Bulletin 164

 

Subject: THE ANTI-WAR MOVEMENT AND SOCIAL CLASS STRUGGLE IN SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA: FROM THE CENTER FOR THE ADVANCED STUDY OF AMERICAN INSTITUTIONS AND SOCIAL MOVEMENTS, GRENOBLE, FRANCE.


21 December 2004
Grenoble, France

Dear Colleagues and Friends of CEIMSA,

We have received already much mail at the start of this holiday season on the subject of confrontations between the anti-war movement in the United States and the forces of order, particularly in Southern California, where our CEIMSA web site is now located at UCSD.

Below are several contemporary accounts of local class struggles :

In item A. we have republished the French translation of an essay by the late Herbert Schiller, Professor of Communications at the University of California-San Diego, in which he analyses the role of the American media in maintaining an imperialist social order.

Item B. is a letter sent to us by San Diego community organizer, Monty Kroopkin, sharing with us information on the growing resistance movement within the military bastion of San Diego.

In item C. we have an article forwarded to us by our research associate and professor emeritus of American Studies at Grenoble, Elisabeth Chamorand, which reflects war resistance within the circle of one American ethnic group.

And finally, item D. is a vivid description of social class struggle on the Mexican border, where INDUSTRIA FRONTERIZA is organizing workers and the local community against the abuses of Corporate power next door to San Diego County, in the Maquiladora of Tijuana.


Sincerely,
Francis McCollum Feeley
Professor of American Studies
Director of Research
Université Stendhal-Grenoble3
http://dimension.ucsd.edu/CEIMSA-IN-EXILE/


__________________
A.
from le monde diplomatique :
the late Herbert I. Schiller
The University of California-San Diego
copyright 2003

version française

LA FABRIQUE DES MAÎTRES

Décervelage à l américaine

LA projection brutale de la puissance des Etats-Unis à l étranger s explique largement par la manière dont se fabrique le consensus intérieur. Publicité omniprésente ; matraquage idéologique orchestré par de multiples institutions qui, financées par les entreprises, récusent l idée même de politiques publiques ou de bien commun ; méconnaissance du reste du monde ; protectionnisme culturel sans équivalent : tel est le lourd tribut que paient les Américains à l hégémonie du business.

 

Par Herbert I. Schiller
Professeur émérite de communication à l université de Californie à San Diego (Etats-Unis).

Depuis au moins un demi-siècle, la scène internationale est dominée par un seul et unique acteur : les Etats-Unis d Amérique. Même si elle n est pas aussi hégémonique qu il y a vingt-cinq ans, leur présence dans l économie et la culture mondiales reste écrasante : un produit national brut de 7 690 milliards de dollars en 1998 ; le siège de la majorité des firmes transnationales qui écument la planète à la recherche de marchés et de profits ; la puissance qui tire toutes les ficelles derrière la façade des institutions multilatérales - Organisation des Nations unies (ONU), Organisation du traité de l Atlantique Nord (OTAN), Fonds monétaire international (FMI), Banque mondiale, Organisation mondiale du commerce (OMC), etc. -, et le Goliath culturalo- électronique de l univers. Cette domination suscite des réactions de plus en plus hostiles, comme le signale l universitaire Samuel P. Huntington, qui rapporte à cet égard les propos d un diplomate britannique : « C est seulement aux Etats-Unis que l on peut lire que le monde entier aspire au leadership américain. Partout ailleurs, on parle plutôt de l arrogance et de l unilatéralisme américains » (1).

Mais la manière dont les autres nous voient est peut-être moins révélatrice que la perception que nous, Américains, avons de nous-mêmes. Les citoyens de ce territoire qui dicte sa loi à l univers ont-ils tous conscience, dans leur vie quotidienne, du fardeau qu ils imposent aux autres, et fréquemment à eux-mêmes ? S en indignent-ils ? Lui opposent-ils la moindre résistance ? On peut en douter, tant il est vrai que le maintien du statut de suzerain planétaire requiert non pas l indignation, mais au contraire le soutien actif ou passif des quelque 270 millions d Américains. Ce soutien, qui n a jamais fait défaut, est le produit d un système combinant un endoctrinement - à l oeuvre dès le berceau - une pratique de sélection ou de rétention de l information visant à maintenir et à renforcer l entreprise de domination planétaire des Etats-Unis. Les efforts de persuasion - intenses, bien que parfois dissimulés - vont de pair avec l exclusion des dissidences potentielles et avec l usage d une panoplie de mesures coercitives allant de l admonestation à l incarcération : près de 1,8 million de détenus dans les prisons américaines, soit, proportionnellement à la population, le record du monde.

Ces instruments ont permis de produire sinon des croyants enthousiastes, du moins une acceptation générale de l appareil de contrôle américain sur les affaires du monde. En guise de justification, les dirigeants rappellent en permanence à leurs concitoyens et au reste de la planète à quel point l existence des Etats-Unis est une bénédiction pour tous. Le thème de la grandeur de l Amérique est d ailleurs récurrent dans les discours présidentiels depuis la fin de la seconde guerre mondiale. Non seulement aujourd hui, mais apparemment depuis l époque du Néanderthal, le pays est unique en son genre. M. William Clinton le décrit même comme « la nation indispensable » (2). Comment chacun pourrait-il alors ne pas reconnaître la chance qu il a d y habiter ? Curieusement, beaucoup d Américains s y refusent encore. Pour prévenir toute défaillance de l adhésion populaire au cours du prochain siècle, la mise au point de méthodes plus globales est donc en permanence à l ordre du jour.

