Here is the video of Ms. Chapman singing the song:  Bang! Bang! Bang!

…and

Bang! Bang! Bang!  Lyrics

(Song for little man)

“What you go and do
You go and give the boy a gun
Now there ain’t place to run to
Ain’t no place to run

When he hold it in his hand
He feel mighty he feel strong
Now there ain’t no place to run to
Ain’t no place to run

One day he may come back
Repay us for what we’ve done
Then where you gonna run to
Where you gonna run

But one fine day
All our problems will be solved
Bang bang bang
We’ll shoot him down

Give him drugs and give him candy
Anything oohhh, to make him think he’s happy
And he won’t ever come for us
He won’t ever come

But if he does
And if there’s no one else around
Bang bang bang
We’ll shoot him down

If he preys only on his neighbors
Brothers sisters and friends
We’ll consider it a favor
We’ll consider justice done

But if he comes for you or me
And we can place a gun in his hand
Bang bang bang
We’ll shoot him dead

What you go and do
You go and give the boy a gun
Now there ain’t no place to run to
Ain’t no place to run

Now we’ll all be at his mercy
If he decides to hunt us down
Cause there ain’t no place to run to
Ain’t no place to run

If he wants the chances that you took from him
And nothing that you own
Then there’ll be no place to run to
There’ll be no place to run

And if he finds himself to be
A reflection of us all
Bang bang bang
He’ll shoot us down

Before you can raise your eyes to read
The writing on the wall
Bang bang bang
He’ll shoot you down

Before you can bridge the gulf between
And embrace him in your arms
Bang bang bang
He’ll shoot you down”

IGbarb says:  “For God’s (and your own) sake, raise your eyes, bridge the gap!”

Or to quote (for the “nieme fois” as the French say) W.B. Yeats‘s “The Second Coming”:  “Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold…”.  We are probably not conscious of the degree to which this is actually happening.  However, consider to what an extent “issues” keep cropping up for which solutions cannot readily be found, or in regard to which the existing structures of world order (for lack of a better term) don’t seem adequate.  The Euro crisis is a good example.  The Euro was/is a good idea, but it wasn’t set up with enough means to keep it on track.  Or look at the U.N. Charter.  The world had just had a terrible trauma (ie WW II) and it was pretty clear that change was necessary, and yet the limits of peoples world views prevented the founders of the organization from really creating means adequate to deal with the realities of world politics then and now.  Or, consider the current wave of intra-state conflicts.  Certainly, international norms have evolved to some extent, and “non-interference” in a state’s internal affairs can be side-steppe by the Security Council if they deem that those “affairs” are creating threats to international peace and security (…and don’t “pooh pooh” this:  it is a significant innovation).  However, the main actors (in most cases the permanent members of that same SC) have to be willing to act, to really take the principle of Collective Security seriously…and to date they are not yet always ready to do that.  So, we often get responses to crises that are too little, too late (or at least seem that way).

Such are the “interesting” times in which we live.  It will probably get worse before it gets a lot better, in that the limitations of our world order and the mindset(s) that underpin it, will become more and more obvious; and the crises these limitations create will be more acute…and it is exactly this which brings significant change.  So, to reiterate my main message for early 2012:

“IGbarb says:  fasten your seat belts, we are in, and will probably remain in for some time, a zone of turbulence.”

First, as I suspected the whole Euro issue would push the EU toward more governance.  Of course, many countries don’t like this; but personally, I think the Euro is here to stay and more centralized fiscal control is an inevitability.  Today Europe…tomorrow (well not exactly tomorrow, but anyway…) the world!

Second,  it is amazing how information diffuses these days, and also amazing that people who nobody thought were really interested in democracy, seem to be interested after all.  Who knew?  In fact, though, it is probably not democracy in any specific form that they want (you can fill in the names for the “they” here–just pick up a newspaper).  They want to have some say over what happens to them, they want to have a sense of identity that is not constantly being called into question by events…and they want to live in a society with meaningful relationships that confirm their identity and help them to participate in what shapes their lives.  We all want this.  You can call this human rights, or essential freedoms, or whatever.  It is what humans (as John Burton pointed out quite a few years ago now) need to be fully human.  Also, and this is the part we are seeing today:  it can’t be taken away forever; or, for that matter negotiated away.  People will, sooner or later, rise up to take it back.

