together in harmony. Right liberation is the Dhammic Society that is free
of selfishness and the selfish social structures, from oppression, from
alienation, and from dukkha. Ultimately, the correctness of our engaged Buddhist
path will be its ability to bring about right insight and right liberation.

SANTIKARO BHIKKHU is an American who has been an ordained monk in Thailand for
15 years. He studied under the late Buddhadasa Bhikkhu, an INEB patron, at Suan
Mokkhabalarama translating his talks and writings and assisting with retreats.
For 5 years, he was the Acting Abbot of a foreign community of practitioners
next to Suan Mokkh called Suan Atammayatarama. Ven. Santikaro has also been
active in a number of social development workshops in Siam, the Philippines, and
Nepal. He is now in the process of moving back to the United States where he is
planning to set up a practice center based on Buddhadasa's teachings.
 

top

Overview of Social Ecology

Hardly anyone today needs to be told that the biosphere of this planet is
endangered, and that its ability to support life, including human life, can no
longer be taken for granted. Yet as recently as thirty-five years ago, the
concept of ecology was little known outside the biological sciences. In the late
1950s and early 1960s, when social theorist Murray Bookchin first began to
develop the ideas that became social ecology, few people were aware that an
environmental crisis was looming. In the decades since, in numerous books and
articles and through a wide range of political activities, Bookchin has
articulated social ecology into a distinctive set of ideas for radical social
transformation.
Since those years, too, the ecological crisis has only worsened. In the next
century global warming alone is expected to wreak havoc with the earth’s
climate, causing rising sea levels, catastrophic weather extremes, epidemics of
infectious diseases, and diminished arable land and hence agricultural capacity.
It is reported that, at a U.S. cabinet meeting in September 1997, Robert Rubin,
the U.S. Treasury secretary, exclaimed to Vice President Al Gore: "This damn
global warming issue could send the economy into a death spiral!" Rubin was
almost certainly not reading Murray Bookchin at the time, and unlike Bookchin,
he was speaking as a leading representative of the capitalist system, but in
this phrase Rubin expressed an idea that Bookchin had been advancing since the
early 1950s. The present market society is structured around the brutally
competitive imperative of "grow or die," in which enterprises are driven by the
pressures of the marketplace to seek profit for capital expansion at the expense
of all other considerations; otherwise they will be vanquished by their equally
driven competitors. This imperative stands radically at odds with the capacity
of the planet to sustain complex forms of life. It must necessarily lead
capitalist societies to plunder the planet, to turn back the evolutionary clock
to a time when only simpler organisms could exist.
Unfortunately, many other approaches to ecological issues do not recognize that
the ecological crisis is most immediately a product of capitalism. As a result,
they tend to wrongly hold other phenomena to blame. Perhaps the most widespread
and popularly accepted explanation for the ecological crisis is
overpopulation--too many people using up too many of the earth’s limited
resources. The corollary is that only by somehow reducing the rate at which
human beings reproduce can humanity arrive at an ecological balance. Other
writers assert that the ecological crisis ultimately has religious origins: that
the patriarchal Judeo-Christian religion commanded humans to "be fruitful and
multiply" and to dominate other creatures, thereby leading to today’s crisis.
Still others blame science and technology for ecological damage, observing that
if toxic chemicals and nuclear power had never been invented, the earth would
today be a better place to live.
Such views often completely ignore the social causes of the crisis.
Overpopulation does not cause ecological dislocations; rather, the way people
organize their societies is to blame, regardless of population size. Similarly,
science and technology are not to blame--the problem is the uses to which
society--especially capitalist society--puts science and technology. (Exceptions
are nuclear power and pesticides, which are anti-ecological in themselves.)
Finally, religious outlooks are far less to blame than the social relations that
underpin them: The biblical injunction that gave command of the living world to
Adam and Noah, for example, was above all an expression of a social
dispensation. All these explanations ignore the "grow or die" imperative of
modern capitalism: trade for profit, industrial expansion, and the
identification of progress with corporate self-interest. In short, these
explanations focus on the symptoms rather than on the pathology itself, and the
efforts of those who advance them, however well-meaning they are, will
inevitably be limited to goals whose attainment is less than curative.
In contrast to viewpoints that offer strictly biological, religious, or
technological explanations, social ecology emphasizes that the ecological crisis
has its origins in social relations--in the way in which human beings have been
organized into various economic and political institutions over the course of
history. In this account, the very idea of dominating the natural world (first
nature) initially emerged with the social domination of human by human, that is,
into hierarchies and exploitative classes. As the anthropological and historical
records show, such domination--according to age, then gender, ethnicity, and
race, as well as distinct economic classes--preceded and gave rise to the idea
of dominating the biosphere. Social ecology adds that the mastery of some human
social groups by others in early societies made it possible for people even to
conceive of mastering the natural world in the intersts of social and finally
class elites.
Social ecology is therefore opposed to all forms of hierarchy and domination, as
well as to class exploitation and oppression. Even as we struggle to save the
biosphere, it argues, we must strive to eliminate domination, be it in matters
of race, gender, sexual identity, and class exploitation. But today the most
immediate cause of the ecological crisis is the set of social relations known as
capitalism. And the nation-state is essential to the system, constituting the
apparatus by which capitalist societies maintain social control through a
monopoloy of the use of force--and at the same time mollify social unease to a
tolerable level by providing certain minimal social services.
The effort in some quarters of the ecology movement to prioritize a pantheistic,
often mystical "eco-spirituality" over social analysis raises serious questions
about their ability to come to grips with reality. At a time when a blind social
mechanism, the market, is turning soil into sand, covering fertile land with
concrete, poisoning air and water, and producing sweeping climatic and
atmospheric changes, we cannot ignore the impact that hierarchical and class
society has on the natural world. Economic growth, gender oppressions, and
ethnic domination--not to speak of corporate, state, and bureaucratic
interests--are much more capable of shaping the future of the natural world than
are privatistic forms of spiritual self-regeneration. Forms of domination must
be confronted by collective action and by major social movements that challenge
the social sources of the ecological crisis, not simply by personalistic forms
of consumption and investment. The present highly cooptative society is only too
eager to foster personalism and add ecological verbiage to its advertising and
customer-relations efforts.

