History Lesson
Apr. 14th, 2003 05:09 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
lapsedmodernistLooters Destroyed What War Did Not
Sunday, April 13, 2003; Page A01
BAGHDAD, April 12 -- At the National Museum of Antiquities, where priceless artifacts had been wrapped in foam and secured in windowless storage rooms to protect them against U.S. bombs, an army of looters perpetrated what war did not: They smashed hundreds of irreplaceable treasures, including Sumerian clay pots, Assyrian marble carvings, Babylonian statues and a massive stone tablet with intricate cuneiform writing.
As employees returned today to survey the damage at one of the world's greatest repositories of artifacts, they encountered devastation that defied their worst expectations. The floor was covered with shards of broken pottery. An extensive card catalog of every item the museum owns, some of which date back 5,000 years, was destroyed. A cavernous storeroom housing thousands of unclassified pieces was ransacked so badly that an archaeologist predicted it would be impossible to repair many of the items.
"Our heritage is finished," lamented Nabhal Amin, the museum's deputy director, as she surveyed a Sumerian tablet that had been cracked in two. "Why did they do this? Why? Why?"
(snip)
The damage could have a significant effect on the Bush administration's military and political goals in Iraq, complicating efforts to win the trust of ordinary people, return cities to normalcy and eventually reconstruct the country. Many here feel U.S. forces in the city -- Army units on the western side of the Tigris River and Marines on the eastern side -- could and should be doing more to crack down on looting. As the mayhem continues, they have begun shifting blame for the lawlessness from their fellow countrymen to U.S. troops.
more?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A15136-2003Apr12.html
When last week I saw that retarded soldier putting a US flag on the head of the Saddam statue being toppled, I thought to myself that Bush & Co don't know their ancient history. I mean, ancient Romans were content to knock the head off the statue of the old leader and put in the one of the new leader, the statues themselves were left standing. They sort of ventured in that direction by putting the American flag on the head of the statue, which is offensive and imperialist, but then they also knocked the statue down. Now I realize that they are following a different model of the ancient world--the total obliteration/Carthage model. of course, at this point in history it is a little tricky to actually scrap the city from the face of the earth and salt the earth itself, people get touchy about stuff like that after Hiroshima and Nagasaki, so intent can't be framed in those categories anymore. But a semi-metaphorical Carthage is still possible. Think about it: Bush's unceasing formulaic babbling "Saddam must disarm" in the most inapproptiate of contexts, whether or not it was on topic (like when he busted out with that at the meeting regarding admission of new members to the EU in, I believe November) is not unlike Marcus Portius Cato the Elder's propensity to end every speech "Carthago delenda est"-- "Carthage must be destroyed." Ad Nauseum Ad Infinatum.
It probably went something like this:
"Why do you insist that Carthage is a threat to Rome, when there is no evidence of such a thing?"
"Carthage is a threat. It must be destroyed."
"What do you say to the critics of your proposal who point out that the effort exerted in destroying Carthage would be better spent on improving the sewer systems in the city and building more atriums?"
"Carthage is a threat. It must be destroyed."
"Many Romans feel that you use the platform of other relevant issues to push forth your personal-vendetta-against Carthage agenda, how do you respond to those criticisms?"
"Carthage is a threat. It must be destroyed. Anyone who disagrees, is not a true Roman."
Or something like that. Eventually Cato got his wish, and it is obvious that the technique still flourishes today. It is also interesting to note the conduct of Romans towards Carthage in how the Third Punic War started and played out--here is a short entry on it from the online Encyclopedia of the Orient
"The third war was ENTIRELY PROVOKED BY THE ROMANS. After the second defeat, Carthage managed once again to return to much of its former glory, the economy prospered, and the fleet increased. But the memory of the former Punic wars was strong in Rome; many hated the Carthaginians especially because there seemed to be nothing that could force them on their knees.
Rome used their ally, Masinissa, who ruled over Numidia to the west of Carthage, to bring forward a pretext for going to war.
