Defamation

Opening today at Cinema Village in New York, “Defamation” is one of the most powerful anti-Zionist films ever seen in movie theaters in the United States, all the more remarkable for the fact that the director Yoav Shamir is an Israeli citizen and from a long-standing Zionist family that arrived in Palestine long before the creation of the state of Israel. The title is very possibly a reference to the Anti-Defamation League in the United States, whose chief executive Abe Foxman plays a prominent role in the film.

Like Diogenes with his lamp, Shamir—who assumes a comic persona a bit like Michael Moore or Ross McElwee while remaining off-camera—ventures forth from Israel with his crew in order to answer the question whether anti-Semitism exists. From the front page coverage of major Israeli dailies, as he shows us, you would get the impression that a Kristallnacht is about to break out at any moment. When he asks his 91 year old grandmother in her Israel home at the outset of the movie whether people hate the Jews, she replies to the effect that if so, they should move to Israel. Those who “have money” and who “don’t want to work” might turn that invitation down, she adds. When her grandson tells her that she sounds anti-Semitic, she shrugs her shoulders.

Foxman and his deputies, who we first meet at ADL headquarters, are conflicted over how to relate to the Israeli film-maker. On one hand, he has impeccable Zionist credentials; on the other, he keeps reminding them about the need to distinguish between anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism, a question that is addressed over and over again in this remarkable film.

Joining a tour group of Israeli teenagers visiting death camps in Poland, he shows us how necessary the Holocaust memory is to the expansionist and racist policies of the Zionist state. One girl tells him that after seeing the concentration camp, she “wants to kill them all”. When he reminds her that there are no Nazis today, she shifts gears and states that the death of six million Jews eclipses and implicitly legitimizes anything happening to Palestinians today.

The high points of the film involve Norman Finkelstein commenting on the Holocaust Industry and his blacklisting from the academy. Finkelstein, a singularly compelling speaker, has about the same amount of antipathy toward Foxman that he has toward Alan Dershowitz. When the director challenges him about the possibility of making hyperbolic that might alienate those who would agree with him on the substance of his criticisms, Finkelstein appears dismissive. Since the director had initially likened Finkelstein to an Old Testament prophet, it is surprising to see him dispensing advice about “reining it in”. In the most compelling scene in the entire movie, Finkelstein raises his hand in a “Heil Hitler” salute when Shamir mentions his name.

That salute prompts the director to remind Finkelstein once again about the need to avoid unnecessary rhetorical flourishes. At that point, Finkelstein explodes and delivers a speech that is worth the entire admission price. He reminds the director that being compared to Hitler is a standard operation in Israel. Different Zionist leaders were always comparing each other to Hitler. Ben Gurion called Jabotinsky a Hitler (obviously not a far-fetched comparison) while Ariel Sharon’s Labor Party opponents said the same thing—and vice versa.

Shamir visits Brooklyn in order to track down anti-Semitic incidents in Crown Heights. Dov Hikind, a local ultra-Zionist politician and former member of the fascist Jewish Defense League, tells him that one incident stood out. When orthodox Jews were at an outdoor rally, a cop assigned to protect them was overheard complaining on his cell phone about having to look after “the Jews”. Shamir next interviews Rabbi Shea Hecht, a leader of the ultra-orthodox Lubavitcher Hasidim, to see if he had thoughts about anti-Semitism in the neighborhood. The rabbi replies that none exists. It is only raised as an issue by those who have a vested interest in it professionally, like Abraham Foxman who he mentions specifically.

Shamir also directed Checkpoint, a powerful documentary that can be seen in its entirety on Youtube:

Yoav Shamir’s director’s statement from the film’s press notes can be read on MRZine. Don’t miss this outstanding movie.

Claude Levi-Strauss

Claude Levi-Strauss

Claude Levi-Strauss’s death on October 30 at the age of 100 led me to look a little bit into his thought. I was interested to see if his ideas had any bearing on my research into the Napoleon Chagnon controversy. Levi-Strauss’s initial foray into ethnology took place in the Brazilian rainforest among Indian tribes not that much different from the Yanomami. Indeed, Jacques Lizot, the gay anthropologist who became Chagnon’s adversary after their initial collaborations, was a student of Levi-Strauss. I also wanted to get a handle on his basic approach since Althusser’s Marxism is supposedly based on Levi-Strauss’s structuralism. What was that all about? Granted, it no longer has the urgency it once had. In my early days on the left and Marxist oriented mailing lists, structuralism still had some traction, owing to a large extent to the hegemony it enjoyed at the U. of Massachusetts under Richard Wolff and Stephen Resnick. That seems like a lifetime ago now.

On the asset side of the balance sheet, it must be acknowledged that Levi-Strauss was—like Franz Boas—a major voice against social Darwinism. Along with Franz Boas, he rejected the idea that primitive peoples were doomed to become extinct in the “survival of the fittest” competition. Indeed, the connection between the two men was more than ideological. On December 22, 1942, Franz Boas and Claude Lévi-Strauss were having lunch at the Faculty Club of Columbia University, a place that I have dined at frequently, when Boas suffered a heart attack, falling into Levi-Strauss’s arms. At the age of 34, Levi-Strauss was destined to assume the mantle of the dying 92 year old. In 1995, at the age of 87, Levi-Strauss wrote an article titled Saudades Do Brasil that took note of the cultural and physical genocidal tendencies brought on by “development”:

The Bororo, whose good health and robustness I had admired in 1935, are today being consumed by alcoholism and disease and are progressively losing their language. It is in missionary schools (which, by a curious reversal, have become the conservators of a culture they had in the first place worked at suppressing, and not without success) that Bororo youths are being taught about their myths and their ceremonies. But, for fear that they might damage the feather diadems, masterpieces of traditional art, the missionaries are keeping these objects locked up, entrusting the Indians with them only on strictly necessary occasions. They would be increasingly difficult to replace since the macaws, parrots, and other brightly colored birds are also disappearing…

I could not help but be reminded of Rosa Luxemburg’s 1917 letter to Sophie Liebknecht:

Yesterday I was reading about the reasons for the disappearance of song birds in Germany. The spread of scientific forestry, horticulture, and agriculture, have cut them off from their nesting places and their food supply. More and more, with modern methods, we are doing away with hollow trees, waste lands, brushwood, fallen leaves. I felt sore at heart. I was not thinking so much about the loss of pleasure for human beings, but I was so much distressed at the idea of the stealthy and inexorable destruction of these defenceless little creatures, that the tears came into my eyes. I was reminded of a book I read in Zurich, in which Professor Sieber describes the dying-out of the Redskins in North America. Just like the birds, they have been gradually driven from their hunting grounds by civilised men.

Despite his open affiliation with Marxism, Levi-Strauss was going against the grain of much of what had been written in its name when it came to primitive peoples. Unfortunately, social Darwinism had seeped into the thinking of some of the most important foundational figures, including Karl Kautsky and Georgi Plekhanov. Through most of the 20th century, this kind of thinking has tended to drive a wedge between socialists and indigenous peoples who still existed in communal societies. The Sandinista missteps with the Miskito Indians are just one example.

Levi-Strauss’s earliest academic training, like Marx’s (and mine!) was in philosophy. Reacting to the social and economic crisis of the 1930s, he became alienated from mainstream French philosophy that was shaped largely by Henri Bergson’s ideas. Bergson was strongly influenced by Charles Darwin and evolved a philosophy that stressed a kind of teleological and ameliorist vision of history, something that was obviously at odds with the economic misery and fascist movements that the young Levi-Strauss saw all around him.

In chapter six of “Tristes Tropiques”, widely considered Levi-Strauss’s masterpiece, he discusses “How I became an Anthropologist”. He describes his growing disenchantment with facile notions of “progress” taught in philosophy classes:

We watched self-consciousness in its progress through the ages elaborating constructions ever lighter and more audacious, resolving problems of balance and implication, inventing refinements of logic; and the more absolute the technical perfection, the more complete the internal coherence, the greater was the system in question. It was as if the student of art-history had been taught that Gothic was necessarily better than Romanesque, and flamboyant Gothic better than primitive Gothic, without stopping to wonder what was beautiful and what was not.

