Bulletin
N° 641
Subject: ON ‘JE SUIS . . . .’
(fill in the blank).
12 January 2015
Grenoble, France
Dear
Colleagues and Friends of CEIMSA,
The
formation of union sacrée
in 1914 represented the end of the anti-war movement in France. When Edouard Vaillant,
the socialist deputy and Communard of 1871, and Albert de Mun, the right-wing officer in
Thiers’ army that repressed the Commune, shook hands the resistance was
formally broken. Before the war ended, over 11% of the French population lay dead
or mutilated (nearly 6 million out of a population of 40 million),with
similar casualty rates throughout Europe. The Socialist Jules Guesde joined the conservative Catholic lawmaker, Denys Cochin, in the new war cabinet of Raymond Poincaré
‘la guerre’, launching the careers of Ferdinand Foch, Joseph Joffre, Philippe Pétain, Robert Georges Nivelle,
and a host of other military leaders. Enshrouded in the magic of religious
symbols, this war ended with the bitter deaths of millions, both civilians and soldiers.
But
what was this magic spell, this art of mass mobilization that dispels class
consciousness with esprit de corps patriotism, and displaces class conflicts with national
militarism; that transforms the desire for human emancipation into a compulsion
for conquest? Raymond Williams, borrowing from George Lukács, among others, suggested that all art can be
differentiated into three phases of human practice: the ‘practical’, the ‘magico-religious’, and the ‘aesthetic’. According to this
scheme, ‘practical’ relates to the satisfaction of perceived human needs
‘within historically determined social and material conditions.’ The ‘magico-religious’ phase relates to encounters with
perceived human limits (thought by some to be historically determined, while by
others to be always intractable) which inspire imaginative images and stories
that are ‘magico-religious’ in so far as they are
offered as ‘objectively real’, ‘transcendent’ and ‘demanding belief’.
The
third phase of human practice is the ‘aesthetic,’ which is neither a practical
search for satisfaction of determined needs, nor is it a representation offered
as ‘objectively real’ and demanding magico-religious
belief. The aesthetic image is closed and real in itself; it is designed for
and/or has ‘aesthetic’ properties or effects, like ‘beauty’, or
more specific qualities like ‘harmony’, proportion’, ‘form’, etc. . . . .
Williams
goes on to say that culture as a complex signifying system is different from
other kinds of systemic social organization, like the more specific signal systems or systems of signs. The signifying system of culture must also be
distinguished from economic and political systems, and from kinship and family
systems. Each of these systems operates by its own
rules and can only be understood in its own terms. Not only does each have
its own signifying system –representing relations between conscious,
communicating human beings—but these systems are necessary component parts of a
larger and more general signifying system, the Social System. (Raymond
Williams, Culture and Society, 1983)
The
mobilization for war, by this definition, is the art of ‘suspending disbelief’
and producing representations as ‘objectively real” which demand belief and all
but prohibit connections with any larger system. In other words, a bubble is
produced, and, much like a bad dream, one finds oneself captured, temporarily
at least, by a human construction –not for long, but long enough sometimes to
forfeit one’s life. Eventually, other systems, such as the political economic
system and the ecological system, combine with the complex signifying system of culture to produce different
perceptions and new human practices within the larger Social System.
|
In
the 11 items below CEIMSA readers are warned to beware of bubbles
–financial and cultural—which when they burst, history informs us, we discover
often that have done exactly the opposite of what we had intended to do.
Item A., from Historians Against the War, is a report on the recent American Historical
Association meeting in NYC, where colleagues attempted to pass a resolution
condemning Israeli crimes against humanity
Item
B.,
from The
Real News Network, is an interview with British journalist Richard Seymour discussing Islamophobia in Europe.
Item C., from Là-bas si j’y suis is a brief statement by Daniel Mermet responding to the January 7 massacre of
journalists at 11:00 a.m. in the Charlie Hebdo newsroom in Paris.
Item D., from C.
Sham, contain three texts that shed light on the contradictions in “je suis Charlie” movement today.
Item
E.,
from Democracy Now!, is an
interview with Gilbert Achcar on the clash of barbarisms in the West and the Middle East.
Item
F.,
from The
New York Times, is a presentation on the formation of terrorists
in Europe by Eric Schmitt, Michael S.
Schmidt and Andrew Higgins.
Item
G.,
from University of Montpellier Professor Ronald
Creagh, is an essay on the Charlie Hebdo massacre and what it does not represent.
Item
H.,
from Z Net,
is an article by Noam Chomsky
discussing moral outrage and mass mobilization in the new century.
Item
I.,
from NYU Professor Bertell Ollman, is
an article by Vicente
Navarro on the amazing success of The
Movement in Spain today.