Masinissa deliberately provoked Carthage, and in 149 Carthage attacked him. Rome came to aid for their ally, through declaring war on Carthage. The difference in military force was now to Rome's advantage, and few battles were fought to decide who was the strongest.
At first a peace was agreed upon, but then Rome INCREASED THEIR DEMANDS, decreeing a total abandonment of the city. Facing these claims, the Carthaginians returned to fighting, and soon Carthage fell under what would become a 3 year long siege. When the Romans finally breached the walls, one week of fighting inside the city followed, then the city was burned, and the locals were either executed or sold into slavery. "
While the US forces can't follow that model to the T (and also it would do them no good to "salt" the Earth, literally or metaphorically, because whereas Rome sought to eliminate Carthage as an economic/agricultural competitor, and land thus became both a practical and symbolic medium for desecration, the US needs the oil underneath the sands of Iraq), they come close enough. Such annihilation as was visited upon Carthage was about eliminating the nation/culture. The Romans were more literal about it, because they could be. But allowing for the looting of the national museum, filled with artifacts that, in a way, constitute the historical identity of the nation, is a way of dispensing with the past. The past, and therefore, future identity of Iraq lies broken in shards in the emptied-out museum, while the guardians of culture wail over the remains. As Orwell wrote, "Whoever controls the past controls the future. Whoever controls the present controls the past." They can't salt the earth, but they can eliminate centuries of history in a day, those uncomfortable referents to one's cultural past that might get in the way once evangelical missionaries come trailing in behind the army units and start setting up shop, putting up ad hoc churches for conversion that look like mosques, because that is part of their "contextualization" strategy. For all intents and purposed, Iraq is being obliterated, and is about to be turned into a West Bank part deux, where, after the looting is done and everything is burned down, "order" will be maintained through curfews and marshall laws, pissed off citizens will be automatically crimilnalized as terrorists, and the self-perpetuating dialectic of insurrection and retaliation will be set in motion. It will become articulated as a part of a different historical narrative, that of colonial empire. Because it really seems that Bush and his cabal are incapable of understanding the world order as it is, and resort to models from the past. The Cold War model of creating a Big Binary Oppositiong (check--axis of Evil versus the Jesus Avengers or whatever); the model of toppling a "socialist" government (that was not the line that was used for this campaign, because that would have contradicted the Bin Laden-Husein connection, seeing as radical Islam factions hate godless Saddam, but just wait till that line is revived in connection to North Korea, and then we will REALLY be back in the 50s again), and now the model of just old-skool colonial military conquest. My view on, say, Israel and Palesite, is that the situation is completely fucked up and very complicated (personally, I don't subscribe to the Israel Total Entitlement model, brought to you by Daniel Pipes and campuswatch, nor will I get behind the Arm The Intifada platform) but that the historical roots of that fucked-uppedness are in how the partition was handled to begin with, and various consequences of colonial rule of Palestine by England. End result--situation that has been horrible for Israelis and Palestinians for decades now came about, one could argue, in terms of ontogenetic causes, because of colonial legacy and how the historical consequences played out. My point is, now, 50-something years later, the US should know better. So what does the US do? Blatantly creates a new colony. While professing their desire to restard the Middle East Peace Process. Orwell explained it: war is peace, freedom is slavery. Liberation is Colonization! Shit, I bet it will follow the metropole/satellite economic model of colonialism to the T. We will pump Iraq for oil, and in return, it will become a consumer market for the new Disney line of products that will be made in sweatshopws in Iraq itself. And in the meantime, F16 fighter jets will be flying over Disneyland, in case someone wants to bomb the hell out of Mickey Mouse.
Sunday, April 13, 2003; Page A01
BAGHDAD, April 12 -- At the National Museum of Antiquities, where priceless artifacts had been wrapped in foam and secured in windowless storage rooms to protect them against U.S. bombs, an army of looters perpetrated what war did not: They smashed hundreds of irreplaceable treasures, including Sumerian clay pots, Assyrian marble carvings, Babylonian statues and a massive stone tablet with intricate cuneiform writing.
