After the attacks of Sept. 11, the rhetoric used by American leaders would lead one to believe that those responsible were attacking freedom and democracy, liberty and justice, ideals theoretically intrinsic to an American ideology. The truth is that the terrorists were attacking reckless American hegemony and economic and cultural imperialism. The real attack on freedom, liberty and justice has taken the form of backlash from the United States government, most obviously in the passing of the Patriot Act (a gross crackdown on civil liberties), but in other ways as well. The U.S. government’s response to Sept. 11 has highlighted the ways in which the democratic ideals so central to this country are not incorporated into how we conduct our foreign policy, or domestic policy in the midst of an international conflict. Perhaps more than anyone, John Walker Lindh, who dared to think outside of what now appears to be an official state ideology, has felt the wrath of what can be described as a rejuvenated nationalistic dogma. I am not unpatriotic, but I do advocate a patriotism that does not just value the ideals of justice and democracy, but is actually dedicated to their realization.
It is no secret that Lindh has been portrayed as a lunatic and a psychopath in the American media and by our political leaders as well. Even those in the mainstream media who may feel the slightest tinge of sympathy for him, are forced to qualify any criticism they have of his treatment with a reference to the notion that he has been brainwashed, or is insane. Lindh has been treated by the media and the majority of the American public as a curiosity, a rare specimen to be dissected and studied. In fact, Lindh has almost adopted the role as a stand in for Osama bin Laden, as he is a more accessible and tangible figure than the “evil one” at the present time. Generally, journalists and those who disguise themselves as such point to two things in Lindh’s background that may have helped to beget his deviation from the “American” way.
First, journalists point to the fact that Lindh attended an alternative private high school, a place which allowed students to construct and follow their own intellectual path. The media also associates Lindh’s unorthodox choice of schools as evidence that his parents acted rather recklessly in raising their son. The real significance to Lindh’s school choice lies in the fact that by stepping outside the state school system, Lindh was better able to withdraw himself from the process of systematic indoctrination and political and ideological socialization administered by the U.S. government. It is my opinion that the unorthodox path Lindh chose allowed him to think critically about the world and the place his country had in creating and perpetuating many of the injustices so endemic to our contemporary global community. Although his schooling may have expedited his adoption of Islamic fundamentalism, and subsequently his assimilation into the Taliban, certainly Lindh cannot be condemned for taking an alternative path; the world would be a better place if more people followed their mind, their heart, and not some misguided, state implemented credo.
Secondly, the media focuses on a “monumental” event in the life of Lindh: the moment when he decided to dispose of his extensive hip-hop music collection, an occasion that is apparently symbolic of his dismissal of American culture and values. Every time I hear a reference to this event in the media (which is often), I am completely baffled. Since when has hip-hop been emblematic of an “American” culture or ideology? More often than not, hip-hop is an art form criticized by the media for its violent, anti-establishment lyrics. Historically, the government and elites in this country have been fearful of the potential for hip-hop as a catalyst for social change and as a genre of music that told a truth they didn’t want the public to hear, as it highlighted the many racial and economic injustices that still exist in this country. Suddenly and inexplicably, however, hip-hop is representative of mainstream American culture and values? In my opinion, Lindh threw away his music in a symbolic act of defiance against the material culture and emphasis on capitalism (and selfish behavior) which overwhelms the United States (and the world) today. Instead, Lindh sought a more humanistic, and perhaps more meaningful existence. I do not think the fundamentalism he turned to is a viable or a better alternative than the system of global capitalism and pseudo-democracy he left behind. In reality, the movement he submitted himself to is a misguided and misleading response to another misguided and misleading worldview, that of global capitalism. The religion of global capitalism has its own rule book, its own “politically correct” ideology, and is its own brand of fundamentalism. The doctrine of global capital preaches the value of individual betterment and profiteering, an end which is to be attained with little regard for the injuries to others which might be inflicted along the way. Essentially, the religion of global capitalism, in its “fundamental” state, is one which values profits first, people second.
Lindh was wrong to voice his support for the terrorist attacks. They were a massive crime against humanity and would not be excusable under any circumstances. He was wrong to take up arms and fight in this war, just as the United States and its leaders are wrong in their improvident attempt to fight violence with violence, to drop bombs on something inherently un-material (terrorism). The United States is killing innocent people, as it has been doing all over the world for many, many years. Because of economic sanctions, our country has killed over 500,000 innocents in Iraq alone. That is 500,000 more innocent deaths than can be ascribed to Lindh’s name. Where are the media figures decrying the fundamentalist behavior of this country? Where are the people demanding that the U.S. government be put on trial? I am, and I hope I am not alone.