From Freud, Levi-Strauss learned that static antinomies such as rational and irrational were “no more than meaningless games”. And, in his typically eclectic fashion, he next found himself inspired by geology, a science that displays nature demonstrating “the living diversity” that “juxtaposes one age and the other and perpetuates them.” But it was Marxism that helped to finish the intellectual journey that began when he decided to travel to Brazil to study native peoples.

When I was about seventeen I was initiated into Marxism by a young Belgian socialist whom I had met on holiday. (He is today one of his country s Ambassadors abroad.) Reading Marx was for me all the more enthralling in that I was making my first contact, by way of that great thinker, with the philosophical current that runs from Kant to Hegel. A whole world was opened to me. My excitement has never cooled: and rarely do I tackle a problem in sociology or ethnology without having first set my mind in motion by reperusal of a page or two from the 18th Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte or the Critique of Political Economy. Whether Marx accurately foretold this or that historical development is not the point. Marx followed Rousseau in saying and saying once and for all, as far as I can see that social science is no more based upon events than physics is based upon sense-perceptions. Our object is to construct a model, examine its properties and the way in which it reacts to laboratory tests, and then apply our observations to the interpretation of empirical happenings: these may turn out very differently from what we had expected.

At a different level of reality, Marxism seemed to me to proceed in the same way as geology and psycho-analysis (in the sense in which its founder understood it). All three showed that understanding consists in the reduction of one type of reality to another; that true reality is never the most obvious of realities, and that its nature is already apparent in the care which it takes to evade our detection. In all these cases the problem is the same: the relation, that is to say, between reason and sense-perception; and the goal we are looking for is also the same: a sort of super-rationalism in which sense-perceptions will be integrated into reasoning and yet lose none of their properties.

Despite his best of intentions, we must conclude that Levi-Strauss simply did not understand Marxism if he can describe it thusly: “Marx followed Rousseau in saying and saying once and for all, as far as I can see that social science is no more based upon events than physics is based upon sense-perceptions. Our object is to construct a model, examine its properties and the way in which it reacts to laboratory tests, and then apply our observations to the interpretation of empirical happenings: these may turn out very differently from what we had expected.”

Indeed, there is so much confusion packed into these two sentences that I despair of reading Levi-Strauss’s mind in order to figure out what he was trying to say. This much we know. He obviously saw Marx as some kind of precursor to structuralism since the idea that social science must not be based on “events” is surely another way of saying that history has little interest to the French philosophy current that operated in the name of Marxism for several decades and that led to all sorts of ideological confusion.

In closing the door on Bergson’s evolutionism, Levi-Strauss bent the stick too far in the opposite direction and ultimately decided that history was bunk, to use Henry Ford’s pithy formulation. The structuralist school became largely defined by its hostility to historical interpretations. In the case of Althusser, this meant breaking with the early Marx, who was befuddled apparently by both “humanism” and a Hegelian framework, and adopting a more “scientific” approach that conceived of Marxism in terms of Levi-Strauss’s “laboratory tests”.

When Levi-Strauss was at the pinnacle of his prestige, Susan Sontag wrote a article in the NY Review of Books titled “A Hero of Our Time” that would be included in “Against Interpretation”, a collection that made her own reputation. It was a review of his “Structural Anthropology”, snippets of which can be read on MIA. She writes:

Lévi-Strauss sees man with a Lucretian pessimism, and a Lucretian feeling for knowledge as both consolation and necessary disenchantment. But for him the demon is history—not the body or the appetites. The past, with its mysteriously harmonious structures, is broken and crumbling before our eyes. Hence, the tropics are tristes. There were nearly twenty thousand of the naked, indigent, nomadic, handsome Nambikwaras in 1915, when they were first visited by white missionaries; when Lévi-Strauss arrived in 1938 there were no more than two thousand of them; today they are miserable, ugly, syphilitic, and almost extinct. Hopefully, anthropology brings a reduction of historical anxiety. It is interesting that many of Lévi-Strauss’s students are reported to be former Marxists, come as it were to lay their piety at the altar of the past since it cannot be offered to the future. Anthropology is necrology. “Let’s go and study the primitives,” say Lévi-Strauss and his pupils, “before they disappear.”

It is strange to think of these ex-Marxists—philosophical optimists if ever such have existed—submitting to the melancholy spectacle of the crumbling pre-historic past. They have moved not only from optimism to pessimism, but from certainty to systematic doubt. For, according to Lévi-Strauss, research in the field, “where every ethnological career begins, is the mother and nursemaid of doubt, the philosophical attitude par excellence.” In Lévi-Strauss’s program for the practicing anthropologist in Structural Anthropology, the Cartesian method of doubt is installed as a permanent agnosticism. “This ‘anthropological doubt’ consists not merely in knowing that one knows nothing but in resolutely exposing what one knows, even one’s own ignorance, to the insults and denials inflicted on one’s dearest ideas and habits by those ideas and habits which may contradict them to the highest degree.”

Whether or not Sontag was being totally accurate, it is distressing to think that this self-avowed if confused Marxist cum geologist/Freudian was attracting such “former Marxists” who dwell in “systematic doubt”. If Marxism has been accused in the past for having a messianic certainty about its goals, I for one would continue to remain a Marxist than to remain paralyzed like Hamlet in “anthropological doubt”.

Why you should contribute to Swans

Contribute to Swans here: http://www.swans.com/about/donate.html

Although I am not 100 percent sure about the numbers, I believe that I have written 47 articles for Swans since 2003. But I am completely sure that the best things I have ever written have been for Swans, including articles on:

• Jesse James
• Camus and Sartre
• B. Traven’s Jungle novels

Given my generally cranky disposition and my wariness of the publishing business, either print or online, it is a sign of the generosity and good will of its editors that they have put up with me and vice versa, except for a spat that lasted a year or so. Nobody’s perfect, as Joe E. Brown told Jack Lemmon at the end of “Some Like it Hot”.

At first blush, Swans might be categorized with MRZine, Counterpunch and Znet (the latter two have had fund drives recently.) But, unlike them, it is not an “aggregator”, or compendium of articles that tend to be crossposted in multiple locations. Editor Gilles d’Aymery expects an article written for Swans to appear there exclusively. I think this is a good idea since it helps to create a relationship between author and editor that will never exist at the other websites. I should add that I have had very mixed experiences with MRZine, Counterpunch and ZNet but do think that they certainly have their place.

In addition to social and political analysis, Swans is one of the finest repositories of cultural analysis on the left wing of the Internet. I like to think that my own articles have been a modest contribution to that effort, but I have to tip my hat to people like Charles Marowitz who has written two dozen books on the theater and the arts. His latest article “Private World, Public Words” is an examination of the relationship between art and politics that I concur with heartily, as should be obvious from the conclusion to my piece on “The Mythology of Imperialism”.

I would also be remiss if I didn’t call your attention to the political writing of Michael Barker, whose work I first came across a couple of years ago before he began writing for Swans. Michael developed a reputation at that time for being a dragon-slayer of the foundation-based “left”, Gene Sharp’s Albert Einstein Institution in particular. His most recent article is an appreciation of Howard Zinn’s writings, particularly as it shows “how modern-day elites maintain their domination in spite of a massive array of organizations that ostensibly exist to represent the public’s interests.”

Finally, I would like to quote the conclusion of an article written by Swans co-editor Jan Baughman three years ago on the tenth anniversary of the publication:

Which brings me back to the reality of Swans. Swans is not an activist site in the sense of adopting a single issue: rallying the masses to Bring the Troops Home Now, or Stop Global Warming, or Impeach Bush. We endeavor to put these issues in a broader perspective. Milo Clark, one of the original and steadfast Swans, helped define our perspective: the importance of understanding patterns that connect; the knowledge that the only way not to play a game is not to play; and the recognition that attempting to solve problems using the tools, techniques, and thoughts which create them is silly. Without embracing these principles and acting upon them, we cannot hope for change.