L un des moyens de faire régner l ordre dans les rangs est de s assurer la maîtrise des définitions, de faire la police des idées, ce qui signifie, pour les dirigeants, être capables de formuler et de diffuser la vision de la réalité - locale et globale - qui sert leurs intérêts. Pour ce faire, l ensemble du dispositif éducatif est mis à contribution, en même temps que les médias, l industrie du divertissement et les mécanismes politiques. C est l infrastructure médiatique qui produit ainsi du sens et de la conscience (ou de l inconscience). Quand elle fonctionne en rythme de croisière, nul besoin de consignes venues d en haut : les Américains absorbent les images et les messages de l ordre dominant, qui constituent leur cadre de référence et de perception. La plupart d entre eux sont ainsi dans l impossibilité d imaginer quelque autre réalité sociale que ce soit.L art du mensonge par omission

PRENONS un cas concret, celui de l utilisation du mot « terrorisme ». Le terrorisme, le vrai - aux Etats-Unis et ailleurs - est devenu, non sans raisons, une des principales préoccupations du gouvernement fédéral, ce qui justifie les énormes budgets dont disposent la police et les armées pour le combattre. Mais chaque fois que, n importe où dans le monde, se produisent des actes de résistance - éventuellement violents ou sanglants - à des situations d oppression, et tout particulièrement quand les oppresseurs sont des amis ou des obligés de Washington, ces actes sont présentés à l opinion américaine comme autant de formes de « terrorisme ». Dans les années 90, les Iraniens, les Libyens, les Palestiniens, les Kurdes (3) et bien d autres ont ainsi vu leurs luttes disqualifiées. A des époques antérieures, c est ce qui advint à des combattants malaisiens, kenyans, angolais, argentins et même aux juifs s opposant au mandat britannique en Palestine. Au cours des cinq dernières décennies, l armée américaine et ses supplétifs ont brûlé au napalm ou massacré des « terroristes » en Corée, en République dominicaine, au Vietnam, au Nicaragua, en Irak, etc.

La police des idées, c est aussi l art du mensonge par omission. En témoigne, entre beaucoup d autres exemples, le numéro que l hebdomadaire Time consacra, il y a deux ans, aux « Américains les plus influents de 1997 ». On y trouvait, entre autres, un joueur de golf, un animateur de radio, un musicien pop, un gestionnaire de fonds de placements collectifs, un producteur de cinéma, un présentateur de télévision, un économiste, un érudit noir, ainsi que la secrétaire d Etat, Mme Madeleine Albright, et le sénateur John McCain. Les deux seuls individus cités ayant des liens avec les véritables centres de pouvoir étaient un héritier de la dynastie Mellon, qui finance des causes et des organisations ultra-conservatrices, et M. Robert Rubin, ancien directeur-gérant de la banque Goldman Sachs et, à l époque, secrétaire au Trésor. Mais, dans ces deux cas, il s agissait de personnes ayant pris des distances avec les configurations de pouvoir qui leur avaient permis de s enrichir personnellement.

La liste de Time prêtait seulement de l autorité aux fournisseurs de services, et pas aux détenteurs de la véritable puissance. Bien plus utile, pour avoir un aperçu de la réalité du pouvoir, était le palmarès, publié un mois plus tard dans les pages financières du New York Times, des dix plus importantes multinationales américaines, classées par ordre de capitalisation boursière décroissante, avec, en tête, General Motors, suivie de Coca-Cola, Exxon et Microsoft. Les lecteurs de Time auraient été autrement éclairés si les patrons de ces firmes avaient été placés au sommet de sa liste des Américains les plus influents. Une brève description des activités de ces sociétés, de leurs implantations, de leurs décisions en matière d investissement et de main-d oeuvre, et de la manière dont ces décisions affectent les gens aux Etats-Unis et dans le reste du monde, en aurait dit plus long que la liste du Time sur la véritable distribution du pouvoir à l intérieur et à l extérieur de nos frontières.

Une information contextualisée de ce type est précisément ce que la police des idées est décidée à prévenir. Collaborent activement à cette tâche une myriade d analystes et de producteurs d information dont la mission est de brouiller les cartes en protégeant les détenteurs du pouvoir de l attention du public. Il s agit d institutions de recherche et autres think tanks (boîtes à idées) (4) qui préparent quantité d études sur les questions juridiques, sociales et économiques dans une perspective favorable aux milieux d affaires - qui sont par ailleurs leurs bailleurs de fonds. Ces travaux sont ensuite crédibilisés par les circuits d information nationaux et locaux. Les think tankers de droite ont leurs entrées dans les studios des radios et sur les plateaux des chaînes de télévision, et on les voit régulièrement en compagnie des élus et fonctionnaires locaux et fédéraux.

Le Manhattan Institute, à New York, est l un de ces producteurs d information sur mesure. Sa mission, explique son président, est « de développer des idées et de les mettre en circulation auprès du grand public » avec, précise-t-il, l aide de la « chaîne alimentaire des médias ». Ne lésinant pas sur les invitations massives de journalistes, fonctionnaires, dirigeants politiques, etc., à ses déjeuners-débats avec un intervenant qui traite un thème choisi pour la circonstance, cet institut est de ceux, rapporte le New York Times, qui ont « déplacé le centre de gravité politique new-yorkais vers la droite » (5). De multiples autres organisations du même acabit - les plus fréquemment citées étant la Brookings Institution, l Heritage Foundation, l American Enterprise Institute et le Cato Institute - servent de vecteurs discrets à la « voix du business », qui n est pourtant pas spécialement privée d accès aux médias par aillleurs. C est ainsi que l information servie au public se trouve polluée à la source.

