textfiles-politics/politicalTextFiles/contra3.txt

excerpts from: Contrascience #3  < for an original copy,
               2131 - 80th St So     send $2 to this address.
               Wisconsin Rapids, WI 54494

              ____"WAR = FUN"_____

        "Our young ones are at this very moment
        assimilating fiction which, under its pert
        and smiling guise, turns them into competitors,
        teaches them to see domination as the only
        alternative to subjection. They are learning sex
        roles; perverse and deformed visions of history;
        how to grow up, adapt, and succeed in the world
        as it presently is. They learn not to ask questions."
                        - Ariel Dorfman
                        
  I grew up as most average American kids do - playing war,
cowboys and Indians, cops and robbers, playing at any game
involving imaginary violence for the sake of "fun." Ask any kid
and odds are he, or she (there is a tendency to assume just
boys play this game - girls are supposed to play with dolls,
remember. But many girls do, too) can make all the gun noises
and wants to be an "army guy" like G.I. Joe, or another high-tech,
gun-toting hero. It doesn't matter what stage in the technological
evolution of killing the kids reenact and aspire to be a part of,
it is still killing. We learn that war is this amazing game where
no one gets hurt, no one dies, and the bad guys always lose. In
the US, it seems kids grow up wanting to be a soldier, shooting
guns and throwing hand grenades; or a sports star. I wanted to
be in the army and have all the "cool" guns and drive a tank. As
I got older I guess I grew tired of the idea of being a soldier,
but the fascination with killing and guns remained. Once again,
like the "average boy," I began exploring the power of using a gun.
Of taking a BB gun and killing something simply because it could
be done - a new version of the game I had learned to enjoy. I
remember sitting for hours, trying to shoot birds as they landed
on a tree branch and frogs as they sat on the edge of a pond. I
probably killed many, but I eventually reached a point where I
could do it no longer. I realized that it made me feel ill to kill
for the perverse enjoyment of it. My gratitude to my parents for
making me think about what I was doing and what I had done.
  The sad thing is that thousands of kids are taught to kill much
more than I, and to truly love the act. I was a light-weight in
comparison to the majority of kids that I grew up with. This does
not excuse my actions, but it brings to light the fact that this
fascination with killing is commonplace, even considered status
quo. While I wasn't verbally encouraged to kill, my actions were
condemned very little. To many people such actions seem
insignificant. "Boys will be boys!" is often the standard
explanation. The fact is that we are all raised in a culture
where guns, warfare, and killing are so commonplace that when a
child acts accordingly, it is viewed as "natural." As serious an
issue as cruelty to animals is, it is secondary to the fact that
we accept kids pretending to kill one another and kids living
killing living creatures for fun as normal. This way of thinking
is the heart of the problem. This attitude has allowed children
to run around wishing for war and mocking violence for
generations. All you need to do is walk through a toy store to
see where our childrens' interest lies. These attitudes will
continue unless we work to change them.
  I do not believe that the government has been preparing us
for war as we grow up without any kind of focused effort. But
if we all grow up wanting to be soldiers it doesn't make
recruitment any harder. And besides, society is so ingrained
with these pro-war notions that why should a government even
need to promote it. Just demonize a small and poorly armed
country, bomb it back to the stone age while showing off all
our neat new killing machines, get the people's bloodlust
raging, and watch the support grow. Make it seem like a
sporting event, like a Rambo movie, like fiction; fun and
exciting. Who is going to question it?
  This game of mixed messages continues. Toys recreate war
and cartoon characters carry and shoot guns at one another
with smiles on their faces. TV is not the problem, only a
symptom. We are the problem and our attitudes must change.
While many of us realize the failings of such an attitude,
many more do not. They go out hanging yellow ribbons
everywhere believing smart bombs do not harm civilians and
enjoying all the wonderful parades. Some join the military,
hoping to use the power they have learned to love. Or maybe
worst of all, they just go along for the ride with their
heads buried in their gun cabinets, buying their children
plastic M-16's and contributing to the American myth that war
is fun and no one really dies.

