By Manila Ryce
Published Wednesday, May 2nd, 2007, 11:22 pm
Filed under: Society/Culture: Civil Unrest, Videos: Music, Videos: Political, Capital Punishment, Society/Culture: Art, Videos, Society/Culture, US Politics

12 Responses to “Rage Against the Machine - Try Our Presidents for War Crimes”

1. 

   I’ve got a couple bootleg videos of their shows…one is great, above to the left of the stage, the camera is stationary…from the 90s, I haven’t looked at it in a while. I can B&P for anyone who wants a copy.

   deadissue
   05/3/07 at 1:38 am
   

2. I’ve been reading your posts for the longest time now, and I love how you have everything from colbert to this…. Honestly good job…. and thanks for doing your part in waking up crowd of the sleeping majority…

   Hugo
   05/3/07 at 6:19 am
   
3. 

   Thanks Hugo. I appreciate the appreciation. Blogging is often a thankless job. I’ve got another Rage video I want to post, so stay tuned.

   Manila Ryce
   05/3/07 at 2:05 pm
   
4. 

   Hmm…Maybe That’s why the Pussy-crats refuse to impeach Bush. Aren’t liberals against the death penalty?
   All I do know is when Bush leaves the White House, he better just disappear. It’s really for his own safety, anyone with half a brain and just a little anger will shoot the idiot on sight.

   PapaFigue
   05/3/07 at 4:45 pm
   
5. 

   I’m only an armchair expert in international law, but there seems to be a legitimate war crimes case against Bush and some members of his administration.

   That being said, this kind of vengeful rhetoric, and the seemingly widespread support it receives within the progressive community, concerns me. I fail to see how directing our anger at Bush, Cheney, etc. — instead of the systemic reasons behind their rise to power, which will be in place long after their gone — helps anything or anyone. It plays into to same frames of fear and revenge that conservatives do.

   I really like your blog and think it’s an invaluable source, and I like Rage (and wouldn’t expect or want them to stay silent in any way). But I’d hoped for a more thoughtful commentary on these remarks, which have caused quite a stir.

   evmonk
   05/4/07 at 11:02 pm
   
6. 

   Thanks evmonk,
   I didn’t think the video needed much of a commentary beyond what Zach already said. You and him actually seem to be in agreement. He wasn’t directing the anger of his audience solely towards Bush. In fact, he said that “every single [US president]… from Truman on” is guilty of war crimes. That includes Democratic presidents too. Zach then states that the problem goes “way beyond administrations”, and that the real problem is with our capitalist system which needs “to destroy entire countries and profit from their reconstruction in order to survive”. You seem to have put more thought into this issue than most people would, which I applaud, but I think you jumped the gun a bit on interpretation.

   I don’t have cable, but apparently this concert clip made it to Fox News. Here’s a transcript from Hannity and his bitch Colmes. It’s really sad to see mainstream Democrats ostracize revolutionary leftists, dismissing them as anarchists and saying they’re not liberals. It really just shines a light on how far the Democratic Party has departed from the ideals of classic liberalism in favor of capitalism. Many who call themselves Libertarians are the same way. Your thoughts?

   Manila Ryce
   05/5/07 at 12:09 am
   
7. 

   Just posted a new Rage video here.

   Manila Ryce
   05/5/07 at 7:11 am
   
8. 

   Manila,

   Thanks for your thoughtful reply. You’re right that my written interpretation of Zack’s remarks was too narrow. I went for succinctness at the expense of clarity and, much like the Hannity & Colmes transcript you linked to (which I coincidentally saw live), I neglected a discussion of the deeper points that were raised.

   I focused on one line in particular (“They should be hung, and tried, and shot.”), because that was the decisive statement for me. I think we’re all pretty much in agreement on the deeper systemic problems in our country, and I’ll concede that Zack was channeling the crowd’s frustration at more than just Bush. But for the sake of this discussion let’s focus on the “hung, and tried, and shot” bit…

   I have mixed feelings about these comments, and about Bush-hating in general. On one hand, Bush has made such a mess of this country and the world that he’s motivated a ton of people, including myself, to get involved in shaping our collective future. So in the Augustinian sense that the children of hope are anger and courage (“anger about the way things are, and the courage to change them”), I think that being upset with Bush’s actions can be a positive thing.