Moins visible que ces structures de production et de diffusion de l idéologie, la dynamique du marché contribue encore plus efficacement à assurer la police des idées, particulièrement dans les industries culturelles. Il s agit moins ici d analyser leur poids à l extérieur que d évaluer leur impact calamiteux sur la population américaine. La nation que ses dirigeants proclament « indispensable » est aussi celle que les « forces du marché » condamnent à ignorer les créations du reste du monde.

Alors que 96 % des films que voient les Canadiens sont étrangers - et dans leur immense majorité produits par Hollywood -, que c est aussi le cas de quatre sur cinq des magazines qu ils lisent, ce qui ne va pas sans provoquer de fortes réactions d Ottawa (6), les Américains « consomment » seulement entre 1 % et 2 % de films et de vidéocassettes de cinématographies étrangères. La raison principale, mais non exclusive, est que, grâce à son marché intérieur, Hollywood écrase tous ses concurrents qui, eux, n ont pas les moyens financiers, en termes de budgets de production et de promotion, pour accéder à un public dont les goûts sont déjà façonnés par les majors américaines. C est ce public qui est finalement le grand perdant de l affaire.

Ce qui est vrai du cinéma l est aussi de la télévision et de l édition. Il ne se traduit pas plus de 200 ou 250 livres étrangers par an aux Etats-Unis (par comparaison, 1 636 droits de traduction ont été acquis, en France, en 1998), ce qui isole dramatiquement le public américain des grands courants de pensée mondiaux. Pour ne rien dire de l information télévisée qui ne s intéresse au reste de la planète que lorsqu y éclatent des crises. La concentration des médias, à l exception (provisoire ?) d Internet, explique la connaissance microscopique que les Américains ont du monde et de ses problèmes. Larry Gelbart, cinéaste qui avait précédemment dénoncé les ravages de l industrie du tabac dans Barbarians at the Gate (« Les Barbares à nos portes »), justifie ainsi le titre, Weapons of Mass Destruction (« Armes de destruction de masse »), de son film sur les médias : « Les dirigeants des industries du tabac sont seulement dangereux pour les fumeurs. Les dirigeants des médias sont bien plus dangereux, car nous fumons tous de l information. Nous avalons la fumée de la télévision. Nous gobons tout ce que ce qu ils nous mettent sous les yeux (7) ».

Et ce qu ils mettent sous nos yeux, c est une information sélectionnée en fonction de son aptitude à « faire de l audience » pour les spots publicitaires. Même si cette situation est loin d être spécifique aux Etats-Unis (8), c est le pays développé où elle est la plus critique. Au point que le politologue norvégien Johann Galtung a pu parler du « décervelage » des Américains par la télévision ( television idiotization).

Cette ignorance ne saurait seulement s expliquer par la trivialisation et la rétention de l information. Elle a des racines plus profondes. Le financement de la quasi-totalité des médias par ceux qui ont les moyens d acheter de l espace et du temps d antenne garantit un appauvrissement culturel continu. Et ce malgré les efforts tenaces d un petit nombre de gens de talent qui, pendant des décennies, ont tenté de promouvoir une culture non commerciale. Les 40 milliards de dollars de publicité qui se déversent sur les chaînes de télévision créent une atmosphère marchande qui imprègne tout le pays.

Ce matraquage commence dès le plus jeune âge et nul ne se soucie vraiment de ses conséquences. La situation est tellement choquante que l hebdomadaire Business Week, dont l hostilité à l économie de marché n est pas le trait dominant, décrit ainsi les déprédations infligées aux Américains en bas âge : « A 01 h 55, ce mercredi 5 mai, une consommatrice est née. Au moment où, trois jours plus tard, elle gagnait son foyer, quelques-unes des plus grosses entreprises de vente par correspondance des Etats-Unis étaient déjà à ses trousses avec des échantillons, coupons et autres bons d achat gratuits. (...) Comme aucune autre génération avant elle, elle entre, pratiquement depuis sa naissance, dans une culture de la consommation, entourée de logos, de badges et de publicités. (...) A vingt mois, elle commencera à reconnaître quelques-unes des milliers de marques qui brillent sur l écran qu elle a en face d elle. A sept ans, si elle a le profil typique de son âge, elle verra quelque 20 000 spots publicitaires par an. A douze ans, son nom figurera dans les bases de données géantes des entreprises de vente par correspondance (9) ».

Les effets cumulatifs de cette marchandisation débridée, si difficiles qu ils soient à évaluer, constituent cependant l une des clés pour comprendre ce que c est que de vivre au coeur du système commercial planétaire. Cela ne prépare pas à comprendre le monde qui existe à l extérieur de la galerie marchande et encore moins à s en soucier. C est sur ce terrain favorable que se développent les critiques virulentes de l extrême droite conservatrice - disposant de multiples fondations, omniprésente dans les radios et, de manière croissante, dans les télévisions - contre toute forme d organisation de la société nationale et internationale.

L une des cibles privilégiées de ces groupes extrémistes, c est le gouvernement. L Etat américain a eu beau servir loyalement la classe des dirigeants des grandes entreprises, il n en est pas moins constamment et violemment récusé. Non pas au nom d une position anarchiste de principe, mais, de manière à peine voilée, au profit d une gestion du pays par les seuls intérêts privés. Exprimés chaque jour par des milliers de canaux, ces sentiments rendent impossible ne serait-ce que le début du commencement de la moindre compréhension des questions qui se posent aux échelons local, national et international.

Dans ce dernier domaine, l opinion est sans cesse remontée contre l idée même des Nations unies, y compris par des médias qui ne versent pas ordinairement dans l extrémisme. Depuis des décennies, les campagnes de dénigrement se succèdent contre l ONU, l Unesco ou l Organisation mondiale de la santé (OMS). Certes, ces institutions ne sont pas à l abri de la critique. Ce n est cependant pas leur fonctionnement qui est attaqué, mais bien leurs missions, dans la mesure où elles renvoient à des principes de solidarité internationale. Elles ne sont d ailleurs pas les seules à pâtir de ces assauts où la mystification le dispute à la sottise. Les Américains en viennent à se détourner également de leurs concitoyens les plus pauvres et les plus faibles, et à adopter les thèses de ceux qui ne voient pas l utilité d un filet de protection sociale.

