How to wash a brain

[ ATTACK HOMEPAGE ] [ News and Views Board ]

October 01, 2001

By Donna Yawching

Last week, my colleague Jillian Ballantyne advanced a theory that Osama bin Laden's suicidal terrorists might actually have been professionally brainwashed into committing their fanatical and terrible deeds. It is an interesting idea, and may even be correct; but my suspicion is that for adherents of Osama bin Laden's world-view, professional mind-controllers would be almost redundant: history is the most effective brainwasher of all.

There is a tendency among some disingenuous observers (though I'm not suggesting that Ballantyne is one of these) to write off bin Laden's disciples as simple religious fanatics; and an even more dangerous tendency to define fanaticism as a kind of mindless Frankenstein response manipulated by an evil puppet-master. The whole package is then tied up neatly with a Muslim bow (a religion whose precepts, particularly that of fatalism, have never sat easily with Christians) , and offered as a valid explanation of what happened on September 11, as in: "A bunch of Muslim fanatics who hate democracy killed 7,000 innocent Americans."

It's the lazy man's explanation, however; and altogether too self-serving. Bin Laden's followers (and in fact, we have only America's word that they were responsible: no actual proof has yet been provided) have undoubtedly been heavily indoctrinated with the principles of their religion; but that is the case with all religions. I myself spent many tedious childhood hours in San Fernando Government School chanting: "Who made you? God made me. Why did God make you? Etc., etc."; was that very different? True, I didn't recite my catechism with a Kalishnikov rifle cradled in my arms; but then again, there was no perceived need.

The fact is, history doesn't happen in a vacuum; anyone who pretends otherwise is being deliberately obtuse. Columnist Kevin Baldeosingh, in a recent column, achieved this questionable status when he dismissed as "tendentious" and "morally absurd" the contention that the attack was triggered, not by some wild-eyed Arab hatred of freedom and Western democracy, but rather by America's chronic double standards in the global arena, and its cynical manipulation of world governments in order to protect its financial and strategic "interests".

If bin Laden's terrorists had merely wanted to hit out at freedom and democracy, airliners could have homed in on the Eiffel Tower, Big Ben, the CN Tower: symbolic targets abound. But no: the attack was very precisely formulated to mirror a very precise hatred; and until America publicly acknowledges this fact, she will have little chance of achieving her stated goal of "destroying" terrorism. For until it is recognised that the "bad guys" may have some very legitimate grievances, nothing can be done to address them; and the root causes of terrorism will remain intact, to be reborn like perennials each spring. Another banal over-simplification, of which Baldeosingh is also guilty, is reducing the debate to the question: "Has America, on balance, done more harm than good for the world?" This surprising line of reasoning would (taken to its logical extreme) define Baldeosingh as an ardent UNC supporter ("Well, dey buil' all dem road an' health centre, so it doh matter if they tiefing we blind.")—something I'm sure he wouldn't want!

The fact that a country has done good —and America undoubtedly has, on many occasions—does not absolve it from doing evil—as it also has, on quite a few occasions. The important thing is to be able to distinguish between the two, and not to allow self-interest to blur the line. Moreover, America's "errors", as Baldeosingh describes them, are by no means "past": think Israel, think Cuba, think the recent international conference on racism. Indeed, they're poised to embark on perhaps the biggest, most brutal error of all. Do their earlier "good deeds" make this acceptable? Not to my thinking.

The fact is, no matter what America has suffered in the last three weeks, it does not have the right to: (a) gratuitously attack an unoffending civilian population; or (b) drag the rest of the world into a lengthy, cruel and counter-productive conflict. I say this not because I am anti-American (I think I made that clear two weeks ago); but because I am anti-war. And the world would be a much more hopeful place than it is at this precise moment if everyone else would say it too —very loudly.

Nor—to return to my opening theme—should it be assumed that the Arabs are the only ones subject to brainwashing, at whatever level. Ironically, with its coast-to-coast, state of the art communications network (controlled, incidentally, by a very small elite), America is in a much better position to brainwash its citizens than Afghanistan is.

Think back to the repetitive, hypnotic television coverage of the WTC bombings: these images, and the accompanying sense of outrage, will stay imprinted in the American psyche forever. If that's not brainwashing, what is?

The American authorities have also leapt onto the brainwashing wagon, with their dogged mantra of "War"; and code-names like "Operation Infinite Justice" for its revenge campaign. Since when does "justice" entail killing untold thousands of innocent civilians? President Bush's oft-repeated (and totally absurd) proposition that "If you do not support us, then you support the terrorists" is another attempt to deflect logical thought; one can only hope that Europe's sophisticated leaders will not get entangled in it.

Happily, not everyone has fallen mindlessly for the party line: the more thoughtful citizens have already started to react against it. Young Americans don't seem to favour war—for good reason, since they're the ones who will be shipped off to die, while Bush and his geriatric advisers direct the carnage from the (relative) safety of Washington.

An increasing number of pressure groups are demanding a peaceful, rather than a violent resolution of the crisis; and high-profile commentators are pleading for restraint. These divergent opinions—and the freedom to express them—are the most important feature of American civic life; but some political observers fear they risk being stifled in the current upsurge of jingoistic patriotism.

If that ever happens, Osama bin Laden will have succeeded beyond his wildest dreams.

...........................................................
Copyright 2001. Trinidad Express
For fair use only

[ BACK ] [ HOMEPAGE ] [ OCTOBER ] [ NEWS ]