Is My Life Worth More Than Yours?

As the hubbub of the midterm elections dies down, the question on everyone's mind is whether the Democratic-controlled Congress can influence the course of the Iraq war, and whether lives will be saved now that Rumsfeld is gone. True it may be the difference between 1,000 and 500 deaths, but that's 500 saved nonetheless. And these are my concerns as well, but there is that small issue of genocide in the Sudan. Obviously this is NOT a minor issue to the man above, Abdullah Idris, whose eyes were gouged out during an attack by the janjaweed in Chad, but to the media it most certainly is a footnote to the turmoil in the Eastern Hemisphere.

The distance between Darfur and Baghdad is not great (eyeballing it on a map, my guess is that it’s less than a 5 hour flight) but the meaning of life in these two regions is vast, as is the meaning of these lives to Western leaders. After all that has happened in the last several months – a Darfur peace agreement, the war between Israel and Lebanon, the election in the Congo, the Uganda peace agreement, the impending civil war in Iraq— it is overwhelming to comprehend the impact of these acts. But what is even more perplexing is the international response, from both the media and governments, to those incidents outside of the Middle East. In an August 8th, 2006 New York Times op-ed, Nicolas Kristof reports: "The Tyndall Report, which monitors television network evening news programs, says that since the bombardment of Lebanon began, the crisis there has received more minutes of coverage on average each week than the Darfur genocide has received in total since it began in 2003." And the above picture (from a Kristof piece posted on November 12, 2006) suggests that even graphic violent acts that leave people blind and maimed, a fate that is perhaps worse than death, is still not enough to compel the world's superpowers to act.

The estimated statistics are clear:

Iraq - 153,087 (includes death of Coalition forces (3,087) and Civilians (150,000)) - taken from Iraq Coalition Casualty Count and a recent Reuters article.

Darfur - estimates of 400,000 over the past 3 years.

Congo - 3.9 million as a result of the war, which started in 1998.

Statistics are a tool with which to manipulate and induce a general shock and awe, but even after the initial sting of horror wears off, the only lingering sentiment is why. Why so relatively few in Iraq and so many in Africa? Why do we know the major players of Iraq but not of Darfur or the Congo? Why were Mr. Idris eyes gouged out? Although I want to resist vocalizing Kanye's sentiment that Bush doesn't like black people, it’s hard for me not to think it; but in this case it is all of the G8 leaders that don't care much about black folk. Let's face it, in the Sudan there is the perfect storm for some kind of United States response—a resource rich nation, run by Arabs who violate human rights, and Osama once lived there. Two years ago, the acts in Darfur were called genocide by the Bush administration. Yet no action. Congo is also resource rich nation, having a large source of coltan that is the fuel for our computer world, and no action. All three regions have divisive ethnic conflict that is either classified as genocide or civil war, and STILL no action.

The title of this essay is not meant as a glib remark, rather a question, however naive and blunt, for the world: why have we YET to take action in the Sudan and the Congo? Why is the United States so scared to prevent genocide, but willing to march head on into a civil war? And to be sure there will be action one day. I can already imagine the International Criminal Court case against Sudanese and Congolese leaders. (A betting man would say these cases will happen by 2015.) And such a dramatic case against the Sudanese janjaweed, as demonstrated by Mr. Idris’ injuries, will allow the international community to strut its power and demand justice. But it will also remind us of our negligent complacency and our passing interest in humanitarian causes. And finally, the lives of millions will effectively be equated with the punishment of a few.

For more information -

On Darfur: Save Darfur Coalition http://www.savedarfur.org/
On Congo http://www.nytimes.com/library/world/africa/index-congo-1998.html
On casualties in Iraq: This American Life (http://www.thisamericanlife.org/) had an excellent show on the death toll in Iraq. To find the show look under the 2006 archive for show #320 – What’s in a number 2006 Edition.

The Cringe Moment: Can I Outlast One Season of Survivor?

Have you ever had that moment where your shoulders reach your ears and you barely peak out of your half-closed eyes for fear of seeing something or not seeing something? I never knew that "the cringe" has been canonized in pop culture, but if This American Life dedicates a show to moments of cringing then you know its real (http://www.thisamericanlife.org/, search for Show #182). This particular cringe came from the new and improved edition of Survivor, where the teams are divided along ethnic (i.e. RACIAL) lines. It is fast becoming the show people love to hate or hate to love. This social experiment, as one friend says, is the new backlash against political correctness that goes horribly wrong. Let's face it shows like Its Always Sunny in Philadelphia or The Boondocks provide liberals a safe space from which to chuckle or roll over in laughter about racist, sexist or even "classist and egregious" comments. Survivor could be a chance for the conservatives to operate in the space liberals operate in; to make jokes about race or to see their own secret stereotypes come to fruition. But the show is taking this backlash against the p.c. to a whole different level, making all those who identify with their race and all of those who don't realize that there is still that common thread, that no matter how hard we try, either through cosmetic re-imagination or internalized self-segregation: RACE MATTERS.

