rioters bloc
7th June 2006, 04:31
wrote it for the uni mag i edit :) not very well written (was done in a rush and at 4 in the morning) but it's meant to be more stimulus for more ideas rather than some kind of thesis.
As a society, we have become accustomed to violence. It permeates every aspect of our existence, and if you believe the hype, us Australians live with the constant threat of terrorist violence hanging over our heads. In recent years, the discourse on violence has centred heavily around the kind of sporadic, unpredictable bloodshed that terrorists generate. Governments worldwide have latched onto this phenomenon and used it to instill a paranoia into its subjects that gradually erodes and replaces their ability to critically analyse. In doing so, these governments effectively draw attention away from their own employment of physical aggression, both on the people living within the state to beat them into submission, and also on those in other countries as part of an imperialist agenda.
The culture of fear has become so pervasive and ubiquitous that it’s almost understandable that the average citizen would rather focus on the actions of small terrorist cells than the large-scale, mechanical violence administered by the State’s various tools – simply because it’s easier. Over time, this develops into a complete reliance on the State to protect us from non-state terrorists and other external threats. By acknowledging the State’s authority over us, we legitimise its use of violence to maintain its power and protect the interests of the status quo, whether that be nationally or globally. The effects of State-sanctioned violence worldwide have been far more devastating than what a handful of suicide bombers have accomplished, yet our collective (selective) memory purposely blocks out this information.
When we do concede that State violence is an issue, we associate it solely with expressly totalitarian regimes and unstable governments in third-world or developing nations. We don’t want to recognise that the Australian Government’s forced assimilation policy in the early 20th century manifested itself in a very real and very violent removal of Indigenous children from their families by the State. We don’t care that Federal undercover agencies in the United States regularly intimidate and assault political dissidents, the covert and insidious nature of these operations mirroring the techniques of Cointelpro in the 1950s and 60s. We don’t even hear that self-acclaimed white supremacists and fascists patrol British streets looking for ‘Pakis’ and other people of ethnic appearance to beat up and harrass, while police purposely look away and silently condone their actions.
In each case, it is the tools of the State which have administrated the violence – whether personally or through association. The law is structured in a way that benefits the State, and that includes the continuing subjugation of already oppressed minority groups and the suppression of dissent to government policy. Police brutality against people of a different ethnic background to the dominant one, against queer people, and against people agitating for an alternative political structure is promoted by governments who turn a blind eye to hostile police conduct, and in some cases even enshrine it in legistlation. In Australia, police regularly use dogs, batons, pepper spray, and horses to obstruct political activists and terrorise them into abstinence. During the World Economic Forum in Melbourne in 2000, Victorian police removed their badges and laid heavy blows onto unsuspecting demonstrators. One woman was run over, twice, by an unmarked police car carrying four plainclothes police officers. This is the behaviour of the public face of the State’s enforcers – the actions of clandestine undercover intelligence organisations such as ASIO in Australia and MI5 in the UK are largely indiscernible, and in such secrecy the potential for violence is far greater.
State aggression is not solely limited to the population within its borders, either. While the nature of the photos taken at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq is deplorable, it’s naïve to assume that they are an exception to the norm. False imprisonment and torture have always been effective weapons during conflicts, and even after – just look at Guantanamo Bay. The brutality committed during war extends beyond physical cruelty to cold, systematic attempts to break people psychologically. While it is almost always the soldiers on the ground who take the blame when they’re caught, the structure of military units and communication between those at the top and those committing the deeds indicates that an overwhelming amount of violence against civilians is planned and executed by the State, and then passed off as the deviant actions of some.
One of the worst forms of state violence occurs when armies are deployed to methodically and sadistically rape the wom*n of the land that they’re occupying. Not only is this tactic used to terrorise and degrade civilians, but State rape is also carried out to ‘cleanse’ the bloodline of the enemy ethnic group. During the Bangladesh Liberation War, an approximated 250 000 to 500 000 wom*n aged from 10 to 80 were the victims of sexual violence committed by members of the Pakistani army. Many were kept in a state of bondage, and shot or speared up the vagina if they angered their captors. Communication between army officials and stories documented by journalists show that these acts weren’t committed by random soldiers, but were a systematic attempt to “leave [their] seed behind” to “carry loyal Pakistani offsprings instead of bootlickers of India or Hindus in [Bengali wom*ns’] wombs” (soldiers to their victims). A letter from one major to another says, “I have not been astonished that Rashid has controlled and made pet the Bengali wom*n/their next generation must have to be changed.” Similar incidents occurred in the former Yugoslavia, where most sexual violence was committed by ethnically Serbian men against Muslim wom*n.
State violence, far from being in the interests of the people that the State is meant to be protecting, works against them in order to maintain a submissive population. We’re so caught up in condemning suicide bombers in occupied Palestinian territories that we skim over the atrocities committed by Israel’s Defence Force. We’re so panicked about Islamic jihadists attacking Australians in Indonesia that we ignore the fact that the Indonesian government has orchestrated the killing of 200 000 East Timorese since its invasion in 1975. And of course, we’re particularly blind when it comes to the actions of our own government, because as our ‘representative’ it reflects badly on ourselves.
The frightening thing is that these actions are not restricted to any one country or type of government, but is integral to the running and maintenance of any nation state. As long as people place unfettered trust in bodies that use violence to maintain the right to regulate, monitor, and record our lives, those bodies will continue to do so.