An Ecological Humanism

Some ecological outlooks blame human beings generically for the ecological
crisis, as if the species itself was tainted with some irreversible defect. By
contrast, social ecology, as an expressly ecological humanism, sees human beings
as the most differentiated and complex life-forms on the planet, without which
neither consciousness nor freedom would exist. Potentially, at least, human
beings are the only possible source of an ethics on this planet, especially an
ethics that calls for the preservation of the biosphere.
This vast drama of nonhuman nature is in every respect stunning and wondrous.
Its evolution is marked by increasing subjectivity and flexibility and by
increasing differentiation that makes organisms more adaptable to new
environmental challenges and opportunities and, in the case of rational humans,
to so alter their environment as to best meet the needs of all living beings.
Social ecology conceives nonhuman nature as its own evolution rather than as a
frozen pictoral vista, which has profound implications--ethical as well as
biological--for ecological politics and philosophy. Human beings embody, at
least potentially, the ability to go beyond mere environmental adaptation to
creative innovation; this potentiality in no way removes them from their place
in the natural world but rather makes them conscious agents within the broad
stream of evolution.
They are not "natural aliens," phylogenetic deformities that, owing to their
tool-making capacity, "cannot evolve with an ecosystem anywhere," as one writer
has maintained. Nor are they "intelligent fleas," to use the language of Gaian
theorists who believe that the earth ("Gaia") is one living organism that
subsumes humanity with all life-forms. These disjunctions between humanity and
the evolutionary process are as superficial and untenable as they are
potentially misanthropic. Humans are highly intelligent, self-conscious
organisms, having emerged--not diverged--from a long evolution of vertebrate
life-forms. They are a product of a significant evolutionary trend toward
intellectuality, self-awareness, will, intentionality, and expressiveness, be it
in verbal or in body language.
To deny these attributes and potentialities of humanity is to remove any reason
why the human species, like any other species, should not utilize its capacities
exclusively to serve its own needs and attain its own "self-realization" at the
expense of all other life-forms that impede its interests and desires. To
denounce humanity for "exploiting" organic nature and behaving
"anthropocentrically" is simply an oblique way of acknowledging that second
nature (social evolution) is the bearer of moral responsibilities that do not
exist in the realm of first nature. Social ecology argues that if all life-forms
have an "intrinsic worth" that should be respected, it is only because human
intellectual, moral, and aesthetic abilities have attributed it to
them--abilities that no other life-form possesses. It is only human beings that
can even formulate the concept of "intrinsic worth" and endow it with ethical
weight.
The idea of dominating nature is not inherent in the human species. Rather, it
has its primary source in the domination of human by human and in the
structuring of the natural world into a hierarchical chain of being. Such an
idea can be overcome only through the creation of a society that is free of
those class and hierarchical structures that make for rule and obedience in all
aspects of social life. That this new dispensation would involve changes in
attitudes and values should go without saying. But these attitudes and values
must be given substance through objective institutions (the structures by which
humans concretely interact with each other) and through the realities of
everyday life from childrearing to work and play. Until human beings cease to
live in societies that are structured around hierarchies as well as economic
classes, we shall never be free of domination, however much we try to dispel it
