From: Hank Roth <odin@world.std.com>
Subject: "Politically Correct Holocausts"
Followup-To: alt.activism.d
Originator: rich@pencil.cs.missouri.edu
Organization: ?
Date: Thu, 24 Dec 1992 07:17:41 GMT

From: Philip Feeley <pfeeley@unixg.ubc.ca>
To: odin@world.std.com
Subject: Herman

POLITICALLY CORRECT HOLOCAUSTS
by Edward Herman, Z Magazine, April 1992, p. 54-57

	The concept of "political correctness," as used by the main-stream
media and pundits, has wide applicability.  It comprises ideas and claims
that challenge established ("really correct" [RC]) thought and behavior,
and are pressed on mainstream individuals and institutions by minorities
and other outsiders.  There is politically correct (PC) language and
deportment, but also politically correct history and even politically
correct conspiracies.  For example, that the assassination of JFK was
carried out by more than one person is PC, and thus has been subjected to
indignant repudiation by the dominant media.  By contrast, that the
shooting of Pope John Paul II by Mehmet Ali Agca in 1981 was a plot
hatched by the KGB and Bulgarians was an RC conspiracy, that Newsweek,
NBC-TV, and the New York Times accepted enthusiastically despite the
absence of any credible evidence. 

PC And RC Holocausts
	There is also a sharp distinction between holocausts that
establishment recognizes and finds deserving of attention and indignation,
and those that mainstreamers ignore but which are deemed worthy of
attention by marginalized people and "extremists." The former, which are
RC, may be illustrated by the case of Cambodians murdered by Pol Pot, or
the "Final Solution" under Hitler (although only in retrospect, not at the
time of the killing, as described below).  Those that are of little
interest to the establishment, and which can be classed as PC, may be
illustrated by the slaughter of over a million Armenians by the Turks in
1915, and the decimation of the East Timorese population by the Indonesian
army form 1975 onward.
	There is obviously a close correlation between the "worthiness" of
the victims as perceived by the Western establishment and the recognition
of the holocaust.  As the West was built in good part on the destruction
and exploitation of colonial peoples and on a slave system, the associated
victims are hardly likely to be "worthy" or the holocausts RC for dominant
westerners.  Such holocausts are an embarrassment as well as painfully at
odds with myth structures of the West.
	It also seems likely that the differentiation between PC and RC
holocausts will fit the schema of dividing bloodbaths into those that are
Constructive, Benign, and Nefarious (as used in Chomsky and Herman, *The
Washington Connection and Third World Fascism*).  In this classification
system, Constructive bloodbaths are those associated with political
changes seen as advantageous to Western political interests.  They may be
carried out by ourselves (Vietnam), or by an ally of factions within a
foreign state (Indonesia in 1965-69).  Benign bloodbaths are those carried
out by Western client states that, while not necessarily helpful, are
treated with indulgence and understanding (East Timor, invaded and
occupied by Indonesia; South Africa beating up everybody in sight in its
neighborhood in the 1980s).  Nefarious bloodbaths are those carried out by
enemy states.  The hypothesis is that there will be great indignation and
channeled benevolence in the last case, whereas for constructive or Benign
bloodbaths there will be a combination of rationalization and eye
aversion.  Only the holocausts associated with Nefarious bloodbaths will
be RC--the others will be PC. 

	PC As Myth Deconstruction
	One function of PC (and multiculturalism) is clearly myth 
deconstruction.  This is dramatically evident in the new revisionist 
evaluation of Columbus.  The conventional-traditional view has been that 
Columbus was a visionary, a brave pioneer who "discovered America" and 
thus opened up the New World to the West, yielding a benevolent influx of 
precious metals to Europe, emigration to freedom, and progress.  In the 
traditional view the discovery was an uncontaminated triumph.  Hans 
Koning writes in *Columbus:  His Enterprise* (p. 125), that "It may exist 
somewhere , but I have not found one grade school or high school book 
that does not treat Columbus as the great hero he was not."
	The revisionist and PC view looks at Columbus' enterprise from the 
standpoint of the victimized non-white populations "being discovered," the 
greed, ruthlessness and genocidal racism and policies of the erstwhile 
"heroes," the cooperative role in this enterprise of the Christian churches, 
and the mass death and degradation that followed.  Columbus, who initially 
described the Arawak Indians of Hispaniola as gentle and friendly, soon 
wrote to Spain that "From here, in the name of the Blessed Trinity, we can 
send all the slaves that can be sold...for these people are totally unskilled in 
arms."  He introduced gold quotas for the Indians, and maltreatment and 
disease reduced the Indian population of the island from 125-500,000 in 
1492 to 10,000 in 1515.
	The further advance of the Spanish into the New World took a 
similar toll elsewhere.  The population of Mexico went from perhaps 25 
million in 1519 to 6.3 million in 1548; in Peru the population declined from 
7 million in 1519 to 1.8 million in 1580.  A large fraction died from disease, 
but many were killed or died from overwork combined with widespread 
demoralization that led to alcoholism and suicides.