Malgré des poches de résistance, l acceptation, par le reste du monde, du modèle américain consumériste et privatisé (10) renforce l état d esprit dominant aux Etats-Unis. Seuls des bouleversements d envergure affectant l économie nationale et internationale pourraient ébranler les croyances et les valeurs présentes dans la conscience de la plupart des Américains.

Herbert I. Schiller.

 


(1)   Samuel P. Huntington, « The Lonely Superpower », Foreign Affairs, New-York, mars-avril 1999.

(2) Dans son discours au Congrès sur l état de l Union, le 4 février 1997.

(3) Notamment par la secrétaire d Etat, Mme Madeleine Albright, dans une intervention au National Press Club de Washington le 6 août 1997, citée dans le New York Times du 8 août 1997.

(4) Lire Serge Halimi, « Les "boîtes à idées" de la droite américaine », Le Monde diplomatique, mai 1995.

(5) « Intellectuals Who Became Influential », The New York Times, 12 mai 1997.

(6) Lire Anthony DePalma, « US Gets Cold Shoulder at a Culture Conference », International Herald Tribune, 2 juillet 1998.

(7) Cité dans The New York Times, 8 mai 1997.

(8) Lire Ignacio Ramonet, La Tyrannie de la communication, Galilée, Paris, 1999.

(9) Business Week, 30 juin 1997.

(10) Lire Benjamin R. Barber, « Culture McWorld contre démocratie », Le Monde diplomatique, août 1998.

English version :
Dumbing down, American-style


US as Global Overlord

Dumbing Down, American-style

Herbert I. Schiller

(Professor Emeritus of Communication at the University of California, San Diego)
Le Monde Diplomatique / The Guardian Weekly, August 1999, pp. 5-7.


For at least half a century the global theatre has had one dominating actor -- the United States. Less in total charge of the stage now than 25 years ago, the American presence in the world economy and culture still remains commanding: a gross national product of $7,690bn in 1998; the home base of most of the transnational corporations that scour the world for markets and profits; the overseer of the many facades of international decision-making -- the United Nations, the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank and the World Trade Organisation. It is the cultural-electronic Goliath of the world.

Its supremacy is recognised universally and with increasing resentment, to judge by the comment of a British diplomat reported by the American academic Samuel P. Huntington: "One reads about the world's desire for American leadership only in the United States. Everywhere else one reads about American arrogance and unilateralism" (1).

Yet how the world sees us may not be as revealing as how we see ourselves. How do those who live in this globally pre-eminent territory understand their own and their country's situation? Is it, in fact, so obvious to Americans, as they go about their daily routines, that they are part of a dominating global order? When, if at all, do people in this ruling core society express indignation at, or resistance to, the burdens their order imposes on others -- and often on themselves?

This is not an awareness that can be taken for granted or that inevitably surfaces. Indeed, the far-reaching enterprise of being the global overlord re quires not indignation but support, or at least acquiescence, from the 270m people who inhabit the home territory. Until now this has been achieved in a complex way that uses heavy indoctrination. It begins in the cradle with a system of selection and/or omission of information that reinforces the enterprise's maintenance and growth. Along with intense, though often veiled, efforts of persuasion, and equally extensive exclusion of potential discordancies, there is a graded arsenal of coercions that begin with admonition and end with incarceration. There are almost 1.8m people in prison in the US, a world record per head of population.

These instruments of social control have been remarkably successful in producing, if not enthusiastic believers, at least general acceptance at home of the US control apparatus and its procedures for running the world. In justification of this endeavour, there are continual reminders by the governing class of how blessed everyone is, at home and abroad, with the present arrangements. The refrain of America's greatness has echoed throughout the land in the years since the second world war. One president after another tells Americans how wonderful they are. Secretary of State Madeleine Albright has even described the US as "the indispensable nation" (2). How can anyone not recognise the bliss of living in the US at this time? Yet many do not. Assertion, apparently, is not enough. More comprehensive methods of securing popular adherence are being refined and calibrated.

One of the most effective means of keeping order in the ranks is definitional control -- the ability to explain and circulate the governors' view of reality, local or global. Its practice depends on a reliable national instructional system. Schools, entertainment, the media and the political process are enlisted. The basis of definitional control is the information infrastructure that produces meaning and awareness. When the infrastructure is performing routinely, it needs no prompting from the top of the social pyramid. Americans absorb the images and messages of the prevailing social order. These make up their frame of reference and perception. With few exceptions, this framework insulates most people from ever imagining an alternative social reality.

Take the use of the term "terrorism". Terrorism at home and abroad has become a paramount concern of the US government, and the justification for enormous expenditure on the military and the police. And well it might be. It is no surprise that resistance to oppressive conditions will erupt from time to time in one part of the world or another. How are these outbreaks, which may be violent, to be explained to the American public? Simple. They are presented -particularly when the oppressors are friends of Washington -- as acts of "terrorism". In the 1990s the label has been attached to the Iranians, the Libyans, the Palestinians, the Kurds (3) and many others. In an earlier time it was the Malaysians, the Kenyans, the Angolans, the Argentines and the Jews resisting the British Mandate in Palestine. In the past half-century US forces and their accomplices have been burning and slaughtering "terrorists" in Korea, Vietnam, Nicaragua, Iraq and elsewhere.

Definitional control can also work by omission. The annual issue of Time that features "the most influential people in America" is richly illustrative. The magazine's latest roster of most influential Americans begins with a new golf star and includes Madeleine Albright, Senator John McCain, a radio talk-show host, a black scholar, a film producer, an economist, a product designer, a pop musician, a television talk-show host, a mutual funds manager and the editor of the National Enquirer. To complete the list, there are two individuals with significant ties to real power: Richard Mellon Scaife, heir to part of the Mellon oil and banking fortune and financial angel to many ultra-conservative organisations and causes; and Robert Rubin, Secretary of the Treasury and former co-manager of the powerful Wall Street firm Goldman, Sachs. Yet these two exceptions are individuals now separated from the power clusters that gave them their personal wealth.

Time's listing confers authority mostly on service providers, not on the sources and wielders of genuine power. From this list, readers can feel informed while actually remaining ignorant of the realities of power in the US. Far more useful for getting a sense of this reality was a table published a month later in the back business pages of the New York Times, listing the 10 largest US goods- and service-producing corporations, by market capitalisation. Heading the list was General Electric, followed by Coca Cola, Exxon and Microsoft. How much more enlightened Time's readers might have been if these corporations had headed its list of influentials. The briefest descriptions of what these companies do, where they are located, what decisions they make about investment and labour, and how these decisions affect people in and outside the US would offer a critical dimension for assessing the real distribution of power in America and overseas.

Such information in context, however, is precisely what definitional control is employed to prevent. Besides, there has emerged in recent decades a galaxy of information producers and analysts whose task is to shield the wielders of power from public attention. These are the same conservative institutes, research organisations and think-tanks (4) that prepare studies on legal, social and economic issues from a propertied and corporate perspective. This is to be expected, because the corporate sector is the source of their funds. These organisations turn out studies and reports that are given credibility in the national and local informational circuits. Rightwing think-tankers enjoy wide access to local radio and national television, and they quietly lobby local, state and national officials.

The Manhattan institute in New York City is such an outfit. Its mission, as described by its president, is "to develop ideas and get them into mainstream circulation -- with the help of the 'media food chain'". Accordingly, it hosts "discreetly lavish public-policy lunches... to which it invites hundreds of journalists, politicians, bureaucrats, business people and foundation staff members to hear a speaker on a subject the institute likes". This kind of cosy forum, reports the New York Times, has "nudged New York to the right" (5). The institute has had plenty of back-up and reinforcement from like-minded organisations. But the essential point about this and dozens of similar organisations -- the top four cited in the media were the Brookings Institution, the Heritage Foundation, the American Enterprise Institute and the Cato Institute -is that they provide public conduits for the corporate voice. As a result, the public's information well becomes polluted at the source.

Yet these are visible structures of ideology creation and dissemination. Far more effective, and not nearly as visible, in achieving definitional control are the dynamics of the market system itself, especially as they relate to the consciousness-creating cultural industries. These industries have provided incalculable support to US corporate influence domestically and its expansion globally. Here, the focus is not on their external impact but on how their economic strength, political authority and cultural power, utilising market rules and values, have affected the American public. It is a grotesque irony that the nation whose leaders pronounce it "the greatest", and who regard other countries as pathetic examples of information and cultural deprivation, is prevented by "market forces" from sampling the world's diverse creative output.

Ninety-six per cent of the films Canadians see and 80% of the magazines they read are foreign (in most cases American) -- a fact that has not passed without comment in Ottawa (6) -whereas foreign films and videos account for only 1%-2% of American consumption. No single explanation is sufficient, but the sweeping expansion of "free trade" is the central factor. Foreign film production is at tremendous disadvantage compared with US film producers, who enjoy a large, unified and rich domestic market. The consequences have been calamitous for overseas film industries, reduced and marginalised in the global market. Foreign offerings, if they make it into the US market, are increasingly made to satisfy audiences already shaped by their long-standing experience with the Hollywood product. In both situations, domestic and foreign, the filmgoer suffers.

American readers' familiarity with current world literature is no less abysmal. The international writers organisation PEN puts out an annual list of published book translations, from all the languages of the world. In any given year, the number of titles has not exceeded 200 to 250.

The situation is hardly different as, far as news, is concerned. Television coverage of foreign affairs puts the emphasis on breaking crises. Most of the messages and images of the world come from still greater concentrated private channels, with the temporary exception of the Internet. Given these arrangements, it is hardly surprising that most Americans' knowledge of the world and its problems is less than microscopic. "Weapons of mass distraction" is how scriptwriter Larry Gelbart described the functioning of the media system, television in particular, in the US today. Having previously written about the depredations of the tobacco industry in Barbarians at the Gate, Gelbart says: "Tobacco executives are only dangerous to smokers, but we all smoke the news. We all inhale television. We all subscribe to what these men are putting out. They're much more dangerous" (7).

And what they are putting out chooses most of its content for its entertainment value, in its quest for the large audience. This situation is by no means confined to the US (8), although it has probably reached more critical dimensions there than in any other developed country. So much so that the Norwegian political scientist Johan Galtung has described it as the "television idiotisation" of Americans.

Yet national ignorance cannot be accounted for solely by the trivialisation and withholding of news. It has much deeper roots. The, structural foundation of the media system, financed exclusively by those who can afford to buy time and messages, assures a continuing cultural impoverishment of the audience, despite the best efforts of a few talented people who have been trying for decades, to promote a non-commercial culture. The giant corporations account for most of the media's financial support, and it is their messages, $40bn worth annually in television alone, that create the all-embracing commercial atmosphere in the US. No other people are subjected to as heavy a barrage of commercial imagery and messages as Americans. Few have attempted to measure the impact of this incessant flow of commercials. No studies have been made, or at least none has been published.

