Date: Mon, 5 Aug 2002 09:57:39 -0400 From: Dave Belden Subject: Re: [*FSF-L*] BDG Schedule To: FEMINISTSF-LIT@UIC.EDU August 5th - my task to start off discussion about Starhawk's The Fifth Sacred Thing. These discussions run at different levels of critique, and I hope it goes without saying (but I'll say it anyway) that every contribution is needed to make up the whole, whether 'intellectual' or 'personal,' long or short. One of many things I learned from feminist practice was that confident voices may intimidate the unconfident, and ways have to be found to counteract that - by skilful chairing of meetings, or giving everyone a chance for a turn, or whatever. I'm not sure what the available methods are on a listserve like this, other than discussion moderators/instigators saying that there is no bar one has to jump in order to post here. I personally would like to hear in very simple terms what people made of this book, as well as hearing critiques from the more confident voices. Was it inspirational? Puzzling? A good read? Boring? Which characters did you like best? Is it ahead of its time, or swamped by 1980's enthusiasms? Just pen us a note. 1) Inspirational? I liked that Rachel wrote about Marge Piercy's Woman on the Edge of Time (WOTEOT) that it had been personally inspirational for her. I am wondering if the same is true for anyone with Starhawk's novel. I find it inspirational myself to some extent, but I will answer my own questions another time. I love this novel, but it also puzzles me, and the questions I have about it include: 2) Are we to take the healing that Madrone and others, especially the Melissa, do, for real? Not just the healing, but all the work with energies: the programming of crystals in computers, the long distance communication through dreams, the breaking of electrical security circuits through mind power alone etc. How much does Starhawk believe that she is describing present reality and/or realistic possibility, and how much is she delving into fantasy? Is this a science fiction novel, in the form of a pagan-informed physics/chemistry/biology, or a fantasy? E.g. is the Melissa's work an equivalent to the cyborg experiments in the last novel we read, Piercy's He, She and It, in the sense of a science fictional extrapolation of current trends, or is it more something the fairy queen might get up to in War of the Oaks (a book we did last year)? If you think it's intended as the former (science fiction) by the author, do you agree that it's possible (or at least as possible as Piercy's cyborg?) In other words, is magic, in the real world, actually a branch of science (or vice versa)? 3) Apart from that aspect (the pagan, spiritual, energy-working, magical) what differences do you see between Starhawk's feminist utopian vision, and Piercy's? Is there a basic, similar feminist vision at work here? Or does the magic in Starhawk's vision turn it into an altogether different thing? 4) Related question: what difference do you see between Starhawk's dystopic fears about the future and Piercy's? Or have we strayed more into Margaret Atwood (Handmaid's Tale) territory here? Did you understand how the corporations, the Stewards and the millennialists interacted, and who was who, who was boss? Did you find this at all believable as a scenario for the 2020s? 5) Another way of asking these last two questions is: you know that Starhawk had to have read Piercy, and surely Bryant's Kin of Ata (as Dorothy Bryant lives in the Bay Area and is well know there), and Margaret Atwood, and I don't doubt Ursula Le Guin (not just the Dispossessed, but Always Coming Home, which is set in the Bay Area - both Le Guin and Starhawk have a strong feeling for the landscape of their home area). What is Starhawk saying to these writers? That's enough to get us started. Happy reading, Dave Accord, NY davebelden@earthlink.net web page: www.davidbelden.com ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 5 Aug 2002 20:44:37 -0700 From: Jennifer Krauel Subject: [*FSF-L*] BDG: Fifth Sacred Thing To: FEMINISTSF-LIT@UIC.EDU Thanks for the great intro, Dave. It is important to encourage discussion at all levels. I like to read the intellectual comments, but they also intimidate me. I loved this book. I lived for years in San Francisco, and it changed how I saw the city. Common landmarks like Strawberry Hill were never the same again. In that way, I compare it to The City Not Long After, a fabulous book by Pat Murphy. I don't recall exactly (I read FST years ago), but I think she got one thing wrong -- referring to 7th Avenue instead of 7th Street at one point, but other than that, it was very believable in the setting at least. I also liked the contrast with the dystopian description of the future LA suburbs. I have no idea if the "magic" was physically possible but I really liked the idea of using power from crystals. It did seem much more like fantasy than SF to me, but that's perhaps because I know too much about how computers work today. Jennifer ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 6 Aug 2002 13:14:42 +0100 From: Angela Barclay Subject: Re: [*FSF-L*] BDG: Fifth Sacred Thing To: FEMINISTSF-LIT@UIC.EDU Like Jennifer I want to thank Dave for his unique and warm welcome to the discussion and to say I also LOVED this book. I received it about 7 years ago as a gift from my most "New Age" friend and devoured it in about a day and a half. I remember having to go for a long walk afterwards to ground myself in reality. What most stuck in my mind after that first frenzied reading was how disturbed I was by the Angels and how intrigued with the collective consciousness of the bee women and the wise women who meditated upon peace and wellbeing from their island. This time around Starhawk's strong characters really impressed me- they were fascinating and flawed like real people. I found Bird's story to be especially powerful and sad and loved that the older characters were depicted as fully sexual beings. _The Fifth Sacred Thing_ doesn't remind me of Piercy's dystopia but more of Tepper's _Gate to Women's County_ (the trek into the badlands and the religious fanatacism), Severna Park's _Hand of Prophecy_ (her awesome description of setting and genetically enhanced fighters) and Angela Carter's _Heroes and Villains_ (the monsters). I really appreciate having been exposed to Piercy's work and would now list her as being one of my favorite authors, but in comparison to Starhawk's smoothly flowing story find _He, She and It_ to have a researched, slightly stilted quality to it. (Although not as obviously researched as I found Mary Gentle's _A Secret History: The Book of Ash I_). Cheers, Angela ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 6 Aug 2002 14:21:10 -0500 From: Edie Bell Subject: Re: [*FSF-L*] BDG: Fifth Sacred Thing To: FEMINISTSF-LIT@UIC.EDU Bear in mind it has been years since I have read this book, and that is because the ending completely angered me. I found it utterly hypocritical that the utopians (I can't remember what they called themselves) would work so strongly at non-violent resistance but they would let their new "converts" violently battle the invading forces to save their homeland. How can one say that they are truly committed to a peaceful revolution when they have their own militia, willing to kill and die for their cause? That was such a glaring issue for me that it tainted the rest of the book. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 7 Aug 2002 01:35:28 +0200 From: Diane Severson Subject: Re: [*FSF-L*] BDG Schedule To: FEMINISTSF-LIT@UIC.EDU Hi Dave (and all list members), Thanks for the encouragement in your discussion kick-off! I'm one of those members who, when she has time to read the book is often more of a passive participant because I don't feel like I have much of interest to contribute. I never studied literature, I just love to read! I am interested in and thoroughly enjoy what the others have to say and I often which I could participate more actively. I'm glad to know that we can also just prattle on about somewhat more superficial aspects of a given book! Unfortunately, I haven't read the book yet and I don't know if I will get to it before the end of the month. It sounds like a subject matter, which is right up my alley, so I might make it a reading priority. I will give some thought! Diane On 5 Aug 2002, at 9:57, Dave Belden wrote: > August 5th - my task to start off discussion about Starhawk's The > Fifth Sacred Thing. > > These discussions run at different levels of critique, and I hope it > goes without saying (but I'll say it anyway) that every contribution > is needed to make up the whole, whether 'intellectual' or 'personal,' > long or short. One of many things I learned from feminist practice was > that confident voices may intimidate the unconfident, and ways have to > be found to counteract that - by skilful chairing of meetings, or > giving everyone a chance for a turn, or whatever. I'm not sure what > the available methods are on a listserve like this, other than > discussion moderators/instigators saying that there is no bar one has > to jump in order to post here. I personally would like to hear in very > simple terms what people made of this book, as well as hearing > critiques from the more confident voices. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 6 Aug 2002 21:40:42 EDT From: Lou Hoffman Subject: Re: [*FSF-L*] BDG Schedule To: FEMINISTSF-LIT@UIC.EDU > I personally would like to hear in very simple terms what people made of > this book, as well as hearing critiques from the more confident voices. Hi Dave and thanks for the warm welcome. While I find intellectual, academic critiques interesting, I don't contribute to them. I would like to hear personal comments as well. I read FST when it was first published, having read Starhawk's other books prior to that. I've read it several times over the years. At first I was enthralled by the utopian view of San Francisco and the strong women characters, but this last time I was more caught up in Bird's story. His internal integrity coupled with his self doubts, a good man driven to chose between evils, I felt that made him a believable character. I had problems with Madrone, for all her abilities, she needed a keeper! > 2) Are we to take the healing that Madrone and others, especially the > Melissa, do, for real? Not just the healing, but all the work with energies: > the programming of crystals in computers, the long distance communication > through dreams, the breaking of electrical security circuits through mind > power alone etc. How much does Starhawk believe that she is describing > present reality and/or realistic possibility, and how much is she delving > into fantasy? Is this a science fiction novel, in the form of a > pagan-informed physics/chemistry/biology, or a fantasy? A little of both. If you believe in psi skills now, this would seem a simple advancement of skills already present. If you don't, it would be fantasy. So it depends where you are coming from. As for what Starhawk believes, you would have to ask her. Not all pagans believe in all psi skills. I took the 'magical' stuff with a grain or three of salt. Many utopias and distopias posit a major reality shift, a swift ecological collapse, WWIII, a meteor strike. I don't think of change like this, I think it's more likely there will be a number of changes over a longer period of time. So I find 2020 to be far too soon for there to be this much change. Anybody? Lou ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 7 Aug 2002 18:37:45 +1000 From: Maire Subject: Re: [*FSF-L*] BDG Schedule To: FEMINISTSF-LIT@UIC.EDU Hi all I have not yet reread FST, though I plan to, for this disc. I bought this book after seeing it in the bargain bins. The author was unknown to me (not widely distributed in Aus, to say the least, and I had never heard it mentioned on-line at this or any other list at that time) I read it, not expecting a great deal. It really blew me away. It was the first book of its type I had read... that kind of eco-feminist thing, and it really had a big effect on me, probably one of the most influential books for me I have ever read. I have never been to San Francisco, but, as others have said, this book made it come alive to me, like a familiar haunt. I suppose it is a sort of.. longing, t hat made the book so great for me. Because I wish that the revolution that happened in the book, would happen in real life. I suppose for me, the book has two aspects... 1. the exploration of that type of life, built on the foundations of our existing culture (I loved the vegetable gardens at the front of each townhouse for example). And so on. 2. the actual story. I think I would have been quite happy had the author simply written a "how to" book, ... how to create and maintain an eco- feminist utopia! I will have to reread the book to make more specific comments on the story. What did people think of the healing etc? the spiritual healing etc? (can't remember what its called in book). I guess it, for me, that detracted a little cause I could no longer "see" the society actually happening, as I don't really believe in the mental healing etc ... Maire ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 7 Aug 2002 11:39:23 +0100 From: "donna.fancourt" Subject: Re: [*FSF-L*] BDG the Fifth Sacred Thing To: FEMINISTSF-LIT@UIC.EDU Hi, I'm so pleased this book has finally got onto the BDG, it kept being nominated for discussion, but hasn't got in until now. I loved this book when I read it a few years ago, and thought it was a wonderful example of new feminist utopian thinking - developing 70s feminist utopian thought for the 90s, introducing a New-Agey, Witchy eco-spiritual dimension, which I thought was fascinating and very suggestive. Unlike some utopias it also has a strong narrative and the plot drives the story forward, and it's easy to get lost in the plot and not take the time to absorb the utopian background, so it definitely demands several readings. I think one of the central things I liked about the book, is that although it's all about magic and spirituality and fantasy, it's all real in the sense that Starhawk practices everything she talks about in the novel. If you read any of her other books - Dreaming in the Dark, The Spiral Dance etc - which are all 'how to' books on witchcraft and feminist spirituality, you can see that she fully believes in the feminist spiritual future that she writes about in The Fifth Sacred Thing. I do actually think that the types of healing described in the novel are possible, the raising of energies, the telepathy, the communication through dreams, mind control - why not? I think the possibilities of the human mind and body are not yet known, and anyone who has practised yoga, or meditated or dabbled in alternative therapies knows the immense possibilities of the body for healing. I think the novel is a projection of Starhawk's fantasy of what her utopian future would look like, thus the book is fantasy/sci-fi, but also an example of what she and her community is doing in San Francisco, on a smaller scale. I have been dying to read an interview with Starhawk about the novel, but haven't come across anything yet, about what feminist utopian fiction she has read, and how she relates her novel to others in the field. I think it fits in very well, and I thought it might be particularly significant that there is a character called Consuelo (one of Connie's names in Woman on the Edge of Time) giving birth to a daughter in the opening pages of the novel. Although she dies in childbirth, I like to think that this is Starhawk bringing Connie into utopia, giving birth to her daughter in utopia, as she wanted to. In response to Lou's question about whether change will be sudden or slow, I think, like her, it is more likely to be slow and steady, a gradual move into utopia or dystopia. While for plot's sake the sudden apocalypse makes good drama, I think it's more likely that the seeds of change that we plant now will bear fruits in the future, which is why this novel, and Piercy's, and many other utopias, advocates change in the present, in the now, instead of waiting for the big revolution. I am going to see Starhawk in a seminar in London in a few weeks time (very excited about it!) and I hope to be able to ask her some questions about the book. If I get any answers, I'll share them with you. all the best, Donna ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 7 Aug 2002 15:14:46 -0400 From: Dave Belden Subject: Re: [*FSF-L*] BDG the Fifth Sacred Thing To: FEMINISTSF-LIT@UIC.EDU I agree, it is a great strength of this book, that it is not written by an armchair dreamer, but by a practical dreamer, who has filled her life with developing these practices. From reading her other books, it is clear she has spent much time and energy developing non-violent means of resistance, she has been to jail for it, as well as of course being a leading creator of the modern Goddess rituals and movement. This grounds the novel, provides solid take-off points for her flights of fancy. I would guess from the novel (but I don't know and wouldn't care to ask) that she has been involved in what we used to call multiple relationships, and now seems to be called polyamory, just because that is so central to her characters; and although a very rosy view is presented of such relationships, all the same, they seem to be just within the realistic side of rosy. I personally hate most meetings, having been in too many, but actually enjoy her descriptions of meetings, because they seem real. If you find commentary by her on the novel, or can ask her questions about it, please pass them on. One thing I like about the book, is that the real focus of the story turns out to be non-violent resistance. A fantasist telling a good yarn could so easily have used the energy stuff to provide some kind of solution against the invading army: just as the Stewards spread viruses in the North, the rebels could have introduced electronic viruses carried by bees or something into every piece of electric equipment in the stewards' economy and military and ground it all to a halt. But Starhawk has a much more real and important story to tell, about nonviolent resistance. I am only two thirds through on my reread, so can't comment yet on Edie's disappointment with the ending. Dave ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 15 Aug 2002 11:47:11 -0700 From: Margaret McBride Subject: [*FSF-L*] Fifth Sacred thing To: FEMINISTSF-LIT@UIC.EDU Reaction to novel: Let me start by admitting a bias. I had heard of this novel for years but never read it because of scepticism about the mysticism, pagan etc. I assumed it wouldn't be "real SF." I can suspend disbelief about esp sorts of things when I'm reading SF but something that takes such things literally is harder for me. However, I was pleasantly surprised by the book. It had enough details mixed in with its fantasy for me to enjoy it. I found it thoughtful and well enough written for me to put it on my list of feminist utopia that I recommend to others. The feelings I had after reading it were a lot like the ones on rereading Woman on the Edge of Time--that is, we have made some improvements in how women are seen in society, etc. but some very good things that seemed to be possible improvements in the 70s in the way of child rearing, ways of relating between people and with nature, etc. now seem to have been dismissed. I miss some of those hopeful feelings and it was good to read a book that reminded me of the potential for a more optimistic view. I also really liked the fact that some main and secondary characters were older men and women. That dimension is left out of SF and fantasy too often. One other bit that has stayed with me: her descriptions of thirst and the water problems have made me more appreciative of the simple joys of a cold glass of water. I recently heard an NPR article predicting that water costs in parts of the US will rise substantially and, of course, most of the US has much better access to water than many other parts of the world. >2) Are we to take the healing that Madrone and others, especially the >Melissa, do, for real? I see most of the descriptions as fantasy--but on an emotional or story-telling level, they worked for me. I was able to read without getting annoyed at impossibility. I guess because they worked on a metaphorical level anyway. These were people who had changed their ways of looking at the world and others. >4)have we strayed more into Margaret Atwood (Handmaid's Tale) territory here? Did you understand how the corporations, the Stewards and the millennialists interacted, and who was boss? Did you find this at all believable as a scenario for the 2020s? Maybe 18 years is too short for the dramatic changes but the general setup seemed believable to me. I found the dystopian descriptions as believable if not more than the ones in LeGuin's Always Coming Home for example (and I like that book too). ************************************ Margaret McBride, University of Oregon ************************************ ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2002 14:04:05 -0400 From: Dave Belden Subject: [*FSF-L*] The Fifth Sacred Thing To: FEMINISTSF-LIT@UIC.EDU Note: this is a spoiler. Save this for reading later if you haven't finished the novel. It is also enormously long. I just had a lot to say. I have to say that this is one of the most ambitious and successful novels I know of. Most sf writers would be happy to have believable characters and future society, and a great plot with strong narrative drive. In addition, feminist and other sf authors with a social agenda need at least to present strong female or minority characters; while utopians want to come up with an inspiring future society. Starhawk does all this successfully, in my opinion, before even getting to the most ambitious task she sets herself: to show that non-violence can work against a government and army that equals the worst humanity has produced. She reiterates the litany of Nazism, the slave trade, genocides. These are what her utopian society needs to be able to confront, and change, if it is to survive. And not just these, but plague and disease. Her people's spirituality and politics needs to be big enough to encompass, to know of, the worst evils of which nature and human nature are capable, and to survive. Crucially, instead of objectifying these horrible cruel acts of humans and nature as 'evil,' incomprehensible or devilish, and putting them 'over there', while we people, the good ones, are 'over here', she has her people struggle in themselves with these cruel forces. Madrone takes the disease into herself, to learn about it and overcome it. This becomes a metaphor for how the whole community takes the army into itself, and for how Bird becomes part of the army, in order to know it, and grapple with it at a deeper level than violence. There is no doubt in my mind that this is an inspiring and true attempt to grasp at what we humans need. I find this novel extraordinarily inspiring. But I did not expect to, second time around. I found Piercy's Woman on the Edge of Time (WOTEOT), a novel which greatly inspired me back when it was written, to have lost much of its magic for me on rereading for this listserve. But the Fifth Sacred Thing still casts its spell on me, if anything more than it did first time around. This time around, WOTEOT seemed too ungrounded: getting rid of birthing seemed ungrounded, a head trip; the armed struggle seemed unrealistic; the economy seemed unrealistic (with its quotas, reminiscent of soviet five year planning - typical of the left even in the 70s); both the collapse of the current world economy and the creation of the new one seemed too fast; and the whole creation of such a fully rounded, consensus-driven, feminist society seemed too fast. What grounds the novel is Connie and her experiences and attitudes; but though she is in sharp focus, the future(s) she encounters seem less realistic and more out of focus to me now than they did then. The Fifth Sacred Thing (TFST) has some of the same problems: the too rapid collapse of