with rituals, incantations, ecotheologies, and the adoption of seemingly
"natural" lifeways.
Humanity’s vast capacity to alter first nature is itself a product of natural
evolution--not of a deity or the embodiment of a cosmic Spirit. From an
evolutionary viewpoint, humanity has been constituted to intervene actively,
consciously, and purposively into first nature with unparalleled effectiveness
and to alter it on a planetary scale. To denigrate this capacity is to deny the
thrust of natural evolution itself toward organic complexity and
subjectivity--the potentiality of first nature to actualize itself in
self-conscious intellectuality. There is a natural tendency toward greater
complexity and subjectivity in first nature, arising from the very interactivity
of matter, indeed a nisus toward self-consciousness, as well as the play of
natural selection in evolutionary development. Humanity's natural capacity to
consciously intervene into and act upon first nature has given rise to a "second
nature," a cultural, political, and social "nature" that today, like it or not,
has virtually absorbed first nature.
Second nature is, in fact, an unfinished, indeed inadequate, development of
evolution as a whole. Hierarchy, class, private property, the state, and the
like are evidence--and by no means, purely accidental evidence--of the
unfulfilled potentialities of nature to actualize itself as a nature that is
self-consciously creative, both in reflection and in practice. Humanity as it
now exists is not nature rendered self-conscious. The future of the biosphere
depends overwhelmingly on whether second nature can be transcended in a new
system of social and organic complementarity, or "free nature"--a nature that
would diminish, wherever possible, the pain and suffering that exist in both
first and second nature. Free nature, in effect, would be a conscious and
ethical nature, embodied in an ecological society.

Works on Social Ecology
Dialectical Naturalism

The ecology movement understandably distrusts conventional (instrumental)
reason, yet too often ecological thinkers turn to arbitrary and
anti-intellectual tendencies toward the sentimental and theistic, even to the
antirational and mystical. The philosophy of dialectical naturalism, which
underpins social ecology, offers a distinct alternative to both of these
choices. By adding a developmental perspective to ecological thinking, it
discerns evolutionary phenomena fluidly and plastically, yet it does not divest
evolution of rational interpretation. A dialectic that has been "ecologized," or
given a naturalistic core, and a truly developmental understanding of reality
could provide the basis for a living ecological ethics.
Dialectical naturalism is also integrally wedded to the objective world,
grasping reality as an existentially unfolding continuum. At the same time it
forms an objective framework for making ethical judgments. Based on the
objectivity of rational potentialities--of the existing but implicit reality of
freedom and self-consciousness--dialectical naturalism tries to educe the phases
of development, both existentially and speculatively, that yield the actuality
or realization of a free, ecological society. This gives rise to an ethics is
not merely a matter of personal taste and values; it is factually anchored in
the world itself as an objective standard of possible and logical
self-realization. Whether a society is "good" or "bad," moral or immoral, for
example, can thus be objectively determined by whether it has fulfilled its
potentialities for rationality and ethics. Potentialities that are themselves
actualizations of a dialectical continuum present the very real challenge of
ethical self-fulfillment--not simply in the privacy of the mind but in the
reality of the processual world. Herein lies the only meaningful basis for a
truly ethical socialism, one that is more than a body of subjective
"preferences" that rest on opinion and taste.

