This is amazing! (UPDATE 12/26/11 maybe not "amazing," but something close to that- as I mention below, their talk about re-writing the law will almost certainly make it even easier to prove they're racists, and I'm a bit surprised because I thought they would be smarter than that)
UPDATE 12/10/11
What will be really important is to see HOW the authors of that law will re-write it. I can't imagine them re-writing it in a way that won't be easy to condemn as even more racist than the original bill. Anyway, here is another article worth reading.
UPDATE 12/16/11 A news item from the Southern Law Poverty Center has some more important info.
Wednesday, November 30, 2011
Wednesday, November 16, 2011
Israeli Apartheid and Palestinian Civil Disobediance
Yesterday I found a very interesting and encouraging article on the BBC web-site. It's about a civil disobedience action by Palestinians, which highlights the fact that Apartheid IS an appropriate term for Israel's treatment of Palestinians.
Tom
UPDATE 11/17/11
I forgot to mention a few other things about using the term "Apartheid" when referring to Israel. I don't remember the details, but there are laws that make it very difficult for married couples to live in Israel if one of them is from certain parts of the Middle-East (including the Occupied Territories) and the other one is an Israeli citizen. (UPDATE 1/12/12 More on that here)
And it's not just buses that are basically segregated, there are also roads that are segregated, too. (UPDATE 12/3/12 More on segregation here (In all fairness, they canceled that policy, see this)) UPDATE 3/9/20 An article about this is here, and here are some more of my thoughts on this. I'm not saying there aren't legitimate security concerns among settlers, but A) the hostility from Palestinians is largely because of their treatment by Israel, and this is just one more reason that needs to end; B) if they don't want to be around Palestinians, maybe they should live somewhere else, besides what used to be called Palestine, and C) these policies of segregation only reinforce the anti-Arab bigotry that, to one degree or another, most Jewish Israelis are afflicted by.
And then there is the fact that the State is officially defined by a Jewish identity. People who support that should be asked if they think there will ever be an Palestinian-Israeli Muslim or Christian or Druze President or Prime Minister in Israel (according to the Israeli government at some point in recent years around 17% of Israel's population is Muslim). More generally, the Palestinian-Israeli population does experience a fair amount of inequality.
UPDATE 11/27/11
As the article I link to above says, Israel says that keeping Palestinians without permission outside Jerusalem is for security reasons. But instead of banning the small minority of Palestinians who Israel could credibly consider security risks, the burden is placed on all Palestinians to get permission. In a similar situation (both areas include natives and a settler populations of one sort or another) even the British didn’t go that far in relation to N. Ireland (they only banned a small number of nationalists from Britain, which was bad enough). The policy that Israel has is very similar to the S. African Apartheid laws about controlling the movements of Blacks and generally keeping them out of white cities unless they had permission to be there.
(UPDATE 12/5/12 I forgot to mention that, whether they're going to Jerusalem or somewhere else in Israel, Occupied Territories Palestinians have to pass through some number (probably around five) of security checkpoints)
If security is the motivation, I’d also have to ask, what about extremist settlers? MANY of them FREQUENTLY clash with the Israeli security forces (in both the West Bank and in Israel), and it was a supporter of settlers who assassinated Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin. Are any of them, for security reasons, not allowed into Jerusalem? I didn’t think so. (UPDATE 12/15/11 here's a recent article about this sort of thing) (UPDATE 8/7/15 After a Palestinian baby was killed by settlers Israel has announced that measures usually reserved for Palestinian suspects will be used against suspects in this case; see this) UPDATE 2/12/20 A relavent article is here. See another article about hate crimes against Palestinians and the response of the police.
So, security is not the reason. Bigotry is. (UPDATE 12/4/12 Another article about anti-Palestinian racism (I believe the idea behind the loyalty oath is to discourage Palestinians from trying to get citizenship and to encourage Palestinians who are currently in Israel to leave; The thing is, in a self-defined Jewish State, the Palestinians are 2nd Class citizens and would likely and reasonably feel uncomfortable swearing loyalty to such a state)
UPDATE 2/5/12 To be fair, SOME action is NOW taking place against the settlers, but it's new and seems pretty limited- there is still a huge gap between how specific Israelis suspected of militancy are treated, and how pretty much the entire Palestinian population of the Occupied Territories is treated. The article is here.
UPDATE 1/23/16 An update from the US Ambassador on (among other things Israel is doing wrong) how the Israeli criminal justice and security systems are treating Palestinian and Jewish settler militants differently.
******
UPDATE 12/11/11 Juan Cole wrote a great essay about the Palestinians, largely aimed at the idea that their identity is invented and therefore they have no claim to Palestine.
******
UPDATE 12/5/12 There is also something Apartheid-esque about the withdrawal of settlers and soldiers from Gaza- the South Africans created several ostensibly independent states for blacks, but they weren't really independent.
UPDATE 3/2/14 I need to nail this down, but an Israeli leftist said that when she visits her Palestinian friends in the Occupied Teritories, she is breaking the law.
UPDATE 3/17/14 An article about why the Palestinians won't recognize Israel AS A JEWISH STATE.
UPDATE 4/29/14 An article that goes into some detail about the Apartheid comparison (That article includes a link to another important one here).
UPDATE 11/13/14 A post at Informed Comment about talk by the Israeli PM suggesting that Palestinian-Israelis should be stripped of their citizenship. UPDATE 3/5/20 Articles here and here explain that Israel's longtime and current and maybe future PM believes, essentially, that Palestinian-Israeli MKs (MPs) shouldn't be counted when it comes to forming a government. An opinion column here is also worth reading (the author is described here).
UPDATE 3/28/15 Another relevant article about the treatment of Palestinian-Israelis.
UPDATE 5/27/18 A couple days ago I was at an event about Palestine when a member of the audience said that it's illegal for Palestinians to convert to Judaism. I did a search and might do more and found an article here (I've been told the site is both conservative and pro-Israel). If this is true, to any degree, that is sickening and completely racist.
UPDATE 8/3/18 The biggest piece of evidence in favor of using the word Apartheid- see this. This also has some important things to say.
UPDATE Feb. 2020 One more article, this one about suppressing the Palestinian vote inside Israel.
UPDATE Feb 2020 An article about efforts to reduce the % of the Israeli population that is Palestinian. Although it doesn't change my opinion of Netanyahu, here is an important update.
UPDATE 2/9/20 An article touching on the fact (or at leat that people including Palestinian-Israelis, can be blocked from running for office if they feel so strongly about supporting the Palestinians that they support attacks on Israeli soldiers. A very senior politician also says she should be in the Palestinian parliament, not the Israeli one (she's an Palestinian-ISRAELI). It also mentions that inciting racism can get you disqualified, but I as far as I can tell it has only been applied to members of one ridiculously small and ridiculously bigoted Zionist party.
UPDATE 2/12/20 Although this isn't news I just confirmed something I was pretty sure of anyway. Read this article about Israel demolishing the homes of Palestinian terrorists, especially the following part:
UPDATE 2/27/20 An article here about how the Israeli government is helping settlers break the law in the West Bank by not destroying illegal settlements, and at the same time destroying Palestinian structures.
UPDATE An article describing a poll showing a lack of support in Israel for key elements of a democratic society and political system. That's a reference to such things in Israel and although those who are unconcerned about, for example, civil liberties probably are anti-Arab, if they're so unconcerned about democracy for the Israeli population in general (which is 80%) Jewish, I can only imagine what they would say if they were asked about these things exclusively in relation to the Palestinian-Israeli population or the Palestinians in the West Bank.
UPDATE 2/29/20 I wish it were more explicitly about anti-Arab racism and anti-Muslim bigotry, but a senior figure in the Likud party says "hate is what unites our camp," and although it appears to be hatred on several topics, I have no doubt that part of it is about Muslims and Arabs.
UPDATE 3/6/20 An article about Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza normally allowed into Israel to work, are barred on and around national and Jewish holidays, while Jewish settlers in the West Bank can continue to enter Israel.
UPDATE 3/7/20 An article about how a government minister apparently wants to expel the Palestinian-Israeli population (I am transitioning to use that term instead of the apparently inappropriate term "Arab-Israeli").
UPDATE 3/13/20 An article more or less about the Nation State Law.
From an article about a US State Department report on Jerusalem:
I think that when the PA complains about using the word "Arab" instead of "Palestinian" that is largely just about resident of Jerusalem. On the other hand, I am probably going to get off my butt and change "Arab-Israeli" on my blog to "Palestinian-Israeli" which I know is to one degree or another preferred.
UPDATE 3/1/4/20 Even the US State Department accused Likud of anti-Arab racism.
UPDATE 3/14/20 An article about an effort to change two things about how the leader of the opposition is treated by the State. The idea is to deny them intelligence briefings the usually get, and, even worse, deny them a security detail from the domestic security/intelligence agency Shin Bet and this is explicitly because that position might soon be held by a Palestinian-Israeli MK (MP). The part about intelligence briefings is just basic racism, but the part about a security detail takes it to a new level. That can't be construed in any way as a threat to national security, they just like the idea of a high-profile Palestinan-Israeli MK being killed by right-wing Zionists.
Tom
UPDATE 11/17/11
I forgot to mention a few other things about using the term "Apartheid" when referring to Israel. I don't remember the details, but there are laws that make it very difficult for married couples to live in Israel if one of them is from certain parts of the Middle-East (including the Occupied Territories) and the other one is an Israeli citizen. (UPDATE 1/12/12 More on that here)
And it's not just buses that are basically segregated, there are also roads that are segregated, too. (UPDATE 12/3/12 More on segregation here (In all fairness, they canceled that policy, see this)) UPDATE 3/9/20 An article about this is here, and here are some more of my thoughts on this. I'm not saying there aren't legitimate security concerns among settlers, but A) the hostility from Palestinians is largely because of their treatment by Israel, and this is just one more reason that needs to end; B) if they don't want to be around Palestinians, maybe they should live somewhere else, besides what used to be called Palestine, and C) these policies of segregation only reinforce the anti-Arab bigotry that, to one degree or another, most Jewish Israelis are afflicted by.
And then there is the fact that the State is officially defined by a Jewish identity. People who support that should be asked if they think there will ever be an Palestinian-Israeli Muslim or Christian or Druze President or Prime Minister in Israel (according to the Israeli government at some point in recent years around 17% of Israel's population is Muslim). More generally, the Palestinian-Israeli population does experience a fair amount of inequality.
UPDATE 11/27/11
As the article I link to above says, Israel says that keeping Palestinians without permission outside Jerusalem is for security reasons. But instead of banning the small minority of Palestinians who Israel could credibly consider security risks, the burden is placed on all Palestinians to get permission. In a similar situation (both areas include natives and a settler populations of one sort or another) even the British didn’t go that far in relation to N. Ireland (they only banned a small number of nationalists from Britain, which was bad enough). The policy that Israel has is very similar to the S. African Apartheid laws about controlling the movements of Blacks and generally keeping them out of white cities unless they had permission to be there.
(UPDATE 12/5/12 I forgot to mention that, whether they're going to Jerusalem or somewhere else in Israel, Occupied Territories Palestinians have to pass through some number (probably around five) of security checkpoints)
If security is the motivation, I’d also have to ask, what about extremist settlers? MANY of them FREQUENTLY clash with the Israeli security forces (in both the West Bank and in Israel), and it was a supporter of settlers who assassinated Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin. Are any of them, for security reasons, not allowed into Jerusalem? I didn’t think so. (UPDATE 12/15/11 here's a recent article about this sort of thing) (UPDATE 8/7/15 After a Palestinian baby was killed by settlers Israel has announced that measures usually reserved for Palestinian suspects will be used against suspects in this case; see this) UPDATE 2/12/20 A relavent article is here. See another article about hate crimes against Palestinians and the response of the police.
So, security is not the reason. Bigotry is. (UPDATE 12/4/12 Another article about anti-Palestinian racism (I believe the idea behind the loyalty oath is to discourage Palestinians from trying to get citizenship and to encourage Palestinians who are currently in Israel to leave; The thing is, in a self-defined Jewish State, the Palestinians are 2nd Class citizens and would likely and reasonably feel uncomfortable swearing loyalty to such a state)
UPDATE 2/5/12 To be fair, SOME action is NOW taking place against the settlers, but it's new and seems pretty limited- there is still a huge gap between how specific Israelis suspected of militancy are treated, and how pretty much the entire Palestinian population of the Occupied Territories is treated. The article is here.
UPDATE 1/23/16 An update from the US Ambassador on (among other things Israel is doing wrong) how the Israeli criminal justice and security systems are treating Palestinian and Jewish settler militants differently.
******
UPDATE 12/11/11 Juan Cole wrote a great essay about the Palestinians, largely aimed at the idea that their identity is invented and therefore they have no claim to Palestine.
******
UPDATE 12/5/12 There is also something Apartheid-esque about the withdrawal of settlers and soldiers from Gaza- the South Africans created several ostensibly independent states for blacks, but they weren't really independent.
UPDATE 3/2/14 I need to nail this down, but an Israeli leftist said that when she visits her Palestinian friends in the Occupied Teritories, she is breaking the law.
UPDATE 3/17/14 An article about why the Palestinians won't recognize Israel AS A JEWISH STATE.
UPDATE 4/29/14 An article that goes into some detail about the Apartheid comparison (That article includes a link to another important one here).
UPDATE 11/13/14 A post at Informed Comment about talk by the Israeli PM suggesting that Palestinian-Israelis should be stripped of their citizenship. UPDATE 3/5/20 Articles here and here explain that Israel's longtime and current and maybe future PM believes, essentially, that Palestinian-Israeli MKs (MPs) shouldn't be counted when it comes to forming a government. An opinion column here is also worth reading (the author is described here).
UPDATE 3/28/15 Another relevant article about the treatment of Palestinian-Israelis.
UPDATE 5/27/18 A couple days ago I was at an event about Palestine when a member of the audience said that it's illegal for Palestinians to convert to Judaism. I did a search and might do more and found an article here (I've been told the site is both conservative and pro-Israel). If this is true, to any degree, that is sickening and completely racist.
UPDATE 8/3/18 The biggest piece of evidence in favor of using the word Apartheid- see this. This also has some important things to say.
UPDATE Feb. 2020 One more article, this one about suppressing the Palestinian vote inside Israel.
UPDATE Feb 2020 An article about efforts to reduce the % of the Israeli population that is Palestinian. Although it doesn't change my opinion of Netanyahu, here is an important update.
UPDATE 2/9/20 An article touching on the fact (or at leat that people including Palestinian-Israelis, can be blocked from running for office if they feel so strongly about supporting the Palestinians that they support attacks on Israeli soldiers. A very senior politician also says she should be in the Palestinian parliament, not the Israeli one (she's an Palestinian-ISRAELI). It also mentions that inciting racism can get you disqualified, but I as far as I can tell it has only been applied to members of one ridiculously small and ridiculously bigoted Zionist party.
UPDATE 2/12/20 Although this isn't news I just confirmed something I was pretty sure of anyway. Read this article about Israel demolishing the homes of Palestinian terrorists, especially the following part:
"A similar "standard" was never applied to a Jewish terrorist. For instance when a Jewish settler, Baruch Goldstein, slayed 29 Muslim worshipers in the Cave of Patriarchs, no one suggested to demolish his home as a deterrence."
UPDATE 2/27/20 An article here about how the Israeli government is helping settlers break the law in the West Bank by not destroying illegal settlements, and at the same time destroying Palestinian structures.
UPDATE An article describing a poll showing a lack of support in Israel for key elements of a democratic society and political system. That's a reference to such things in Israel and although those who are unconcerned about, for example, civil liberties probably are anti-Arab, if they're so unconcerned about democracy for the Israeli population in general (which is 80%) Jewish, I can only imagine what they would say if they were asked about these things exclusively in relation to the Palestinian-Israeli population or the Palestinians in the West Bank.
UPDATE 2/29/20 I wish it were more explicitly about anti-Arab racism and anti-Muslim bigotry, but a senior figure in the Likud party says "hate is what unites our camp," and although it appears to be hatred on several topics, I have no doubt that part of it is about Muslims and Arabs.
UPDATE 3/6/20 An article about Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza normally allowed into Israel to work, are barred on and around national and Jewish holidays, while Jewish settlers in the West Bank can continue to enter Israel.
UPDATE 3/7/20 An article about how a government minister apparently wants to expel the Palestinian-Israeli population (I am transitioning to use that term instead of the apparently inappropriate term "Arab-Israeli").
UPDATE 3/13/20 An article more or less about the Nation State Law.
***************
UPDATE 3/14/20
From an article about a US State Department report on Jerusalem:
The human rights report, however, did express criticism of the Jerusalem Municipality for not providing adequate services to Palestinians living in the eastern half of the city.
“The Jerusalem municipality failed to provide sufficient social services, education, infrastructure, and emergency planning for neighborhoods where the majority of residents were not Israelis, especially in the areas between the security barrier and the municipal boundary,” it said.
Even though Palestinians in East Jerusalem make up 38% of the city’s more than 900,000 residents, the Jerusalem Municipality only invests 10-12% of its budget in their neighborhoods, according to Daniel Seidemann, an expert on Jerusalem affairs.
I think that when the PA complains about using the word "Arab" instead of "Palestinian" that is largely just about resident of Jerusalem. On the other hand, I am probably going to get off my butt and change "Arab-Israeli" on my blog to "Palestinian-Israeli" which I know is to one degree or another preferred.
***********
UPDATE 3/1/4/20 Even the US State Department accused Likud of anti-Arab racism.
UPDATE 3/14/20 An article about an effort to change two things about how the leader of the opposition is treated by the State. The idea is to deny them intelligence briefings the usually get, and, even worse, deny them a security detail from the domestic security/intelligence agency Shin Bet and this is explicitly because that position might soon be held by a Palestinian-Israeli MK (MP). The part about intelligence briefings is just basic racism, but the part about a security detail takes it to a new level. That can't be construed in any way as a threat to national security, they just like the idea of a high-profile Palestinan-Israeli MK being killed by right-wing Zionists.
***********************
My best post in support of the Palestinians is here.
***************************
UPDATE 3/29/16
As you might know there is a lot of controversy about using the word "Apartheid" in relation to Israel's relationship with the Palestinians. Some part of the European Union even said it's anti-Semitic to do that. I think I do a pretty good job here of proving that it's accurate enough that it's definitely not anti-Semitic. But since I have kind of stepped up my criticism of Israel with this post, I thought I should repeat here something I've said twice elsewhere on this blog, something that might be the most important thing to explain if you want to defeat the actual anti-Semites among us Palestine supporters. And that is that Jewish-Americans are only a tiny minority of those Americans who strongly support Israel, and the rest have their own interests/agendas and not some kind of allegiance or compliance to a majority of the Jewish community as their reason(s) for supporting Israel. There are tons of Christians motivated by obscure Biblical reasons to support Israel and there are tons of people (both atheists and Christians) who support Israel for foreign policy reasons (their views of Israel's role in the Cold War and more recently the "War on Terror"). And on a related note, there is a growing minority of Jewish-Americans who are critical of Israel in support of the Palestinians.
(At the risk of being silly and patting myself on the back too much for being a good Christian ally, I want to high-light that I did a post here that you might want to note. A) in general it shows that I go to extraordinairy lengths to oppose anti-Semitism, and B) I describe the NUREMBERG LAWS (specifically and not Nazi anti-semitism in general or the Final Solution) as creating "a kind of Apartheid for German Jews")
Sunday, October 23, 2011
Star Trek: The Original Series Reviews P
This is one of my posts where I “review” Star Trek episodes. I will be giving each one a star rating. I sometimes will make some comments about non-political parts of them that I like or don’t like. I’ll sometimes use the issues raised in the episode to discuss similar issues in real life. And I will sometimes simply high-light the progressive politics of ST. ST is in-line with the three original themes of this blog, as I explain in the first ST post where I offer some general thoughts about ST.
I have been more or less ignoring this- the need for me to become familiar with The Original Series. In general I don’t like much of what I’ve seen. In any case, I am now watching it and will be doing reviews of those episodes. I will be giving pretty low scores, probably no higher than three stars out of five- I just don’t like TOS.
Lastly. multi-culturalism is such a pervasive theme in ST that I only comment on it when it goes beyond the norm (i.e. inter-species partners).
“That Which Survives” See this for a plot summary.
A non-political episode. I give it one star out of five.
“The Lights of Zetar” See this for a plot summary.
Overall a non-political episode, but there are a few things to mention:
1) More sexism than usual. A female StarFleet officer is frequently referred to as either a girl or a lass. Sulu makes a joke which seems to endorse thinking of women as brainless.
UPDATE 11/9/11 I think that with this post and maybe a couple others where I accused ST *TOS* of being sexist I went a little too far. I mean, there ARE two statements by kirk that are sexist, and I think the whole thing with women crewmembers wearing skirts (or dresses?) thing is sexist. But when it comes to Kirk and in this case also Scotty, referring to adult female crewmembers as "girl" or "lass" I have to wonder, how often has kirk called adult male crewmembers "boy?" I think probably rarely or never, but I'm not going to re-watch the series anytime soon, so I don't know. It is possible I'm being too harsh with the characters and writers over the use of "lass" and "girl." And I could be wrong about the skirts.
2) The idea of an electronic repository for all the knowledge in the Federation, which is open to anyone, sounds like a good idea.
3) The last members of an alien race (less than a hundred of them) whose planet died a long time ago is eliminated in order to save a StarFleet offcier from being inhabited by them, which seems reasonable.
“Requiem for Methuselah” See this for a plot summary.
A non-political episode. But I liked the idea that Flint was immortal and had actually been many historical figures (such as da Vinci).
I give it two stars out of five.
“The Way to Eden” See this for a plot summary.
You could possibly call this episode “StarFleet versus the Hippie.” Although Spock likes them, it’s fairly negative towards the hippies.
I give it three stars out of five.
Sunday, October 9, 2011
Star Trek: The Original Series Reviews O
This is one of my posts where I “review” Star Trek episodes. I will be giving each one a star rating. I sometimes will make some comments about non-political parts of them that I like or don’t like. I’ll sometimes use the issues raised in the episode to discuss similar issues in real life. And I will sometimes simply high-light the progressive politics of ST. ST is in-line with the three original themes of this blog, as I explain in the first ST post where I offer some general thoughts about ST.
I have been more or less ignoring this- the need for me to become familiar with The Original Series. In general I don’t like much of what I’ve seen. In any case, I am now watching it and will be doing reviews of those episodes. I will be giving pretty low scores, probably no higher than three stars out of five- I just don’t like TOS.
Lastly. multi-culturalism is such a pervasive theme in ST that I only comment on it when it goes beyond the norm (i.e. inter-species partners).
“Elaan of Troyius” See this for a plot summary.
There is one bit of politics, bad ones, when Kirk says that except for Vulcan women, women are all illogical. Not an example of ST’s progressive politics.
I give it one star out of five.
“Whom Gods Destroy” See this for a plot summary.
There is a lot of political aspects to this episode.
The setting is a prison housing the few remaining, un-rehabilitated criminally insane. There’s not much said about what the prison is like, but there is a painless therapy machine that helps with rehabilitation, although in general it apparently makes people docile, and at the end, it seems to also destroy memories, which is very disturbing.
It centers on one prisoner, a former Captain of StarFleet. He had tried to use his ship to destroy a peaceful people’s planet, but his crew mutinied, something I find fairly inspiring. More generally he had become a Federation imperialist and used torture.
I give it two stars out of five.
“Let That Be Your Last Battlefield” See this for a plot summary.
This is one of the most political episodes of all ST. There are two main themes, which kind of contradict each other, at least as I see it. The first theme is of a people fighting national oppression, dictatorship, and possibly genocide. The second is of two population groups that hate each other and end up killing everyone on their planet.
Although it isn’t completely clear this is the case, it seems very likely to me that the struggle Lokai was engaged in was for a good cause and probably conducted honorably. There’s talk of slavery of his people, followed by another form of inequality (probably comparable to Jim Crow in the American South). Genocide is mentioned as a goal of his oppressors, many of whom were on the verge of seizing power and creating a dictatorship.
At one point when Lokai is educating some of the Enterprise crew about his plant, he says “you don’t know what it would be like to to be dragged out of your hovel into a war on another planet- a battle that will serve your oppressor and bring death to you and your brothers.” It seems like that line was probably inspired by looking at who was being disproportionately placed in combat units during the Vietnam War (hint- it wasn’t affluent white people). That war was of great benefit to the military-industrial complex, and, if the US had been successful, there probably would have been other benefits for some more elements of the white population.
Regarding his use of violence, Lokai has a couple good lines:
“I led revolutionaries, not criminals- I demand political asylum”
and “why should a slave show mercy to the enslaver.”
Although it’s unclear if he means slave revolts in the past when his people WERE slaves, or if he means killing civilian officials and leaders of the “Jim Crow-”type of oppression they experienced after slavery (which could possibly be questionable (the IRA rarely engaged in such attacks and I'm not sure if they were a good idea)), it’s a good line.
The first of the two lines reminds me of how IRA POWs resisted criminalization.
At one point Bele, the government official hunting Lokai, says that Lokai wants “utopia in a day” in reference to Lokai’s grivences. Lokai says something about how he wasn’t that impatient and suggested that Bele would be happy if it took one hundred thousand years. It kind of reminds me of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr’s “Letter From Birmingham Jail,” in which he told white Christian clergy members that there was nothing wrong with oppressed people wanting justice to develop rapidly in the very near future.
As I said there are sort of two themes that contradict each other. At least some of the StarFleet crew generally believe that Lokai and Bele are mirror images of hatred, although there are exceptions who are very open to what lokai has to say. But I believe the dominant and accurate theme is the one of national oppression. The hand-full of lines and imagery about the other theme, are, by themselves, good statements about hatred.
Lastly, Kirk once again exaggerates how non-violent StarFleet is.
In general it is a very good episode, and I give it three stars out of five.
“The Mark of Gideon” See this for a plot summary.
There are a couple of political themes that should be mentioned.
The first is this thing that the Federation and StarFleet have about not taking "no" for answer when they try to establish a relationship with alien civilizations. It’s just wrong.
There is also the issue of population growth. I’m not as educated as I could be about the subject and am going to skip it.
I give this episode two stars out of five.
I have been more or less ignoring this- the need for me to become familiar with The Original Series. In general I don’t like much of what I’ve seen. In any case, I am now watching it and will be doing reviews of those episodes. I will be giving pretty low scores, probably no higher than three stars out of five- I just don’t like TOS.
Lastly. multi-culturalism is such a pervasive theme in ST that I only comment on it when it goes beyond the norm (i.e. inter-species partners).
“Elaan of Troyius” See this for a plot summary.
There is one bit of politics, bad ones, when Kirk says that except for Vulcan women, women are all illogical. Not an example of ST’s progressive politics.
I give it one star out of five.
“Whom Gods Destroy” See this for a plot summary.
There is a lot of political aspects to this episode.
The setting is a prison housing the few remaining, un-rehabilitated criminally insane. There’s not much said about what the prison is like, but there is a painless therapy machine that helps with rehabilitation, although in general it apparently makes people docile, and at the end, it seems to also destroy memories, which is very disturbing.
It centers on one prisoner, a former Captain of StarFleet. He had tried to use his ship to destroy a peaceful people’s planet, but his crew mutinied, something I find fairly inspiring. More generally he had become a Federation imperialist and used torture.
I give it two stars out of five.
“Let That Be Your Last Battlefield” See this for a plot summary.
This is one of the most political episodes of all ST. There are two main themes, which kind of contradict each other, at least as I see it. The first theme is of a people fighting national oppression, dictatorship, and possibly genocide. The second is of two population groups that hate each other and end up killing everyone on their planet.
Although it isn’t completely clear this is the case, it seems very likely to me that the struggle Lokai was engaged in was for a good cause and probably conducted honorably. There’s talk of slavery of his people, followed by another form of inequality (probably comparable to Jim Crow in the American South). Genocide is mentioned as a goal of his oppressors, many of whom were on the verge of seizing power and creating a dictatorship.
At one point when Lokai is educating some of the Enterprise crew about his plant, he says “you don’t know what it would be like to to be dragged out of your hovel into a war on another planet- a battle that will serve your oppressor and bring death to you and your brothers.” It seems like that line was probably inspired by looking at who was being disproportionately placed in combat units during the Vietnam War (hint- it wasn’t affluent white people). That war was of great benefit to the military-industrial complex, and, if the US had been successful, there probably would have been other benefits for some more elements of the white population.
Regarding his use of violence, Lokai has a couple good lines:
“I led revolutionaries, not criminals- I demand political asylum”
and “why should a slave show mercy to the enslaver.”
Although it’s unclear if he means slave revolts in the past when his people WERE slaves, or if he means killing civilian officials and leaders of the “Jim Crow-”type of oppression they experienced after slavery (which could possibly be questionable (the IRA rarely engaged in such attacks and I'm not sure if they were a good idea)), it’s a good line.
The first of the two lines reminds me of how IRA POWs resisted criminalization.
At one point Bele, the government official hunting Lokai, says that Lokai wants “utopia in a day” in reference to Lokai’s grivences. Lokai says something about how he wasn’t that impatient and suggested that Bele would be happy if it took one hundred thousand years. It kind of reminds me of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr’s “Letter From Birmingham Jail,” in which he told white Christian clergy members that there was nothing wrong with oppressed people wanting justice to develop rapidly in the very near future.
As I said there are sort of two themes that contradict each other. At least some of the StarFleet crew generally believe that Lokai and Bele are mirror images of hatred, although there are exceptions who are very open to what lokai has to say. But I believe the dominant and accurate theme is the one of national oppression. The hand-full of lines and imagery about the other theme, are, by themselves, good statements about hatred.
Lastly, Kirk once again exaggerates how non-violent StarFleet is.
In general it is a very good episode, and I give it three stars out of five.
“The Mark of Gideon” See this for a plot summary.
There are a couple of political themes that should be mentioned.
The first is this thing that the Federation and StarFleet have about not taking "no" for answer when they try to establish a relationship with alien civilizations. It’s just wrong.
There is also the issue of population growth. I’m not as educated as I could be about the subject and am going to skip it.
I give this episode two stars out of five.
Thursday, September 22, 2011
Star Trek: The Original Series Reviews N
This is one of my posts where I “review” Star Trek episodes. I will be giving each one a star rating. I sometimes will make some comments about non-political parts of them that I like or don’t like. I’ll sometimes use the issues raised in the episode to discuss similar issues in real life. And I will sometimes simply high-light the progressive politics of ST. ST is in-line with the three original themes of this blog, as I explain in the first ST post where I offer some general thoughts about ST.
