I sent you the positive review last week so I thought I would send you this one to balance things out.

In Montgomery, AL, I don't live in a world where we don't have to talk about how the search for WMD was a sham reason to go into the war anymore.  I had the displeasure of being at a White, fundamentalist Christian household for dinner on Monday 7/5 and the family patriarchs prayer was all about blessing our soldiers who are "defending our freedoms."

However I agree with some of the points in this critique though I still think the film still does a better job of convincing White America and Pro-War African Americans of some truths.  

Another bit of subtle racism the film does not address is that the family Moore chooses to represent those who have lost their children needlessly in the Iraq war is a young man with a Black father and a White-looking (though possibly Latina without a lot of cultural attachment) mother.  AGAIN a Black mother's pain is not recongnized and the Black man/non-Black woman pairing is again seared in the minds of viewers (important in my continuing thesis about the effects of this repeated pairing on us all)
Know Justice, Know Peace,
E-K. Daufin
For Your $5,000 Tax Refund go to: www.sohotaxes.net/daufin
Physical & Emotional Wellness:  www.mylegacyforlife.net/thedaufin
Workshops, Poetry and All That Jazz: http://home.earthlink.net/~ekdaufin/
REVIEW: movie--fahrenheit 9/11
============================

http://www.counterpunch.org/jensen07052004.html

CounterPunch

July 5, 2004

Stupid White Movie:
What Michael Moore Misses About the Empire

By Robert Jensen

I have been defending Michael Moore's "Fahrenheit 9/11" from
the criticism in mainstream and conservative circles that
the film is leftist propaganda. Nothing could be further
from the truth; there is very little left critique in the
movie. In fact, it's hard to find any coherent critique in
the movie at all.

The sad truth is that "Fahrenheit 9/11" is a bad movie, but
not for the reasons it is being attacked in the dominant
culture. It's at times a racist movie. And the analysis that
underlies the film's main political points is either
dangerously incomplete or virtually incoherent.

But, most important, it's a conservative movie that ends
with an endorsement of one of the central lies of the United
States, which should warm the hearts of the right-wingers
who condemn Moore. And the real problem is that many
left/liberal/progressive people are singing the film's
praises, which should tell us something about the
impoverished nature of the left in this country.

I say all this not to pick at small points or harp on minor
flaws. These aren't minor points of disagreement but
fundamental questions of analysis and integrity. But before
elaborating on that, I want to talk about what the film does
well.


The good stuff

First, Moore highlights the disenfranchisement of primarily
black voters in Florida in the 2000 election, a political
scandal that the mainstream commercial news media in the
United States has largely ignored. The footage of a joint
session of Congress in which Congressional Black Caucus
members can't get a senator to sign their letter to allow
floor debate about the issue (a procedural requirement) is a
powerful indictment not only of the Republicans who
perpetrated the fraud but the Democratic leadership that
refused to challenge it.

Moore also provides a sharp critique of U.S. military
recruiting practices, with some amazing footage of
recruiters cynically at work scouring low-income areas for
targets, whom are disproportionately non-white. The film
also effectively takes apart the Bush administration's use
of fear tactics after 9/11 to drive the public to accept its
war policies.

"Fahrenheit 9/11" also does a good job of showing war's
effects on U.S. soldiers; we see soldiers dead and maimed,
and we see how contemporary warfare deforms many of them
psychologically as well. And the film pays attention to the
victims of U.S. wars, showing Iraqis both before the U.S.
invasion and after in a way that humanizes them rather than
uses them as props.

The problem is that these positive elements don't add up to
a good film. It's a shame that Moore's talent and flair for
the dramatic aren't put in the service of a principled,
clear analysis that could potentially be effective at
something beyond defeating George W. Bush in 2004.


Subtle racism

How dare I describe as racist a movie that highlights the
disenfranchisement of black voters and goes after the way in
which military recruiters chase low-income minority youth?
My claim is not that Moore is an overt racist, but that the
movie unconsciously replicates a more subtle racism, one
that we all have to struggle to resist.