Item
J.,
from Byron Morton, is a article from Truth Out by Ben Ptashnik
on the looming global economic crisis and the pending bailout number 2 of the
international Banksters
who rule our economy.
Item K., from
the Confederation National du Travail is an article which
asks “Why are we Charlie?”
And
finally, we invite CEIMSA readers to watch the 1992 film,
Hitler's Bomb
http://science.docuwat.ch/videos/atoms/hitlers-bomb-1992
Sincerely,
Francis
Feeley
Professor
of American Studies
University
of Grenoble-3
Director
of Research
University
of Paris-Nanterre
Center
for the Advanced Study of American Institutions and Social Movements
The
University of California-San Diego
http://dimension.ucsd.edu/CEIMSA-IN-EXILE/
__________________
A.
From Historians Against the War :
Date: 8 January 2015
Subject: Report on HAW at the AHA.
http://historiansagainstwar.org
Members
and supporters of HAW,
By
now, many of you have read about HAW’s very active presence at the AHA Annual
Meeting in New York over the past weekend. We have waited until the
dust settled before reporting back to you in detail; at the bottom of this
email are links to a range of coverage, from accurate reports in the New
York Times and the Chronicle of Higher Education to
less reliable stories from several Israeli newspapers.
We
began with a Roundtable sponsored by MARHO: The Radical Historians Organization
(an AHA affiliate) on January 3, discussing “What Is the Responsibility of
Historians Regarding the Israel-Palestine Conflict.” Speakers included Joel Beinin of Stanford, Barbara Weinstein and Linda Gordon of
New York University, and Leena Dallasheh
of Rice. The moderator was Steering Committee member Carolyn
Eisenberg of Hofstra. HAW members present
agreed it was very successful—from the large, engaged audience, which included
former AHA President Natalie Zemon Davis, incoming
President Vicki L. Ruiz, and other prominent historians, to the quality of the
discourse. Carolyn led off by evoking the debates in AHA over Vietnam forty
years ago, when she had just joined, followed by analysis of the “silencing” of
Palestinian history (Leena), the many ways in which
Palestinian scholarship and intellectual life have been attacked and undermined
since the founding of Israel (Joel), how in Europe BDS has led to meaningful
economic sanctions whereas here it focuses on cultural boycotts (Linda), and
how those of us not teaching the Middle East can incorporate its history into
our pedagogy (Barbara). Even if you have discussed and read about
Israel/Palestine for years, there were new and powerful insights,
and we urge you to go to this HAW page with links to the various
presentations: http://historiansagainstwar.org/aha15
The
Roundtable was also attended by a group calling itself “Historians Against
Academic Boycotts” (or, sometimes, the Alliance for Academic Freedom), which
put flyers on all the chairs objecting to the resolutions HAW had sent in on
December 22, asking for consideration at the Business Meeting. More generally,
these historians disagreed with the premise of the Roundtable that, as
historians, we have a responsibility to discuss and, when necessary, criticize
Israel, including its violations of academic freedom. It was clear
that they would mobilize heavily for the Business Meeting, to oppose a
suspension of the rules allowing our resolutions to be debated. As it turned
out, they were successful, and by a vote of 144 to 51 (with 3 voting
“present”), the meeting on Sunday voted against permitting debate on
our resolutions.
At
the meeting itself, it was clear as soon as Executive Director James Grossman
read the AHA Council’s rationale for not adding our resolutions to the agenda
(that they had arrived too late to permit full discussion, after people had
already decided whether or not to attend) that we would lose. A
two-thirds vote would have been required, in any case, a very high bar.
Some
observers have suggested that we made our resolutions in blithe ignorance of
AHA rules. This was hardly the case: the idea of proposing these two resolutions
first came up during a Palestine-Israel Working Group phone meeting in late
November. A resolution (not ours) in favor of BDS had been circulating among
some historians already, and the Working Group members who had seen it thought
it was not likely to pass the AHA. The group all, however, agreed that a
positive resolution, explaining the actual difficulties faced by Palestinian
scholars and West Bank and Gazan universities because
of the Israeli occupation, might be more able to open the discussion, and
garner support even of AHA members who were wary of BDS. We were well aware that the deadline to
guarantee consideration (November 1) was past. Acting on advice from
persons familiar with AHA’s past practice, that indeed such a suspension of the
Business Meeting agenda was allowed in the rules and has happened before, we
decided to go ahead. At the least, we thought, we could guarantee
some discussion, and prepare the ground for further action in the
future. And that is what has happened. Instead of waiting a full
year, we have gained a great deal of publicity, stimulated ample debate, and
(not the least) seen in detail the arguments against our work within the
profession to criticize Israel’s denial of Palestinian rights. On that front,
it is clear that we need to produce detailed, well-sourced reports on how
international standards of academic freedom are routinely violated in
Israel/Palestine, to answer those colleagues who felt they were being asked to
vote on unproven allegations. So, no matter how much crowing there
is about the actual vote, that was a temporary victory
for the opponents of free discussion. Crucially, AHA President Vicki
Ruiz has announced that she will devote half her presidential sessions at next
year’s Annual Meeting to historicizing the Israel/Palestine conflict.
