I thought it might be reasonable to start 2003, a year whose first war seems ominously predetermined, with a double-barreled blast from San Francisco Chronicle columnist Ruth Rosen, also the author of The World Split Open, a history of the feminist movement in America. Below you’ll find a discussion of item one on her post-Christmas wish list — a world without war. Peace, of course, is one of those kindly Christmas subjects that’s quickly dismissed as utopian or alien to human nature (or this year possibly un-American) in the harsh light of any new year. But Rosen reminds us of two crucial things: slavery, once as deeply embedded in the world as war, as unimaginable to live without, is now largely banished from the world — and Europe, the Twentieth Century’s charnel house, devastated by two total wars, now lives in remarkable peace. There is hope — and we need to take it seriously right now.
I’ve also included an end of the year column of Rosen’s on the way the Bush administration has used the politics of fear to drive a fearsome agenda all its own. This sort of thing, which should be the subject of front-page series in major American newspapers (on which more later this week), has largely been relegated to the op-ed pages where it can be dismissed as so much “opinion.” Tom
World without war?
By Ruth Rosen
December 26, 2002
San Francisco ChronicleEVER SINCE I was a little girl, I’ve wondered what it would take to end war. It’s probably why I became a historian: I wanted to understand what drives truly profound social change.
As a child growing up in the shadow of the atomic bomb, I used to pray every night, “Let there be no war,” but no one seemed to be listening. No surprise, then, that I spent a decade peacefully protesting the Vietnam War. But I’m not a pacifist; I do believe in (the rare) just war and I support international intervention against genocide.
It’s hard to imagine a world without war. But don’t forget that slavery — another barbaric human practice — existed for thousands of years and is now banned around the globe.What did it take for our species to decide that owning another human being is unacceptable in a civilized society?
EVER SINCE I was a little girl, I’ve wondered what it would take to end war. It’s probably why I became a historian: I wanted to understand what drives truly profound social change.
As a child growing up in the shadow of the atomic bomb, I used to pray every night, “Let there be no war,” but no one seemed to be listening. No surprise, then, that I spent a decade peacefully protesting the Vietnam War. But I’m not a pacifist; I do believe in (the rare) just war and I support international intervention against genocide.
It’s hard to imagine a world without war. But don’t forget that slavery — another barbaric human practice — existed for thousands of years and is now banned around the globe.
What did it take for our species to decide that owning another human being is unacceptable in a civilized society?
Politics of fear
By Ruth Rosen
December 30, 2002
San Francisco ChronicleOffice of Total Awareness. Perpetual war. THESE ARE scary times. Al Qaeda terrorists prepare to attack American civilians. A desperate and paranoid North Korea builds an arsenal of nuclear weapons.
And how does our government respond? The Bush administration declares an urgent need to invade Iraq.
Why Iraq? Because Saddam Hussein may have weapons of destruction, which he might use against some unspecified enemy some time in the future. Since we aren’t all that sure, we must wage a pre-emptive war against a nation that, just by coincidence, happens to sit on the world’s second-largest reserve of oil.
Follow that? If not, you’re not alone.
The domestic scene is just as surreal. Rank opportunism rules. In the name of preventing terrorism, the Bush administration has employed a politics of fear to create the most extensive national security apparatus in our nation’s history.
Military tribunals. Mandatory registration. Mass detentions. Electronic surveillance. Government secrecy. Executive privilege.