Ex RLI soldier and renowned painter, Craig Bone, is offering the complete edition of his book free on Kindle for 11 November 2013 only.
Go to amazon.com
If you snooze, you lose.
"Cut to the Bone" a book by Craig Bone
Ex RLI soldier and renowned painter, Craig Bone, is offering the complete edition of his book free on Kindle for 11 November 2013 only.
Go to amazon.com
If you snooze, you lose.
Pulling Out All The Stops
This article (appearing in the SWJ Blog, as I write), Drawing Lessons from Zimbabwe's War of Liberation (by Jephias Andrew Dzimbanhete; Journal Article, December 10, 2013), does exactly that - all stops are pulled.
The author's conclusion is relatively restrained given the body's overall content (snip):
Of course, under the 1977 APs to the GCs, "freedom fighters" were exempted from a number of the Laws of War. Consistent with the proponents of the 1977 APs, the author now introduces "freedom violence" as a protected category.The foregoing discussion has shown that current attempts to equate and link the selective nature of violence that was deployed by the revolutionary guerrilla forces to contemporary outbreaks of violence are unfounded and devoid of academic analysis. The nonselective violence that is perpetrated by troops of an incumbent government is normally intended to stifle legitimate demand for economic and political spaces by the citizens. On the other hand the application of violence on civilians by the liberation fighters was in the interest of creating economic and political space. It would be fitting to refer to guerrilla violence as ‘freedom violence'.
The article is certainly timely - Nelson Mandela's funeral and all. And, it takes one back to the 60s and 70s.
Regards
Mike
Mike, this is a pathetic attempt to white wash the atrocities carried out by the (ZIPRA and ZANLA) insurgents against the civilian population during the Rhodesian War. It may be worth some discussion from a legalistic PoV but nothing else.
There was an almost universal paranoia amongst the insurgents about spies and informers in the population and as a result many were killed in front of gathered groups of villages in the most brutal manner - to send a message to the people of what will happen to sell-outs. To state that all claims by security forces of insurgent atrocities were propaganda not merely wrong but dishonest.
My question (like when that Dutch boy's garbage was published in MR) is how did this trash pass editorial review?
Originally Posted by jmm99
Mark, from a legal viewpoint,
the Dzimbanhete article isn't worth a review.
What I was trying to put across is that the article (exemplified by its coinage of the term "freedom violence") comes from the same well (manure pile, whatever) as the 1977 Additional Protocols to the Geneva Conventions, in their carving out exceptions for the "freedom fighter", the "transitory guerrilla", the "occasional IED layer", etc., etc.
It reminded me of the agitprop of the 60s and 70s, which I also said in the post. As I use the term "agitprop" here (agitation of a mass audience by propagation of the written word), the material can be true, false or mixed (white, black or varying grays) and can be acceptable, unacceptable or "so what" (depending on the reader's viewpoint). The author Dzimbanhete uses a more limited definition:
That kind of agitprop is definitely black (or a deep shade of gray) in content. One might well ask whether Dzimbanhete's article itself is "propaganda" as Sturges defines it. Sturges, BTW, is in Pretoria (faculty bio). Here are abstracts of his 2004 and 2005 articles.In this article I subscribe to Sturges's definition of propaganda. He writes that propaganda is the practice of distributing material that is untrue or if it is true, it is actually not relevant and applicable. The aim of propaganda is to confuse and deceive those that receive it.[1]
[1] P. Sturges, ‘Information in the National Liberation Struggle: Developing a Model', Journal of Documentation, 60, 4 (2004), p. 439.
The "literary genre" of Dzimbanhete's article is similar to that of our USAian Nick Turse (born in 1975; Wiki), who has made himself a career from the time of his 2005 Columbia University Ph.D dissertation, "Kill Anything That Moves: United States War Crimes and Atrocities in Vietnam, 1965-1973", to the present - his 2013 Kill Anything That Moves: The Real American War in Vietnam. Whether Turse's agitprop about Vietnam is black, white or gray is not going to be an issue for me here. Turse does resemble Dzimbanhete (re: that author's talk of "freedom violence") in Turse's 2000 article, New Morning, Changing Weather: Radical Youth of the Millennial Age:
In this early Turse piece, we have another example of the "freedom violence genre". Is it "propaganda" in the Sturges sense: material "to confuse and deceive those that receive it ?"On April 20, 1999, Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold engaged in a shooting and bombing spree in Columbine High School that left fifteen students, including the alleged gunmen, dead. ...
...