In
descending order of importance and factual accuracy, here is the press coverage
of what happened last weekend. You will note in many cases the false
assertion that our resolutions on academic freedom were linked to an earlier
resolution proposing that AHA endorse BDS.
http://artsbeat.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/01/05/scholars-effort-to-condemn-israel-fails/?ref=arts
http://historynewsnetwork.org/article/158070
http://www.timesofisrael.com/american-historical-association-rejects-anti-israel-resolutions-vote/
http://forward.com/articles/212086/american-historical-association-rejects-push-for-a/
http://www.jpost.com/International/American-historians-vote-against-BDS-resolution-on-Israel-386698
http://www.meforum.org/4957/inside-account-how-anti-israel-resolutions-were
Van Gosse
Department of History
Franklin & Marshall College
Lancaster PA 17604-3003
__________________
B.
From The Real News Network
:
Date: 8 January 2015
Subject: Charlie Hebdo
and Islamophobia.
Author Richard Seymour says the free speech argument
is being used to obscure the reality of Islamophobia
in Europe.
Charlie Hebdo, Islamophobia and the Freedom
of Expression
http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31&Itemid=74&jumival=12971
__________________
C.
From Là-bas si j’y suis :
Date: 8 January 2015
Subject: Stop Kidding Yourself: The Police Were Created to Control Working Class
and Poor People.
From: "Là-bas si
j’y suis"
<contact@la-bas.org>
To: "francis feeley"
<francis.feeley@u-grenoble3.fr>
Sent: Thursday, 8 January, 2015 11:08:16 PM
Subject: Nous sommes Charlie
|
__________________
D.
From C. Sham :
Date: 11 January 2015
Subject: TROIS
BOURREAUX DU PEUPLE PALESTINIEN A PARIS LE 11 JANVIER : QUELLE HONTE !
Francis,
je fwd le dernier mail de JC (qui a été envoyé à notre
collectif)
cs
Bonjour,
Ci-dessous deux textes (issus d'Association
membres de notre Collectif).
Je partage l'analyse de ces deux textes comme
je partage l'analyse du
texte "Être ou ne pas être Charlie – là n’est pas la question" de
l'Union Juive Française pour la Paix (proposé par Catherine sur cette
liste le 09), texte courageux, clairvoyant, qui m'invite à me situer aux
côtés de l'opprimé, bouc émissaire d'aujourd'hui, le musulman.
Dans d'autres contextes, d'autres moments politiques, j'ai aussi choisi
de me situer aux côtés de l'opprimé, j'ai été Charly (Chaplin, le
barbier juif du film Le Dictateur), j'ai été Juif et Allemand avec
Daniel Cohn-Bendit, j'ai été Turc et Allemand, puis SDF en compagnie de
Günter Wallraff, j'ai été chilien sous Pinochet, j'ai
été Siné, viré de
Charlie par Val pour cause de liberté d'expression, je suis Palestinien
en Territoire occupé et à Gaza, citoyen de seconde zone en Israël, exilé
en camp de réfugiés, je suis aujourd'hui musulman (liste non
exhaustive...), en compagnie de médias qui se situaient du même côté
(Politique Hebdo, Charlie d'avant Val, l'Autre Journal... (liste
non
exhaustive...).
Charly (Chaplin) me fait toujours rire ;
Charlie (Hebdo) ne me fait plus
rire.
Non, je ne suis pas Charlie aux côtés de tous
ces faux culs qui
appellent à une unité nationale et même internationale qui ressemble
plus à une veillée d'arme en vue de la prochaine croisade de "l'axe du
bien" qu'à une défense des valeurs républicaines.
Willem, Luz, et
d'autres de Charlie flairent le piège et commencent à se
démarquer de la grande récup.
Pour terminer, une petite citation de Michel
Soudais (Politis, 10/01/2015) :
« On peut rire de tout, mais pas avec n’importe qui. » Le mot bien connu
de Desproges trouve, avec cet épilogue de l’effroyable attentat qui a
frappé Charlie hebdo, une nouvelle déclinaison. Il nous faut dire
aujourd’hui qu’on peut pleurer, manifester son émotion, mais pas avec
n’importe qui.
