Tuesday, January 19, 2010

Remembering Miep Gies (1909-2010), the brave woman who kept Anne Frank alive in her attic during the Nazi Occupation of Holland

In the early 1940s, the German Nazis deported and murdered most of Holland's Jews.

Miep Gies, who died on January 11 aged 100, was
one of a Dutch couple who hid and sustained the family of
Anne Frank for more than two years in an Amsterdam attic;
later she helped to save Anne Frank's diary for posterity.

What follows is from the Telegraph.co.uk, *here*.

Miep Gies
Miep Gies in 1998, with a copy of her book "Anne Frank Remembered". On her left hand she is wearing a black onyx ring with a diamond in the center, a gift from Auguste von Pels, one of the doomed Jews she helped shelter. Photo: AP


1940: Anne Frank at the age of 12 years, sitting at her desk at the Montessori school in Amsterdam. Photo: AFP/GETTYIMAGES

 
She was born Hermine Santrouschitz on February 15 1909 into a German Roman Catholic family in Vienna, but was sent to the Netherlands when she was 11 to escape the food shortages in Austria. The family with which she lived in Leiden gave her the nickname Miep and later adopted her. By the outbreak of the Second World War she was working as an assistant to Otto Frank, the owner of a pectin manufacturing company in Amsterdam.

After the Nazi invasion of 1940, Frank prepared a secret annex behind a swinging bookcase in a room above the firm's offices at 263 Prinsengracht; and in July 1942 the family of four – Otto, his wife Edith and their daughters Margot and Anne – went into hiding, leaving a false trail indicating that they had fled to Switzerland. Soon afterwards they were joined by other Jews, the van Pels family and Miep Gies's family dentist, Fritz Pfeffer – eight people in all.
For two years Miep Gies and her husband Jan, a municipal employee whom she had married in 1941, risked their lives to smuggle in food and provisions and news from outside, begging, buying and bartering what they needed from farmers and shopkeepers. They were helped throughout by her colleagues Victor Kugler, Johannes Kleiman and Bep Voskuijl.

Miep acted as a confidante for the adolescent Anne, bringing her paper for her diary and, on one occasion, a pair of second-hand high-heeled shoes. The Gies's heroic feat of humanitarianism ended on August 4 1944, when the Frank family were betrayed (by a person whose identity remains unknown), arrested and sent to concentration camps.

When the Gestapo arrived, Miep Gies was at her desk in the office below. She recognised from the voice of one of the arresting officers that he was Viennese, and she managed to charm him, perhaps saving her own life.

She never saw her Jewish friends again but "could tell from the sound of their feet on the wooden steps that they were coming down like beaten dogs".

Later, at considerable personal risk, she went to Gestapo headquarters to try to bargain for their release – but to no avail. Eventually she returned to their hiding place and found Anne's diary, its pages scattered over the floor.

She intended to return it to its author, knowing how important the diary had been to her, and locked it away without reading a word. Nearly a year later, Anne's father Otto returned from Auschwitz. He knew his wife and friends had not survived, but still hoped that his two daughters, Margot, 18, and Anne, 15, had been spared.

Two months later he received a letter that confirmed that both girls had died in Bergen-Belsen in March 1945, less than a month before the camp was liberated by British soldiers.

Miep Gies was with him when he received the news and could not find the words to comfort him. Then she remembered Anne's diary. She took it out of the desk and gave it to him, saying: "Here is your daughter Anne's legacy to you."

Eventually published in 1947, The Diary of Anne Frank became, after the Bible, the best-selling non-fiction book in the world.

Miep Gies recalled Otto Frank's dignified refusal to seek revenge. He declined ever to identify the man who had arrested them, telling her: "Miep, that man may have children. Those children should not have to live with such a thing."

For two years she resisted all Otto Frank's efforts to persuade her to read his daughter's diaries, but eventually relented and was glad that while Anne had invented pseudonyms for everyone else, Miep's name was unchanged.

For the rest of her life, Miep Gies devoted herself to sustaining Anne Frank's legacy, answering letters from all over the world. In 1987 she published a book, Anne Frank Remembered. In it she observed: "I am not a hero. I stand at the end of the long, long line of good Dutch people who did what I did and more – much more – during those dark and terrible times years ago, but always like yesterday in the heart of those of us who bear witness."

She was decorated by Queen Beatrix of the Netherlands for her heroism and dedication and the Israeli Holocaust museum Yad Vashem bestowed on her the title of "Righteous Gentile". She was also honoured by the German government.

On August 4 every year, the day of the arrest, Miep Gies would shut herself away in her house and see no one. "I act as though the day does not exist. It is my personal memorial to my people," she explained.

In 1996 Jon Blair's film Anne Frank Remembered won an Oscar for best documentary feature. Blair took Miep Gies to the ceremony in Hollywood, and as they were on their way to the awards in their limousine she remarked that she had agreed to come because Anne Frank had always wanted to be famous, and that she had loved Hollywood. Blair took Miep Gies on to the stage when he made his acceptance speech, and the audience gave her a standing ovation.

Jan Gies died in 1993, and she is survived by a son.


1945: Miep Gies, front row left, with Otto Frank, front row center, and other 'helpers' Bep Voskuijl, front row right, Johannes Kleiman, back row left, and Victor Kugler, back row right.
Photo: AP

Mourning the loss of Kate McGarrigle, Canadian folk singer with her sister Anna


Canadian folk music icon Kate McGarrigle dead at 63 after battle with cancer
January 19th, 2010

TORONTO — Canadian folk singer and songwriter Kate McGarrigle, best known for performing with her sister Anna, has died of cancer. She was 63.