First, there is one segment that invokes the worst kind of
ugly-American nativism, in which Moore mocks the Bush
administration's "coalition of the willing," the nations it
lined up to support the invasion of Iraq. Aside from Great
Britain there was no significant military support from other
nations and no real coalition, which Moore is right to point
out. But when he lists the countries in the so-called
coalition, he uses images that have racist undertones. To
depict the Republic of Palau (a small Pacific island
nation), Moore chooses an image of stereotypical "native"
dancers, while a man riding on an animal-drawn cart
represents Costa Rica. Pictures of monkeys running are on
the screen during a discussion of Morocco's apparent offer
to send monkeys to clear landmines. To ridicule the Bush
propaganda on this issue, Moore uses these images and an
exaggerated voice-over in a fashion that says, in essence,
"What kind of coalition is it that has these backward
countries?" Moore might argue that is not his intention, but
intention is not the only question; we all are responsible
for how we tap into these kinds of stereotypes.

More subtle and important is Moore's invocation of a racism
in which solidarity between dominant whites and non-white
groups domestically can be forged by demonizing the foreign
"enemy," which these days has an Arab and South Asian face.
For example, in the segment about law-enforcement
infiltration of peace groups, the camera pans the almost
exclusively white faces (I noticed one Asian man in the
scene) in the group Peace Fresno and asks how anyone could
imagine these folks could be terrorists. There is no
consideration of the fact that Arab and Muslim groups that
are equally dedicated to peace have to endure routine
harassment and constantly prove that they weren't
terrorists, precisely because they weren't white.

The other example of political repression that "Fahrenheit
9/11" offers is the story of Barry Reingold, who was visited
by FBI agents after making critical remarks about Bush and
the war while working out at a gym in Oakland. Reingold, a
white retired phone worker, was not detained or charged with
a crime; the agents questioned him and left. This is the
poster child for repression? In a country where hundreds of
Arab, South Asian and Muslim men were thrown into secret
detention after 9/11, this is the case Moore chooses to
highlight? The only reference in the film to those
detentions post-9/11 is in an interview with a former FBI
agent about Saudis who were allowed to leave the United
States shortly after 9/11, in which it appears that Moore
mentions those detentions only to contrast the kid-gloves
treatment that privileged Saudi nationals allegedly
received.

When I made this point to a friend, he defended Moore by
saying the filmmaker was trying to reach a wide audience
that likely is mostly white and probably wanted to use
examples that those people could connect with. So, it's
acceptable to pander to the white audience members and
over-dramatize their limited risks while ignoring the actual
serious harm done to non-white people? Could not a skilled
filmmaker tell the story of the people being seriously
persecuted in a way that non-Arab, non-South Asian,
non-Muslims could empathize with?


Bad analysis

"Fahrenheit 9/11" is strong on tapping into emotions and
raising questions about why the United States invaded
Afghanistan and Iraq after 9/11, but it is extremely weak on
answering those questions in even marginally coherent
fashion. To the degree the film has a thesis, it appears to
be that the wars were a product of the personal politics of
a corrupt Bush dynasty. I agree the Bush dynasty is corrupt,
but the analysis the film offers is both internally
inconsistent, extremely limited in historical understanding
and, hence, misguided.

Is the administration of George W. Bush full of ideological
fanatics? Yes. Have its actions since 9/11 been reckless and
put the world at risk? Yes. In the course of pursuing those
policies, has it enriched fat-cat friends? Yes.

But it is a serious mistake to believe that these wars can
be explained by focusing so exclusively on the Bush
administration and ignoring clear trends in U.S. foreign and
military policy. In short, these wars are not a sharp
departure from the past but instead should be seen as an
intensification of longstanding policies, affected by the
confluence of this particular administration's ideology and
the opportunities created by the events of 9/11.