As a society, we have become accustomed to violence. It permeates every aspect of our existence, and if you believe the hype, us Australians live with the constant threat of terrorist violence hanging over our heads. In recent years, the discourse on violence has centred heavily around the kind of sporadic, unpredictable bloodshed that terrorists generate. Governments worldwide have latched onto this phenomenon and used it to instill a paranoia into its subjects that gradually erodes and replaces their ability to critically analyse. In doing so, these governments effectively draw attention away from their own employment of physical aggression, both on the people living within the state to beat them into submission, and also on those in other countries as part of an imperialist agenda.
The culture of fear has become so pervasive and ubiquitous that it’s almost understandable that the average citizen would rather focus on the actions of small terrorist cells than the large-scale, mechanical violence administered by the State’s various tools – simply because it’s easier. Over time, this develops into a complete reliance on the State to protect us from non-state terrorists and other external threats. By acknowledging the State’s authority over us, we legitimise its use of violence to maintain its power and protect the interests of the status quo, whether that be nationally or globally. The effects of State-sanctioned violence worldwide have been far more devastating than what a handful of suicide bombers have accomplished, yet our collective (selective) memory purposely blocks out this information.
When we do concede that State violence is an issue, we associate it solely with expressly totalitarian regimes and unstable governments in third-world or developing nations. We don’t want to recognise that the Australian Government’s forced assimilation policy in the early 20th century manifested itself in a very real and very violent removal of Indigenous children from their families by the State. We don’t care that Federal undercover agencies in the United States regularly intimidate and assault political dissidents, the covert and insidious nature of these operations mirroring the techniques of Cointelpro in the 1950s and 60s. We don’t even hear that self-acclaimed white supremacists and fascists patrol British streets looking for ‘Pakis’ and other people of ethnic appearance to beat up and harrass, while police purposely look away and silently condone their actions.
In each case, it is the tools of the State which have administrated the violence – whether personally or through association. The law is structured in a way that benefits the State, and that includes the continuing subjugation of already oppressed minority groups and the suppression of dissent to government policy. Police brutality against people of a different ethnic background to the dominant one, against queer people, and against people agitating for an alternative political structure is promoted by governments who turn a blind eye to hostile police conduct, and in some cases even enshrine it in legistlation. In Australia, police regularly use dogs, batons, pepper spray, and horses to obstruct political activists and terrorise them into abstinence. During the World Economic Forum in Melbourne in 2000, Victorian police removed their badges and laid heavy blows onto unsuspecting demonstrators. One woman was run over, twice, by an unmarked police car carrying four plainclothes police officers. This is the behaviour of the public face of the State’s enforcers – the actions of clandestine undercover intelligence organisations such as ASIO in Australia and MI5 in the UK are largely indiscernible, and in such secrecy the potential for violence is far greater.
State aggression is not solely limited to the population within its borders, either. While the nature of the photos taken at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq is deplorable, it’s naïve to assume that they are an exception to the norm. False imprisonment and torture have always been effective weapons during conflicts, and even after – just look at Guantanamo Bay. The brutality committed during war extends beyond physical cruelty to cold, systematic attempts to break people psychologically. While it is almost always the soldiers on the ground who take the blame when they’re caught, the structure of military units and communication between those at the top and those committing the deeds indicates that an overwhelming amount of violence against civilians is planned and executed by the State, and then passed off as the deviant actions of some.
One of the worst forms of state violence occurs when armies are deployed to methodically and sadistically rape the wom*n of the land that they’re occupying. Not only is this tactic used to terrorise and degrade civilians, but State rape is also carried out to ‘cleanse’ the bloodline of the enemy ethnic group. During the Bangladesh Liberation War, an approximated 250 000 to 500 000 wom*n aged from 10 to 80 were the victims of sexual violence committed by members of the Pakistani army. Many were kept in a state of bondage, and shot or speared up the vagina if they angered their captors. Communication between army officials and stories documented by journalists show that these acts weren’t committed by random soldiers, but were a systematic attempt to “leave [their] seed behind” to “carry loyal Pakistani offsprings instead of bootlickers of India or Hindus in [Bengali wom*ns’] wombs” (soldiers to their victims). A letter from one major to another says, “I have not been astonished that Rashid has controlled and made pet the Bengali wom*n/their next generation must have to be changed.” Similar incidents occurred in the former Yugoslavia, where most sexual violence was committed by ethnically Serbian men against Muslim wom*n.
State violence, far from being in the interests of the people that the State is meant to be protecting, works against them in order to maintain a submissive population. We’re so caught up in condemning suicide bombers in occupied Palestinian territories that we skim over the atrocities committed by Israel’s Defence Force. We’re so panicked about Islamic jihadists attacking Australians in Indonesia that we ignore the fact that the Indonesian government has orchestrated the killing of 200 000 East Timorese since its invasion in 1975. And of course, we’re particularly blind when it comes to the actions of our own government, because as our ‘representative’ it reflects badly on ourselves.
The frightening thing is that these actions are not restricted to any one country or type of government, but is integral to the running and maintenance of any nation state. As long as people place unfettered trust in bodies that use violence to maintain the right to regulate, monitor, and record our lives, those bodies will continue to do so.