Works on Dialectical Naturalism
Anarchism, Marxism, and Revolutionary History

Social ecology seeks to fundamentally transform society to abolish the
nation-state and capitalism. As such it is integrally embedded in the tradition
of the left, especially the revolutionary libertarian left.
Many aspects of Marx's writings are immensely relevant to a libertarian
communist social analysis and theory of revolutionary change. Most
fundamentally, Marx's basic project of formulating a coherent socialism
integrates philosophy, history, economics, and politics. Social ecology
especially affirms this project at a time when fragmentation is so
all-pervasive, when postmodernism compels us, in the name of relativism and
pluralism, to deal only with episodes and events, rather than formulate
generalizations. Although Marx's claim that socialism can be a "science" is
untenable, his demand for a coherent socialism is refreshing, and his demand for
coherence is as living today as it was a century ago.
Also of extreme importance is the vitality of Marx's political economy. His
economic studies are central to any revolutionary socialist analysis. His theory
of commodification, of capitalist accumulation on a worldwide scale, anticipated
the essential features of capitalism today. The same can be said for his grasp
of historical development, which, despite its schematic flaws, contains
unequaled social insights. Finally, Marx’s attempt to infuse theory with
practice--the famous eleventh thesis on Feuerbach, in which he says,
"Philosophers have only interpreted the world, in various ways; the point is to
change it," remains a basic challenge to a Left that suffers from academic
cretinism and personalistic introspectoin.
But as a means for the transition from capitalism to socialism, Marx relied
greatly on the state. His views that a centralized state would be necessary as a
successor to the bourgeois state, in order to carry out the revolutionary
transition, and that a workers' party should somehow govern the new state in the
interests of society as a whole, ignored deep-seated problmes of how a minoirty
of society, using methods characteristic of bourgeois rule, could democratically
manage social affairs without suffering currption and naked coercion. Marx’s
failure to seriously consider confederal alternatives based on direct democratic
assemblies or even popular councils burdened socialism with a parliamentary
orietnation that led to reformism over revolutoin and bureaucracy over
libertarian forms of administration.
Social ecology opposes not only parliamentarism but the electoral party system
as such. A party is a bureaucratic apparatus structured from the top down--as
opposed to a libertarian confederation, which is structured from the bottom up.
It is nothing more than a statist apparatus that is waiting for an opportunity
to acquire state power. When it does take power, it may well acquire the
authoritarian features of the very state machinery it has come to control or
even eventually abolish, irrespective of whether that state is an explicit class
dictatorship or a so-called representative republic.
In this regard, several features of social anarchism offer significant advances
over Marx's most familiar political legacy. Most notably, it calls for
confederation rather than a state and a party. It calls for a direct democracy.
It calls for a libertarian form of communism. Regrettably, however, left
libertarians--even social anarchists--have had a lamentable tendency to reject
organizational forms and methods, thereby sometimes forfeiting the opportunity
to play a socially transformational role. As we look back through revolutionary
history and examine crucial moments and situations, we find that all too often
during revolutions dogmatic shibboleths paralyzed leaders and organizations and
prevented them from carrying through their revolutionary efforts.
We desperately need to strike a rational balance between theoretical insight and
popular spontaneity, between organization and impulse. Each without the other is
a guarantee of failure.

