Dieser Internet-Auftritt kann nach dem Tod des Webmasters, Peter Strutynski, bis auf Weiteres nicht aktualisiert werden. Er steht jedoch weiterhin als Archiv mit Beiträgen aus den Jahren 1996 – 2015 zur Verfügung.
Die großen "Stars" in Austin waren die ProfessorInnen Howard Zinn und Andrea Smith. Frau Smith kritisierte in ihrem Einleitungsbeitrag Teile der amerikanischen Frauenbewegung, die den Krieg gegen Afghanistan begrüßt hatte, als ob Bomben jemals zur Befreiung der Frauen beigetragen hätten! Sie befasste sich mit Gender-Hierarchie und der "Kultur sexueller gewalt" als eine Strategie des Staates und sprach über eine neue Form der "Koalition" zusammengehörender Modelle von Sklaverei, Völkermord und "Orientalismus". Als Gegenentwurf dienten ihr neue Formen der Selbstorganisation indigener und lateinamerikanischer Modelle von "Machtausübung" ("making power"), die sich unabhängig von gegebenen staatlichen Strukturen bilden und auf dem Prinzip gegenseitiger Achtung und Veranwtortlichkeit beruhten. So stellte sie auch die Zukunft des Nationalstaats in Frage.
Howard Zinn stellte die Frage, wie Geschichte nützlich gemacht werden könne für die Menschen. Dabei bewegte ihn das Problem, dass die Menschen den Medien zu viel Glauben schenkten. Diese Naivität ist seiner Meinung nach dem Verlust historischer Perspektiven, einer Art "historischer Amnesie" zuzuschreiben. Als Beispiel nennt er die langjährige Tradition der US-Präsidenten, das Volk über die Gründe zum Krieg regelmäßig zu belügen. Die größte Lüge, auf die die Menschen hereinfallen, ist die, dass es ein gemeinsamens nationales Interesse von Regierung und gemeinem Volk (common people) gäbe. Ein Blick in die Geschichte zeige uns indessen, dass es ein solches gemeinsames Interesse nicht gibt, sondern viel eher einen Zusammenprall der Klassen (clash of classes). Es hat etwas mit unserem Verlust an historischen Kenntnissen zu tun, dass wir die Lügen der Regierenden immer wieder herunterschlucken. Zinn sagte, unsere Aufgabe sei es, sich die Geschichte und das Land wieder anzueignen. Der Krieg im Irak sei nicht das einzige Problem, der krieg selbst ist das Problem, denn er vergiftet, korrumpiert und bedroht unsere demokratischen Rechte.
Judy Atkins bedauert, nicht über alle Panels brichten zu können, weist aber auf die Website der "Historian against war" hin (www.historianagainstwar.org), auf der demnächst das eine oder andere Papier veröffentlicht wird.
So wird über das Panel "Die USA im Nahen/Mittleren Osten" berichtet. Magnus Bernhardson vom Williams College stellte die Frage: "Was ist der Irak?" und stellte verschiedene Sichtweisen vor (den Irak der Medien, den "voreingenommenen" Irak, den "Wunsch-Irak", den Irak, wie er wirklich ist). Der wirkliche Irak wird am meisten übersehen, sagt er. Die Menschen würden nicht in erster Linie unter der Besatzung leiden. Wichtiger sei, dass sie eine lange Periode des Kriegs durchgemacht hätten: vom iranisch-irakischen Krieg über den Golfkrieg und das Sanktionsregime bis zum gegenwärtigen Krieg. Er berichtet von einer Konferenz von irakischen und US-Wisenschaftlern in Jordanien, worin die Iraker davon sprachen, das wichtigste sei, das normale tägliche Leben wieder herzustellen. Solange sich das Land im Krieg befinde, sei es unmöglich über neue Formen der Demokratie zu diskutieren. Erst müsse der Krieg beendet werden, bevor eine demokratische Regierung gebildet werden könne.