	The North American Indians:  A PC Holocaust
	The North American Indian population fell from some 12-18 
million before "discovery" to 300-400,000 in 1900, a better than 95 percent 
decline.  Official and scholarly estimates up to recent decades maintained 
that pre-contact Indian numbers were between 500,000 and 1.5 million, in 
accord with the vision of North America as "unoccupied" and 
underutilized, till the takeover by the progressive Christian civilization of 
Europe.  (See the excellent account  of the history of demographic 
estimates by Lenore A. Stiffarm and Phil Ryan, Jr. in M. Annette Jaimes, 
ed., *The State of Native America:  Genocide, Colonization and 
Resistance, Boston:  South End Press, 1992.)  A large fraction of North 
American Indian casualties was from newly imported diseases, but large 
numbers were killed by numerous massacres by the ruthless, merciless, 
profoundly racist, but technologically advanced, Christian barbarians.  (In a 
characteristic Orwellian inversion by the powerful, the victimized natives 
were the cruel and "merciless  savages," as expressed even in the U.S. 
constitution.)  If not killed outright, the Indians were regularly forcibly 
removed from their lands and the basis for their livelihood and way of life 
deliberately destroyed.  (General Phil Sheridan exterminated an estimated 
60 million buffalo in the 1870s "in order to deny a basis for subsistence to 
the Cheyenne, Lakot and other peoples of the Great Plains.")  There were 
19th century acknowledgments of a policy of "complete extermination," 
and the Republic of Texas offered a cash bounty for Indian scalps.  U.S. 
policy and practice merits well Ward Churchill's comparison with the 
operations of the German SS.
	But this was *US* in action, the bloodbath was constructive, so 
that this is not RC and is treated with brevity and evasiveness in 
mainstream textbooks, allowing the occupation of the continent by *US* 
to be a triumph of good people building a new North American order.