The commercial pummelling of the American mind begins at an early age. The situation is so gross that Business Week, a magazine not known for its hostility to the market economy, published a cover story chronicling the targeting of the country's infants: "At 1.58pm on Wednesday 5 May, a consumer was born... By the time she went home three days later, some of America's biggest marketers were pursuing her with samples, coupons and assorted freebies... Like no generation before, hers enters a consumer culture surrounded by logos, labels, and ads almost from the moment of birth... By the time she's 20 months old, she will start to recognise some of the thousands of brands flashed in front of her each day. At the age of seven, if she's anything like the typical kid, she will see some 20,000 TV commercials a year. By the time she's 12, she will have her own entry in the massive databases of marketers" (9).

The cumulative effects of unbridled commercialism, however difficult to assess, are one key to explaining the impact of growing up, in the core of the world's marketing system. At the very least, it suggests unpreparedness for, and lack of concern with, the world that exists outside the shopping mall. Now radio, and to an increasing extent television, have been taken over, to express the views of a hard-line conservative element, supported by numerous foundations, that is against any form of social organisation, national or international.

One of the primary targets of these extremist groups is government. The interventionist policies of the US government have been pursued in the interests of the governing, corporate class, but the vociferous opponents of government do not mention these activities. Instead they claim that government as a form of political organisation is intolerable. This is not the principled position of anarchism; these are thinly veiled apologetics for private, corporate direction of the country. In dealing with these sentiments, in hundreds of channels every day, the public cannot possibly begin to understand, much less deal with, the urgent issues of local, national or international existence.

In international affairs the public is exposed to ceaseless tirades from large sections of complicit media against the very idea of the UN. The invective penetrates the mainstream media as well. The result has been a decades-long campaign against the UN and related international bodies such as Unesco and the World Health Organisation. It is not that these bodies are above criticism, but that their functions are attacked as threatening and unnecessary, that the principles of international solidarity are condemned. And it is not only the UN and the international community that suffer. Americans turn away from their own weak and poor, and adopt the rationales of those who see no need for social protective networks.

The acceptance -- though there are points of resistance -- of the American consumerist, privatised model abroad strengthens the prevailing mind-set in the US. Only the most profound shocks, in the global and domestic economies will be sufficient to shake the beliefs and values that prevail in the minds and consciousness of most Americans. This is not a comforting thought. But the machinery of mind management is so entrenched and pervasive that nothing less than seismic movements can be expected to loosen its pernicious authority.

Herbert I. Schiller

(Original text in English)


References

(1) Samuel P. Huntington, "The lonely superpower", Foreign Affairs, March-April 1999.

(2) Quoted by Huntington, op.cit.

(3) In particular by Madeleine Albright, in a speech given at the National Press Club, Washington, on 6 August 1997 and quoted in the New York Times on 8 August 1997.

(4) Serge Halimi, "Les 'boîtes à idées' de la droite américaine", Le Monde diplomatique, May 1995.

(5) Janny Scott, "Promoting its ideas, the Manhattan Institute has nudged New York rightwards", the New York Times, 12 May 1997.

(6) Anthony DePalma, "US gets cold shoulder at a Culture Conference", International Herald Tribune, 2 July 1998.

(7) Quoted in The New York Times, 8 May 1997.

(8) See Ignacio Ramonet, La Tyrannie de la communication, Galilée, Paris, l999.

(9) Business Week, 30 June 1997.


__________________
B.
from Monty Kroopkin :
Letters to the editor
December 18, 2004
Subject: To many Paredes is a hero


Dear friends and family,

I have a letter to the editor in the 12/18/04 San Diego Union-Tribune. It is a response to an editorial they ran about the sailor Pablo Paredes refusing to board his ship here, bound for the Persian Gulf. I am a bit surprised they published the letter. This is still a big military town. But the polls lately have indicated that well more than a majority of Americans do not think our government should have attacked Iraq. So, even here in Navy land, many are speaking out.

The attachment is the page from the online paper. The website (below) is the same page, but I haven't tried this before and am not sure it will be available after today. I include just the text of my letter below, in case there is any problem reading the whole page when you try it.

Peace,
Monty

The San Diego Union-Tribune
http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20041218/news_lz1e18lets.html

__________________
C.
from Elisabeth Chamorand :
Date:
Sun, 19 Dec 2004
Subject: "My brother-in-law's editorial from bimonthly 'Jewish Currents'."

"Who the Hell Do We Think We Are?"
by Larry Bush (no relation to the president)

Jewish Currents
November 2004

"The thousand-plus young American men and women who have been killed in Iraq, dozens of whom are pictured on the cover of this issue of Jewish Currents, did not merely die "in vain." It's more tragic than that: They and their tens of thousands of Iraqi counterparts (of whom the Pentagon has released no portraits) are victims of the hubris, arrogance and aggressive militarism of George W. Bush, Donald Rumsfeld and a handful of other armchair "warriors." These are "leaders" who actually believe that the United States can and should shape the world through economic domination and military coercion. For three years, they have manipulated and lied to a country in shock and mourning from the September 11th attacks. They have led the public to conflate
patriotism with support for the U.S. war machine, and the struggle against terrorism with the overthrow of Saddam Hussein. Rather than tending to our country's needs and wounds, they have cultivated our fears, squandered the compassion and concern of our allies, developed a cult of militarism, and created new enemies to replace every Al Qaeda member who gets killed or captured. As we write this editorial in mid-October, we cannot know whether the American people are going to learn the lessons of the madness in Iraq the hard way, by choosing four more years of stubborn aggression and incompetence, or heed John Kerry's better-late-than-never warnings about this war. Whether a Republican or Democratic administration next confronts the folly, however, it must be chastened by an angry public outcry that demands: Who the hell do we think we are? Who the hell do we think we are? In America, thirty-six million live in poverty, including almost one out of every four children. Forty-five million people lack health insurance, uniquely within the industrial world. Fewer than three-quarters of our teenagers (including little more than half of our Hispanic and
African-American teens) manage to graduate from high school. More than two million people, seven out of every thousand, are wasting away in prison 9 the highest incarceration rate on the globe. The richest one percent commands income equal to that of the entire bottom two fifths (and wealth, as opposed to income, is even more unequally distributed). Are these qualifications for world leadership in the export of freedom and economic development? In America, half the population doesn't exercise the right to
vote. Those who want to vote cannot be confident that their registrations will be processed or their votes fairly tallied. Electoral fundraising, which closely resembles bribery, assures the dealmaking power of corporate interests, while the winner-take-all system prevents smaller, less powerful interest groups from developing clout. Are these qualifications for world leadership in the export of democracy? In America, the teaching of evolution is still a bone of contention, reproductive rights are eroding, and the right of sexual minorities to have access to civil liberties and civil protections is blocked, thanks to the influence of Christian fundamentalist forces that are intent on reshaping our society to hew to their narrow religious principles. A huge majority declares that belief in God is a
critical aspect of American citizenship. Are these qualifications for world leadership against theocratic oppression and fundamentalist rule? In America, less than five percent of the world's people consumes more than a third of the globe's energy resources. We struggle with obesity while millions starve abroad. We drive SUVs while refusing to sign the Kyoto treaty on global warming. We supply more than 50 percent of the world's weapons and willfully violate international accords in our treatment of
prisoners captured in Iraq and Afghanistan. We develop new nuclear weapons for battlefield use, declare non-proliferation treaties of yesteryear obsolete, and then ascribe evil, aggressive intent to countries that try to develop a nuclear deterrent force. We have a military budget larger than the combined budgets of the next eight most powerful militaries in the world.

Are these qualifications for world leadership in the pursuit of peace? "America is not just a power; it is a promise," said New York Governor Nelson Rockefeller, in those heady days of the late 1960s, when even he was feeling the pull of social conscience in a landscape of change. "It is not enough for our country to be extraordinary in might," he continued; "it must be exemplary in meaning. Our honor and our role in the world finally depend on the living proof that we are a just society."

Such sentiments have been drummed out of the Republican Party over the past thirty years and have become very unfashionable throughout America since September 11th. Our country's resurgent patriotism is less rooted in an appreciation of America's marvelous capacity for social progress than in a "We're Number One" triumphalism that under estimates the world's complexity and over estimates our own power. It was this national mood that left John Kerry afraid to do much more than jingle his Vietnam war medals and charge the Bush administration with incompetence rather than with moral bankruptcy for most of the presidential campaign.

Those of us with less fear and more vision now face the challenge of creating an alternative statement about "who the hell we think we are" 9 an alternative vision of patriotism, prosperity, homeland security and international citizenship 9 with all of the creativity, passion, and communication skills at our command. We must go beyond a critique of today's society to an affirmation of what might be: a vision of promise, not just power." 

For our next Nation Magazine.
Discussion Group, let us identify some of issues, interests, and strategies that can mobilize the public to restore democracy in our society, and reduce the poverty, disease, and war that squander the world¹s resources.  

Read some of the essays in The Nation Magazine forum ³Looking Back, Looking Forward² in the December 20, 2004 issue (which can also be found on the Nation Magazine website at the URL http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20041220&s=forum) where they consider the following questions: ³The defeat of John Kerry, combined with the Republican advances in the House and Senate, has unleashed waves of dismay and perplexity within liberal and progressive circles. What happened? Why did so many voters embrace a President whose Iraq policy was paved with lies and deceptions, who has shown contempt for science, the rule of law and many of the principles of the Enlightenment, and whose economic policies favor the rich at the expense of the vast majority of Americans? What lessons do we draw from Kerry's failure to win over the electorate in spite of the Bush Administration's conspicuous failures? Are the Democrats crippled, or merely wounded, and is the party really out of touch with "mainstream" values? Finally, what should the priorities of the progressive movement be in this era of Republican dominance, and what is the best formula for future electoral success?"

_____________________
D.
from Professor Fred Lonidier :
UCSD
Date: Sun,
19 Dec 2004
Subject: INDUSTRIA FRONTERIZA: THE FARCE CONTINUES

INDUSTRIA FRONTERIZA: THE  FARCE CONTINUES
WORKERS WERE NOT ALLOWED TO CONFISCATE THE COMPANY'S PROPERTY

 

Tuesday, December 7th:  Workers were not able to confiscate IFSA's machines after two Tijuana Labor Board attorneys suddenly reported that they were "sick."  Following two and a half years of a lawsuit in which the  process was continually biased in favor of the owners, four Industria Fronteriza workers who had been fired in June 2002 finally forced the Tijuana Labor Board to conclude that the company had violated these workers labor rights, and  therefore must pay them severance pay of about $52,000
dollars. Since the  company did not pay, the workers forced a reluctant Board to recognize their  right to confiscate the company's property and to schedule the confiscation for  December 7th, 2004.
 
But the confiscation did not happen. The workers had everything  ready: truck, forklifts, a lawyer from Mexico  City, supporters in solidarity with the workers who were  there to carry the equipment, a storeroom in the Poblado Maclovio Rojas to keep  the confiscated machines, etc. They were able to raise about $1,500 dollars in  donations to pay for part of the expenses of the confiscation. Everything was  ready, but the Tijuana Labor Board had other plans. When the workers, their  legal representatives and
supporters arrived on time at the Labor Board office  to meet Eric, the actuary (actuario) who was scheduled to go with them to  the factory, he was not there; he reported that he was sick. Confiscation is not  possible without an actuary, a lawyer whose job it is to represent the Labor  Board in legal affairs like confiscations. The day before, Margarita Avalos had a conversation with the actuary and he looked well. In any case, this should not  have been a problem in itself, since two actuaries work for the Tijuana Labor  Board.  However, the second actuary was also absent because he too was  sick!  It looked like an epidemic, the workers said.
 