our current society and at the end, the too rapid disappearance of the military. After the climactic scene where Bird is made to confront Maya in public, Starhawk sends the military packing in less than a page. This is odd, considering how she has avoided easy answers up to then. But I was actually willing to suspend my disbelief on that issue, because I bought into so much else. In TFST there are aspects of the society that do not seem realistic to me: especially the extremes of healing, the bees, and programming crystals or unlocking electronic devices by pure mental energy. And one has to take for granted that the Stewards originally abandoned San Francisco for reasons of their own, rather than because lots of alternative folks dug up the tarmac. But the development of the new society from that point was well told. This utopia is believable. It is full of differences (Cress and his faction, even the differences among the healers over traditional vs. energy-based medicine), and hard choices (e.g. the expulsion of the wild boar people). The people seem totally real: as real as Shevek in the Dispossessed, or Connie in WOTEOT: for my money, more real than Luciente. The economy seems possible, a regulated market economy (this shift to markets happened on the left between the 70s and the 90s). The locale is totally real, especially for anyone who has lived in San Francisco (for 12 years I lived in walking distance of the spiral hill in the lake where the nine crones guard the city). The spiritual basis of the new society has much to do with why I find it more plausible and attractive. It is an eclectic spirituality, broad enough to include the Christian Sisters next door, the Jewish tradition etc., and more focused on ecology and recalling the ancestors than on supernatural beings. It goes forward through myth, story, symbolism, music, ritual, healing, energy work: the richness of traditional religions and then some, without their dogmas. As an agnostic, even I can buy into it. The left as a whole spent most of the 20th century lacking any deep and universally available spirituality, (and lacking even the desire for it), and in my experience, it was feminists who started bringing it in, in the 1980s. I believe there are reasons why religions survive, beyond their misappropriation as rationalizations for powerful elites. The secular left cut off much of its own spiritual nourishment by rejecting religion as the opiate of the masses. That's one reason why Starhawk's vision feels to me like a more mature or holistic feminism than the 70s variety that lies behind WOTEOT. The social egalitarianism in WOTEOT and TFST both come from the socialist/anarchist left, the gender politics from feminism; the polyamory in both novels is pure 70s alternative culture; but the healing and spirituality, like the ecological consciousness and understanding of market economics, is more a development of the 80s. It's a step forward, a larger embrace of the world. As a man, of course, I also like that Starhawk's is not a feminism that writes off men. She is perfectly clear about the evil of male violence. But a crucial moment in the book is when the military is trying to break down Bird in jail one little step at a time, and they think getting him to rape Rosa is the next small step; whereas for him it is the ultimate impossibility. The implication is that it would be for most men raised like him. Did people find this plausible? More or less plausible than the bees? I don't know, but I thank her for it: we men desperately need to be believed in. This too made it seem like a more mature feminism, or perhaps I should say a more universal or human approach. (This is not by contrast to Piercy, who shares this breadth, but still I found it more developed in this novel). The focus on disease also made it more universal. Disease is not a gender issue, at base. How it is treated, its sociology etc. of course is gendered. But the most feminist, egalitarian society will still have disease. This novel was written in the Western city perhaps hardest hit by plague in the lifetime of Starhawk's (and my) generation. Personal knowledge of San Francisco in the time of AIDS before the current life-prolonging drugs suffuses this novel. It brings a sense that our struggle is not just against oppression, but for life and health itself. But the best thing for me is Starhawk's attempt to tackle non-violence head on. This is why she has to make the Stewards so terrible - caricatures of both right wing Christians and corporations, and way beyond what they could become in one generation, in my opinion. That debate aside, she clearly needed a Nazi-level regime to go up against. As I wrote at the start, she constantly reiterates the horrors of the past: the Holocaust, the slave trade, the genocide of Native Americans. This is extraordinarily ambitious. She wants to heal the whole of history. She wants to say: non-violence doesn't just work against relatively democratic people who want to preserve their moral self image like the British in India, or white Americans in Selma, it will work anywhere. Or at least, it must be tried even if it fails, because violence never works. I looked for and failed to find the place where she actually says that violence never works. It's there somewhere. That is a huge debate in itself - I think it is much less clear than she argues. One of the great surprises of history, to me, is that the European powers which caused more carnage than any others in history, have been at peace with each other for almost 60 years, and are unlikely to go to war with each other again. I am overwhelmingly grateful to all those who fought the Nazis to make it so. No doubt training the entire population of late 1930s Europe in non-violent resistance, of the sort portrayed in this novel, would have secured a better result. But that was not remotely feasible, and agreeing that mass non-violence would have been better doesn't mean that fighting Hitler was wrong or that it didn't change anything. Fighting Hitler changed a great deal, saved modern European democracy, gave growing space for countless lives and for vital ideas, such as modern feminism. Some mid-19th century Christian revivalists, notably Charles Finney, the most successful of them, argued that Christians should not get involved in political campaigns against slavery, since revivals would change enough slave owners to end it voluntarily. Thank God (?) many Christians disagreed and led the political fight for abolition. At times Starhawk's purism seems as out of touch as Finney's. Both are right, in one sense: changing hearts is better than coercion. But can it work on a big scale, to change history? The challenge Starhawk undertakes is to make a plausible scenario in which 1) a whole population can be trained to forego violence and coercion and undertake a kind of deep public theater in order to try and change the oppressors' hearts, and 2) they do this against the worst history has to offer. And in spite of the speed of the army's collapse at the end, I think she makes her case incredibly well. Am I being naïve? I actually think she makes it work. (Will I still in a month, when the novel's glamour has faded?). In TFST you can see how hard it is to get consensus even in a totally prepared populace like this one, how it could be done, how they could train (as Starhawk has trained many groups herself), what the cost would be in applying it, how it could affect the enemy. It reads true, and possible, in such a context, to me. That doesn't mean I think the Jews could have avoided the Holocaust by such actions - the context was too different. Likewise, the Palestinians' history has probably prepared them less well to follow a Palestinian Gandhi, should such have appeared, than the Indians' history prepared them for Gandhi himself: though, really, the appearance of a Gandhi or an MLK or Mandela is utterly astonishing anywhere. The question for us is, are we more ready than previous populations to try such a strategy, if put to the test ourselves - e.g. by a fascist-type takeover in the USA? I think that modern peace, plenty, education, and health have made us more able to learn of such things, to read novels like this, to imagine such outcomes, than our grandparents' generation in Europe. Are we too lulled by advertising and TV to get off our butts and try it? I don't know, but I don't think so. Today, a lot more people would at least have a go than tried to in 1939. This brings me to my main problem with the novel. Using the terms of the novel itself, you can think of any situation, especially a crisis, as the Good Reality (el Mondo Bueno) or the Bad Reality. In such terms, there is little doubt that Starhawk sees our present society as the Bad Reality. I know she had to portray it as such, for the novel. I wonder what she really thinks? I fear she is so far into her alternative culture, that she demonizes the mainstream. And the danger of this, as she explains in other contexts in her novel, is that defining something as the Bad Reality helps to make it so. I think that democracy and freedom and the rule of law run deep in this culture. Creating even this much democracy has been a long tough road. I have lived in countries without (e.g. Eritrea under Haile Selassie). For people in dictatorships, the imperfect US democracy looks unattainably wonderful. I don't think it would be given up as easily as it is in this novel. I think that Starhawk has bought into a general gloom and doom on the left that takes every sign of social sickness and extrapolates it to its most horrific possible conclusion. From this viewpoint, when ecological degradation was 'discovered' in a big way in the 70s and 80s, the only plausible outcome is a Central Valley as desert, oceans too toxic to swim in, the whales gone, as in TFST: when in fact the discovery of degradation started the ball rolling the other way. Several whale species are already abundant again. So also, when the resurgence of the Christian right was 'discovered' in the 1970s and 80s, left imaginations went wild with scenarios like The Handmaid' s Tale and the TFST Stewards / Millennialists. But that's demonizing. (I know lots of SF has fun doing this, and mostly I don't object, but I am taking this novel more seriously, as seriously as it asks to be taken, and I think such demonizing has consequences). The whales are recovering, and there is evidence the fundamentalists are also. A recent New York Times article pointed out that when security situations have got impossible in some African countries lately, and most Western medical teams left, the only ones who stayed were the fundamentalist Christians. They have recently got energized about combating AIDS in Africa. If Bono had not believed Jesse Helms could change his decades-long opposition towards aid to the poorest, he would not have talked religion to him. Bono took the el Mondo Bueno view, and Helms changed his outlook, and so billions of unexpected dollars are going to Africa (at least in theory - now looks like there are hold-ups). There are good sociological reasons why fundamentalists become more vested in this-worldly solutions as their clientele becomes better off. Defeat in the Civil War, and being left behind economically by the North, generated Bible Belt fundamentalism: the magical solution of the Second Coming. The current economic rise of the South will eventually turn the fundamentalists back into folks who believe in progress, the social gospel, and being stewards (in the best sense) of the environment. I am told there are already fundamentalist environmental groups. I am a stuck record on this topic, on this listserve, so I will leave it. But my point is simply that the left's penchant for thinking the worst helps galvanize public opinion to change things at some times, but in the long run leads many idealists, especially young idealists, to give up on Western civilization and democracy altogether. This is frightening. It is giving up on so much accomplishment by brave women and men who fought for and won incremental gains. Demonizing the opposition doesn't help them change at all - as demonstrated rather beautifully by the non-violent tactics in TFST. I objected to this demonizing tendency in the Handmaid's Tale, WOTEOT and He, She and It, and I object to it in TFST. At the same time, I see that for Starhawk's broader purpose, it is necessary to construct a terrible, cruel, fundamentalist enemy to go up against. I expected to dislike TFST, second time around, because of this demonizing. Instead I was completely won over by the humanity of the novel. This is what I want for the future: an egalitarian spiritually alive garden city, with people trained in non-violent conflict. It's just that I believe we can get there slowly by evolution, not by demonizing anyone or expecting the worst. The latter may actually help create or allow to happen the very evils we fear. I prefer to believe Starhawk needed a fascist America for her novel, but in fact is working to avoid that outcome and does not believe it need happen. I want to believe that she sees the worst of the Bad World, but chooses to live in el Mundo Bueno. That is the biggest challenge, bar none, that religion, literature, academia and humans in general can aspire to. This novel, despite and because of its contradictions, is a great teaching tool and inspiration in that task. Dave Dave Belden web page: www.davidbelden.com ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2002 17:37:52 -0500 From: Edie Bell Subject: Re: [*FSF-L*] The Fifth Sacred Thing To: FEMINISTSF-LIT@UIC.EDU At 02:04 PM 8/26/2002 -0400, Dave Belden wrote: > But the best thing for me is Starhawk's attempt to tackle non-violence head > on. This is why she has to make the Stewards so terrible ­ caricatures of > both right wing Christians and corporations, and way beyond what they could > become in one generation, in my opinion. That debate aside, she clearly > needed a Nazi-level regime to go up against. As I wrote at the start, she > constantly reiterates the horrors of the past: the Holocaust, the slave > trade, the genocide of Native Americans. This is extraordinarily ambitious. > She wants to heal the whole of history. She wants to say: non-violence doesn't > just work against relatively democratic people who want to preserve their > moral self image like the British in India, or white Americans in Selma, it > will work anywhere. Or at least, it must be tried even if it fails, because > violence never works. > > I looked for and failed to find the place where she actually says that > violence never works. It's there somewhere. That is a huge debate in > itself ­ I think it is much less clear than she argues. One of the great > surprises of history, to me, is that the European powers which caused more > carnage than any others in history, have been at peace with each other for > almost 60 years, and are unlikely to go to war with each other again. I am > overwhelmingly grateful to all those who fought the Nazis to make it so. No > doubt training the entire population of late 1930s Europe in non-violent > resistance, of the sort portrayed in this novel, would have secured a better > result. But that was not remotely feasible, and agreeing that mass > non-violence would have been better doesn't mean that fighting Hitler was > wrong or that it didn't change anything. Fighting Hitler changed a great > deal, saved modern European democracy, gave growing space for countless > lives and for vital ideas, such as modern feminism. > > Some mid-19th century Christian revivalists, notably Charles Finney, the > most successful of them, argued that Christians should not get involved in > political campaigns against slavery, since revivals would change enough > slave owners to end it voluntarily. Thank God (?) many Christians disagreed > and led the political fight for abolition. At times Starhawk's purism seems > as out of touch as Finney's. Both are right, in one sense: changing hearts > is better than coercion. But can it work on a big scale, to change history? > The challenge Starhawk undertakes is to make a plausible scenario in which > 1) a whole population can be trained to forego violence and coercion and > undertake a kind of deep public theater in order to try and change the > oppressors' hearts, and 2) they do this against the worst history has to > offer. And in spite of the speed of the army's collapse at the end, I think > she makes her case incredibly well. ------------------------------------------------------ I completely disagree with the premise that The Fifth Sacred Thing shows a successful non-violent community, being that their freedom was ultimately preserved by ***having the members of the military that were "converted" violently attack and kill the remaining military***. A non-violent community does NOT have a militia if they are truly non-violent. In fact, even though non-violent resistance is something I hold near and dear to my heart, I would have been less put off if they had decided to ultimately take up arms and defend their way of life. But instead they let the former military that had "seen the non-violent truth" go about shedding the blood for them. They didn't even try to stop them from fighting the unconverted military, or express regret over the besmirching of their belief system. If anything, the book shows that you can hold lofty ideals AND still profit guilt-free from those ideals being violated IN YOUR NAME, so long as you personally don't hold the gun, as it were. That is something that I believe doesn't gibe well with the ostensible message of true non-violent activism. Not much of a change of the status quo, IMHO. Can you tell how very much I hated the ending of this book? I swear, it had me till then, but such a glaring hypocrisy is not something I can swallow for a nifty yarn. Edie ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2002 18:39:36 -0700 From: Lee Anne Phillips Subject: Re: [*FSF-L*] The Fifth Sacred Thing To: FEMINISTSF-LIT@UIC.EDU At 05:37 PM 8/26/02 -0500, Edie Bell wrote: > I completely disagree with the premise that > The Fifth Sacred Thing shows a successful > non-violent community... This is a common problem in attempts to show non-violence succeeding, in the face of anecdotal evidence that it rarely does and overwhelming experience to the contrary, that violence quite often changes the course of history so radically that all the non-violence in the world can't put things right. Heinlein is famous for his dismissive argument that one need only ask the city fathers of Carthage whether they thought that "violence ever solved anything," the point being that "Carthago delenda est," Cato's bellicose rallying cry, succeeded in doing exactly that, utterly destroying Carthage and the Punic (Phoenician) civilization. We note that the site of Carthage (near Tunis in Tunisia) is still in ruins after the inhabitants were sold into slavery or slaughtered, the fields sown with salt, and the city brought down with particular Roman efficiency. We recollect that the Phoenicians themselves haven't been heard of in quite some time, and that Roman culture and language are still with us, an important part of every English speaker's education. Violence is equally decisive in individual lives, cutting off many with no other recourse than a hope of reincarnation or heavenly bliss, destroying the happiness of others, blighting their lives and happiness, while others are relatively unharmed. Except perhaps from the lingering effects of survivor guilt. Katherine V. Forrest's SciFi work has similar failings as does Starhawk's, with the resolution of the plots depending heavily on violence but the characters blissfully denying that violence took place, or that they had any hand in facilitating it, in a surreal, even psychotic, dissociation from the reality they seem to exist within. Daughters of an Amber Noon, the sequel to Daughters of a Coral Dawn, is the worst of all, with the women running screaming into the closet when faced with difficulties, cowering until a *man* rescues them by murdering all the bad guys, and then coming out of hiding while congratulating themselves on the success of their "non-violent" response to danger. This approach to self-defense will be familiar to anyone who's ever watched a movie from the 40's, where the proper response of women in any danger, whether from alien invaders, dangerous criminals, or mice, is to faint dead away and wait for the hero to rescue her. A thousand film noir detectives, G-men, and cowboys have all played out this same scenario with "plug-compatible" (and I use this phrase advisedly) heroines who furnish the hero's reward with a visible kiss and a swift fade to black with the implication of a much more tangible "reward" to follow. Indeed, this formula is still with us, a staple of popular culture. Starhawk and Forrest just "radicalize" the concept by neglecting to fuck the hero after the fighting is over, even denying that the hero ever existed. Tch, tch. The Daughters, who had advanced science and technology that *might* have made a difference in a world in which millions of women were being systematically murdered, raped, and enslaved, wisely decided that as long as they were safe it was just too bad about the women not part of their tribe. While they were saddened by the fate of the great majority of women, the crypto-racist descendents of a superior being from outer space really owed it to themselves to be as safe and comfortable as possible, concentrating on their artistic growth and pursuit of the finer things in life while doing their best to ignore the screams coming from outside their safe little hidey hole. I'm reminded of the scene in The Fantastiks where the young girl is able to dance and laugh while people are being tortured, as long as she has the mask over her eyes. Anonymity allows us to hide behind masks, to ignore injustice and oppression, to let the victim cry out unheeded. It's only when the masks are stripped away, when our naked cowardice is exposed for all to see, that we are moved to act. The Daughters were not just in hiding from their enemies, they were hiding from their sisters, utterly terrified to let *them* know that they, the Daughters, were safe and cozy while all other women were hunted and murdered for sport. And these are supposed to be "feminist" novels. By these standards, the craven (or complicit) acquiescence of the mass of Europeans to the slaughter of Jews, Gypsies, homosexuals, and other ethnic and social minorities was heroic humanitarianism; American tolerance of the Ku Klux Klan principled adherence to moral law; and the 38 neighbors of Kitty Genovese, who was first mugged, then raped, and then cruelly murdered over the course of half an hour while said neighbors did nothing, even to call the police, noble representatives of all that is good in America. The problem addressed in many utopian novels is that a basic premise, the collapse of current civilization, has already happened hundreds of times over the ages. What follows is *never* utopia but rather armed struggle, civil disorder, rapacious conquest by outsiders, merciless exploitation, and a general mess. The collapse of civilizations, even deeply flawed civilizations, has always meant an enormous increase in human misery and grief. Civilization is, in fact, our closest approach to utopia yet, even this one. There is no doubt that it could be made better, tinkered with, modified, tweaked, but the adolescent desire to "grasp this sorry scheme of things entire," to "shatter it to bits and then remold it nearer to the heart's desire" is futile and uninformative, more suited to a religious fanatic than a liberal humanist. Maturity usually brings with it respect for the accomplishments of our parents, overcoming our puerile disdain with, first grudging admiration, then awe that so much has been accomplished by people merely mortal, striving to be and do the best they can in the face of many obstacles, both without and within. There is another sort of Utopia, best exemplified perhaps by Wright's Islandia, in which the past is revered, in which people study for years to discover ways to improve