	PC And The Slave Trade
	PC holocausts usually involve the slaughter of people of color, who 
have regularly been the victims of western exploitation and violence.  Their 
role makes them victims of constructive of benign bloodbaths, hence 
unworthy, and hence not RC.  The PC-RC dichotomization parallels 
contemporary usage in the application of the word terrorism.  For example, 
the apartheid government of South Africa was never a "terrorist state" (or 
naked aggressor) in western government-expert-media representations in 
the 1980s although it was responsible for the death of over one million 
black Africans in that decade.
	Earlier, the slave trade produced one of the great holocausts in 
human history, but as the West did the victimizing this is only a PC, not an 
RC, holocaust.  With the virtual extermination of the native populations of 
the New World, and the discovery of the enormous profitability of slave 
labor in raising sugar, "the market"--in combination with state organized 
and protected terrorism that seized, transported, and sold slaves--gave new 
life to human slavery and the slave trade from the fifteenth century onward.  
Later, it was found that tobacco and cotton could also be profitably 
cultivated using slave labor, and the reach of slavery was extended and 
persisted till the latter part of the 19th century.
	Roger Anstey and J. E. Inikori estimate that some 12 million slaves 
were seized and shipped to the New World between 1451 and 1870.  But 
the conditions of the trade were so horrendous that it is estimated that 48 
million were taken, with 36 million dying en route, yielding the net transfer 
of 12 million.  As L. S. Stavrianos describes it in *Global Rift* (p. 109):  
"The 36 million casualties were sustained in the course of the overland 
march from the interior to the coast, and then during the dreaded overseas 
"middle passage" to the New World.  Inhuman crowding, stifling heat and 
poor food resulted in appalling mortality rates during the ocean crossing.  
Maize and water once every 24 hours was the standard diet.  If the slaves 
refused to eat they were lashed and, if that failed, hot irons were used to 
force them to eat.  When epidemics broke out, as they often did under the 
foul conditions, the sick slaves were drowned in order to prevent infection 
from spreading.  Sometimes the slaves jumped overboard rather than 
endure the misery.  Indeed, this became so common that nets were fixed all 
around the decks in order to prevent suicides."
	This holocaust served dominant western interests and was 
institutionalized and participated in by all the great powers of the West.  
Their commercial elites built fortunes and respectability on the basis of this 
business, either directly in trading slaves or indirectly in supplying 
provisions for the slavers or exporting the sugar and molasses, and later the 
tobacco and cotton.  Accounts of the history of the great powers stress the 
economic importance of the sugar-cotton-tobacco economy to the West, 
but the human cost is mentioned only in passing if at all.  For example, 
Richard Cobban, a liberal historian of France, notes the great importance of 
the West Indies in French trade and prosperity in the 18th century, and he 
castigates Louis XVI's foreign policy for failing to give sufficient 
protection to French interests in the West Indies, which he says "were 
worth fighting for" (*A History of Modern France*, vol. 1).  The condition 
of the slaves and the morality of slavery and the slave trade, so crucial to 
West Indies economics, are addressed in a single parenthetical statement:  
"(its morality [the slave trade] as yet is barely the subject of discussion)."
	In brief, slavery and the slave trade are normalized, given their 
importance in western economy and institutions.  And being normalized 
they can hardly constitute an RC holocaust.

	"The Final Solution":  From PC to RC
	Western attitudes toward specific holocausts may change over time.  
This can be illustrated by the evolution of western responses to Hitler's 
policy of exterminating the European Jews in the 1940s.  At the time this 
policy began, the position of the Jews in the West was tenuous and their 
leaders were fearful and cautious.  Anti-Semitism was deeply embedded in 
Western elite cultures.  As a result the slaughter of Jews in the Nazi death 
camps was not given great attention or credence by the mainstream media.  
As Deborah Lipstadt has shown, it was mainly in the dissident media like 
*The Nation* and PM (a long defunct liberal-left New York newspaper) 
that the issue was treated as of first order importance.  In the New York 
Times and most of the mainstream media, reports of the killing of hundreds 
of thousands of Jews were put on the back pages, often next to the comics 
(see the final chapter of Lipstadt's book, *Beyond Belief*).
	It was only after the war that attention to and indignation at the 
Final Solution became intense.  No doubt this was partly because of fresh 
disclosures, but the lag in disclosure and the treatment of the substantial 
and horrifying evidence known earlier remain to be explained. The later 
attention and stress were associated with the growth in affluence, 
confidence and power of Jewish communities in the United States and 
other great western powers, and the increasing importance of Israel as a 
U.S. surrogate in the Middle East. In short, Jews became worthy victims in 
retrospect, and the Final Solution became an RC holocaust after the fact.  
The murder by the Nazis of hundreds of thousands of gypsies, who 
continue to be a marginalized people, remains only a PC holocaust.  (In 
*Congress Weekly*, a publication of the American Jewish congress, the 
well-know Zionist academic Edward Alexander has referred to the charges 
of a Nazi genocide against homosexuals and gypsies as an "exploded 
fiction."  At a meeting in Jerusalem of the World Congress of Jewish 
Studies, Professor Henry Guttenberg referred to the "real or *supposed 
genocide* of Armenians, homosexuals, Gypsies and American Indians."  
These denials of other and competing holocausts by spokespersons for 
those that are RC constitute a form of apologetics for the nazis and other 
perpetrators of mass murders that are mere "fictions.")