When a youngster decides to make war on his school and classmates, the media leaps to vilify him, his alleged influences, his weaponry, and his parents. Politicians are keen to do the same, and capitalize on the shootings by pushing for new firearm regulations and stiff penalties. And why not? Don’t we punish psychotics bent on threatening life and property, set upon destroying the "American" way of life? Shouldn’t we condemn those who take the lives of others through "senseless" violence? Or should we try to make sense of it? Preferring the latter option, I propose that kids killing kids may be the radical protest of our age, and that Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold may be the Mark Rudd and Abbie Hoffman figures of today.
...
While these young boys may have no Port Huron statement, no manifesto, and no coordinated actions (that we know of), they are a legitimate radical faction that may have one-upped the violent Weather Underground and the revolutionary Abbie Hoffman. These boys have truly embraced "revolution for the hell of it," maybe better than Abbie ever did. The randomness of their "non-campaign" may be the ultimate expression of "rage against the machine," ripping into the system, as it were, at its most vulnerable and fundamental level, perhaps more so than Weatherman’s bombing of the U.S. Capitol.
...
The violence unleashed by these juveniles also acts as a call to action for like-minded individuals. Their ability to gain recognition and exert power grows with each like incident, forcing us to look for connections and search for scapegoats. Maybe they have no pithy slogans, no unifying symbol, maybe Marilyn Manson is no Bob Dylan, and maybe their Woodstock ’99 is a poor rip-off of the original (which "ripped off" Monterey), but no one can deny the radicalism of their murderous behavior. Who would not concede that terrorizing the American machine, at the very site where it exerts its most powerful influence, is a truly revolutionary task? To be inarticulate about your goals, even to not understand them, does not negate their existence. Approve or disapprove of their methods, vilify them as miscreants, but don’t dare disregard these modern radicals as anything less than the latest incarnation of disaffected insurgents waging the ongoing American revolution.
Finally, to your question (asked before about the Dutch article): how do these things get past editorial boards. The secret is to footnote the hell out of everything - in Dzimbanhete's article, 31 footnotes preceded by a bibliography of over a dozen books, articles and oral interviews. To completely vet these (to determine how black, white or gray), one would have to check the substance of each cite; and also determine its credibility.
For example, Dzimbanhete writes:
As to the first cite, did Parker say that; and, if so, is Parker a credible witness ? I don't know; but would find out if this were a litigated case. It isn't, however. The second cite (the Ministry of Information, Tourism and Immigration) doesn't, on its face, prove the "probability" asserted.Writing in 2006, Parker, a former Rhodesian serviceman, revealed that the Selous Scouts were responsible for the murder of Father Killian Huesser, a Roman Catholic priest based at Berejena Mission in February 1980.[3]
[3] J. Parker, Assignment Selous Scouts: Inside Story of a Rhodesian Special Branch Officer (Alberton: Galago, 2006), p. 285.
...
The balance of probability points to the Rhodesian Selous Scouts as being responsible for the murder. It was very likely that the Rhodesian Selous Scouts were responsible for the murder of white missionaries at rural outposts and rural African businessmen.[5]
[5] The Rhodesian Ministry of Information, Tourism and Immigration published a pamphlet in July 1978 in which the description of the murders is given.
For good or bad, editorial boards do not do that kind of vetting - that process is left to the reader or independent reviewer. As an example, we see the influence of footnotes and reviewers in a review of Turse's new book:
And so it goes - and will continue to go.I read the book on my Kindle. When I finished a chapter about 3/4 of the way through, I noticed the last "chapter" seemed enormous, but I was ready to grind through it. It turns out that last "chapter" was probably 75-80 pages of footnotes and source material. That was impressive and amazing. The proof is in the pudding. And the accolades from people like Daniel Ellsberg and Andrew Bacevich are to be taken seriously. Turse's other books, as well as his amazing contributions to TomDispatch.com well worth investigating for readers who found thus book interesting, educational, and enlightening.
Regards
Mike
One man's freedom fighter is another man's ...
Apart from attempting a great deception Dzimbanhete seems to have missed the history of the last 30 years that questions the definition of 'freedom' that was delivered to the 'toiling masses' of Zimbabwe upon liberation. Some might say they were delivered from the frying pan into the fire.
I guess I am surprised that there has been such a limited reaction to this deliberate attempt to deceive and sanitize depraved killers. This is the great tragedy.
I don't know this character but let us agree that there were atrocities committed in Vietnam... by both sides. Just as this Turse person tried to make a name for himself (and get a Ph.D at the same time) so is this Dzimbanhete person. Shameful behaviour that should have been recognised by the Journal Editorial Board.That kind of agitprop is definitely black (or a deep shade of gray) in content. One might well ask whether Dzimbanhete's article itself is "propaganda" as Sturges defines it. Sturges, BTW, is in Pretoria (faculty bio). Here are abstracts of his 2004 and 2005 articles.