the land left to them by their parents, who were equally respectful of the past and of the nature of their land, before daring to "improve" anything. The literary art form of Islandia is not grand dramas, tragedies involving kings and warriors, but the anecdote, the homely fable. The Islandians see worlds in the daily interaction between two ordinary people, where we view mighty wars and courtly intrigue as metaphors for our own lives. Where we talk of Hamlet, of murder, and great alarums, they talk of a visit to a farmer by his friend, and how when he left he noted that, despite his lack of particular gifts otherwise, his wife and children were happy and untroubled, and his memory of that family's house was one of laughter and joy. "Come by the hills to a land where fancy is free And stand where the peaks meet the sky and the lochs reach the sea Where the rivers run clear and the bracken is gold in the sun And the cares of tomorrow must wait 'til this day is done. "Come by the hills to the land where life is a song And sing while the birds fill the air with their joy all day long Where the trees sway in time and even the wind sings in tune And the cares of tomorrow can wait 'til this day is done. "Come by the hills to a land where legend remains Where stories of old stir the heart and may yet come again Where the past has been lost and the future has still to be won And the cares of tomorrow must wait 'til this day is done." - Traditional Scots Air (Tune: Buchal an Eire) ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2002 11:11:17 -0400 From: Gwen Veazey Subject: [*FSF-L*] Fifth Sacred Thing To: FEMINISTSF-LIT@UIC.EDU I am enjoying all the responses on _Fifth Sacred Thing_. (Thanks to Dave for his thoughtful analysis and the welcome he extended to all of us for our comments.) Thanks to Lee Ann and Edie also - good points about non-violence. I liked the novel despite the magic-is-real, but was disturbed by the male character having to undergo extreme torture. I know, that's life, but still disturbing to me. It reminded me of how some interpret the Christian passion: suffering, in and of itself, is redemptive and good. You have to experience the worst to get to the best, etc. I have a lot of trouble with this idea, and I think it's because the concept is used to keep powerless people from acknowledging that they could take action. I know it's been used to "counsel" battered women to stay with abusive husbands. Could someone help me out with why Starhawk felt the need to include this torture? (I confess to having read the book ten or more years ago - so may be remembering/not remembering accurately.) I am aware that the idea that Christ suffered the worst and overcame it is comforting to many, despite the supernatural nature of the "overcoming." One of the most powerful scenes I remember was the character falling into a swimming pool. What a vivid image after her days of extreme thirst. I thought Starhawk succeeded in having the reader feel the same shock as her character in discovering such extravagances existed. I had the opportunity to meet Starhawk in '92 at an east coast event and found her to be warm, friendly, and down to earth. Enjoyed participating in mixed gender rituals, because I usually am involved in women-only gatherings. It's different. Of interest: Starhawk spoke at a Presbyterian sponsored event 10-15 years ago and the fundamentalist Presbyterians are still using her name to invoke terror and raise money. Ha. Best, Gwen ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2002 12:02:10 -0400 From: Dave Belden Subject: Re: [*FSF-L*] The Fifth Sacred Thing To: FEMINISTSF-LIT@UIC.EDU Edie wrote: > I completely disagree with the premise that The Fifth Sacred Thing shows a > successful non-violent community, being that their freedom was ultimately > preserved by ***having the members of the military that were "converted" > violently attack and kill the remaining military***. A non-violent > community does NOT have a militia if they are truly non-violent. > > In fact, even though non-violent resistance is something I hold near and > dear to my heart, I would have been less put off if they had decided to > ultimately take up arms and defend their way of life. But instead they let > the former military that had "seen the non-violent truth" go about shedding > the blood for them. They didn't even try to stop them from fighting the > unconverted military, or express regret over the besmirching of their belief > system. If anything, the book shows that you can hold lofty ideals AND > still profit guilt-free from those ideals being violated IN YOUR NAME, so > long as you personally don't hold the gun, as it were. That is something > that I believe doesn't gibe well with the ostensible message of true > non-violent activism. Not much of a change of the status quo, IMHO. > > Can you tell how very much I hated the ending of this book? I swear, it had > me till then, but such a glaring hypocrisy is not something I can swallow > for a nifty yarn. > > Edie I read that ending completely differently from you. Starhawk was not trying for some pure, idealist's utopian vision, unsullied by real nasty human life. This was the best that could happen in the dirty, foul circumstances of that time. Part of it is, this was the best that Ohnine/River could come up with. This was as far as he could go. What a huge change to get that far. Part of it is, like aikido, using the power of the blow to topple the attacker, using part of the army against itself; turn its violence on itself. But it was not done by trickery, it was done by reaching the better nature, the more human nature of the soldiers themselves: this was the best these soldiers could do and it saved the people they had started to care about. This could not have been done by approaching Ohnine and the others with violence: it could only have been done by approaching them with some extraordinary theater of humanity. I'm sure you'll agree with that. Yes, it was a violent end, but I think that there is in pagan religion an all-embracingness that doesn't in the end countenance pure opposites: it embraces the dark as well as the light; Kali has skulls around her neck and blood dripping from her teeth. I don't mean that Maya's people were now going to pick up arms and follow River and think that was OK, obviously they would not do that. River may well live to horribly regret what he did, as various people in the story already regretted the horrible things they had done - as Bird regretted killing the people in the nuclear power station. And yet was it wrong for him to do that at the time? The book doesn't exactly say so. It says he could mature from there, so he wouldn't do such a thing again, and so he would find a more effective way. Was it wrong for the weird young people in LA to kill the child killer? Madrone doesn't exactly say so. She doesn't judge them like that. It's a progression, a working with what people are and where they are at. So the greatest victories are sullied by horror - that's the nature of life. Doesn't that seem true to life? the wheel of life and death, the whole that encompasses everything. And yet that doesn't mean we can only sink back into cynicism and violence, because progress is possible, Bird can survive all the hell he is put through, Madrone can come back from her flirtation with death. Even the violent act that is done with good intentions can have some redeeming quality, though it will also have its negative consequences. The end of this story is just a lull - now will come the challenge of incorporating all these soldiers, socializing them in the new ways, and then dealing with the Stewards' next assault. Perhaps this time with less success, or more. Perhaps they can take the struggle to the enemy before the enemy attacks, by teaching the rebels down south how to use non-violent tactics. Things will go forward in the messy way that is human. That's one thing I like so much about the novel: in spite of its fantastic, magical, wish fulfillment elements, when it comes to the real test, it doesn't rely on some magical resolution of things - they don't all use mind power to disable the soldiers' guns, for example, which is what a lesser writer might have done. Now that would really have disappointed me: a stupidly magical happy ending. Instead they change the soldiers' minds, or enough of them to resist in the only way they knew: and thus to give the general the only lesson he could absorb. A dirty end. Perfect. There's more truth in paradox, than in pure logic or consistency, often. I feel that you are wanting some pure ending, and the vehemence with which you want it suggests that you are not as ready as Starhawk to work with the mess we have, and still to have the patience to pull good out of it. Why does it have to be all good or nothing? Why can't we make baby steps forward, stumbling and sometimes dancing? Do we have to dance all the time? I am suspicious of purist ideologues, who have to have things just so - it's not real. It's better that they have a messy, real ending to that part of their story. It gives them plenty to work on in the next part. Dave ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2002 13:30:09 -0400 From: Dave Belden Subject: Re: [*FSF-L*] Fifth Sacred Thing To: FEMINISTSF-LIT@UIC.EDU Gwen asked: "Could someone help me out with why Starhawk felt the need to include this torture?" Personally I think that in the novel as a whole, and with Bird in particular, Starhawk was trying to be simultaneously a realist and hold out hope. She was trying to take the worst that nature and humans hand out, and show that it could be lived through and transcended. 'Realism' in literature is often taken to refer to writers who describe the worst of humanity. She is trying to go down as deep in the pit as they do and still come up with a hopeful way forward. Even a man, brutalized by men, can refuse to rape a girl. If, that is, he has been brought up right - it's a vote for the primacy of culture and against that of some supposed male raping instinct. Which is of course a classic left viewpoint, the human baby as innocent tabula rasa to be written on by culture, that has been receiving some heavy scientific hits recently. I don't think she thought that the suffering was redeeming him in any way - I don't see an ounce of that Christian concept in there. He was redeemed by his prior relationships with women (which made him unable to rape the girl), and to some extent by his refusal to see the soldiers as purely evil. He knows he is one of them; he has to become one of them to change them: it is his response to torture that changes them, not their torture that changes him - though he thinks otherwise at the time, seeing himself as a failure when in fact he is the key to success. If he wasn't tortured, broken, brought down to their level, and yet even then refused the rape, he would never have moved them or changed them. I think that's the reason she did it: to get in deep enough to the soldiers to change them. It's what makes their conversion plausible, to me. Otherwise, without something like that that shows human minds changing, it's all wishful thinking about the power of nonviolence. There is a kind of truly American optimism in Starhawk's determination to find even men redeemable in the worst of circumstances. And, Lee Anne, it is not achieved by women swooning at him or by promising sex with him afterwards. Dave ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2002 11:45:38 -0700 From: Jennifer Krauel Subject: [*FSF-L*] BDG: Fifth Sacred Thing, and non-violent resistance in other books To: FEMINISTSF-LIT@UIC.EDU I am enjoying all the debate about this book. I am also thinking about other books portraying non-violent resistance. In particular I remember Joan Slonczewski's Door into Ocean. I don't think the all-female society ever responded with violence in that story, though I got really frustrated with it after a while, and I think they did finally prevail. But it was a long time ago that I read it, so I might be wrong. All of her books that I've read (most of them) deal with Quaker-inspired non-violence, and all are well written and good stories. I am also remembering some aspect of non-violent resistance in the Snow Queen, which we discussed in November 1998. That wasn't a big discussion topic, but I think there was an intelligence species that would not defend itself with violence. Any other depictions of non-violent response that show a realistic victory? Jennifer ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2002 15:25:08 EDT From: Rachel Wild Subject: Re: [*FSF-L*] Fifth Sacred Thing To: FEMINISTSF-LIT@UIC.EDU Hi, My take on non-violence in TFST is that it is shown as the only part way viable option for a small community against a militaristic empire. It is not shown as the only option - but as the most effective in the circumstances. Regardless of their morals it is not possible for this community to fight a guerrilla war. They are too ill equipped. Of course this novel is about the beauty of non-violence but I read it as relatively non-judgemental about violence in self defence... that it is accepted that many folk/ communities will choose small acts of violence because they have limited choices. However, for me, the central message for choosing non-violence is the "you can't get there from here" philosophy. It is peoples vision about the kind of society they wish to get to that dictates their options - If the city folk choose violence they will loose their society and therefore cease to exist as effectively as if they are conquered. This is why they act as they do. I feel that the end is a fragile kind of truce... that the greatest challenge comes next. Can this society absorb the lives of those it must now take in? the ex-soldiers... the ex-?rapists?. Will it's mutual aid be strong enough to allow the certain change that this will bring? Bird has been broken, many have died, the city has deep factional wounds, people are recovering from torture - This is not 'happy ever after' it is possibly, at best, a close and luck escape . Bye Rachel ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2002 15:34:24 EDT From: Rachel Wild Subject: Re: [*FSF-L*] BDG: Fifth Sacred Thing, and non-violent resistance in other bo... To: FEMINISTSF-LIT@UIC.EDU Jennifer wrote: In particular I remember Joan Slonczewski's Door into Ocean. I don't think the all-female society ever responded with violence in that story, though I got really frustrated with it after a while, and I think they did finally prevail. - I felt that an interesting dilemma is ppresented in door ito ocean. The women succeed because they cannot be easily tortured... they can choose to die at will... and are also factually aware of their re-incarnation. Two options not easily available to modern terrans! I feel that the torture of Bird in TFST is of huge importance to the book... Does anyone have any posts on non-violence and torture in contemporary conflicts ? Bye Rachel ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2002 00:17:48 -0400 From: "Janice E. Dawley" Subject: [*FSF-L*] BDG: The Fifth Sacred Thing To: FEMINISTSF-LIT@UIC.EDU It looks like I finished *The Fifth Sacred Thing* just in time for the revived discussion. This was a slow, rather laborious read for me. I didn't dislike it enough to give up on it, but I can't say that I enjoyed it either. To start with the positive, I will say that the settings were vivid and well differentiated: San Francisco clean, green and lively; the hills outside LA dry and dusty; the toxic currents of the ocean flowing through drowned city streets. There were sections, particularly in the latter half of the book, that were involving as vignettes. Madrone's sexual encounter with Hijohn and its aftermath had the ring of truth, as did Bird's imprisonment and torture by an army with the means of persuasion but very few pertinent questions to ask. Like Dave, I also appreciated the descriptions of the often boring and overlong process of consensus-based meetings. The principle is important, but there's no denying that there's a price in time and energy for those involved. I appreciated the author's honesty about that. I did not appreciate her obvious bias toward a manufactured goddess religion. She has her beliefs, and she is entitled to them, but I wish she hadn't a) made a show of tolerating other religions while making sure hers always came out on top and b) been so literal and elitist about it. The scene in chapter 6 in which Bird leads the Monsters in a ritual was the worst example of this. The Monsters aspire to be witches, but they haven't had the teaching they need; Bird leads them through a precise sequence of actions that results in their first sight of a circle of protection. He thinks, "there was something touching about these halting, awkward attempts to keep the rites without really understanding how to raise and channel power." (p. 96) Could the condescension be laid on any thicker? How much better is this than any other religion that reserves "power" only for those who know the proper rites? This is just one example of the "not practicing what you preach" problem that I ran across several times in this book. Another is the approach to polyamory. The author seems to want to believe in it and to want everyone else to believe in it, but her portrayal lacks substance. Bird and Madrone's partners -- Nita, Holybear, and Sage -- are so minimally characterized that they come across as mere placeholders. Sandy is more interesting, but is unfortunately dead, as are Maya's old loves, Johanna and Rio. All the other sexual partners are strictly temporary. I realize that depicting non-exclusive sexual relationships is in itself pretty unusual and plenty unsettling for the average reader. But as I understand it, polyamory (meaning "many loves"), is about a lot more than having sex with a bunch of different people. It is about forming loving, close relationships with more than one person. For all the sex Madrone and Bird have with other people (and there's a lot of it), their romantic energy is clearly directed at one another only. Separate but related is the depiction of primary homosexual relationships. Did anyone else find it odd that Bird's relationship with Littlejohn, which had been going on for years, ended as soon as Bird regained his memory and sense of self? And that Madrone witnessed Littlejohn's death and found it so unimportant that she never even mentioned it to Bird? (Convenient Deaths of Gay Characters 101) Madrone's relations with other women also struck me as strange. Both Isis and Sara are characterized as possessive and controlling -- and Madrone thinks they should be introduced! How does it make logical sense to match up two people who both want to be in the driver's seat? But wait, I think I get it. They're both LESBIANS, those rare and difficult creatures who hate men and want sex only with others of their kind... They're meant for each other! (That's sarcasm, for those who can't hear my voice.) The most damaging example of the "not practicing what you preach" problem was the playing out of the non-violent resistance storyline. I agree with Edie that the rebellion of the army units totally undercut the message the author had pushed to that point. Dave says that's the author being realistic, and I agree that the soldiers might plausibly do what they did in the book. What I find hypocritical is that none of the characters gave a thought to the irony that they had just been saved by a massive display of violence in their defense. In fact, many of them spent the last few pages engaging in V-Day style celebrations and jumping for joy at making it back into "El Mundo Bueno". Not one single twinge of guilt or regret about the manner of their victory. The invasion and occupation storyline was seriously flawed in other ways as well. I kept asking myself, "what is this army's purpose?" They spent weeks dithering around with torture, a few killings here and there, damming the streams and damming them again after the previous dams were blown up, etc. Call me cold-blooded, but I could see no reason in the world why they didn't start by gunning down every single person in San Francisco and THEN begin work on the dams. Their behavior was monstrous enough in other ways that a massacre of the already depleted citizenry -- BEFORE their troops started to mingle with it -- seems just their style. Awfully convenient for the story that the general didn't think of it! Well, this has gone on long enough. Consider this just another piece of the whole, and hopefully not too bitter... ----- Janice E. Dawley.....Burlington, VT http://therem.net/ Listening to: The Chemical Brothers -- Surrender "I've built my white picket fence around the Now, with a commanding view of the Soon-to-Be." -- The Tick ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2002 13:26:18 +1000 From: Maire Subject: Re: [*FSF-L*] BDG: The Fifth Sacred Thing To: FEMINISTSF-LIT@UIC.EDU Has anyone read the prequel to fifth? I think its called.. Walking to Ocean, though I may well be remembering wrong. It seems rather autobiographical. Maire ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2002 07:28:31 +0100 From: "donna.fancourt" Subject: Re: [*FSF-L*] BDG: The Fifth Sacred Thing To: FEMINISTSF-LIT@UIC.EDU Hi all, I have read the prequel to TFST, called Walking to Mercury, which is the story of Maya's early years, her spiritualisation and politicisation. I think Maire is right, it seems quite autobiographical, from what I've read of Starhawk's history. It's a good read, Starhawk is a good writer I think, but the novel doesn't have the visionary quality or depth of TFST. I have really enjoyed the posts on the novel, very thought-provoking - thank you one and all. Especially liked Dave's recent long post, and also Janice's bitter-sweet take on the book - nicely done! I have always had a slight problem with Starhawk's depiction of homosexual relationships - she says that she accepts them in her writings, but in practice always writes about exclusive monogamous relationships, and seems to find describing lesbian/gay relationships difficult. Clearly, she is hetero, and a lot of her writing seems to draw on her own experiences, her own desires and fears, and it seems to be too much of a leap for her to imagine same sex relationships. Thanks again for all the posts, all the best, Donna ----- Original Message ----- From: Maire To: Sent: Wednesday, August 28, 2002 4:26 AM Subject: Re: [*FSF-L*] BDG: The Fifth Sacred Thing > Has anyone read the prequel to fifth? I think its called.. Walking to Ocean, > though I may well be remembering wrong. It seems rather autobiographical. > Maire ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2002 01:01:21 -0700 From: Lee Anne Phillips Subject: Re: [*FSF-L*] The Fifth Sacred Thing To: FEMINISTSF-LIT@UIC.EDU At 01:08 PM 8/27/02 -0400, Dave Belden wrote: >I'm not sure from your post whether you actually read Starhawk's novel. I >don't think you could read the novel and imagine that she would have >advocated acquiescing in Nazi slaughter. Contrariwise, I've read *all* of Starhawk's oeuvre. Not liking the implications of a "utopia" is not the same as not reading it. It's quite possible, believe it or not, for two people to read the same work and carry away entirely different things. It's even possible for a person of normal intelligence to read a book and come to opposite conclusions from your own. Nor is it unlikely for women (and peaceful men) to successfully engage a well-equipped army, despite the implausible assertion to the contrary in FST, no matter how ill-prepared they might be for war. While placing flowers in the barrels of guns may be an effective protest against troops who are sworn ultimately to protect you, it doesn't work all that well against a real foe. Our own history is filled with both successes and failures of non-violent resistance, and the Black Panthers were, in their way, every bit as important in breaking the racist quasi-apartheid system that existed in the USA through the Fifties as was Martin Luther King, Jr.. The limitation of non-violent resistance is the will to violence of