In demselben Panel referierte Rahul Mahajan (Universität New York) über drei verschiedene Denkrichtungen/Schulen der US-Außenpolitik in Bezug auf die Demokratie im Nahen/Mittleren Osten. Die erste - sie repräsentiert den Mainstream - will Demokratie fördern (promoting democracy), stellt gleichzeitig aber in Frage, ob die Araber überhaupt "fit" sind für die Demokratie. Die zweite Richtung - er nennt sie die Chomsky-Schule - behauptet, der US-Regierung sei Demokratie eigentlich gleichgültig, es gehe ihr vielmehr um die Schaffung eines günstigen Investitionsklimas; das sei bei allen früheren Interventionen ebenfalls das Ziel gewesen. Der dritte Ansatz - von William Robinson - geht davon aus, dass die USA eine "polyarche" Regierungsform (polyarchy form of government) installieren wolle, in der eine Anzahl rivalisierender Eliten um Macht und Einfluss kämpfen. Im Zeitalter der Globalisierung würde dies den Interessen der USA am ehesten dienen. Nach Ansicht von Rahul Mahajan haben alle drei Denkschulen Fehler und es sei gegenwärtig unmöglich, in der Außenpolitik der US-Administration eine Rationalität zu erkennen.
Eine weitere Rednerin in diesem Panel soll erwähnt werden. Nada Shabout sprach über die Zerstörung der irakischen Kunst in den letzten 25 Jahren. Zerstört wurden Arbeiten in den Musseen und Monumente im öffentlichen Raum. Viele davon, so werde argumentiert, seien monumentale Denkmäler gewesen, die Saddam Hussein verherrlichten. Einige von ihnen waren aber "wirklich gute Kunst", sagte Nada Shabout. Und sie stellte die Frage, welche Folgen es für das Land haben könnte, wenn die Kunst von 25 Jahren bewusst zerstört wird. Sie wies auch darauf hin, dass die USA einen "neuen irakischen Künstler" namens Pashi gefördert hätten, den viele Iraker für einen Betrüger halten. Seine Werke werden nun in New York ausgestellt und AP widmete ihm eine Story.
In einem anderen Panel wurde die Bedrohung der Demokratie und der Freiheit in Kriegszeiten thematisiert. Colleen Woods präsentierte eine Geschichte über einen New Yorker Lehrer, dem im 1. Weltkrieg der Prozess gemacht wurde, weil er zu unpatriotisch gewesen sei. Der Vortrag vergegenwärtigte, wie es beginnt, wenn Lehrer mangelnder Treue angeklagt werden und man von ihnen einen Treueschwur verlangt.
Historians against the War "HAW" Sponsors Unique Academic Conference Submitted by Judy Atkins February 20, 2006
Historians Against the War (HAW) held a conference called "Empire, Resistance, and the War in Iraq" this past weekend at the University of Texas, Austin. Living up to its subtitle, "A Conference for Historians and Activists," this conference brought together historians from many U.S. campuses and local activists, but it was also about historians as activists which was what I thought made it unique. I know it is dangerous to call anything unique among a group of historians, but if anyone wants to prove that this wrong, the correction would be welcomed.
In addition to the many fine papers summarized by their presenters in five panels, these scholars also gave their personal views on the present moment, and the organization proposed some practical steps that it could take in the future.
The attack on progressive scholars by David Horowitz was mentioned several times as some of the "101 Most Dangerous Academics" were in attendance. Most notable was Howard Zinn, who along with Andrea Smith, filled auditorium of 1500 in the LBJ auditorium for their keynotes. The audience was swelled by university and local peace activists and progressives as well as many local high school and middle school teachers.
In their talks, Smith and Zinn introduced themes that would continue throughout the conference. Smith's talk was comprehensive in its reframing of the issues of race, class and gender. She criticized the errors of certain parts of the feminist movement which applauded the attack on Afghanistan after 9/11 as if bombing could ever liberate women. She spoke about gender hierarchy and the culture of sexual violence as a strategy of the state. She spoke of new models of coalition building based not on common victimization but on three inter-related models of oppression, Slavery, Genocide and Orientalism. She talked about new forms of organizing and the Latin American and indigenous models of "making power" outside the system based on mutual respect and responsibility. She called into question the future of the nation state.
Howard Zinn's speech started with the challenge of how to go about "making history useful" to everyday people. He asked "Why do people believe the media?" He attributed this naivete to a lack of historical perspective or "historical amnesia." For example, U.S. Presidents have historically lied about the reasons for going to war, so of course we should be skeptical about this President's rationalizations - unless we act as though we were born yesterday. The biggest lie that many people fall for is that there is a common national interest between the common people and the government. A study of history shows that there is no common national interest between them and us. But rather a "clash of classes." And it's our lack of historical knowledge that sets us up again and again to swallow the government's lies. Our job, he said, is to take our history and our country back, that the war in Iraq is not the only problem but the problem is war itself which poisons and corrupts and threatens our democratic rights.
Time constraints made it necessary for many of the panelists to shorten their presentations. And space constraints force me to give just a few highlights of a conference in which so many of the papers should be given much more attention. This is frustrating, however, Historians against the War promises to put many of the papers up on their website - www.historianagainstwar.org - as soon as possible. And "portside" invited the presenters to submit their papers and remarks to us for possible distribution.
The panel, "The U.S. in the Middle East," was particularly varied and meaningful. Magnus Bernhardson from Williams College posed the question "What is Iraq?" He described the different views of Iraq - media Iraq; partisan Iraq; wishful Iraq; and the actual Iraq. What is overlooked most, he said, is the actual Iraq. The people are not just suffering from the current occupation, but rather they have undergone one long period of war - from the Iran/Iraq war through the first Persian Gulf War, through the sanctions and now with the current war on Iraq. He described a conference he attended in Jordan between U.S. and Iraq scholars in which the Iraqis told them that what is important to them is the restoration of normal daily life. There is no way to discuss new forms of democracy when the country is at war and normal life is impossible. The conditions of war must be ended before a new democratic government can be formed.
In this same panel, Rahul Mahajan from NYU, described the different views of U.S. foreign policy toward the Middle East. There are three schools of thought in regard to democracy in the Middle East. First, the mainstream view of "promoting democracy" while at the same time questioning whether Arabs are "fit for democracy." Second, the Chomsky school which says the U.S. is indifferent to democracy and just wants a favorable investment climate similar to all its previous interventions. Third, the view of William Robinson who says the U.S. is promoting a polyarchy form of government in which there are a couple of rival elites competing with each other for power. He says that promoting polyarchy serves U.S. interests better in this age of globalization. Mahajan reported that all three views have flaws, and that it may actually be impossible to discern a rationality to the current administration's foreign policy.
I have to mention one more speaker on this panel - Nada Shabout. Her talk was about the attack on cultural Iraq and destruction of the last 25 years of Iraqi art. The works in the Museum of Modern Art have been destroyed, and public monuments torn down and rebuilt in a "New Iraq" image. While conceding that much of it was monumental art that celebrated the regime of Saddam Hussein, some of it was actually good art. She questioned the effect that conscious destruction of 25 years of art would have on a country. She also pointed out the U.S. promotion of a "new" Iraqi artist named Pashi who many Iraqis believe is a fraud. He is being promoted by the U.S. government and his art is now being shown in New York and was featured in an AP story.
Another panel pointed out the threats to academic freedom and civil liberties that arise during wartime. Colleen Woods' presentation on a N.Y. City public school teacher who was put on trial for not being patriotic enough during World War I provided insight into the beginning of the accusations of disloyalty against teachers and the rise of the loyalty oath for school teachers.
Peter Kirstein, whose personal email answer to a spam invitation to celebrate military values, was misquoted and blasted all over the internet by the right wing, and which resulted in his suspension from Xavier University, gave a spirited description of the attacks on him and his successful defense against these attacks. Other examples of violations of academic freedom were discussed. Other speakers on this panel were Amee Chew from Harvard and Jeffrey Kerr-Ritchie from the University of North Carolina.
On Saturday night we heard from Irene Gendzier from B.U. and Rashid Khalidi from Columbia. Irene talked about the roots of U.S. policy toward Iraq and the long encouragement of Saddam Hussein by all sectors of the U.S. government. She said that academics should have been paying more attention - especially to the Henry Gonzalez hearings in 1991-2 when these connections were revealed.
Rasid Khalidi gave an excellent speech on the U.S. goals in Iraq and the almost certain outcome of failure. He warned of the U.S. addiction to power and to war, and quoted James Madison that war is the poisoner, corrupter and destroyer of democratic rights. The Bush administration is openly contemptuous of the rule of law both international and domestic. He noted that while U.S. public opinion opposes the war and believes it is a mistake but that this shift has not yet affected the media or the political structure. It is time to hold the both to account. We must oppose the war, and fight the domestic implications of an imperial presidency, a national security state and the curtailment of civil liberties.
