Blog Dis
Breeding the rebels...
2025-01-21
News is the stuff of politics and politics is the stuff of people and people are the stuff of rebellion and rebellion is the by-product of necessity. We've all seen the ongoing developments in Afghanistan, how the Taliban continue to remove freedoms from Afghani women, one at a time. Following the removal of US troops from Afghanistan (Cdn peace-keeping troops too), it shouldn't come as a surprise that the Taliban and their assurances of 'respecting our women' were instantly revoked the minute they reclaimed control of Afghanistan.
But then, is their behaviour really surprising at all? The purity in being a rebel is in acknowledging that having nothing is the basis upon which any ideal (or illusion) can be used, because when you have nothing, you have everything to gain through rebellious behaviour and nothing to lose. Afghanistan is considered the worst place to live in the world if you're a woman. So, the Taliban, a militant rebel group, if ever there was one, bided their time until US troops pulled out. This rebel group re-claimed power, patiently waiting for 20 years, prior to US troops having ousted them. Many in the international community believe that within India's diplomatic and intelligence corps, the reason the Taliban came into power to control Afghanistan in the first place was because of Pakistan.
Where there is a rebel, there is an origin point.
Then there are the small-time rebels, those who fight against the system, their local politicians, and even within their own family dynamic. Sure, sure, someone can come along and point their finger at you, accusing you of being a rebel, that you are above the limitations of sanctioned laws, but if you were the real thing, a rebel that is, the application of judicious laws would be meaningless to you. And this is the crux. Those in desperate need to assert their control and authority are no different than the opposing individuals already in power, wanting to maintain their control by way of applying current laws. A rebel, therefore, is left with little choice but to continue to rebel. That's how I see the state of affairs for the poorest of poor countries, which are the perfect breeding ground for rebellions (civil wars) and which, ironically are also the perfect breeding ground for the pounding of human rights, grinding and punishing those poorest of people into such a small state of nothingness that the laws used against them are in fact the very reason why rebels are born and made into fighting machines in the first place.
We humans like our webs. We make good spiders who spin complexity because the presence of hierarchies in any society are a fact of life, as are dynamic laws. But, in countries where poverty reigns, the hierarchies will surely favour those in power, more so than those trying to capture power.
I am re-reading another one of my all-time favourite books: 'Hell Hath No Fury: Famous Women in Crime' by Betty Nygaard King, an Ottawa historian. Her potent little book, comprised of biographies, delves into the criminal behaviour of our brave suffragettes, as one example, and their attempt to gain power to cast a vote in democratic elections, and to be regarded as 'persons' in the eyes of Constitutional law. The obstinance of the governments in charge, in this era (late 19th Century) to refuse to even recognize them as a member of the voting public meant the suffragettes were left with no option but to break the law, thereby gaining attention for their cause. This was the stance the Taliban had adopted and will continue to use, so long as anyone other than the Taliban are in power. But women suffer the greatest humiliations in this war-torn country because hard as it is to believe for some men in power, women and children and the elderly are generally the poorest of the poor in developing countries and for sure are the poorest of the poor in the poorest countries. If women were to rise up and rebel against the misogynistic culture within which they exist, they too would be thought of as rebels and would be quickly squashed by the Taliban. I've digested with disgust the updates on the freedoms that continue to be stripped from women in Afghanistan: no longer permitted to sing, for their voice to be heard by any man other than their husband, not permitted to be seen in public, not permitted to exist without their face being covered t all times, not permitted to attend schools past the age of nine years, to walk outside w/o being chaperoned, to stand up for themselves. What more can be removed from them? Body parts?
There will never be easy answers to situations where disproportionate political climates breed perfect environments for creating new rebels. I only know from my personal experience that when I grew up as a young girl in a household that elevated the status of a male, and downgraded the status of a female, I instinctively understood my role was to rebel and fight for my rights to further my individuality as a person, which is to say I actively chose to fight for my agenda - and this is precisely how all men behave and continue to live their life - they think of themselves first and foremost. I was prepared to accept that I had to leave home early at age 18, because I didn't want to obey anyone's rules when they blatantly favoured one sex. I learned the value of fairness, back then, insofar that those in power are quite content if there is no fairness at all. After I had left, I never looked back.
When some rights are given freely to one sex, but denied to the opposite sex, because of their sex, there are zero options other than to fight tooth and nail for your rights. And so I did, and I was labeled as 'the most difficult child'. I considered this a badge of honour. But this name-calling wasn't new to me. For as long as I can remember, I was labeled as a rebel by my teachers. And there were many times when I was suspended, punished for back-talking, for challenging their authority, and also because of the incidences when I stood up for other young girls in class who were being bullied, often times by female teachers. None of these retaliatory actions taken against me did diddly-squat to change my attitude or tactics - it only reinforced the notion in my young mind that I was right on track, rebelling against what I thought were unreasonable conditions. And they were!
Marlon Brando's character in The Wild One (1953), when asked, "What are you rebelling against?" had answered most succinctly, "Whadd'ya got?" Maybe this movie hasn't aged well, according to some film critics, but I believe his point is exactly on point.
Am I bitter? Not any more, though I was surely bitter as a young girl, watching as my brothers could do as they please; stay out as late as they wanted, get a driver's licence, have someone else handle their laundry, have someone else cook their meals, to clean up, while they somehow had to contend and manage having to deal with enjoying every privilege, and not once did either stand up for those in their household who didn't have the same special privileges. Funny how this works.
