The legendary Civil War-era reporter Simpson B. Ashley played poker with plantation owners late one night, when they were a bit liquored up and guards were down. They were being pilloried and demonized in the Northern press, and needed to fix up their image. According to Ashley, they had hired a writer, Mary Chesnut, to re-define slavery in such a way that it did not seem like such a bad thing in the mind of the public.
Slavery had been well-defined by that time – it was simply “forced labour”, using the British spelling. Chesnut spent many sleepless nights trying to get around such a blunt-force concept so easily understood and used to damn her clients. At last she had it. She presented it to the plantation owners at a meeting in July, 1858, in Richmond. Slavery, she said, should henceforth be defined as “unlawful forced labour.
It was a Eureka! moment, though that expression had not yet some into use. What the plantation owners were doing was in fact not slavery, because it was legal.
——————-
Simpson B. Ashley is a real person, but he’s too young to read this. I just made all of that up. Yesterday I listened to a radio broadcast where the participants were experienced angst and frustration in trying to come up with a definition of “terrorism.” “Why is it so hard?”, mused David Sirota, the host.
It’s not hard at all, just as slavery is not hard to define. Here’s the definition:
The calculated use of violence or threat of violence to inculcate fear; intended to coerce or to intimidate governments or societies in the pursuit of goals that are generally political, religious, or ideological.
That is not at all hard to understand, and from that definition it is easy to see that the biggest purveyor of terrorism on this planet is the United States Government, followed closely by that of Israel. But such a definition yields what one might call the “slave owner’s dilemma”: A straightforward and honest definition makes us look like terrorists. Hence the angst, the intellectual quandary faced by Sirota and callers yesterday.
He need not have struggled so. The Pentagon long ago solved this quandary. Here is the “official” definition of terrorism:
The calculated use of unlawful violence or threat of unlawful violence to inculcate fear; intended to coerce or to intimidate governments or societies in the pursuit of goals that are generally political, religious, or ideological.
We’re officially off the hook. When we do it, it’s lawful.
Piece of Mindful 
I agree with this post, except for one thing. The US and Israel are major users of terrorism as a tactic, I agree. But so are a whole lot of other states, internally and externally. I’m not sure we’re really ‘winning’ and I think the claim that we are detracts from an otherwise very powerful point.
LikeLike
It is hard to see how others perceive us when you are on the inside looking out. The U.S. and Israel are two of the most heavily armed countries on the planet. They engage in terrorism in a serious way, with deadly consequences.
You don’t seem to realize that you are playing the very same game that this post intends to expose. Interesting!
LikeLike
Being heavily armed is a bad thing?
I”m thinking the alternative is worse. Via Rueters.
“Homicides in Venezuela have quadrupled during President Hugo Chavez’s 11 years in power, with two people murdered every hour, according to new figures from a non-governmental organization. The Venezuelan Observatory of Violence (OVV), whose data is widely followed in the absence of official statistics, said the South American nation has one of the highest crime rates on the continent, with 54 homicides per 100,000 citizens in 2009.”
LikeLike
The problem with being heavily armed, especially in an environment where we have no enemies of any substance, is that the psychopaths who control the armaments then go out and invent enemies to attack. There would have been no WWII had not Germany and Japan been heavily armed.
Your comment about Venezuela is unworthy, since you didn’t bring anything to the table about who is who is committing the violence. Lacking context, it is pointless. Remember that the U.S. is sending arms to Chavez’s enemies, and trying to strangle the economy. There is precedent for this behavior: 9/11/1973.
LikeLike
Ok, so let me get this straight. When armaments are taken or voluntarily given up violence and or wars decrease, except when the evil US sneaks in and starts killing people.
Can we apply this to Chicago, Detroit and DC?
LikeLike
Nice, Mark.
Same as taxes – the lawful theft of your money. Therefore, government is not crooks because its legal!
LikeLike
You seem to lack any sense of reasonableness. Taxation, terrorism and slavery are not manifestations of the same beast. Two are forms of human depravity, the third a voluntary and participatory system … there are outliers in that system, people who do not want to be part of it and yet want to be part of the larger society. You are one such person.