The "literary genre" of Dzimbanhete's article is similar to that of our USAian Nick Turse (born in 1975; Wiki), who has made himself a career from the time of his 2005 Columbia University Ph.D dissertation, "Kill Anything That Moves: United States War Crimes and Atrocities in Vietnam, 1965-1973", to the present - his 2013 Kill Anything That Moves: The Real American War in Vietnam. Whether Turse's agitprop about Vietnam is black, white or gray is not going to be an issue for me here. Turse does resemble Dzimbanhete (re: that author's talk of "freedom violence") in Turse's 2000 article, New Morning, Changing Weather: Radical Youth of the Millennial Age:
Well he certainly confused the editorial board of the Journal into publishing it.In this early Turse piece, we have another example of the "freedom violence genre". Is it "propaganda" in the Sturges sense: material "to confuse and deceive those that receive it ?"
I can't see how they can do anything but resign in disgrace.
Yes, shocking indeed. In this case Dzimbanhete interviewed three people. Like the Dutch boy he seems to have had a preconceived idea/position/belief and went about trying support it by searching out random cites to support that position. One wonders if the institution matters. Are first rate institutions as slovenly as the second rate institutions of this one and that of the Dutch boy?Finally, to your question (asked before about the Dutch article): how do these things get past editorial boards. The secret is to footnote the hell out of everything - in Dzimbanhete's article, 31 footnotes preceded by a bibliography of over a dozen books, articles and oral interviews. To completely vet these (to determine how black, white or gray), one would have to check the substance of each cite; and also determine its credibility.
Mike what Parker reports is probably true. Unlike Dzimbanhete there is no point in attempting to deny which I can't state with absolute certainty did not happen.As to the first cite, did Parker say that; and, if so, is Parker a credible witness ? I don't know; but would find out if this were a litigated case. It isn't, however. The second cite (the Ministry of Information, Tourism and Immigration) doesn't, on its face, prove the "probability" asserted.
What I am attempting to understand is why at this late stage Dzimbanhete is seeking to decriminalize the atrocities carried out by the insurgents.
I would offer two guesses, one, that as the Mugabe regime nears collapse the killers who are now old men would be concerned that with the fall of the regime their protection would fall away and they would be vulnerable to both or either legal or vigilante action from family of their victims. Two, that in the spiritual context of Zimbabwe these aging killers are attempting to appease any angry spirits -ngozi or evil spirits - by convincing themselves that their acts were not murder but rather acts of justice therefore would not upset the spirits.
This is clearly for bad (or worse as you like). So why have an editorial board then?For good or bad, editorial boards do not do that kind of vetting - that process is left to the reader or independent reviewer.
JMA:
I can't fault SWJ for publishing that piece. It was an editorial decision and sometimes ya' win and sometimes ya' lose. It did stimulate a lot of discussion which is always a good thing.
As history the piece is hopeless. Maybe the editors knew that, maybe not (I suspect they did) but that didn't really matter because people who comment on it can easily rip it apart; and they have done so.
When viewed as other than a historical account, it has a lot of value. You can pick it apart to see what makes those guys tick and use it for future reference.
JMM99:
That Turse fellow is foul, Ellsworth Touhy, Savonarola foul judging by that piece you excerpted. It is a little scary in a moral and physical sense that he can achieve the prominence he has in our country.
"We fight, get beat, rise, and fight again." Gen. Nathanael Greene
Carl you are too kind.
Well in this case it is the truth that is the loser.It was an editorial decision and sometimes ya' win and sometimes ya' lose.
Not sure the discussion has been in the right direction. We are talking about a blatant attempt to lie and deceive and what are we discussing? The merits and demerits of the Rhodesian War and the Rhodesians.It did stimulate a lot of discussion which is always a good thing.
Yes, but what merit does it have. The only one I can see is that it can be used as an example of a deliberate attempt to alter history through the misuse of (admittedly second rate) universities and the exploitation the gullible (or useful idiots) who help spread the lie.As history the piece is hopeless.
This can be used in military colleges as a warning to how the past can be twisted and altered in the most dishonest ways by ideologically motivated individuals who are both unwilling and unable to live with the truth of the past and seek to sanitize their role.
I don't think the Journal editors had the faintest idea about the bush war and that this was an attempt to sanitize the actions of depraved killers. I don't think it has been ripped apart. The key proposition has in the main been missed ... that being that Dzimbanhete wants readers to believe that the atrocities carried out by ZIPRA/ZANLA were justifiable acts of justice of people who deserved to die.Maybe the editors knew that, maybe not (I suspect they did) but that didn't really matter because people who comment on it can easily rip it apart; and they have done so.
It should have been presented in that way then... but it wasn't.When viewed as other than a historical account, it has a lot of value. You can pick it apart to see what makes those guys tick and use it for future reference.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks