|
Loss of Innocence One thinks of the Beatles and “Imagine,” how different these past seven years could have been with different leaders, as we approach the 5th anniversary of the Iraq war. A course at Villanova this fall, (Rhetoric, Identity and Conflict), an excellent teacher, Dr. Christina Morus, crystallizes the breathtaking importance of leaders and the power of rhetoric in fostering a national identity, a unanimity in the pursuit of a nation’s objectives. These thoughts arise from resources offered by Dr. Morns and aren’t all credited, given the state of my notes. One thinks of the 99.7% of Austrians approving union with Hitler’s Third Reich and the shattering consequences of their communal decision. Hitler, a propaganda genius, won over the common people: the masses he described as “sentimental, respectful of force, desirous of simplicity, susceptible to emotional ‘contagion,’ moved by exaggeration.” He motivated them to action, to choices, creating an Aryan identity, using powerful visuals and symbols. “The ‘WE’ became an idealization of inclusion.” Simultaneously, Hitler demonized the outsider; the enemy within was the “Jew,” the enemy without, those who humiliated Germany after WWI. “Hitler diminishes objectivity and encourages emotionalism. The names, labels, and phrases employed to ‘identify’ a people may in the end determine their survival.” (Language of Oppression, Haig Bosmajhi, 1974) Dr. Morus refers to the “mytho-historic allusions” utilized by Slobodan Milosevic in Serbia on the 600th anniversary of the Battle of Kosovo, 1389-1989, to revitalize the national identity of Serbia. (Slobo the Redeemer, Southern Communication Journal, Vol.72, Jan.07) Ironically the Serbs were defeated at Kosovo, but the myth of spiritual heroes evolved over centuries. “Oral legends about Kosovo’s significance” enshrined Serbs as a chosen people of the New Testament. . . . The myths surrounding the battle lie at the heart of Serbian national identity.” Milosevic’s rhetoric inflamed Serb nationalism and stirred up the ethnic violence played out in the wars of the former Yugoslavia in the 1990s. Tens of thousands died in Bosnia, Croatia, and Kosovo. Dr. Morus continues “I argue that at least a part of the reason that ethnic violence was normalized in the former Yugoslavia was due to the mythic constitutive appeals and rhetorical strategies of Slobodan Milosevic. . . . Milosevic embodied the hero of Kosovo implying that he would allow Serbians to realize their full potential by bringing both land and pride back to the Serbs.” All this by way of illustrating the power of rhetoric in forming identities that lead to conflict. George W. Bush and company, after 9/11, never allowed a worldwide dialogue to take place, as suggested by Amber Amundson, never entertained a discussion of why America had engendered the hatred that led to the tragedy of 9/11, lest we address the perils of all empires blinded by arrogance. An inward look was the province of the faint-hearted who always ignore the call to arms. And 90% of the American people in 2001 supported going to war in Afghanistan. The National Conference of Catholic Bishops voted 164 to 4 to support the war. America magazine on 10/29/01 questions the refusal of the U.S. to consider negotiations and ends the editorial with a sobering reminder, ‘The war will not be won in the mountains of Afghanistan. It will be won when the Muslims are convinced that the United States acts justly.” The rhetoric of G.W. Bush is the rhetoric of “innocence.” American exceptionalism precludes the U.S. being portrayed as violent or oppressive. It is a morality play, good vs. evil. We, with God’s blessing, enshrine our goodness and we name the “axis of evil.” Naming is a powerful biblical tradition. The rhetoric of innocence creates the notion of America as “victim,” a lesson learned from Israel. We only engage in violence to respond to the attack of the terrorist. When one is a victim, any form of retaliation is self defense, permissible, imperative. There was a fascinating interview recently by Bill Moyers of James Cone, an African-American theologian from Union Theological in New York on the reappearance of the noose at Columbia University, public schools in the South and various other venues, reviving memories of the lynching of black men. Cone explains the significance of the noose in America, referring to Reinhold Niebuhr’s book, (The Irony of American History.) “The core of it is helping America to get over its innocence. Helping America to see itself through the eyes of people from the bottom. And you see, America likes to think of itself as innocent. And we are not. No human being is innocent. . . . People who have never been lynched by another group usually find it difficult to understand why it is blacks want writers to remember lynching atrocities. . . .The lynching tree is a metaphor for race in America, a symbol of America’s crucifixion of black people.” We need to adopt St. Augustine’s mantra:
Joe Bradley |