I have been more or less ignoring this- the need for me to become familiar with The Original Series. In general I don’t like much of what I’ve seen. In any case, I am now watching it and will be doing reviews of those episodes. I will be giving pretty low scores, probably no higher than three stars out of five- I just don’t like TOS.
Lastly. multi-culturalism is such a pervasive theme in ST that I only comment on it when it goes beyond the norm (i.e. inter-species partners).
“The Tholian Web” See this for a plot summary.
A non-political episode. I give it three stars out of five.
“Plato’s Stepchildren” See this for a plot summary.
As the title sort of implies, a small amount of this episode is definitely philosophical. A the risk of making a fool of myself (I’m not good at philosophy) I’ll make some brief comments about that.
1) It briefly talks about plato and utopia and democracy. Apparently their idea for a perfect democracy is that anyone can do anything, as long as they are smart enough. This kind of reminds me of the idea that America is a “meritocracy,” which is very untrue, although I think I’ll skip the details on that for now.
2) This episode also brings up the issue of power and corruption. I believe that to a large degree power can (very often does) result in corruption. But I also think that with government there ar ways to keep that problem at a minimum. Checks and balances, whistle-blower protection, strong unions and more generally a strong civil society, a redistribution of wealth that will mean fewer people with the means to bribe government employees, very serious penalties for government employees accepting bribes etc.
As far as corruption outside government, I’d say some fairly similar things, plus more regulation in some areas (i.e. accounting, equality legislation, etc. (which would also apply to the Government)).
I give it one star out of five.
“Wink of an Eye” See this for a plot summary.
There’s one question that is raised in this episode. Because the Scalosians need to abduct members of other races in order to reproduce, Kirk’s efforts to stop them will result in the death of their race- that is, genocide. I’d say Kirk was right- abducting people like that is horrible, and at some point some races (the human race or alien races) just don’t survive.
On a non-political note, the Voyager episode inspired by this episode, “Blink of an Eye” is one of my very favorite ST episodes, and “Wink of an Eye” is nowhere near as good as the Voyager episode.
I give it one star out of five.
“The Empath” See this for a plot summary.
There’s kind of a political aspect to this, which is the idea that civilization requires compassion for others.
I give it one star out of five.
I have been more or less ignoring this- the need for me to become familiar with The Original Series. In general I don’t like much of what I’ve seen. In any case, I am now watching it and will be doing reviews of those episodes. I will be giving pretty low scores, probably no higher than three stars out of five- I just don’t like TOS.
Lastly. multi-culturalism is such a pervasive theme in ST that I only comment on it when it goes beyond the norm (i.e. inter-species partners).
“The Tholian Web” See this for a plot summary.
A non-political episode. I give it three stars out of five.
“Plato’s Stepchildren” See this for a plot summary.
As the title sort of implies, a small amount of this episode is definitely philosophical. A the risk of making a fool of myself (I’m not good at philosophy) I’ll make some brief comments about that.
1) It briefly talks about plato and utopia and democracy. Apparently their idea for a perfect democracy is that anyone can do anything, as long as they are smart enough. This kind of reminds me of the idea that America is a “meritocracy,” which is very untrue, although I think I’ll skip the details on that for now.
2) This episode also brings up the issue of power and corruption. I believe that to a large degree power can (very often does) result in corruption. But I also think that with government there ar ways to keep that problem at a minimum. Checks and balances, whistle-blower protection, strong unions and more generally a strong civil society, a redistribution of wealth that will mean fewer people with the means to bribe government employees, very serious penalties for government employees accepting bribes etc.
As far as corruption outside government, I’d say some fairly similar things, plus more regulation in some areas (i.e. accounting, equality legislation, etc. (which would also apply to the Government)).
I give it one star out of five.
“Wink of an Eye” See this for a plot summary.
There’s one question that is raised in this episode. Because the Scalosians need to abduct members of other races in order to reproduce, Kirk’s efforts to stop them will result in the death of their race- that is, genocide. I’d say Kirk was right- abducting people like that is horrible, and at some point some races (the human race or alien races) just don’t survive.
On a non-political note, the Voyager episode inspired by this episode, “Blink of an Eye” is one of my very favorite ST episodes, and “Wink of an Eye” is nowhere near as good as the Voyager episode.
I give it one star out of five.
“The Empath” See this for a plot summary.
There’s kind of a political aspect to this, which is the idea that civilization requires compassion for others.
I give it one star out of five.
Friday, September 9, 2011
Star Trek: The Original Series Reviews M
This is one of my posts where I “review” Star Trek episodes. I will be giving each one a star rating. I sometimes will make some comments about non-political parts of them that I like or don’t like. I’ll sometimes use the issues raised in the episode to discuss similar issues in real life. And I will sometimes simply high-light the progressive politics of ST. ST is in-line with the three original themes of this blog, as I explain in the first ST post where I offer some general thoughts about ST.
I have been more or less ignoring this- the need for me to become familiar with The Original Series. In general I don’t like much of what I’ve seen. In any case, I am now watching it and will be doing reviews of those episodes. I will be giving pretty low scores, probably no higher than three stars out of five- I just don’t like TOS.
Lastly. multi-culturalism is such a pervasive theme in ST that I only comment on it when it goes beyond the norm (i.e. inter-species partners).
“Is There in Truth no Beauty?” See this for a plot summary.
A non-political episode. I give it two stars out of five.
“Spectre of the Gun” See this for a plot summary.
There are basically three political aspects to this episode:
1) The Enterprise is ordered to make contact with an alien race “at all costs.” When they encounter some kind of space buoy and are told to turn around and not enter the aliens’ space, Kirk acknowledges the buoys message and explains his mission to the aliens. He then takes a small landing party and transports down to the planet.
It reminds me of the United States forcing Japan to open itself to the US. In general, that sort of thing is wrong.
2) There is some talk about how humanity “overcame” it’s “instinct for violence.”
3) At the end, it turns out it’s another episode where an alien race wants to test the Federation citizens to see if they take life when it’s not totally necessary, and then the aliens move towards friendship with the Federation. Some times Kirk goes a bit far in proclaiming the Federation’s commitment to non-violence, but over all it’s fairly true.
I give it three stars out of five.
“Day of the dove” See this for a plot summary.
There are two minor political points made- 1) there’s an incident of sexual assault (or at least attempted sexual assault), which in the context of ST can be seen as a feminist statement (when Chekhov did that, he was under the influence of an alien); and 2) some incidents of racial hostility, which lead to statements against racism.
The political aspect that really deserves some attention comes from Spock: “Those who hate and fight must stop themselves, otherwise it is not stopped.” This presents a problem for me, although I feel comfortable disagreeing with ST on some stuff here and there. But I have gotten the idea that, for example, UN Peacekeepers usually are doing something good that helps with ending conflicts. I also believe in something similar with the non-armed aspects of conflict resolution- for example, I believe that it was a good idea that the International Decommissioning Commission in N. Ireland was led by people from third party countries. In a mid-1990s publication of the Pat Finucane Center in Derry, they called for the police patrolling nationalist areas to be replaced by officers from European Union nations. Partly inspired by those last two items, I wrote up a proposal for resolving the conflict, one that would involve such international elements.
I still believe in such an approach (there’s a possibility that Spock’s theory doesn’t apply to the North, since there is really not much anti-Protetsant bigotry coming from the Catholics) (the Peace-Keepers should come from countries that don't have any selfish interests in the conflict, and civilian 3rd party personel should meet similar criteria). The thing is, when Ireland is close to being united, there will be some degree of loyalist backlash, and I think a UN force dealing with that would be better than either the British Army or the Irish Army would be. That’s because if it were the BA, some soldiers would be sympathetic to the loyalists and hostile to the nationalists, and their presence on the streets might attract attacks by republicans. If it were the Irish Army, that might increase the backlash if they’re suspected of being sympathetic to the nationalists. Third party peace-keepers (who would also have to be conducting raids when necessary) would probably be at least a little better.
I give this episode one star out of five.
“For the World Is Hollow and I Have Touched the Sky” See this for a plot summary.
A non-political episode. I give it two stars out of five.
I have been more or less ignoring this- the need for me to become familiar with The Original Series. In general I don’t like much of what I’ve seen. In any case, I am now watching it and will be doing reviews of those episodes. I will be giving pretty low scores, probably no higher than three stars out of five- I just don’t like TOS.
Lastly. multi-culturalism is such a pervasive theme in ST that I only comment on it when it goes beyond the norm (i.e. inter-species partners).
“Is There in Truth no Beauty?” See this for a plot summary.
A non-political episode. I give it two stars out of five.
“Spectre of the Gun” See this for a plot summary.
There are basically three political aspects to this episode:
1) The Enterprise is ordered to make contact with an alien race “at all costs.” When they encounter some kind of space buoy and are told to turn around and not enter the aliens’ space, Kirk acknowledges the buoys message and explains his mission to the aliens. He then takes a small landing party and transports down to the planet.
It reminds me of the United States forcing Japan to open itself to the US. In general, that sort of thing is wrong.
2) There is some talk about how humanity “overcame” it’s “instinct for violence.”
3) At the end, it turns out it’s another episode where an alien race wants to test the Federation citizens to see if they take life when it’s not totally necessary, and then the aliens move towards friendship with the Federation. Some times Kirk goes a bit far in proclaiming the Federation’s commitment to non-violence, but over all it’s fairly true.
I give it three stars out of five.
“Day of the dove” See this for a plot summary.
There are two minor political points made- 1) there’s an incident of sexual assault (or at least attempted sexual assault), which in the context of ST can be seen as a feminist statement (when Chekhov did that, he was under the influence of an alien); and 2) some incidents of racial hostility, which lead to statements against racism.
The political aspect that really deserves some attention comes from Spock: “Those who hate and fight must stop themselves, otherwise it is not stopped.” This presents a problem for me, although I feel comfortable disagreeing with ST on some stuff here and there. But I have gotten the idea that, for example, UN Peacekeepers usually are doing something good that helps with ending conflicts. I also believe in something similar with the non-armed aspects of conflict resolution- for example, I believe that it was a good idea that the International Decommissioning Commission in N. Ireland was led by people from third party countries. In a mid-1990s publication of the Pat Finucane Center in Derry, they called for the police patrolling nationalist areas to be replaced by officers from European Union nations. Partly inspired by those last two items, I wrote up a proposal for resolving the conflict, one that would involve such international elements.
I still believe in such an approach (there’s a possibility that Spock’s theory doesn’t apply to the North, since there is really not much anti-Protetsant bigotry coming from the Catholics) (the Peace-Keepers should come from countries that don't have any selfish interests in the conflict, and civilian 3rd party personel should meet similar criteria). The thing is, when Ireland is close to being united, there will be some degree of loyalist backlash, and I think a UN force dealing with that would be better than either the British Army or the Irish Army would be. That’s because if it were the BA, some soldiers would be sympathetic to the loyalists and hostile to the nationalists, and their presence on the streets might attract attacks by republicans. If it were the Irish Army, that might increase the backlash if they’re suspected of being sympathetic to the nationalists. Third party peace-keepers (who would also have to be conducting raids when necessary) would probably be at least a little better.
I give this episode one star out of five.
“For the World Is Hollow and I Have Touched the Sky” See this for a plot summary.
A non-political episode. I give it two stars out of five.
Thursday, September 1, 2011
The anti-Apartheid Struggle and Republicans
I have mentioned Apartheid S. Africa several times on my blog in some connection to the Republican Movement. I've been aware of four connections between the two groups in recent decades, and a couple more connections between the two have just surfaced, which I’ll get to soon (I'm not sure they are as confirmed as I would like them, but the source for the new info seems like a good source).
First, here are the four connections I’ve been aware of for some number of years
1) A plaque remembering the sacrifice of both anti-Apartheid and Irish Republican Prisoners of war, is on Robben Island, which is kind of a monument to the anti-Apartheid struggle. That info was found here.
UPDATE 1/27/17 If that link is dead for some reason, I did a search of http://www.independent.co.uk using google and found a link to the article. It should show up here and is head-lined "Adams pays tribute to detainees' suffering." One quote from the article is:
The ANC changed its mind after Mr Adams's meeting with Mr Mandela who described Sinn Fein as "an old friend and ally''.
2) In 1981, as IRA (and INLA) prisoners went on hunger-strike, there was talk among ANC Prisoners of War of going on a solidarity hunger-strike. That's taken from an on-line only article in The Nation, by Tom Hayden- it was published some time in 2004, or 2005, or 2006. I can't find it online. When I do I'll update this.
3) In 2005 the Minister of Intelligence for South Africa visited Ireland as a guest of Sinn Fein and compared what he did as a member of the ANC's military wing during the anti-Apartheid struggle with what IRA members did during the Troubles. He spoke at republiccan events and at one point, according to the Irish Times said: "I could never accept that Sinn Féin has debased republicanism. They carried the flag of republicanism in the most difficult of times. ... The Irish struggle is a particularly heroic one." You can read at least a little of an Irish Times article about this here. If all you read there is the brief free paragraph, reading this from a Sinn Fein publication will make it clear what the Minister meant with his comments in that brief intro of the Irish Times article. I now have the text of the article and can email it to you if you want
4) In 1992 Nelson Mandela was on a British political talk-show and said that he supported the IRA. That information is found here (it's towards the bottom, says "mandela. and. ira").
There are some more pieces of information about this relationship. Those are found here, here, and here.
UPDATE 4/25/15 Another one here.
Tom
First, here are the four connections I’ve been aware of for some number of years
1) A plaque remembering the sacrifice of both anti-Apartheid and Irish Republican Prisoners of war, is on Robben Island, which is kind of a monument to the anti-Apartheid struggle. That info was found here.
UPDATE 1/27/17 If that link is dead for some reason, I did a search of http://www.independent.co.uk using google and found a link to the article. It should show up here and is head-lined "Adams pays tribute to detainees' suffering." One quote from the article is:
The ANC changed its mind after Mr Adams's meeting with Mr Mandela who described Sinn Fein as "an old friend and ally''.
2) In 1981, as IRA (and INLA) prisoners went on hunger-strike, there was talk among ANC Prisoners of War of going on a solidarity hunger-strike. That's taken from an on-line only article in The Nation, by Tom Hayden- it was published some time in 2004, or 2005, or 2006. I can't find it online. When I do I'll update this.
3) In 2005 the Minister of Intelligence for South Africa visited Ireland as a guest of Sinn Fein and compared what he did as a member of the ANC's military wing during the anti-Apartheid struggle with what IRA members did during the Troubles. He spoke at republiccan events and at one point, according to the Irish Times said: "I could never accept that Sinn Féin has debased republicanism. They carried the flag of republicanism in the most difficult of times. ... The Irish struggle is a particularly heroic one." You can read at least a little of an Irish Times article about this here. If all you read there is the brief free paragraph, reading this from a Sinn Fein publication will make it clear what the Minister meant with his comments in that brief intro of the Irish Times article. I now have the text of the article and can email it to you if you want
4) In 1992 Nelson Mandela was on a British political talk-show and said that he supported the IRA. That information is found here (it's towards the bottom, says "mandela. and. ira").
There are some more pieces of information about this relationship. Those are found here, here, and here.
UPDATE 4/25/15 Another one here.
Tom
Thursday, August 25, 2011
Taxes, the GOP, Texas, and Capitalism
There's a couple recent opinion columns that should be read by as many people as possible. I figure that most people who would read this have already read those columns, but it can't hurt to do this post if it gets more exposure for the columns.
First is one by Harold Meyerson in the Washington Post. It's about how the GOP will raise your taxes if you're working- or middle-class. It's here.
The second one is by Paul krugman in the NY Times. It's about how Rick Perry's "economic miracle" in Texas is not a good model for the nation or other states, and is created on the backs of working people (i.e. low wages). It's here.
Tom
First is one by Harold Meyerson in the Washington Post. It's about how the GOP will raise your taxes if you're working- or middle-class. It's here.
The second one is by Paul krugman in the NY Times. It's about how Rick Perry's "economic miracle" in Texas is not a good model for the nation or other states, and is created on the backs of working people (i.e. low wages). It's here.
Tom
Sunday, August 21, 2011
Star Trek: The Original Series Reviews L
This is one of my posts where I “review” Star Trek episodes. I will be giving each one a star rating. I sometimes will make some comments about non-political parts of them that I like or don’t like. I’ll sometimes use the issues raised in the episode to discuss similar issues in real life. And I will sometimes simply high-light the progressive politics of ST. ST is in-line with the three original themes of this blog, as I explain in the first ST post where I offer some general thoughts about ST.
I have been more or less ignoring this- the need for me to become familiar with The Original Series. In general I don’t like much of what I’ve seen. In any case, I am now watching it and will be doing reviews of those episodes. I will be giving pretty low scores, probably no higher than three stars out of five- I just don’t like TOS.
Lastly. multi-culturalism is such a pervasive theme in ST that I only comment on it when it goes beyond the norm (i.e. inter-species partners).
“Spock’s Brain” See this for a plot summary.
For some odd reason, I had trouble figuring out an important aspect of this episode. That is, is Kirk being sexist when he talks about the low level of intelligence of the women? At one point it’s suggested that, because of the “Controller” that takes care of the women, their brains have atrophied through lack of use- so it probably isn’t sexist, although it sounds like it here and there.
I give it three stars out of five.
“The Enterprise Incident” See this for a plot summary.
There is one bit of politics. We see, for the first but not last time, that women do okay among Romulans, as the officer in charge of a group of three warships is a woman.
I give it three stars out of five.
“The Paradise Syndrome” See this for a plot summary.
This is another ST episode about American Indians and aliens. I have mixed feelings about such episodes, but don’t remember any info about how American Indians feel about them (I also don’t have any info on how the aliens feel about them : )). This one is based on the idea that aliens took some members of three tribes that were in danger of being wiped out from Earth and settled them on a very Earth-like planet.
I give it two stars out of five.
“And the Children Shall Lead” See this for a plot summary.
A non-political episode. I give it one star out of five.
I have been more or less ignoring this- the need for me to become familiar with The Original Series. In general I don’t like much of what I’ve seen. In any case, I am now watching it and will be doing reviews of those episodes. I will be giving pretty low scores, probably no higher than three stars out of five- I just don’t like TOS.
Lastly. multi-culturalism is such a pervasive theme in ST that I only comment on it when it goes beyond the norm (i.e. inter-species partners).
“Spock’s Brain” See this for a plot summary.
For some odd reason, I had trouble figuring out an important aspect of this episode. That is, is Kirk being sexist when he talks about the low level of intelligence of the women? At one point it’s suggested that, because of the “Controller” that takes care of the women, their brains have atrophied through lack of use- so it probably isn’t sexist, although it sounds like it here and there.
I give it three stars out of five.
“The Enterprise Incident” See this for a plot summary.
There is one bit of politics. We see, for the first but not last time, that women do okay among Romulans, as the officer in charge of a group of three warships is a woman.
I give it three stars out of five.
“The Paradise Syndrome” See this for a plot summary.
This is another ST episode about American Indians and aliens. I have mixed feelings about such episodes, but don’t remember any info about how American Indians feel about them (I also don’t have any info on how the aliens feel about them : )). This one is based on the idea that aliens took some members of three tribes that were in danger of being wiped out from Earth and settled them on a very Earth-like planet.
I give it two stars out of five.
“And the Children Shall Lead” See this for a plot summary.
A non-political episode. I give it one star out of five.
Wednesday, August 10, 2011
Star Trek: The Original Series Reviews K
This is one of my posts where I “review” Star Trek episodes. I will be giving each one a star rating. I sometimes will make some comments about non-political parts of them that I like or don’t like. I’ll sometimes use the issues raised in the episode to discuss similar issues in real life. And I will sometimes simply high-light the progressive politics of ST. ST is in-line with the three original themes of this blog, as I explain in the first ST post where I offer some general thoughts about ST.
I have been more or less ignoring this- the need for me to become familiar with The Original Series. In general I don’t like much of what I’ve seen. In any case, I am now watching it and will be doing reviews of those episodes. I will be giving pretty low scores, probably no higher than three stars out of five- I just don’t like TOS.
Lastly. multi-culturalism is such a pervasive theme in ST that I only comment on it when it goes beyond the norm (i.e. inter-species partners).
“The Ultimate Computer” See this for a plot summary.
This is generally about automation of jobs that humans do. In general I believe that technology CAN be used for good in the workplace. It is probably involved in addressing some safety issues; probably is involved with addressing some environmental concerns. As far as technology that is used by the bosses to replace workers, I have mixed and mostly negative feelings about that. I mean, some of those jobs have been replaced by new jobs maintaining the new technology and such jobs probably pay fairly well (I don’t know about wages on the assembly line building this stuff). But in general, jobs replacing those terminated by technology tend to pay very little. They don’t have to be like that, but I don’t have much to say about why they haven’t been unionized- I’m very unfamiliar with organizing issues and it seems like it’s very difficult to organize unions ANYWHERE in the US today. So, I have mixed feelings about automation in the workplace.
There is another kind of automation that I want to discuss as well. That is in the military (well, the US military and I think a handful of other countries as well). My thoughts on the military in general are mixed, and right now I’m not going to go into a discussion about that, I’m just going to focus on this aspect of the military. I’m thinking of the Predator drones, armed or unarmed, and probably some other machines. If they start replacing aircraft that require a pilot inside the plane, it could make it easier for our government to launch unpopular wars, as the number of US service men and women in danger will go down. That will probably mean that a lot of people who might otherwise oppose the war partly because more and more Americans are dying, won’t oppose it. So, I’m worried about that as well.
I give it three stars out of five.
“Bread and Circuses” See this for a plot summary.
This episode is basically about the Roman Empire and sort of about converts to Christianity. I’m not very familiar with Rome or the early years of Christianity, so I don’t have much to say. This episode is certainly anti-slavery, and anti-totalitarian.
I give it two stars out of five.
“Assignment: Earth” See this for a plot summary.
First there’s some political stuff to at least mention. In general it focuses on the idea that 20th century humankind was not as advanced politically and socially as they were technologically, and how that could lead to disaster- for example a nuclear war that destroys the planet.
I also like the Gary Seven part of this episode. Long before I watched this episode, I read a ST book which focused on him. I might try to find that book.
I give this episode three stars out of five.
I have been more or less ignoring this- the need for me to become familiar with The Original Series. In general I don’t like much of what I’ve seen. In any case, I am now watching it and will be doing reviews of those episodes. I will be giving pretty low scores, probably no higher than three stars out of five- I just don’t like TOS.
Lastly. multi-culturalism is such a pervasive theme in ST that I only comment on it when it goes beyond the norm (i.e. inter-species partners).
“The Ultimate Computer” See this for a plot summary.
This is generally about automation of jobs that humans do. In general I believe that technology CAN be used for good in the workplace. It is probably involved in addressing some safety issues; probably is involved with addressing some environmental concerns. As far as technology that is used by the bosses to replace workers, I have mixed and mostly negative feelings about that. I mean, some of those jobs have been replaced by new jobs maintaining the new technology and such jobs probably pay fairly well (I don’t know about wages on the assembly line building this stuff). But in general, jobs replacing those terminated by technology tend to pay very little. They don’t have to be like that, but I don’t have much to say about why they haven’t been unionized- I’m very unfamiliar with organizing issues and it seems like it’s very difficult to organize unions ANYWHERE in the US today. So, I have mixed feelings about automation in the workplace.
There is another kind of automation that I want to discuss as well. That is in the military (well, the US military and I think a handful of other countries as well). My thoughts on the military in general are mixed, and right now I’m not going to go into a discussion about that, I’m just going to focus on this aspect of the military. I’m thinking of the Predator drones, armed or unarmed, and probably some other machines. If they start replacing aircraft that require a pilot inside the plane, it could make it easier for our government to launch unpopular wars, as the number of US service men and women in danger will go down. That will probably mean that a lot of people who might otherwise oppose the war partly because more and more Americans are dying, won’t oppose it. So, I’m worried about that as well.
I give it three stars out of five.
“Bread and Circuses” See this for a plot summary.
This episode is basically about the Roman Empire and sort of about converts to Christianity. I’m not very familiar with Rome or the early years of Christianity, so I don’t have much to say. This episode is certainly anti-slavery, and anti-totalitarian.
I give it two stars out of five.
“Assignment: Earth” See this for a plot summary.
First there’s some political stuff to at least mention. In general it focuses on the idea that 20th century humankind was not as advanced politically and socially as they were technologically, and how that could lead to disaster- for example a nuclear war that destroys the planet.
I also like the Gary Seven part of this episode. Long before I watched this episode, I read a ST book which focused on him. I might try to find that book.
I give this episode three stars out of five.
Thursday, August 4, 2011
Star Trek: The Original Series Reviews J
This is one of my posts where I “review” Star Trek episodes. I will be giving each one a star rating. I sometimes will make some comments about non-political parts of them that I like or don’t like. I’ll sometimes use the issues raised in the episode to discuss similar issues in real life. And I will sometimes simply high-light the progressive politics of ST. ST is in-line with the three original themes of this blog, as I explain in the first ST post where I offer some general thoughts about ST.
I have been more or less ignoring this- the need for me to become familiar with The Original Series. In general I don’t like much of what I’ve seen. In any case, I am now watching it and will be doing reviews of those episodes. I will be giving pretty low scores, probably no higher than three stars out of five- I just don’t like TOS.
Lastly. multi-culturalism is such a pervasive theme in ST that I only comment on it when it goes beyond the norm (i.e. inter-species partners).
“Return to Tomorrow” See this for a plot summary.
A non-political episode. I give it two stars out of five.
“Patterns of Force” See this for a plot summary.
I could probably type thousands of words about this, but I’ll keep it pretty brief. There are two major political aspects to this episode.
1. The pacifist response of most of Europe’s Jews living in either camps or more generally Nazi-occupied areas. Obviously this is stating the obvious and is kind of using hind-sight, but pacifism wasn’t a good response to Nazi persecution of the Jews. Also, I believe that that could have been said WITHOUT hindsight, as I explain about 1/4 the way down a post here where I seriously attack the Irish government and the IRA about their separate responses to Nazi Germany. (I have heard that at some point non-Jewish anti-Nazi elements, including those quite prepared to fight, didn’t engage in armed resistance either (because their leadership failed to give them orders), which might have discouraged European Jews from resisting)
2. Kirk at one point says something about how they need to help the Zeons, but also need to help the Ekosians. I’m not sure if he was talking about the lack of freedom that Ekosians had under a dictatorship, or the way that bigotry does a fair amount of damage to the group oppressing another group through hate. I go into more details about that here while discussing the episode “Duet.”
I give it three stars out of five stars.
“By Any Other Name” See this for a plot summary.
At first I thought this was pretty non-political. But there is the issue of outsiders colonizing empty planets in the Federation. It reminds me of the settling of the area now known as the US by Europeans and European-Americans. It’s embarrassing for me to say this, but I’m not sure if the question I’m raising came up at any point in my studies; if it did I have forgotten it (some of my Ethnic Studies knowledge has disappeared).
Let’s say European governments and European people had been very different (you could call it “bizzaro Europe”) and had been interested in peace-full co-existance with the indigenous people of this hemisphere who, DID sort of welcome them. Would that have worked? I’m not sure. How much of what is now America was available for settlement? I’ don’t know. But it’s an interesting question. Of course another more positive scenario would have been no settlement at all. Anyway, it's something that this episode got me thinking about some.
I give it two stars out of five.
“The Omega Glory” See this for a plot summary.
This is a weird episode. Part of it is the idea that in the last years of the 20th Century, Chinese Communists (apparently joined or followed by free-market, democratic Americans) left Earth to colonize some far away planet. Apparently, long before StarFleet came to the planet, there had been a large scale war between the two sides that involved Weapons of Mass Destruction. There’s a few lines or so with good comments about bio-weapons and about democratic rights for everyone. On the other hand there is little said about the negative aspects of American democracy.
I give it two stars out of five.
I have been more or less ignoring this- the need for me to become familiar with The Original Series. In general I don’t like much of what I’ve seen. In any case, I am now watching it and will be doing reviews of those episodes. I will be giving pretty low scores, probably no higher than three stars out of five- I just don’t like TOS.
Lastly. multi-culturalism is such a pervasive theme in ST that I only comment on it when it goes beyond the norm (i.e. inter-species partners).
“Return to Tomorrow” See this for a plot summary.
A non-political episode. I give it two stars out of five.
“Patterns of Force” See this for a plot summary.
I could probably type thousands of words about this, but I’ll keep it pretty brief. There are two major political aspects to this episode.
1. The pacifist response of most of Europe’s Jews living in either camps or more generally Nazi-occupied areas. Obviously this is stating the obvious and is kind of using hind-sight, but pacifism wasn’t a good response to Nazi persecution of the Jews. Also, I believe that that could have been said WITHOUT hindsight, as I explain about 1/4 the way down a post here where I seriously attack the Irish government and the IRA about their separate responses to Nazi Germany. (I have heard that at some point non-Jewish anti-Nazi elements, including those quite prepared to fight, didn’t engage in armed resistance either (because their leadership failed to give them orders), which might have discouraged European Jews from resisting)
2. Kirk at one point says something about how they need to help the Zeons, but also need to help the Ekosians. I’m not sure if he was talking about the lack of freedom that Ekosians had under a dictatorship, or the way that bigotry does a fair amount of damage to the group oppressing another group through hate. I go into more details about that here while discussing the episode “Duet.”
I give it three stars out of five stars.
“By Any Other Name” See this for a plot summary.
At first I thought this was pretty non-political. But there is the issue of outsiders colonizing empty planets in the Federation. It reminds me of the settling of the area now known as the US by Europeans and European-Americans. It’s embarrassing for me to say this, but I’m not sure if the question I’m raising came up at any point in my studies; if it did I have forgotten it (some of my Ethnic Studies knowledge has disappeared).
Let’s say European governments and European people had been very different (you could call it “bizzaro Europe”) and had been interested in peace-full co-existance with the indigenous people of this hemisphere who, DID sort of welcome them. Would that have worked? I’m not sure. How much of what is now America was available for settlement? I’ don’t know. But it’s an interesting question. Of course another more positive scenario would have been no settlement at all. Anyway, it's something that this episode got me thinking about some.
I give it two stars out of five.
“The Omega Glory” See this for a plot summary.
