Night after night of making sure the sons and daughters of CEOs and Saudi oil barons get their grilled salmon on time can be a bitter pill to swallow, however, on two nights last week I had a subversive secret: whenever I had a moment I would sneak back to the office and tend to my email interview with my hero, and under-read American mischief maker, Mickey Z.
Maxwell
Black: Call me cynical, but I have a sinking suspicion that the US
occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan are permanent. Even if Cindy Sheehan
were to self-immolate on the White House lawn, I don't think it would
make a difference. Do you think there is any real reason to believe
there is an end in sight?
Mickey Z: Well, things tend
to be permanent...until they end. I'm sure some confluence of events
will impact the durability and/or feasibility of the US occupation. I'm
also pretty sure those events will not involve anything that we call
"activism" today.
Since we acknowledge that there is
certain amount of futility to the anti-war movement, would activist's
time and effort be better served on other projects? I'm not saying we
should abandon the cause, but perhaps it could be fought along side a
broader cause like say a revived Global Justice Movement.
We
clearly need new ideas, new methods, and a new focus. The most insane
part about me trying to answer this question is this: If I discuss
tactics that could be slightly misconstrued by the powers-that-be, I
risk serious trouble. For now, I'll suggest folks read both volumes of
Endgame by Derrick Jensen.
Speaking of Jensen and
"tactics that could be misconstrued by the powers that be". In his work
Endgame volumes 1 and 2 he makes a great effort to smash the ideology
of pacifism. One of his premises is "love does not imply pacifism." He
explains that it's just the opposite--you fight for and protect what
you love. He gives examples like a mother grizzly naturally protecting
her cub, fighting back against domestic abusers, Indians fighting for
their land and so on. If we apply Chomsky's idea of universality--that
what is moral (or immoral) in one setting should be considered in other
settings--do we have moral dilemma? What I mean is what if "what you
love" (or think you love) is Capitalism, slavery or unearned privilege?
If
I randomly walked up to a man, kicked him in the nuts, and then smashed
his face down onto my rising knee, I'd justifiably be vilified as a
dangerous sociopath. If that same man was brutally attacking someone I
loved (or anyone, for that matter) - perhaps even with a weapon - and I
came along on the scene and promptly acted out the above scenario,
would I still be a sociopath? The trouble is, once you give anyone
"permission" to anyone to use force, they often abuse it. No easy
answers for sure. Maybe Malcolm X said it best: "We are nonviolent with
people who are nonviolent with us."
Nice.
- "Hitler took note of the indigenous people of the Americas,
specifically within the area of the United States and Canada, and used
the treatment of the native people…the policies and processes that were
imposed upon them, as a model for what he articulated as being…the
politics of living space. In essence, Hitler took the notion of a drive
from east to west, clearing the land as the invading population went
and resettling it with Anglo-Saxon stock…as the model by which he drove
from west to east into Russia—displacing, relocating, dramatically
shifting or liquidating a population to clear the land and replace it
with what he called superior breeding stock…He was very conscious of
the fact that he was basing his policies in the prior experiences of
the Anglo-American population…in the area north of the Rio Grande
River."
Latin America seems to be moving very rapidly to
the Left, led in part by Venezuela's President Hugo Chavez. Do you see
what's going on in Venezuela as a legitimate Democratic revolution or,
as critics claim, just another "authoritarian socialist dictatorship?"
I
love the way Chavez mocks the US but there are countless cautionary
tales to consider. When the World's Only Superpower turns its military
and economic might against a particular nation (read: Third World
nation desperate to break away from the IMF-World Bank-WTO scheme of
things), the leader of that nation might get a little paranoid and
power crazy (see: Castro, Fidel). It would have been fascinating to
witness what might have come of such revolutions had the Land of the
Free not done everything in its power to strangle them all at birth.
Your
websites subheading, "Cool Observer," comes from a quote by Reinhold
Niebuhr (I thought it was Walter Lippman.) "Rationality belongs to the
cool observer" who must recognize "the stupidity of the average man"
and provide "emotionally potent oversimplifications" that will keep
(what Lippman did say) the "bewildered herd" on a proper course. I get
an obvious sense of sarcasm and defiance with your use of it. Do you
think that maybe it is possible for ordinary people, free from
propaganda and coercion, to be able to think for themselves and manage
their own affairs?
You're one of few people to tell me they
"got" my blog's name. I sometimes wish I called it "Urban Caveman" but
after nearly four years of drawing millions – I mean, hundreds – to my
little corner of the Web, it's too late to change the name now. As for
your question: do I think it's possible? Sure. Can I say for sure? Of
course not. But after all these centuries of hierarchy and injustice
and greed, wouldn't it be fun to find out? Besides, what have we got to
lose...except war, famine, religion, disease, environmental
devastation, Reality TV, and all that other nasty stuff?
So the dog and pony show is now in full swing, do you intend to vote?
I might vote for Ralph Nader or Cynthia McKinney... just for the hell of it.
Again,
this being an election year, we hear a lot of calls to "take the
country back" or talk of returning to some former greatness. In the
"Disinformation" anthology "Abuse Your Illusions" you argued in your
"Our Back Pages" essay that not only were the "good old days" not so
golden, but that the "good old days" mythology is actually somewhat
dangerous to our current struggles. Can you give readers a brief taste
of what you were trying to accomplish with this piece?