        "It comes as a great shock around the age of 5, 6,
        or 7 to discover that the flag to which you have
        pledged allegiance, along with everybody else,
        has not pledged allegiance to you. It comes as a
        great shock to see Gary Cooper killing off the
        Indians, and, although you are rooting for G.Cooper,
        that the Indians are you."
                        - James Baldwin

        "Man is a religious animal. Man is the only
        religious animal. He is the only animal that has the
        true religion - several of them. He is the only
        animal that loves his neighbors as himself and cuts
        his throat if his theology isn't straight."
                        - Mark Twain

        _________________________

PROPAGANDHI is:
 Chris - vocals, guitar
 Jordan - Drums
 John - Bass

This interview took place in December 1993 at the THD
house in Minneapolis in the midst of the flu epidemic from
hell.

? - So who here is sick?
C - Me and John are kinda sick.
Jd - Me, not yet.
? - On your record you said you didn't want to be pigeonholed
into one leftist thouhgt..
Jd - Well, the label is really kinda fucking shitty. I think,
for myself I could probably take every fucking label in the
book and put it on me for certain reasons and other reasons
why you couldn't put it on me. So.. I can't really relate to
any specific thing in an absolute way.
C - We get this question all the time - it is almost like
we have to have a written-out answer or something. I think
the best way I could sum it up for myself would be..
libertarian socialist, meaning maximum freedom with maximum
solidarity. That's how I feel life should be.
J - I just label myself an anarchist because I think the
principle doctrine of anarchism is having optimism in human
nature - and I have that.
Jd - I have a lot of optimism in human nature and that is the
only thing that keeps me going. I'm also very discouraged
because seeing that humanity has created this global shit hole
that we have today. But at the same time, our humanity is the
only thing that can get us out of this.
C - We're not utopians or anything, we are realist - idealists.
? - How long have you guys been in the U.S.?
All - Two days, three weeks left.
? - So this is your first time in the U.S.?
C - No, we tried this last year. Went for two weeks...
? - What are your impressions of the U.S.? Is it worse than
Canada? Or is Canada any better?
J - I am kind of surprised when Americans almost rave about
how our social programs and everything are so much better..
I don't see Canada as being a hell of a lot better.
Jd - On a level of meeting people in scenes and stuff, I
think that almost every person we've met or dealt with so far
has been really nice. I don't think there's a real national
difference in that regard, you meet a lot of really good
people. But in respect to politically, I definitely think the
U.S. is potentially the worst country in the entire world.
C - All the social programs are disappearing in Canada anyway,
especially with things like NAFTA. But the bottom line is that
Canada makes about as much sense as the U.S. in terms of a
nation. It is illogical to have a country this big.
J - The regional disparity is just hilarious.
Jd - Illogical for our purposes, but it's very logical for
the purposes who are in control.
S - For the purposes of human happiness...
Jd - It's a pretty absurd country. I think a lot of the same
stuff that goes on down here is - even as Canadians we hear
more about what happens in the U.S. than we do of our own
country. A lot of people are looking at the U.S. - there is
a common consensus that Canada is one step up on the U.S. so
we should stop worrying about the problems down here. But
there is a lot of bad shit going on up there as well.
J - There are a lot of people who consider themselves so
socially aware and cut down Americans for being so patriotic,
but they think about burning the Canadian flag and they get
all uptight about it.. it's totally illogical.
Jd - I think it is getting to be that problems are so bad
they aren't national anymore anyway, with all the trans-
national companies gaining so much power, it's not Canadian
or American anymore.
? - How has the record been doing? The Winnipeg scene, is
that pretty good?
Jd - Considering it's geographic position I think it is
good.
C - I anyone cares, from a selling point it is fine, but
the way it is being sold in Canada...
Jd - You really learn a lot about how fucked up people
involved in alternative music are, not for the purpose of
doing things for each other, but a lot of people are in it
just strictly for profit. I never really thought about it
before but if you are just making a buck, or x amount of
cents, off of each album sold, the people who make the
records are making more, the people who distro the records are
making more, the people who actually SELL the records are
making, I guess, 100% more than the band is...
C - It seems kinda weird. For example, in Canada, Cargo
records has an absolute monopoly on all distribution. They got
the records from Mike for a certain price and jacked it up to
30 or 40% and resold it and the record stores who got it in
Winnipeg jacked it up, in some cases it seemed like 100%!
So LPs and CDs were showing up for 20+ dollars in stores. We
had to get Mike to send some to us and sell them ourselves
just to undersell - sell them for cost. We tried to get this
boycott happening and people just kept buying [in the
stores.] Cargo Records found out about the boycott and
threatened to drop all of our records but they knew they were
selling so they kept them and just kept jacking up the cost.
J - We put up a poster about the boycott and - we assume it
was the one record store that was marking it up the most -
called the city of Winnipeg and tried to stop us. Departments
of the police and the city of Winnipeg were investigating
us because we were trying to sell our own records - because
we didn't have a license to sell.
C - The thing is then, what we should have thought about
before we decided to do a record with Fat Mike, to ask him who
is going to distribute, and hopefully next time we can have
more control. Then again, we said we don't use Cargo and Mike
asked, "Who should I use?" and we couldn't come up with
anybody besides ourselves... It is just sad that all these
shitty companies have monopolies on punk rock records.
J - Especially Cargo. Cargo is like omnipotent in Canada.
Jd - Even like the business dominance over CDs - what is it?
like EMI makes...
C - Every CD made.. even if Born Against put out a CD, EMI
gets a percentage because they have a copyright on CDs. Fuck,
every time you buy one of our records $$ goes to
Thorne - EMI!...
? - I think it is interesting that bands are always preaching
to the same people and they are always saying the same thing,
but when people come to a show from outside the scene, they
[punks] are always looking at them like, "what are they doing
here?" What the hell good does that do?
C - I don't believe in the preaching to the converted thing.
I believe in positive reinforcement.
Mark (of Destroy and Cinder fame, joins in) - I totally agree.
I think it is ridiculous to say that everyone is converted -
it's fucking bullshit. i can say from experience that half the
people that I see at shows don't give a shit about anything.
C - Even if these things are being reinforced, it is important
that you are sharing those ideas with someone you may not even
live in the same part of the world as you. I think it is
important to know that you are not alone in your ideas.
M - If nothing else, with those ideas you are encouraging
more communication via saying something, even if two people
go home and disagree but start talking about it.
J - I also think that we are using the generalized punk scene
member who instead of going out to the protest goes home and
listens to Born Against. That is really the point that has to
be made - that alternative music has to have alternative
action or it is just Nirvana.
C - That is a lot different coming from Winnipeg. I think it
is a lot different in San Francisco or even Minneapolis where
the punk scene might be politically active. In Winnipeg, it
doesn't exist. The people are young right now. They don't
really participate out of the scene, it is all personal right
now. I think that statement that the personal _is_ the
political has been taken too far. I don't really think it is,
it is a starting point. If you actually want social change
instead of just personal change you have to go beyond the
slogan and start doing things outside the scene. Because the
world doesn't hive a shit about a punk rock scene anyway. All
the radical ideas, probably none of them originated with the
punk scene.
? - Anything else you want to say?
C - Boycott Cargo! Boycott DutchEast! Don't buy our records
from them. If you buy our record from anybody take off the
plastic wrap and send it back to Fat Mike.
J - Go Vegan!