   However, I am deeply uncomfortable with the tunnel-vision, and even the despair, that such anger tends to inspire. Again, this isn’t an indictment of Rage in particular as they do focus on “the system” and not just Bush, but I’ve noticed at various rallies I’ve attended and discussions I’ve been a part of that anger towards the Bush administration runs very, very deep. It’s not at all uncommon to hear things like, “he deserves to be shot,” or “I wish someone would assassinate him.” I think that we fail to challenge these calls to violence - and any support they receive, tacit or explicit - at our own peril.

   My personal feeling is that we have the best chance of implementing a truly progressive agenda in this country if we take certain moral stands. One of these – I think the most important one – is that we stand against killing and violence in all cases (less pure self-defense). I think the values of compassion and understanding have the most power when they are applied to everyone, not just those we think are worthy of them. For instance, how much time have we spent on the moral exercise of placing ourselves in Bush Jr.’s shoes? Really spending time thinking about what it is like to be him, with his family history, and surrounded by the people and ideas he’s been surrounded by for his life.

   I raise this point not to absolve this administration or any other of their actions, which have often been reprehensible, but to make a point about the dangers of selective empathy. Every human being and every president should be held accountable for their actions; I just don’t think this ever means we have the right to kill them. And I think we should challenge, on an intellectual level, anyone who suggests that we have that right. This is not simply an effective long-term political or rhetorical approach; it is also the most honest one. If we believe that revenge is fundamentally self-destructive, we should engage in that debate endlessly.

   Finally, I agree with your point about the short-sightedness of mainstream Democrats/liberals/progressives distancing themselves from the “revolutionary” left. This is why I like your blog. It’s so critical that thinkers like Chomsky are injected into the mainstream of the debate, and the absolute failure of mainstream leaders to promote (or even engage with) these views has, to an extent, destroyed the moral and intellectual foundation of the progressive movement.

   I’ve reprinted Zack’s comments below for clarity:

   “A good friend of ours said that if the same laws were applied to U.S. Presidents as were applied to the Nazi’s after World War II, then every single one of ‘em, every last rich white one of ‘em from Truman on would have been hung to death, and shot. And this current administration is no exception. They should be hung, and tried, and shot. As any war criminal should be. But the challenges that we face, they go way beyond administrations. Way beyond elections. Way Beyond every four years of pulling levers. Way beyond that, because this whole rotten system has become so vicious and cruel that in order to sustain itself, it needs to destroy entire countries, and profit from their reconstruction, in order to survive, and that’s not a system that changes every four years, it’s a system that we have to break down generation after generation after generation after generation after generation. Wake up.”

   evmonk
   05/5/07 at 1:43 pm
   
9. 

   My girlfriend won’t stop making fun of me for the ridiculous length of that last post, and I agree that I may have gotten carried away. I like Rage. Your blog’s the shit. Peace.
   ~Ev

   evmonk
   05/5/07 at 8:17 pm
   
10. 

    Hahaha,
    No, it’s all good. Just know that It’ll take me awhile to respond. Today is a bit hectic and yesterday was Cinco de Mayo, but I’ll reply fully tomorrow. Sorry.

    Manila Ryce
    05/6/07 at 5:21 pm
    
11. 

    @evmonk
    

    Well, it looks like I’ll have time to reply tonight afterall. Don’t worry about long replies. I think it’s great that people are having thoughtful discussions on this blog. I don’t have all the answers, and so I encourage other thinkers to share their perspective. However, due to the nature of a blog, I prefer that longer discussions take place in the Forum section which we added for just that reason. Since these comments are contained inside a story, they’ll be pushed down further as newer stories are posted. However, the Forum allows for more of a group discussion which can be started by anyone about anything. One post there can carry on for months or years as a new reply brings that discussion back to the top. We want some LM members to take the first steps into that frontier. I hope you’ll be one of the first to take advantage of it.

    By the way, I like that you quoted St. Augustine. You’ll notice we used that same quote at the bottom of the About section. I think what you’ve said about Bush’s influence is true, “that being upset with Bush’s actions can be a positive thing”. In a sense, he’s unified the world, and gotten young people to crave revolution. If Bush were never elected into office, I’m sure this website wouldn’t even exist and shows like the Daily Show or Colbert Report would’ve never taken off. A lot of political awareness has stemmed from this opposition. Though I find that the question we ought to be asking is not how to bring about the end of this system, but what to replace it with.