As employees returned today to survey the damage at one of the world's greatest repositories of artifacts, they encountered devastation that defied their worst expectations. The floor was covered with shards of broken pottery. An extensive card catalog of every item the museum owns, some of which date back 5,000 years, was destroyed. A cavernous storeroom housing thousands of unclassified pieces was ransacked so badly that an archaeologist predicted it would be impossible to repair many of the items.
"Our heritage is finished," lamented Nabhal Amin, the museum's deputy director, as she surveyed a Sumerian tablet that had been cracked in two. "Why did they do this? Why? Why?"
(snip)
The damage could have a significant effect on the Bush administration's military and political goals in Iraq, complicating efforts to win the trust of ordinary people, return cities to normalcy and eventually reconstruct the country. Many here feel U.S. forces in the city -- Army units on the western side of the Tigris River and Marines on the eastern side -- could and should be doing more to crack down on looting. As the mayhem continues, they have begun shifting blame for the lawlessness from their fellow countrymen to U.S. troops.
more?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A15136-2003Apr12.html
When last week I saw that retarded soldier putting a US flag on the head of the Saddam statue being toppled, I thought to myself that Bush & Co don't know their ancient history. I mean, ancient Romans were content to knock the head off the statue of the old leader and put in the one of the new leader, the statues themselves were left standing. They sort of ventured in that direction by putting the American flag on the head of the statue, which is offensive and imperialist, but then they also knocked the statue down. Now I realize that they are following a different model of the ancient world--the total obliteration/Carthage model. of course, at this point in history it is a little tricky to actually scrap the city from the face of the earth and salt the earth itself, people get touchy about stuff like that after Hiroshima and Nagasaki, so intent can't be framed in those categories anymore. But a semi-metaphorical Carthage is still possible. Think about it: Bush's unceasing formulaic babbling "Saddam must disarm" in the most inapproptiate of contexts, whether or not it was on topic (like when he busted out with that at the meeting regarding admission of new members to the EU in, I believe November) is not unlike Marcus Portius Cato the Elder's propensity to end every speech "Carthago delenda est"-- "Carthage must be destroyed." Ad Nauseum Ad Infinatum.
It probably went something like this:
"Why do you insist that Carthage is a threat to Rome, when there is no evidence of such a thing?"
"Carthage is a threat. It must be destroyed."
"What do you say to the critics of your proposal who point out that the effort exerted in destroying Carthage would be better spent on improving the sewer systems in the city and building more atriums?"
"Carthage is a threat. It must be destroyed."
"Many Romans feel that you use the platform of other relevant issues to push forth your personal-vendetta-against Carthage agenda, how do you respond to those criticisms?"
"Carthage is a threat. It must be destroyed. Anyone who disagrees, is not a true Roman."
Or something like that. Eventually Cato got his wish, and it is obvious that the technique still flourishes today. It is also interesting to note the conduct of Romans towards Carthage in how the Third Punic War started and played out--here is a short entry on it from the online Encyclopedia of the Orient
"The third war was ENTIRELY PROVOKED BY THE ROMANS. After the second defeat, Carthage managed once again to return to much of its former glory, the economy prospered, and the fleet increased. But the memory of the former Punic wars was strong in Rome; many hated the Carthaginians especially because there seemed to be nothing that could force them on their knees.
Rome used their ally, Masinissa, who ruled over Numidia to the west of Carthage, to bring forward a pretext for going to war.
Masinissa deliberately provoked Carthage, and in 149 Carthage attacked him. Rome came to aid for their ally, through declaring war on Carthage. The difference in military force was now to Rome's advantage, and few battles were fought to decide who was the strongest.