So first let me address the lingo, I find it odd that as much as this is about race, the Survivor folks still want to turn this into an ethnic conflict. How it is that African-Americans, Asian Americans, Hispanic Americans and Caucasians are all now ethnic groups, is there a fear of using the "R" word? Is the "R" word the new four letter word of the 21st century? And what's even more surprising is to see how there are people who can't relate to each other based on their "difference". True the more "oppressed" groups felt some sense of solidarity, the Hispanics and the Blacks knew that they were there to represent. But the Asians seemed surprised to be lumped into one category and seemed more connected along true ethnic lines and place of birth (all the first generations are against the sole refugee) than as "Asian-Americans". And the whites, well let's face it they would have a hard time trying to explicitly express racial solidarity. Could those who have historically been privileged or who are privileged now ever feel comfortable with public expressions of racial solidarity in this day and age?

Alas, I could spend pages upon pages deconstructing everything from the gender distribution of each team to their respective real-world jobs. But of course that means nothing when you are watching the challenge and having to watch your ethnic team make mistakes. As the African-American team took to the field, all I could do was sit there in a hyper extended cringe moment, just like I felt when I was a kid and hoping that whichever murderer, stick-up kid, or car jacker on the 10 o’clock news would not be black. But alas they always were, and alas, the black team met with a spectacular failure. They’ve totally got soul, but whether they can work as a team remains to be seen; because even in the second show, they probably only won because the Latin American team threw the race so they could kick of one of their own. C'mon my oppressed brown brothers and sisters is this how we are going to go out the first time in the only accepted RACE WAR 2006.

I can't say for sure whether Survivor can hold my attention for the entire season, it is one of those shows where the hype is so much more amazing than the show itself....cuz let's face it these challenges are only a proxy for what we all really want to see – a straight out bare-knuckle fight, some bloody faces, a black eye and even the threat of death. What can I say if they advertise it as a "race war" then let's bring out the fight – not some kumbaya moment where it is the chance for each group to relate to each other. Alas as with everything on race in this country, Survivor only reminds me that it is something that is always there but never spoken. As James Baldwin once said "Being black in America is like walking around with a pebble in your shoe. Sometimes it scarcely registers and sometimes it shifts and becomes uncomfortable and sometimes it can even serve as a kind of Buddhist mindfulness bell, keeping you present, making you pay attention." The bell is ringing loudly on Survivor, but it can't be heard over the regular pit-patter of making alliances and backstabbing each other all in the name of $1 million. So my cringe moment may have come when I saw my team lose, but I continue to cringe because once again the promise of some television show offering some profound "social experiment" is nothing more than a vacuous statement meant to titillate and tantalize, a mere manipulation. And if this is the conservatives' way of back-lashing against the politically correct, then maybe the lack of profundity is really no surprise at all.

Why I Love New York #3748 - The Cult of the Free/The Cult of the cultured

After another mundane day in the city, ripping and running on the normal arteries, there is something amazingly serene about sitting in the Delacourt Theatre to see the annual Shakespeare in the Park performance. Maybe because it was Brecht instead of the perennial favorite, but it was nice to finally partake of what seems to be the perfect blend of two of every New Yorkers' favorite things, all that is free and all that is cultured.

The Cult of the Free

First on the free shit.....I'll admit that when I moved to the city it really didn't matter to me when I got free stuff; free stuff always just created waste or it was a free concert of some random B band from 1986. But ahh the cult of the free in New York is, like everything, amped up a few notches. I'll save the diatribe on free items for later, but free cultural events in the summer time, well they are a staple. It gives your wallet the chance to breathe...and for those on the family dole, it gives you access. Of course getting the tickets is its own obstacle course. First traversing the ennui that makes one justify why they can't be bothered to go...the lines, the heat, the "mixed reviews" that told you you weren't missing anything. Next comes the purveying of the tickets....yes you can pay someone to do it, or beg your friends to stand in line for you, but if you get tickets immediately then you are golden, although you missed out on a right of passage and some choice people watching. If you get wait-listed, there is yet another trauma. After waiting in line you have to come back at 6:30 pm and entertain yourself in a tense situation when the cult of the free and the cult of the cultured collide. As with all city activities, tempers fly high and people get pissed. Although I only contemplated aggression, jumping the security guard that came out with the ticket lady seemed like a viable option in my moment of ticket rage; others did actually consume the woman. She had to repeatedly warn the crowd that unless there was a single-file line she would not distribute the tickets. How adults quickly become hyenas. Luckily I got in, but as with everything, it was marred by anticipation, fear that you wasted a day or an hour trying to get a ticket, and debating on if you can muster the gumption to return for another day of ticket wrangling.