    Anger is a good thing, but if we focus more on the enemy than ourselves our future will not be any brighter. This is why I not only encourage impeachment, but I also support alternatives like Kucinich who promise a real change in policy. Likewise, I believe that those voting for Hillary or Obama are focusing way too much on hating Bush than enacting change once he’s gone.

    It looks like we’re on the same page on most of what you’ve said. I too think we ought to be against all forms of capital punishment. It’s a barbaric practice which most civilized societies have abolished completely. However, I’m not as worried about Rage or people at rallies saying that these war criminals ought to be assassinated. I’d be lying if I claimed to never have said the same out of frustration or anger. The difference is perhaps that when an artist calls for something outrageous like the death of a politician, it is meant to inspire more than to be taken as a suggestion for legitimate policy. I think it’s natural to want retribution, and a call for their beheading serves the purpose of inciting more emotion and desire amongst the disenfranchised than would a call for them to be sent to prison.

    On the other hand, such statements may be a bit irresponsible in that they allow the mainstream to dismiss revolutionary progressives as crazy nuts. Hence, rather than attracting people to our cause, we repel them. Battle cries amongst the initiated deter possible recruits. It’s a fine line to walk since you also don’t want to water down that revolutionary spirit in favor of gaining a wider audience, or you can become as complacent as the Democratic Party. I think rational minds like Chomsky do a fairly good job at promoting “a truly progressive agenda” with “certain moral stands” as you say. People like these can keep more radical voices in check. All together, I think the movement needs both types: thinkers and movers. We need radical voices like Rage to whip the youth into frenzy and thinkers to properly direct that energy into something positive and rational. Perhaps today we have more of the latter than the former, but that may be a direct result of the anger this administration has caused. Once Bush is out of office I see more rational revolutionaries prevailing. Thanks for bringing this up. It is a topic which deserves serious consideration as the movement progresses.

    I think Walter Wink sums it up best with this quote:
    “Violence is simply not radical enough, since it generally changes only the rulers, but not the rules. What use is a revolution that fails to address the fundamental problem: the existence of domination in all its forms and the myth of redemptive violence that perpetuates it?”

    Manila Ryce
    05/6/07 at 9:47 pm
    
12. 

    @Manila

    These are crucial questions to talk about, and I really appreciate you engaging in the debate. I’ve got some ideas I’ll drop in the forum for discussion in the coming days…

    The blog carries on while this post sits back in the beginning of May, so I’ll try to wrap up (relatively) quickly.

    I basically agree with everything you said, and you raised some important points. There’s a real difference between an artist riling up an impassioned crowd, and seriously calling for someone to be put to death. I haven’t listened to Rage much since the late-90s, so I’m emotionally separated from them in a way that allowed me to criticize them from a distance. But your point got me thinking about music I listen to today – artists like Immortal Technique. And The Coup’s song, “Piss on Your Grave” came to mind specifically, and I thought, I fucking LOVE that song! And yet it’s all about a twisted kind of revenge.

    For me, this revolutionary - and often angry - music is inspirational. There’s definitely something to be said for the power of this music to inspire people to action. At the same time, I don’t know…it’s a thin line, like you said. Personally, I draw the line at any kind of call to physical violence against anyone. While I think anger/revenge can be (and is) effective for certain audiences in our current political atmosphere, I think we should all consider finding ways to shift the revolutionary left to a place where empathy is the driving force for change. I believe that as empathy grows, anger at individuals dissipates and the ability to envision and enact real change increases.

    There’s so much more, but we can save it for some future forum discussion…

    By the way, I hadn’t checked out the About tab until after I wrote that post, but lovin’ the Augustine. I first heard that quote from Chris Hedges on CSPAN a few months ago talking about his latest book, American Fascists (great book…and an older one by him, War is a Force That Gives Us Meaning, is even better).

    evmonk
    05/9/07 at 11:28 pm
    

Leave a Reply

Name (required)

Mail (will not be published) (required)

Website

Tired of filing this information out everytime you leave a comment at the Largest Minority? Why not register as a user? You also get full access to our forum!

XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>