I’m sorry that you do not like paying taxes. None of us do. I’m sorry if you think taxation for non-economic purposes, for the greater good, is a version of “violence” in your mind. I can only take you to the edge of your vision, but you don’t seem capable of going any further. Just remember- Rand was an outlier, and anti-social drudge, a gray lady who resented anyone who sought happiness outside her circle. She’s not my ideal, and her philosophy is as repugnant as she was.
LikeLike
And yet, there you go – demonstrating exactly what your post rails against – the definition changes based on the actor.
Taxes is not a participatory – it is force.
Tax has nothing to do with society – since societies exist without taxes.
There is no such thing as a greater good that requires the use of violence on non-violent men. The consequences ALWAYS leads to evil and the legitimization of evil destroys the core of society.
Your reference to Rand is bizarre. What does that have to do with anything?
LikeLike
the biggest purveyor of terrorism on this planet is the United States
We’re number one! We’re number one!
I like the new look of the blog. More endorphins are flowing. Ahhh.
You are fond of drawing moral equivalencies, many I find specious, something akin to, “People who cut and leave scars are mutilators, therefore doctors are mutilators.”
America and Israel target the bad guys, and those two countries have an inclusive public debate about such.
Yes, yes, I’m sure you are shouting “WHAT ABOUT ALL THE INNOCENT CIVILIANS WE KILL!!!!!!!!!!!!”
There are no innocents. Bwhahahah. Just kidding.
Part of it is that the bad guys hide amongst the civilians, and part of it is bad generalship. I believe we are capable of learning from this and maybe next time we will stay out of the Iraqs and Afghanistans of the world. But I’m not so sure the alternative is better.
LikeLike
Wow – there’s so much attitude in that statement that I don’t know where to begin …
Every imperialist, every aggressor in history has always operated with the attitude that “We’re good, they’re bad.” Do you really think Hitler or Napoleon went around thinking “I’m a bad dude, and I’m going to kill me some good people today”? The US and Israel are no different.
Who was it said “First you give a dog a bad name, then you can beat him”?
The idea that people “hide” in civilian populations is preceded by the attitude that we have a right to kill them.
You’re a piece of work, but at least you give voice to attitudes that are submerged in most people.
LikeLike
You’re a piece of work
Thawnk you, thawnk you, thawnk you very much (said in an Elvis voice).
First you give a dog a bad name, then you can beat him”
J’accuse. Be it health insurance companies, American foreign policy, or the free market in general, here is a one stop shop for all the one sided vitriol with a dose of moniker mayhem.
Every imperialist, every aggressor in history, every left wing blogger, has always operated with the attitude that “We’re good, they’re bad.”
Indeed, but every so often we can stop and take stock in some objective fashion. For example, we can count corpses. Left wing politics = lots and lots of corpses. Corpses, corpses, corpses. And feeble economic benefits.
I think America does okay. We exited WWII with fewer territories than we entered, pretty different for a victor in our position. We have our incursions of dubious value, but America is more about the spread of ideas than going somewhere and holding territory.
The idea that people “hide” in civilian populations is preceded by the attitude that we have a right to kill them.
Only when it is Big Swede.
LikeLike
Rightside,
I’m not sure you can claim that.
The US “conquered” Japan, and is still there and in Germany and 100 other nations.
They may be independent in name, but most of the world pays tribute to the US hegemony.
LikeLike
I agree that we are more hegemonic than we need to be.
But the next best alternative is not to withdraw completely and wait for others to offer us a fair deal.
LikeLike
The alternative is better.
Leaving people alone tends cause them to leave you alone.
It would be nice to see if that works.
But it hasn’t been tried by the Western power for over 400 years.
LikeLike
Leaving people alone tends cause them to leave you alone.
Not always. Sometimes nice people are set upon by bad men. In some ways America represents the world’s collective action against bad men. Our navy keeps shipping lanes open, and in return our currency denominates trade.
LikeLike
Not always – just almost all the time.
If you want to attack 99% of the people “just in case” to stop the 1%, you’ll almost guarantee yourself to be attacked!
Making policies to deal with the 1% that actually inflicts threat and harm on 99% is not a logical way of dealing with threats.