The last panel on Sunday morning was "What Activists and Historians can learn from Each Other." Dan Berger talked about his book on the Weather Underground and his view that they were important for their anti-imperialism and their recognition of white supremacy and their emphasis on action. The legacy of the Weather Underground was questioned by another panelist, Carolyn Eisenberg, who disagreed and argued that the anti-Vietnam war movement needs more study if we are to learn from our mistakes and create a stronger anti-war movement today. The title of her presentation was "Nixon's and Kissinger's Tips for the Peace Movement." Many speakers spoke of the crucial importance to the anti-war movement of the returning vets who are speaking out and noted the courage of the military families and in particular Cindy Sheehan.
At the close of the conference, Historians against the War co-chair, Margaret Power, called for discussion on tactics and laid out some proposed plans for the future. Their specific ideas are to call for National Days of Teach-Ins on the war probably in the Fall; to begin to put pressure on Congress to bring the troops home and cut off funding; to gather oral histories of returning veterans and their families; to develop short pamphlets on different topics for distribution, and to work with High School and Middle School social science teachers.
As I left the conference it was hard to ignore the huge LBJ museum and library so I ducked into the museum not expecting much. I wandered past LBJ's presidential limosine and other memorabilia. My attention was drawn to a soundless videotape. It was a tape of the 1967 March on the Pentagon. I watched students and nuns and priests and veterans and Abraham Lincoln Brigaders and union members and ordinary people file silently by and by and by. It did my heart good to remember how broad the opposition to the Vietnam war was and to see some familiar faces looking again as young as the students of today. Source: The news, discussion and debate service "portside". Newsletter, Feb 20, 2006; https://lists.portside.org
"Empire, Resistance, and the War in Iraq" ("Empire, Widerstand und der Krieg in Irak")
HAW (Historians against the War) Sponsors Unique Academic Conference (Einzigartige Konferenz der "Historiker gegen den Krieg" an der Universität in Austin/Texas
Am Wochenende vom 18./19. Februar 2006 fand an der Universität Austin (Texas) eine bemerkenswerte Konferenz statt: Die Vereinigung der "Historiker gegen den Krieg" hatte zu einer Tagung eingeladen unter dem Titel: "Empire, Widerstand und der Krieg in Irak". Und es trafen sich etwa 1.500 Besucher aus vielen amerikanischen Universitäten sowie Friedensaktivisten von nah und fern. Genau diese Mischung, so schreibt Judy Atkins in ihrem Kongressbericht, machte diese Konferenz so "einzigartig". Als Veranstalter der "Friedenspolitischen Ratschläge" möchte man diesem Urteil nur zustimmen, denn genau das ist auch das Erfgolgsrezept der jährlichen Kongresse an der Kasseler Universität - auch wenn die Teilnehmerzahlen natürlich nicht vergleichbar sind.
Die großen "Stars" in Austin waren die ProfessorInnen Howard Zinn und Andrea Smith. Frau Smith kritisierte in ihrem Einleitungsbeitrag Teile der amerikanischen Frauenbewegung, die den Krieg gegen Afghanistan begrüßt hatte, als ob Bomben jemals zur Befreiung der Frauen beigetragen hätten! Sie befasste sich mit Gender-Hierarchie und der "Kultur sexueller gewalt" als eine Strategie des Staates und sprach über eine neue Form der "Koalition" zusammengehörender Modelle von Sklaverei, Völkermord und "Orientalismus". Als Gegenentwurf dienten ihr neue Formen der Selbstorganisation indigener und lateinamerikanischer Modelle von "Machtausübung" ("making power"), die sich unabhängig von gegebenen staatlichen Strukturen bilden und auf dem Prinzip gegenseitiger Achtung und Veranwtortlichkeit beruhten. So stellte sie auch die Zukunft des Nationalstaats in Frage.