At first a peace was agreed upon, but then Rome INCREASED THEIR DEMANDS, decreeing a total abandonment of the city. Facing these claims, the Carthaginians returned to fighting, and soon Carthage fell under what would become a 3 year long siege. When the Romans finally breached the walls, one week of fighting inside the city followed, then the city was burned, and the locals were either executed or sold into slavery. "
While the US forces can't follow that model to the T (and also it would do them no good to "salt" the Earth, literally or metaphorically, because whereas Rome sought to eliminate Carthage as an economic/agricultural competitor, and land thus became both a practical and symbolic medium for desecration, the US needs the oil underneath the sands of Iraq), they come close enough. Such annihilation as was visited upon Carthage was about eliminating the nation/culture. The Romans were more literal about it, because they could be. But allowing for the looting of the national museum, filled with artifacts that, in a way, constitute the historical identity of the nation, is a way of dispensing with the past. The past, and therefore, future identity of Iraq lies broken in shards in the emptied-out museum, while the guardians of culture wail over the remains. As Orwell wrote, "Whoever controls the past controls the future. Whoever controls the present controls the past." They can't salt the earth, but they can eliminate centuries of history in a day, those uncomfortable referents to one's cultural past that might get in the way once evangelical missionaries come trailing in behind the army units and start setting up shop, putting up ad hoc churches for conversion that look like mosques, because that is part of their "contextualization" strategy. For all intents and purposed, Iraq is being obliterated, and is about to be turned into a West Bank part deux, where, after the looting is done and everything is burned down, "order" will be maintained through curfews and marshall laws, pissed off citizens will be automatically crimilnalized as terrorists, and the self-perpetuating dialectic of insurrection and retaliation will be set in motion. It will become articulated as a part of a different historical narrative, that of colonial empire. Because it really seems that Bush and his cabal are incapable of understanding the world order as it is, and resort to models from the past. The Cold War model of creating a Big Binary Oppositiong (check--axis of Evil versus the Jesus Avengers or whatever); the model of toppling a "socialist" government (that was not the line that was used for this campaign, because that would have contradicted the Bin Laden-Husein connection, seeing as radical Islam factions hate godless Saddam, but just wait till that line is revived in connection to North Korea, and then we will REALLY be back in the 50s again), and now the model of just old-skool colonial military conquest. My view on, say, Israel and Palesite, is that the situation is completely fucked up and very complicated (personally, I don't subscribe to the Israel Total Entitlement model, brought to you by Daniel Pipes and campuswatch, nor will I get behind the Arm The Intifada platform) but that the historical roots of that fucked-uppedness are in how the partition was handled to begin with, and various consequences of colonial rule of Palestine by England. End result--situation that has been horrible for Israelis and Palestinians for decades now came about, one could argue, in terms of ontogenetic causes, because of colonial legacy and how the historical consequences played out. My point is, now, 50-something years later, the US should know better. So what does the US do? Blatantly creates a new colony. While professing their desire to restard the Middle East Peace Process. Orwell explained it: war is peace, freedom is slavery. Liberation is Colonization! Shit, I bet it will follow the metropole/satellite economic model of colonialism to the T. We will pump Iraq for oil, and in return, it will become a consumer market for the new Disney line of products that will be made in sweatshopws in Iraq itself. And in the meantime, F16 fighter jets will be flying over Disneyland, in case someone wants to bomb the hell out of Mickey Mouse.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
Must eat your brain...
Date: 2003-04-14 09:18 pm (UTC)For a moment there, I suspected that the destruction of these priceless artifacts was partially motivated by Americans' jealousy and shame at having virtually no culture, being forced to hide the history of its own people and land to mask what essentially was rape of two continents, and that without its money and military power, America is of no real significance and whose past is bloody and whose "greatest" contributions are weapons of mass destruction and not-so-cheap, cheap entertainment.
Then I remembered that we have no shame.
Re: Must eat your brain...
Date: 2003-04-14 10:30 pm (UTC)Nobody has freaked on you about long postings?
Date: 2003-04-17 03:30 pm (UTC)Re: Nobody has freaked on you about long postings?
Date: 2003-04-17 07:09 pm (UTC)Re: Nobody has freaked on you about long postings?
Date: 2003-04-17 07:09 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2003-04-17 07:56 pm (UTC)I'm glad I asked ... this is pretty "thin ice" ... I'd never thought of "preview" as potentially annoying, since it works so well on my friends page, so I can get a sense of the whole flow, with lots of cuts to spin off in other windows. Thanks