Look first at Moore's treatment of the U.S. invasion of
Afghanistan. He uses a clip of former counterterrorism
official Richard Clarke complaining that the Bush
administration's response to 9/11 in Afghanistan was "slow
and small," implying that we should have attacked faster and
bigger. The film does nothing to question that assessment,
leaving viewers to assume that Moore agrees. Does he think
that a bombing campaign that killed at least as many
innocent Afghans as Americans who died on 9/11 was
justified? Does he think that a military response was
appropriate, and simply should have been more intense, which
would have guaranteed even more civilian casualties? Does he
think that a military strategy, which many experts believe
made it difficult to pursue more routine and productive
counterterrorism law-enforcement methods, was a smart move?

Moore also suggests that the real motivation of the Bush
administration in attacking Afghanistan was to secure a gas
pipeline route from the Caspian Basin to the sea. It's true
that Unocal had sought such a pipeline, and at one point
Taliban officials were courted by the United States when it
looked as if they could make such a deal happen. Moore
points out that Taliban officials traveled to Texas in 1997
when Bush was governor. He fails to point out that all this
happened with the Clinton administration at the negotiating
table. It is highly unlikely that policymakers would go to
war for a single pipeline, but even if that were plausible
it is clear that both Democrats and Republicans alike have
been mixed up in that particular scheme.

The centerpiece of Moore's analysis of U.S. policy in the
Middle East is the relationship of the Bush family to the
Saudis and the bin Laden family. The film appears to argue
that those business interests, primarily through the Carlyle
Group, led the administration to favor the Saudis to the
point of ignoring potential Saudi complicity in the attacks
of 9/11. After laying out the nature of those business
dealings, Moore implies that the Bushes are literally on the
take.

It is certainly true that the Bush family and its cronies
have a relationship with Saudi Arabia that has led officials
to overlook Saudi human-rights abuses and the support that
many Saudis give to movements such as al Qaeda. That is true
of the Bushes, just as it was of the Clinton administration
and, in fact, every post-World War II president. Ever since
FDR cut a deal with the House of Saud giving U.S. support in
exchange for cooperation on the flow of oil and oil profits,
U.S. administrations have been playing ball with the Saudis.
The relationship is sometimes tense but has continued
through ups and downs, with both sides getting at least part
of what they need from the other. Concentrating on Bush
family business connections ignores that history and
encourages viewers to see the problem as specific to Bush.
Would a Gore administration have treated the Saudis
differently after 9/11? There's no reason to think so, and
Moore offers no evidence or argument why it would have.

But that's only part of the story of U.S. policy in the
Middle East, in which the Saudis play a role but are not the
only players. The United States cuts deals with other
governments in the region that are willing to support the
U.S. aim of control over those energy resources. The Saudis
are crucial in that system, but not alone. Egypt, Jordan and
the other Gulf emirates have played a role, as did Iran
under the Shah. As does, crucially, Israel. But there is no
mention of Israel in the film. To raise questions about U.S.
policy in the Middle East without addressing the role of
Israel as a U.S. proxy is, to say the least, a significant
omission. It's unclear whether Moore actually backs Israeli
crimes and U.S. support for them, or simply doesn't
understand the issue.

And what of the analysis of Iraq? Moore is correct in
pointing out that U.S. support for Iraq during the 1980s,
when Saddam Hussein's war on Iran was looked upon favorably
by U.S. policymakers, was a central part of Reagan and Bush
I policy up to the Gulf War. And he's correct in pointing
out that Bush II's invasion and occupation have caused great
suffering in Iraq. What is missing is the intervening eight
years in which the Clinton administration used the harshest
economic embargo in modern history and regular bombing to
further devastate an already devastated country. He fails to
point out that Clinton killed more Iraqis through that
policy than either of the Bush presidents. He fails to
mention the 1998 Clinton cruise missile attack on Iraq,
which was every bit as illegal as the 2003 invasion.