                Propagandhi.
                po box 3
                Winnipeg, Manitoba
                R3M 353  Canada

        advocating moral puritanism since 1991.
    ______________________________________________

        ART FOR THE PEOPLE, NOT THE RICH
        Kathe Kollwitz ( 1867 - 1945 )

  As a young girl in Germany, Kathe Kollwitz was influenced
by her socialist father and grew to believe social injustice
was the greatest of all disorders. She studied printmaking and
eventually began creating works about the exploitation of the
poor. As Kathe matured she realized her bisexuality and came to
believe that such feelings were essential for the creation of
her art. Despite the era of male dominance in the home, she
married a doctor who worked in an early form of socialized
medicine for the poorer classes and they shared a life-long
relationship of mutual respect and equality. Together, they
spent their lives in the ghetto and worked tirelessly for the
poor. Kathe felt she was the protagonist of the poor and the
oppressed and that she had a responsibility to keep working
until her talent inspired interest in the cause.
  When her son was killed in WWI, Kathe began a campaign
against war. She produced posters calling for the end of war
and did many series of prints in which she represented dying
soldiers and their grieving families. She battled periods of
severe depression and continued this crusade as the Nazis rose
to power in the 1930's. As a result of her political stances,
Kathe was classified as a "degenerate" artist by the German
state. Kathe remained in the ghetto of bomb-raged Germany until
her death, near the end of WWII.
  Throughout Kathe Kollwitz's life, she worked tirelessly for
the rights of the downtrodden and the oppressed. She always
stressed that art should grip the human heart. She fought the
sexism and militarism of her environment in order to use her
art to communicate her message of peace and compassion.
                _____________________

                LIFE:
                AS INSIGNIFICANT AS THE FLIP OF A SWITCH.