Politics is a dependent variable.  Huh?  Well, while we go on and on about who is governing whom and who might get the chance to replace them in what election, we lose sight of the bigger picture, which I suspect has to do with the fact that our values and our culture pretty much determine what happens in our politics.  So, if you want to change politics (heck, what right-thinking person doesn’t?) you have to change those values and, by implication, the culture in which they are embedded….which explains, to some extent at least, why I am a teacher and not a politician.  True, I teach about politics, but I don’t practice what most would consider politics…but believe me, I see myself very much involved in the process of global change (even if in a small way).

We really need to unite, at least to a basic workable level, our planet.  Heck we are finding more and more  possibly inhabitable worlds.  Sooner, rather than later, the Star Trek scenario will be upon us (ie when we start to move at light speed through space).  Heaven (literally) only knows what will happen at that point.  Personally, I think we need all hands on deck on spaceship earth for what will be a probably never ending series of challenges without precedent.  No more time for squabbles, or neglecting suffering, or stupid prejudices…Everybody is “us”…no more”them”.  If you don’t get that, take a really hard look at the stars some night…a real hard, real long look.  Let that good old cosmic insignificance sink deep into you.  If you do this, you just might, as I did at one point, realize that that very feeling (as uncomfortable as it can be) is a creative force.  We really are all in this planetary life thing together.  There really is, as Sartre said, “no exit”.  Or, as Stuart Brand, creater of the Whole Earth Catalogue used to say “we are as gods, so we might as well get good at it”.

IGbarb says:  “Gods are as gods do…be as godly as you can!”

* I think this is from Frank Zappa, but I’m not sure (Karl Weaver are you out there?)

What is on my mind today is just how inappropriate, ineffective and generally problematic the “holy warrior” concept/image is in our era.  It may have had its time, utility and raison d’etre, but there are many indicators that that time is past (at least, IMHO).  Killing for God, just doesn’t work anymore.  Why?  well, I don’t think it is very complicated.  In our day, it is rather clear that (as always) violence surely breeds violence.  So unless you kill or convert everybody, you are just going to raise the overall level of violence and vengeance in the world by behaving this way; and it is hard to see how that is good for anybody except, maybe, the arms merchants.  I’m not sure any contemporary “holy warriors” have a real chance to convert or kill everybody who doesn’t agree with them, so it might be time to seriously think about changing tactics (whoever you are and whatever your agenda might be).  So how about instead of “kill or convert”, we try something like “educate and convince”?  Just a thought

That being said, remember I am a political scientist more or less specialising in the Global South.  So, I know that many times “religion” is a vehicle for pursuing what are really very much earthly political goals.  However, if people can appreciate that the “old school” holy warrior mode/mindset might actually be counter-productive for their faith(s) and at the same time make them the pawns of ideologues and demagogues with other agendas, we might start to see a change in the right direction…something more along the lines of “blessed are the peacemakers”.

IGbarb says:  “Beat your swords into ploughshares (it’s about time, right?).”

Anyhow, besides the fact that we will probably never know the “whole truth” about what happened, what, if anything, can be learned about these event?.  Obviously, I’m reflecting from a “peace perspective”.

Well, the world was a very complicated and scary place then.  It still is, I guess, but then fear had a particular “edge”:  nuclear annihilation and communist infiltration (I guess the “edge” now is terrorism, but anyway…).  Interestingly both of those issues are not what they used to be.  Communism, at least in its world wide threat form, is largely gone and nuclear annihilation, while still with us, is much less likely since the world’s biggest nuke owners are doing more talking than sabre rattling these days.  I know, I know…there are those Chinese and there is Taiwan and there is India and Pakistan, and Iran’s weapons, etc…  But the current situation is, I would recklessly venture to assert at least one or two (or even more) orders of magnitude less threatening than what we used to know.  There was a time, for instance, in the early 80′s (I think) when something like 60% of U.S. college students did not expect to live to be 30 because they expected nuclear war.

So, I have this theory that strange times produce strange people and also to quote (I think) the psychologist Alfred Adler, you pay for everything you do out of fear.  There were plenty of strange people acting out of fear (or taking advantage of other people’s fear) to create semi governments within governments and to justify all sorts of things in the name of national security (this still goes one, of course).  It seems to me what happened in Dallas was, somehow or other (no matter what scenario you find most plausible) related to these broader currents of the time.