It's not difficult to articulate what much of the rest of
the world understands about U.S. policy in Iraq and the
Middle East: Since the end of WWII, the United States has
been the dominant power in the Middle East, constructing a
system that tries to keep the Arab states weak and
controllable (and, as a result, undemocratic) and undermine
any pan-Arab nationalism, and uses allies as platforms and
surrogates for U.S. power (such as Israel and Iran under the
Shah). The goal is control over (not ownership of, but
control over) the strategically crucial energy resources of
the region and the profits that flow from them, which in an
industrial world that runs on oil is a source of incredible
leverage over competitors such as the European Union, Japan
and China.

The Iraq invasion, however incompetently planned and
executed by the Bush administration, is consistent with that
policy. That's the most plausible explanation for the war
(by this time, we need no longer bother with the long-ago
forgotten rationalizations of weapons of mass destruction
and the alleged threat Iraq posed to the United States). The
war was a gamble on the part of the Bush gang. Many in the
foreign-policy establishment, including Bush I stalwarts
such as Brent Scowcroft, spoke out publicly against war
plans they thought were reckless. Whether Bush's gamble, in
pure power terms, will pay off or not is yet to be
determined.

When the film addresses this question directly, what
analysis does Moore offer of the reasons for the Iraq war? A
family member of a soldier who died asks, "for what?" and
Moore cuts to the subject of war profiteering. That segment
appropriately highlights the vulture-like nature of
businesses that benefit from war. But does Moore really want
us to believe that a major war was launched so that
Halliburton and other companies could increase its profits
for a few years? Yes, war profiteering happens, but it is
not the reason nations go to war. This kind of distorted
analysis helps keep viewers' attention focused on the Bush
administration, by noting the close ties between Bush
officials and these companies, not the routine way in which
corporate America makes money off the misnamed Department of
Defense, no matter who is in the White House.

All this is summed up when Lila Lipscomb, the mother of a
son killed in the war, visits the White House in a final,
emotional scene and says that she now has somewhere to put
all her pain and anger. This is the message of the film:
It's all about the Bush administration. If that's the case,
the obvious conclusion is to get Bush out of the White House
so that things can get back to to what? I'll return to
questions of political strategy at the end, but for now it's
important to realize how this attempt to construct Bush as
pursuing some radically different policy is bad analysis and
leads to a misunderstanding of the threat the United States
poses to the world. Yes, Moore throws in a couple of jabs at
the Democrats in Congress for not stopping the mad rush to
war in Iraq, but the focus is always on the singular crimes
of George W. Bush and his gang.


A conservative movie

The claim that "Fahrenheit 9/11" is a conservative movie may
strike some as ludicrous. But the film endorses one of the
central lies that Americans tell themselves, that the U.S.
military fights for our freedom. This construction of the
military as a defensive force obscures the harsh reality
that the military is used to project U.S. power around the
world to ensure dominance, not to defend anyone's freedom,
at home or abroad.

Instead of confronting this mythology, Moore ends the film
with it. He points out, accurately, the irony that those who
benefit the least from the U.S. system -- the chronically
poor and members of minority groups -- are the very people
who sign up for the military. "They offer to give up their
lives so we can be free," Moore says, and all they ask in
return is that we not send them in harm's way unless it's
necessary. After the Iraq War, he wonders, "Will they ever
trust us again?"

It is no doubt true that many who join the military believe
they will be fighting for freedom. But we must distinguish
between the mythology that many internalize and may truly
believe, from the reality of the role of the U.S. military.
The film includes some comments by soldiers questioning that
very claim, but Moore's narration implies that somehow a
glorious tradition of U.S. military endeavors to protect
freedom has now been sullied by the Iraq War.

The problem is not just that the Iraq War was fundamentally
illegal and immoral. The whole rotten project of empire
building has been illegal and immoral -- and every bit as
much a Democratic as a Republican project. The millions of
dead around the world -- in Latin America, Africa, the
Middle East, Southeast Asia -- as a result of U.S. military
actions and proxy wars don't care which U.S. party was
pulling the strings and pulling the trigger when they were
killed. It's true that much of the world hates Bush. It's
also true that much of the world has hated every post-WWII
U.S. president. And for good reasons.