This is a weird episode. Part of it is the idea that in the last years of the 20th Century, Chinese Communists (apparently joined or followed by free-market, democratic Americans) left Earth to colonize some far away planet. Apparently, long before StarFleet came to the planet, there had been a large scale war between the two sides that involved Weapons of Mass Destruction. There’s a few lines or so with good comments about bio-weapons and about democratic rights for everyone. On the other hand there is little said about the negative aspects of American democracy.
I give it two stars out of five.
Monday, July 25, 2011
The Orange Order- those sectarian bastards!!
A few months ago I learned some new things about the Orange Order (for some history on the OO, see this). Members have been for some period of time attending funeral masses for Catholic friends (and also OO members who are senior political figures have attended certain funerals such as the recent one for a Catholic police officer killed). A friend of mine said that, in the late 1990s the then leader of the OO, Robert Saulters, came out in support of Catholic parishioners being picketed and harassed by bigots. He (my friend) also said there were still a lot of bigots in the OO.
I don't think I'll be changing anything I've typed on this blog about the OO as there's probably still a majority who are more or less sectarian bigots (there is still a rule forbidding members from attending services at Catholic churches (see this article about how the rule IS in fact being enforced)), but I thought I should say something on this blog to acknowledge an apparent change in a positive direction.
(Another update from the BBC- the two OO members were cleared of breaking the rules by attending the funeral Mass)
Tom
I don't think I'll be changing anything I've typed on this blog about the OO as there's probably still a majority who are more or less sectarian bigots (there is still a rule forbidding members from attending services at Catholic churches (see this article about how the rule IS in fact being enforced)), but I thought I should say something on this blog to acknowledge an apparent change in a positive direction.
(Another update from the BBC- the two OO members were cleared of breaking the rules by attending the funeral Mass)
Tom
Saturday, July 16, 2011
Star Trek: The Original Series Reviews I
This is one of my posts where I “review” Star Trek episodes. I will be giving each one a star rating. I sometimes will make some comments about non-political parts of them that I like or don’t like. I’ll sometimes use the issues raised in the episode to discuss similar issues in real life. And I will sometimes simply high-light the progressive politics of ST. ST is in-line with the three original themes of this blog, as I explain in the first ST post where I offer some general thoughts about ST.
I have been more or less ignoring this- the need for me to become familiar with The Original Series. In general I don’t like much of what I’ve seen. In any case, I am now watching it and will be doing reviews of those episodes. I will be giving pretty low scores, probably no higher than three stars out of five- I just don’t like TOS.
Lastly. multi-culturalism is such a pervasive theme in ST that I only comment on it when it goes beyond the norm (i.e. inter-species partners).
“The Trouble with Tribbles” See this for a plot summary.
A non-political episode but a good one. Actually my opinion of it is high because of the Deep Space 9 episode which uses footage from this episode and where DS9 characters travel through time and the actors and actresses appear to interact with TOS actors and actresses. That episode’s summary is here.
I give it three stars out of five.
“The Gamesters of Triskelion” See this for a plot summary.
There’s some political stuff to comment on here:
1) In one scene, it seems like Uhura is getting raped, or at least her attacker is trying to rape her. First, Kirk just keeps asking her if she’s alright. There is nothing said about it afterwards. If it was rape or attempted rape, it’s very disturbing that nothing else was said about it.
2) Kirk’s behavior towards his drill thrall is fairly inappropriate. Between that and the dialogue at the end, this episode is incredibly annoying.
I give it one star out of five.
“A Piece of the Action” See this for a plot summary.
A non-political episode. I give it one star out of five.
“Immunity Syndrome” See this for a plot summary.
A non-political episode. I give it two stars out of five.
“A Private Little War” See this for a plot summary.
Even though it’s a fairly political episode, I’m going to keep this kind of brief.
The first political issue is simply about war. I would say that as far as I can tell it’s horrible, but sometimes it’s necessary and justified and helpful.
The second political issue is the arming of one side in a conflict, and then someone else arms the other side in the same conflict and this escalates in an arms race and fuels war for generations. Whoever starts that would almost definitely be doing something horrible. What is the response to that? Depending on some political aspects (who can be described as oppressed?) and other details, I might reluctantly say that the other side should be given arms- at least as good as what their opponents have.
(I should also say that in a significantly different situation, one comparable to the anti-Apartheid struggle, I would also support arming a group comparable to the ANC's military wing)
In the real world I would also add that there needs to be more work in the direction of a peaceful, just and democratic planet. I generally believe that, as Dr. Martin Luther King said, “peace is not simply the absence of tension, it is the presence of justice.” So, I think pursuing justice should probably be a higher priority than disarmament, but a gradual disarmament is a good (and realistic) idea, especially if efforts are made to keep arms out of the hands of people perpetrating injustice. Also, on the international stage, nations that are gradually disarming and trying to spread peace could form a mutual security coalition and in the event that one is attacked, the total armed forces of the countries would be pooled together and most used for coming to that country’s aid.
I give this episode two stars out of five.
I have been more or less ignoring this- the need for me to become familiar with The Original Series. In general I don’t like much of what I’ve seen. In any case, I am now watching it and will be doing reviews of those episodes. I will be giving pretty low scores, probably no higher than three stars out of five- I just don’t like TOS.
Lastly. multi-culturalism is such a pervasive theme in ST that I only comment on it when it goes beyond the norm (i.e. inter-species partners).
“The Trouble with Tribbles” See this for a plot summary.
A non-political episode but a good one. Actually my opinion of it is high because of the Deep Space 9 episode which uses footage from this episode and where DS9 characters travel through time and the actors and actresses appear to interact with TOS actors and actresses. That episode’s summary is here.
I give it three stars out of five.
“The Gamesters of Triskelion” See this for a plot summary.
There’s some political stuff to comment on here:
1) In one scene, it seems like Uhura is getting raped, or at least her attacker is trying to rape her. First, Kirk just keeps asking her if she’s alright. There is nothing said about it afterwards. If it was rape or attempted rape, it’s very disturbing that nothing else was said about it.
2) Kirk’s behavior towards his drill thrall is fairly inappropriate. Between that and the dialogue at the end, this episode is incredibly annoying.
I give it one star out of five.
“A Piece of the Action” See this for a plot summary.
A non-political episode. I give it one star out of five.
“Immunity Syndrome” See this for a plot summary.
A non-political episode. I give it two stars out of five.
“A Private Little War” See this for a plot summary.
Even though it’s a fairly political episode, I’m going to keep this kind of brief.
The first political issue is simply about war. I would say that as far as I can tell it’s horrible, but sometimes it’s necessary and justified and helpful.
The second political issue is the arming of one side in a conflict, and then someone else arms the other side in the same conflict and this escalates in an arms race and fuels war for generations. Whoever starts that would almost definitely be doing something horrible. What is the response to that? Depending on some political aspects (who can be described as oppressed?) and other details, I might reluctantly say that the other side should be given arms- at least as good as what their opponents have.
(I should also say that in a significantly different situation, one comparable to the anti-Apartheid struggle, I would also support arming a group comparable to the ANC's military wing)
In the real world I would also add that there needs to be more work in the direction of a peaceful, just and democratic planet. I generally believe that, as Dr. Martin Luther King said, “peace is not simply the absence of tension, it is the presence of justice.” So, I think pursuing justice should probably be a higher priority than disarmament, but a gradual disarmament is a good (and realistic) idea, especially if efforts are made to keep arms out of the hands of people perpetrating injustice. Also, on the international stage, nations that are gradually disarming and trying to spread peace could form a mutual security coalition and in the event that one is attacked, the total armed forces of the countries would be pooled together and most used for coming to that country’s aid.
I give this episode two stars out of five.
Monday, June 20, 2011
Star Trek: The Original Series Reviews H
This is one of my posts where I “review” Star Trek episodes. I will be giving each one a star rating. I sometimes will make some comments about non-political parts of them that I like or don’t like. I’ll sometimes use the issues raised in the episode to discuss similar issues in real life. And I will sometimes simply high-light the progressive politics of ST. ST is in-line with the three original themes of this blog, as I explain in the first ST post where I offer some general thoughts about ST.
I have been more or less ignoring this- the need for me to become familiar with The Original Series. In general I don’t like much of what I’ve seen. In any case, I am now watching it and will be doing reviews of those episodes. I will be giving pretty low scores, probably no higher than three stars out of five- I just don’t like TOS.
Lastly. multi-culturalism is such a pervasive theme in ST that I only comment on it when it goes beyond the norm (i.e. inter-species partners).
“Friday’s Child” See this for a plot summary.
It portrays what could probably be called a “warrior society.” There’s a lot rules, taboos, a lot of glorifying death (and death is usually a punishment for this or that) etc. Crucially there is a belief that the strong survive, and others should not survive- a fairly right-wing belief (the episode is far from a StarFleet endorsement of Capellan society).
I usually don’t bother noting inconsistencies like this, but the Capellans seem to be nowhere NEAR as advanced (technologically, socially or politically) as they should be if Star Fleet is doing business with them.
I give it one star out of five.
“The Deadly Years” See this for a plot summary.
A non-political episode. I give it one star out of five.
“Obsession” See this for a plot summary
A non-political episode. I give it one star out of five.
“Wolf in the Fold” See this for a plot summary.
There is one very sexist part where Spock says that women are more easily and more deeply terrified than men. Obviously not an an example of ST’s progressive politics.
I give it two stars out of five.
I have been more or less ignoring this- the need for me to become familiar with The Original Series. In general I don’t like much of what I’ve seen. In any case, I am now watching it and will be doing reviews of those episodes. I will be giving pretty low scores, probably no higher than three stars out of five- I just don’t like TOS.
Lastly. multi-culturalism is such a pervasive theme in ST that I only comment on it when it goes beyond the norm (i.e. inter-species partners).
“Friday’s Child” See this for a plot summary.
It portrays what could probably be called a “warrior society.” There’s a lot rules, taboos, a lot of glorifying death (and death is usually a punishment for this or that) etc. Crucially there is a belief that the strong survive, and others should not survive- a fairly right-wing belief (the episode is far from a StarFleet endorsement of Capellan society).
I usually don’t bother noting inconsistencies like this, but the Capellans seem to be nowhere NEAR as advanced (technologically, socially or politically) as they should be if Star Fleet is doing business with them.
I give it one star out of five.
“The Deadly Years” See this for a plot summary.
A non-political episode. I give it one star out of five.
“Obsession” See this for a plot summary
A non-political episode. I give it one star out of five.
“Wolf in the Fold” See this for a plot summary.
There is one very sexist part where Spock says that women are more easily and more deeply terrified than men. Obviously not an an example of ST’s progressive politics.
I give it two stars out of five.
Sunday, June 12, 2011
Three More Poems
Below are three more poems. For an explanation of how and why I "write" the poems, see this.
For the rest of the poems click on the "lyrics" label at the bottom (there are at least four pages worth of posts, so click on the "older posts" at the bottom of the first page).
1. Nightmare on Bombay Street. About the anti-Catholic pogroms in 1969 that triggered The Troubles.
2. Take on the Klan. Guess what it's about.
3. Revolution with Honor. Republican struggle in N. Ireland.
“Nightmare on Bombay Street” based on “Stop Immigration” by No Remorse. Original lyrics are here.
1. Bombay St. was one of the main sites of the Aug. 1969 anti-Catholic pogroms (and one attempted pogrom) which are usually seen as the beginning of the conflict. In July, Aug, and September, and mostly during a period of 2-3 days, in Belfast, 1,505 Catholic families fled their homes (probably something like 18% of Belfast’s Catholic population, probably something like 1.8% of the North’s Catholic population). In one night alone 650 families were burnt or at least forced, out f their homes. For more, see this.
2. The security forces largely worked with the loyalist mobs to invade Catholic areas.
3. Fenian is bigoted term for Catholic and also for republican, although republicans have adopted it as their own term.
4. Even moderate sources have compared aspects of the North with aspects of Nazi Germany. For example, about 6 years ago the President of Ireland compared the transmission of hatred of Catholics from one generation to another with the same regarding anti-semitism in Europe. She retracted it under pressure, but is basically right.
5. The first two lines of the 2nd verse were difficult for me to alter. I came up with two versions of that. The one that is in the body of the poem probably makes the most sense. Immediately below is the 2nd version. I can’t nail down to what extent this happened, but I'm pretty sure that before, during, or shortly after the pogrom some Protestants who had been supporting the civil rights movement sort of abandoned the nationalist community. Those two lines are:
“Do you remember When many Protestants were our allies?
If only Ian Paisley hadn’t come around, spreading his hateful lies”
Let me know if you think the couplet above is better than the one below.
6. The Unionist government was very upper-class and completely Protestant. As far as the civil rights movement, some good material is here.
7. A no-go was an area where the security forces could not easily enter.
8. **78% of this version is me, 22 is the original.
9. I give this poem four stars out of five.
10. because I focused on West Belfast, it makes sense to kind of conflate that community with IRA supporters, since somewhere around 60% of that community supported the IRA and probably around 40% sort of supported the IRA.
11. UPDATE 6/19/11 The state compared to Nazi Germany is basically the unionists/Protestants state; the nationalists/Catholics were the ones being denied their rights.
12. UPDATE 6/27/11 This poem is not meant as an endorsement of armed struggle since 1997.
13. UPDATE 4/2/12 I made a tiny change to the 1st line of the 3rd verse.
14. No Remorse were British and supported the British and Unionist causes.
They flooded into our streets in Aug. ‘69
The state and the loyalists actively combined
Swarmed into west Belfast because they hate fenians
Their state reminded many of Adolf Hitler’s in Berlin
Chorus
Stop the hate
We want truth and reconciliation
Stop the hate
We want a united working-class and nation
Do you remember When they won in the South and we thought we were free?
If only it could be that way How happy we would be
We had a Government of bigots, Puppets of the Protestant upper-class
They rejected our civil and human rights, so in ‘68 we arose en masse
chorus
So we built barricades, and created a no-go
Like a phoenix, from the ashes the Provisionals arose
British imperialism and Orange society created this mess
But we’ll win in the end, because the Provisionals are the best
Chorus
*******
“Take on the Klan” based on “Join the Klan” by “The Klansmen” original lyrics are here.
1. I’m not sure if “one nation” is the best way to put it, but I got it from a very progressive and anti-racist song by Sacred Reich (don’t read anything into their name) called “One Nation.” And the flame I refer to is supposed to be the flame of anti-racism, of unity.
2. The last two lines of the 2nd verse (I deleted the chorus) are about the “Battle of Hayes Pond.” I did one whole poem about that, with a lot of the background- you can find it here (it’s the third poem from the top).
3. Manning Marable was one of America’s very top scholars in African-American Studies. He passed away recently. There’s more of my thoughts on him, and links to some background here.
4. MLK is Martin Luther King.
5. I think I need to make this clear- this poem is about anti-racism in general, and you might say it leans away from violence (in a lot of cases I support anti-racist violence and have written poems about that, but this poem is different (as are a lot of others that use, for example, the word “fight”)).
6. I give this poem five stars out of five.
7. **44% of this version is me, 66% is the original.
8. UPDATE 6/19/11 Obviously there isn't a real Fourth Reich, but I know that a lot of fascists use that term when referring to their organization- and they have a VISION of the Fourth Reich, and that's being attacked, through education, dialogue, and public demonstrations. (12/11/11- Earlier I thought there was a problem with me conflating the KKK and the Nazis, but I'm pretty sure that's fine in this case)
9. UPDATE 6/19/11 As far as violence and non-violence, I almost forgot that the stuff about the Lumbee IS referring to a use of violence. But it was probably more acceptable to most anti-racists who stress non-violence then is the case with my SHARP poems. Anyway, the rest of the poem is about non-violence.