Conclusion:  change the “currents” and you may get different and even “better” results.  However, if you let fear drive your behavior/ policy, similar outcomes are to be expected.

IGbarb says:  “FDR was right, at least to some extent:  the only thing (or maybe one of the main things) we have to fear, is fear itself!”

It has impressed me for some time how people in “civilized” countries have, for a very long time, been resigned to and more or less taken for granted actions and situations at the international level which they would consider intolerable in their own communities.  I see this as a an example of what the Marxists call a “contradiction”:   something in the socio-political order that is unstable and has to change as either circumstances or consciousness change.  What do I mean?  Well, consider.    Even if many local governments are not effective at coping with the ongoing crimes of gangs, citizens are not usually ready to say” oh well, that’s just the way it is”  “people (men) are just like that” ” it has always been like that and will always be like that”  “it is naive and utopian to think it could be otherwise”.  No..they would scream for police action, legislation, community action…in short that government and civil society do something to stop the violence, crime and chaos in their community.

However, the statements in quotations above are exactly the kind of thing one hears about violence and crime at the global level.  Basically the view is:  “what do you expect from a chaotic social system characterized by an unbridled struggle among distinct and separate national actors to survive and dominate”.  This is what I would call “bifurcated” thinking, and immediately gives rise to the following critique:  if governance is good at the local and national levels, why not at the global level?  Some reply that it is impossible, but that is an increasingly weak argument, since humanity is, and has been for some time, doing all sorts of things previously thought impossible.  I was reminded this weekend that every second the Voyager space probes are pushing back the (still infinitesimally small, admittedly) scope of humanity’s penetration into the universe.  If we can do all these unprecedented things, we can also do something about global governance.

So, personally, I think this contradiction will resolve itself through the unstoppable expansion of peoples’ personal horizons to encompass the global–our thinking is literally becoming global, even in regard to trivial day to day things (professional sports, “dancing with the stars” etc…).  This leads inevitably to an increasing capacity to see beyond the “us/them” distinction, and to grasp that people suffering far away are still in as much pain as people suffering down the street…and that something should be done about this.

I think this is the trend, but it is obvious that the process of change in this direction is sporadic and characterized by reactionary impulses to “close borders” etc… In this regard, I’m not saying that immigration policies are irrelevant.  What I’m saying is that you have to look to the cause of your immigration problem and the complex dynamics and historical background that put your society in this situation.  You may not want to, but I don’t see how you can, over the medium to longer run, avoid doing so.

Anyhow, you see what I’m driving at, I suppose.  If you don’t, feel free to ask me

IGBarb says (again quoting the immortal Walt Kelly):  “We have met the enemy, and he is  us”

I don’t want to draw too many conclusions here, but the syndrome, in itself, is very interesting.  It seems almost that if you continue in a violent direction it will be difficult to avoid crossing over the badly defined “line” between political insurgent and trafficker.  Many would argue that the ends justify the means, but I would simply reply “look at the results…do the ends justify the means, or do the means corrupt the ends?”  This is surely a question worth considering.

IGbarb says:  “The ends are the means, and the means are the ends:  peace is as peace does.”

Anyway, I am beginning to think that if violent conflict persists and is as frequent as it is in our day, we have to conclude that somebody (individuals and groups) derive some benefits from keeping it going, and not that it is just the way we are.   It could and can be stopped.  So, I reasoned what might those benefits be.  Here is an initial list that I will probably come back to at some point.

1.  It is relatively easy for leaders to consolidate their position by focusing their followers on a struggle against an external other.

2.  Getting control of the state through violence means that  you also get control of the state’s resources (such as they are) and that you can, at least for some time, use them as you see fit.

3.  A leader has a personal grudge against another leader.  This may predate the violence, or may arise in the course of violence.  Of course, once in place this dynamic becomes self-perpetuating:  he hits me so I hit him, etc…

4.  Arms makers and suppliers make huge profits from violent conflict and are willing to “share” those with the leadership that buys their weapons (ie kickbacks)

5.  The military becomes either a government within the government, or the government itself.  To justify not moving toward democracy a state of emergency associated with a conflict is often a good excuse.