This, then, is how I view Swans: as a relentless voice that is not heard in the corporate media; a weaver of tales, a connector of patterns, presenting the big picture, analyzing the story behind the stories, while celebrating poetry, and books, and culture — the very things that make us human and give us an appreciation of life in both its light and dark times. We cannot but carry on steadfast, keeping the words and ideas flowing every two weeks; with deadlines, setbacks, inspiration, hope for the future, and the deep appreciation of connections made by this so-called Information Superhighway that allows people to choose the road less traveled, where we would otherwise never meet. That, as Robert Frost said, can make all the difference.

So here’s to the next ten years of Swans. Accompany us on the journey.

So let’s help keep Swans afloat, just like the graceful bird it is named after. Go to http://www.swans.com/about/donate.html to make a contribution. Over the years I have been contacted by comrades about chipping in to keep Marxmail going. Although I have never turned a donation down, we are lucky to have the facilities of the U. of Utah at our disposal for the time being. So all I would ask at this point is for those of you who have felt the urge to send $20, 50 or 100 to Marxmail, please send it to Swans instead. The connection and other infrastructure costs to keep an online publication afloat are considerable and every dollar will be appreciated by the Swans flock, you can be sure.

The Mythology of Imperialism

Jonah Raskin

Jonah Raskin’s The Mythology of Imperialism: A Revolutionary Critique of British Literature and Society in the Modern Age

by Louis Proyect

Book Review

Raskin, Jonah: The Mythology of Imperialism: a Revolutionary Critique of British Literature and Society in the Modern Age, Monthly Review Press, 2009, ISBN 978-1-58367-186-3, 320 pages.

(Swans – November 16, 2009)   When you hear the name Joseph Conrad conjoined with the word imperialism, there is a good chance that you will think of Edward Said, the Columbia University professor and Palestinian activist who died of leukemia in 2003. To be more exact, you will be reminded of an analysis that went against conventional wisdom. Despite the nominally anti-imperialist viewpoint of The Heart of Darkness, Said argued in Culture and Imperialism (1993) that:

It is no paradox, therefore, that Conrad was both anti-imperialist and imperialist, progressive when it came to rendering fearlessly and pessimistically the self-confirming, self-deluding corruption of overseas domination, deeply reactionary when it came to conceding that Africa or South American could ever had had an independent history of culture, which the imperialists violently disturbed but by which they were ultimately defeated. Yet lest we think patronizingly of Conrad as the creature of his own time, we had better note that recent attitudes in Washington and among most Western policymakers and intellectuals show little advance over his views.

As it turns out, Jonah Raskin beat him to the punch by 20 years. In 1971, a book titled The Mythology of Imperialism: a Revolutionary Critique of British Literature and Society in the Modern Age appeared. Adapted from author Jonah Raskin’s PhD dissertation, it surely deserves Edward Said’s accolade on the back cover: “The Mythology of Imperialism I have read, used, and considered to be one of the genuinely important books on modern literature.”

full review: http://www.swans.com/library/art15/lproy57.html

Four Seasons Lodge; Valentino, the Last Emperor

I only decided to see “Four Seasons Lodge”, now playing at the IFC Center in New York, because it was filmed at a bungalow colony in Ellenville, New York, just 10 miles from my home town. As a relic of a once thriving tourist industry geared to New York Jews, the lodge had the potential to stir up old memories like the madeiline dipped into a cup of tea in Proust’s “À la recherche du temps perdu”.

I was far less interested in the fact that the lodgers were all holocaust survivors. I feared that the movie would exploit the sentimentality that comes naturally to this topic, and even worse that it would serve the interests of what Norman Finkelstein calls “the holocaust industry”. As it turned out, not only did it avoid these tendencies but amounted to one of the most moving documentaries I have seen this year and give it my strongest recommendation.

In 1980, a group of holocaust survivors bought a bungalow colony out of a sense of community not that much different from other colonies in the Borscht Belt going back to the 1930s when Communists, Socialists, vegetarians, etc. set up their own resorts on what we would called an “affinity group” basis in the 1960s.

All of the lodgers are in the eighties and nineties and are dealing with the infirmities of old age and the bitter memories of their internments at Auschwitz and other death camps. This does not prevent them from having a grand old time on their summer vacation and for these Jews this especially means 8 course meals with lots of herring and schnapps. The movie does not dwell on the misery of their youth and spends the bulk of its time showing them enjoying themselves thoroughly even as they realize that they don’t have much time left on earth. When they are not eating, drinking, playing cards and bickering with each other (we Jews call it kvetching), they are recounting what it was like to be in a death camp. One man says that he was determined to live no matter what, even if it meant eating grass. He had to tell the world what had happened.

The big question facing them is whether the colony can go on. We learn at the beginning of the film that they have sold it and that this might be their last vacation in the Catskills. Two men, both survivors, have been maintaining the grounds since 1980 and simply are not robust enough to do the necessary work. While they consider it a burden, other old-timers are distraught at losing the lodge and are pushing to nullify the sale.

I could not help but be reminded of another documentary about old folks and their ties to an institution. “Sunset Story” (http://www.sunsetstory.com/) dealt with a retirement home in Los Angeles that was set up for elderly leftists. Like the Four Seasons Lodge, their lodging, called Sunset Hall, was about to close. No matter now infirm the characters in either film, they retain the spunk of their youth. In order to stand up to the Mengeles of the world, you need a strong spirit. While Joe McCarthy and his ilk were pale imitations of the Nazis, you certainly had to have a “survivor” mentality to stick to your radical beliefs over the decades in the U.S.A.

The movie was directed by N.Y. Times reporter Andrew Jacobs, who met the Four Seasons Lodge denizens during his time reporting from the Catskills in 2005. I have vivid memories of his writing from this period, which was the newspaper of record at its best. An article on orthodox Jewish youth hanging out a local bowling alley from my youth and a more recently constructed Wal-Mart and acting—within obvious limits—like teenagers from time immemorial was exceptional reporting:

With the sun safely beneath the horizon, Yudi Kaufman and Yoel Hillelsohn put on their long-sleeve Oxford shirts, jumped into Mr. Kaufman’s Toyota Scion and cranked up the Yeshiva Boys Choir. By midnight, having picked up three friends at far-flung bungalow colonies, they headed to Wal-Mart in Monticello, its parking lot already crammed with baby carriages, camp vans and packs of teenagers practicing blowing smoke rings in the amber glare of the overhead lights. For many people, however, shopping was not on the agenda.

“This is the place to be,” said Mr. Kaufman, 19, as he and his friends languidly roamed the aisles looking for familiar faces, the fringes of each one’s tallit, a garment signifying religious devotion, dangling at his hips. “Everyone who’s anyone is up in the mountains, and at some point, they’re coming through Wal-Mart.”

Finally, it should be mentioned that Jacobs enlisted the participation of Albert Maysles, one of the U.S.’s greatest documentary film makers. Born in 1926, he is about the same age as the subjects of the movie and clearly sensitive to their feelings as anybody in their twilight years would have to be.

****

I ordered the 2008 documentary “Valentino: the Last Emperor” from Netflix, hoping that it might be half as good as the 2007 “Lagerfeld Confidential”. It turned out that my anticipations were on the money. It was half as good, but still very much worth watching.

Now you might be asking yourself at this point why an “unrepentant Marxist” would have any interest in haut couture fashion, unless you have stopped asking yourself such questions after my rave review of a movie about aging heavy metal musicians. I guess I have a weakness for Marx’s favorite motto, taken from the Roman playwright Terence: “I consider nothing human alien to me.”

There, of course, is also the factor that my wife is a fashionista herself, an enthusiasm of long standing sharpened by her job as an adjunct professor at the Fashion Institute of Technology. We both enjoy Project Runway, a cable reality show that pits one aspiring designer against another and even find time for the fashion shows that air on WNYE on Friday and Saturday nights. The sight of 5’10” models strutting down the runway with trance music throbbing in the background is an acquired taste, I admit, but we find it more interesting than situation comedies to say the least.

