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)
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