Gathering around the sundial, the Columbia University College Democrats took part in a weird nation-purging exercise that consisted of getting twenty American flags wet and subsequently drying them, while simultaneously ringing a bell. Each flag represented a grievance with the Iraq War (aka The War on Terror) and each ring of the bell mourned the death of a civilian or soldier. For some reason, groups of people found enough contention to warrant spitting on the little ceremony and find it generally offensive.

President of the CU Republicans, Chris Kulawik, said a few things in the true, hard-core, “America, fuck yeah” attitude that every non-American hates (thus perpetuating the unfortunate American stereotype of arrogant, imperialistic, self-absorbed pricks):

“I really do believe this borders on the desecration of the American flag.”
“It says something when elitist Ivy Leaguers think that they have the right—nay the responsibility—to tell us the flag needs cleansing and that they have the hubris to do so,” he said. “I think it’s insulting. I’m outraged, and I don’t think it’s something we should accept.”

Is it not hubris to think that the flag does not need cleansing, that it is so perfect and untainted that it can be kept how it is? Atten-hut!!!: Wake the fuck up please, sirs! And ‘desecration’? Really? Washing the flag is desecration? Well, I just desecrated half my wardrobe and, having just woken up, I’m now going to go desecrate my face.

While I am not particularly found of that incessant, annoying bell (they at least could have used nice melodious chimes), I don’t think CU Dem’s antics here deserve such bad publicity. And if ideas of American patriotism don’t include constant self-reflection and open-minded discussion, then God save us all. In any case, God Bless America! (I’ve always wanted to do that, and after a year of getting truly “Americanised,” I think I can).

Things have been pretty quiet at Columbia lately. But what about Colombia? This past week, Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez confirmed every neocon’s worst suspicions about him and threatened war against U.S.-allied Colombia. The ostensible cassus belli would have been the Colombian military’s incursion into Ecuador, although regional power politics probably had as much to do with this past week’s standoff. The crisis and subsequent military mobilization ended a few days ago, but not before the Commentariat got a couple Columbian scholars of Latin American politics to chime in via email.

“In the short run, the Venezuela-Colombia-Ecuador flare-up exposes deeply felt but pretty arbitrary symbols. Even a one-mile cross border incursion by Colombia violates a sacred image of territorial sovereignty (hence all the Latin American support.) On the other hand, Ecuador’s hosting and Venezuela’s financing of groups dedicated to violent overthrow of the Colombian regime, is considered normal, even virtuous. The US does it, too. On its merits, the protests will flare out quickly once the ‘right things’ have been said.

In a longer perspective, it exposes the tragic reality of Colombia. The FARC has lost almost all of its claim to promoting virtue with a new political program. It has for several decades survived with the resources  of a quasi-territorial sub-state facing a weak government, besieged by paramilitary factions. These resources have included the profits from drug exports to the US, but other entities in Columbia ‘enjoy’ those, too. This border crisis now suggests that ‘guerillas’ like FARC are increasingly surviving as a useful tool in Chavez’s anti-US campaign. a lot would change for the better if oil prices took a steep dive undercutting Chavez, or the US found a way to reverse its steep loss of moral authority. Neither seems likely at the moment.”

-Douglas Chalmers, Professor Emeritus of Political Science

Read the rest of this entry »

[More from Greg Keilin, who has been at Columbia's Parisian outpost this summer. Read this till the end, and join the discussion. And if you're still interested (and even if you're not) see this movie.] I signed up for a course this semester on the Algerian War, a subject that is all but absent from American textbooks. Though I was sure my French classmates would be familiar with the topic, it turned out their ignorance mirrored my own, so we have spent the first few classes establishing some broad historical background.

France invaded Algeria in 1830 and, following a bloody military campaign, established absolute rule over its territory, eventually integrating it completely into the national administrative system. Despite the mutual advantages of this arrangement, decolonization elsewhere encouraged a growing nationalist movement until, by the 1950s, many Algerian politicians had become convinced of the need for autonomy or sovereignty.

The War of Independence began on November 1, 1954 with a series of terrorist attacks by the National Liberation Front (FLN). The French government’s brutal response included abductions and assassinations, torture, forced tribal relocation, and scorched-earth warfare, as well as conventional tactics. These policies eventually alienated the local population to such an extent that, despite overwhelming military superiority, France was forced to recognize an independent Algeria.

Read the rest of this entry »