McGarrigle’s brother-in-law, Dane Lanken, said the singer died at her Montreal home Monday night surrounded by her sisters, Jane and Anna, and her children, Rufus and Martha Wainwright, also singers.
He said McGarrigle had been battling cancer since the summer of 2006. He said the cancer started in her small intestine and spread to her liver.

Kate and Anna, known as the McGarrigle Sisters, began their careers performing at Montreal coffeehouses in the 1960s with a group called the Mountain City Four. They got their break in the 1970s, when their songs were covered by numerous artists, including Linda Ronstadt, who used “Heart Like a Wheel” as the title song to one of her albums.

In 1975 they made their first record, “Kate and Anna McGarrigle,” which brought them critical acclaim and additional famous covers by artists including Emmylou Harris, Judy Collins and Billy Bragg.

Their own well-known releases included “The Work Song,” ”Cool River” and “Lying Song.”

Kate McGarrigle received the Order of Canada in 1994, one of the country’s highest honors.

McGarrigle was once married to American singer-songwriter Loudon Wainwright III. Her son, Rufus Wainwright, recently canceled an upcoming tour, citing an illness in the family.

Born in Montreal, the famous singing duo grew up in the Laurentian Mountains village of Saint-Sauveur-des-Monts, Quebec. There, they learned the piano from the village nuns.
*     *     *
Here is Kate performing a month and a half ago, singing a beautiful and very new song Proserpina, in the Royal ALbert Hall, December 9, 2009.

Monday, January 18, 2010

Honoring the Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.: "Why I Am Opposed to the War in Vietnam" (audio and text)



"[T]he hottest places in hell are reserved for those who in a period of moral crisis maintain their neutrality. There comes a time when silence becomes betrayal."

Martin Luther King Jr.: "Why I Am Opposed to the War in Vietnam"