Works on Anarchism, Marxism, and Revolutionary History
Libertarian Municipalism

Social ecology calls for a decentralized, libertarian politics based on the
tradition of direct democracy, known as libertarian municipalism. It proposes a
face-to-face democracy that can potentially create an institutional counterpower
to the nation-state and capitalism, and thereby lead to the creation of an
ecological society.
To this end, libertarian municipalists seek to resuscitate a largely lost local
political realm and expand it into a widespread local direct democracy. They aim
to institutionalize this direct democracy in citizens’ assemblies--in
neighborhood and town meetings--where citizens of a given municipality may meet,
deliberate, and make decisions on matters of common public concern. They seek to
build that democracy into a strong force, by which citizens may manage society
as a whole, in a rational, ecological, libertarian society.
To bring the nascent political realm of the municipality to this fulfillment,
libertarian municipalists seek to place the management of towns and city
neighborhoods entirely in the hands of competent adult community members,
meeting in face-to-face citizens’ assemblies. Shedding their artificially
induced personae as passive spectators, as consumers, and as isolated monads,
citizens would recognize their mutual interdependence and shared civic problems
to advance the public welfare at a time when capitalism itself is creating
profound crises not only of a class nature but of a transclass social nature as
well, as evidenced in ecological, gender, ethnic, bureaucratic, and similar
problems. They would create the institutions that make for broad community
participation and sustain them on an ongoing basis, finally regaining the power
that the state has usurped from them.
The municipalities that have undergone democratization by forming citizens’
assemblies would link together in confederations on a regional basis to address
shared intermunicipal or regional problems. The democratized municipalities of a
given region would send delegates to a confederal council who would individually
be accountable to the assemblies that chose them, and they would be imperatively
mandated by those assemblies. They would not be permitted to make policy
decisions without first gaining the assent of their local assemblies, and they
would be _immediately recallable_ at the assemblies' discretion.
Indeed, rather than making policy decisions, the confederal council would exist
primarily for administrative and adjudicative purposes--that is, for the purpose
of coordinating and promoting policies formulated by the assemblies, reconciling
(with base approval) differences among them.
It is the citizens, deliberating in their democratic assemblies, who alone have
the right to make policy: they would develop various courses of action on a
particular issue, deliberate their various strengths and weaknesses, then make
their decision according to majority vote. The confederal council, by contrast,
would merely coordinate and execute the policies that the municipalities have
already adopted.
As the libertarian municipalist movement grows over the long term, more and more
municipalities would democratize themselves and form confederations. Eventually,
when a considerable number have confederated, their shared power would hopefully
constitute a clear threat to the state and to the capitalist system.
The larger and more numerous the municipal confederations become, the greater
would be their latent power, and the greater would be their potentiality to
constitute a counterpower or dual power to the nation-state. As they realize
this potentiality, tension would likely grow between themselves and the state.
This tension is eminently desirable in the hope that confederated municipalities
would constitute a distinct counterpower to the state.
As the confederated municipalities gain enough support to constitute a dual
power to the state, the political situation is likely become highly unstable,
ultimately leading to an open confrontation. It is possible, too, that a direct
democracy and the crises produced by capitalism in all spheres of life will
institutionally "hollow out" the state power itself, delegitimating its
authority and winning a majority of the people over to the new civic and
confederal institutions. With or without a confrontation, however, power will
have to be shifted away from the state and the professional practitioners of
statecraft and entirely into the hands of the people and their confederated
assemblies.
Economic life in the democratized society would be neither nationalized (as in
state socialism), nor placed in the hands of workers by factory (as in
syndicalism), nor privately owned (as in capitalism), nor reorganized as small
proprietary cooperatives (as in communitarianism). Rather, it would be
municipalized--that is, placed under community "ownership" and control in the
form of citizens' assemblies. This municipalization of the economy means the
"ownership" and management of the economy by the citizens of the community and
its coordination with other municipalized economies through confederation.
Property--including both land and factories--would come under the overall
control of citizens in their assemblies, coordinated by confederal councils. The
citizens would become the collective "owners" of their community's economic
resources and would formulate their economic policies in the interest of the
community as a whole.
Citizens would thus make economic decisions not for their individual workplaces
but for the entire community. Those who work in a particular factory, for
example, would participate in formulating policies not only for that factory but
for all other factories as well. They would participate in this decision-making
not as workers, farmers, technicians, engineers, or professionals, but as
citizens. The decisions they make would be guided not by the interests of their
specific enterprise or vocation but by the needs of the entire community.
The assembly would also make decisions about the distribution of the material
means of life, fulfilling the communist promise of post-scarcity. "From each
according to ability and to each according to need"--the demand of all
nineteenth-century communist movements--would become a living practice, with
levels of need rationally determined by the assembly. Everyone in the community
would thus have access to the means of lif