	Vietnam War:  A PC Holocaust
	The U.S. attack on Vietnam was one of the great holocausts of our 
time, but as it was perpetrated by the United States it is not only not an RC 
holocaust, the U.S. is portrayed as a kind of victim of an unappreciative 
Vietnamese people.  In the "beyond chutzpah" and absolute nuthouse 
phase, the moral issue of the war turns on the Vietnamese treatment of our 
MIAs/POWs!
	The arrogant bullies who ran the United States after World War II 
refused the Vietnamese people the right of self-determination for 30 years, 
because this was incompatible with western control.  We and the British 
supported French colonization from 1945-54; we then refused to abide by 
the Geneva Accords of 1954 and allow unification of Vietnam by free 
elections.  It was well known then and later that the great majority of 
Vietnamese, in the southern as well as northern parts of the country, 
supported Ho Chi Minh and the Vietnamese communists.  The United 
States therefore simply ignored the Geneva Accords, the rights of the 
Vietnamese to self-rule, and the UN Charter, and imposed its own 
imported dictator on South Vietnam.
	When this didn't work, in 1962 the Kennedy administration began 
pouring in helicopters and thousands of "advisers," and managed a vicious 
counter-insurgency war, which included using chemical warfare to destroy 
peasant crops as well as concentration camps for peasants (called "strategic 
hamlets").  When this also didn't work, Lyndon Johnson fabricated a "Bay 
of Tonkin" attack by the North Vietnamese, and began a massive invasion 
of South Vietnam in 1965.  All through the early 1960s, U.S. officials 
fought strenuously against any political settlement that would terminate 
complete domination of the South by a U.S.-controlled faction, despite the 
general acknowledgment that this faction had no substantial political 
support within the south.
	What followed was one of the most vicious and cowardly wars in 
history.  The greatest military power on earth, with the most advanced 
technological arsenal, deployed its full power against a poor peasant 
society without aircraft or modern technological base.  It virtually leveled 
Indochina with millions of tons of bombs, rained napalm and fragmentation 
bombs on hundreds of peasant villages in the South that were without 
medical facilities, and used dioxin-based Agent Orange in a massive 
program of destruction of forests and crops (Operation Ranch Hand, the 
planes called Providers, one cute line of our aviators being "Only you can 
prevent a forest").  Vast areas of South Vietnam--being saved from 
"aggression"--were made "free fire zones" and many thousands of peasants 
were shot in the course of military operations and just for fun "skunk 
hunts."
	The 500,000 man U.S. invasion force was supplemented by 
mercenaries from within South Vietnam, Thailand, South Korea, and 
Australia to "pacify" the country.  These troops carried out merciless 
"search and destroy" operations in which domestic animals and crops were 
destroyed, villages burned down, and large numbers of men, women and 
children killed or turned into homeless refugees.  It was found that the 
"enemy" had deep roots in the population of South Vietnam, so the people 
were treated as an enemy population.  Prisoners taken in peasant villages 
were systematically tortured to obtain information (in violation of 
international law), and were regularly killed, often by the mercenary forces 
but under U.S. tutelage.
	The final roll in Indochina will never be known, and it continues to 
grow as thousands have died since 1975 from the delayed setting off of 
some of the millions of unexploded bombs still littering the ground.  But 
the number dead may run as high as four million, and numbers injured and 
traumatized also run into the millions.  The number of victims of Agent 
Orange is large, but of no interest to the West.  The land ravaged in the 
chemical war of virtual ecocide may never recover.
	As a victim of U.S. actions, the Indochinese catastrophe cannot be 
an RC holocaust (although Pol Pot's lesser killings in Cambodia are).  
Because of U.S. power, the strength of its anticommunist ideology, and the 
conformism of its ideological institutions, the murderous U.S. attack has 
always been treated as, at worst, a "tragic error."  In RC thought, the 
United States was never engaged in aggression in Vietnam (this would be 
an oxymoron); its *right* to smash a peasant society by the most cruel and 
vile means was never called into question, nor were the policies ever called 
by their right names.  Liberals like Anthony Lewis and Stanley Karnow 
contended that we were overreaching in our efforts to do good.  Karnow in 
1988 was still writing that we allowed the *Vietnamese people* to depend 
to much on us.
	In saying this, Karnow was equating "Vietnamese" with our 
puppets and mercenaries--the people who successfully fought against us 
and the population we attacked were reduced to non-people.  And, in fact, 
the crucial element in U.S. perspectives on Vietnam has always been the 
"mere gook rule."  The "slopes," "dinks," "gooks"--small, poor, non-white 
peasants--who failed to accept our dictates had and have no moral standing 
(any more than Iraqi victims).  We had a right to determine who ruled that 
distant country.  If the population refused to accede, we had a perfect right 
to slaughter them.  This was the underlying imperialist-racist morality of 
the Vietnam War, which persists today.