By Sam Husseini on January 10, 2007 8:39 PM | | TrackBacks (0)
Sermon at the Ebenezer Baptist Church on April 30, 1967:
A Real Audio file hosted here.
The sermon which I am preaching this morning in a sense is not the usual kind of sermon, but it is a sermon and an important subject, nevertheless, because the issue that I will be discussing today is one of the most controversial issues confronting our nation. I'm using as a subject from which to preach, "Why I Am Opposed to the War in Vietnam."
Now, let me make it clear in the beginning, that I see this war as an unjust, evil, and futile war. I preach to you today on the war in Vietnam because my conscience leaves me with no other choice. The time has come for America to hear the truth about this tragic war. In international conflicts, the truth is hard to come by because most nations are deceived about themselves. Rationalizations and the incessant search for scapegoats are the psychological cataracts that blind us to our sins. But the day has passed for superficial patriotism. He who lives with untruth lives in spiritual slavery. Freedom is still the bonus we receive for knowing the truth. "Ye shall know the truth," says Jesus, "and the truth shall set you free." Now, I've chosen to preach about the war in Vietnam because I agree with Dante, that the hottest places in hell are reserved for those who in a period of moral crisis maintain their neutrality. There comes a time when silence becomes betrayal.
The truth of these words is beyond doubt, but the mission to which they call us is a most difficult one. Even when pressed by the demands of inner truth, men do not easily assume the task of opposing their government's policy, especially in time of war. Nor does the human spirit move without great difficulty against all the apathy of conformist thought within one's own bosom and in the surrounding world. Moreover, when the issues at hand seem as perplexing, as they often do in the case of this dreadful conflict, we're always on the verge of being mesmerized by uncertainty. But we must move on. Some of us who have already begun to break the silence of the night have found that the calling to speak is often a vocation of agony. But we must speak. We must speak with all the humility that is appropriate to our limited vision, but we must speak. And we must rejoice as well, for in all our history there has never been such a monumental dissent during a war, by the American people.
Polls reveal that almost fifteen million Americans explicitly oppose the war in Vietnam. Additional millions cannot bring themselves around to support it. And even those millions who do support the war [are] half-hearted, confused, and doubt-ridden. This reveals that millions have chosen to move beyond the prophesying of smooth patriotism, to the high grounds of firm dissent, based upon the mandates of conscience and the reading of history. Now, of course, one of the difficulties in speaking out today grows the fact that there are those who are seeking to equate dissent with disloyalty. It's a dark day in our nation when high-level authorities will seek to use every method to silence dissent. But something is happening, and people are not going to be silenced. The truth must be told, and I say that those who are seeking to make it appear that anyone who opposes the war in Vietnam is a fool or a traitor or an enemy of our soldiers is a person that has taken a stand against the best in our tradition.
Yes, we must stand, and we must speak. [tape skip]...have moved to break the betrayal of my own silences and to speak from the burnings of my own heart, as I have called for radical departures from the destruction of Vietnam. Many persons have questioned me about the wisdom of my path. At the heart of their concerns, this query has often loomed large and loud: "Why are you speaking about the war, Dr. King? Why are you joining the voices of dissent?" Peace and civil rights don't mix, they say. And so this morning, I speak to you on this issue, because I am determined to take the Gospel seriously. And I come this morning to my pulpit to make a passionate plea to my beloved nation.
This sermon is not addressed to Hanoi, or to the National Liberation Front. It is not addressed to China or to Russia. Nor is it an attempt to overlook the ambiguity of the total situation and the need for a collective solution to the tragedy of Vietnam. Nor is it an attempt to make North Vietnam or the National Liberation Front paragons of virtue, nor to overlook the role they must play in a successful resolution of the problem. This morning, however, I wish not to speak with Hanoi and the National Liberation Front, but rather to my fellow Americans, who bear the greatest responsibility, and entered a conflict that has exacted a heavy price on both continents.
Now, since I am a preacher by calling, I suppose it is not surprising that I have seven major reasons for bringing Vietnam into the field of my moral vision. There is...a very obvious and almost facile connection between the war in Vietnam and the struggle I and others have been waging in America. A few years ago there was a shining moment in that struggle. It seemed that there was a real promise of hope for the poor, both black and white, through the Poverty Program. There were experiments, hopes, and new beginnings. Then came the build-up in Vietnam. And I watched the program broken as if it was some idle political plaything of a society gone mad on war. And I knew that America would never invest the necessary funds or energies in rehabilitation of its poor so long as adventures like Vietnam continued to draw men and skills and money, like some demonic, destructive suction tube. And you may not know it, my friends, but it is estimated that we spend $500,000 to kill each enemy soldier, while we spend only fifty-three dollars for each person classified as poor, and much of that fifty-three dollars goes for salaries to people that are not poor. So I was increasingly compelled to see the war as an enemy of the poor, and attack it as such.
Perhaps the more tragic recognition of reality took place when it became clear to me that the war was doing far more than devastating the hope of the poor at home. It was sending their sons, and their brothers, and their husbands to fight and die in extraordinarily high proportion relative to the rest of the population. We were taking the black young men who had been crippled by society and sending them eight thousand miles away to guarantee liberties in Southeast Asia which they had not found in Southwest Georgia and East Harlem. So we have been repeatedly faced with a cruel irony of watching Negro and white boys on TV screens as they kill and die together for a nation that has been unable to seat them together in the same school room. So we watch them in brutal solidarity, burning the huts of a poor village. But we realize that they would hardly live on the same block in Chicago or Atlanta. Now, I could not be silent in the face of such cruel manipulation of the poor.
My third reason moves to an even deeper level of awareness, for it grows out of my experience in the ghettos of the North over the last three years--especially the last three summers. As I have walked among the desperate, rejected, and angry young men, I have told them that Molotov cocktails and rifles would not solve their problems. I have tried to offer them my deepest compassion while maintaining my conviction that social change comes most meaningfully through non-violent action; for they ask and write me, "So what about Vietnam?" They ask if our nation wasn't using massive doses of violence to solve its problems to bring about the changes it wanted. Their questions hit home, and I knew that I could never again raise my voice against the violence of the oppressed in the ghettos without first having spoken clearly to the greatest purveyor of violence in the world today: my own government. For the sake of those boys, for the sake of this government, for the sake of the hundreds of thousands trembling under our violence I cannot be silent. Been a lot of applauding over the last few years. They applauded our total movement; they've applauded me. America and most of its newspapers applauded me in Montgomery. And I stood before thousands of Negroes getting ready to riot when my home was bombed and said, we can't do it this way. They applauded us in the sit-in movement--we non-violently decided to sit in at lunch counters. The applauded us on the Freedom Rides when we accepted blows without retaliation. They praised us in Albany and Birmingham and Selma, Alabama. Oh, the press was so noble in its applause, and so noble in its praise when I was saying, Be non-violent toward Bull Connor;when I was saying, Be non-violent toward [Selma, Alabama segregationist sheriff] Jim Clark. There's something strangely inconsistent about a nation and a press that will praise you when you say, Be non-violent toward Jim Clark, but will curse and damn you when you say, "Be non-violent toward little brown Vietnamese children. There's something wrong with that press!