the oppressor. Our own experience with the American Indians and other native peoples proves that, if your ultimate aim is extermination and conquest, non-violent resistance such as the Ghost Dance movement is only an invitation to be slaughtered and ghettoized. Against the protests which supposedly ended the Viet Nam war one must place Kent State, where the Ohio National Guard ran up against the court of public opinion and demonstrated the limits (and folly) of the use of US military power against our own population, and the continuing struggle of the guerilla forces in Viet Nam itself, which had essentially fought the US forces to a standstill. It became obvious that the only way we could win *that* war was by the methods we used against the American Indians, extermination. Since we couldn't quite bring ourselves to do that politically, the protests made a convenient excuse to remove ourselves from the conflict "with honor" by declaring unilaterally that the conflict was basically the problem of the puppet government that we ourselves had installed and running away. Whatever one may say about our paranoid unwisdom and evil inclination in provoking this war, we violated the principles of fealty and honor in our prosecution of it. In enterprise of martial kind, When there was any fighting, He led his regiment from behind (He found it less exciting). But when away his regiment ran, His place was at the fore, O- That celebrated, Cultivated, Underrated Nobleman, The Duke of Plaza-Toro! - W.S. Gilbert, Armies are able to enforce their will only through the acquiescence of the populace they move among. Our own experience during our alienation from the British demonstrates this; the British were very powerful and skilled at war with professional soldiers and equipment yet failed miserably to contain a relatively undisciplined revolutionary force. Likewise, our own experience in Vietnam amply exemplifies the necessity of either convincing the inhabitants of an area to cooperate with the army or obliterating them entirely. There is no middle ground. Genocide directed against entire populations is frowned on nowadays, despite ample historical precedent, so modern armies, absent a compliant population, attempt to terrorize them into submission, a tactic that usually ends up corrupting the army a government would like to be able to depend on. Once the army becomes used to attacking civilians, their own fellow citizens, rather than enemy soldiers, there's nothing to keep them from attacking their masters and they become an armed gang rather than soldiers, the de facto (and sometimes actual) rulers of the nation they are supposed to serve. War can only be truly waged against armies. Guerilla warfare is destructive of any society within which it exists because it necessarily seduces the army into believing that everyone is the enemy, the sure road to eventual disaster. Starhawk knows this on one level. In Dreaming the Dark and in her actual political work, she's repeatedly demonstrated that armed forces depend on terror. When you fight them, and make no mistake, Starhawk *has* fought them, albeit without weapons, they *must* either *use* their arms or surrender. In her demonstrations at Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, she (and many others) were able to simply walk into the power plant over the fields, after getting through the fence, because the "security" forces basically depended on people being nice. Enough people who *aren't* nice can overwhelm (or go around) *any* armed defence if the forces being resisted aren't intent on extermination. There aren't enough soldiers in the world to protect everything. Much has to be left to the innate goodwill and peaceableness of most humans. But sometimes sterner measures are both warranted and necessary. In the Warsaw uprising during WWII, the women wanted to escape into the woods and engage the Nazis as guerilla fighters, probably a realistic assessment of their collective capabilities. The men, on the other hand, wanted to stay and protect their homes and all the populace, perhaps foolishly thinking that a poorly-equipped ragtag force could withstand the disciplined military might of the Reich in open siege. As it happened, the men's plan prevailed and the resistance failed, perhaps through hubris. All were killed or captured and all but a handful died in the camps. But the intention of both was to at least attempt to save some of those who could not otherwise save themselves: children, old people, the infirm. Whether or not they succeeded is truly irrelevant to the nobility of their purpose. They made the Nazi aggression visible instead of "civilized" and "efficient." The few Jews of Wasaw were able to resist the Germans for a month while Poland itself fell in two weeks and France capitulated in three weeks. Not bad for a "pathetic" bunch of starving members of an "inferior" race. There is of course a place for dialog, for moral persuasion, for seeking to reconcile quarrelling belligerents, but when the christians in LA attack the free pagan peoples of SF with biological agents and an army, something rather stronger than moral suasion is required. In real life, there is no "reasoning" with hateful bigots. Just as the story goes about training mules, you have to get their attention first. While the blissful SF witches were merrily having group (bisexual) sex and chanting, the LA meanies were persecuting and murdering *other* people. This sort of uncivilized behavior calls for a response from moral people. We are not so unconnected with each other that murder and injustice in one part of the world doesn't affect all of us. We must act or be diminished by every death we could have thwarted, every torture victim we could have rescued, every innocent wrongfully imprisoned, every suffering child we could have comforted. In fact, tolerating oppression taints all our lives, just as US toleration of slavery tainted and made ignoble all our pretensions of justice and freedom for "all." It was a poison that ate at our very heart and Starhawk does humanity an injustice to imagine that a loving democratic society can live next door to a totalitarian without harm. During the devastating American Civil War, Abraham Lincoln was repeatedly urged to make peace with the Confederacy. He refused, wisely as it turned out. Only a decisive military victory could eradicate the cancer of slavery from US society. "Broken eggs can not be mended," he said, and persevered despite the tremendous toll in lives and maimings on both sides and the enormous cost in property and treasure. There was no "reasoning" with the Nazis, no possibility of reconciliation short of war once the killings started. While the Western Powers talked and made nice, the German State was perfecting its techniques of civil murder on the disabled, on "crippled" children, on the "mentally defective." It was a short step from there to "cleansing" the Reich of "undesirables." To our collective shame, as long as Hitler "only" murdered "his own" citizens, we stood aside and let the slaughter continue. We even refused to bomb the railways leading to the death camps, possibly figuring that resources expended in murdering civilians could not be used to fight the war. It is perhaps unwittingly revealing that the first attack on SF took place in the form of a deadly disease. For indeed the heart of SF society was diseased already; the LA fanatics only made that disease, that invisible worm, visible which had already been working to destroy its secret heart. And the co-option of half the invading army is not only wildly improbable, but the idea of having half the army attack the other offends any sense of justice, even sanity. Is the LA army filled (or half-filled) with traitors? How many historic armies have forgotten all sense of discipline and military order and turned their guns on themselves? Any? Or is this a sort of passive-aggressive James Bondian "slaughter of the faceless minions," whose humanity is so diminished that hundreds die as mere decoration to the "action scenes," conveniently allowing the "real hero" to save the day at the last second while the fiendish doomsday device ticks ominously away? What is it about the loyal half of the LA Army that makes them worthy of death? What makes it possible to imagine that, if only we visualize strongly enough, we can have the results of military violence and bravery without doing any of the work? "Let Justice roll down like waters in a mighty stream." - Amos Demonstrations and sit-ins were only part of the process which led to the first civil rights accomplishments. We mustn't forget that the demonstrations had no effect until the Federal government was moved to send in the troops. Hatred cannot be eradicated by prayers nor bigots persuaded by soft words. You have to get their attention first. It's immoral to depend on military power, on the police power of the state, and at the same time be contemptuous of it, to refuse to support it or participate in it. Starhawk postulates a society in which no one (who counts) has to dirty their hands with bloody deeds, because their magical powers will (somehow) cause their enemies to destroy themselves "untouched by human hands." How supremely arrogant. How despicably craven. How sublimely contemptuous of human life. How terminally sad. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2002 10:27:06 +0100 From: Heather Stark Subject: Re: [*FSF-L*] The Fifth Sacred Thing To: FEMINISTSF-LIT@UIC.EDU Just finished TFST - had not read any Starhawk before, as I feared it either would be too sweet, or too angry, for my taste. (ooh, picky, or WHAT?) It was a great big pleasant surprise to find it such a cracking good read. It's always a joy to find an author who has ideas AND can write. It's also been really interesting to see the BDG perspectives - this has been a particularly enlightening discussion for me, so far, as I admit that the contradiction/paradox of the non-violent ideal and the actual (violent) resolution of the plot wasn't something that leapt out at me when I read it. (Bit of a 'Duh', maybe, but it's sometimes nice to have the light switched on for you when you are - unknowingly - sitting there in the dark. It's one of the cool things about BDG.) Leaping in to the discussion between Lee-Ann and Dave: Dave sez in response to Lee-Ann's posting: Your scathing dismissal of Starhawk in the sentence, "Starhawk and Forrest just "radicalize" the concept by neglecting to fuck the hero after the fighting is over, even denying that the hero ever existed. Tch, tch." is so off the mark that I wonder again if you actually read the book. Well, I agree with Dave this doesn't really ring a bell with me with respect to TFST: the heroine does get to fuck the hero, and lots of other people, too. Also, there doesn't seem to be any denial in TFST that the hero and heroine ever existed - not sure where this is coming from, with respect to TFST. However, Lee-Ann's comment made me laugh - and it's so well stated that I would kind of like it to be true. Er, perhaps what Lee-Ann said applies to Forrest better than it does to TFST? Regarding heros and heroines - the book seems to be a bit of an ensemble piece, told from different perspectives of the players in the ensemble. For the main characters, who are all, in their way, heros, they are treated in enough depth to enable the reader to experience the narrative by experiencing the characters' experiences. However, I didn't really find that I got underneath any of their skins, and looked out through their eyes. I think maybe this is what's at the heart of what's bothering people about the book's treatment of polyamoury. The best-drawn long-term relationship was between Madrone and Maya, I think. The other relationships - whether or not they were polyamourous - seemed a bit pro forma, the formula being: misunderstanding, roll in hay, resolution, (repeat, with a variable number of characters). Perhaps this is an example of C.J. Cherryh's distinction between plot driven versus character driven? To me this book was more plot driven. (Also I liked the landscape a lot....but I have read very few landscape-driven novels ;-). cheers, Heather ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2002 09:16:32 -0500 From: Edie Bell Subject: Re: [*FSF-L*] BDG: The Fifth Sacred Thing To: FEMINISTSF-LIT@UIC.EDU At 12:17 AM 8/28/2002 -0400, Janice wrote: > The most damaging example of the "not practicing what you preach" problem > was the playing out of the non-violent resistance storyline. I agree with > Edie that the rebellion of the army units totally undercut the message the > author had pushed to that point. Dave says that's the author being > realistic, and I agree that the soldiers might plausibly do what they did > in the book. What I find hypocritical is that none of the characters gave a > thought to the irony that they had just been saved by a massive display of > violence in their defense. In fact, many of them spent the last few pages > engaging in V-Day style celebrations and jumping for joy at making it back > into "El Mundo Bueno". *Not one single twinge of guilt or regret about the > manner of their victory.* (my emphasis) Exactly. I got the feeling that I was supposed to carry away the notion that non-violent resistance works, that the San Fran community was successful in their creation of a non-violent community. But my opinion on it is that they failed. And they didn't even regret how they were able to maintain their "non-violent" society. In fact, instead of actually converting the soldiers, they just convinced them that their cause was a better one to fight for. And Dave, I certainly have no objections to the idea of showing baby steps in creating a non-violent society, as it will take a very long time, and cost a lot of lives. (That would make for a very long book!) But the ending to the book showed no indication that an examination of the massacre of the soldiers was going to take place, nor that they even acknowledged that they still had a lot of work to do to forge a true non-violent society. As far as the community was concerned, they won, and that was that. And that is what bothers me more than anything else, the utter lack of reflection on the violence that was committed in the name of the Utopian community. That is why I see the message as being hypocritical and it made the book very disappointing for me. ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2002 10:45:33 -0400 From: Rosa Leah Subject: Re: [*FSF-L*] BDG: The Fifth Sacred Thing To: FEMINISTSF-LIT@UIC.EDU On Wed, 28 Aug 2002, Edie Bell wrote: > Exactly. I got the feeling that I was supposed to carry away the notion > that non-violent resistance works, that the San Fran community was > successful in their creation of a non-violent community. But my opinion > on it is that they failed. I have to say, that while the end of the non-violent approach may have been dissatisfying, there were images that really captured my attention. In particular, the family who approached Ohnine to witness about the family member he'd killed, and as he killed each in turn, they continued to witness... As a vignette, I found that, among others, incredibly inspiring. I wasn't as disappointed by the ending as others, in part, I think, because I really saw the community as a community of individuals. Although they used consensus decision-making, some people who disagreed went their own way. So the community, as a whole, might choose non-violence when some people in the community would choose otherwise. > And they didn't even regret how they were able to maintain their > "non-violent" society. In fact, instead of actually converting the > soldiers, they just convinced them that their cause was a better one > to fight for. I would think it would take a lot longer to convince the soldiers that non-violent resistence was better than fighting than it would to convince them that this is a better society/cause. This seems, to me, like a realistic first step. I do agree that the SF community could have acknowledged how this went against their ideals, but it didn't strike me as a total breakdown as it did others. > And that is what bothers me more than anything else, the utter lack of > reflection on the violence that was committed in the name of the > Utopian community. I definitely agree with this. Rosa, delurking briefly :) And why should night and day be so radically divided? Is there anyone for whom loving and thinking are lived as different beginnings? Would I have to spend my days with the one and my nights with the other? -- Luce Irigaray ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2002 11:06:57 -0700 From: Lee Anne Phillips Subject: Re: [*FSF-L*] The Fifth Sacred Thing To: FEMINISTSF-LIT@UIC.EDU At 10:27 AM 8/28/02 +0100, Heather Stark wrote: >Well, I agree with Dave this doesn't really ring a bell with me with respect >to TFST: the heroine does get to fuck the hero, and lots of other people, >too. Also, there doesn't seem to be any denial in TFST that the hero and >heroine ever existed - not sure where this is coming from, with respect to >TFST. However, Lee-Ann's comment made me laugh - and it's so well stated >that I would kind of like it to be true. Er, perhaps what Lee-Ann said >applies to Forrest better than it does to TFST? It is, but the real "heroes" of the book are the traitorous soldiers who fire on their comrades. Most of the sexual shenanigans occur between those who, in my admittedly boring and mundane way of looking at things, contribute little to the real outcome besides "good vibes." So, although it's especially true of Forrest, who writes a consciously lesbian utopia (and let's applaud the attempt, however flawed by Forrest's limitations as a writer and observer of human nature), it's also true but more subtly of Starhawk. By positing that the workings of magic (and magicians) are the real cause of the SF "victory," she denies the efficacy of purely physical human endeavor. This is what I mean when I said that she, like Forrest, denies that the (male) heroes existed. To be fair, she is no worse than "mainstream" religious people who posit that *G-d* won this or that war, or rescued these or those people from disaster, or took note of the fall of this or that sparrow. But G-d and Goddess both seem to be terribly ineffectual in real life, and seem to function rather more like Mr. Magoo than powerful divine personages who actually give a damn about what happens to *any* individual or group. I take that back, since Mr. Magoo actually *means* well. What I meant to say was that the whole divine gang of them behave more like the Three Stooges than even a moderately beneficent human being. Forrest's book is a particularly clear example of denial of any agency to other than spiritual practice, and I will post a short review of the work to the off-topic list if anyone is interested. (Well, short by *my* standards at least... ;-) ) I disagree that the said sexual shenanigans had much to do with my profound dislike of the book; I've seen "polyamory" done well and far more believably, albeit that in my observation and experience it works far better in theory than in practice, and as part of an imagined future I'm in favor of exploring possibilities to see what results might ensue. What I do object to is failure of authorial imagination that makes the results seem flat and unlikely, which seems to be the case with Starhawk's work to judge from my own reaction and that of many on the list. I personally find it far too difficult to fully engage with more than one person on an intimate adult level but, what the heck, I'm willing to posit that there are those so gifted in relationships and so saintly in their personal lives that this is *possible* despite my own personal encounters with the failed marriages and partnerships which seem to inevitably follow. The only situations I'm aware of in which "polyamory" seems to work is that of patriarchal polygamy, in which the "master" essentially owns his wives, whose expectations do not seem to include full agency or personhood, and a few rare instances of polyandry, in which the actual system seems also patriarchal and consists of joint ownership by brothers of one wife, more than one being too expensive to support in the local economy. In neither case does *love* have much to do with it. What I've actually *seen* in so-called "polyamorous" relationships is usually one charismatic philanderer who manages to string along several dupes or victims. When the victims finally realize that they've been caught up in someone else's power trip, the relationships dissolve and the core instigator moves on to another series of shallow flirtations and callow sexual conquests disguised as the "next step in the evolution of human potential." But then I've probably lived too long to be less than cynical and I can't remember ever being quite as starry-eyed as belief in such a system would require. Quite probably there exist astonishing counterexamples that I, unluckily, haven't happened to run across of loving triads, quadrads, and n-ads who have grown old together in loving harmony and gracious mutual admiration and consideration. I would have loved to see Starhawk provide an example of how such a system would work in actuality, or even benign plural serial relationships such as posited by a writer whose name I disremember. Perhaps someone can help me to overcome my temporary page swapping fault. The concept was a group of bio-engineered people who had eidetic memories, were partially night-blind, and were so lowly fertile that it was necessary to engage in complicated relationship "braids" in which the "in-siblings" and "out-siblings" mated and partnerships never lasted beyond the birth of one child. Their language was multi-valued, with meanings varying depending on "aspect," which in the case of names was a secret shared only with one's lover. A key plot point was the acquisition of a star map which would, when combined with the navigator's memory of the night sky, enable three-dimensional visualization of the surrounding stars. I swear, the name is on the tip of my tongue... At 10:45 AM 8/28/02 -0400, Rosa Leah wrote: >I have to say, that while the end of the non-violent approach may have >been dissatisfying, there were images that really captured my attention. >In particular, the family who approached Ohnine to witness about the >family member he'd killed, and as he killed each in turn, they continued >to witness... As a vignette, I found that, among others, incredibly >inspiring. I personally found it nauseating. *Someone* should have taken into their pretty little "superior consciousness" to whack Ohnine upside the head and *save* some of the precious lives he took. While it's nice that right-thinking people in Starhawk's world have personal experience of the reality of reincarnation, those whose experience includes only the sure knowledge of this one existence might be forgiven their primitive attachment to their limited Earthly lives. Starhawk's position on this is also inconsistent. Nuclear power plants and the various wars she works actively against are mere blips in the cosmic evolution of soul consciousness, affording ample opportunities for karmic development and the resolution of life lessons. Why on Earth should one become exercised about ephemeral issues like nuclear waste, which, after all, can *only* kill people, when spiritual matters are so much more meaningful and important? ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2002 15:06:29 -0400 From: Rosa Leah Subject: Re: [*FSF-L*] The Fifth Sacred Thing [and polyamory] To: FEMINISTSF-LIT@UIC.EDU On Wed, 28 Aug 2002, Lee Anne Phillips wrote: > The only situations I'm aware of in which > "polyamory" seems to work is that of patriarchal polygamy, in which the > "master" essentially owns his wives, whose expectations do not seem > to include full agency or personhood, and a few rare instances of > polyandry, in which the actual system seems also patriarchal and > consists of joint ownership by brothers of one wife, more than one > being too expensive to support in the local economy. In neither case > does *love* have much to do with it. A lot of practitioners of polyamory would probably argue that patriarchal polygamy or polyandry aren't really "polyamory", since the roots of the word include "amory", meaning love :) That said, I tend to go on the theory that if someone says s/he is polyamorous, s/he probably is, at least for the purpose of discussion. Although Starhawk doesn't give us a fully developed multi-person marriage in FST, she hints at it, which, since the book is pretty ambitious already, is far. It does shortchange the idea of a fully developed alternative relationship model, but, then, this isn't a book ABOUT polyamory. > What I've actually *seen* in so-called "polyamorous" relationships > is usually one charismatic philanderer who manages to string along > several dupes or victims. FWIW, this isn't what I've seen in polyamorous relationships, either first- or second-hand. I'm not sure how on-topic further discussion of polyamory is, but I'm happy to talk about it more, either on or off list. Rosa And why should night and day be so radically divided? Is there anyone for whom loving and thinking are lived as different beginnings? Would I have to spend my days with the one and my nights with the other? -- Luce Irigaray ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2002 20:20:25 +0100 From: Lesley Hall Subject: Re: [*FSF-L*] The Fifth Sacred Thing To: FEMINISTSF-LIT@UIC.EDU > plural serial relationships such as posited by a writer whose > name I disremember. Perhaps someone can help me to > overcome my temporary page swapping fault. The concept > was a group of bio-engineered people who had eidetic > memories, were partially night-blind, and were so lowly > fertile that it was necessary to engage in complicated > relationship "braids" in which the "in-siblings" and > "out-siblings" mated and partnerships never lasted beyond > the birth of one child. Their language was multi-valued, > with meanings varying depending on "aspect," which > in the case of names was a secret shared only with > one's lover. M A Foster, the 'Ler' trilogy, consisting of The Gameplayers of Zan, The Warriors of Dawn, and The Day of the Klesh. Lesley Hall lesleyah@primex.co.uk website http://www.lesleyahall.net ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2002 16:18:50 -0400 From: Dave Belden Subject: Re: [*FSF-L*] The Fifth Sacred Thing To: FEMINISTSF-LIT@UIC.EDU > the real "heroes" of the book are the traitorous soldiers who > fire on their comrades. ... By positing that the workings of magic (and > magicians) are the real cause of the SF "victory," she denies the efficacy > of purely physical human endeavor. This is what I mean when I said > that she, like Forrest, denies that the (male) heroes existed. Lee Anne, Thank you for explaining your pov on this more fully. I think I see better what you are getting at now, though I don't agree that it is the traitorous troops who are the real heroes: it isn't even their violence that really wins the day - it's the doubt in the rest of the soldiers' minds, the inability of the generals to retain command, and that was created by the people of the city, who are the real heroes. (And by the way I certainly agree that people can have contradictory views about a novel, just couldn't fit your earlier, perhaps compressed points into TFST at all). I accept the comments that people have made that the SF folks could have had more self-questioning about how they won, and I would have to go back and reread that ending to get clearer about it: so doubts have been sown in my mind now. But I still think this criticism is too purist: wouldn't people celebrate the survival of their society? So it was bought in a contradictory fashion (and no doubt they will be working on that one for years to come in their famous meetings). But it was not bought by 'magic' in the sense that Lee Anne sets it out above, as a 'divine' or supernatural intervention that "denies the efficacy of purely human endeavor". The result was gained purely by psychological work, albeit by people inspired by their beliefs - that was what I meant earlier about how I would have been truly disappointed in the ending if she had used a 'magical' or supernatural power to defeat the army. You don't have to believe in anything beyond the power of belief and visualization itself, to see the ending as plausible (if you find it plausible at all). > I personally found it nauseating. *Someone* should have taken into > their pretty little "superior consciousness" to whack Ohnine upside > the head and *save* some of the precious lives he took. Starhawk's whole point is that whacking Ohnine upside on the head would have brought about the wholesale deaths that Janice thinks would have been more likely from the start. Granted that Janice is probably right, and I also wondered why the army gave the people so much time to do their theater: no plausible reasons were given. But given the way she portrays it, violent resistance would have brought wholesale death. So if they had decided to try violent resistance, then they should have all just disappeared into the hills and attempted a guerilla war, because they had no hope otherwise. Instead they attempted something very bold, and rather different from most non-violent tactics tried throughout history. The reason the deaths of that family of children is inspiring is that they were prepared to die to make the theater work, and, of course, in the novel it did work, and it's hard to see how else Ohnine could have been turned around: and their deaths saved very many other deaths from happening. Righteously violent defenders risk and lose their lives to save their community: so give righteous non-violent defenders the same respect. What was redeeming about that family's deaths was not their reincarnation - it was that they saved thousands of lives. > While it's nice that right-thinking people in Starhawk's world have personal > experience of the reality of reincarnation, those whose experience > includes only the sure knowledge of this one existence might be > forgiven their primitive attachment to their limited Earthly lives. > > Starhawk's position on this is also inconsistent. Nuclear power plants > and the various wars she works actively against are mere blips in > the cosmic evolution of soul consciousness, affording ample > opportunities for karmic development and the resolution of life > lessons. Why on Earth should one become exercised about > ephemeral issues like nuclear waste, which, after all, can *only* > kill people, when spiritual matters are so much more meaningful > and important? I don't think you are understanding Starhawk's kind of nature religion very clearly. It is very focused on this life, this earth. It's 'magic' is mostly psychological, despite Starhawk's flights of fancy in the novel about programming crystals etc. - even that kind of magic is posited as natural, rather than supernatural. The only really supernatural elements in the novel I can think of are the conversations with the dead (which can be read as conversations with memory) and perhaps the long-distance communications by dreaming - though again she could argue that that is a psychic capability that is natural, i.e. waiting to be discovered by physics, rather than supernatural. The whole thing is a celebration of life, and that is made very clear when Madrone is tempted towards death, while working on the virus inside herself, and is brought back. On polyamory, I have to agree with those who find it unconvincing in the novel. And I think Janice's comments about gay/lesbian relationships in the novel are thought-provoking. Dave ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2002 14:23:21 -0700 From: Lyla Miklos Subject: Re: [*FSF-L*] The Fifth Sacred Thing To: FEMINISTSF-LIT@UIC.EDU Hey Feminist SF listers! I read The 5th Sacred Thing years ago on the recommendation of a friend who identifies as a witch, bisexual and poly. I was just starting to take an interest in witchcraft at the time and also was recently out as a bisexual. So at the time I found the book eye opening. It gave me an example of a society who lived as a pagan society. The multi-cultural and muti-faith community that worked together was a new take on an idealistic society. The way every religious sect was accepted and made a part of the whole makes me think of how the Unitarians opporate. The other eyeopening element of the book was all the poly relationships contained within it. My friend who recommended the book was someone who I'd say does not do poly well, but the characters in the book showed and demonstrated how poly relationships can work. Now years later having been a queer activists and having met more and more poly folks I still appreciate the poly relationships in the book. A bi women book discussion group I am a part of recently discussed this book and in returning to it after having read the prequel and also starhawk's spiral dance I found the book to be more of a communist manifesto or aka the world according to starhawk. I am very aware of Starhawk's politics and religious beliefs and they are peppered throughout 5th Sacred Thing to such a degree that it almost turned into self parody. If you'd like to read or know more about how healthy poly relationships can work I suggest picking up a copy of The Ethical Slut. As for the magic in 5th Sacred Thing. I just accepted it and ran with it. Since I considered the book to be eco-fantasy story I wasn't bothered by the magic in it. Being a huge fan of shows like Buffy and what have you I find I just have to roll with it or else I'm just going to get hung up on the details. Lyla ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2002 15:00:06 -0700 From: Lee Anne Phillips Subject: Re: [*FSF-L*] The Fifth Sacred Thing To: FEMINISTSF-LIT@UIC.EDU At 08:20 PM 8/28/02 +0100, Lesley Hall wrote: >M A Foster, the 'Ler' trilogy, consisting of The Gameplayers of Zan, The >Warriors of Dawn, and The Day of the Klesh. Thank you! Thank you! I kept thinking of Foster but couldn't place the correct titles in the series in my mind so disbelieved my own hunch. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2002 08:22:48 -0400 From: Dave Belden Subject: Re: [*FSF-L*] The Fifth Sacred Thing To: FEMINISTSF-LIT@UIC.EDU > I am very aware of Starhawk's politics and religious > beliefs and they are peppered throughout 5th Sacred > Thing to such a degree that it almost turned into self > parody. > > > Lyla Lyla, would you be able to explain more of what in the novel is particularly Starhawk as opposed to more commonly part of the neo-pagan movement? I would like to know how she is perceived from within the movement. Dave ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2002 23:14:13 +1000 From: Julieanne Subject: Re: [*FSF-L*] The Fifth Sacred Thing To: FEMINISTSF-LIT@UIC.EDU Firstly, jumping in late - this book did very little for me, although there were several sections that I thoroughly enjoyed on the level of an adventure story, but all that moralising and preachy eco-spirituality spoiled much of it for me. If that's utopia - I say 'Pass'. Excuse me while I puke, politely and with due respect for the environment of course. Also, I didn't find much of it that could be called 'feminist' - I'm not convinced that a social movement/religion/philosophy or whatever, can be labelled 'feminist' just because it is based on non-violence. Humanist, leftist maybe, and non-sexist perhaps - but that doesn't always equate with feminist. Lee Anne wrote: >"Starhawk and Forrest just "radicalize" the >concept by neglecting to fuck the hero after the fighting is over, even >denying that the hero ever existed. Tch, tch." Similar to Lee Anne, I likewise was strongly reminded of formulaic stories depicting women waiting around for the hero, or heroes, to save them. In this cae, a whole community. For me, the 'turning point' was Bird's hour upon the stage when he heroically refused to shoot, and all his comrades then had a change of heart to quickly complete the victory. Male hero-worship, alive and well. I was quite annoyed by this, as all that maternal nurturing and healing and pouring of female energy into the soldiers did sweet FA to change them:) Yet another version of the subtle message that women should just keep on loving and nurturing, and sacrificing time, effort and energy into changing men's behaviour, and it doesn't matter if it doesn't do any good anyway - coz its the thought that counts:) Makes you feel all warm and fuzzy inside:) Again, as in so many stories - only male sacrifice has any value, only male suffering and angst-ridden navel-gazing can change the world. I thought it was just yet another version of young male godlet coming of age through temptation, suffering and sacrifice - just like Jesus in the desert. And obviously, we see his pain and angst and tend to identify with him, and all the scenes and stories of what was happening to women in the christian communities, are mostly trivialised. As for the relationships, polyamory and same-sex, or whatever - I found most of it all very shallow, and implausible in the book. I have known polyamorous relationships, one group of 5 (3 women & 2 men, with 2 children between them) who have lived in a group marriage style relationship for 15 plus years. But they don't go round preaching about it, coz it drives them nuts when people quite rudely ask questions about their sleeping arrangements like "Do you take turns, or just sleep in one big bed?". Another one is a long-standing lesbian triad relationship - who also don't like publicising their relationship. I found Starhawk's style on this score preachy and arrogant, and based on an assumption that regular fucking is somehow enlightened, spiritual, and necessary to human bonding. Intimacy and affection, without a prominent sexual component doesn't appear to be a part of Starhawk's universe. Obviously celibates, or people who just don't feel like it much of the time, or even introverted loners without a creative arty-farty bone (or green thumb) in their body, need not apply to this particular Utopia. One of the major things to piss me off though, was the description of the army and its actions. As a woman who has been interested in military strategic thinking, history and games all her life, (starting with playing chess as a child), simplistic, irrational and illogical descriptions like this one in Starhawks really annoy me, but unfortunately are very common. In any event, the army's tactics in the book, or lack thereof, totally destroyed any belief I might have been able to sustain in regard to the strategies of non-violent resistance. With an army that incompetent, no wonder they won:) However, given the spectacular stupidity of American military incidents in recent years, perhaps it isn't so far-fetched. Like the sub that decided to surface under a Japanese fishing boat, in a section of ocean, that must be one of the most trafficked on the planet - WOOPS!...or the "smart" missile on a Kuwaiti test range, that suddenly became "intellectually challenged" and blew up the command bunker .... WOOPS....or the Canucks under 'friendly fire'...WOOPS.... starting to sound like an army of Gomer Pyle clones:) But then again, I also wonder how portable Starhawks strategies would be outside of San Francisco? Would Iraqi women and children (and their soft-hearted liberal-minded brothers) be able to use such strategies when it comes to the sequel - Gulf War II? (**Coming Attraction** - Coming Soon to a TV screen near you.....) Rosa Leah wrote: >>... As a vignette, I found that, among others, incredibly >>inspiring. Lee Anne wrote: >I personally found it nauseating. *Ditto* - I also found it insulting to the hundreds of thousands of people who have died in such ways... and are completely ignored and nobody considers their deaths "inspiring". I apologise if I offend some on the list, but I also find such arrogance (or ignorance perhaps) very characteristic of American nationalism, albeit one usually found the liberal leftist side of the political spectrum. Lastly, I hated the bees - but that's probably because I'm fatally allergic to them:)) Cheers - Julieanne:) PS: And Lee Anne - I love your style! ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2002 10:35:28 -0400 From: Dave Belden Subject: Re: [*FSF-L*] The Fifth Sacred Thing To: FEMINISTSF-LIT@UIC.EDU > >Rosa Leah wrote: > >>... As a vignette, I found that, among others, incredibly > >>inspiring. > > Lee Anne wrote: > >I personally found it nauseating. > Julieanne wrote: > *Ditto* - I also found it insulting to the hundreds of thousands of people > who have died in such ways... and are completely ignored and nobody > considers their deaths "inspiring". Hundreds of thousands of people have died in programs of non-violent resistance deliberately conceived and calculated, with weeks of training involved, to focus a moral challenge on their attackers? Who are you talking about? The family in the story were not passive victims, but you seem to be treating them as such. I have no idea if the psychological dynamics Starhawk describes could have worked in the situation she creates. I think the essential element that makes non-violence work is publicity: the public shaming of people and governments who want to preserve a better image of themselves as civilized humans in the world's eyes - so it did not work in Tienanmen Square (but then even that was more spontaneous and less worked out than what Starhawk is trying to portray here), and it would not have worked historically against any number of dictatorial regimes who didn't give a damn what anyone thought and could keep them from knowing about it anyway. But in today's world, it could work in more cases than it is tried: I believe it could work well for the Palestinians against the Israelis, for example: but it has to be as well conceived and planned as a military campaign, it's like an advertising campaign, a huge piece of public theater, requiring at least as creative leadership and as disciplined performance by the rank and file as any army maneuver. Gandhi may be seen as a saint, but he was a master of public spectacle and the politics and calculation required for it. That is what Starhawk is trying to write about here, though without any media involvement - she was trying to do it solely to change the soldier's consciousness in the moment. I don't see that this (the public Gandhian version or the more private Starhawk version) has been tried much, and I certainly don't see that hundreds of thousands have died trying it. But I think it is inspiring: because I believe this could be the way that many disputes could be tackled in the future. If the Iraqis were capable of mounting such a theater against Bush's invasion, and could play it out on world TV, imagine what an incredible coup that would be, how that would turn the whole world even more against such adventurism? Osama bin Laden, whatever else he is, is an absolute master of the media image: the falling towers. Islam forbids images, but this is one point on which bin Laden and co are modern media types rather than fundamentalists. Of course Saddam couldn't organize this kind of nonviolent theater if his life depended on it - because he would lack credibility, unless he can stage a last minute conversion, resign from power, don sackcloth and ashes and ... The very idea is ludicrous. It's a tool for righteous and free populations, not, I hope, one that could ever be stage managed by a dictator. But that one might one day try, would only be to acknowledge that such theater has huge power potential to move public opinion. As I say, whether it could work in the circumstances of Starhawk's novel I don't know. But there are many many cases of soldiers turning on their officers in war: many US officers were killed by their men in Vietnam, I read recently in a mainstream military history. Julieanne's view that the novel portrays the ultimate fruitlessness of women's work by giving it all to a suffering male hero in my opinion is a complete misreading: war is largely men's work, and to persuade soldiers to change is largely a case of persuading men to change, and it was undoubtedly the women's influence in that SF society that had changed and prepared men like Bird to be able to do that. I see it thoroughly as a women's victory and a human victory, that the soldiers could be brought back to some level of humanity. You want women to do everything, win every battle alone, without having to deal with men? That's unrealistic. Dave ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2002 10:53:24 -0400 From: Dave Belden Subject: Re: [*FSF-L*] The Fifth Sacred Thing To: FEMINISTSF-LIT@UIC.EDU Rereading what I just wrote: > Osama bin Laden, > whatever else he is, is an absolute master of the media image: the falling > towers. Islam forbids images, but this is one point on which bin Laden and > co are modern media types rather than fundamentalists. Of course Saddam > couldn't organize this kind of nonviolent theater if his life depended on > it I trust it was clear that by 'this kind of nonviolent theater' I was referring to Starhawk's or Gandhi's type not bin Laden's. My point about the twin towers was only that it was media theater, public spectacle, and that if the same kind of media savviness is used for nonviolent protests and moral theater, then these can become the way that many conflicts could be played out in future. Rather like in many animal species the males fight - but not to the death or even to injury, but more as public spectacle. Well, staging nonviolent spectacles could become the way that people fight. It is not the same as passivity, or refusal to fight - it's a different form of struggle. Dave ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2002 00:00:21 +1000 From: Maire Subject: Re: [*FSF-L*] The Fifth Sacred Thing To: FEMINISTSF-LIT@UIC.EDU > Rather like in many animal species the males fight - > but not to the death or even to injury, but more as public spectacle > Well, staging nonviolent spectacles could become the way that people > fight. It is not the same as passivity, or refusal to fight - it's a > different form of struggle. > Dave Except that they still died, in TFST (the family) Maire ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2002 11:17:37 -0400 From: Dave Belden Subject: Re: [*FSF-L*] The Fifth Sacred Thing To: FEMINISTSF-LIT@UIC.EDU I got carried away. You're right. I had gone on to thinking about spectacles of nonviolence on TV - but I wonder how much the power of such things might not depend on deaths of the nonviolent demonstrators. A grisly thought. But still not as grisly as the alternative of war itself. Dave > -----Original Message----- > From: friendly STRICTLY ON TOPIC discussion of Feminist SF/Fantasy and > Utopia [mailto:FEMINISTSF-LIT@UIC.EDU]On Behalf Of Maire > Sent: Thursday, August 29, 2002 10:00 AM > To: FEMINISTSF-LIT@UIC.EDU > Subject: Re: [*FSF-L*] The Fifth Sacred Thing > > > Rather like in many animal species the males fight - > > but not to the death or even to injury, but more as public spectacle. > > Well, staging nonviolent spectacles could become the way that people > > fight. It is not the same as passivity, or refusal to fight - it's a > > different form of struggle. > > Dave > > Except that they still died, in TFST (the family) > Maire ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2002 00:26:01 +1000 From: Maire Subject: Re: [*FSF-L*] The Fifth Sacred Thing To: FEMINISTSF-LIT@UIC.EDU It's funny, Dave. Your argument reminds me of the same one that has been going on through my mind since I was about.. 