Glenda SimmsGlenda Simms
EVERY WAR produces an image that remains riveted in the minds of generations for whom the many atrocities of armed conflict will become history.
For instance, the Vietnam War conjures up many horrible pictures of cruelty perpetrated by both sides in that conflict. In the Sunday, May 9 edition of the Daily Observer, columnist Mark Wignall described the horrors of the Mai Lai massacres and the testosterone-driven inhumanity of Lt. William Calley and his cronies. But the picture that cannot be forgotten is that of a panic-stricken little girl screaming and running down a street in her village in a valiant effort to escape the bombs and chemicals that were used in the eradication of her people.
Also the Rwandan war was, by all standards, a gross, obscene and inhumane case of genocide. The world community saw the mass graves and the daily butchery of innocent men, women and children, but the most enduring picture resides in the details of the three month ordeal of Athanasie Mukarwego, a 45-year-old school teacher who was systematically raped by Hutu men. This story was
carried in the May 10, 2004 edition of the Flair Magazine.
No doubt there are other famous or infamous war pictures and stories of all the wars in human history. It is therefore not surprising that the war being waged by the United States and its allies in Iraq should at this point produce an image that will remain with us for a long time to come.
This is the picture of a young woman being portrayed as the face of some of the most inhumane and vicious abuse of male prisoners of war and women in Iraq.
It is important for us to look behind the face and actions of this one woman and ask ourselves why the face of these atrocities is the face of a woman. How did a woman achieve this prominence on the ground in a man's war? Who is this woman and how did she grow such 'vicious spurs'?
THE FACE OF EVIL
James Dao in an article published in the New York Times on May 7, 2004 tried to make sense of the fact that the face of this female soldier, Pfc. Lynndie R. England, has become the face of so much that is evil and unacceptable about the Iraq war.
The world is now very familiar with two images. One is of Private England chomping on a cigarette and gesticulating in a threatening manner to the genitals of a naked Iraqi male. The other image is of Private England holding a leash to which a naked and obviously injured Iraqi man is tethered.
According to Dao, the good folk of Fort Ashby, West Virginia, and the family and friends of Private England are "wringing their hands" and wondering how a nice, home grown, independent young woman could evolve into a symbol of the worst aspects of the American army.
This 21-year-old Private has been described by those who watched her grow from childhood to adulthood as bold, stubborn, strong-willed and independent. She also loved the outdoors. Most of her acquaintances felt that she did not have a "mean bone" in her body and the Iraqi action is quite an aberration for this solidly American woman.
On the other hand, her parents also described her as a 'tomboy, eager to prove that she was as tough and athletic as the boys'.
This latter observation might have been the clue to Private England's inglorious entry into the consciousness of the international community.
WANTING TO BELONG
It is clear to see that the army boys set the tone of the actions at the Abu Ghraib jail. Private England wanted to be 'one of the boys'. When women enter a macho, militaristic environment, there is a great temptation to prove themselves not as excellent soldiers but as "one of the boys". It is within this framework that Private England gained "her day in the sun". She is no less guilty than the men who "called the shots". She is a good example of what women should not become.
If there is any honour in soldiering, she should have been content to fight her war within the parameters of decency (if in fact there is any decency in even the so called 'just' wars).
Sorry, Private England, you must get what you deserve. With all your proper upbringing and your seemingly strength of character, you have "let down the side". You did so by not understanding how race and gender interact to create a 'red-blooded' American male that sees himself as superior to all women and to men of races other than those defined as Caucasians.
Indeed, Private England, you were either willingly or forcibly carrying out the racist, sexist agenda of men who are determined to make a link between their penises and their guns. So, madame soldier, when your trials and tribulations are over and you are given time in jail to reflect on how you and other women manage to hit such low points, think about the social and psychological construction of the racist-sexist persona.
In such a space of contemplation you might discover that when issues of race, religion and gender interact we find ourselves in a quagmire of contradictions and deep-seated psychological dysfunctions. In fact, in analysing the atrocities, we must acknowledge that on one hand, the U.S. and British armies are predominantly white, Christian and male dominated. On the other hand, the Iraqis are defined in the broad spectrum of human variability as non-white and non-Christian.
Also the prototype of the psycho-social response to the "other" is historically and contemporarily recorded in the way white American men have responded to black men.
THE BATTLE OF THE PENISES
In white America, the black man confronted by the power and authority of the police and the military armed with guns which legitimise their presence and their actions, experiences what James Baldwin calls "that terror which is not the terror of death but the terror of being destroyed".
This historical relationship between white men and black men has been fraught not only with contradictions but with fury, anger and psycho-sexual ambiguities. In many instances, the black man brutalised through the peculiar institutions of slavery and colonialism, sometimes run the risk of having his psyche atrophied to the size of his penis.
The white man on the other hand, has demonstrated at different points in history that he sees the black man's penis as being in direct competition with his. This particular psychological 'battle of the penises' has been analysed and documented both in fictional and non-fictional works.
My reason for discussing the social and cultural environment in which white men and black men learn responses to each other is to argue that when a predominantly white army is pitted against a population of 'men of colour' the racist blueprint is ever present below the surface.
It is against this understanding that the gross sexual abuse which was carried out against the Iraqi male prisoners and female civilians must be apprehended.
Both America and Iraq are macho and patriarchal societies and in such environments the male cannot bear very much humiliation. In particular, in an Islamic society, sexual humiliation and the rape of women by 'the barbarians' have the potential of obliterating 'manhood' as it is defined.
James Baldwin, the black American writer posits that "all men know this about each other, which is one of the reasons that men can treat each other with such vile, relentless and endlessly inventive cruelty".
Indeed, the photographs of American and English soldiers sodomising, gang raping, beating and humiliating Iraqi men and women is a modern day worst case example of man's inhumanity to man and to woman.
Private England, we did not struggle to be like men. We struggled to make a difference in times of war and in times of peace.
Think on these things while you 'cool your heels' in the 'boss-man's' jail.
Dr. Glenda P. Simms is the
executive director of the Bureau of Women's Affairs