As if the weight of such a commitment to the life and health of America were not enough, another burden of responsibility was placed upon me in 1964. And I cannot forget that the Nobel Peace Prize was not just something taking place, but it was a commission--a commission to work harder than I had ever worked before for the brotherhood of Man. This is a calling that takes me beyond national allegiances. But even if it were not present, I would yet have to live with the meaning of my commitment to the ministry of Jesus Christ. To me, the relationship of this ministry to the making of peace is so obvious that I sometimes marvel at those who ask me why I am speaking against the war. Could it be that they do not know that the Good News was meant for all men, for communists and capitalists, for their children and ours, for black and white, for revolutionary and conservative. Have they forgotten that my ministry is in obedience to the One who loved His enemies so fully that he died for them? What, then, can I say to the Vietcong, or to Castro, or to Mao, as a faithful minister to Jesus Christ? Can I threaten them with death, or must I not share with them my life? Finally, I must be true to my conviction that I share with all men the calling to be the son of the Living God. Beyond the calling of race or nation or creed is this vocation of sonship and brotherhood. And because I believe that the Father is deeply concerned, especially for His suffering and helpless and outcast children, I come today to speak for them. And as I ponder the madness of Vietnam and search within myself for ways to understand and respond in compassion, my mind goes constantly to the people of that peninsula. I speak not now of the soldiers of each side, not of the military government of Saigon, but simply of the people who have been under the curse of war for almost three continuous decades now. I think of them, too, because it is clear to me that there will be no meaningful solution until some attempt is made to know these people and hear their broken cries.
Now, let me tell you the truth about it. They must see Americans as strange liberators. Do you realize that the Vietnamese people proclaimed their own independence in 1945 after a combined French and Japanese occupation. And incidentally, this was before the Communist revolution in China. They were led by Ho Chi Minh. And this is a little-known fact, and these people declared themselves independent in 1945. They quoted our Declaration of Independence in their document of freedom, and yet our government refused to recognize them. President Truman said they were not ready for independence. So we fell victim as a nation at that time of the same deadly arrogance that has poisoned the international situation for all of these years. France then set out to reconquer its former colony. And they fought eight long, hard, brutal years trying to re-conquer Vietnam. You know who helped France? It was the United States of America. It came to the point that we were meeting more than eighty percent of the war costs. And even when France started despairing of its reckless action, we did not. And in 1954, a conference was called at Geneva, and an agreement was reached, because France had been defeated at Dien Bien Phu. But even after that, and after the Geneva Accord, we did not stop. We must face the sad fact that our government sought, in a real sense, to sabotage the Geneva Accord. Well, after the French were defeated, it looked as if independence and land reform would come through the Geneva agreement. But instead the United States came and started supporting a man named Diem who turned out to be one of the most ruthless dictators in the history of the world. He set out to silence all opposition. People were brutally murdered because they raised their voices against the brutal policies of Diem. And the peasants watched and cringed as Diem ruthlessly rooted out all opposition. The peasants watched as all this was presided over by United States influence and by increasing numbers of United States troops who came to help quell the insurgency that Diem's methods had aroused. When Diem was overthrown, they may have been happy, but the long line of military dictatorships seemed to offer no real change, especially in terms of their need for land and peace. And who are we supporting in Vietnam today? It's a man by the name of general Ky [Air Vice Marshal Nguyen Cao Ky] who fought with the French against his own people, and who said on one occasion that the greatest hero of his life is Hitler. This is who we are supporting in Vietnam today. Oh, our government and the press generally won't tell us these things, but God told me to tell you this morning. The truth must be told.
The only change came from America as we increased our troop commitments in support of governments which were singularly corrupt, inept, and without popular support and all the while the people read our leaflets and received regular promises of peace and democracy and land reform. Now they languish under our bombs and consider us, not their fellow Vietnamese, the real enemy. They move sadly and apathetically as we herd them off the land of their fathers into concentration camps, where minimal social needs are rarely met. They know they must move or be destroyed by our bombs. So they go, primarily women, and children and the aged. They watch as we poison their water, as we kill a million acres of their crops. They must weep as the bulldozers roar through their areas preparing to destroy the precious trees. They wander into the towns and see thousands of thousands of the children, homeless, without clothes, running in packs on the streets like animals. They see the children degraded by our soldiers as they beg for food. They see the children selling their sisters to our soldiers, soliciting for their mothers. We have destroyed their two most cherished institutions: the family and the village. We have destroyed their land and their crops. We have cooperated in the crushing of the nation's only noncommunist revolutionary political force, the United Buddhist Church. This is a role our nation has taken, the role of those who make peaceful revolutions impossible but refusing to give up the privileges and the pleasures that comes from the immense profits of overseas investments. I'm convinced that if we are to get on the right side of the world revolution, we as a nation must undergo a radical revolution of values. We must rapidly begin the shift from a thing-oriented society to a person-oriented society. When machines and computers, profit motives and property rights are considered more important than people, the giant triplets of racism, militarism and economic exploitation are incapable of being conquered.
A true revolution of values will soon cause us to question the fairness and justice of many of our present policies. On the one hand, we are called to play the Good Samaritan on life's roadside, but that will be only an initial act. One day we must come to see that the whole Jericho Road must be changed so that men and women will not be constantly beaten and robbed as they make their journey on life's highway. True compassion is more than flinging a coin to a beggar. A true revolution of values will soon look uneasily on the glaring contrast of poverty and wealth with righteous indignation. It will look across the seas and see individual capitalists of the West investing huge sums of money in Asia, Africa, and South America, only to take the profits out with no concern for the social betterment of the countries, and say, "This is not just." It will look at our alliance with the landed gentry of Latin America and say, "This is not just." The Western arrogance of feeling that it has everything to teach others and nothing to learn from them is not just. A true revolution of values will lay hands on the world order and say of war, "This way of settling differences is not just." This business of burning human beings with napalm, of filling our nation's homes with orphans and widows, of injecting poisonous drugs of hate into the veins of peoples normally humane, of sending men home from dark and bloody battlefields physically handicapped and psychologically deranged, cannot be reconciled with wisdom, justice, and love. A nation that continues year after year to spend more money on military defense than on programs of social uplift is approaching spiritual death.