Beyond the entertainment value, the careers of Valentino and Lagerfeld, both of whom are considered throwbacks to the day when luxury goods were hand-crafted in Paris or Rome workshops and outside the sphere of globalization, illustrate some very interesting points about the nature of commodities. I won’t rehash them here but urge you to read my review of the Lagerfeld documentary.

Valentino Garavani was born in 1932 and became one of the fashion industry’s top designers in the 1950s. The movie is a chronicle of his last year before retirement, when his company would become absorbed by one of the huge multinationals that now dominate the luxury goods industry. In one scene, as he strolls along arm-in-arm with Lagerfeld at a display of his gowns at a French museum that is the scene of a spectacular retirement party, they realize that when they are gone there will be nothing but “rags”. As Valentino puts it toward the end of the film, “Après moi, le déluge”.

But above all, this documentary is a love story about two men, Valentino and his business partner Giancarlo Giammetti who have been together since 1960 when they met on the Via Veneto in Rome. For those of you, either straight or gay, who have grown weary of weepy Hollywood movies about doomed gay men like the characters in “Brokeback Mountain” or “Philadelphia” (played by straights), this movie is the perfect antidote. This is a story about a couple of homosexuals who have enjoyed each other’s company for close to forty years and allows us to enter their domestic lives without the lurid perspective so necessary, it would seem, for commercial acceptance—not to speak of the bigots of the world who hate the idea that same-sexers can lead happy lives just like the rest of us. Or be as miserable for that matter.

Anvil! The Story of Anvil

If I tell you that one of the best movies in 2009 was a documentary that followed a couple of 50-year-old heavy metal musicians from Canada on a depressing, poorly attended European tour, your first reaction might be to write this off to Proyect’s idiosyncratic tastes. But I am not the only one that feels this way. The New Yorker’s Anthony Lane wrote:

The most stirring release of the year thus far is a documentary. No surprise in that, given the current state of feature films, or in the fact that “Anvil! The Story of Anvil” is a documentary about a heavy-metal band. But this film is about a failed heavy-metal band, which sounds about as purposeful as a vegan shark.

If this documentary sounds a bit like the mockumentary “Spinal Tap” at first blush, that perception is only heightened when you discover that the drummer is named Robb Reiner, separated by only one letter from “Spinal Tap” director Rob Reiner. Even though there are a number of funny scenes in “Anvil”, the name of the film taken from the band’s name, this is not a comedy. It is about the Quixotic attempt of drummer Reiner and lead singer Steve “Lips” Kudlow to make it big in the world of arena rock.

It is not as if they are coming totally out of left field. The movie begins with a number of the top names in heavy metal paying tribute to Anvil, who started playing in 1978 and were considered a seminal band. Lars Ulrich, Metallica’s drummer, says that without Anvil there would be no Metallica.

The movie begins with “Lips” Kudlow on his day job delivering food for a school lunch program. We also see Reiner breaking up concrete slabs with a jackhammer. He supports himself through two gigs, as a housing contractor and as a jeweler. He picked up the latter trade from his father, a Hungarian Jew who survived Auschwitz. Both of these men come out of the small, immigrant Jewish community in Toronto and live there as solid citizens with families, even if their appearance sets them apart. “Lips” has stringy long hair down to his shoulders, but you cannot miss the bald spot at the top of his head. Reiner always has a cap on his head, like Carlos Santana. We surmise that it is to cover a bald spot as well, in both cases.

The two men are quite candid about their situation. They know that they are competing in a young man’s world. They recognize that age is creeping up on them, if not having already cast them aside. But they still think of themselves as they were in their twenties, playing before thousands of adoring, head banging teenagers. We see concert footage from the 80s, with “Lips” wearing an S&M harness over a bare chest and playing his guitar with a dildo. Their only goal in life is to play before such audiences once again and to make a hit record. They did make a dozen records during their prime but none of them sold very well. Their obscurity is more a function of poor management than a lack of talent.

You find yourself identifying deeply with these two unlikely characters because of their idealism. They believe in their art and nothing else will satisfy them. If bourgeois society is mostly about succumbing to market forces, these two middle-aged Jews are testimony to the power of art, which alongside politics is the only way of expressing one’s individuality in a mammon-worshipping society.

Sacha Gervasi, a British citizen who had been a teen fan of the band in the early 80s, directed the movie. He is best known for his screenwriting work, including Stephen Spielberg’s 2004 “The Terminal”. Unlike most screenwriters who come out of television or film school, Gervasi had an academic background. He majored in history at King’s College and then became an assistant to Britain’s poet laureate Ted Hughes. Afterwards, he worked on the Samuel Beckett archives. So, despite being an Anvil fan, he was not the typical beer-guzzling metalhead. Of even greater interest to me is the fact that he is the son of the late Sean Gervasi, the author of one the most important anti-imperialist analyses of the Balkans War to this date.

Their story resonated with me on a couple of levels. In 1967 I was working for the welfare department in New York when I received the case of Jonathan Jones Jr., a jazz drummer who had just come out of a drug rehab program and who was the son of the legendary jazz drummer in Count Basie’s band, Jo Jones. I got his drums out of hock and began to attend gigs, which were generally as poorly attended as those of Anvil’s on their misbegotten European tour. One night Jonathan told me that he booked a gig in Newark at a bar owned and generally populated by mafia gangsters, all of whom apparently dug jazz. The piano player working with him that night was none other than Duke Jordan, who used to play with Charlie Parker in the 1940s and 50s and who wrote the standard “Jordu”. During a break, I asked Jonathan what Duke was doing besides playing jazz. He told me that he drove a school bus in Brooklyn since there was no way to make a proper living as a jazz musician unless you were in the very top ranks. While I don’t consider Anvil to be in the same league as Duke Jordan, all of these musicians believed in their art and would do anything to further its cause.

I also could not help but feel a certain affinity with the two musicians who insisted on staying true to their youthful idealism despite looking a bit foolish in the process. A bit younger than me, they came out of the same cultural cauldron for when you stop and think about it the 1960s was responsible for my outlandish Marxist beliefs and their “outlaw” music. Like them, I will continue on my Quixotic way since the thought of blending in with mainstream society is too scary and depressing to consider.

Communist Manifesto in cartoon format

Hat tip to Socialist Unity.

 

Magnolia movies-2009

Around this time of year I get screeners from Hollywood film companies to view in conjunction with the New York Film Critics Online (NYFCO) awards meeting in December. Generally, the most interesting are those from Magnolia Pictures, whose CEO is Mark Cuban.

Despite the last name (originally Chabenisky), Cuban is a Jew and an interesting character to say the least. He sold a website featuring live webcasts of basketball games to Yahoo in 1998 for $6 billion dollars just before the dot.com crash. He then went on to buy the Dallas Mavericks basketball team and is also involved in various online, cable TV and film businesses. Like a lot of the other nouveau riche including the character who runs Whole Foods, he is a libertarian and donated thousands of dollars to Republican Senator Orrin Hatch’s election campaign. But he also has a rugged individualist streak which in his film business is manifested by the production of “Redacted”, Brian De Palma’s unwatchable movie about American soldiers raping and killing a 14 year old Iraqi girl, based on an actual incident. He also produced “The War Within”, which made an attempt to understand the motivations of a Pakistani suicide bomber, thus prompting the outrage of Frontpage magazine and other ultraright forums.

With that kind of mindset, it is not that surprising that the 8 movies I received from Magnolia were envelope-pushing attempts to one degree or another. Unfortunately, the results were mixed, to say the least. Here are brief takes on them, with links to longer reviews for those I found outstanding.

(Titles in red are available from Netflix.)