10. Skrewdriver were British and supported the British and Unionist causes.
Be an anti-racist, fight for what is right
taking down the Nazis and their “Fourth Reich”
Looking for a day, when there will be no KKK
Battles fought all across the U.S of A.
One Nation, the people's flame
Saving the country is the final aim
The racist terror tried to make a stand
The Lumbee men took down the klan
Anti-Racist banners held up high
Manning Marable’s spirit will never die
The sun is rising in the blue sky
Join the MLK Jr. march as it passes by
*****
“Revolution with Honor” based on “Blood and Honour” by Skrewdriver, original lyrics are here.
1. For some reason I took a huge amount of time to try and make this one perfect. I think it’s pretty good.
2. This is about resistaance in general by the nationalist community, including a few lines about those who resisted with force.
3. As a community, the nationalists kind of were alone in the sense that they didn’t have a fraction of the global support they should have had, but they had some, especially from America.
4. This takes place in the very early 1970s. At that time it was fairly accurate to talk about second-class citizenship. Some of the civil rights demands hadn’t yet been fully realized, the Stormont government was still unwilling to share power with Catholics, Sinn Fein was still an illegal party, internment was used exclusively against Catholics and left-wing and/or republican Protestants, etc.
5. To a very large degree, the nationalists were honorable in their different forms of struggle. There was very little that could be called anti-Protestant and to a very large degree civilians were not targeted by the republican paramilitaries (only about .2% of the IRA’s operations intentionally resulted in civilian death (most or all of the civilians they intentionally killed were less than completely innocent (see this for more))).
6. It probably goes without saying, but Irish pride within N. Ireland is different from white pride, although I have mixed info on how many nationalists in the North would say they have Irish pride.
7. During the conflict, the African National Congress had a good relationship with republicans and I readily assume, other nationalists. As far as the Sinn Fein and IRA part of that, see this.
8. I believe that the North, as it usually had low wages and a weak and divided labor movement, was (at least until mass violence broke out around 1970) an attractive place for investments.
9. The political centre of the nationalist community is, and probably sort of was back then, centre-left, and most believe/d in a secular state.
10. **76% of this version is me, 24% is the original.
11. I give this poem four stars out of five.
Achieveing freedom in the North of Ireland
Means marching and fighting for our demands
Even though we stand alone we will resist the Brits
For we won’t accept no second-class citizenship
(chorus)
For the revolution with honour
For our people and our pride
For the revolution with honour
British rule we will always defy
We look for inspiration to the ANC
When it comes to national liberation, we can all agree
Thousands have been killed at London’s hands
We will struggle and die to unite our Irish land
British imperialist hands around our community’s throat
Capitalists exploiting the North and sitting back to gloat
A democratic socialist Ireland, we will create
It won’t be no fucking Catholic state
For the rest of the poems click on the "lyrics" label at the bottom (there are at least four pages worth of posts, so click on the "older posts" at the bottom of the first page).
1. Nightmare on Bombay Street. About the anti-Catholic pogroms in 1969 that triggered The Troubles.
2. Take on the Klan. Guess what it's about.
3. Revolution with Honor. Republican struggle in N. Ireland.
“Nightmare on Bombay Street” based on “Stop Immigration” by No Remorse. Original lyrics are here.
1. Bombay St. was one of the main sites of the Aug. 1969 anti-Catholic pogroms (and one attempted pogrom) which are usually seen as the beginning of the conflict. In July, Aug, and September, and mostly during a period of 2-3 days, in Belfast, 1,505 Catholic families fled their homes (probably something like 18% of Belfast’s Catholic population, probably something like 1.8% of the North’s Catholic population). In one night alone 650 families were burnt or at least forced, out f their homes. For more, see this.
2. The security forces largely worked with the loyalist mobs to invade Catholic areas.
3. Fenian is bigoted term for Catholic and also for republican, although republicans have adopted it as their own term.
4. Even moderate sources have compared aspects of the North with aspects of Nazi Germany. For example, about 6 years ago the President of Ireland compared the transmission of hatred of Catholics from one generation to another with the same regarding anti-semitism in Europe. She retracted it under pressure, but is basically right.
5. The first two lines of the 2nd verse were difficult for me to alter. I came up with two versions of that. The one that is in the body of the poem probably makes the most sense. Immediately below is the 2nd version. I can’t nail down to what extent this happened, but I'm pretty sure that before, during, or shortly after the pogrom some Protestants who had been supporting the civil rights movement sort of abandoned the nationalist community. Those two lines are:
“Do you remember When many Protestants were our allies?
If only Ian Paisley hadn’t come around, spreading his hateful lies”
Let me know if you think the couplet above is better than the one below.
6. The Unionist government was very upper-class and completely Protestant. As far as the civil rights movement, some good material is here.
7. A no-go was an area where the security forces could not easily enter.
8. **78% of this version is me, 22 is the original.
9. I give this poem four stars out of five.
10. because I focused on West Belfast, it makes sense to kind of conflate that community with IRA supporters, since somewhere around 60% of that community supported the IRA and probably around 40% sort of supported the IRA.
11. UPDATE 6/19/11 The state compared to Nazi Germany is basically the unionists/Protestants state; the nationalists/Catholics were the ones being denied their rights.
12. UPDATE 6/27/11 This poem is not meant as an endorsement of armed struggle since 1997.
13. UPDATE 4/2/12 I made a tiny change to the 1st line of the 3rd verse.
14. No Remorse were British and supported the British and Unionist causes.
They flooded into our streets in Aug. ‘69
The state and the loyalists actively combined
Swarmed into west Belfast because they hate fenians
Their state reminded many of Adolf Hitler’s in Berlin
Chorus
Stop the hate
We want truth and reconciliation
Stop the hate
We want a united working-class and nation
Do you remember When they won in the South and we thought we were free?
If only it could be that way How happy we would be
We had a Government of bigots, Puppets of the Protestant upper-class
They rejected our civil and human rights, so in ‘68 we arose en masse
chorus
So we built barricades, and created a no-go
Like a phoenix, from the ashes the Provisionals arose
British imperialism and Orange society created this mess
But we’ll win in the end, because the Provisionals are the best
Chorus
*******
“Take on the Klan” based on “Join the Klan” by “The Klansmen” original lyrics are here.
1. I’m not sure if “one nation” is the best way to put it, but I got it from a very progressive and anti-racist song by Sacred Reich (don’t read anything into their name) called “One Nation.” And the flame I refer to is supposed to be the flame of anti-racism, of unity.
2. The last two lines of the 2nd verse (I deleted the chorus) are about the “Battle of Hayes Pond.” I did one whole poem about that, with a lot of the background- you can find it here (it’s the third poem from the top).
3. Manning Marable was one of America’s very top scholars in African-American Studies. He passed away recently. There’s more of my thoughts on him, and links to some background here.
4. MLK is Martin Luther King.
5. I think I need to make this clear- this poem is about anti-racism in general, and you might say it leans away from violence (in a lot of cases I support anti-racist violence and have written poems about that, but this poem is different (as are a lot of others that use, for example, the word “fight”)).
6. I give this poem five stars out of five.
7. **44% of this version is me, 66% is the original.
8. UPDATE 6/19/11 Obviously there isn't a real Fourth Reich, but I know that a lot of fascists use that term when referring to their organization- and they have a VISION of the Fourth Reich, and that's being attacked, through education, dialogue, and public demonstrations. (12/11/11- Earlier I thought there was a problem with me conflating the KKK and the Nazis, but I'm pretty sure that's fine in this case)
9. UPDATE 6/19/11 As far as violence and non-violence, I almost forgot that the stuff about the Lumbee IS referring to a use of violence. But it was probably more acceptable to most anti-racists who stress non-violence then is the case with my SHARP poems. Anyway, the rest of the poem is about non-violence.
10. Skrewdriver were British and supported the British and Unionist causes.
Be an anti-racist, fight for what is right
taking down the Nazis and their “Fourth Reich”
Looking for a day, when there will be no KKK
Battles fought all across the U.S of A.
One Nation, the people's flame
Saving the country is the final aim
The racist terror tried to make a stand
The Lumbee men took down the klan
Anti-Racist banners held up high
Manning Marable’s spirit will never die
The sun is rising in the blue sky
Join the MLK Jr. march as it passes by
*****
“Revolution with Honor” based on “Blood and Honour” by Skrewdriver, original lyrics are here.
1. For some reason I took a huge amount of time to try and make this one perfect. I think it’s pretty good.
2. This is about resistaance in general by the nationalist community, including a few lines about those who resisted with force.
3. As a community, the nationalists kind of were alone in the sense that they didn’t have a fraction of the global support they should have had, but they had some, especially from America.
4. This takes place in the very early 1970s. At that time it was fairly accurate to talk about second-class citizenship. Some of the civil rights demands hadn’t yet been fully realized, the Stormont government was still unwilling to share power with Catholics, Sinn Fein was still an illegal party, internment was used exclusively against Catholics and left-wing and/or republican Protestants, etc.
5. To a very large degree, the nationalists were honorable in their different forms of struggle. There was very little that could be called anti-Protestant and to a very large degree civilians were not targeted by the republican paramilitaries (only about .2% of the IRA’s operations intentionally resulted in civilian death (most or all of the civilians they intentionally killed were less than completely innocent (see this for more))).
6. It probably goes without saying, but Irish pride within N. Ireland is different from white pride, although I have mixed info on how many nationalists in the North would say they have Irish pride.
7. During the conflict, the African National Congress had a good relationship with republicans and I readily assume, other nationalists. As far as the Sinn Fein and IRA part of that, see this.
8. I believe that the North, as it usually had low wages and a weak and divided labor movement, was (at least until mass violence broke out around 1970) an attractive place for investments.
9. The political centre of the nationalist community is, and probably sort of was back then, centre-left, and most believe/d in a secular state.
10. **76% of this version is me, 24% is the original.
11. I give this poem four stars out of five.
Achieveing freedom in the North of Ireland
Means marching and fighting for our demands
Even though we stand alone we will resist the Brits
For we won’t accept no second-class citizenship
(chorus)
For the revolution with honour
For our people and our pride
For the revolution with honour
British rule we will always defy
We look for inspiration to the ANC
When it comes to national liberation, we can all agree
Thousands have been killed at London’s hands
We will struggle and die to unite our Irish land
British imperialist hands around our community’s throat
Capitalists exploiting the North and sitting back to gloat
A democratic socialist Ireland, we will create
It won’t be no fucking Catholic state
Saturday, June 4, 2011
Star Trek: The Original Series Reviews G
This is one of my posts where I “review” Star Trek episodes. I will be giving each one a star rating. I sometimes will make some comments about non-political parts of them that I like or don’t like. I’ll sometimes use the issues raised in the episode to discuss similar issues in real life. And I will sometimes simply high-light the progressive politics of ST. ST is in-line with the three original themes of this blog, as I explain in the first ST post where I offer some general thoughts about ST.
I have been more or less ignoring this- the need for me to become familiar with The Original Series. In general I don’t like much of what I’ve seen. In any case, I am now watching it and will be doing reviews of those episodes. I will be giving pretty low scores, probably no higher than three stars out of five- I just don’t like TOS.
Lastly. multi-culturalism is such a pervasive theme in ST that I only comment on it when it goes beyond the norm (i.e. inter-species partners).
“Catspaw” See this for a plot summary.
A non-political episode. I give it one star out of five.
“I, Mudd” See this for a plot summary.
A non-political episode, although Mudd’s sexism kind of deserves to be noted. Mudd is basically the villain, so it is progressive.
I give it two stars out of five.
“Metamorphosis” See this for a plot summary.
A non-political episode, with one thing worth mentioning. It’s kind neat for us to meet Cochrane in TOS, considering we know about him from First Contact and kind of from Enterprise. (UPDATE 2/18/19 I guess I mean ME)
I give it two stars out of five.
“Journey To Babel” See this for a plot summary.
At one point Spock’s mom explains to Kirk that on Vulcan, men dominate the women. This is the second time we’ve heard something about that, so now I feel very comfortable saying that Vulcan society is very sexist. Should they be members of the Federation? I have mixed feelings about criticizing another culture’s treatment of women, but I think it's usually-always important to do so (I think there are good ways to do that and probably some bad ways to do it). I’m not sure if it’s something that should have prevented Vulcan from joining the Federation. I guess two factors would be: A) was the sexism codified in law, and B) was there some women’s rights organization on Vulcan that wanted their planet kept out of the Federation.
I’ve found many Star Trek episodes that talk about people with a multi-cultrual background (i.e. half human, half Vulcan, or in the real world, for example, half white, half black) and how they have trouble being accepted by one or both of the groups that they’re a part of (I guess you could say they’re part of a third group, for example, people who are half black and half white). I also remember reading that Zack de La Rocha of Rage Against The Machine experienced something similar. And (while getting my Ethnic Studies degree) I don't remember hearing or reading anything saying that this is not a problem; I have a vague memory of something supporting what I said, but I wasn’t sure of this and asked someone familiar with it if such people DO have that sort of trouble. He made me think I had an exaggerated sense of how many people experience it. But in this episode of ST, it’s again raised, in relation to Spock. I’m not saying that writers of ST episodes are experts, but I’m starting to think that I was closer to being right than my friend suggested I was.
There is one bit of socialism. At least one Federation diplomat believes that admitting a new planet into the Federation will result in the wealth of that planet being used to benefit it’s inhabitants.
I give it two stars out of five.
I have been more or less ignoring this- the need for me to become familiar with The Original Series. In general I don’t like much of what I’ve seen. In any case, I am now watching it and will be doing reviews of those episodes. I will be giving pretty low scores, probably no higher than three stars out of five- I just don’t like TOS.
Lastly. multi-culturalism is such a pervasive theme in ST that I only comment on it when it goes beyond the norm (i.e. inter-species partners).
“Catspaw” See this for a plot summary.
A non-political episode. I give it one star out of five.
“I, Mudd” See this for a plot summary.
A non-political episode, although Mudd’s sexism kind of deserves to be noted. Mudd is basically the villain, so it is progressive.
I give it two stars out of five.
“Metamorphosis” See this for a plot summary.
A non-political episode, with one thing worth mentioning. It’s kind neat for us to meet Cochrane in TOS, considering we know about him from First Contact and kind of from Enterprise. (UPDATE 2/18/19 I guess I mean ME)
I give it two stars out of five.
“Journey To Babel” See this for a plot summary.
At one point Spock’s mom explains to Kirk that on Vulcan, men dominate the women. This is the second time we’ve heard something about that, so now I feel very comfortable saying that Vulcan society is very sexist. Should they be members of the Federation? I have mixed feelings about criticizing another culture’s treatment of women, but I think it's usually-always important to do so (I think there are good ways to do that and probably some bad ways to do it). I’m not sure if it’s something that should have prevented Vulcan from joining the Federation. I guess two factors would be: A) was the sexism codified in law, and B) was there some women’s rights organization on Vulcan that wanted their planet kept out of the Federation.