	MIAs-POWs:  Beyond Chutzpah
	The great preoccupation of the U.S. media and establishment with 
MIAs and POWs dates from 1969, when Richard Nixon latched on to this 
issue to stall settlement of the Vietnam War.  He was successful, and even 
after the war the rightwing found this a useful means of preventing 
normalization of relations with Vietnam (as described by H. Bruce 
Franklin, *M.I.A. or Myth-Making In America*).
	That this lunatic endeavor should have worked, and that the status 
of MIAs and POWs (U.S. of course--the status of Vietnamese MIAs has 
never arisen) has become the great "moral issue" of the post Vietnam war 
era, is a product of a racist nut house.  As Franklin shows, there never were 
many POWs and Vietnam returned all of them it could be expected to 
account for on schedule.  Nixon's trick, of course, led to a lot more fighting 
and the deaths of many more U.S. military personnel than the prior total of 
MIAs and POWs.  The hypocrisy in the pretended concern over the welfare 
of U.S. military personnel is also shown by the treatment of Vietnam 
veterans after their return to the Big PX--they became non-persons, the 
government struggling to prevent their collecting money for Agent Orange 
damage, and the vastly more numerous veterans "Missing in America" than 
Missing in Action being of no interest to the leaders of the nut house.
	The Indochinese victims, of course, present no moral issue at all.  It 
is not admitted or of any interest that the United States killed and wounded 
millions of innocent people and virtually destroyed Indochina in an 
unprovoked, vicious and cowardly aggression.  These are mere gooks, 
who, in addition, had the temerity to stand in our way and even shoot at 
our armed forces occupying their country!  In the RC model, we were 
"protecting South Vietnam" from aggression, expending our resources to 
save the Vietnamese and allow them democracy and self-determination, 
etc.  Thus we are guilty of nothing and have no moral obligation for 
damages--but this perspective is achieved by a rewriting of history that 
makes Stalinist accounts of the role of Leon Trotsky look straightforward 
by comparison, and by moral insensitivity without limit.  The spectacle of 
elevating our few POWs, who were instruments of a cowardly aggression 
that victimized millions, to the status of martyrs and victims of somebody 
else's pernicious behavior, all built on a system of lies and hypocrisy, is the 
final touch that carries us Beyond Chutzpah.

 
----------------------------------------------
DISCLAIMER: P_news on Fidonets and p.news on 
Peacenet serve as  conduits for articles from 
*LEFT* wing publications and other sources. The 
posting of said articles do not in any way 
[necessarily] represent the position of P_news or 
p.news or the poster, but are provided merely for 
informational purposes only. The LEFT is not a 
monolith and various divergent views are held not 
only by individual groups but also by individual 
members of groups and independent socialists and 
anarchists. The facilitator, <Hank Roth> of these 
two conferences does not FORMALLY endorse any 
specific group or publication and we will 
endeavor to continue to provide other views from 
our conferees and their favorite *LEFT* wing 
publications. You are also encouraged to post 
articles and comments to p.news and P_news. 
---------------------------------------------
P_news is a conference for progressive news, 
articles and views on Fidonets. If you have 
access to a Fidonet BBS and want to read and post 
to P_news directly, ask your sysop to get it for 
you. It is available nationwide (on the zone 1 
backbone). And, p.news is a parallel, but separate 
conference on Peacenet. You may subscribe to this 
worldwide network by calling Peacenet at: (415) 
442-0220. (Both conferences are limited to *LEFT* 
wing participation. If you would like to 
volunteer to provide both conferences with 
articles and news from your favorite *LEFT* wing 
publications or theoretical journals, or have 
comments about this article or others, send 
comments to me: <Hank Roth> odin@world.std.com 
(On Fidonets at 151/101). My address on Peacenet 
is pnews@igc.apc.org. 
Newsgroups: misc.activism.progressive