The Cult of the Cultured

Mother Courage was a surprise, it is nice when you can go to the theatre and appreciate the craft of drama and stand in amazement at how women and men, old and young put out such an effort to entertain. And considering that theatre is the art form I am least interested in, I was surprised that I overcame my queasiness of live performances with song (I just don't get musicals, when do you ever break out in song and dance just to describe your life). As with Macbeth, Mother Courage allowed the New York theatre community to channel its anti-war rage into the classics of yester-year. Firstly, props to two strong lead female performances, Streep makes you realize that acting is hard, that it is about subtlety and craft. Jenifer Lewis (Toni's mom on Girlfriends) reminds you that it takes a boisterous woman to make a hooker seem redeemable (I'll save my why is the black woman the prostitute rant). But of course there were the trite lines about how good leaders never take us into war and the problem is that of rich men letting the poor do their dirty work. And while I laughed along with the others....I couldn't help wonder two things 1) where is the Brecht of the 21st century? Have the arts stepped up to deal with our current state of war? Or is it only after the war and after we have distanced ourselves that we can craft something meaningful that doesn't merely capitalize on the vulnerable emotions of those searching for something deeper. 2) Another sentiment along these lines is that we haven't reached the same magnitude as World War II; in terms of the impact war has on our daily lives. The ability for a world event to have no dramatic effects on those who do not fight is perhaps something peculiar to our age. Now that war has been exported and violence is either a steady hum of crime or angst, or the random acts that pierce our daily lives; we can easily forget how violence can easily pervert one’s mind. And once you escape the war, you fail to realize how violence on a daily basis melds together new outlooks on life and lasting impacts for how we deal with each other....If we are still reeling from World War II and the Cold War, what will the post 9/11 actions create in its aftermath fifty years from now? And will those societies of the future be able to understand or deal with the question of violence any better? If the footprint of a society is its arts, will the arts of today display the same complexity as Brecht did with Mother Courage. The stark display of profitability from death could readily be extended to numerous industries. But is it our fear and our ability to escape the war, to escape the violence that will erase such footprints, and merely suggest that 2006 was a good time?

Perhaps we just need to resurrect the voices of the past to gain insight. The second half of the play redeemed any first act platitudes. Kline’s sole song easily demonstrated the dubious morality that one must have during war. And well of course that was dwarfed by Mother Courage’s ability to mask her pain with seemingly immoral pragmatism. And perhaps the concern becomes whether our morality has been compromised in the last five years. In some ways it has because maybe those on the right have finally started to realize the real reasons we went to war. But as for our arts, an escapism into World War II merely allowed us to skim the surface of our nation’s acts and to laugh them off rather than create something new.

There There Mon Petit Afrique

I just recently had the ultimate surprise, as Paris Hilton probably would say "Africa, is hot". The New York Times recently announced its findings of Africa and its new found cause celebre in their Sunday, August 13th edition. The article chronicles how a host of celebrities are all over Africa like the proverbial white on rice. Be it to display the deepest, most profound recesses of their souls, pick up a baby, or let a photo-op erase their perpetual party animal behavior. But alas, leave it to the New York Times to debase even the shallow moments of our celebrities by offering little in terms of the impact of philanthropy in the long run and how images of Africa -- you know the one, the stoke pile footage of the starving -- are always the same. Instead of using it as a platform to truly address what keeps Africa down and as the apple of every philanthropist's eye. It's about how Africa is continued to be seen as the child of the world, as the one most impoverished as the one ,as the perpetual Other. And it is not just the NY Times that is guilty of Afro-infantile - ism, one can search npr and their recent expose on Africa, entitled Africa: Portraits of Poverty. Here is a link to one of the stories. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5628726 So after two encounters of such negative, infantile -ism press on Africa, its a another wonder of the media world, is there a conspiracy here, should i break out with oliver stone and make a movie...or rather it is time to disect and dismantle the media. And as much as I want to start writing those angry letters, where you are trying to find the verbal equivalent of a fist pumping in the air, i realize it will take more than that, it will take the village to shake this shite up....So as a service I am at most tyring to educate those of you out there to how the media does such a paltry of covering Africa....and you too can connect the dots on how the media's image can trap an idea into a cage and just never let it out....