Oh, my friends, if there is any one thing that we must see today is that these are revolutionary times. All over the globe men are revolting against old systems of exploitation and oppression, and out of the wounds of a frail world, new systems of justice and equality are being born. The shirtless and barefoot people of the land are rising up as never before. The people who sat in darkness have seen a great light. They are saying, unconsciously, as we say in one of our freedom songs, "Ain't gonna let nobody turn me around!" It is a sad fact that because of comfort, complacency, a morbid fear of communism, our proneness to adjust to injustice, the Western nations that initiated so much of the revolutionary spirit of the modern world have now become the arch anti-revolutionaries. This has driven many to feel that only Marxism has a revolutionary spirit. Therefore, communism is a judgment against our failure to make democracy real and follow through on the revolutions that we initiated. Our only hope today lies in our ability to recapture the revolutionary spirit and go out into a sometimes hostile world declaring eternal hostility to poverty, racism, and militarism. With this powerful commitment we shall boldly challenge the status quo, we shall boldly challenge unjust mores, and thereby speed up the day when "every valley shall be exalted, and every mountain and hill shall be made low, and the rough places shall be made plain, and the crooked places straight. And the glory of the Lord shall be revealed, and all flesh shall see it together."
A genuine revolution of values means in the final analysis that our loyalties must become ecumenical rather than sectional. Every nation must now develop an overriding loyalty to mankind as a whole in order to preserve the best in their individual societies. This call for a worldwide fellowship that lifts neighborly concern beyond one's tribe, race, class, and nation is in reality a call for an all-embracing, unconditional love for all men. This oft misunderstood and misinterpreted concept, so readily dismissed by the Nietzsches of the world as a weak and cowardly force, has now become an absolute necessity for the survival of mankind. And when I speak of love I'm not speaking of some sentimental and weak response. I am speaking of that force which all of the great religions have seen as the supreme unifying principle of life. Love is somehow the key that unlocks the door which leads to ultimate reality. This Hindu-Muslim-Christian-Jewish-Buddhist belief about ultimate reality is beautifully summed up in the first epistle of John: "Let us love one another, for God is love. And every one that loveth is born of God and knoweth God. He that loveth not knoweth not God, for God is love. If we love one another, God dwelleth in us and his love is perfected in us."
Let me say finally that I oppose the war in Vietnam because I love America. I speak out against this war, not in anger, but with anxiety and sorrow in my heart, and, above all, with a passionate desire to see our beloved country stand as the moral example of the world. I speak out against this war because I am disappointed with America. And there can be no great disappointment where there is not great love. I am disappointed with our failure to deal positively and forthrightly with the triple evils of racism, economic exploitation, and militarism. We are presently moving down a dead-end road that can lead to national disaster. America has strayed to the far country of racism and militarism. The home that all too many Americans left was solidly structured idealistically; its pillars were solidly grounded in the insights of our Judeo-Christian heritage. All men are made in the image of God. All men are bothers. All men are created equal. Every man is an heir to a legacy of dignity and worth. Every man has rights that are neither conferred by, nor derived from the State--they are God-given. Out of one blood, God made all men to dwell upon the face of the earth. What a marvelous foundation for any home! What a glorious and healthy place to inhabit. But America's strayed away, and this unnatural excursion has brought only confusion and bewilderment. It has left hearts aching with guilt and minds distorted with irrationality.
It is time for all people of conscience to call upon America to come back home. Come home, America. Omar Khayyam is right: "The moving finger writes, and having writ moves on." I call on Washington today. I call on every man and woman of good will all over America today. I call on the young men of America who must make a choice today to take a stand on this issue. Tomorrow may be too late. The book may close. And don't let anybody make you think that God chose America as his divine, messianic force to be a sort of policeman of the whole world. God has a way of standing before the nations with judgment, and it seems that I can hear God saying to America, "You're too arrogant! And if you don't change your ways, I will rise up and break the backbone of your power, and I'll place it in the hands of a nation that doesn't even know my name. Be still and know that I'm God."
Now it isn't easy to stand up for truth and for justice. Sometimes it means being frustrated. When you tell the truth and take a stand, sometimes it means that you will walk the streets with a burdened heart. Sometimes it means losing a job...means being abused and scorned. It may mean having a seven, eight year old child asking a daddy, "Why do you have to go to jail so much?" And I've long since learned that to be a follower to the Jesus Christ means taking up the cross. And my bible tells me that Good Friday comes before Easter. Before the crown we wear, there is the cross that we must bear. Let us bear it--bear it for truth, bear it for justice, and bear it for peace. Let us go out this morning with that determination. And I have not lost faith. I'm not in despair, because I know that there is a moral order. I haven't lost faith, because the arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice. I can still sing "We Shall Overcome" because Carlyle was right: "No lie can live forever." We shall overcome because William Cullen Bryant was right: "Truth pressed to earth will rise again." We shall overcome because James Russell Lowell was right: "Truth forever on the scaffold, wrong forever on the throne." Yet, that scaffold sways the future. We shall overcome because the bible is right: "You shall reap what you sow." With this faith we will be able to hew out of the mountain of despair a stone of hope. With this faith we will be able to transform the jangling discords of our world into a beautiful symphony of brotherhood. With this faith we will be able to speed up the day when justice will roll down like waters, and righteousness like a mighty stream. With this faith we will be able to speed up the day when the lion and the lamb will lie down together, and every man will sit under his own vine and fig tree, and none shall be afraid because the words of the Lord have spoken it. With this faith we will be able to speed up the day when all over the world we will be able to join hands and sing in the words of the old Negro spiritual, "Free at last! Free at last! Thank God Almighty, we're free at last!" With this faith, we'll sing it as we're getting ready to sing it now. Men will beat their swords into plowshares and their spears into pruning hooks. And nations will not rise up against nations, neither shall they study war anymore. And I don't know about you, I ain't gonna study war no more.
Text from Pacifica Radio/KPFA/UC Berkeley Library's Media Resource Center's site. The sermon was at the Ebenezer Baptist Church, not the Riverside Church -- that speech is here.