11? albeit, in a far less sophisticated form (my one). It never seems to make *sense* to me that nations settle issues by force.. It seemed a logical alternative, to me, at that age, that, if nations were insistent on might=right, then why not stop at the level of fisticuffs? Or, what about the Darkovian charter- no long distance weapons. What makes a nation decide to strike the first blow? Particularly pertinent at the moment, with the big debate in Aus at the moment whether or not Aus should support the US's first strike. It seems, somehow, that the mental age of a country is stuck at about three. Is it that the lowest common denominator (ie Hussein) has to set the pace? It always seemed to me, that if we could have these rules of war, that regulated disposal of the dead, neutrality of medical workers and so on... then, dammit, why not one that said "we have to stop before anyone actually dies". Oh well. I guess my inability to figure it all out is why I'm not running things. It's all a mystery to me. Maire : ) > -----Original Message----- > From: friendly STRICTLY ON TOPIC discussion of Feminist SF/Fantasy and > Utopia [mailto:FEMINISTSF-LIT@UIC.EDU]On Behalf Of Dave Belden > Sent: Friday, 30 August 2002 1:18 AM > To: FEMINISTSF-LIT@UIC.EDU > Subject: Re: [*FSF-L*] The Fifth Sacred Thing > > I got carried away. You're right. I had gone on to thinking about > spectacles of nonviolence on TV - but I wonder how much the power of > such things might not depend on deaths of the nonviolent demonstrators. > A grisly thought. But still not as grisly as the alternative of war > itself. > > Dave ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2002 08:49:52 -0700 From: Lyla Miklos Subject: Re: [*FSF-L*] The Fifth Sacred Thing To: FEMINISTSF-LIT@UIC.EDU > Lyla, would you be able to explain more of what in > the novel is particularly > Starhawk as opposed to more commonly part of the > neo-pagan movement? I would > like to know how she is perceived from within the > movement. > > Dave Take a gander through Starhawk's official website. http://www.starhawk.org/ That'll probably answer your questions. Many times I have heard people who identify as Wiccan or Witches refer to Starhawk's brand of witchcraft as "Fluffy Bunny". I asked a panelist at a discussion at an SF Con to explain and qualify that statement. They said that because Starhawk is into women's only groups and feminist wicca she isn't keeping the balance of female and male energies that they felt were essential to the practice of witchcraft. They also claimed that Starhawk focuses on the positive energies and associations that are a part of the craft, but ignores the dark side that again is essential to the balance of life. Death and Birth are all part of a cycle that never ends. As are good and evil, male and female, light and dark . . . . you can't have one without the other. Think the episode of Star Trek when Kirk is split into two and he isn't complete without both his "good" and "bad" elements. Now I don't completely agree with this negative assessment of Starhawk's interpretation of the craft, but the "Fluffy Bunny" label has been used with her a lot by several wiccan groups and individuals that I have personally encountered. Again I say explore Starhawk's website to find out more about her and her politics. Lyla ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2002 01:11:57 +1000 From: Maire Subject: Re: [*FSF-L*] The Fifth Sacred Thing To: FEMINISTSF-LIT@UIC.EDU Dave, that particular scene was very moving for me... (the death of the family). It seems that the horror is in their "offering" themselves for death- if they had died whilst running away or throwing rocks or whatever it would seem more.. commonplace? less of an impact, certainly. I think my thought processes were along the lines of.. well, although their deaths and manne of dying seemed shocking, moving etc, more people would have died if they ha not done so. Is it worse for one soldie to shoot 3 people, peacefully asking him to remembe their mother, sister etc, or 50 people who are resisting? Maire ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2002 12:13:20 -0400 From: Dave Belden Subject: Re: [*FSF-L*] The Fifth Sacred Thing To: FEMINISTSF-LIT@UIC.EDU There have been some very interesting and much discussed articles lately about the different approaches of the US and Europe to Iraq and to the world in general. See: http://www.cis.org.au/Events/JBL/JBL02.htm for one by Francis Fukuyama discussing one by Kaplan. They basically argue that Europe can afford to believe in 'the end of history', or the end of realpolitik and war, and its replacement by international organizations and symbolic fisticuffs and 'stop before anyone dies' rules, only because America is still protecting the advanced European experiment with real guns. Just as Americans arms saw off the Nazis, the Soviets and Milosevich, now American arms will save the Europeans from Islamo fascism. In other words, if someone like Saddam Hussein is still being so old fashioned and crude as to go to war (the lowest common denominator) someone has to be prepared to wage war against them. Real guns always win against symbolic fisticuffs, if the gunners don't care what the world thinks of them. Kaplan and other American conservatives see the Europeans as hypocritically self righteous to criticize the American hand that protects them. Andrew Sullivan http://www.andrewsullivan.com/main_article.php?artnum=20020811 argues this very forcefully: he even claims London and Paris would have had twin towers type horrors by now but for the US invasion of Afghanistan. That's highly debatable, but there's a lot to this point of view in general: the Europeans' complete failure to protect the Muslims in Serbia and Kosovo is an argument in favor of it. But it still doesn't justify an assault on Iraq, in my view, though that is another topic. I still think deterrence usually works (as an alternative to either appeasement and open war) with states like Iraq and North Korea; it's with non-state, loose networks like the supposed al-Qaida that it breaks down. If people just don't run by the same rules, then rule-based warfare is impossible, let alone rule-based alternatives to warfare. Dave > -----Original Message----- > From: friendly STRICTLY ON TOPIC discussion of Feminist SF/Fantasy and > Utopia [mailto:FEMINISTSF-LIT@UIC.EDU]On Behalf Of Maire > Sent: Thursday, August 29, 2002 10:26 AM > To: FEMINISTSF-LIT@UIC.EDU > Subject: Re: [*FSF-L*] The Fifth Sacred Thing > > It's funny, Dave. Your argument reminds me of the same one that has been > going on through my mind since I was about.. 11? albeit, in a far less > sophisticated form (my one). It never seems to make *sense* to me that > nations settle issues by force.. It seemed a logical alternative, to me, > at that age, that, if nations were insistent on might=right, then why not > stop at the level of fisticuffs? Or, what about the Darkovian charter- no long > distance weapons. What makes a nation decide to strike the first blow? > Particularly pertinent at the moment, with the big debate in Aus at the > moment whethe or not Aus should support the US's first strike. It seems, > somehow, that the mental age of a country is stuck at about three. Is it > that the lowest common denominator (ie Hussein) has to set the pace? It > always seemeed to me, that if we could have these rules of war, that > regulated disposal of the dead, neutrality of medical workers and so on... > then, dammit, why not one that said "we have to stop before > anyone actually > dies". Oh well. I guess my inability to figure it all out is why I'm not > running things. It's all a mystery to me. > Maire : ) ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2002 09:56:46 -0700 From: Lee Anne Phillips Subject: Re: [*FSF-L*] The Fifth Sacred Thing To: FEMINISTSF-LIT@UIC.EDU At 10:35 AM 8/29/02 -0400, Dave Belden wrote: >Julieanne wrote: > > *Ditto* - I also found it insulting to the hundreds of thousands of people > > who have died in such ways... and are completely ignored and nobody > > considers their deaths "inspiring". > >Hundreds of thousands of people have died in programs of non-violent >resistance deliberately conceived and calculated, with weeks of training >involved, to focus a moral challenge on their attackers? Who are you talking >about? The family in the story were not passive victims, but you seem to be >treating them as such. I think perhaps you're misreading Julieanne's comment, as well as mine. Oppressors using "theater" is old hat. Public executions are commonplace, indeed desirable from the standpoint of an army intending to terrorize a population. Victims using "theater," although I hesitate to trivialize an act of martyrdom so lightly is also old news. But it is not just hundreds of thousands, it is millions. Many millions have died during religious persecutions, the Roman "theater" of death, for example, where hundreds of thousands of Christians and Jews were murdered for the amusement of the Roman public; the Shoah of recent memory, where millions tried to die with dignity, making of their deaths a statement about the inhumanity of their murderers; the Inquisition, where thousands of women and men were tortured and murdered for their religious beliefs and practices but tried to die in the fullness of their faith; and on and on. But I wouldn't class Starhawk's example of this sort of "theater" with any of those examples among thousands during human history. What Starhawk does by imagining that such "theater" has never been done before, elevates her version of "non-violence" above all others, when in fact it is less focused and implausibly conceived. The Greeks used to have an actor drop down from a hidden trap door in the ceiling of the stage house when the plot got too sticky to figure out. This "deus ex machina" portrayed a god who magically straightened everything out before ascending once more "to the heavens." The miraculous conversion of a killer in FST is just such a contraption. If it were possible for such an event to occur, we would expect to find a number of guards and executioners at the death camps during WWII, during the Pol Pot/ Khmer Rouge massacres, during the "ethnic cleansing" of the former Yugoslavia, who experienced a life-changing apotheosis and turned to ahimsa, kindness to all life, in whatever form the local version of this concept might take. Oddly enough for Starhawk's hypothesis, we are not aware of any. The executioners seem to have been in actuality what we might have expected them to be, murderous men filled with hate who *enjoyed* killing "animals," or "criminals," or despised enemies. While they may well attempt to hide their involvement or lie about their actions when brought to justice, the reality of mass murder is that it is, in Hannah Arendt's words, banal. The killers go home and eat well, sleep well, and are tolerably pleasant neighbors. Eichmann said once, in an unguarded moment, "I shall laugh when I jump into the grave because of the feeling that I killed five million Jews." He was, in fact, proud of what he had done. I imagine he was equally proud of murdering European Gypsies, Catholics, and other undesirables but the subject didn't come up in that particular conversation. So Starhawk's "experiment" has, in fact, been tried many times before, and has failed. And more than that, the offering up of children as "theater" reminded me not so much of martyrdom, but of the children in Jim Jones' version of "theater" protesting the "invasion of his cultic world by "outsiders" who acted contrary to cult norms. We have the recent memory of hundreds of people going willingly to death, offering up their children as "examples" meant to shame the world. Yet, oddly, we remember this act as a tragedy, as a useless waste of life and, indeed, as mass murder. Here is a clear example of deaths meant to send a message, and the reaction of the civilized world was one of disbelief, horror, and grief. While Starhawk, and evidently you, seem to see worlds of difference between the actions of a group of people so firm in their belief that they drank deadly poison to show the world the strength of their convictions, even to the point of convincing their children to drink the deadly brew, I don't. I find the time spent in "carefully preparing" the family for their act of "theater" disquietingly similar to brainwashing, and the actions of the onlookers more similar to those of the "handlers" of suicide bombers, a cynical manipulation of naive belief to achieve a bloody purpose rather than principled resistance. I am not swayed by Starhawk's credulous description of the act any more than I am by the noble rhetoric employed in some circles to describe the "martyrs" who "attacked" a "symbol of American oppression" and brought down the WTC. While there have been many acts of real martyrdom through the ages, whereby adult humans suffer death nobly because they have no real choice, the "theatrical" deaths in FST were not up to those standards. If they were theater, they were cheap theater. In real life they would be murder and incitement to suicide and the onlookers should be sent to prison for their pornographic involvement in the making of a "snuff film." ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2002 10:37:55 -0700 From: Lee Anne Phillips Subject: Re: [*FSF-L*] The Fifth Sacred Thing To: FEMINISTSF-LIT@UIC.EDU At 10:35 AM 8/29/02 -0400, Dave Belden wrote: >As I say, whether it could work in the circumstances of Starhawk's novel I >don't know. But there are many many cases of soldiers turning on their >officers in war: many US officers were killed by their men in Vietnam... Soldiers turn on officers who are trying to get them killed, and that rarely. Soldiers in Viet Nam were just trying to survive and "gung ho" officers who wanted to advance their careers by "heroically" sending their troops to death were fair game, but not their fellow soldiers. Soldiers never, to the best of my knowledge, turn on their own ranks because they experience a religious or moral conversion and are now horrified by their brutal comrades. Soldiering, believe it or not, is at best a noble profession in which a man, or woman, offers up his or her body in defense of his or her beloved home and fellow citizens. Soldiers are motivated, for the most part, by love and honor. Take the time to look at a regimental flag sometime, and notice the ribbons flying from the top of the staff. Each one of those ribbons represents a heroic action in which brave men and women fought and died. They are there because they mean *everything* to the men and women who serve in that body of patriots. They are placed at the top of that flagstaff because each member of that unit hopes to be worthy of being numbered among those comrades who laid down their lives in defense of their country. Remember Henry's speech to his men on St. Crispin's Day? "We few, we happy few, we band of brothers" has a deep meaning to soldiers that civilians may have trouble grasping. Starhawk certainly doesn't "get it." Soldiering is a matter of life and death and it tends to concentrate the mind wonderfully. Soldiers do not, ever, turn on their comrades. To be sure, it's possible for an army to turn from its purpose, but a unit which incurs dishonor often prefers to disband than continue living with collective shame. The most severe collective punishment a modern army can mete out to a unit is to strip it of honors. By strange coincidence, that honor is usually referred to by the military as sacred. That's another thing I don't like about this book. It treats the army as if they were goons and nothing but. But such creatures are rare, not common, and it's difficult to imagine an American army, even after the devolution of civil society, being so removed from their traditions and sacred honor as to behave like the military stooges and strawmen in FST. "This story shall the good man teach his son; and Crispin Crispian shall ne'er go by, from this day to the ending of the world, but we in it shall be remember'd; "We few, we happy few, we band of brothers; For he to-day that sheds his blood with me shall be my brother; be he ne'er so vile, this day shall gentle his condition; "And gentlemen in England now a-bed shall think themselves accursed they were not here, and hold their manhood's cheap whiles any speaks that fought with us upon Saint Crispin's day." William Shakespeare's, King Henry V Act IV, Scene III ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2002 10:45:23 -0700 From: Lee Anne Phillips Subject: Re: [*FSF-L*] The Fifth Sacred Thing To: FEMINISTSF-LIT@UIC.EDU At 12:13 PM 8/29/02 -0400, Dave Belden wrote: >very forcefully: he even claims London and Paris would have had twin towers >type horrors by now but for the US invasion of Afghanistan. That's highly >debatable... Actually, not. The technique of flying an airliner into a public monument was first contemplated and organized to target the Eiffel Tower in Paris. That attempt was thwarted years before the WTC effort succeeded. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2002 14:26:53 -0400 From: Dave Belden Subject: Re: [*FSF-L*] The Fifth Sacred Thing To: FEMINISTSF-LIT@UIC.EDU You express yourself so well I feel more on your side of the argument than my own, after this. I completely agree with you that there have been innumerable martyrs, that Jim Jones was a horror, that young suicide bombers can be considered brainwashed, and so I can hardly disagree that the children in the TFST 'martyr' family can be so seen also. Your image of the onlookers as colluders in a snuff film is a ghastly and persuasive image. You may well be right, and I may be quite wrong, that the innumerable martyrs of history included many who coordinated attempts not 'just' to die with dignity, but to actually put into an effect a deliberate campaign to persuade their attackers of their humanity - you probably are right. But as I reflect on it, things don't seem to add up. You say martyrdom is only real if the person has no choice but to die. You feel that to choose to risk death in an act of unforced 'martyrdom' like that of the family in TFST is ersatz and horrible. But what if they had done as you suggested, and chosen instead to fight, and what if they had then died - would that have been any better? If the young suicide bombers of today are brainwashed, are the young freedom fighters of so many liberation struggles (let's say the Americans against the British), not equally brainwashed? Is anything a child or youth does autonomous? It seems to hinge more on the outcome: if the person, or the child, does something that saves many lives, even at the risk of their own, if they lose their own life in a bid to save many, and it actually does save many, do you then consider them heroes? The child who watches his mother raped and takes the gun or knife and kills her attacker - it has happened - is he not to be admired, even as we mourn what it may have done to him as well as to her? Or is he, too, brainwashed (into male heroics, a sense of the 'man's' responsibility etc.)? In the TFST case, I think it most hinges on your belief that the psychological dynamics didn't work in the novel - Ohnine's conversion was a deus ex machina - and indeed that such dynamics can not work, and never have in history. > If it were possible for such an event to occur, we would expect to > find a number of guards and executioners at the death camps > during WWII, during the Pol Pot/ Khmer Rouge massacres, > during the "ethnic cleansing" of the former Yugoslavia, who > experienced a life-changing apotheosis and turned to ahimsa, > kindness to all life, in whatever form the local version of this > concept might take. > > Oddly enough for Starhawk's hypothesis, we are not aware of any. If this is the case, then I think your argument is right. If it is impossible to shame members of an occupation force into siding with the occupied populace, then of course any attempt to do so that risks the lives of the occupied, especially the lives of children, is an ugly, stupid, unconscionable act. I am out of my historical depth here. But surely there are numerous cases of soldiers refusing to fire on the citizenry, and mutinies against officers for ordering such. What is basic training about, and all the indignities of de-individualizing the new soldier, and the severity of army punishments (shooting deserters etc.), if not because it is so hard to turn many men into obedient order takers? I would imagine that a few Nazi and Pol Pot guards were nauseated by what they did, and slunk away, got transferred to less troubling work - how can you be certain that none did? I seem to recall in the history of Christian martyrs Roman soldiers who joined their victims. This is a very important topic, and I would like to see some good research on it - perhaps you know of such. Just received your other posts: > Soldiers are motivated, for the most part, by love and honor. Goodness, did you ever see the film Culloden? Or read John Keegan's books on the Face Of Battle (was it?) or the qualities of military leadership? Soldiers are also motivated by fear and the consequences of disobedience. The wise commander of course tries to maximize the love and honor part of it, and all the trappings of regimental honors are part of the brainwashing - OK socialization - process. Certainly this helps make it possible for Scottish soldiers who might quibble about firing on their own citizenry to be transported to India to fire on theirs, for example, all for love and honor. You have a remarkably uncritical approach to armies, while having a hyper-critical approach to nonviolent campaigns against them. I agree with you that Starhawk's army is implausible, by the way - but so is her whole Steward society. But then not all armies are regimental either. If US society broke down as totally as she describes, anything was possible. There have been highly reluctant, poorly trained conscript armies. > Soldiers in Viet Nam were just trying to survive > and "gung ho" officers who wanted to advance their careers > by "heroically" sending their troops to death were fair game, > but not their fellow soldiers. How can you be sure those US soldiers in Vietnam 'only' wanted to survive - and that none of them also sympathized with the enemy's right to their own country and communist system? There was a lot of propaganda - or good sense - being talked about that in the anti-war movement, and various soldiers sympathized. It's not so clear-cut that some of them were not Ohnines. Dave ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2002 14:25:25 -0700 From: Lee Anne Phillips Subject: Re: [*FSF-L*] The Fifth Sacred Thing To: FEMINISTSF-LIT@UIC.EDU At 02:26 PM 8/29/02 -0400, Dave Belden wrote: >I reflect on it, things don't seem to add up. You say martyrdom is only real >if the person has no choice but to die. You feel that to choose to risk >death in an act of unforced 'martyrdom' like that of the family in TFST is >ersatz and horrible. But what if they had done as you suggested, and chosen >instead to fight, and what if they had then died - would that have been any >better? If the young suicide bombers of today are brainwashed, are the young >freedom fighters of so many liberation struggles (let's say the Americans >against the British), not equally brainwashed? I don't think so, although perhaps some were. I'm well aware that both patriotism and martyrdom can be, and often have been nuanced by bigoted assumptions of the part of participants. So Eichmann undoubtedly thought of himself as a martyr in the (failed) cause of German racial superiority. Certainly he is viewed as such by members of the Aryan Brotherhood and other White Supremacist groups who still revere Hitler's Reich and buy copies of Mein Kampf as inspirational reading. The suicide bombers in the middle east have several characteristics that would preclude them from being regarded as "just" martyrs, in my opinion. First that they target civilians, even deliberately seeking out children, instead of soldiers. Second that they are preyed upon and recruited by older men, often after severe traumas have occurred within their lives that makes them vulnerable to mortal exploitation. Third because their actions are un-Islamic, in that the Prophet spoke several times of the necessity to avoid taking innocent lives, and of protecting women and children above all. While they may hope for a martyr's reward, in the context of Islam they are deluded, I believe deliberately gulled by cynical handlers, and taken advantage of just as sexual predators target young people in similar situations. >Is anything a child or youth >does autonomous? It seems to hinge more on the outcome: if the person, or >the child, does something that saves many lives, even at the risk of their >own, if they lose their own life in a bid to save many, and it actually does >save many, do you then consider them heroes? The child who watches his >mother raped and takes the gun or knife and kills her attacker - it has >happened - is he not to be admired, even as we mourn what it may have done >to him as well as to her? Since such a child would be operating under tremendous emotional duress, and perhaps with the idea that an attack now might prevent another attack later, I think his or her action would be justified and perhaps laudable, but certainly tragic. It would be a mistake to base a theory on a child operating in a condition of post-traumatic stress. >Or is he, too, brainwashed (into male heroics, a >sense of the 'man's' responsibility etc.)