If you're not prepared to stand up and fight for those not capable of fighting for themselves, why should you expect anyone else to stand up and fight on your behalf?
But then, is their behaviour really surprising at all? The purity in being a rebel is in acknowledging that having nothing is the basis upon which any ideal (or illusion) can be used, because when you have nothing, you have everything to gain through rebellious behaviour and nothing to lose. Afghanistan is considered the worst place to live in the world if you're a woman. So, the Taliban, a militant rebel group, if ever there was one, bided their time until US troops pulled out. This rebel group re-claimed power, patiently waiting for 20 years, prior to US troops having ousted them. Many in the international community believe that within India's diplomatic and intelligence corps, the reason the Taliban came into power to control Afghanistan in the first place was because of Pakistan.
Where there is a rebel, there is an origin point.
Then there are the small-time rebels, those who fight against the system, their local politicians, and even within their own family dynamic. Sure, sure, someone can come along and point their finger at you, accusing you of being a rebel, that you are above the limitations of sanctioned laws, but if you were the real thing, a rebel that is, the application of judicious laws would be meaningless to you. And this is the crux. Those in desperate need to assert their control and authority are no different than the opposing individuals already in power, wanting to maintain their control by way of applying current laws. A rebel, therefore, is left with little choice but to continue to rebel. That's how I see the state of affairs for the poorest of poor countries, which are the perfect breeding ground for rebellions (civil wars) and which, ironically are also the perfect breeding ground for the pounding of human rights, grinding and punishing those poorest of people into such a small state of nothingness that the laws used against them are in fact the very reason why rebels are born and made into fighting machines in the first place.
We humans like our webs. We make good spiders who spin complexity because the presence of hierarchies in any society are a fact of life, as are dynamic laws. But, in countries where poverty reigns, the hierarchies will surely favour those in power, more so than those trying to capture power.
I am re-reading another one of my all-time favourite books: 'Hell Hath No Fury: Famous Women in Crime' by Betty Nygaard King, an Ottawa historian. Her potent little book, comprised of biographies, delves into the criminal behaviour of our brave suffragettes, as one example, and their attempt to gain power to cast a vote in democratic elections, and to be regarded as 'persons' in the eyes of Constitutional law. The obstinance of the governments in charge, in this era (late 19th Century) to refuse to even recognize them as a member of the voting public meant the suffragettes were left with no option but to break the law, thereby gaining attention for their cause. This was the stance the Taliban had adopted and will continue to use, so long as anyone other than the Taliban are in power. But women suffer the greatest humiliations in this war-torn country because hard as it is to believe for some men in power, women and children and the elderly are generally the poorest of the poor in developing countries and for sure are the poorest of the poor in the poorest countries. If women were to rise up and rebel against the misogynistic culture within which they exist, they too would be thought of as rebels and would be quickly squashed by the Taliban. I've digested with disgust the updates on the freedoms that continue to be stripped from women in Afghanistan: no longer permitted to sing, for their voice to be heard by any man other than their husband, not permitted to be seen in public, not permitted to exist without their face being covered t all times, not permitted to attend schools past the age of nine years, to walk outside w/o being chaperoned, to stand up for themselves. What more can be removed from them? Body parts?
There will never be easy answers to situations where disproportionate political climates breed perfect environments for creating new rebels. I only know from my personal experience that when I grew up as a young girl in a household that elevated the status of a male, and downgraded the status of a female, I instinctively understood my role was to rebel and fight for my rights to further my individuality as a person, which is to say I actively chose to fight for my agenda - and this is precisely how all men behave and continue to live their life - they think of themselves first and foremost. I was prepared to accept that I had to leave home early at age 18, because I didn't want to obey anyone's rules when they blatantly favoured one sex. I learned the value of fairness, back then, insofar that those in power are quite content if there is no fairness at all. After I had left, I never looked back.
When some rights are given freely to one sex, but denied to the opposite sex, because of their sex, there are zero options other than to fight tooth and nail for your rights. And so I did, and I was labeled as 'the most difficult child'. I considered this a badge of honour. But this name-calling wasn't new to me. For as long as I can remember, I was labeled as a rebel by my teachers. And there were many times when I was suspended, punished for back-talking, for challenging their authority, and also because of the incidences when I stood up for other young girls in class who were being bullied, often times by female teachers. None of these retaliatory actions taken against me did diddly-squat to change my attitude or tactics - it only reinforced the notion in my young mind that I was right on track, rebelling against what I thought were unreasonable conditions. And they were!
Marlon Brando's character in The Wild One (1953), when asked, "What are you rebelling against?" had answered most succinctly, "Whadd'ya got?" Maybe this movie hasn't aged well, according to some film critics, but I believe his point is exactly on point.
Am I bitter? Not any more, though I was surely bitter as a young girl, watching as my brothers could do as they please; stay out as late as they wanted, get a driver's licence, have someone else handle their laundry, have someone else cook their meals, to clean up, while they somehow had to contend and manage having to deal with enjoying every privilege, and not once did either stand up for those in their household who didn't have the same special privileges. Funny how this works.
If you're not prepared to stand up and fight for those not capable of fighting for themselves, why should you expect anyone else to stand up and fight on your behalf?