This is the information that appears to the right of this video on YouTube:
noncorporatenews
January 11, 2007
Speech by Martin Luther King, Jr. against the Vietnam War. Audio.

This speech was released by Black Forum records, a subsidiary of Motown, and went on to win a Grammy in 1970 for the Best Spoken Word Recording.

Excerpts of a Sermon at the Ebenezer Baptist Church on April 30, 1967.

Text of entire speech:
http://husseini.org/2007/01/martin-lu...

Real Audio file of entire speech:
http://www.africanbynature.com/Resour...

Sunday, January 17, 2010

On Haiti and Hate


[image of a woman and baby is from here]
[Revised Monday, 18 January 2010 ECD]

Can you tell me this woman's name and the name of this sweet child? Do you really want to know? Do you know what she's saying to the baby? Just look in her eyes.

I've had that look on my face. (I've seen it in photos!) I know the exact gesture; that very specific instruction in her eyes. I've seen those pictures of me doing exactly what she's doing. I could be wrong, of course, but to me it's the sometimes unsuccessful attempt we make with all manner of encouragement and enthusiasm to get the dear preoccupied child with us to look directly at the lens. For me the verbal part of the routine goes something like this: "Look at that person taking the camera, honey! Look this way, over here. This way. Look at the camera, sweetheart. Show that photographer that beautiful smile of yours!" Anyone who has had a photo taken with your child knows this moment. In my case, I have been the primary babysitter, or the well-known uncle. And that adorable child often finds the color of the photographer's slacks to be infinitely more interesting! And so this is the image the photographer ends up with. Exactly this one. On the couch in the living room, or just outside one's home.

Class-privileged white people get to be "individuals" when disaster strikes. In the white Western media, people with some class privileges, people who are literate and white are approached as if they are a "we" or a "me". Not so with the poor. So I hear about the white man who is prioritised to be pulled from rubble. And he is interviewed and he thanks "God". And what does he think that "God" is: callous to the suffering of several hundred thousand people who aren't white and don't have his class privilege? How fucked up is that? How fucked up do you have to be to praise G-d while people all around you are enduring the pain of broken bones, loss of homes, with their loved ones bleeding, crushed, dying, dead. How dare any white man on that island "THANK G-D" for his survival. Because G-d has nothing to do with it. G-d is weeping, distraught, beyond consolation. It's only that white dude's privileges that cause him to live and the Black man not under the rubble of a fancy hotel to perish. And the Black women, each one with her own wishes and interests. And the Black children, each one with a name and a favorite game to play.

What we can know, those of us who live with such privileges, is that poor people, especially when of color are utterly dispensable beings, to dominant society. They exist (they "swarm" when food is dropped out of the sky) but they are not fully human like that white man praising his white heterosexual male supremacist sky-god for his life.

From  what I've seen this week, the dominant Western media doesn't get that Haitians are individual people who may not want their photos taken, or who may wish to speak for more than one second about what they are experiencing. The media pretends to care, but they don't. They haven't, in my experience, spoken much with anyone who is Haitian as if that Haitian person is as human as the interviewer. Instead, the media tells  "the story of Haitians". According to dominant white media, individual Haitian people, each with their own history, their own friends and family, their own particular story of suffering and survival amidst Western Imperialism and genocidal economic practices, and with a set of particular concerns at any given time, is rendered "the same" more or less, as any other Haitian person's story.

Most recently, part of the story being told involves the media telling us how things will get, well, out of control, at some point. Dangerous. Violent. As if being crushed or injured or bruised due to a horrible earthquake isn't violent, dangerous, and out of control. The dominant media story goes on to tell "us" it will be good to have a strong [white heterosexual male supremacist] military presence in a region of the world where whites are not the majority. The descendants of African slaves are. This story paves the way for that good thing to happen. We now have a Western military presence to help "stabilise the country". Because if whites are known for anything, we're known for creating stability in places where people of color live. (Not.)

The dominant media speaks nauseatingly often about the timing of when "it" is going to happen. When will those Haitians [read: "swarming" Black people] get violent? Note the collective media's question is not "Why would any person experiencing extreme trauma and unalleviated pain behave uncalmly?" The inference, which often enough is stated straight up without any disguise is this: When will they start behaving like the savages Columbus portrayed all people of color to be? Because you white folks know it's just a matter of time. Tick, tick, tick. Between 100,000-200,000 dead most likely, and whites are poised to judge people who live and die in conditions that few white-majority Western countries do. White people don't have their bodies scooped up and dumped into big holes. That's something that happens to "non-whites only": Jews in Nazi Germany, African Americans in the U.S. South, among other places, American Indians across the Americas, Indonesians after the tsunami, and now Haitian citizens. Or, with a military presence is the correct term "civilians"? On what shiny polished dark stone wall will their names be etched? Are their deaths less of a loss than those mostly working class and poor people from the U.S. sent overseas to rape and murder people of color in Korea, Vietnam, Central America, Iran, Afghanistan, Iraq, and Pakistan? Does the Vietnam War Memorial have the names on it of all the Vietnamese people we poisoned, burned, and killed in the 1960s and early '70s?

The media's job is to portray a "them" who are not so privileged (read: pitiful, helpless, while simultaneously always dangerous and potentially violent) to "us" who are privileged (read: good, moral, capable of heroism and "coming together" in times of need). As if the people in the region of Haiti hardest hit by the earthquake are not capable, heroic, and not in need of anyone's pity. But for "us" to "help them" the story has to be about how powerless they are, except when they're not, in which case they're dangerous. Whites may or may not feel some genuine sorrow or grief, but the masses of racially privileged people must never fully identify with "those poor, poor people", especially when they get violent.