LikeLike
We are a shining example to the world. We have no “bad men” left so we absolutely must occupy your country to hunt your bad men. We want nothing in return for our efforts. We are blissfully ignorant, and want you admit our culture is superior to yours. Join us, won’t you? Or, we must kill you, your culture, and steal your resources because you are simply not using them efficiently. God is our authority, he speaks to us, you cannot question our motives… Now, let us chant USA, USA!
LikeLike
Black Flag: I’d say you have those ratios backwards. You attack the 1% who are bad guys and it sends a message to everyone else.
Our illustrious host gave the example of a bad guy taking over the community well and growing rich off selling the water. I suspect in a milder world Iran could close off the Strait of Hormuz and get rich charging oil tankers to pass. Who ya’ gonna call?
LikeLike
This is classic demonization. Find a time in history where Iran has invaded anyone –
On the other hand, they are threatened and menaced by the US and Israel, and are trying to build a credible deterrent.
They are a peaceful country. We are warlike.
LikeLike
They are a peaceful country. We are warlike.
Sheesh. Why all this love for a theocratic police state? How can I get such love around here?
I find it interesting that you champion Iran and the Palestinians, two places at odds with many of your general beliefs in plurality and liberty.
LikeLike
Sheesh is right.
Presenting the fact that Iran hasn’t invaded anyone in the last 300 hundreds years suddenly means Mark loves Iran and theocratic police states!
He can present fact about Iran AND (surprise) hold an opinion that he would not want to live in Iran — AT THE SAME TIME!
He can do so because they are independent.
LikeLike
Sheesh. Next time I’ll be sure to put “love” in quotes for all the literalists around here.
Beverly Hills, dude! The Iranians are invading Beverly Hills!
I was thinking of a barf fest below where Mark was waxing on how democratic Iran is. I’m still cleaning my keyboard.
From the internal suppression of political opponents and ethic minorities, to the sponsoring of terrorism via Hezbollah et al, Iran is not my idea of an exemplar.
LikeLike
You are reading more into what I said than what I said. I did not say that Iran was democratic, and don’t want to have that argument with you, as you don’t seem to see the flaws in our own system.
What I said was that Iran was peaceful – that is, they are not threatening us in any way other than economically. You know – free markets and all of that. They have lots of natural gas, India and Pakistan (and even China) want to by that gas, and we don’t want them to make that deal, as it interferes with certain corporations that control gas supplies in the Caspian Basin that want to run a pipeline through Afghanistan to the Indian Ocean.
So the point is that Iran is minding its own business, trying to sell products on the open market, and we are trying to stop them, and are threatening them.
Iran, looking at Iraq, knows that we want to invade. So, they are arming themselves as much as possible to make an invasion very costly for us. That’s why you think they are a military threat, but you simply have cart and horse reversed.
I would not want to live in Iran. I am not crazy about their form of government. But that’s really none of our business, right?
LikeLike
Oh hell, Fred – I’ll tell you the rest of the story. Iran is kind of a make-believe democracy with political parties, but behind them is the religious oligarchy. They have the outer appearance of democratic rule, but it is a sham.
In other words, they are pretty much like us. We have supposedly two parties, but we have a financial oligarchy that is the real power behind both of them.
So we really have no room to criticize their form of government, as we damn near mirror each other.
If you learn much more today, your head will explode. Sit on this for a day or so, and then we’ll fight some more.
LikeLike
I must have missed the “well water scenario”.
Regardless – if the Straits are Iranian waters, why can’t they control them as they see fit?
I mean does the US prevent access to the Mississippi? Considering that the terms of the Treaty of Paris that created the Unites States in 1780 maintained the Mississippi as international waters….
LikeLike
Well, I suppose we could be more passive and beta and let the Iranians run a toll booth. I suppose some competition from pipelines to the Mediterranean would come about.
In general I find the world a more martial place than you. One needs to be ready to counter violence lest the violence expand to consume you. Remember the Moriori.
LikeLike
Rightside,
I bet you find the world more martial when you invade are the invader!
One needs to be ready to cause violence lest peace break out, right?
LikeLike
Peace through superior firepower.
LikeLike