It is one thing to express solidarity for people forced into
the military by economic conditions. It is quite another to
pander to the lies this country tells itself about the
military. It is not disrespectful to those who join up to
tell the truth. It is our obligation to try to prevent
future wars in which people are sent to die not for freedom
but for power and profit. It's hard to understand how we can
do that by repeating the lies of the people who plan, and
benefit from, those wars.


Political strategy

The most common defense I have heard from liberals and
progressives to these criticisms of "Fahrenheit 9/11" is
that, whatever its flaws, the movie sparks people to
political action. One response is obvious: There is no
reason a film can't spark people to political action with
intelligent and defensible analysis, and without subtle
racism.

But beyond that, it's not entirely clear the political
action that this film will spark goes much beyond voting
against Bush. The "what can I do now?" link on Moore's
website suggests four actions, all of which are about
turning out the vote. These resources about voting are well
organized and helpful. But there are no links to grassroots
groups organizing against not only the Bush regime but the
American empire more generally.

I agree that Bush should be kicked out of the White House,
and if I lived in a swing state I would consider voting
Democratic. But I don't believe that will be meaningful
unless there emerges in the United States a significant
anti-empire movement. In other words, if we beat Bush and go
back to "normal," we're all in trouble. Normal is empire
building. Normal is U.S. domination, economic and military,
and the suffering that vulnerable people around the world
experience as a result. This doesn't mean voters can't judge
one particular empire-building politician more dangerous
than another. It doesn't mean we shouldn't sometimes make
strategic choices to vote for one over the other. It simply
means we should make such choices with eyes open and no
illusions. This seems particularly important when the likely
Democratic presidential candidate tries to out-hawk Bush on
support for Israel, pledges to continue the occupation of
Iraq, and says nothing about reversing the basic trends in
foreign policy.

In this sentiment, I am not alone. Ironically, Barry
Reingold -- the Oakland man who was visited by the FBI -- is
critical of what he sees as the main message of the film. He
was quoted in the San Francisco Chronicle saying: "I think
Michael Moore's agenda is to get Bush out, but I think it
(should be) about more than Bush. I think it's about the
capitalist system, which is inequitable." He went on to
critique Bush and Kerry: "I think both of them are bad. I
think Kerry is actually worse because he gives the illusion
that he's going to do a lot more. Bush has never given that
illusion. People know that he's a friend of big business."

Nothing I have said here is an argument against reaching out
to a wider audience and trying to politicize more people.
That's what I try to do in my own writing and local
organizing work, as do countless other activists. The
question isn't whether to reach out, but with what kind of
analysis and arguments. Emotional appeals and humor have
their place; the activists I work with use them. The
question is, where do such appeals lead people?

It is obvious that "Fahrenheit 9/11" taps into many
Americans' fear and/or hatred of Bush and his gang of thugs.
Such feelings are understandable, and I share them. But
feelings are not analysis, and the film's analysis,
unfortunately, doesn't go much beyond the feeling: It's all
Bush's fault. That may be appealing to people, but it's
wrong. And it is hard to imagine how a successful
anti-empire movement can be built on this film's analysis
unless it is challenged. Hence, the reason for this essay.

The potential value of Moore's film will be realized only if
it is discussed and critiqued, honestly. Yes, the film is
under attack from the right, for very different reasons than
I have raised. But those attacks shouldn't stop those who
consider themselves left, progressive, liberal, anti-war,
anti-empire or just plain pissed-off from criticizing the
film's flaws and limitations. I think my critique of the
film is accurate and relevant. Others may disagree. The
focus of debate should be on the issues raised, with an eye
toward the question of how to build an anti-empire movement.
Rallying around the film can too easily lead to rallying
around bad analysis. Let's instead rally around the struggle
for a better world, the struggle to dismantle the American
empire.

---

Robert Jensen is a journalism professor at the University of
Texas at Austin and the author of "Citizens of the Empire:
The Struggle to Claim Our Humanity" from City Lights Books.
He can be reached at [log in to unmask]

Copyright (c) 2004 Robert Jensen. All Rights Reserved.
Your free subscription is supported by today's