? In the TFST case, I think it most >hinges on your belief that the psychological dynamics didn't work in the >novel - Ohnine's conversion was a deus ex machina - and indeed that such >dynamics can not work, and never have in history. I agree to your last assertion. Given the context as it was presented, the conversion of Ohnine was so unlikely and the process so distorted that my *judgement* of the act is influenced both by the likely outcome and by the fact that children were involved. That sort of behavior is reprehensible on the part of every adult involved. > > If it were possible for such an event to occur, we would expect to > > find a number of guards and executioners at the death camps > > during WWII, during the Pol Pot/ Khmer Rouge massacres, > > during the "ethnic cleansing" of the former Yugoslavia, who > > experienced a life-changing apotheosis and turned to ahimsa, > > kindness to all life, in whatever form the local version of this > > concept might take. > > > > Oddly enough for Starhawk's hypothesis, we are not aware of any. > >If this is the case, then I think your argument is right. If it is >impossible to shame members of an occupation force into siding with the >occupied populace, then of course any attempt to do so that risks the lives >of the occupied, especially the lives of children, is an ugly, stupid, >unconscionable act. I am out of my historical depth here. But surely there >are numerous cases of soldiers refusing to fire on the citizenry, and >mutinies against officers for ordering such. What is basic training about, Yes, of course. It is possible for armies to perform, or be ordered to perform, evil actions. And you're right that soldiers *have* refused to carry out monstrous acts, even when required to do so by irresponsible and cruel officers. Armies are, after all, human creations, and when things go wrong they can go terribly wrong. But soldiers are *required* to disobey unlawful orders. There are precious few "checks and balances" in any military system, but the courts martial and those conventions required by international treaty do serve as a check on otherwise limitless power. >and all the indignities of de-individualizing the new soldier, and the >severity of army punishments (shooting deserters etc.), if not because it is >so hard to turn many men into obedient order takers? I would imagine that a >few Nazi and Pol Pot guards were nauseated by what they did, and slunk away, >got transferred to less troubling work - how can you be certain that none >did? I seem to recall in the history of Christian martyrs Roman soldiers who >joined their victims. This is a very important topic, and I would like to >see some good research on it - perhaps you know of such. It is hard, and the proportion of men actually engaged in killing people in historic armies and battles has always been small. Most people fight best, and most forgivably, when attacked. And there *were* Roman soldiers who joined the ranks of the christians, most notably Saul of Tarsus (Paul) and Cornelius, a Roman Centurian. Paul was a Roman citizen, and the most likely route for a Jew from foreign parts to have become a citizen would be through service in the military. Indeed, if he was a citizen before such service he would likely have been drafted unless already rich enough to buy exemption. If this is the case, it's quite understandable that the early church would downplay his real association with Rome, since they were at the time attempting to reconcile themselves with the Roman State. Certainly the accounts of his early actions are distorted, since the Jewish synagogues operated under the rule of Roman law and had authority only to order floggings and other corporal and civil punishment to apostates but not the death described. The Great Sanhedrin had no such power, much less local rabbis. Capital punishment was reserved to the State and any person martyred in or around the Roman Middle East was put to death on orders of Rome, not the Jews. Much of the research that has been done on this topic is suspect, because it treats the "New Testament" accounts uncritically. But it does seem likely that christianity was a popular ground swell in the Roman Empire of the time, so it seems more likely that there were Roman soldiers who were already christians, or had been leaning toward christianity, who were moved to cast their lot with the martyrs after seeing the example of their faith and steadfast determination. Certainly the new religion was, at the time, denigrated as the religion of women, of slaves, and of common soldiers, all of whom could take strong egalitarian comfort from the teachings of this radical faith. While mystery religions had trod much the same ground before, they were, for the most part, targeted to the wealthy and middle classes. So Apuleius was an initiate of Isis, as was Caligula. >Just received your other posts: > > Soldiers are motivated, for the most part, by love and honor. >Goodness, did you ever see the film Culloden? Or read John Keegan's books on >the Face Of Battle (was it?) or the qualities of military leadership? >Soldiers are also motivated by fear and the consequences of disobedience. >The wise commander of course tries to maximize the love and honor part of >it, and all the trappings of regimental honors are part of the >brainwashing - OK socialization - process. Certainly this helps make it >possible for Scottish soldiers who might quibble about firing on their own >citizenry to be transported to India to fire on theirs, for example, all for >love and honor. You have a remarkably uncritical approach to armies, while >having a hyper-critical approach to nonviolent campaigns against them. Not really. The US Armed Forces are, I think, quite removed from the religious war that was the Jacobite pretension to the Throne of England. Cumberland, of whom you undoubtedly refer, has since been known as "The Butcher" from his dishonorable orders to slaughter prisoners and civilians in the aftermath of that battle. That particular battle was, in effect, a civil war made more bloody by the fact that the Jacobites were Scots and the Loyalists, who followed a Hanoverian (German) King were not. I believe I mentioned that armies can be corrupted when used against civilians. It was General William Tecumseh Sherman, I believe, who pioneered a similar campaign against civilians in our own Civil War. He too, has garnered similar opprobrium for his cruelty and incitement of the worst impulses in his troops. He too was responsible for long-lasting hatred on the part of the conquered peoples that distorted relations between the formerly warring sides that has lasted for a century and more. It was in large part his legacy that kept racism alive in the South long after the war was over, because the injustice of his actions rankled long after the logic of the Union cause might have persuaded people toward reconciliation. And I'm not at all uncritical of our own military, although most of my contempt is reserved for officers. I happen to think, for example, that indiscriminate bombing of civilians is a war crime, whether performed by plane or long range artillery. But this is a crime very difficult to prove, since the soldiers are rarely given a choice in the matter and must take their officer's word that they are engaging a "military target." These are easy words to say, especially when found to have killed large numbers of civilians after the fact, but our own bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was morally repugnant, in my opinion, however the powers that be may characterize the attack as having military necessity. >I >agree with you that Starhawk's army is implausible, by the way - but so is >her whole Steward society. But then not all armies are regimental either. If >US society broke down as totally as she describes, anything was possible. >There have been highly reluctant, poorly trained conscript armies. > > > Soldiers in Viet Nam were just trying to survive > > and "gung ho" officers who wanted to advance their careers > > by "heroically" sending their troops to death were fair game, > > but not their fellow soldiers. > >How can you be sure those US soldiers in Vietnam 'only' wanted to survive - >and that none of them also sympathized with the enemy's right to their own >country and communist system? There was a lot of propaganda - or good >sense - being talked about that in the anti-war movement, and various >soldiers sympathized. It's not so clear-cut that some of them were not >Ohnines. In the courts martial of those soldiers who were caught, and not all were, a common thread of officer "goofiness" emerges. While I can believe that there were a few, or even quite a few, sympathizers to Vietnamese nationalism among the troops, the actual instances of traitorous actions were *very* few. The one court martial that I'm aware of was that of PFC Robert Garwood, who as a prisoner of war was tortured and purportedly "went over to the other side." That case is problematic in the extreme, given the extreme duress suffered by Private Garwood, and he was acquitted of desertion to the best of my knowledge. His accusers were officers, quite possibly goofy officers. There are a mort of them, unfortunately. And although My Lai did happen, there were also US soldiers court martialed and sent to prison for similar crimes. Indeed, one officer was convicted, even for the My Lai incident, although the coverup saved most from justice. But once more, this was a war on civilians, and inevitably leads to the destruction of pride (one soldier shot himself in the foot during the My Lai incursion to avoid participating) and unit cohesion. That was one sorry ass excuse for a company of US soldiers and everyone knew it. The Army still feels shame over the incident, and it is reported that Desert Storm troops were told before battle, "No May Lais!" ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2002 14:46:17 -0700 From: Cynthia Childs Subject: Re: [*FSF-L*] The Fifth Sacred Thing To: FEMINISTSF-LIT@UIC.EDU Dave Belden wrote: >>How can you be sure those US soldiers in Vietnam 'only' wanted to survive - >>and that none of them also sympathized with the enemy's right to their own >>country and communist system? There was a lot of propaganda - or good >>sense - being talked about that in the anti-war movement, and various >>soldiers sympathized. It's not so clear-cut that some of them were not >>Ohnines. Lee Anne Phillips wrote: > In the courts martial of those soldiers who were caught, and not > all were, a common thread of officer "goofiness" emerges. While > I can believe that there were a few, or even quite a few, sympathizers > to Vietnamese nationalism among the troops, the actual instances > of traitorous actions were *very* few. This is according to courts martial transcripts? If those soldiers had a hope in hell of getting acquitted, any lawyer worth their salt would have told them 'Don't go there' if they mentioned sympathy for the Vietnamese cause. Sympathy for 'the enemy' won't get you off a murder charge, acting in self-defense will. Law courts are not always about justice. . . ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2002 18:09:24 EDT From: Joy Martin Subject: [*FSF-L*] Armies, civilians etal To: FEMINISTSF-LIT@UIC.EDU I haven't had time to participate in this discussion, but in re armies and attacks on civilians, Uri Avnery recently had an excellent appeal to pilots who are dropping bombs on civilians in Palestine. If anyone wants a copy, I think you can probably find it by searching the Gush Shalom site, or under Avnery's name, on a search machine. I had it, but don't think I have the copy anymore.) On the topic of peace movements/antiviolence etal, "Inside the Maelstrom", leading article of the latest The Other Israel now available on the internet. http://members.tripod.com/~other_Israel/ed.html I received this hard copy, and haven't had a chance to read it through, but it's a very complete and excellent account by the Israeli peace movement of events in Israel/Palestine since March. Personally I think the experience of the Israeli peace movement is one of the most instructive at the moment in the arts of nonviolence under extremely difficult circumstances on all sides. I'd say more, but, no time just now.-Joy '68 "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety"-Benjamin Franklin ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2002 18:22:15 EDT From: Joy Martin Subject: [*FSF-L*] P.S. To: FEMINISTSF-LIT@UIC.EDU Addendum to my previous post: the Israeli peace movement has more than a passing relevance to this discussion, since, if I am remembering correctly, Starhawk was at least for a time working with the international peace activists in Palestine. (As I said, I think it was her, and not someone else, whose posts from Jerusalem I read on other listserves recently, that deal with this subject). One of the things they were doing, for example, was staying with Palestinian families to try to prevent destruction of houses, and what killings they could (for example, staying with a deaf man, who might not hear orders to move and consequently be shot for being uncooperative). Without getting into the merits or faults of the novel, or her specific beliefs, I just want to mention that she has been involved in direct action nonviolent work in situations that were a bit more risky than crossing fences at nuclear power plants. -Joy "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety"-Benjamin Franklin ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2002 18:29:44 -0400 From: Dave Belden Subject: Re: [*FSF-L*] P.S. To: FEMINISTSF-LIT@UIC.EDU > Addendum to my previous post: the Israeli peace movement has more than a > passing relevance to this discussion, since, if I am remembering > correctly, > Starhawk was at least for a time working with the international peace > activists in Palestine. (As I said, I think it was her, and not > someone else, > whose posts from Jerusalem I read on other listserves recently, that deal > with this subject). Her writings on this are available on her website, which Lyla pointed us to: > Take a gander through Starhawk's official website. > > http://www.starhawk.org/ Dave ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2002 15:46:58 -0700 From: Lee Anne Phillips Subject: Re: [*FSF-L*] The Fifth Sacred Thing To: FEMINISTSF-LIT@UIC.EDU At 02:46 PM 8/29/02 -0700, Cynthia Childs wrote: >Lee Anne Phillips wrote: > > > In the courts martial of those soldiers who were caught, and not > > all were, a common thread of officer "goofiness" emerges. While > > I can believe that there were a few, or even quite a few, sympathizers > > to Vietnamese nationalism among the troops, the actual instances > > of traitorous actions were *very* few. > >This is according to courts martial transcripts? If those soldiers had a >hope in hell of getting acquitted, any lawyer worth their salt would have >told them 'Don't go there' if they mentioned sympathy for the Vietnamese >cause. Sympathy for 'the enemy' won't get you off a murder charge, >acting in self-defense will. Law courts are not always about justice. . . To be sure, but the accounts were, for the most part, corroborated by soldiers *not* directly involved. I was, at the time, involved in what was called the peace movement but also had friends among the military. I've never been doctrinaire and always like to look at both sides. And there usually are two sides in real situations, since the silliest ideas mostly die a natural death before it comes to blows.. My girlfriend of the time was in the Navy and it was common knowledge that "fraggings" (from the practice of using untraceable fragmentation grenades to perform these acts of predation pressure on the goofy officer population) were directed at those who seemed likely to get one killed, as I stated. There was considerable sympathy for this among the rank and file, although officers were understandably somewhat less enthused. This was relatively uncommon, given the total numbers of troops and officers involved, but it is known that at least 600 officers and non-commissioned officers were assassinated, and there were 1400 other deaths "under mysterious circumstances." The most common reaction to callous or unreasonable officers was combat refusal, where the members of a company would simply refuse to go out on stupid missions. The Army kept most of these incidents quiet, but the wearing of peace symbols and black arm bands by combat troops became more and more common as the war dragged on and became steadily more unpopular among the civilians back home and the troops in the field. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2002 23:14:14 GMT From: "Jeremy H. Griffith" Subject: Re: [*FSF-L*] The Fifth Sacred Thing To: FEMINISTSF-LIT@UIC.EDU On Thu, 29 Aug 2002 14:25:25 -0700, Lee Anne Phillips wrote: >The Army still feels shame over the >incident, and it is reported that Desert Storm troops were told >before battle, "No May Lais!" The only problem with this view is that it ignores the reality of the Vietnam war in favor of the "official" version. In fact, My Lai was *not* exceptional, in terms of what was done to the civilian population. It was typical, a fact well established by the Winter Soldier Investigation back in January 1971: http://lists.village.virginia.edu/sixties/HTML_docs/Resources/Primary/Winter_Soldier/WS_entry.html (Do a Google search for "Winter Soldier" for lots more refs.) The Winter Soldier Investigation is not a mock trial. There will be no phony indictments; there will be no verdict against Uncle Sam. In these three days, over a hundred Vietnam veterans will present straightforward testimony-- direct testimony--about acts which are war crimes under international law. Acts which these men have seen and participated in. Acts which are the inexorable result of national policy. The vets will testify in panels arranged by the combat units in which they fought so that it will be easy to see the policy of each division and thus the larger policy. Each day there will be a special panel during the hours of testimony. Today, a panel on weaponry will explain the use and effects of some of the vicious and illegal weapons used in Vietnam. Tomorrow there will be a panel on prisoners of war composed of returned POWs, parents of a POW, American POW interrogators and vets who served in our own military stockades. Every witness throughout the three days will be available for cross-examination by the press after their initial statements and questioning by their fellow-vets who are acting as moderators. ... But we intend to tell more. We intend to tell who it was that gave us those orders; that created that policy; that set that standard of war bordering on full and final genocide. We intend to demonstrate that My Lai was no unusual occurrence, other than, perhaps, the number of victims killed all in one place, all at one time, all by one platoon of us. We intend to show that the policies of Americal Division which inevitably resulted in My Lai were the policies of other Army and Marine Divisions as well. We intend to show that war crimes in Vietnam did not start in March 1968, or in the village of Son My or with one Lt. William Calley. We intend to indict those really responsible for My Lai, for Vietnam, for attempted genocide. --Opening Statement of William Crandell, 1st Marine Division The main unusual aspect of My Lai was the fact that the events were so well publicized. Perhaps that's what those instructions to the Desert Storm troops were *really* about. And, of course, we don't have to look back to Vietnam to find many examples of US forces engaging in genocide. We don't even have to leave the US itself... ask any Native American. Or Hawai'ian. Starhawk is well aware of this history. In TFST, the point at which my suspension of disbelief totally snapped was indeed where Ohnine led half the army to attack the other half. (How would anyone in it know *which* other soldiers to shoot at? By race alone? Yeesh.) As Winter Soldier tells us, this is *not* what people who realize they have been in the wrong, acting as war criminals, ever do... --Jeremy H. Griffith http://www.omsys.com/jeremy/ ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2002 19:53:11 EDT From: Lou Hoffman Subject: Re: [*FSF-L*] The Fifth Sacred Thing To: FEMINISTSF-LIT@UIC.EDU In a message dated 8/28/02 1:41:02 PM CDT, leeanne@LEEANNE.COM writes: > I personally find it far too difficult to fully engage with more than one > person on an intimate adult level but, what the heck, I'm willing to posit > that there are those so gifted in relationships and so saintly in their > personal lives that this is *possible* despite my own personal > encounters with the failed marriages and partnerships which seem > to inevitably follow. The only situations I'm aware of in which > "polyamory" seems to work is that of patriarchal polygamy, in which the > "master" essentially owns his wives, whose expectations do not seem > to include full agency or personhood, and a few rare instances of > polyandry, in which the actual system seems also patriarchal and > consists of joint ownership by brothers of one wife, more than one > being too expensive to support in the local economy. In neither case > does *love* have much to do with it. > > What I've actually *seen* in so-called "polyamorous" relationships > is usually one charismatic philanderer who manages to string along > several dupes or victims. When the victims finally realize that they've > been caught up in someone else's power trip, the relationships > dissolve and the core instigator moves on to another series of > shallow flirtations and callow sexual conquests disguised as the > "next step in the evolution of human potential." > > But then I've probably lived too long to be less than cynical > and I can't remember ever being quite as starry-eyed as belief > in such a system would require. Quite probably there exist > astonishing counterexamples that I, unluckily, haven't happened > to run across of loving triads, quadrads, and n-ads who have > grown old together in loving harmony and gracious mutual > admiration and consideration. Whether or not Starhawk was able to portray polyamorous relationships well, doesn't mean polyamorous relationships in the real world deserve this kind of sarcasm. Yes, some poly relationships end poorly. So do a lot of monogamous relationships. Lou, 20 years poly, neither saintly nor gifted "If I pass for other than what I am, do you feel safer?" Lani Kaahumanu, 1994 ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2002 17:59:14 -0700 From: Lee Anne Phillips Subject: Re: [*FSF-L*] The Fifth Sacred Thing To: FEMINISTSF-LIT@UIC.EDU At 11:14 PM 8/29/02 +0000, Jeremy H. Griffith wrote: >The only problem with this view is that it ignores the reality >of the Vietnam war in favor of the "official" version. In fact, >My Lai was *not* exceptional, in terms of what was done to the >civilian population. It was typical, a fact well established I don't believe it, although I agree that other such incidents probably occurred. "Typical" is a strong word that I think overstates the case. There was too much "My Lai," to be sure, but it would be impossible to cover up such a wholesale descent into murderous mob action by the hundreds of thousands of decent men and women who served there. Or are the women who served as nursing and support staff exempt from charges of rape and murder? By this account, we should immediately seek out every Vietnam veteran and lock them up, since they are obviously unfit to remain in polite society. I think not. I've already stated that armies turned on civilians degenerate, which was the root cause of My Lai and other atrocities, but most people, even men unlucky enough to be conscripted into a war they didn't like and didn't support, don't take out their anger and pain on civilians. What *did* happen in Vietnam was huge problems of alcohol and drug dependency, just as we see here in persons without hope stuck in miserable living conditions and performing hateful jobs. Of course there were violent individuals, even violent groups, just as we see in the inner city today, but to indite the flower of an entire generation because of a relatively few instances of criminal behavior is excessive and unfair. Why is it ok to demonize soldiers? Such sentiments would be instantly condemned as racist if leveled against any ethnic group; why is it less bigoted to paint soldiers with such a broad and unsympathetic brush? Holders of this viewpoint seems to believe, although rarely articulate, that people as a whole are mostly scum, with only a few rare exceptions worthy enough to be fit company for paragons of virtue such as themselves. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2002 12:33:40 +1000 From: Maire Subject: Re: [*FSF-L*] The Fifth Sacred Thing To: FEMINISTSF-LIT@UIC.EDU Lee-Anne wrote: > That's another thing I don't like about this book. It treats > the army as if they were goons and nothing but. But > such creatures are rare, not common, and it's difficult > to imagine an American army, even after the devolution > of civil society, being so removed from their traditions > and sacred honor as to behave like the military stooges > and strawmen in FST. Sigh. So, if Starhawk had placed the book anywher else, it would have been totally believable. I found this above rather strange. Just because the action takes place on soil that is now America, that hardly means that there is still any connection with any of America's institutions etc etc. The rapidity of the changes that SH posits is a little hard to accept. The changes *overall* in the entire structures of the people now living in what was formely America. Given the changes the SH alleges, obviously the army would have no connection with today's... Anyway, really, while it may be hard for a person with warm feelings for the military to accept SH's depiction, I imagine it's extrmely easy for most people. Countless examples from "real life" (and not just of the military) combine, for me anyway, to make SH's army swallowable. I think if you *wanted* a good army, you could easily create one. Maire ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2002 12:33:41 +1000 From: Maire Subject: Re: [*FSF-L*] The Fifth Sacred Thing may be OT- example of "successful matrydom" To: FEMINISTSF-LIT@UIC.EDU > And more than that, the offering up of children as "theater" reminded > me not so much of martyrdom, but of the children in Jim Jones' > version of "theater" protesting the "invasion of his cultic world by > "outsiders" who acted contrary to cult norms. We have the recent > memory of hundreds of people going willingly to death, offering > up their children as "examples" meant to shame the world. Yet, > oddly, we remember this act as a tragedy, as a useless waste of > life and, indeed, as mass murder. I just wanted to say something. I think that what SH's family did does work. It is working in Australia at the moment. Thousands of men, women and childrn are incarcerated in concentration camps in the desert, waiting to see if they will be given refugee status. Australian public wre totally unsympathetic, most especially after Sept 11, and the recent govt rode into power on the strength of the issue- "we will decide who comes into our country, and how" blah blah. I cant even begin to descrive how viley this issue has been treated. For example, the govt declared that Afghan mothers were throwing their children into the water to be photographed to gain public support (from a people smuggling boat in danger of sinking off the Aus coast). However, the tide is slowly turning.. for months, people- and children- going on hunger strikes in the camps, rioting, and sewing their- and their children's- mouths up were cited as more examples of the barbarity of these people. After a while, it just doesnt wash. Finally, the anti- illegal alien/ refugee mood has begun to crumple with shame. People can no longer stomach the treatment of people- families with children included- who ar so desperate that they are killing themselves in massive numbers, sewing their children's mouths shut, etc. The attitude of a people trained by their leaders to be unsympatheic and hard, can change. I think that especially crucial to the process, is that there be a "human face" for the people (army or whoever), that they can identify with- for Australians, 2 Afghan boys who escaped the camp and told their story- for SH's army, the family that offered themselves up. Maire ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2002 12:33:44 +1000 From: Maire Subject: Re: [*FSF-L*] The Fifth Sacred Thing - OT, example of military standing down To: FEMINISTSF-LIT@UIC.EDU > -----Original Message----- > From: friendly STRICTLY ON TOPIC discussion of Feminist SF/Fantasy and > Utopia [mailto:FEMINISTSF-LIT@UIC.EDU]On Behalf Of Lee Anne Phillips > Sent: Friday, 30 August 2002 3:38 AM > To: FEMINISTSF-LIT@UIC.EDU > Subject: Re: [*FSF-L*] The Fifth Sacred Thing > > At 10:35 AM 8/29/02 -0400, Dave Belden wrote: > >As I say, whether it could work in the circumstances of Starhawk's novel I > >don't know. But there are many many cases of soldiers turning on their > >officers in war: many US officers were killed by their men in Vietnam... > > Soldiers turn on officers who are trying to get them killed, > and that rarely. Soldiers in Viet Nam were just trying to survive > and "gung ho" officers who wanted to advance their careers > by "heroically" sending their troops to death were fair game, > but not their fellow soldiers. Just thoguht I would tell you about my uncle. My uncle served in Vietnam. Befor Vietnam, befor the war even started, he trained as an officer in Duntroon, and was intent on a military career. When the war started and my uncle was sent over there, it seems he had a change of heart. He refused to kill anyone. Faced, I suppose, with the realism of death, horror of war, he refused to follow orders, refused to pick up a weapon. He argued that it contravened the commandment- thou shalt not kill. He was sent home forthwith. Once in Australia, he was made much of- though I don't know whethe public sympathys were with or against him- he spoke on current affairs shows, and so on. I'm not drawing any conclusions from this story, just thought I would tell you. Maire ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2002 02:49:14 GMT From: "Jeremy H. Griffith" Subject: Re: [*FSF-L*] The Fifth Sacred Thing To: FEMINISTSF-LIT@UIC.EDU On Thu, 29 Aug 2002 17:59:14 -0700, Lee Anne Phillips wrote: >Why is it ok to demonize soldiers? Such >sentiments would be instantly condemned as racist >if leveled against any ethnic group; why is it less >bigoted to paint soldiers with such a broad and >unsympathetic brush? It's called "being realistic". Just read the WSI testimony. And I do *not* demonize the soldiers; I go by what they say, in their own words. If you will not be bothered looking at those words, uttered by men deeply troubled by what they had experienced directly there, then spare us the rhetoric. >Holders of this viewpoint seems to believe, although >rarely articulate, that people as a whole are mostly >scum, with only a few rare exceptions worthy enough >to be fit company for paragons of virtue such as >themselves. This sort of ad-hominem argument is really beneath you, Lee Anne. What it *does* accomplish is to hold up a mirror to your own pronouncements. Clearly, to you, I (and anyone else who disagrees with you?) am easily dismissed as an arrogant, judgmental fool. No, I do not consider *anyone* scum... not even the real war criminals, who drew us into that mess and still run this country. And most others... But there are many, many tortured, misguided, and misled people who deserve to hear more truth than is told in mass media. Listen to the soldiers, Lee Anne. Hear their stories, and take them into your heart... --Jeremy H. Griffith http://www.omsys.com/jeremy/ ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2002 14:51:22 +1000 From: Maire Subject: Re: [*FSF-L*] The Fifth Sacred Thing To: FEMINISTSF-LIT@UIC.EDU (lee anne, sorry to be a pain, most people ar in prison because they have drugs problems, not becuse they ar violent, despite the medias depictions. 80% of people in Aus prisons are there for drug-related crime) Just an issue close to my heart. Maire > -----Original Message----- > From: friendly STRICTLY ON TOPIC discussion of Feminist SF/Fantasy and > Utopia [mailto:FEMINISTSF-LIT@UIC.EDU]On Behalf Of Lee Anne Phillips > Sent: Friday, 30 August 2002 3:11 PM > To: FEMINISTSF-LIT@UIC.EDU > Subject: Re: [*FSF-L*] The Fifth Sacred Thing > > > At 01:05 PM 8/30/02 +1000, Maire wrote: > >I think if you *wanted* a good army, you could easily create one. > >Maire > >err.... by that, I mean, > >"if you *wanted* a GOON army" > > OK, I accept that. We do, after all, have quasi-armies of > goons calling themselves skinheads and white power groups > in this country. There are even a few in LA although their > power base seems to be somewhat further in toward the > middle of the country. But what the heck, if you wanted > goons they're easy enough to come by almost anywhere. > Maybe Starhawk's army recruited from prison gangs. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2002 21:52:53 -0700 From: Lee Anne Phillips Subject: Re: [*FSF-L*] The Fifth Sacred Thing To: FEMINISTSF-LIT@UIC.EDU At 02:49 AM 8/30/02 +0000, Jeremy H. Griffith wrote: >On Thu, 29 Aug 2002 17:59:14 -0700, Lee Anne Phillips > wrote: > > >Why is it ok to demonize soldiers? Such > >sentiments would be instantly condemned as racist > >if leveled against any ethnic group; why is it less > >bigoted to paint soldiers with such a broad and > >unsympathetic brush? > >It's called "being realistic". Just read the WSI >testimony. And I do *not* demonize the soldiers; >I go by what they say, in their own words. If you >will not be bothered looking at those words, uttered >by men deeply troubled by what they had experienced >directly there, then spare us the rhetoric. Oh my. The Winter Soldier Investigation was started by people with one particular axe to grind. It is by no means unbiased and doesn't take into account the *many* Vietnam veterans who were and remain proud of their service under extremely difficult conditions. The WSI deliberately excluded *those* men and women and dismissed all arguments contrary to their views. And indeed, if you read my posts in their entirety, you may discover that I know this already. I was an active protestor of the war in Vietnam, worked with the American Friends Service Committee to counsel draft resistors and conscientious objectors, counseled servicemen trying to claim late CO status, participated in direct action to convince conscientious objectors shipped off to "conch camps" in the Sierras to work for the same wages paid to convict fire crews that their incarceration there was illegal and the wages paid a violation of US law, which specified that COs must be paid the "prevailing wage," and both sought and provided funds for young men who chose to flee to Canada rather than help prosecute this largely unjust war. I'm particularly proud of some of my anti-war and CO-support pamphlets. But I don't hold one-sided views about anything, and refuse to demonize people who didn't agree with me at the time, or even people who came later to agree but were violently opposed at the time. I believe that some of my work served to sway opinions precisely because it wasn't one-sided and didactic, and could honor many honest responses to the war without demanding that anyone accept a "party line." I may even have saved a few lives. Who knows? The WSI accuses US forces of committing war crimes after carefully explaining that it was impossible to fight that particular war without committing such crimes. Actually, *appearing* to commit such crimes, although the distinction is difficult, but is inherently dishonest. This is not to say that war crimes were not committed; they were. But they were not "typical" and were, at least until the very end of our involvement, not even common. The more the war got out of control and the worse the provocation, the more things *did* get out of hand. People are human after all, and reach breaking points based on their own limitations and psychology. You can't judge the behavior of people under enormous stress using quite the same standards as you do the man next door watering his lawn. Where a soldier in mortal danger might reasonably throw a hand grenade toward any sudden noise, one might properly castigate a neighbor who did the same. The WSI ignores the fact that the tactics used by guerilla fighters, not wearing uniforms and using a civilian populace as human shields, are also war crimes under the Geneva Convention. And in fact, by willingly hiding soldiers, by providing intelligence, *many* Vietnamese civilians also violated the laws of war and were subject to *legal* summary justice on the battlefield by any soldier. You can't have it both ways. Either you follow the rules of war or those rules don't fully apply. If a "soldier" hides among civilians and fails to wear a uniform, he is a spy, assassin, or saboteur and his hidden presence on the battlefield, which might put civilians in danger, is a capital war crime. Any civilian casualties which result from that action are chargeable to the soldier or army which adopts such illegal tactics, not the army wearing regular uniforms and trying to abide by the rules, which is forced to fire upon civilians in order to neutralize a real or imagined threat. Most of the actual war crimes in that war were committed, on a daily basis, by the North Vietnamese. We ourselves committed many crimes, not least of which was the wanton destruction of trees and crops, the means to life itself, but this is not a war crime, surprisingly enough, only bal taschit, a violation of moral law, but systematically pursued. And the longer the war went on, the worse it got. But it was precisely this point, that the war had turned into a war of extermination directed *toward*, if not exactly *at* the entire populace of Vietnam, which made it politically impossible to continue. As I said before. The North's tactics, although illegal under the laws of war, were very shrewd. By callously placing their civilian population in harm's way, they made it impossible for a civilized society to continue prosecuting the war. And we *were* civilized. For the most part at least. That's ultimately why we left. If we were quite as bad as some make out, we could simply have murdered everyone, brought in replacement citizens, and been there still. That's precisely what we did with the American Indians, what the Romans did to Gaul (more or less), and the Hebrews did to the Canaanites. All these populations were decimated to the extent that whole tribes disappeared and only a few remain, tattered remnants of once thriving cultures. Except for the Canaanites, of course, who seem to be not only merely dead, but really most sincerely dead. Last I looked the Vietnamese were still around and still living in their very own country. This is not the expected outcome of a truly tyrannical war. Not that they didn't have the right to live there in the first place. It was our meddling in the aftermath of WWII that brought the French back, and led directly to our involvement in that profoundly stupid war. Ho Chi Minh modeled the Vietnamese Constitution directly after our own, was (prior to our involvement in the war) a great admirer of the USA and its people. If our government had been run by people even a little less paranoid and stupid we could probably have helped create the first Southeast Asian democracy and changed the course of history in wonderful ways, instead of the sorry mess of brutal dictatorships and corruption we left in our wake throughout the region. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2002 22:11:14 -0700 From: Lee Anne Phillips Subject: Re: [*FSF-L*] The Fifth Sacred Thing To: FEMINISTSF-LIT@UIC.EDU At 01:05 PM 8/30/02 +1000, Maire wrote: >I think if you *wanted* a good army, you could easily create one. >Maire >err.... by that, I mean, >"if you *wanted* a GOON army" OK, I accept that. We do, after all, have quasi-armies of goons calling themselves skinheads and white power groups in this country. There are even a few in LA although their power base seems to be somewhat further in toward the middle of the country. But what the heck, if you wanted goons they're easy enough to come by almost anywhere. Maybe Starhawk's army recruited from prison gangs. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2002 13:03:48 -0400 From: "Janice E. Dawley" Subject: Re: [*FSF-L*] The Fifth Sacred Thing To: FEMINISTSF-LIT@UIC.EDU At 10:11 PM 8/29/2002 -0700, Lee Anne Phillips wrote: >At 01:05 PM 8/30/02 +1000, Maire wrote: >>I think if you *wanted* a good army, you could easily create one. >>Maire >>err.... by that, I mean, >>"if you *wanted* a GOON army" > >OK, I accept that. We do, after all, have quasi-armies of >goons calling themselves skinheads and white power groups >in this country. There are even a few in LA although their >power base seems to be somewhat further in toward the >middle of the country. But what the heck, if you wanted >goons they're easy enough to come by almost anywhere. >Maybe Starhawk's army recruited from prison gangs. Though I find many of the book's details implausible or overly convenient, I have to give the author credit for building up the disaffection of the troops. She makes it very clear that large numbers of soldiers were in the army only because that was their one option besides prison (usually for crimes like stealing water). Most of them stay instead of deserting because they are afraid they will die without the immuno-boosting drugs the army feeds them. Once Madrone discovers a way to wean them from the drugs, many more are willing to turn on their captors. Race tensions and generally poor treatment by their officers are also highlighted more than once. Given the setting as the author described it, it doesn't seem that odd that the invading forces broke down the way they did. Why the Stewards were stupid enough to send this poor excuse for an army north to begin with is another question. ----- Janice E. Dawley.....Burlington, VT http://therem.net/ Listening to: The Chemical Brothers -- Surrender "I've built my white picket fence around the Now, with a commanding view of the Soon-to-Be." -- The Tick ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 31 Aug 2002 21:42:50 -0700 From: Lee Anne Phillips Subject: Re: [*FSF-L*] The Fifth Sacred Thing To: FEMINISTSF-LIT@UIC.EDU At 01:03 PM 8/30/02 -0400, Janice E. Dawley wrote: >Though I find many of the book's details implausible or overly convenient, >I have to give the author credit for building up the disaffection of the >troops. She does indeed. I probably dismissed this assertion too easily because it would, as pointed out later in the post, be stupid on the part of the LA authorities. But such an army is a straw man, impossible to believe in realistically. Perhaps in the days of galley slaves there was a use for the dregs of society in warfare, but modern warfare using troops, unlike a street gang with a few dozen members, requires disciplined soldiers who can be counted on to perform as expected. Training a soldier requires enormous sums of money and expensive materials, neither likely to be plentiful in a post-apocalyptic world. In a world such as this, one would expect that only the most disciplined troops would be used, since even if men cost nothing, the arms and training they require are very dear. And Starhawk perhaps forgets that, if the army had been as disaffected and fragile as she implies, even the slightest show of resistance would probably have sent them packing, saving countless lives. Poorly-motivated troops are notorious for desertions under fire and other cowardice. But she wants it both ways, impossibly powerful and impossibly weak at one in the same time. And despite the fickle fragility of the LA army as portrayed in FST, I still reject the "non-violent" witnessing which horrified Bird. There is little evidence that such tactics work in actuality, except in *very* special circumstances. The *only* real successes of non-violent action have been those undertaken against relatively humane democratic states. LA seems to have been neither. So the reaction of the British to news of General Dyer's firing into a crowd of non-violent resisters in which almost 400 persons were killed resulted in Dyer being court martialed and fired was in many ways unique. This one incident instilled a feeling of revulsion toward unbridled use of the military against civilians into the British public which has lasted to this day. But the LA Stewards and their Army were *not* the British. Nor, when it comes to that, were anyone else. The British, for all their faults, stand almost alone in their recent relatively humane treatment of former colonies and polite exit when finally convinced that they weren't wanted. This, of course, applies only to the last fifty years or so as a glance at the history of Ireland will show. And it should be remembered that the British had always claimed that they had been a civilizing influence on India, whatever the Indian non-violent movement achieved in the way of virtue. And so it seems to have been. When the British left, India plunged into a horrible morass of formerly-repressed racial, religious, and other violence which left more than four millions dead. George Orwell addressed non-violence in relation to one of its most famous proponents, Gandhi, in 1949, just a few years after WWII. "In relation to the late war, one question that every pacifist had a clear obligation to answer was: "What about the Jews? Are you prepared to see them exterminated? If not, how do you propose to save them without resorting to war?" I must say that I have never heard, from any Western pacifist, an honest answer to this question, though I have heard plenty of evasions, usually of the "you're another" type. But it so happens that Gandhi was asked a somewhat similar question in 1938 and that his answer is on record in Mr. Louis Fischer's Gandhi and Stalin. According to Mr. Fischer, Gandhi's view was that the German Jews ought to commit collective suicide, which "would have aroused the world and the people of Germany to Hitler's violence." After the war he justified himself: the Jews had been killed anyway, and might as well have died significantly. One has the impression that this attitude staggered even so warm an admirer as Mr. Fischer, but Gandhi was merely being honest. If you are not prepared to take life, you must often be prepared for lives to be lost in some other way." "But one should, I think, realize that Gandhi's teachings cannot be squared with the belief that Man is the measure of all things and that our job is to make life worth living on this earth, which is the only earth we have. They make sense only on the assumption that God exists and that the world of solid objects is an illusion to be escaped from." http://www.k-1.com/Orwell/ghandi.htm "Hitler," Gandhi said, "killed five million Jews. It is the greatest crime of our time. But the Jews should have offered themselves to the butcher's knife. They should have thrown themselves into the sea from cliffs... It would have aroused the world and the people of Germany... As it is they succumbed anyway in their millions." http://die_meistersinger.tripod.com/gandhi9.html Luckily, Starhawk's vision of non-violence did not have the same results as did Gandhi's.