From a speech given at the PEN World Voices Festival of International Literature, on April 29, 2008, at Flourence Gould Hall in NYC, and republished in the June issue of Guernica:
In a few words—and maybe we will discuss this more deeply in the conversation later—we are here facing a sort of perverse effect of three great modern ideas. A sort of paradoxical and counter-effect of three great ideas, which are: anti-racism, anti-colonialism, and the fight against imperialism, three great ideas—among the best which have been produced in the 20th century. In this case, by a sort of ruse of history, they [have] produced a very strange effect.
Anti-racism: you have a huge part of the population in America and in Europe, who believe, as a sort of Pavlovian reflex, that these sort of murders, these sort of genocides, can only be committed by ugly, stupid, white men. As we did: white men in Auschwitz, in the Gulag, and so on, which is undoubtedly true. There is the idea that such mass murders committed by people who were themselves victims of racism [for] such a long time is a sort of contradiction in terms.
Anti-colonialism: we have been bred in the idea, in the conviction that colonialism—and it is true—is a crime, is something we have to get rid of; intervention in the affairs of a country of the third world is something we have to avoid absolutely because it produced such ill effects in the past, colonialism. This is true. And it produces the idea that when a country of the third world which was colonized (as was Sudan), commits such bloodbaths, commits such crimes, to stop this, to try to prevent this, to intervene in order to make it stop, could be an act of colonialism.
And in America and in France, you have a lot of people [of] the Left, to which I belong, [who believe that] we cannot interfere in the internal affairs of Sudan. Let’s be careful not to impose under the flag of human rights the old rule of Western superiority. The result of which is that we are abandoning to that [idea] the worst death, these unnumbered lots of people. And in the end: anti-racism, anti-colonialism, and anti-imperialism. We are prisoners of a scheme of thought in which, if you are a victim and if you don’t play a role, if you don’t have a part on the big stage, in the big history, in the big tale of the opposition of the evil empire and the good anti-imperialist forces, you don’t really deserve attention.
I personally think what is happening in Darfur is a tragedy of immense scale, a horror whose continuance indicts us all. I’m also, however, a bit of a skeptic when it comes to linking Darfur with the Beijing games. China could certainly do more to improve the situation in Darfur, but sponsorship of rogue regimes committing atrocities against their own people is hardly a crime unique to the Chinese government. I also suspect that if Darfur were fixed tomorrow, people would find somewhere or something else (Mozambique, anyone?) as a suitable millstone for the Chinese neck. Hell, I think the human rights situatuion inside China is sufficient to question the wisdom of giving Beijing the games, why go all the way to Africa?
I also want to be clear: China, being a major supporter of the Sudanese government as well as the principal impediment to a tougher, and more effective, international response, of course should take a more active and responsible role in ending the violence, but Darfur is a catastrophe for which the world is responsible. While I think Professor Levy’s analysis may be a bit simplistic (no matter how ‘non-colonial’ our present-day interventions, the baggage of the past is ever with us) I do think his basic outline of the ’sins of the left’ is worth discussing.
———
h/t: Arts & Letters Daily
6 responses so far ↓
1 peony // Jun 26, 2008 at 11:06 am
Thank you for linking that article. I was left puzzled by it, however. I don’t think I have ever read any thinker– Left or Right– who gave as their reason for not going into Africa the anti-racist reason (or the other two for that matter).
Maybe its what people say at cocktail parties, but those 3 reasons seem to explain not all that much. Regarding going into third world countries– it has always since the beginning of time been a case of a day late and a dollar short. Don’t you think? Unless there was a *strategic reason* First World countries rarely “go in”– but rather unfortunately what we see is vigorous arm trading by nations (First world and Second) and large conglomorates which profit from wars. In this case China, it seems. Is that correct?
I would love to hear your opnions on the article
2 Charles Frith // Jun 26, 2008 at 5:15 pm
I read the article too yesterday and concluded that Bernard-Henri Lévy was a nice bloke who had gotten stuck into things but hadn’t got a clue about China. He’s welcome to come over and see the obstacles that exist about having frank conversations. I live with a lot of the Chinese ‘politburo’. They’re still coming to terms with themselves let alone their place in the 21st Century. I keep saying it. China is thousands of years old and is also a baby.
Sometimes I’ve called it a kid on steroids.
3 wu ming // Jul 2, 2008 at 4:37 pm
i’m still wondering when the bleeding heart humanitarian invasion crowd will notice the several million corpses piled up over in congo, as the rwanda/burundi wars continue unabated.
to say nothing of the million dead and 4 million displaced in iraq. speaking of millstones.
as for olympics and millstones, mexico city 1968 was a clear enough message that massacres are OK with the games, but black power salutes are beyond the pale.
a world of nations with beams in their eyes trying vainly to redirect attention to motes in their competitors. meh.
4 Charles Frith // Jul 2, 2008 at 5:53 pm
The ‘bleeding heart humanitarian crowd aren’t coming to Beijing. But neither are the tourists after the last few hours of trying to help a friend get in for a few days next week.
The bleeding heart humanitarian brigade don’t need to worry about China. It’s always done its worst to itself. A verifiable slaughterhouse.
5 peony // Jul 3, 2008 at 5:01 am
@Charles
Indeed, we live in murderous times.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R._J._Rummel
I don’t think anyone can sit and point fingers for– with the exception of Africa (which I just have spent too little time traveling in or reading about to even try and comment)– these “democides” have little to do with race or the chinese or the russians or the Germans. Some think they are tied to struggles over economic philosophies (ie communism, etc. ):
http://econ161.berkeley.edu/TCEH/Slouch_power4.html
To be honest, I wasn’t *exactly* sure what your point was– but in case it was what I think it might have been, well, I would just say, this is a very human problem (to which you are part of by virtue of your own humanity).
Also, this is a personal pet peeve, but you are comparing current events (Iraq/africa) with past events (post war China)– it is an important distinction if you really wish to engage in discussion with mr. anonymous above…as I believe he was speaking of events that are actually taking place as we speak– sort of speak that is.
Over and out.
6 peony // Jul 11, 2008 at 7:33 am
Regarding my comment above, last week on the philosophers zone, Alan Sanders had a great show with David Gray. His is a different take on the reasons why democides happen.
http://www.abc.net.au/rn/philosopherszone/stories/2008/2289408.htm
What is interesting (or not) is that none of these discussions can really incorporate what we see in Africa.
Also, in this discussion as well, the seeds for these genocides of the modern period are again found in western ideology (whereas the Berkeley professor found them in western economic philosophies like Marxism and the economic aspects of Nazism/fascism) Gray sees them in “our” humanistic concepts of utopia.
I so not have a conclusion in any way. Just wanted to recommend the program as one way to apprach the issue that does not invlove sweeping statements about people/races/nationalities
Leave a Comment