Jean-Claude Perron
==========================================================
Communiqué de l'UJFP :
TROIS BOURREAUX DU PEUPLE PALESTINIEN A PARIS
LE 11 JANVIER : QUELLE HONTE !
Benjamin Nétanyahou,
Avigdor Lieberman et Naftali
Bennett représenteront
le 11 janvier l’Etat d’Israël à la grande manifestation européenne de
riposte aux fusillades contre Charlie Hebdo et contre le magasin casher
à Paris. Ces trois personnages sont des criminels de guerre qui relèvent
de la Cour Pénale Internationale pour les meurtres de masse commis à
Gaza et ailleurs.
Ce sont trois sinistres artisans de la
volonté d’Israël d’écraser le
peuple palestinien : Nétanyahou, le dirigeant des
massacres à Gaza,
Lieberman et Bennett, deux ministres colons, l’un prévoit l’expulsion de
tous les Palestiniens, y compris ceux qui vivent en Israël et l’autre se
vante d’avoir tué des Palestiniens.
Ce qui est tout aussi grave, c’est la
signification que leur présence
confirme, concernant la nature de cette manifestation.
C’est pourquoi nous exhortons les diverses
associations amies du peuple
palestinien qui comptent se rendre à cette manifestation à reconsidérer
leur décision.
La manifestation devait être soi-disant «
d’unité nationale » contre le
terrorisme et pour la liberté d’expression. Elle sera en réalité une
représentation des « valeurs du monde civilisé occidental » contre les «
menaces terroristes du monde arabo-musulman », une manifestation bien
dans la tonalité du « choc des civilisations » qui d’après nos
gouvernants, même quand ils se défendent de diffuser ce point de vue,
régit le monde actuel.
En fin de compte tous ceux qui souhaitaient
manifester demain leur
solidarité avec les victimes de ces terribles attentats et pensaient
sincèrement montrer une société française unie contre le crime, se sont
fait confisquer leur manifestation par les organisateurs autoproclamés
d’une grande messe de « l’Axe du Bien » : le gouvernement, ses amis et
tous ses concurrents de droite – hormis le Front National, dont
l’idéologie n’a nul besoin d’invitation pour prospérer. Les grands
alliés internationaux seront présents : ces mêmes représentants d’État
dont les politiques contre les peuples ont permis l’apparition du
terrorisme djihadiste, les courants islamophobes, les
amis de l’État
d’Israël et bien sûr les représentants de cet État.
Quant aux populations dangereuses,
postcoloniales, jeunes,
éventuellement porteuses de signes ostentatoires musulmans, elles
subiront le dispositif de contrôle renforcé dans la période qui s’ouvre.
Nous ne pouvons oublier qu’à tous ceux-là les manifestations de
solidarité et la liberté d’expression ont été interdites, l’été dernier,
pendant l’opération « Bordure de protection » menée contre Gaza par les
trois invités israéliens de demain.
Les représentants d’Israël ont commencé à
faire de grands appels à la
population juive française, soi-disant victime d’un déferlement
antisémite sans précédent, pour qu’elle émigre en Israël, pays « de
grande liberté ». Une fois de plus, les dirigeants israéliens mettent
sciemment en danger les Juifs français par la peur et l’incitation au
départ.
Le Bureau National de l’UJFP le 11 janvier
2015
Union Juive Française pour la Paix (UJFP)
21 ter rue Voltaire, 75011 PARIS
07 81 89 95 25
contact@ujfp.org
www.ujfp.org
=====================================
Communiqué de l'AFPS :
UNE PROVOCATION OBSCENE
AFPS, samedi 10 janvier 2015
Les centaines de milliers de nos concitoyens qui
manifestent dans un
calme impressionnant leur volonté de vivre ensemble
en ces jours de
deuil sont pénétrés du souci d’éviter toute provocation
des fauteurs
de haine.
Or nous apprenons par les médias israéliens que pourraient
prendre
place au premier rang de la manifestation républicaine de dimanche à
Paris Avigdor Lieberman, Naftali Bennett ou Benjamin Netanyahou.
Lieberman qui avait naguère implicitement
appelé à utiliser la bombe
atomique sur Gaza. Bennett qui s’est vanté d’avoir
tué beaucoup
d’Arabes. Netanyahou, le bourreau de Gaza.
Ce serait un dévoiement insupportable
du sursaut citoyen en cours qui
remettrait en cause la nature même de cette manifestation républicaine.