I’ve found many Star Trek episodes that talk about people with a multi-cultrual background (i.e. half human, half Vulcan, or in the real world, for example, half white, half black) and how they have trouble being accepted by one or both of the groups that they’re a part of (I guess you could say they’re part of a third group, for example, people who are half black and half white). I also remember reading that Zack de La Rocha of Rage Against The Machine experienced something similar. And (while getting my Ethnic Studies degree) I don't remember hearing or reading anything saying that this is not a problem; I have a vague memory of something supporting what I said, but I wasn’t sure of this and asked someone familiar with it if such people DO have that sort of trouble. He made me think I had an exaggerated sense of how many people experience it. But in this episode of ST, it’s again raised, in relation to Spock. I’m not saying that writers of ST episodes are experts, but I’m starting to think that I was closer to being right than my friend suggested I was.
There is one bit of socialism. At least one Federation diplomat believes that admitting a new planet into the Federation will result in the wealth of that planet being used to benefit it’s inhabitants.
I give it two stars out of five.
Friday, June 3, 2011
Irish Republican Army- Now in Poem Form!!
(the title is inspired by something on The Simpsons)
Below are four more poems. I explain my kind of poetry here. For the rest of the poems, click on the "lyrics" tag below, there's at least four pages of poems, so click on "older posts."
I think that's it.
“Flying Columns” based on “Pride of a Nation” by Skrewdriver. Original lyrics are here.
1. This is about the IRA’s 1950s Border Campaign. For more on that see this (this page has a lot of information that I would normally put in the notes).
2. I’ve read that another mistake they made was ignoring Belfast - that meant they were not much of a threat to the State (I’ve also read of two explanations for not carrying out operations there, but one doesn’t really make sense). And beyond what the article says, they also failed to mobilize popular support and mass struggle alongside the armed campaign.
3. The Provisionals were the republican movement known in recent decades simply as Sinn Fein and the IRA; they came into existence in late 1969/early1970.
4. **55% of this version is me, 45% is the original.
5. I give this poem four stars out of five.
6. I don’t know how close i am to being accurate about what Volunteers during this campaign were wearing.
7. Skrewdriver were British and supported the British and Unionist causes.
8. Definitely about the IRA.
They won support in the North before the battle began
The day is getting closer, and they’re perfecting their plan
As they march towards the battlefield, the enemy is near
The first fight is coming, and their committment is sincere
(chorus)
Pride of a nation, freedom's salvation
Pride of a nation, they fought for our liberation
A uniform of green, with the tri-color and black mask
Their honor was their dedication, to complete their Northern task
They fought against such massive odds, earning glory in the fields
And in ‘57 many in the South responded to the republican appeal
Chorus
When the offensive stalled, the campaign was going nowhere
They brought it to an end and admitted they were in error
The fire would be rekindled, the flames would fill the skies
Like a phoenix from the ashes, the Provisionals would arise
******
“Freedom Fighters” based on “We Fight for Freedom” by Skrewdriver, original lyrics are here.
1. The Provisionals is an earlier term for what we now call simply Sinn Fein and the IRA.
2. The tri-color is the Irish flag.
3. Volunteers are members of republican paramilitaries. The 3 rd line refers to a volley of shots fired at a funeral for a Volunteer.
4. The Starry Plough is the flag of socialist republicanism.
5. **46% of this version is me, 54% is the original.
6. I give this poem three stars out of five.
7. This is not meant as an endorsement of armed struggle since 1997.
8. About the IRA.
9. In the first verse, the first half and the second half are about different things.
10. Skrewdriver were British and supported the British and Unionist causes.
Out of the ashes, the Provisionals arose
They charge at the enemy, their courage overflows
Our tri-colors are flying, our rifles aimed at the sky
As we say farewell to a Volunteer who has died
(chorus)
We're fighting for freedom, our destiny hangs by a thread
We're fighting for freedom, the flag of our nation at our head
We're fighting for freedom, the land of our ancestors must be united
We're fighting for freedom, British imperialism will be smited
Our enemies ranks are a mixture of imperialists, and unionists
We’re radical republicans, ready to resist, with the raised fist
We fight for our people, we fight for a future of light
For the dark surrounds us, so we must win this fight
Heed the sounds of battle, the screams of the wounded are loud
The warriors stand and they fly the Starry Plough
We know that victory will soon be ours, as we gaze at the sight
The flags of our nation are raised in victorious flight
*******
“Irish Republican Army” based on “European Skinhead Army” by No Remorse, original lyrics are here.
1. This is set in 1971 when barricades were put up around some Nationalist areas to keep the security forces out.
2. Probably about half of nationalists supported armed struggle at that point, probably about half of those people were supporting the Provisional IRA (probably a large minority sort of supported the IRA- After what happened in Aug '69 they probably liked having an armed IRA around if needed).
4. Many, probably a large majority, of Unionists workers are, (at least) in the mid- and long terms, sabotaging themselves with their sectarianism. It weakens the labor movement and the left and is more or less responsible for the fact that workers in the North are poorer than workers in Britain. They benefit from sectarian discrimination in pay and employment but don’t see the large picture where uniting Ireland and thus undermining sectarianism will likely transform Ireland into a democratic socialist state with equality between Catholics and Protestants. (for why that is likely, see the bottom half of this . You might also read this, which is about breaking down sectarian divisions)
5. In Aug. of 1969 there was one major pogrom and some minor ones, and an attempted major pogrom against the Catholic community. There’s more on that here and here.
6. The Starry Plough is the flag of republican socialism.
7. Gerald McCauley was a member of the IRA’s youth wing. Without being armed he was part of Nationalist resistance during the West Belfast Aug. 1969 anti-Catholic pogrom. He was killed and the area he was defending, Bombay St., was burned out.
8. Valhalla is part of Norse mythology, it's a place where warriors go after they die, although there seems to be some debate about exactly who gets in- only people who die in combat? Anyway, the fascists love it and have sort of taken over the concept, but a friend told me that he likes the idea of the left claiming it and specifically said that if such a place exists, Che and others like him are probably there. (Do I believe in Valhalla? You could say I’m sort of an agnostic on that question and am sort of solidly a Christian. The way I see it, this is pretty flexible, don't take it too seriously, and one way to think about it is that if you believe in Heaven and would rather these people went there instead of Valhalla, maybe they can do both, spend some time in Valhalla and some time in Heaven; but my friend and I do like the idea of reclaiming it from the fash)
9. RA is Republican Army, and is pronounced “raw.”
10. **77% of this version is me, 23% is the original.
11. I give this poem four stars out of five.
12. Definitely about the IRA.
UPDATE 3/18/15 13. I added "and mothers."
14. UPDATED 2/5/16 Based on what might be called a fairly scientific look, only about .2% of the IRA's operations intentionally resulted in civilian death.
15. No Remorse were British and supported the British and Unionist causes.
UPDATE 4/18/20 the old last two lines are "With our comrades in battle or in Valhalla/We fight for Ireland, because we are the RA." The new lines are below. I don't think this more than slightly changes what % of it is me.
16. The Jewish Combat Organization, referred to by it's Polish acronym ZOB, carried out the rebellion in the Warsaw Ghetto during WWII.
17. Hallah is a kind of Jewish bread.
Man the barricades, resistance has exploded
We're armed and ready, locked and loaded
We've got the people’s support, we've got the guns,
We never lose, we’ll fight til we’ve won
Chorus:
Irish Republican Army,
We stand together in a people’s war
Irish Republican Army,
We fight for freedom as our fathers and mothers did before
This is our land, we want it united
working-class unionists are so short-sighted
Another pogrom, we won’t allow
We raise our fists and fly the starry plough
For McAuley and for Bombay Street
We will fight until our victory’s complete
If we fall in battle and go to Valhalla
We'll meet the Jewish Combat Organization and try some Hallah
******
“Withdrawal” based on “Repatriation” by Final War, original lyrics are here.
1. This is set in the early 1970s. At some point, early in that period, I’m not sure exactly when, there were huge numbers of British troops coming into the North, and they started building more military installations, as the situation worsened.. The BA is the British Army.
2. As far as it being imperialist, I go into that quite a bit here, in the paragraph which is about 40% the way down from the top, and which starts with- “For a few reasons I'm.”
3. There had been 2-4 armed attempts at liberating the North since the formation of the state, attempts that went nowhere. Many senior members of the IRA in the 1970s we’re committed to a long war and fighting til victory. UPDATE 9/25/11 I have a theory (probably a very accurate one) of why they DID stop significantly short of victory- I explain that here.
4. The deployment of British troops on the streets of N. Ireland in August 1969 was seen in different ways. To a large degree their immediate effect was to save Catholic communites from being attacked beyond what they had already experienced (see this and this). But they also rescued the State from falling apart. And they made it difficult for the IRA to get support from Nationalists for an armed campaign against the British Army and government. In some cases the BA was accused of pointing their weapons at the Catholics, and some IRA members were arrested, after their communities had experienced what were pogroms (or attempted pogrom, in Derry).
5. Plantation is a word for a new colony (so it’s not a perfect fit with that line, but close enough).
6. I believe that one reason the British wanted to retain N. Ireland is that the labor movement and the left were weaker there than in other areas of the UK, because of sectarianism.
7. I’m not sure if “peace-keeping” is the right way to describe the initial presence of the British troops, but I think it’s fairly accurate (I know that the rest of the conflict London would often talk about the BA as if they were peace-keepers, but this is different- the first 9 months they were fairly close to being peace-keepers).
**8. 72% of this version is me, 28% is the original (that includes the chnages I made in the fourth verse (As far as i can see, there is not a chorus).
9. I give this poem four stars out of five.
10. I believe that there should be a period of gradual change; so, the 2nd line of the 2nd verse shouldn’t be taken literally.
11. About the IRA.
12. This version, although it seems like it needs more, has one anti-right line, which is to some degree in conflict with the politics behind the original. I talk about why that’s important here.
UPDATE 9/3/11 I earlier got confused and thought that the original was by a Dutch or Belgian band; it's actually an American band. I need to add something more to "twist" the original lyrics; I'll add something soon.
UPDATE 9/25/11 I have just created an anti-racist line to "twist" the lyrics enough that I feel comfortable with this poem. The last word of the 3rd line of what is the 4th verse ("Tories") and the entire line below it are new.
The problems with the Orange Order are described here. Bigotry weakens the working-class, the labor movement, and the left.
As instability and resistance spreads, the BA settles in
their transports fly into Belfast again and again
the British Army are on an imperialist crusade
we’re going to put an end to it, ‘cause we’re the IRA
We've been doing this for many decades
This time we won’t stop til their transports fly away
it's time to take action, time to make a stand
send ‘em back to their own island
British withdrawal must start today
British withdrawal it is the only way
British withdrawal that is our demand
British withdrawal take them right out of our land!
What do you think brought them here from their foreign nation?
The need to stabilize and secure their imperial plantation
the Tories want a pool of cheap labor for the capitalists
Like the KKK and racism, the Orange Order gives them an assist
A brief peace-keeping operation is all they thought it would be
But now we’ve started a popular insurgency
we've had enough British rule, can’t take it anymore
Let’s push them out and Ireland will be united once more
Below are four more poems. I explain my kind of poetry here. For the rest of the poems, click on the "lyrics" tag below, there's at least four pages of poems, so click on "older posts."
I think that's it.
“Flying Columns” based on “Pride of a Nation” by Skrewdriver. Original lyrics are here.
1. This is about the IRA’s 1950s Border Campaign. For more on that see this (this page has a lot of information that I would normally put in the notes).
2. I’ve read that another mistake they made was ignoring Belfast - that meant they were not much of a threat to the State (I’ve also read of two explanations for not carrying out operations there, but one doesn’t really make sense). And beyond what the article says, they also failed to mobilize popular support and mass struggle alongside the armed campaign.
3. The Provisionals were the republican movement known in recent decades simply as Sinn Fein and the IRA; they came into existence in late 1969/early1970.
4. **55% of this version is me, 45% is the original.
5. I give this poem four stars out of five.
6. I don’t know how close i am to being accurate about what Volunteers during this campaign were wearing.
7. Skrewdriver were British and supported the British and Unionist causes.
8. Definitely about the IRA.
They won support in the North before the battle began
The day is getting closer, and they’re perfecting their plan
As they march towards the battlefield, the enemy is near
The first fight is coming, and their committment is sincere
(chorus)
Pride of a nation, freedom's salvation
Pride of a nation, they fought for our liberation
A uniform of green, with the tri-color and black mask
Their honor was their dedication, to complete their Northern task
They fought against such massive odds, earning glory in the fields
And in ‘57 many in the South responded to the republican appeal
Chorus
When the offensive stalled, the campaign was going nowhere
They brought it to an end and admitted they were in error
The fire would be rekindled, the flames would fill the skies
Like a phoenix from the ashes, the Provisionals would arise
******
“Freedom Fighters” based on “We Fight for Freedom” by Skrewdriver, original lyrics are here.
1. The Provisionals is an earlier term for what we now call simply Sinn Fein and the IRA.
2. The tri-color is the Irish flag.
3. Volunteers are members of republican paramilitaries. The 3 rd line refers to a volley of shots fired at a funeral for a Volunteer.
4. The Starry Plough is the flag of socialist republicanism.
5. **46% of this version is me, 54% is the original.
6. I give this poem three stars out of five.
7. This is not meant as an endorsement of armed struggle since 1997.
8. About the IRA.
9. In the first verse, the first half and the second half are about different things.
10. Skrewdriver were British and supported the British and Unionist causes.
Out of the ashes, the Provisionals arose
They charge at the enemy, their courage overflows
Our tri-colors are flying, our rifles aimed at the sky
As we say farewell to a Volunteer who has died
(chorus)
We're fighting for freedom, our destiny hangs by a thread
We're fighting for freedom, the flag of our nation at our head
We're fighting for freedom, the land of our ancestors must be united
We're fighting for freedom, British imperialism will be smited
Our enemies ranks are a mixture of imperialists, and unionists
We’re radical republicans, ready to resist, with the raised fist
We fight for our people, we fight for a future of light
For the dark surrounds us, so we must win this fight
Heed the sounds of battle, the screams of the wounded are loud
The warriors stand and they fly the Starry Plough
We know that victory will soon be ours, as we gaze at the sight
The flags of our nation are raised in victorious flight
*******
“Irish Republican Army” based on “European Skinhead Army” by No Remorse, original lyrics are here.
1. This is set in 1971 when barricades were put up around some Nationalist areas to keep the security forces out.
2. Probably about half of nationalists supported armed struggle at that point, probably about half of those people were supporting the Provisional IRA (probably a large minority sort of supported the IRA- After what happened in Aug '69 they probably liked having an armed IRA around if needed).
4. Many, probably a large majority, of Unionists workers are, (at least) in the mid- and long terms, sabotaging themselves with their sectarianism. It weakens the labor movement and the left and is more or less responsible for the fact that workers in the North are poorer than workers in Britain. They benefit from sectarian discrimination in pay and employment but don’t see the large picture where uniting Ireland and thus undermining sectarianism will likely transform Ireland into a democratic socialist state with equality between Catholics and Protestants. (for why that is likely, see the bottom half of this . You might also read this, which is about breaking down sectarian divisions)
5. In Aug. of 1969 there was one major pogrom and some minor ones, and an attempted major pogrom against the Catholic community. There’s more on that here and here.
6. The Starry Plough is the flag of republican socialism.
7. Gerald McCauley was a member of the IRA’s youth wing. Without being armed he was part of Nationalist resistance during the West Belfast Aug. 1969 anti-Catholic pogrom. He was killed and the area he was defending, Bombay St., was burned out.
