We live in a society that demands people to take sides: Republican/Democrat, Liberal/Conservative, Coke/Pepsi, Paper/Plastic, Leaded/Unleaded, Patriotic/Unpatriotic, Good/Evil. In many ways this seems unavoidable. We are constantly, almost imperceptibly being encouraged to choose between two extremes in our society. The danger comes when the world is chopped blindly in half and we find ourselves scrambling to adopt what we find on “our side,” armed with little information, just for fear of finding yourself part of the “other.”
The act of protesting the war has been depicted by numerous opinion pieces in this paper to make up half of this binary system. The sentiments can be found everywhere: you’re either with us or against us, America: love it or leave it, and other such bumper sticker friendly material. This is exactly the attitude that has dragged America into this war in the first place, in another form: attack Iraq or be attacked. Get them before they get us. What I find disturbing is that those in power don’t even question the idea that someone always needed to be “getting,” someone “gotten.”
Saddam Hussein is a ruthless dictator and should be taken out of power. But if that’s A, for example, why must we close ourselves off to B: The United States supported Saddam Hussein when he came to power, while some of his worst atrocities were being carried out? Or to C: Over 1.2 million Iraqis have died since the start of the Gulf War as a result of US-imposed sanctions? As young Americans fortunate enough to have access to a college education, we shouldn’t rush to fill the approved categories, for what is most detrimental in a society are those policies and practices that go unquestioned.
Protesting is about rejecting categories. It is often about rejecting the force doing the dividing and calling for the building of something else in its place: it is infused with immediacy and shouldn’t have to respect the “sanctity” of the Oscars. There is no appropriate “time and place” for peaceful protesting: it rejects the “appropriate.” It is about promoting dialogue and asking questions that aren’t being asked. It is not one of the options, it is declaring that the options being given aren’t acceptable. Dismissal those who choose to peacefully protest the war as anti-American, pro-Saddam, unpatriotic or anti-military is part of binary thinking, or rather, non-thinking.
The most dangerous of these opposing sides has been set up for some time now but only now is it being firmly and dangerously cemented by the current war: the U.S. versus the world. And just who is making us choose?
Lauren Pabst CAS 2005 (617) 285-4375
This is an account occasionally used by the Daily Free Press editors to post archived posts from previous iterations of the site or otherwise for special circumstance publications. See authorship info on the byline at the top of the page.
