Posts Tagged ‘guns’

TMW2016-07-13color

Special mention

182094_600 Italian_bank_cartoon_normal

Banksy smiley coppers policemen smiling old street hoxton london stencil graffiti buenosairesstreetart.com

Readers are, I presume, as dismayed as I am by the current terms of debate concerning guns and police violence in the United States.

Yes, important points have been made—for example, about guns and profits, the diversity of victims of fatal shootings, and the racial disparities in police shootings. But the more general debate in the United States has largely ignored or overlooked other key issues, such as discourses of inferiority, people’s right to resist violence, and the nature of state-legimitized violence.

Fortunately, Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak [ht: ja] has weighed in on these topics:

Brad Evans: Throughout your work, you have written about the conditions faced by the globally disadvantaged, notably in places such as India, China and Africa. How might we use philosophy to better understand the various types of violence that erupt as a result of the plight of the marginalized in the world today?

Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak: While violence is not beyond naming and diagnosis, it does raise many challenging questions all the same. I am a pacifist. I truly believe in the power of nonviolence. But we cannot categorically deny a people the right to resist violence, even, under certain conditions, with violence. Sometimes situations become so intolerable that moral certainties are no longer meaningful. There is a difference here between condoning such a response and trying to understand why the recourse to violence becomes inevitable.

When human beings are valued as less than human, violence begins to emerge as the only response. When one group designates another as lesser, they are saying the “inferior” group cannot think in a “reasonable” way. It is important to remember that this is an intellectual violation, and in fact that the oppressed group’s right to manual labor is not something they are necessarily denied. In fact, the oppressed group is often pushed to take on much of society’s necessary physical labor. Hence, it is not that people are denied agency; it is rather that an unreasonable or brutish type of agency is imposed on them. And, the power inherent in this physical agency eventually comes to intimidate the oppressors. The oppressed, for their part, have been left with only one possible identity, which is one of violence. That becomes their politics and it appropriates their intellect.

This brings us directly to the issue of “reasonable” versus “unreasonable” violence. When dealing with violence deemed unreasonable, the dominating groups demonize violent responses, saying that “those other people are just like that,” not just that they are worth less, but also that they are essentially evil, essentially criminal or essentially have a religion that is prone to killing.

And yet, on the other side, state-legitimized violence, considered “reasonable” by many, is altogether more frightening. Such violence argues that if a person wears a certain kind of clothing or belongs to a particular background, he or she is legally killable. Such violence is more alarming, because it is continuously justified by those in power.

The rest of the interview is also worth reading, especially the sections on self-appointed anti-poverty entrepreneurs (who never mention “capital’s consistent need to sustain itself at the expense of curtailing the rights of some sectors of the population”) and “affirmative sabotage” (which involves “entering the discourse that you are criticizing fully, so that you can turn it around from inside”).

As well as Spivak’s conclusion

one must continue to work — to quote Marx — for the possibility of a poetry of the future.

not_a_structural_crisis_2008425

Special mention

181801_600 Moudakis July 8 2016

fishy_economics_475675

Special mention

181771_600 181383_600

IRS

What is the Internal Revenue Service doing spending $10.71 million on the purchase of guns and ammunition from 2006 to 2014?

According to a new report from American Transparency (pdf) [ht: ja], those arms expenditures are just a small part of the “militarization of America,” which includes military spending by non-military federal agencies (like the IRS, the Environmental Protection Agency, and the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service) and the militarization of traditional law-enforcement agencies (such as the Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, and the Department of State).

All told, American Transparency estimates that 67 non-military federal agencies spent $1.48 billion on guns, ammunition, and military-style equipment from fiscal year 2006 to fiscal year 2014. There are also more than 200,000 non-military federal officers and security personnel not attached to the Pentagon, which is a force larger than the Marine Corps (with its 180,000 personnel).

According to Adam Andrzejewski, the author of the report, “The recent growth of the federal arsenal begs the question: Just who are the feds planning to battle?”

69b46bfc27375d321d00d2df67d6edbb

Special mention

636023699868620995-062616 181131_600

181016_600

Special mention

180939_600 holb_c14232920160622120100