You can’t jump over your Nir Rosen

“Can’t jump over your own shadow” is one of my favorite sayings.  Like you, perhaps, I recall testing out its truth when I was a child.  More usefully, it speaks to a number of higher order syndromes that go under more obscure headings:  “return of the repressed,” “double bind,” “subtext,” “unintended consequences,” “zero sum,” “immanence,” “hypocrisy,” “self-sabotage,” and so on, but what made me feel like indulging in and expanding upon this favorite saying today was reflection upon the case of Nir Rosen.

Here we have a self-styled anti-imperialist, would be voice of the voiceless, enemy of war and hypocrisy, crusader against the neo-Crusade.  He got in trouble re-expressing or passing on a kind of brutalization of the senses and the spirit that he seems to have absorbed and integrated into his personality.  One suspects that he had already absorbed it, heavier than the usual doses of it that are near-universally absorbed and integrated by human flesh and possibly encoded in the genome or maybe life itself, macho life itself anyway, before he ever set out to be a freelance foreign correspondent, but his job description – tell the world how the Taliban & Co. see the world, from the battlefields and aftermaths – suggests a long-term program of brutality-reinforcement.

Whatever the explanation, news came of an assault on a colleague whom he despised, and his immediate response was to join in, before he even knew anything about it – if you accept his story.  Putting up a few ugly tweets is hardly the same thing as joining in on a gang rape or lynch mob, but it reflects the same impetus, and puts a recognizable face on the atrocious act, gives us someone to gang-lynch for the crime of gang-rape. You want to say he “asked for it,” except that’s what he and even cruder observers mainly from the rightwing nutsosphere said about Lara Logan.

If Nir Rosen were a good American, he’d call himself a victim of trauma, the many traumas he’s witnessed or been threatened with, and announce that he is now under treatment.  If he had some touching tale of childhood abuse to add, all the better.  Most important would be that he identify himself as psychologically injured or impaired, but seeking help.  To immunize himself further from criticism, he’d take his counseling from some civilian adjunct of the U.S. military, enabling him to pose for photographs with at least one prominently placed uniform.

And it would make sense, too, not just for Nir Rosen, but more generally, because the people of the post-colonial Islamic world, including multi-cultural correspondents like Nir Rosen, can’t jump over their own shadows, and the brutality of conflict and oppression in the Middle East and environs lies within the global shadow of our culture, within our ideological, moral, and religious shadow, our historical shadow, our economic and geopolitical shadow.

At Tom Ricks’ blog, where Nir Rosen has occasionally guest-contributed, Ricks asked whether he should be banned.  Perhaps predictably, the commenters, responding in larger number than usual at “The Best Defense,” were divided all along the spectrum from “death penalty” to “more!”  You can’t jump over Nir Rosen:  What he has reported and what he seems now to have embodied, at least for a social media moment, must be dealt with, engaged.

Home Page  Public Email  Twitter  Facebook  YouTube  Github   

Writing since ancient times, blogging, e-commercing, and site installing-designing-maintaining since 2001; WordPress theme and plugin configuring and developing since 2004 or so; a lifelong freelancer, not associated nor to be associated with any company, publication, party, university, church, or other institution. 

7 comments on “You can’t jump over your Nir Rosen

Commenting at CK MacLeod's

We are determined to encourage thoughtful discussion, so please be respectful to others. We also provide a set of Commenting Options - comment/commenter highlighting and ignoring, and commenter archives that you can access by clicking the commenter options button (). Go to our Commenting Guidelines page for more details, including how to report offensive and spam commenting.

  1. If Nir Rosen were a good American, he’d call himself a victim of trauma

    and sue himself for alienation of affection, naming everyone else as co-defpendents.

  2. @ miguel cervantes:

    miggs, did you read the post above?

    the Tsar works very hard at trying to say something intelligent so that you and I don’t have to.

    you be nice now and say something about post or jumping or shadows or even what you liked to do when you were a wee bairn in the Cuban highlands.

Commenter Ignore Button by CK's Plug-Ins

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *



Noted & Quoted

TV pundits and op-ed writers of every major newspaper epitomize how the Democratic establishment has already reached a consensus: the 2020 nominee must be a centrist, a Joe Biden, Cory Booker or Kamala Harris–type, preferably. They say that Joe Biden should "run because [his] populist image fits the Democrats’ most successful political strategy of the past generation" (David Leonhardt, New York Times), and though Biden "would be far from an ideal president," he "looks most like the person who could beat Trump" (David Ignatius, Washington Post). Likewise, the same elite pundit class is working overtime to torpedo left-Democratic candidates like Sanders.

For someone who was not acquainted with Piketty's paper, the argument for a centrist Democrat might sound compelling. If the country has tilted to the right, should we elect a candidate closer to the middle than the fringe? If the electorate resembles a left-to-right line, and each voter has a bracketed range of acceptability in which they vote, this would make perfect sense. The only problem is that it doesn't work like that, as Piketty shows.

The reason is that nominating centrist Democrats who don't speak to class issues will result in a great swathe of voters simply not voting. Conversely, right-wing candidates who speak to class issues, but who do so by harnessing a false consciousness — i.e. blaming immigrants and minorities for capitalism's ills, rather than capitalists — will win those same voters who would have voted for a more class-conscious left candidate. Piketty calls this a "bifurcated" voting situation, meaning many voters will connect either with far-right xenophobic nationalists or left-egalitarian internationalists, but perhaps nothing in-between.

Comment →

Understanding Trump’s charisma offers important clues to understanding the problems that the Democrats need to address. Most important, the Democratic candidate must convey a sense that he or she will fulfil the promise of 2008: not piecemeal reform but a genuine, full-scale change in America’s way of thinking. It’s also crucial to recognise that, like Britain, America is at a turning point and must go in one direction or another. Finally, the candidate must speak to Americans’ sense of self-respect linked to social justice and inclusion. While Weber’s analysis of charisma arose from the German situation, it has special relevance to the United States of America, the first mass democracy, whose Constitution invented the institution of the presidency as a recognition of the indispensable role that unique individuals play in history.

Comment →

[E]ven Fox didn’t tout Bartiromo’s big scoops on Trump’s legislative agenda, because 10 months into the Trump presidency, nobody is so foolish as to believe that him saying, “We’re doing a big infrastructure bill,” means that the Trump administration is, in fact, doing a big infrastructure bill. The president just mouths off at turns ignorantly and dishonestly, and nobody pays much attention to it unless he says something unusually inflammatory.On some level, it’s a little bit funny. On another level, Puerto Rico is still languishing in the dark without power (and in many cases without safe drinking water) with no end in sight. Trump is less popular at this point in his administration than any previous president despite a generally benign economic climate, and shows no sign of changing course. Perhaps it will all work out for the best, and someday we’ll look back and chuckle about the time when we had a president who didn’t know anything about anything that was happening and could never be counted on to make coherent, factual statements on any subject. But traditionally, we haven’t elected presidents like that — for what have always seemed like pretty good reasons — and the risks of compounding disaster are still very much out there.

Comment →
CK's WP Plugins


Extraordinary Comments

CK's WP Plugins