Now  what? The workers and their lawyers met the Labor Board president, Raúl ZenilOrona, and reminded him that the labor law has a provision that gives the  president the power to name a secretary to act as an actuary or to do the job  himself if the  circumstances require it. However the president refused, and the  confiscation did not happen. The furious workers told him he was colluding with  the company.
 
They were right; the collusion between the company,  the Labor Board, and the "union" January 7th that is controlled by the company  was evident. On December 7th, the surprising epidemic that attacked the  actuaries was not the only obstacle that Industria Fronteriza workers had to  face. The white union also did its job. A group of about 40 people met at the  door of the
factory, some of them showing big sticks, with the obvious purpose  of  confronting the workers to avoid the confiscation. Again, the union serves the company against the workers. Some of those people were the union's provocateurs and others were former IFSA's supervisors and clerical employees.
 
But the confrontation did not happen since the confiscation of the  company was stopped before ever going to the factory, at the Labor Board office. The workers demanded that the Board president give them a legal representative to accomplish the confiscation. They also asked him to request that police go to  the factory and control the provocateurs. Again, Zenil y Orona refused the  petition for absurd and bureaucratic reasons.
 
The workers and  supporters stayed in the Board office for hours, until Zenil y Orona promised  that the actuary would go with the workers to the factory the next day. On  December 8th, the group returned, and now an actuary went with the workers to  the factory. This time, the provocateurs were absent. However, a new legal  excuse rose and the Labor Board ordered that only a legal, but not material  confiscation could take place; that is only a legal declaration about worker's  ownership of the machines and
materials but with no legal right to take them out  of the factory. The workers had to accept this, but even this small step was  obstructed when the actuary refused to perform the confiscation because he saw a  strike flag in the door of the factory. If there is a strike, the confiscation  is impossible, he said. But there is no such strike, the workers answered; the strike was over months ago and, in fact, the Board president would never have given the workers the legal right to confiscate the factory if Industria Fronteriza would have been on strike.
 
Reasons did not matter; the  actuary refused to perform the confiscation and the workers had to return to the  Board office to talk again with the president. This time, discussion turned very  bitter and finally Zenil y Orona ended the talks asserting that the confiscation  would never happen.

According to him, only the January 7th  Union had the right to confiscate, and since the minority  group was against the union they don't have any right. Zenil y Orona did not  care that the workers have a Coalition that has been legally recognized since  2002 and that the minority group won the lawsuit against the company, as well as  two appeals the owners made to the Baja California Court. Zenil y Orona has  openly violated the labor law, openly colluded with the company and the union  against the workers, and openly declared war on the workers. A new chapter of  this struggle has been opened.


A LETTER FROM INDUSTRIA  FRONTERIZA WORKERS

Dear friends and supporters,
The confiscation was not possible, but we  will continue fighting for
justice and denouncing government's corruption as  long as we need to do it
for getting  justice.

The major difficulty on this struggle is to  fight at the same time against
an alliance of government bureaucrats, company's  owners, white union
leaders and white-collar ex-workers who refuse to recognize  our right to
severance payment even thought we were exploited by the company for  years.

We don't loose our faith, though, and our  morale is high because we know
we are not alone and some of you are behind us  and go with us making
stronger our struggle. We are united, and when you answer  our solidarity
calls you made possible for us to open new ways to fight. Yes,  justice has
not been made, but we have gotten a lot  more.

Thank all of you for your supporting letters, for spreading information
about our struggle, for protesting with us, for your financial support.

When we faced the confiscation we realized  we would need about $2,200
dollars, unaffordable amount for us who are  maquiladora workers; however,
we were very surprised that after asking for  solidarity we were able to
get more than $1,500 dollars in less than two weeks.  Thank you very much.

We also received a lot of  encouraging friendly letters from Mexico City,
Ciudad Juarez, Coahuila, New Laredo, San Antonio  TX, BrasilCuba and
Argentina.

When we had to face the Labor Board  president together with us were Cittac
(Workers' Information Center), the  Colectiva Feminista Binacional, the
Zapatista Front, the Colectivo Chilpancingo  for Environmental Justice,
Group Los Niños, Poblado Maclovio Rojas, Street Light  of San Diego, and
the San Diego Maquiladora Workers' Solidarity  Network.

Thank you to all of you and we apologize if  we are omitting somebody else.

We have not confiscated the company, yet we  had to spend more than $500
dollars. We would like to know if we could keep the  rest of money you
donated. We will use it to pay our struggle s current expenses  and save it
for a future action: we hope we will be able to confiscate the  factory in
2005. If you need your money back, please let us know it.

As we wrote above, we will continue fighting  for justice and denouncing
government's corruption as long as we need to do it  for getting justice.

Again, thank you. Have a have a happy end of  the year along with your
beloved ones and with all of us who fight for fair  causes and hope that
more triumphs will come the next year.

We will be in touch with  you.

Sincerely,
Manuel Gil, Miguel Rodríguez, Rocío Salas and Margarita  Avalos: Industria
Fronteriza Workers Coalition Pro  Justice


********************
Francis McCollum Feeley
Professor of American Studies/
Director of Research at CEIMSA-IN-EXILE
http://dimension.ucsd.edu/CEIMSA-IN-EXILE/