Howard Zinn stellte die Frage, wie Geschichte nützlich gemacht werden könne für die Menschen. Dabei bewegte ihn das Problem, dass die Menschen den Medien zu viel Glauben schenkten. Diese Naivität ist seiner Meinung nach dem Verlust historischer Perspektiven, einer Art "historischer Amnesie" zuzuschreiben. Als Beispiel nennt er die langjährige Tradition der US-Präsidenten, das Volk über die Gründe zum Krieg regelmäßig zu belügen. Die größte Lüge, auf die die Menschen hereinfallen, ist die, dass es ein gemeinsamens nationales Interesse von Regierung und gemeinem Volk (common people) gäbe. Ein Blick in die Geschichte zeige uns indessen, dass es ein solches gemeinsames Interesse nicht gibt, sondern viel eher einen Zusammenprall der Klassen (clash of classes). Es hat etwas mit unserem Verlust an historischen Kenntnissen zu tun, dass wir die Lügen der Regierenden immer wieder herunterschlucken. Zinn sagte, unsere Aufgabe sei es, sich die Geschichte und das Land wieder anzueignen. Der Krieg im Irak sei nicht das einzige Problem, der krieg selbst ist das Problem, denn er vergiftet, korrumpiert und bedroht unsere demokratischen Rechte.
Judy Atkins bedauert, nicht über alle Panels brichten zu können, weist aber auf die Website der "Historian against war" hin (www.historianagainstwar.org), auf der demnächst das eine oder andere Papier veröffentlicht wird.
So wird über das Panel "Die USA im Nahen/Mittleren Osten" berichtet. Magnus Bernhardson vom Williams College stellte die Frage: "Was ist der Irak?" und stellte verschiedene Sichtweisen vor (den Irak der Medien, den "voreingenommenen" Irak, den "Wunsch-Irak", den Irak, wie er wirklich ist). Der wirkliche Irak wird am meisten übersehen, sagt er. Die Menschen würden nicht in erster Linie unter der Besatzung leiden. Wichtiger sei, dass sie eine lange Periode des Kriegs durchgemacht hätten: vom iranisch-irakischen Krieg über den Golfkrieg und das Sanktionsregime bis zum gegenwärtigen Krieg. Er berichtet von einer Konferenz von irakischen und US-Wisenschaftlern in Jordanien, worin die Iraker davon sprachen, das wichtigste sei, das normale tägliche Leben wieder herzustellen. Solange sich das Land im Krieg befinde, sei es unmöglich über neue Formen der Demokratie zu diskutieren. Erst müsse der Krieg beendet werden, bevor eine demokratische Regierung gebildet werden könne.
In demselben Panel referierte Rahul Mahajan (Universität New York) über drei verschiedene Denkrichtungen/Schulen der US-Außenpolitik in Bezug auf die Demokratie im Nahen/Mittleren Osten. Die erste - sie repräsentiert den Mainstream - will Demokratie fördern (promoting democracy), stellt gleichzeitig aber in Frage, ob die Araber überhaupt "fit" sind für die Demokratie. Die zweite Richtung - er nennt sie die Chomsky-Schule - behauptet, der US-Regierung sei Demokratie eigentlich gleichgültig, es gehe ihr vielmehr um die Schaffung eines günstigen Investitionsklimas; das sei bei allen früheren Interventionen ebenfalls das Ziel gewesen. Der dritte Ansatz - von William Robinson - geht davon aus, dass die USA eine "polyarche" Regierungsform (polyarchy form of government) installieren wolle, in der eine Anzahl rivalisierender Eliten um Macht und Einfluss kämpfen. Im Zeitalter der Globalisierung würde dies den Interessen der USA am ehesten dienen. Nach Ansicht von Rahul Mahajan haben alle drei Denkschulen Fehler und es sei gegenwärtig unmöglich, in der Außenpolitik der US-Administration eine Rationalität zu erkennen.
Eine weitere Rednerin in diesem Panel soll erwähnt werden. Nada Shabout sprach über die Zerstörung der irakischen Kunst in den letzten 25 Jahren. Zerstört wurden Arbeiten in den Musseen und Monumente im öffentlichen Raum. Viele davon, so werde argumentiert, seien monumentale Denkmäler gewesen, die Saddam Hussein verherrlichten. Einige von ihnen waren aber "wirklich gute Kunst", sagte Nada Shabout. Und sie stellte die Frage, welche Folgen es für das Land haben könnte, wenn die Kunst von 25 Jahren bewusst zerstört wird. Sie wies auch darauf hin, dass die USA einen "neuen irakischen Künstler" namens Pashi gefördert hätten, den viele Iraker für einen Betrüger halten. Seine Werke werden nun in New York ausgestellt und AP widmete ihm eine Story.
In einem anderen Panel wurde die Bedrohung der Demokratie und der Freiheit in Kriegszeiten thematisiert. Colleen Woods präsentierte eine Geschichte über einen New Yorker Lehrer, dem im 1. Weltkrieg der Prozess gemacht wurde, weil er zu unpatriotisch gewesen sei. Der Vortrag vergegenwärtigte, wie es beginnt, wenn Lehrer mangelnder Treue angeklagt werden und man von ihnen einen Treueschwur verlangt.
Historians against the War "HAW" Sponsors Unique Academic Conference Submitted by Judy Atkins February 20, 2006
Historians Against the War (HAW) held a conference called "Empire, Resistance, and the War in Iraq" this past weekend at the University of Texas, Austin. Living up to its subtitle, "A Conference for Historians and Activists," this conference brought together historians from many U.S. campuses and local activists, but it was also about historians as activists which was what I thought made it unique. I know it is dangerous to call anything unique among a group of historians, but if anyone wants to prove that this wrong, the correction would be welcomed.
In addition to the many fine papers summarized by their presenters in five panels, these scholars also gave their personal views on the present moment, and the organization proposed some practical steps that it could take in the future.
The attack on progressive scholars by David Horowitz was mentioned several times as some of the "101 Most Dangerous Academics" were in attendance. Most notable was Howard Zinn, who along with Andrea Smith, filled auditorium of 1500 in the LBJ auditorium for their keynotes. The audience was swelled by university and local peace activists and progressives as well as many local high school and middle school teachers.
In their talks, Smith and Zinn introduced themes that would continue throughout the conference. Smith's talk was comprehensive in its reframing of the issues of race, class and gender. She criticized the errors of certain parts of the feminist movement which applauded the attack on Afghanistan after 9/11 as if bombing could ever liberate women. She spoke about gender hierarchy and the culture of sexual violence as a strategy of the state. She spoke of new models of coalition building based not on common victimization but on three inter-related models of oppression, Slavery, Genocide and Orientalism. She talked about new forms of organizing and the Latin American and indigenous models of "making power" outside the system based on mutual respect and responsibility. She called into question the future of the nation state.
Howard Zinn's speech started with the challenge of how to go about "making history useful" to everyday people. He asked "Why do people believe the media?" He attributed this naivete to a lack of historical perspective or "historical amnesia." For example, U.S. Presidents have historically lied about the reasons for going to war, so of course we should be skeptical about this President's rationalizations - unless we act as though we were born yesterday. The biggest lie that many people fall for is that there is a common national interest between the common people and the government. A study of history shows that there is no common national interest between them and us. But rather a "clash of classes." And it's our lack of historical knowledge that sets us up again and again to swallow the government's lies. Our job, he said, is to take our history and our country back, that the war in Iraq is not the only problem but the problem is war itself which poisons and corrupts and threatens our democratic rights.
Time constraints made it necessary for many of the panelists to shorten their presentations. And space constraints force me to give just a few highlights of a conference in which so many of the papers should be given much more attention. This is frustrating, however, Historians against the War promises to put many of the papers up on their website - www.historianagainstwar.org - as soon as possible. And "portside" invited the presenters to submit their papers and remarks to us for possible distribution.
The panel, "The U.S. in the Middle East," was particularly varied and meaningful. Magnus Bernhardson from Williams College posed the question "What is Iraq?" He described the different views of Iraq - media Iraq; partisan Iraq; wishful Iraq; and the actual Iraq. What is overlooked most, he said, is the actual Iraq. The people are not just suffering from the current occupation, but rather they have undergone one long period of war - from the Iran/Iraq war through the first Persian Gulf War, through the sanctions and now with the current war on Iraq. He described a conference he attended in Jordan between U.S. and Iraq scholars in which the Iraqis told them that what is important to them is the restoration of normal daily life. There is no way to discuss new forms of democracy when the country is at war and normal life is impossible. The conditions of war must be ended before a new democratic government can be formed.