It is precisely because the violence of white men is invisible that we can think of ourselves as good, as the media portrays us. And whatever violence there is in Haiti, you had better believe it will be front web page news. Because "they" are not "us" and they, however much they suffer, are, in some ways, bad. Pat Robertson said what many whites believe. He just happened to do it in an interview which was recorded. Most white folks have learned to keep thoughts like that to ourselves. To speak it out loud is crass. To think it privately is, well, white supremacist. The violence of debt and impoverishment caused by white men is not to be seen or spoken, anywhere. Or maybe it gets mentioned once, and then is put away. The media doesn't keep stories about the badness of being white in the media as such. There are some bad white men, but it's never their whiteness that makes them that way. So I ask the dominant media: when will white violence against Black people and other people of color be made visible to white people as such, as a whiteman-made atrocity? When will "sex tourism" be stopped? When will "white men working behind the scenes to keep genocide going" be seen for what it is, and who we are? When will that story find its way onto the front pages of allegedly uncensored news sites?

The dominant story is that "they" need our money. Because the WTO and the IMF want you to believe that they cannot live without us.

But throwing money at the dying is a bit cruel. Particularly if it doesn't reach those who most need it in the form of clean water, antibiotics, food, and other basic necessities. Do you really know where your donation is going, or is just sending it enough? If white people REALLY care about Haitian people, make sure NAFTA disappears. Challenge the IMF and the global banking and economic systems to get off the Third World's back. Challenge white people to get off stolen land. If you really care, that is. Because sending ten bucks doesn't do a goddamned thing and you ought to know it. It only makes you feel like you've done your part. You haven't. Give your time to making sure that Haiti's economy is once again not in any way dependent on white people and white male economic and political systems.

Doing your part would be making sure capitalism dies sooner than later. Doing "good" would look like making sure Western patriarchal societies ends sooner than later.

And to any and all white Christians:
Pray that white preachers (who speak about Haitians and all Black people, and gay men and lesbians, as if we do the Devil's work) are condemned to life in in a fiery hell, and stop your fucked up talk of "forgiving Pat Robertson" because you know damn well Jesus would have kicked his sorry racist white heterosexist patriarchal ass across town and back again, and would have smacked the mutherfucker in his blasphemous pasty face, causing Pat to turn the other cheek.

The Adolph Award is presented to Pat Robertson


[image of The Devil, aka Pat Robertson, is from here]

For his dedication to callous disregard for humanity, and for being a P.R.I.C.K. in a time of desperation unknown in this hemisphere for quite some time, I bestow up Pat Robertson The Adolph Award. Congratulations, Pat. Well-deserved.


Much has been written about his actions. One piece from The Feminist Texican may be found below and also *here*.

Fuck you, Pat Roberston

via TPM
According to this prominent Christian man shithead motherfucker, Haitians are suffering right now because they have, “sworn a pact to the devil.”  And he said it while trying to raise funds for the disaster relief.  Because, you know, nothing encourages good Christians to cough up the dough better than a good Godless Heathens story.


[Pat "The Devil Incarnate" Robertson:]
Something happened a long time ago in Haiti, and people might not want to talk about it. They were under the heel of the French, uh, you know, Napoleon III and whatever.  And…they got together and swore a pact to the devil. They said, ‘We will serve you if you will get us free from the French.’  True story.  And so the devil said, ‘OK, it’s a deal.’  And uh, they kicked the French out of—you know, the Hatians revolted and got themselves free.  But ever since, they’ve been cursed by one thing after the other.  They are desperately poor.  That island of Hispanola is one island.  It’s cut down the middle.  One the one side is Haiti, on the other side is the Dominican Republic.  The Dominican Republic is propserous, healthy, full of resorts, etc.  Haiti is in desperate poverty.  Same islands.  Uh, they need to have, and we need to pray for them, a great turning to God. And out of this tragedy I’m optimistic something good may come. But right now we’re helping the suffering people and the suffering is unimaginable.

Saturday, January 16, 2010

The U.S. Americanisation of Mental Illness

With thanks to the blogger at That Girl Has Issues for bringing my attention to this article from the New York Times Magazine. (I'd say, "If you don't have issues, you're not living in reality!") All that follows is from *here*, although I added the "[U.S.]" because I DESPISE the racism and anglocentrism of declaring all of the Americas to be linguistically collapsed into the U.S. I also added "(visual artist)" after the, uhhh, visual artist's name.

The [U.S.] Americanization of Mental Illness



Alex Trochut (visual artist)


Published: January 8, 2010 

[U.S.] AMERICANS, particularly if they are of a certain leftward-leaning, college-educated type, worry about our country’s blunders into other cultures. In some circles, it is easy to make friends with a rousing rant about the McDonald’s near Tiananmen Square, the Nike factory in Malaysia or the latest blowback from our political or military interventions abroad. For all our self-recrimination, however, we may have yet to face one of the most remarkable effects of American-led globalization. We have for many years been busily engaged in a grand project of Americanizing the world’s understanding of mental health and illness. We may indeed be far along in homogenizing the way the world goes mad.

Skip to next paragraph

Alex Trochut (visual artist)

This unnerving possibility springs from recent research by a loose group of anthropologists and cross-cultural psychiatrists. Swimming against the biomedical currents of the time, they have argued that mental illnesses are not discrete entities like the polio virus with their own natural histories. These researchers have amassed an impressive body of evidence suggesting that mental illnesses have never been the same the world over (either in prevalence or in form) but are inevitably sparked and shaped by the ethos of particular times and places. In some Southeast Asian cultures, men have been known to experience what is called amok, an episode of murderous rage followed by amnesia; men in the region also suffer from koro, which is characterized by the debilitating certainty that their genitals are retracting into their bodies. Across the fertile crescent of the Middle East there is zar, a condition related to spirit-possession beliefs that brings forth dissociative episodes of laughing, shouting and singing.

The diversity that can be found across cultures can be seen across time as well. In his book “Mad Travelers,” the philosopher Ian Hacking documents the fleeting appearance in the 1890s of a fugue state in which European men would walk in a trance for hundreds of miles with no knowledge of their identities. The hysterical-leg paralysis that afflicted thousands of middle-class women in the late 19th century not only gives us a visceral understanding of the restrictions set on women’s social roles at the time but can also be seen from this distance as a social role itself — the troubled unconscious minds of a certain class of women speaking the idiom of distress of their time.

“We might think of the culture as possessing a ‘symptom repertoire’ — a range of physical symptoms available to the unconscious mind for the physical expression of psychological conflict,” Edward Shorter, a medical historian at the University of Toronto, wrote in his book “Paralysis: The Rise and Fall of a ‘Hysterical’ Symptom.” “In some epochs, convulsions, the sudden inability to speak or terrible leg pain may loom prominently in the repertoire. In other epochs patients may draw chiefly upon such symptoms as abdominal pain, false estimates of body weight and enervating weakness as metaphors for conveying psychic stress.”
In any given era, those who minister to the mentally ill — doctors or shamans or priests — inadvertently help to select which symptoms will be recognized as legitimate. Because the troubled mind has been influenced by healers of diverse religious and scientific persuasions, the forms of madness from one place and time often look remarkably different from the forms of madness in another.

That is until recently.

For more than a generation now, we in the West have aggressively spread our modern knowledge of mental illness around the world. We have done this in the name of science, believing that our approaches reveal the biological basis of psychic suffering and dispel prescientific myths and harmful stigma. There is now good evidence to suggest that in the process of teaching the rest of the world to think like us, we’ve been exporting our Western “symptom repertoire” as well. That is, we’ve been changing not only the treatments but also the expression of mental illness in other cultures. Indeed, a handful of mental-health disorders — depression, post-traumatic stress disorder and anorexia among them — now appear to be spreading across cultures with the speed of contagious diseases. These symptom clusters are becoming the lingua franca of human suffering, replacing indigenous forms of mental illness.

DR. SING LEE, a psychiatrist and researcher at the Chinese University of Hong Kong, watched the Westernization of a mental illness firsthand. In the late 1980s and early 1990s, he was busy documenting a rare and culturally specific form of anorexia nervosa in Hong Kong. Unlike American anorexics, most of his patients did not intentionally diet nor did they express a fear of becoming fat. The complaints of Lee’s patients were typically somatic — they complained most frequently of having bloated stomachs. Lee was trying to understand this indigenous form of anorexia and, at the same time, figure out why the disease remained so rare.

An earlier version of this article misstated the publisher of Ethan Watters's book. An earlier version of this article also misstated the name of the group National Alliance on Mental Illness.

Friday, January 15, 2010

WHM Supremacy in Israel is Bolstered Once Again: this time by supporting sex offenders

For an incisive analysis of all of this, please read Scapegoat: The Jews, Israel, and Women's Liberation, by Andrea Dworkin.

All that follows is from the blog of a U.S.-born man who has lived in Israel for 25 years. His blog, Desertpeace, is linked to *here*, and also may be found by clicking on the title just below:

ISRAEL PROTECTS THE ‘HUMAN RIGHTS’ OF SEX OFFENDERS

Parents might want to think twice about allowing their children to visit Israel on youth delegations…. at least until the country gets its priorities straight…. (no pun intended)






The Supreme Court of Israel has officially lost its collective mind.

The Supreme Court accepted an appeal by Yitzhak Mondrovich against his extradition on Thursday, 25 years after he arrived in Israel and 24 years after US authorities indicted him on suspicion of committing 13 sexual crimes against five boys aged nine to 13. 

“The legal and moral basis of the extradition procedure according to the Israeli extradition law is not restricted to being an important tool in the war against international and domestic crime,” Justice Ayala Procaccia wrote.” 

“It is also, at the same time, a procedure which takes human rights into consideration, both by the country requesting the extradition and the extraditing country. The fear of undermining an extradition procedure like this one cannot surmount the need to look at its implications for human rights and the fundamental values of the system of the country being asked to extradite.”


A country that bars journalists from entry, simply because they REPORT the truth about the occupation, bars entry to notable world leaders for fear that they might SEE the truth, is concerned about Human Rights?

What about the rights of the Palestinian people that have been living under the most inhumane occupation in centuries?

What about the rights of the Palestinian residents of East Jerusalem whose homes are siezed illegally by Jewish settlers?

What about the rights of Ethiopian children to go to school?

Obviously none of the above is important enough to be dealt with by the ‘lawmakers’ of the country. 

The article that the above in italics is from can be read HERE.
Zion be proud….. you are showing the world your true colours!

Possibly related posts: (automatically generated)