Comment ne pas y voir une grossière
et inacceptable tentative
de
récupération de la part de dirigeants
israéliens qui n’ont de cesse
d’alimenter la prétendue « guerre des civilisations
».
Nous demandons à nos gouvernants
de ne pas accepter leur présence qui
reviendrait à les blanchir, alors que leur place est
sur le banc des
accusés de la Cour pénale internationale (CPI).
Le Bureau national de l’AFPS
Association France Palestine Solidarité
21 ter, rue voltaire, 75011 Paris
01 43 72 15 79
http://www.france-palestine.org/
__________________
E.
From Democracy Now ! :
Date: 9 January 2015
Subject: More collateral damage in
the making ?
French police have surrounded a building in a
northern town near Charles de Gaulle Airport as part of a massive manhunt for
the two men accused of carrying out the Charlie Hebdo
massacre. Police say they believe the suspects, Said and Chérif
Kouachi, are holed up in a small printing business
where they have taken a hostage. Meanwhile, French officials are now saying
there is a link between the two brothers accused of the Charlie Hebdo attack and the heavily armed man who shot dead a
French policewoman on Thursday. That man is now holding five hostages,
including women and children, at a kosher supermarket in Paris. Sources told
Reuters the three men were all members of the same Paris cell that a decade ago
sent young French volunteers to Iraq to fight U.S. forces. Chérif
Kouachi served 18 months in prison for his role in
the group. At the time, he told the court that he had been motivated to travel
to Iraq by images of atrocities committed by U.S. troops in Abu Ghraib prison. We speak to Lebanese-French academic Gilbert
Achcar, professor at the School of Oriental and
African Studies at the University of London.
Gilbert Achcar on the Clash
of Barbarisms from the Massacre in Paris
to the U.S.
Occupation of Iraq
http://www.democracynow.org/2015/1/9/gilbert_achcar_on_the_clash_of
and
French Muslims Fear Backlash, Increased Islamophobia After Charlie Hebdo Attack
__________________
F.
From The New York Times :
Date: 8 January 2015
Subject: Al Qaeda terrorists come to
Paris, France.
Al Qaeda
Trained Suspect in Paris Terror Attack, Official Says. . . .
by ERIC
SCHMITT, MICHAEL S. SCHMIDT and ANDREW HIGGINS
__________________
G.
From Ronald Creagh
:
Date: 10 January 2015
Subject: Charlie Hebdo.
Bonsoir,
Je
viens de mettre un petit texte sur le site "Recherche sur
l'anarchisme"
http://raforum.info/spip.php?article7274
Je
serai heureux d'avoir vos réactions.
à
bientôt
Ronald
__________________
H.
From Z Net :
Date: 11 January 2015
Subject: Mass Mobilizations in the
21st Century.
The world reacted with horror to the
murderous attack on the French satirical journal Charlie Hebdo.
In the New York Times, veteran Europe correspondent Steven Erlanger graphically
described the immediate aftermath, what many call France’s 9/11, as “a day of
sirens, helicopters in the air, frantic news bulletins; of police cordons and
anxious crowds; of young children led away from schools to safety. It was a
day, like the previous two, of blood and horror in and around Paris.” The
enormous outcry worldwide was accompanied by reflection about the deeper roots
of the atrocity. “Many Perceive a Clash of Civilizations,” a New York Times headline read.
We Are All – Fill in the Blank
https://zcomm.org/znetarticle/we-are-all-fill-in-the-blank/
__________________
I.
From Bertell Ollman
:
Date: 10 January 2015
Subject: Article on Podemos, the Movement in Spain.
Dear Francis -
I think Vicente Navarro's article on Podemos below is so important and the amazing success he
details - still - so little known in the English speaking world that it deserves
the widest circulation on your respective lists, websites, etc. Hope you will
agree.
Bertell
The End of
an Era and the Beginning of Podemos
What is Going
On in Spain?
http://www.counterpunch.org/2015/01/09/what-is-going-on-in-spain/
by Vicente Navarro
__________________
J.
From Byron Morton
:
Date: 10 January 2015
Subject: Russia Blamed, US Taxpayers
on the Hook, as Fracking Boom Collapses.
Francis,
I thought you might be interested in
this article. This article is from Truth Out.
It's a clear piece that speaks directly
to to reader.
Happy new year!
Byron
Russia Blamed, US Taxpayers on the Hook, as Fracking Boom Collapses
by
Ben Ptashnik
__________________
K.
From CNT :
Date: 11 January 2015
Subject: Anarco-Syndicalists
ask “Why are we Charlie?”
Why Are We Charlie?
http://dimension.ucsd.edu/CEIMSA-IN-EXILE/publications/Scholars/2015.0.pdf