The
danger inherent in the Good Old Days (GOD) myth is twofold. Like all
myths, its mere existence makes other illusions easier to swallow. If
the GOD invention is accurate, the wars fought, the businesses started
and subsidized, the legislation passed, the culture created, and the
leaders elected in the GOD get a free ride on its coattails. We become
a nation of people gazing backward for innocence lost rather than
looking ahead for lessons learned. This is the second danger of the GOD
fiction: disempowerment. By accepting that "the greatest generation any
society has ever produced" roamed the earth some 50 to 70 years ago, we
surrender new ideas and embrace whitewashed nostalgia. The answers, we
acknowledge, are found in the past; all we have to do is slam on the
brakes and throw our SUVs in reverse. A valuable step in fostering a
more forward-thinking approach would be to expose the GOD for what they
were-a mixed bag of good and not so good-like all such "days." If we
don't buy into the mythology, it's harder to convince us that most or
all the solutions lie in the past.
You made a similar
effort to disabuse readers of historical illusions about World War Two
in your books "There is No Good War: The Myths of World War II" and
"Saving Private Power: The Hidden History of "the Good War." In
addition to busting the mythology of theses historical moments you
talked about the propaganda of omission. Can you tell us why this is
important and how it applies to today?
As you read this,
civilians are dying in Iraq and Afghanistan—the direct outcome of a US
military intervention. Perhaps soon, we will add Iran to that bloody
list. With rare exceptions, none of us really want to kill our fellow
humans. But history makes evident that virtually anyone can be
manipulated not only into supporting such slaughter, but also
participating. It begins with spin. Despite the current "war on terror"
façade and election-year hype, not much about American war propaganda
has changed since "the good old days" (except the technology)…and
beneath the posturing and pontificating even less has changed September
11, 2001. "War on terror" rhetoric aside, it remains true that U.S.
wars and interventions are skillfully packaged and sold and the
official history of those conflicts is subject to spin and distortion.
These realities exist in order to portray our leaders—of either
party—as moral and lay the foundation for future military ventures.
I
grew up in the northern VA suburbs and after traveling quite a bit,
realize I could have grown up in thousands of suburbs all over the
country and had a nearly identical experience. It turns out Joe
Bageant's idea of the "American Hologram" is very accurate and uniform.
You seem to have had a very different experience in "The Peoples
Republic of Astoria." You write with a real sense of warmth of
community toward your "homeland." What's the relationship between you
and Astoria?
As much as I'm probably displaying irrational
chauvinism toward my "homeland," I genuinely appreciate having grown up
in a true "neighborhood," one in which you walk to get where you're
going and thus meet people – a staggering ethnic diversity, btw - face
to face and create bonds. Astoria is where one can live in New York
City without Manhattan's skyscrapers and maddening pace (just 10
minutes away by subway). I wouldn't want to have grown up anywhere else
and I wouldn't want to live anywhere else right now.
You
are a committed Vegan activist. Off the top of your head, what would
you say to someone who is on the fence about becoming a vegan?
I
would mention that 14 times as many people could be fed by using the
same land currently reserved for grazing and a main reason for global
rain forests disappearing is to make way to raise doomed cattle. I
would also mention that because our digestive tract is too long to
efficiently digest meat, that pork chop can sit there putrefying for
weeks. Accordingly, Americans consume more laxatives than anyone else.
Think about it: almost all our legislative, judicial, health-related
and military decisions are being made by constipated old men. Yes, by
going vegan, you can save the planet from constipated old men.
Yikes!
Not
every town has a Whole Foods or a nifty farmers market and in towns
with those things not everyone can afford them. What advise would you
give to someone who wants to switch to an Organic Vegan diet but can't
afford to do so or just isn't sure where to start?
Complex
question. I've often heard that veganism is an elitist lifestyle but
it's really a matter of economic priorities. If you're committed to the
ethical, environmental, and health benefits of being a vegan, you'll
find ways to afford the slightly higher price of such food. Of course,
if we taxpayers weren't already subsidizing the meat and dairy
industries, those death foods would be far more expensive. Lastly,
those who consume the standard American diet because it seems cheaper
are far more likely to be stuck with astronomical health care bills.
These are simplified answers but the main point is that most Americans
can go vegan tomorrow if it mattered enough to them.
I
want to end with advice for activists. Your book "The Murdering of My
Years: Artists and Activists Making Ends Meet" is a collection of
testimonies by activists struggling to make ends meet in an uphill
battle against seemingly insurmountable odds. Since we talked about
Derrick Jensen earlier, why don't we close with this, I'm going to give
you three words to do whatever you want with. Just address them to
current or would be activists. Here they are: hope, despair and agency.
Go.
The best (worst?) illustration of "hope" is on display every
four years when those seeking social change put their capacity for
critical thought on the shelf and actively support the Democratic
Party. No matter which party wins, "despair" comes next as the latest
figurehead of empire proceeds to do everything in his (her?) power to
roadblock all avenues toward peace, justice, and solidarity. "Agency"
belongs to those willing to disrupt their comfortable (sic) lives and
dedicate themselves to stopping things like global warming, US military
interventionism, economic exploitation, factory farming, environmental
devastation, etc... by any means necessary. The humans (all living
things) that come after us won't care if we did interviews like this or
marched in protests or held open doors for little old ladies…if they
have no clean air to breathe. It won't matter if we ate organic or
drove a hybrid or switched to recycled toilet paper…if they have no
clean water to use. They won't care if we voted for Obama or McCain or
Hillary…if they end up stuck on a toxic, uninhabitable planet.
There's no shortage of hope or despair on Earth. When it comes to agency, we're definitely in a recession.
Writings 
I manage a restaurant in DC where I'm often baffled by the presence of people like Senator "Joe-mentum" or former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright. 
Subscribe to this comment's feed