8. Valhalla is part of Norse mythology, it's a place where warriors go after they die, although there seems to be some debate about exactly who gets in- only people who die in combat? Anyway, the fascists love it and have sort of taken over the concept, but a friend told me that he likes the idea of the left claiming it and specifically said that if such a place exists, Che and others like him are probably there. (Do I believe in Valhalla? You could say I’m sort of an agnostic on that question and am sort of solidly a Christian. The way I see it, this is pretty flexible, don't take it too seriously, and one way to think about it is that if you believe in Heaven and would rather these people went there instead of Valhalla, maybe they can do both, spend some time in Valhalla and some time in Heaven; but my friend and I do like the idea of reclaiming it from the fash)
9. RA is Republican Army, and is pronounced “raw.”
10. **77% of this version is me, 23% is the original.
11. I give this poem four stars out of five.
12. Definitely about the IRA.
UPDATE 3/18/15 13. I added "and mothers."
14. UPDATED 2/5/16 Based on what might be called a fairly scientific look, only about .2% of the IRA's operations intentionally resulted in civilian death.
15. No Remorse were British and supported the British and Unionist causes.
UPDATE 4/18/20 the old last two lines are "With our comrades in battle or in Valhalla/We fight for Ireland, because we are the RA." The new lines are below. I don't think this more than slightly changes what % of it is me.
16. The Jewish Combat Organization, referred to by it's Polish acronym ZOB, carried out the rebellion in the Warsaw Ghetto during WWII.
17. Hallah is a kind of Jewish bread.
Man the barricades, resistance has exploded
We're armed and ready, locked and loaded
We've got the people’s support, we've got the guns,
We never lose, we’ll fight til we’ve won
Chorus:
Irish Republican Army,
We stand together in a people’s war
Irish Republican Army,
We fight for freedom as our fathers and mothers did before
This is our land, we want it united
working-class unionists are so short-sighted
Another pogrom, we won’t allow
We raise our fists and fly the starry plough
For McAuley and for Bombay Street
We will fight until our victory’s complete
If we fall in battle and go to Valhalla
We'll meet the Jewish Combat Organization and try some Hallah
******
“Withdrawal” based on “Repatriation” by Final War, original lyrics are here.
1. This is set in the early 1970s. At some point, early in that period, I’m not sure exactly when, there were huge numbers of British troops coming into the North, and they started building more military installations, as the situation worsened.. The BA is the British Army.
2. As far as it being imperialist, I go into that quite a bit here, in the paragraph which is about 40% the way down from the top, and which starts with- “For a few reasons I'm.”
3. There had been 2-4 armed attempts at liberating the North since the formation of the state, attempts that went nowhere. Many senior members of the IRA in the 1970s we’re committed to a long war and fighting til victory. UPDATE 9/25/11 I have a theory (probably a very accurate one) of why they DID stop significantly short of victory- I explain that here.
4. The deployment of British troops on the streets of N. Ireland in August 1969 was seen in different ways. To a large degree their immediate effect was to save Catholic communites from being attacked beyond what they had already experienced (see this and this). But they also rescued the State from falling apart. And they made it difficult for the IRA to get support from Nationalists for an armed campaign against the British Army and government. In some cases the BA was accused of pointing their weapons at the Catholics, and some IRA members were arrested, after their communities had experienced what were pogroms (or attempted pogrom, in Derry).
5. Plantation is a word for a new colony (so it’s not a perfect fit with that line, but close enough).
6. I believe that one reason the British wanted to retain N. Ireland is that the labor movement and the left were weaker there than in other areas of the UK, because of sectarianism.
7. I’m not sure if “peace-keeping” is the right way to describe the initial presence of the British troops, but I think it’s fairly accurate (I know that the rest of the conflict London would often talk about the BA as if they were peace-keepers, but this is different- the first 9 months they were fairly close to being peace-keepers).
**8. 72% of this version is me, 28% is the original (that includes the chnages I made in the fourth verse (As far as i can see, there is not a chorus).
9. I give this poem four stars out of five.
10. I believe that there should be a period of gradual change; so, the 2nd line of the 2nd verse shouldn’t be taken literally.
11. About the IRA.
12. This version, although it seems like it needs more, has one anti-right line, which is to some degree in conflict with the politics behind the original. I talk about why that’s important here.
UPDATE 9/3/11 I earlier got confused and thought that the original was by a Dutch or Belgian band; it's actually an American band. I need to add something more to "twist" the original lyrics; I'll add something soon.
UPDATE 9/25/11 I have just created an anti-racist line to "twist" the lyrics enough that I feel comfortable with this poem. The last word of the 3rd line of what is the 4th verse ("Tories") and the entire line below it are new.
The problems with the Orange Order are described here. Bigotry weakens the working-class, the labor movement, and the left.
As instability and resistance spreads, the BA settles in
their transports fly into Belfast again and again
the British Army are on an imperialist crusade
we’re going to put an end to it, ‘cause we’re the IRA
We've been doing this for many decades
This time we won’t stop til their transports fly away
it's time to take action, time to make a stand
send ‘em back to their own island
British withdrawal must start today
British withdrawal it is the only way
British withdrawal that is our demand
British withdrawal take them right out of our land!
What do you think brought them here from their foreign nation?
The need to stabilize and secure their imperial plantation
the Tories want a pool of cheap labor for the capitalists
Like the KKK and racism, the Orange Order gives them an assist
A brief peace-keeping operation is all they thought it would be
But now we’ve started a popular insurgency
we've had enough British rule, can’t take it anymore
Let’s push them out and Ireland will be united once more
Monday, May 30, 2011
Release Marian Price
A couple weeks ago I read an article on the web-site of the BBC. As far as follwing Irish current events, the last few years I've only read an average of about 25 articles a week; recently it's been about four BBC articles a day. But one article I read caught my attention. I can't find that article, but found an even better one, from Sinn Fein's publication An Phoblacht. The article is here and below is the text (it's a short article).
Here's the article:
THE JAILING of Marian Price after British Secretary of State Owen Paterson revoked her licence for release was wrong and she should be freed, Sinn Féin deputy chair of the Justice Committee Raymond McCartney MLA has said.
Price is a vocal opponent of Sinn Féin and the Peace Process but she is still entitled to due process, Sinn Féin insists.
She was on licence from a life sentence for her part in the IRA bombing of London’s Old Bailey in 1973.
The Secretary of State revoked Price’s licence after the 57-year-old was released on bail after appearing in court on charges relating to an Easter Rising commemoration in Derry City.
Her detention has been described as ‘de facto internment’.
Calling for her release, Sinn Féin’s Raymond McCartney said:
Here's the article:
THE JAILING of Marian Price after British Secretary of State Owen Paterson revoked her licence for release was wrong and she should be freed, Sinn Féin deputy chair of the Justice Committee Raymond McCartney MLA has said.
Price is a vocal opponent of Sinn Féin and the Peace Process but she is still entitled to due process, Sinn Féin insists.
She was on licence from a life sentence for her part in the IRA bombing of London’s Old Bailey in 1973.
The Secretary of State revoked Price’s licence after the 57-year-old was released on bail after appearing in court on charges relating to an Easter Rising commemoration in Derry City.
Her detention has been described as ‘de facto internment’.
Calling for her release, Sinn Féin’s Raymond McCartney said:
Sinn Féin are on record that Marian Price is entitled to due process and the revoking of her licence is completely unacceptable.
The fact that Marian Price is now being held in Maghaberry Prison for men is also totally unacceptable.
Marian Price is now being held in different circumstances from other female prisoners and this is not conducive to the implementation of a proper justice service.
Sinn Féin are reiterating our demand that Marian Price is entitled to full legal process and should be released immediately on the bail set by the Derry court.
Thursday, May 19, 2011
Star Trek: The Original Series Reviews F
This is one of my posts where I “review” Star Trek episodes. I will be giving each one a star rating. I sometimes will make some comments about non-political parts of them that I like or don’t like. I’ll sometimes use the issues raised in the episode to discuss similar issues in real life. And I will sometimes simply high-light the progressive politics of ST. ST is in-line with the three original themes of this blog, as I explain in the first ST post where I offer some general thoughts about ST.
I have been more or less ignoring this- the need for me to become familiar with The Original Series. In general I don’t like much of what I’ve seen. In any case, I am now watching it and will be doing reviews of those episodes. I will be giving pretty low scores, probably no higher than three stars out of five- I just don’t like TOS.
Lastly. multi-culturalism is such a pervasive theme in ST that I only comment on it when it goes beyond the norm (i.e. inter-species partners).
“Amok Time” See this for a plot summary.
There’s one political part of this. At one point a Vulcan leader says something to the woman at the center of the marriage ceremony about her becoming the property of her husband. Since nothing is said about this (i.e. Kirk doesn’t say that that’s messed up) I wonder if the writers just screwed up- I mean, I’m pretty sure this isn’t mentioned in any other episode of ST (with the possible exception of later episodes of TOS). In any case, considering Vulcan is part of the Federation, this is NOT an example of the progressive politics of ST.
(UPDATE 6/18/11 This sort of thing HAS comes up in another episode of TOS and it appears that Vulcan is a very sexist place)
I give this episode two stars out of five.
“Who Mourns for Adonis?” See this for a plot summary.
There are some political aspects to this episode.
First we hear that when female members of StarFleet get married, they leave the service. I am reading a novel about the US military, and there’s something kind of similar, involving marriage and/or pregnancy. That’s too bad, especially in the context of StarFleet (obviously it’s something that changed, at the very least with Riker and Troi (of The Next Generation) (and many other characters)).
Kirk says that humanity believes, not in Gods, but in A God. It’s kind of nice to see this assertion of an Old Earth religion (I think it’s a safe assumption that he means an Old Earth religion), considering that such beliefs usually are completely absent from ST. On the other hand, he is ruling out some Old Earth religions, at least the Hindu religion, and that’s not good.
There’s also something else, something I have trouble nailing down. But it SEEMS as if there’s something sexist in this episode that is similar to something in another episode. In “Space Seed” which I discuss here, and this episode, a woman becomes seduced by the bad guy- in Space Seed she stays with him after he tries to take over the Enterprise; in this episode, it takes Kirk several minutes to talk her into helping her crew mates overcome their captor. I am not the best judge of this sort of thing but it does seem sexist- the woman is betraying them. From what I can remember, I don’t think there is a similar number of times when a man does that (if, for example, there are three times more men than women on the Enterprise, there should by now be about six men who have betrayed their crew mates for an enemy and I don't think it has happened at all).
On a non-political note, I like the idea that the Greek gods were really powerful, god-like aliens who came to earth 5,000 years ago and DID interact with humanity for some time.
I give this episode two stars out of five.
“The Changeling” See this for a plot summary.
A non-political episode. I give it two stars out of five.
“Mirror, Mirror” See this for a plot summary.
This is very similar to another “mirror” episode, one that was on Enterprise. That episode, “In A Mirror, Darkly” is discussed and linked to from here. In the TOS episode, there is a reference to genocide, something which seems to happen very often to planets that cross the Empire.
At the end, the “good” Spock says that the “evil” StarFleet officers were representative of humanity.
I give it three stars out of five.
“The Apple” See this for a plot summary.
At one point, after the StarFleet crew on the planet have defeated an attack by the locals, Spock says: “The good doctor was concerned that the valans achieve true human stature. I submit there is no cause for worry- they’ve taken the first step- they have learned to kill.” I think Spock’s negative view of humanity is too negative, but occasionally or often thinking about negative aspects of the human race is a good thing (before you get the wrong idea, I am VERY interested in that sort of thing when it's specifically about, for example, the male gender, or capitalism, etc.).
I give it two stars out of five.
“The Doomsday Machine” See this for a plot summary.
A non-political episode. I give it three stars out of five.
I have been more or less ignoring this- the need for me to become familiar with The Original Series. In general I don’t like much of what I’ve seen. In any case, I am now watching it and will be doing reviews of those episodes. I will be giving pretty low scores, probably no higher than three stars out of five- I just don’t like TOS.
Lastly. multi-culturalism is such a pervasive theme in ST that I only comment on it when it goes beyond the norm (i.e. inter-species partners).
“Amok Time” See this for a plot summary.
There’s one political part of this. At one point a Vulcan leader says something to the woman at the center of the marriage ceremony about her becoming the property of her husband. Since nothing is said about this (i.e. Kirk doesn’t say that that’s messed up) I wonder if the writers just screwed up- I mean, I’m pretty sure this isn’t mentioned in any other episode of ST (with the possible exception of later episodes of TOS). In any case, considering Vulcan is part of the Federation, this is NOT an example of the progressive politics of ST.
(UPDATE 6/18/11 This sort of thing HAS comes up in another episode of TOS and it appears that Vulcan is a very sexist place)
I give this episode two stars out of five.
“Who Mourns for Adonis?” See this for a plot summary.
There are some political aspects to this episode.
First we hear that when female members of StarFleet get married, they leave the service. I am reading a novel about the US military, and there’s something kind of similar, involving marriage and/or pregnancy. That’s too bad, especially in the context of StarFleet (obviously it’s something that changed, at the very least with Riker and Troi (of The Next Generation) (and many other characters)).
Kirk says that humanity believes, not in Gods, but in A God. It’s kind of nice to see this assertion of an Old Earth religion (I think it’s a safe assumption that he means an Old Earth religion), considering that such beliefs usually are completely absent from ST. On the other hand, he is ruling out some Old Earth religions, at least the Hindu religion, and that’s not good.
There’s also something else, something I have trouble nailing down. But it SEEMS as if there’s something sexist in this episode that is similar to something in another episode. In “Space Seed” which I discuss here, and this episode, a woman becomes seduced by the bad guy- in Space Seed she stays with him after he tries to take over the Enterprise; in this episode, it takes Kirk several minutes to talk her into helping her crew mates overcome their captor. I am not the best judge of this sort of thing but it does seem sexist- the woman is betraying them. From what I can remember, I don’t think there is a similar number of times when a man does that (if, for example, there are three times more men than women on the Enterprise, there should by now be about six men who have betrayed their crew mates for an enemy and I don't think it has happened at all).
On a non-political note, I like the idea that the Greek gods were really powerful, god-like aliens who came to earth 5,000 years ago and DID interact with humanity for some time.
I give this episode two stars out of five.
“The Changeling” See this for a plot summary.
A non-political episode. I give it two stars out of five.
“Mirror, Mirror” See this for a plot summary.
This is very similar to another “mirror” episode, one that was on Enterprise. That episode, “In A Mirror, Darkly” is discussed and linked to from here. In the TOS episode, there is a reference to genocide, something which seems to happen very often to planets that cross the Empire.
At the end, the “good” Spock says that the “evil” StarFleet officers were representative of humanity.
I give it three stars out of five.
“The Apple” See this for a plot summary.
At one point, after the StarFleet crew on the planet have defeated an attack by the locals, Spock says: “The good doctor was concerned that the valans achieve true human stature. I submit there is no cause for worry- they’ve taken the first step- they have learned to kill.” I think Spock’s negative view of humanity is too negative, but occasionally or often thinking about negative aspects of the human race is a good thing (before you get the wrong idea, I am VERY interested in that sort of thing when it's specifically about, for example, the male gender, or capitalism, etc.).
I give it two stars out of five.
“The Doomsday Machine” See this for a plot summary.
A non-political episode. I give it three stars out of five.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)