Nearby Café Home > Literature & Writing > Stubborn Pine
Bibliography
Poetry, Fiction, Essays
Introduction

Essays

Drawing of pine tree

back to
essays
index

On "Terrorism": A Letter to the Editor
by Earl Coleman

Dec. 17, 2001

Howard J Ehrlich, Editor
Social Anarchism
2743 Maryland Ave
Baltimore, MD 21218

Dear Howard:

I start with your “call for papers” which prompted this letter where you ask “What have you been thinking since 9/11?” and “What do you think should or could be done to deal with terrorism?” When I was a publisher an age ago (I’m 86 now), I was going to acquire (publisher’s jargon for sign up authors) and produce a not-then (and not-yet) written series of books on the “undeclared wars” of the US, and as an adjunct to that do a series of books on “terrorism.” With these notions in mind I talked with many intellectuals and that path led me to Marc Raskin at the Institute For Policy Studies, where I trotted out for him my ideas for both series. He looked at me bemused and asked, “Terrorism? What’s that?”

I said “Hey, everyone knows what terrorism is.”

I paraphrase his response now from memory. “Do they? The history of the Narodniks demonstrates that you’re either crapping around about your beliefs or you really will take action to further them. Most intellectuals have no stomach to get arrested continually (which is what happens when you take action) and prefer talking or writing letters. Eventually it becomes apparent that if you want whatever situation it is that you believe needs to be changed in fact to be changed then something might actually need to be done. Silone in his book Fontamara ends the book with that question (Lenin’s question): What Is To Be Done? Menachim Begin figured out that the British would never get out of 'Palestine.' Adams, Paine and others figured out that the British would never give them representation despite essays by big-wheel Tories on 'conciliation.' They had a tea party. Liberals and intellectuals always like the idea of tea-party action better than Begin’s action. Gandhi was marvelous as a passive-aggressive and intellectuals like his mode of blackmailing, bulldozing the British to bend to his will, all under the banner of pacifism, with only the implicit threat of action in the offing. So what is to be learned? The powerful ones will never simply yield the field and walk away. Never happen! And willy-nilly we’re thrust always into the What Is To Be Done!? So before we trash all the liberation movements of the world using the word of the powerful ones, “terrorism,” ask first What Is To Be Done? If we intellectuals are afraid to ask that question it’s because we’d sure like things to be better but haven’t faced ‘what if the oppressor won’t walk away?’”

Marc’s notions remain in my memory as you can see. I’ve some notions about “terrorism” of my own, led there by that very conversation:

Where do we (thinking people of every stripe) stand on the question of the British-dominated North of Ireland and the question of “terrorism”?

Where did we stand on South Africa and apartheid where Reagan-Bush kept talking of Constructive Engagement when they were neither constructive nor engaged?

Where do we stand on Sharon’s provocation at the Temple Mount as well as on Arafat’s impotence and downright hostility?

If the Taliban believed in cutting people’s hands off is not that terrorism, and was that unknown to us as we were arming them and supporting them? And isn’t State Terrorism the rule (sometimes the Law) in nations that are allied to us and which we boast of as being part of our “coalition”?

So which “terrorism” are we talking about? Is the amount of people killed the measure? How about the killings we sponsored (Lumumba and Diem come to mind)? What about our training of the mujahadeen, arming them not only with weapons but with CIA manuals on how to rain terror on the Russian troops? Defensible because we were in a cold war? Could it be that when we sponsor terror through our surrogates it’s OK? Why is it that when we crack down on whatever we perceive as the current threat we always start with depriving citizens of their civil liberties (McCarthy, Ashcroft)?

These thoughts hardly represent answers, just questions. What is suggested to me as I’m writing this is that the subject of “terrorism” (as Marc said) is highly complex, not the simple-minded politician-speak we can hear every day on giant-owned TV or read any day in any Murdoch-owned newspaper. For thinking people the subject is widely ramified and I have yet to read an unbiased, un-tendentious, informed analysis of the various notions we must bear in mind as we think about this subject. Sweeping generalities about evil-doers may go down in Peoria, but won’t take us very far. Obviously too I have no “solutions” or “answers” since first I’d have to get my definitions straight, my “relativism” straight, my sense of What Happens After They Won’t Walk Away straight. I haven’t done that yet.

Sincerely,
/s/ Earl Coleman

back to top


© Copyright 2001 by Earl Coleman. All rights reserved.
For reprint permissions contact Earl Coleman,
emc@stubbornpine.com.