In other words, when you see violent conflict you need to ask “Qui bono”  (which means, I think “who benefits” and not “Who is U2′s lead singer )

As always, the underlying dynamics have to be brought to light, and the myth of the horrible external other who has to be eliminated has to be exposed for what it is:  a “trick” so that somebody, somewhere can profit (one way or another) from the horrors of war.

IGbarb says:  “Enough is enough, already!”

As a card carrying political scientist I find this interesting, because while one can understand the feeling, it is very hard to see how small island countries can really exist on their own in the way that “independence” and “national sovereignty” seem to imply.  I would go further to say this is a very 19th century feeling, that is really not practical in the 21st century.  Why?  Well to take any Caribbean case, independence would bring with it the almost immediate need to join the regional organization, CARICOM, and to start to “pool sovereignty” by opening borders, sharing currency, etc…A small island cannot stand alone in our globalizing era.  However, if you feel oppressed–ie if you feel you have suffered and are suffering injustice–it seems natural that you would seek “independence”, given all that that condition is supposed to include.

So, these remaining overseas dependencies are sort of caught in a dilemma which seems to be fraught with tension and conflict potential.  Either they remain in what they perceive as a dominated and oppressed condition, but enjoy the benefits of being linked to a much bigger country that has to, to some extent at least, take care of them.  Or, if given the chance, they become independent and are immediately subjected to the rough currents of global economic change, which would almost inevitably have devastating social consequences and give rise to a variety of conflicts.

There may be need here for some creative political imagination to find a modus vivendi for these vestiges of a colonial past.  Certainly, something has to be done to reconcile economic survival with the need for a sense of coherent political identity.

IGBarb says:  “We’re all in this together!”

Well, the forts were there to defend the islands, because of all the fighting to gain and maintain control.

However, there is at least one interesting exception:  the island of St. Martin.  According to the Wikster:

“In 1493, on Christopher Columbus second voyages to the West Indies, upon first sighting the island he named it Isla de San Martín after Saint Martin of Tours because it was November 11, St. Martin Day. However, though he claimed it as a Spanish territory, Columbus never landed there, and Spain made the settlement of the island a low priority.

The French and Dutch, on the other hand, both coveted the island. While the French wanted to colonize the islands between Trinidad and Bermuda, the Dutch found San Martín a convenient halfway point between their colonies in New Amsterdam (present day New York) and Brazil. With few people inhabiting the island, the Dutch easily founded a settlement there in 1631, erecting Fort Amsterdam as protection from invaders. Jan Claeszen Van Campen became its first governor, and soon thereafter the Dutch East India Company began their salt mining operations. French and British settlements sprang up on the island as well. Taking note of these successful colonies and wanting to maintain their control of the salt trade, the Spanish now found St. Martin much more appealing. The Eighty Years’ War which had been raging between Spain and the Netherlands provided further incentive to attack.

Spanish forces captured Saint Martin from the Dutch in 1633, seizing control and driving most or all of the colonists off the island. At Point Blanche, they built Old Spanish Fort to secure the territory. Although the Dutch retaliated in several attempts to win back St. Martin, they failed. Fifteen years after the Spanish conquered the island, the Eighty Years’ War ended. Since they no longer needed a base in the Caribbean and St. Martin barely turned a profit, the Spanish lost their inclination to continue defending it. In 1648, they deserted the island.

With St. Martin free again, both the Dutch and the French jumped at the chance to re-establish their settlements. Dutch colonists came from St. Eustatius, while the French came from St. Kitts. After some initial conflict, both sides realized that neither would yield easily. Preferring to avoid an all-out war, they signed the Treaty of Concordia in 1648, which divided the island in two.”

…and so it has remained!  Coexistence has tended to work out for both sides, and was, of course, greatly facilitated by the emergence of the European Union, the Euro, etc…In fact, when you drive from the French side to the Dutch side (where the lingua franca is English, btw) there is such a small sign that you might well miss it.  Another interesting factoid:  most of the French people really can speak pretty good English…ie more  like Montreal than Paris.

So, what am I getting at?  There is nothing inevitable about violent conflict.  Cooperation is/was possible, even centuries ago.  And, lo and behold, it seems to have been profitable to everybody concerned.  Surprise, surprise!

IGbarb says:  “Vrede is de weg!”