In this same panel, Rahul Mahajan from NYU, described the different views of U.S. foreign policy toward the Middle East. There are three schools of thought in regard to democracy in the Middle East. First, the mainstream view of "promoting democracy" while at the same time questioning whether Arabs are "fit for democracy." Second, the Chomsky school which says the U.S. is indifferent to democracy and just wants a favorable investment climate similar to all its previous interventions. Third, the view of William Robinson who says the U.S. is promoting a polyarchy form of government in which there are a couple of rival elites competing with each other for power. He says that promoting polyarchy serves U.S. interests better in this age of globalization. Mahajan reported that all three views have flaws, and that it may actually be impossible to discern a rationality to the current administration's foreign policy.
I have to mention one more speaker on this panel - Nada Shabout. Her talk was about the attack on cultural Iraq and destruction of the last 25 years of Iraqi art. The works in the Museum of Modern Art have been destroyed, and public monuments torn down and rebuilt in a "New Iraq" image. While conceding that much of it was monumental art that celebrated the regime of Saddam Hussein, some of it was actually good art. She questioned the effect that conscious destruction of 25 years of art would have on a country. She also pointed out the U.S. promotion of a "new" Iraqi artist named Pashi who many Iraqis believe is a fraud. He is being promoted by the U.S. government and his art is now being shown in New York and was featured in an AP story.
Another panel pointed out the threats to academic freedom and civil liberties that arise during wartime. Colleen Woods' presentation on a N.Y. City public school teacher who was put on trial for not being patriotic enough during World War I provided insight into the beginning of the accusations of disloyalty against teachers and the rise of the loyalty oath for school teachers.
Peter Kirstein, whose personal email answer to a spam invitation to celebrate military values, was misquoted and blasted all over the internet by the right wing, and which resulted in his suspension from Xavier University, gave a spirited description of the attacks on him and his successful defense against these attacks. Other examples of violations of academic freedom were discussed. Other speakers on this panel were Amee Chew from Harvard and Jeffrey Kerr-Ritchie from the University of North Carolina.
On Saturday night we heard from Irene Gendzier from B.U. and Rashid Khalidi from Columbia. Irene talked about the roots of U.S. policy toward Iraq and the long encouragement of Saddam Hussein by all sectors of the U.S. government. She said that academics should have been paying more attention - especially to the Henry Gonzalez hearings in 1991-2 when these connections were revealed.
Rasid Khalidi gave an excellent speech on the U.S. goals in Iraq and the almost certain outcome of failure. He warned of the U.S. addiction to power and to war, and quoted James Madison that war is the poisoner, corrupter and destroyer of democratic rights. The Bush administration is openly contemptuous of the rule of law both international and domestic. He noted that while U.S. public opinion opposes the war and believes it is a mistake but that this shift has not yet affected the media or the political structure. It is time to hold the both to account. We must oppose the war, and fight the domestic implications of an imperial presidency, a national security state and the curtailment of civil liberties.
The last panel on Sunday morning was "What Activists and Historians can learn from Each Other." Dan Berger talked about his book on the Weather Underground and his view that they were important for their anti-imperialism and their recognition of white supremacy and their emphasis on action. The legacy of the Weather Underground was questioned by another panelist, Carolyn Eisenberg, who disagreed and argued that the anti-Vietnam war movement needs more study if we are to learn from our mistakes and create a stronger anti-war movement today. The title of her presentation was "Nixon's and Kissinger's Tips for the Peace Movement." Many speakers spoke of the crucial importance to the anti-war movement of the returning vets who are speaking out and noted the courage of the military families and in particular Cindy Sheehan.
At the close of the conference, Historians against the War co-chair, Margaret Power, called for discussion on tactics and laid out some proposed plans for the future. Their specific ideas are to call for National Days of Teach-Ins on the war probably in the Fall; to begin to put pressure on Congress to bring the troops home and cut off funding; to gather oral histories of returning veterans and their families; to develop short pamphlets on different topics for distribution, and to work with High School and Middle School social science teachers.
As I left the conference it was hard to ignore the huge LBJ museum and library so I ducked into the museum not expecting much. I wandered past LBJ's presidential limosine and other memorabilia. My attention was drawn to a soundless videotape. It was a tape of the 1967 March on the Pentagon. I watched students and nuns and priests and veterans and Abraham Lincoln Brigaders and union members and ordinary people file silently by and by and by. It did my heart good to remember how broad the opposition to the Vietnam war was and to see some familiar faces looking again as young as the students of today. Source: The news, discussion and debate service "portside". Newsletter, Feb 20, 2006; https://lists.portside.org