After image: the meanings of Abu Ghraib

aEwkVS ftltyfekwvje, [url=http://hvycqwgzfelz.com/]hvycqwgzfelz[/url], [link=http://xpelgjvbzfeu.com/]xpelgjvbzfeu[/link], http://qelrafyrtdgv.com/

Rami Khouri and other US apologists behave as though Abu Ghraib was a shocking aberration. Where have they been? Or are these people simply recent graduates of insular American Universities. I won't try the patience of the so-many non-American citizens of the world, for whom the truth is unpleasantly and tragically mundane; but are commentators entirely unaware of the 30-40 thousand men, women and children of Vietnam who were tortured to death under the aegis of the CIA's Operation Phoenix, an operation which was later extended to the Con Song Tiger Cages. Did they somehow fail to stumble over the international condemnation of the CIA's Contra torture and death squads in Nicaragua. Or the similar operations which have operated under American guidance in Egypt, Saudi, Israel, Burma, Philippines, Indonesia, el Salvador, Panama, the Dominican Republic, Haiti, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Tajikistan, Kyrgystan, Honduras, Venezuela, Colombia, Argentina and Chili; to name a few.

How can those who advocate for peace and justice determine whether torture continues today in US-controlled prisons (maybe only the photography has been stopped)? How can we assure that the victims are being treated in the hospital? How can we cause the US military to release all the people they have rounded up?

To a certain extent there is an over-reaction to the Abu Ghraib photo's. The fetishisation of the photographs has had the effect of seperating the shock reaction to them from any broader criticism of the real war in Iraq. For example, in Britain the BBC flagship current affairs programme Panarama put on a special edition to look at the political fallout from the Abu Ghraib scandal. The result was the BBC's share of viewers plummeted to it's second lowest level ever. In this current climate of apathy, the Abu Ghraib photo's have reduced people to being a mere passive voyeur of other people's perverse habits. It has failed to encouraged a serious culture of political engagment.

Today's Guardian had an op-ed piece entitled "An American scapegoat in London" by one Carol Gould, in which she bemoans the rising tide of anti-Americanism(and apparently "anti-Semitism" which she does her best to conflate with the former- she's evidently Jewish). Depends how you define the phrase "anti-Americanism". I have travelled in the US , and observed the decency, compassion and humanity of individual Americans, be they celebrities like Drew Barrymore or Sharon Stone(full disclosure: Drew's my favourite film star) or "ordinary stiffs" like my Philadelphia friends or the relatives I spend Thanksgiving with.

I am puzzled by the weak response to the prisoner abuses at Abu Ghraib. At first, the blame was laid at the feet of a few rogue GI's who were improperly trained. After including a few intelligence officers and personnel to the blame list, the press grew silent. By our actions with the prisoners in Cuba, it was obvious that the current U.S. administration had established the culture and conditions for this type of behavior in Iraq. Where is the press? Why the silence? I can only assume that the press is afraid of appearing to be unpatriotic or as being weak on the so-called war on terror. Most recently, the press reported that eleven prisoners, suspected or known terrorists, had disappeared.

I have been studying history now for almost 40 years, and when I look at the world today, especially in Asia and Africa, I can see the fruits of imperialism are truly bitter. In Africa, where countries were created by imperialists without regard for the various ethnicities of the African population, I have seen nothing but war and conflict since these countries were granted or took their independence. The Europeans who "civilized" these "countries" created the environment that fosters today's brutal intra-country conflicts. Imperialist adventures were often characterized by the participants as civilizing ventures -- the notion that bringing European values to people of color was the noble aim of the settlers.

Carby makes excellent points in her article, but I think that in limiting her analysis to the lineage extending from lynching to Abu Ghraib, Carby understates the worldwide element of racism. Americans certainly have a rich history of white on black racism. That much cannot be nor should it be denied. But American whites are hardly the only whites in the world who behave in such an atrocious manner. The British for example have demonstrated their racism in their imperialist adventures of the past two centuries. And the Japanese, in World War II, were avowedly racist even extending their racism to other Asians.