1. Two Lovers:

This was directed by James Gray, who despite his last name is a Russian Jew like Cuban. He grew up in Queens, New York and developed a fascination with the Russian-Jewish neighborhood in Brighton Beach, inspiring his first movie “Little Odessa” in 1994. I found “Little Odessa”, a tale about a hit man suffering from weltschmerz, so pretentious that I walked out after 15 minutes. Also set in Brighton Beach, “Two Lovers” is something of an improvement but not by much. It stars Joaquin Phoenix as a Russian Jew, suffering an even deeper case of weltschmerz, who develops relationships with a woman from the neighborhood with his own ethnic background as well as with a gentile woman played by Gwyneth Paltrow (in Yiddish, referred to as a shiksah.) One reviewer referred to this as an “Annie Hall” without the comedy. I would only add without the intelligence as well. I was at first surprised to see Phoenix cast as a Jew, but in fact he is half-Jewish, as is Paltrow.

2. Outrage

This is a first-rate documentary on homophobic politicians, nearly all Republicans, who are also closeted gays. A driving force behind “outing” such politicians, as well as an articulate voice for why such exposures are not invasions of privacy, is Michael Rogers who figures prominently in the film. Check his website at http://www.blogactive.com/ for the latest dirt on dirty politicians.

3. The Girlfriend Experience

A surprisingly good movie from Steven Soderbergh reviewed here.

4. Food, Inc.

A hard-hitting documentary reviewed here.

5. Humpday

This is a mumblecore movie. For background on mumblecore, read my review of “Beeswax”, my first exposure to the genre that Village Voice’s J. Hoberman called “compulsive navel-gazing”. “Humpday” is about two heterosexual men who are old friends and who, on a dare, decide to make a gay porn movie with each other. One, who is married and seemingly conventional, decides to go through with it to show that he is still something of a bohemian. The other is an unmarried world traveler who has just returned from Chiapas where he was making “art with the natives”. When I heard these words coming out of the character’s mouth, it was all I could to turn the stupid movie off. As it turns out, there was another mumblecore movie about two such men where the sexual liaison was implicit and far better. See “Old Joy” for a much more intelligent take on men trying to navigate between marriage and freedom. Then again, if you want the most inspired take of all, read Gregory Corso’s “Marriage”:

Should I get married? Should I be good?
Astound the girl next door with my velvet suit and faustus hood?
Don’t take her to movies but to cemeteries
tell all about werewolf bathtubs and forked clarinets
then desire her and kiss her and all the preliminaries
and she going just so far and I understanding why
not getting angry saying You must feel! It’s beautiful to feel!
Instead take her in my arms lean against an old crooked tombstone
and woo her the entire night the constellations in the sky-

6. World’s Greatest Dad

Written and directed by erstwhile standup comedian Bobcat Goldthwait, best known for his bizarre, high-pitched onstage delivery (what else would you expect from a 1980s comic?), this is a black comedy about a dysfunctional two-member family. The dad, played decently by Robin Williams believe it or not, is a high-school literature teacher who writes novels that end up with rejection slips. His son is a totally obnoxious sixteen-year-old at the same school who accidentally asphyxiates himself while masturbating (the same fate that befell David Carradine). This leads the father to write a suicide note blaming loneliness rather than horniness on the death. The note is so well-received by the student body that regarded the boy as a creep in life that Williams decides to write a journal in his son’s name as well. When publishers approach him to turn it into a book, with attendant benefits such as being flown into appear on the Oprah Winfrey show, etc., Williams has to make a decision. The movie is essentially one joke repeated over and over again. That being said, it is better than the latest crap coming out of the Judd Apatow factory.

7. The Burning Plain

A sodden mess written and directed by Guillermo Arriaga, the Mexican screenwriter responsible for “Amores perros” and “Babel”. Since this is Arriaga’s first directing job and I advise him to put the blame on his screenwriter for writing such a lead-footed melodrama. It is about a white woman named Gina (Kim Basinger) having an extramarital affair with a Mexican laborer (Joaquim de Almeida). When Gina’s daughter finds out about the affair, she burns down the trailer while the two are inside. And, of all things, her next life-altering experience is an affair with the son of the dead man’s son, which results in the birth of a daughter she abandons in Mexico. Most of the movie consists of the characters in ripped bodice poses, both men and women. “Amores perros” was an okay movie but one that charms less upon repeated viewings, as I’ve discovered. “Babel” was a sodden mess from top to bottom that the mainstream critics gushed over. No wonder Arriaga was encouraged to repeat the formulae that made that movie so unwatchable.

8. Bronson

A major disappointment. Directed by Danish director Nicolas Winding Refn, who brought us the incomparable Pusher trilogy about the dregs of Copenhagen society, this is a character study of a British psychopath named Michael Peterson who spent 34 years in prison (he is still there), 30 of them in solitary confinement. He calls himself Charlie Bronson in homage to the American b-movie actor who practically defined what it means to be a tough buy. An attempt is made to make him interesting in a kind of Jean Genet fashion, but mostly you are left wondering why you spent $10 or so watching a violent prisoner who lives for the day when he can get naked and fight prison guards six at a time. I wasted nearly two hours trying to figure out why I wasting my time at no expense other than my customary irritation at crappy movies.

Cuba and Eritrea: setting the record straight

Johnny Sanchez

A guest post by Johnny Sanchez

(Read interview with Sanchez here.)

****

There is an old Jewish proverb that says: “A half-truth is a whole lie.”

I recently came across an article written by Sam Farber entitled “Contradictions of Cuba’s foreign policy” that appears in the ISO newspaper. I found this article fascinating because it went on to claim how self-interested Castro is and, because of such, Cuba therefore has no real relationship to true revolution.

Farber declares that “while it is true that Cuba has followed a consistent policy of opposition to U.S.-sponsored imperialism, it has not followed that policy towards other imperialist aggressors. In fact, the Cuban government has taken the side of oppressor states on various occasions…. [and] also supported the suppression of the Eritrean national movement in the 1970’s.” Farber then asks: “How can we explain the contradictory policies of Cuba regarding the right of nations to self-determination?”

I was genuinely intrigued by Farber’s questions and comments because A) I love to learn about history and B) I visited Cuba and found myself inspired by its people and the Cuban nation – so much so that while in Cuba I better understood the meaning of Frederick Douglass’ quote “without struggle there is no progress”. So, naturally, I was inclined to question Farber’s article because I wanted to understand his point of view.

So, what did I do? I found a book that supports Sam Farber’s claims in regards to Cuba’s policy, but more specifically in relation to Eritrea’s independence movement. Further, to keep objectivity -with my limitations and all, I questioned what I found in that book as much as I could. The book in question is Eritrea: a Pawn in World Politics written by Okbazghi Yohannes.

In the book, Yohannes comments that in 1966 “Cuba had warmly embraced Eritrean nationalism as an indigenously authentic and internationally credible movement”. He then writes that some Eritrean guerillas received their drilling in Cuba and also states that Castro’s advocacy for Eritrea’s inclusion in the nonaligned movement helped Eritreans obtain their anti-imperialist credentials. In addition, Yohannes says, that Cuban propaganda organs gave ample coverage and analysis to the Eritrean movement. He says that, “Cuba’s public affirmation of the justness of the Eritrean and Somali struggles represented an open repudiation of Ethiopia’s imperial acquisition”. This affirmation was justified on the basis of the principle of national self-determination for the Eritreans, and the Cubans placed such support within the context of “proletarian internationalism”.

But he then goes on to claim that although, at first, Castro characterized the Eritrean struggle against Ethiopian as positive that he later changed his mind. He accuses Castro, of being an opportunist who did a full about face against Eritrean Liberation and even went as far as saying that Castro categorized their movement as similar to the southern secessionism in the United States during the Civil War.

The problem with this analysis is that Yohannnes has no direct quotes from Castro that support this ‘about face’ claim… nor does he give a date as to when Castro said any of this. All I am supposed to do is just trust that Castro said this somewhere -at sometime.

He then uses the February 1977 trip of Arnaldo Ochoa Sanchez, a high-ranking Cuban Military official, to Ethiopia as evidence that Cuba struck military plans to defend Ethiopia against Eritrean Independence. Although, in the same sentence, he admits that the real reason for Arnaldo Ochoa Sanchez’s 1977 trip was not clear. This only leaves one obvious answer; Yohnnes can’t make claims of a Castro about face if he doesn’t have clear evidence of why Arnaldo went to Ethiopia, and much less if he can’t find a direct quote from Castro against Eritrea.

Yohannes then relates that in December of 1977 Cuban troops were airlifted from Havana, Angola and the Congo to Ethiopia and that by April 1978 the number of Cuban troops deployed to the Horn reached 17,000.

Still, Yohannes never bothers to relate how big the Horn is: Answer: The coastline of the Horn is bigger than the Eastern United States -actually, a whole lot bigger! In other words, that would be like directly blaming US Military Personal stationed in Key West for Canada’s successful suppression of Québec’s Independence Movement.

Yohannes also states that 3,000 soldiers had been airlifted to Asmara where they immediately began probing the operational strength of the Eritrean guerillas in the vicinity. – But what does he mean by the phrase ‘probing the operational strength of the Eritrean guerillas in the vicinity’? That can mean anything! It can even mean they were there to help the Eritrean guerillas. In other words, he never explains what ‘probing’ means. He just throws terms around to vaguely convey any ideas he wants to promote.

But this is where his biggest blunder is: he goes on to say that in 1980 there were at least 3,500 Cubans in Eritrea fighting alongside the Ethiopians and that Cuba’s involvement in the Ethiopian-Eritrean conflict is “certainly dubious and even unconscionable”. He asks, why was Cuba willing to support the Eritrean’s desire for independence early on but not why later on? He then says that an objective analysis can help probe this question and his eventual conclusion is similar to Sam Farber’s accusations, that Castro is opportunistic and not interested in anyone but his own selfish needs.

Well, I agree with him in one thing, we do need to have objective analysis. But my idea of an objective analysis means looking at the whole story, and not just half of it, so that we may question everything. So, since I don’t see him doing that, let me pick up where I feel he left off and try to be objective. For starters, I will cite a report by the US on Cuba because, as we know, the US government has nothing pretty to report when it comes to Cuba. So, let’s start with an official US Intelligence report on Cuba to see where it goes; and rest assured that US reports do not try to favor Cuba or Castro in a positive light.

I have obtained materials from the US Department of State entitled “Cuban support for terrorism and insurgency in the Western Hemisphere”. As you see, even the title is not positive for Cuba because it claims Cuba’s support of terrorism. To continue, Assistant Secretary Thomas O. Enders originally presented the data on these materials as testimony on March 12^th, 1982. This was, of course, during the height of the Cold War -when the US kept stealthy watch of Cuba’s military actions. This data was later presented again by Powell Allen Moore in front of the United States Senate Subcommittee on Security and Terrorism, Committee on the Judiciary, on July 21^st 1982. Powell Allen Moore was the Assistant Secretary for Congressional Relations in the 1980’s (aka Assistant Secretary of State for Legislative Affairs) and US Senator for Alabama Jeremiah Denton, a former Navy Admiral, was the Chairman of the Committee.

The data on this report is very thorough and it asks the following question:

“What is the status of the discipline, morale and effectiveness of the Cuban troops in Angola and Ethiopia? Have there been defections and desertions from the ranks? The Cubans have said that the first military contingents to reach Angola were elite Ministry of Interior Units. What has become of these units? Please furnish the subcommittee with the Department’s complete assessment of Cuban involvement, military and otherwise, in Angola, Zambia, Zimbabwe, Mozambique, Botswana, Zaire and Ethiopia. Please give a separate answer to each country.”

That was just question 12 on the report, and as you can see it is not a short one. The whole compiled Intel and data is even longer. The details gathered are very specific and breaks down Cuba’s military activities and actions in each country cited above. Since the focus of this article is Ethiopia and Eritrea then I’ll relate all the materials gathered on Cuba’s actions concerning that area only, and as reported to the US Department of State:

On the question of Ethiopia and Eritrea the report states:

There are now between 11,000 -13,000 Cuban military personnel in Ethiopia. The military presence is down from a high of about 17,000 troops in early 1978, when Cuban forces played a decisive role in the successful Ogaden campaign. After completion of these operations, Chairman Mengistu tried to persuade Havana to help Ethiopia with the fighting taking place in Eritrea. Castro refused, partly because he wanted no further casualties and partly because he believed the political costs would be too heavy and cause friction with Cuba’s radical Arab allies. (Havana also had had ties with the Eritrean Liberation Front for many years.) The Cuban military presence was reduced in late 1978 and remains at about 11,000 -13,000 today. Cuban forces do not see much action now, play mainly support and logistic-support roles and remain in garrisons most of the time.

Havana would like to increase its civilian role in Ethiopia, mainly to earn hard currency, but so far these efforts have been unsuccessful. There are several hundred (perhaps 600 ­700) Cuban civilians in Ethiopia.

Even the US Department, a sworn enemy of Cuba and invested on making them look bad, reported in 1982, Castro refused Mengistu’s request to help Ethiopia with the fighting taking place in Eritrea. The report clearly states Cuba played a decisive role in the Ogaden campaign but when it comes to Eritrea – Castro refused and Cuban forces mostly remain in garrisons.

How come Sam Farber and Okbazghi Yohannes can’t quote actual Intel reports? How come they don’t investigate their accusations further?

As a matter of fact, all they had to do was go into the ‘Country Studies Series by Federal Research Division of the Library of Congress’ to get more information on this. Even the Library of Congress says that “Although there is some disagreement, most military observers believe that Cuba refused to participate in the operation in Eritrea because Castro considered the Eritrean conflict an internal war rather than a case of external aggression.”

Instead, Farber and Yohannes want me take them at their word, their own individual assertions, and want me to accept these personal claims that since Cuba had troops in the Ogaden region of Ethiopia then it must mean Cuba purposefully and intentionally suppressed the Eritrea Independence Movement. This is like believing that because the US Army has invaded Iraq then it must be successfully suppressing forces of Al-Qaeda in neighboring Afghanistan –so much for that argument. Hasn’t Sam Farber learned yet that apples and oranges don’t compare as neatly as we’d like them to?

Even Jorge I. Dominguez in the book To Make a World Safe for a Revolution, who Farber quotes in his own article Contradictions of Cuba’s Foreign Policy, wrote “Cuba was able to assure African countries that its commitment [to Ethiopia] was confined to a specific task.” Mr. Dominguez then opines that, although Cuba did confine its task to Ogaden, Cuba unwittingly aided Ethiopia in suppressing Eritrean independence because Ethiopia was able to send troops to Eritrea while Cuba fought for them in the Ogaden against the Somali invasion. Dominguez does not accuse Castro of purposefully suppressing Eritrean Independence – where as Farber does do that in his ISO article and conveniently leaves out the part of Dominguez’s writings that say Cuba assured African countries that its commitment [to Ethiopia] was confined to a specific task. Yohaness and Farber only use what they want and, sadly, ignore the whole story.

Still, if one argues that because Cuba sent troops to the Ogaden it unknowingly and unwittingly supported Ethiopia against Eritrea Independence then we must then ask what would have resulted if the opposite had occurred? Meaning, what if Cuba had not supported Ethiopia in its fight against Somalia’s invasion? Would it then mean Eritrean independence would have been easier?

So, let’s really objectively ask that question and, to really delve into it, let’s look at all the players and honestly find what could’ve occurred if Cuba had not gotten involved.

The Ogaden War was a conflict between Somalia and Ethiopia in the late 1970’s over the Ogaden region of Ethiopia. By 1980, the United States had officially adopted Somalia as a Cold War client state in exchange for use of Somali bases, and as a way to exert political influence upon the region of the Horn. Interestingly, however, Ethiopia at one point had been backed by the USA. But, please, don’t take my word for it… let’s look at the full scale of chronological events from sources who can better verify the events.

David A. Korn, United States Ambassador to Togo and US diplomat who spent 37 months in Ethiopia, wrote a book titled Ethiopia, the United States, and the Soviet Union.

Mr. Korn writes that the Ethiopians asked the US for support since threats from Somalia were growing. But although the US had big investments in Ethiopia, it was reluctant to give any further military support and aid since the pains of Vietnam were still fresh.

Eventually, the pleas for help from Ethiopia grew louder and hit world center stage. Therefore, the US decided to supply Ethiopia with about $180 Million in aid between 1974-1977. Interestingly though (during the time the US was enjoying relations with Ethiopia) Cuba and the USSR were slowly building strong relations with Ethiopia; and all of this occurred while Somalia, Cuba and the Soviet Union were still close allies.

It gets even more complicated and, as Mr. Korn notes, things got heated in Ethiopia with both the USSR and the US there at the same time so “Washington decided to make a public move” and by the end of 1977, the US decided to give no further aid, both financial and military wise, to Ethiopia.

The reason for cutting off support to Ethiopia, the US claimed, was because Ethiopia had violated human rights. So, while the US cut support to Ethiopia, Cuba and the USSR maintained closed ties to both Ethiopia and Somalia -but this posed a problem for them.

Mr. Korn relates that: “As the Soviets publicly embraced Ethiopia, they began to consider what to do about the dilemma that this posed for their relations with Somalia”, since Somalia kept expressing aggression towards Ethiopia and wanted control of the Ogaden.

This is where Cuba steps in hoping to create an accord which prompted Castro to try his hand at a peaceful solution and, as Mr. Korn describes, “in mid-march of 1977, surprise visits to Ethiopia and Somalia by Fidel Castro and a secret meeting between Mengistu (of Ethiopia) and Siad Barre (of Somalia) in Aden. There the Cuban [leader] proposed to the Ethiopian and Somali leaders that they should burry the differences between their countries in a federation together with South Yemen, in which the Ogaden and Eritrea would enjoy a status of autonomy. Notice how it states that Castro was thinking of Eritrean autonomy in this peaceful accord. But the attempt at peace was in vain.

Aggressions between both African nations grew and many people demanded that the US take a side and that the USSR, along with Cuba, also choose a side. So, in the midst of this, Somalia started to put its feelers out to Washington in hopes of getting any kind of support there. By this point, Ethiopia terminated its relations with the USA, since no further aid was coming from there. But, Cuba and the USSR still kept ties with Somalia.

And in response, “As early as March 1977 Vice President Mondale sent Carter a memorandum advocating rapprochement with Somali”, former Ambassador Korn also tells that “On June 16^th, of that year, Carter received a visit from Somali Ambassador Addou” and the Somali expressed that if Somalia got American support they “would shift allegiance from the Soviets to the United States.” Korn tells that Carter had hesitations. Still, Carter expressed support for Somalia if it was ‘genuinely’ threatened by Ethiopia.

The Somalis took advantage of Carter’s support on the basis of defense and, on July 9^th, the Somali Embassy in Washington created a long list of military equipment that was desired from the United States. On July 15^th Carter approved a decision ‘in principle’ to help meet Somalia’s ‘defensive requirements’ -Korn relates all of this based on his expertise and years of relationships in Washington.

The Somalis welcomed the support and on July 25^th Washington announced it. Barely a week later, Somalia forces were operating in the Ogaden and the Carter administration found itself in a conflict. Although, at this point, the US had yet to give Somalia a blank check – so to avoid any further conflicts, the US stopped further support of Somalia until 1982 where the US decided to clearly give Somalia official military and financial aid.

Regardless, the damage was done by 1977 since Somali forces swept into Ethiopia by then -and though the US had not sent them military aid yet it had publicly announced support of Somalia. Korn clarifies that if the US really wanted to avoid any blunders: “the United States should have taken this into account in its dealings with [Somalia].”

Still, the US did gain something out of this ‘blunder’ and that was military intelligence, which Korn well describes: ‘US Intelligence on the Somali invasion of Ethiopia was very good. When the Somalis invaded, the United States knew almost exactly where they were, when, and how they got there.” This is where we see that, though reluctant at first, the US did eventually find a reason for formalizing aid to Somalia. Through this, we see the US became a player in the Horn because it gained strategic military Intel in the region.

Korn tells of Dr. Kevin Cahill, an American who was a personal physician to Somalia’s President, and says that “Dr. Cahill alleged he was told in the spring of 1977 by a State Department Official that the United States was ‘not averse to further guerrilla pressure in the Ogaden.” Mr. Korn explains that “Dr. Cahill was a frequent caller at the offices of the White House Domestic Staff.” He further explains that Dr. Cahill “meticulously avoided officials of the NSC and the State Department who had responsibility for the Horn of Africa”. Why would a physician avoid public officials so meticulously? Personally, I think that tells a lot about the back door dealings the United States prefers.

One thing is clear, and as Korn relates “The Somalis had been preparing to seize the Ogaden for years.” Of course, the Somali’s sought support (even if only verbal) to back their invasion and this is where the US, even if reluctant at first, becomes a player.

As we know, Somalia invaded Ethiopia and their advances were stopped by the USSR and Cuba (not by the US) and Korn expresses a personal view here: ‘So long as they were defending Ethiopia’s territorial integrity from Somali invasion, the Ethiopians and the Soviets [along with the Cubans] had the moral and political high ground.”

On October 19^th, Korn describes, “the Soviet Ambassador in Addis Ababa issued a statement, quickly broadcast by Ethiopian radio, announcing ‘officially and formally’ that ‘the Soviet Union has stopped arms supplies to Somalia’.” Of course the Somalis were outraged and, from here on, relations became strained and Somalia ordered all Soviets and Cubans to leave and on November 13^th, 1977 Siad Barre officially announced his break of relations with Cuba and the USSR.

The Cubans were very successful in stopping the Somali invasion and the Somali attack collapsed in March 1978. Right after this collapse, the US was sceptical about giving any more support, verbal or otherwise, to Somalia until two major events occurred – the Iranian Hostage Crisis (November 1979) and the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan (1980).

These events prompted the well-known ‘Carter Doctrine’ that formalized military bases in Somalia, all in the name of security. In August of 1980 the US signed an official agreement with Somalia allowing US access to air and port facilities (most notably at Berbera – just north of the Ogaden) and from that moment on Somalia clearly received $65 million in military aid over three years. By 1982, US support to Somalia increased.

In the summer of 1982 the US sent ammunitions, arms, air defense equipment and transport, and communications and engineering supplies to Somalia in support of its war against Ethiopia. As The Washington Report on Middle East Affairs (a group dedicated to news and analysis from and about the Middle East and U.S. policy in there) reported on February 7, 1983: “The U.S. justified last summer’s emergency arms shipments on the grounds that Somalia was not doing the attacking, but was being attacked.”

Consequently, due to this military defense aid, the Horn becomes a region where a war can break out again – backed with official US support now and in the name of defense. So, Cuba clearly keeps a military presence to suppress any further invasions by Somalia.

Seeing how the chronological events unfolded and how the US eventually gave military aid to Somalia, we can conclude that had Cuba had not kept a presence in the Ogaden Ethiopia might have fallen. Further, if Somalia’s invasion had ever been successful would they allow Eritrea to be independent afterwards? Can we accept that a Somali invasion would have favored Eritrean freedom while Castro only wanted to purposefully stall it?

I hope it’s obvious to you, as it is to me, that had Somalia been successful in invading Ethiopia their hunger for control of the Horn would not have stopped there but continued.

As well, after 1980, if Cuba had immediately left Ethiopia, can we naively believe that Somalia would not try to re-invade?

Still, to keep objective, and if you are the kind of person who wishes to argue that if, after 1980, had Somalia re-invaded Ethiopia with US support (the Carter Doctrine) that America would have spread freedom to Eritrea because that is America’s goal -freedom.

Well, to go back to reports Based on the Country Studies Series by the Federal Research Division of the Library of Congress “A large Cuban contingent, believed to number 12,000, remained in Ethiopia after the Ogaden War. However, by mid 1984 Havana had reduced its troop strength in Ethiopia to approximately 3,000. In 1988 a Cuban brigade, equipped with tanks and APC’s, was stationed in Dire Dawa to guard the road and railroad between Ethiopia and Djibouti, following attacks by Somali-supported rebels.”

It is evident that after 1980 Somalia kept finding ways to invade Ethiopia and Cuba kept guarding. I don’t think that a Somalia invasion of Ethiopia, even with US support, would have brought freedom to Eritrea. I say that because I assume we all know to well the US’s suppression of left wing progressive movements based in Africa, Latin America and Asia

– and all while, many times, supporting right wing suppressive movements.

But in case you are not sure what I mean, and to keep questioning, I will quote a document created in 1966 (slightly over a decade before the Ogaden War) by the US Government. This document was entitled The Tricontinental Conference of African, Asian, and Latin American Peoples -A Staff Study. This ‘staff study’ was prepared for the Subcommittee in charge of investigating the Administration of Internal Security Act and other Internal Security Laws of the Committee on the Judiciary United States Senate. Again, this ‘study’ was printed in 1966 and it discusses The Tricontinental Conference that took place in Cuba in that same year.

This ‘staff study’ reports the following:

An event of outstanding importance to the Free World took place in Havana on January 3 of this year. The Cuban capital was the site of what was probably the most powerful gathering of pro-Communist, anti-American forces in the history of the Western Hemisphere.

In other words, the ‘study’ states that an event occurred in Cuba that the ‘free world’ must keep an eye on because it is pro-Communist, anti-American and very powerful. The ‘study’ continues:

The first Tricontinental Conference of African, Asian, and Latin American Peoples, as it was called, was convened in the Hall of the Ambassadors at the once-swank Habana Libre Hotel (formerly the Havana Hilton Hotel) in Havana, Cuba. In all, there were 83 groups from countries on three continents-reportedly represented by approximately 513 delegates, 64 observers and 77 invited guests. These groups included 27 Latin American delegations.

Asian countries were represented by 197 delegates, while African countries had 150, and the 27 Latin American groups comprised 165 delegates.

The ‘study’ then goes on to give its opinion on Cuba, Communism and the people present… it’s rather lengthy so I will spare you. But the most interesting part is where the following opinion is shared:

The gravity of the threat posed by the Tricontinental Conference is the subject of a recent study prepared by the Special Consultative Committee on Security of the Organization of American States at its sixth regular meeting. Its study concluded:

That the so-called first Afro-Asian-Latin American Peoples’ Solidarity Conference constitutes a positive threat to the free peoples of the world, and, on the hemisphere level, represents the most dangerous and serious threat that international communism has yet made against the inter-American system. It is necessary and urgent, for the purpose of adequately defending democracy:

a. That the [proven] intervention of communism in the internal affairs of the American Republics be considered as aggression, since it constitutes a threat to the security of the hemisphere.

b. That the American governments define their position regarding the present treatment of every kind to be given to communism, and that they consequently adopt coordinated measures that will lead to the common goals.

In other words, the ‘study’ concludes that the gathering of the people of color through out the world (note: this is not a report on European peoples), and which occurred in Cuba, constitutes the most positive threat yet made against the inter-American system.

In other words, whenever people of color gather to discuss their needs and independence, especially in Cuba, then it is a threat to American society. This is a fascinating ‘study’ but, please, let’s continues our questioning of things before we reach any conclusions.

This gathering was also labeled an aggression since it poses a threat to the hemisphere. Based on that supposed aggression, the American government a) must make its position clear and b) adapt coordinated measures to reach its goals. Fascinating word: goals.

What are these goals? In case the reader needs this spelled out, and in hopes of objective analysis, but to also keep this short: I highly recommend the book “Open Veins of Latin America: Five Centuries of the Pillage of a Continent”. It spells out what these goals are and how it is the US maintains security in Latin America, but more so, what that actually means for all people of color who seek independence, progress and social reform.

So, to continue and taking the above into consideration, Farber ignores the counter argument that had Cuba NOT fought Somalia in the Ogaden -then Eritrean independence may not be a reality today because if the US had claimed more control in that region (via the Carter Doctrine) you can bet that the continued existence of any Eritrean liberation (whether by the ELF or EPLF) and their fight for Independence would’ve been harder.

Case in point, since Somalia lost in the Ogaden, therefore, the US could only exert influence within a limited area of the Horn region. So much so, that in 1993 Eritrea was able to successfully free itself from Ethiopian rule and today it is an independent nation.

As we know, Eritrea is independent of Ethiopia today. So, why can’t Farber or Yohannes accept that since Cuba helped stop a Somali invasion it made it easier for Eritrea to eventually gain independence? Instead, they both just seem intent on avoiding the whole story, the complex possibilities of it all and only tell us a small portion of the events.

Sadly many left-wing socialist organizations also simply take Sam Faber at his word… such as the ISO… and never challenge or even bother to question claims against Cuba and, instead, it seems as if they rather cut down Cuba’s positive accomplishments rather then acknowledge them.

I mention the ISO, in particular, because they’ve gained a lot of respect but when it comes to Farber they’ve dropped the ball since they print much of what he writes without always fact checking the whole story. If the ISO had done their homework on these half-truths then they would’ve found out that Cuba and Eritrea had good relations before the1980’s, during the 1980’s and after the 1980’s.

But, rather than just make my own claims about Cuban and Eritrean relations, I’ll simply cite an official statement. In a bulletin dated March 17^th, 2007, and published on the official website of the EMBASSY OF THE STATE OF ERITREA in SOUTH AFRICA (http://www.eritreaembassy.co.za/Embassy%20Bulletin/March%2015%202007.htm), the Eritrean government states the following in regards to cooperation between Cuba and Eritrea: “ Eritrean-Cuban relations and cooperation has registered satisfactory achievement and represents an exemplary development.”

Strange, no mention of any Cuban betrayals or even about-faces, past or present.

All I ask of Yohannes and Farber is for them to tell the whole story and not just what they want to tell. Otherwise, it just looks like ‘hate’. So I ask the reader, the ISO and its members, Sam Farber, and also of Yohannes to keep objective analysis and avoid any demonization since that is the best commitment to keeping the whole truth alive.

Does that mean Cuba is free of criticism? Of course not! My point is, we have an obligation to tell the whole truth and not half of it. Otherwise, we create lies and there’s no better way to promote hate than with lies. The ISO must fact-check everything, even an article written by one of its friends: Sam Farber. Otherwise, they’ll come across like just ‘hating’ on Cuba and, as you know, hatred and revolution do not go hand in hand.

Like I said, Cuba is not perfect. But there is a difference between objectively critiquing a country’s policies and between helping to demonize it by leaving out the whole story.

So, please, remember the old Yiddish proverb: “A half-truth is a whole lie.”

Turkish Cowboys

I have been working on a post about Turkish pop music on Youtube but can’t resist giving you this coming attraction from Grup Vitamin whose brilliant leader Gökhan Semiz died in an automobile accident in 1998. Here’s some background on the band in delightful broken English from a native Turk:

Grup Vitamin – Grup Vitamin albums – Grup Vitamin tracks – Grup Vitamin lyrics

A Turkish band founded by Gökhan Semiz.

Gökhan Semiz was born 12 Jan, 1969 in İstanbul.

He first fell in love with the music of Barış Manço (also take a role in his music video) and then karaoke his songs. Not too later, he tried to play guitar, and listened Erkin Koray and Cem Karaca.

After all red heavy metal. The trip started with Metallica and Iron Maiden then became a Judas Priest and Dio fan. He founded a cover band named Blasphemous. They made their own songs (some of them is funny ones) and played in Gulhane.

In university he choose to have musical education.

He was writing some funny notes and bringing them into lyrics. He shared this with his friends and try to make a melody on them.

He was playing them himself, using an electrorhytm instrument, an electric guitar.

At that time it all was to make fun, but then things became serious and they made their first album Bol Vitamin.
In 1998 he died in an car accident that his friend was driving drunk.

The band chose oftenly to make parodies of popular Turkish/English songs (including “Can’t Touch This” of MC Hammer and “Day-O” of BeetleJuice soundtrack) with funny lyrics. Some of their songs criticized the government using humor (like “Saskin Demokrat”) while the others made fun of Turkish people who were in-between modernism and conservatism (like “Turkish Cowboys” and “Ellere Var Da Bize Yok Mu”).