        4,000 AND COUNTING...
  The purpose of this article is to question the notion that in
the US, a country where the majority of its people (naively)
pride themselves on being self-ruled and free, the government is
given the right to murder its citizens. It is written from the
standpoint that we are part of a society where, whether we like
it or not, those who break the laws of the state are punished
as the government sees fit. As far as anarchism, whether the
state should exist, or has a right to dictate laws and
punishments upon its people is another debate and one which I
will not discuss here.
  The death penalty has been around as long as the human race
and the earliest capital punishment laws were religious in
nature. The mosaic code required death for many offenses, as
did many early civilizations. Enforcement of laws with the
threat of death has continued for many centuries and the death
penalty remained deeply connected to religion throughout the
19th century. During the industrial revolution, England had
death sentences for over 200 crimes, including the theft of
bread. By 1807, public hangings had become such a popular event
that over 40,000 people crowded around to witness them. The
major religious denominations uniformly supported the notion
of capital punishment. Clergy from the congretationalist and
presbyterian denominations went so far as to publicly oppose
the abolition of capital punishment by citing the Christian
bible verse, Genesis 9:6: "Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man
shall his blood be shed." In the U.S., the death penalty has
been a constant occurence, reaching its peak in the 1930's, a
decade where the annual average of executions was 167.
  State-endorsed killing in the U.S. has dropped off
considerably in the last 60 years and there has been a shift
in the number of religious denominations willing to support
it. Many churches have reversed their position and now
oppose capital punishment, although often very quietly. Today,
religious groups that still support capital punishment include
Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, and certain fundamentalist
Christian and orthodox Jewish groups. Internationally, support
of the death penalty has waned, leaving the U.S. as one of
only 30 nations in the world who institute the death penalty.
Of NATO countries, the U.S. shares the status of executing
its people only with Turkey.
  Between 1930 and 1980 there were 3,860 recorded executions
in the United States. Although executions have occurred
steadily throughout this time, there was a lull beginning in
June 1972 when the supreme court ruled that there was a lack
of standards in the selection process of what offenders would
be singled out for death. As a result, the death penalty was
banned pending a restructuring of this system. In July of
1976, the supreme court again released a decision. It said
that capital punishment for the crime of murder was neither
cruel or unusual punishment and released new standards for
the enactment of the death penalty. After this supreme court
decision, states restructured their justice systems and
resumed giving the sentence of death. Between 1977 and 1989,
120 people were put to death. The restructuring has allowed
the return of state executions, and also created a trap where
the condemned sit for years waiting for the newly established
safeguards and appeals to decide their fate.
  Today, 99% of those on death row are male. About 50% of them
were unemployed at the time of imprisonment. And, while blacks
are 12% of the U.S. population, they constitute 40% of the
death row population. In 1988, there were 2, 048 inmates on
death row. This number is steadily increasing due to the new
appeals process which has reduced the number of executions,
while the number of annual death sentences given has risen.
As a result, we inhumanely leave thousands of people locked
in solitary confinement, pondering their death for years.
  For those people more concerned with the nations economy
than "the death of a few criminals," an economic argument
can also be made against capital punishment. The execution of
one human being is far more expensive than to imprison that
one person for life. The lengthy appeals process required for
the execution of an individual often costs 10 times that of a
regular case. During this appeals period, the prisoners are
held in special cells, requiring extra supervision and costing
more to maintain. In fact, incarceration of a prisoner for 40
years is substantially less costly than going through the full
legal process necessary to put that person to death.
  In 1987, two law professors published a study of death
sentences in the 20th century. They found that between 1990
and 1985, 349 persons were incorrectly convicted of capital
offenses. As a result, 23 innocent prisoners were actually put
to death. Another study, released in 1988, found that in the
previous decade, for every 30 persons sentenced to death, 10
had left death row and one was executed. In effect, a person
is sentenced to death, left to think about it for a few years,
and then we decide to let them live. Americans held hostage in
Iran that endured mock executions can tell you how inhumane
even the suggestion of such action is. As for the
arbitrariness of the executions we allow, more than 20,000
homicides are punishable by the death penalty each year in the
U.S. But, in the '70's, the ratio of murders to death
sentences was 117:1. Today this ratio is even higher.
  The apparent randomness in selection for a death sentence
reveals a system of racism and classism. Minorities and the
poor are statistically more likely to be executed as they are
unable to afford the defense required to fight such a
sentence. Making things even more unjust, a recent supreme
court decision ruled that states are not constitutionally
required to provide counsel for penniless death row inmates
who continue their appeal in state courts. In effect, the
government has once again effectively narrowed the means by
which defendants can appeal and made it easier for them to
be put to death. This is especially ture of those accused
from the lower classes. The late Supreme Court Justice
William L. Douglas, one of the few justices against the death
penalty, declared, "One searches our chronicles in vain for
the execution of any member of the affluent strata of our
society."
  Despite all these executions there is still a debate over
the effectiveness of capital punishment as a crime deterrent.
The majority of murders are committed in the heat of passion
when the thought of punishment is the last thing on the
murderer's mind. And, if the murder was in fact premeditated,
the person has planned the murder to the point where he or
she feels they will not be caught. Statistically, people
convicted of murder are among the most unlikely to to commit
violent crimes again in, or outside of, prison. The fear of
sentencing a person to the death penalty often influences a jury
to convict the individual of a lesser crime; resulting in early
release rather than a life sentence. So few executions actually
take place and the appeals process is so drawn out that any
amount of deterrent value that capital punishment could have is
surely lost. And, there is some evidence to show that executions
only encourage crime.
  Why shouldn't potential killers see executions as evidence
that lethal vengeance is justified?
  "Are more atrocities committed in those countries where
such punishments are unknown? Certainly not: the most savage
bandits are always found under laws most severe, and it is
no more than what might be expected. The fate with which they
are threatened hardens them to the sufferings of others as
well as to their own. They know that they can expect no lenity,
and they consider such acts of cruelty as retaliations."
( - Jeremy Bentham)
  Certainty of punishment such as imprisonment is a much
stronger deterrent than severity.
  In 1976, Canada abolished the death penalty, subsituting it
with mandatory minimum sentences. The homicide rate did not
rise and has fallen a bit as a result. This pattern has also
been observed in France. A comprehensive UN report found that
abolition of the death penalty has no effect on murder rates.
The U.S. government has ignored these studies and continues the
killing for apparently no other reason than a twisted form of
retribution and spite.
  This spiteful attitude affects the way we view violence.
Some studies have found that capital punishment may have a
"brutalizing effect" on our society that increases the level
of violence. We begin to see violence as acceptable; as
state-sanctioned. We lose sight of the fact that the persons
we have imprisoned are human beings.

        "It is the deed that teaches, not the name we give it.
        Murder and capital punishment are not opposites that
        cancel one another, but similars that breed their own
        kind." - B. Shaw

  Furthermore, the act of executions as committed by the state
does not treat the condemned as human beings. I will spare you
the many step by step descriptions of the various ways the
state executes its citizens. All but one...
        In April of 1982, John Louis was to be executed by
electrocution in the electric chair. He was given a 1,900
volt surge of electricity of 1/2 minute. In the process, the
electrode broke on his leg and had to be reattached. A second
shock failed to kill him, and smoke was seen rising from his
mouth and leg. He was then given a third shock of 1,900 volts
until his death. He was slowly and inhumanely put to death in
what was a toal of 14 minutes.
  This is nothing but state-sanctioned torture and should not
be viewed as just and effective punishment. Even if the
condemned person had committed heinous crimes, why should we
further cheapen life? the execution of a criminal cannot
reverse the damage done by crimes already committed. It simply
adds to the death toll and further dehumanizes society. If we
were to ask those involved with the act of execution, many will
agree.
        "Revulsion at the duty to supervise and witness
        executions is one reason why so many prison wardens,
        people unsentimental about crime and criminals, are
        opponents of capital punishment." - Hugo A. Bedlan

  Despite all the funds spent to kill an individual, we cannot
be certain an error will not be made. How can "the penalty of
death... be imposed given the limitations of our minds and
institutions, without considerable measures of both
arbitrariness and mistake?" ( - unknown.)
  While our justice system is said to be much more safeguarded
today, humankind is not infallible - especially where the
government is concerned! Even if we were a society free of
error and truly just, to kill another human being in the name
of government order would still do little more than legitimate
violence. By democratically supporting the murder of a portion
of our populace, we are effectively limiting our own
freedom.

        "The power to permanently eliminate from society
        any of its citizens who deviate from the state
        government line or policy is an absolute necessity
        for the survival of every repressive government
        known to man."  - Wyatt Espy.

        Why support a step toward such a future?

- end -