The Hopi Indians of Arizona have as part of their creation myth a story about the four peoples of the world; Fire, Water, Air, and Earth. The Fire people were the White people, the Water people were the Black (or Blue) people, the Air people were the Yellow people, and the Earth people were the Red people. In their creation myth, each of the four peoples were to make their own migration path throughout the world. This story is fairly simple and representational. The four peoples represent the four directions; North, South, East and West. The four peoples also represent four major ethnic categories, according to physical appearance; those we call White and Black, Yellow and Brown. The four peoples are represented by four elements that exist as counterparts; Fire and Water, Air and Earth.
That it is a "story" makes many people dismiss it, shelve it away, in that corner of the mind relegated to fantasy. It does not have the status of hard fact, thus it can safely be ignored as a people's flight of fancy. But by doing so, one loses the opportunity to use it as an interpretative device, as a way to see the world beyond the realm of the microscope and the telescope, instead observing it with the naked eye. And far and beyond this is the possibility that this story does indeed contain a kernel of truth. Should this be the case, by ignoring the validity of this story, one ignores a part of the truth itself.
I will not make an argument here whether this story is indeed the truth, in its whole or in part. I will instead present this interpretation viewed through its lens, and hope the picture I paint communicates the truth by itself.
According to this story, the White People, in other words, the Europeans and their descendants in America and in Israel, are the Fire People. Fire has many particular qualities which render it unique compared to the qualities of Earth, Air and Water. If one accepts white people as representing fire, many elements of Western geopolitical strategy become far easier to understand.
Fire is interesting in that it produces two useful byproducts, light and heat. Heat in cold climates is necessary for survival, while if one is do anything during the night, one needs light. However, in excess, both of these products are destructive. Too much light blinds, while too much heat burns.
Another aspect of fire is easily observed. Fire must come into contact with something to spread. Once it begins to burn, it breaks down the object it is burning. If fire is not touched, it cannot spread. But sparks can be emitted from flames, which if landing in particular conditions, can cause new fires to start. This seems basic, but by comparing this to the foreign policy of the United States, bears particular resonance. The geopolitical strategy of the United States, most of all at this time in history, is exactly like that of a fire. The United States funds special operations in many parts of the world, supports rebels in areas opposed to it, and stages coups in countries whose domestic policy is not in line with its own. All of these are destabilizing to the status quo of the areas in which they take place, although they bring the regions situation more into line with the goals of the United States. Exactly like a fire, US policy spreads sparks or licks of flame to areas which are not already aflame, attempting to bring everything into the inferno.
An example of this is Libya, Iraq, and Afghanistan. In all three, the heads of state were removed, "regime change" by the vernacular. This did not however improve the situation for a majority of the populace, nor did it stabilize those countries. Indeed, stability was lost in all three situations. If a fire catches on a tree or bush, that tree or bush will lose its structural integrity. If the tree or bush was verdant enough and the fire not complete, it will be badly burned or singed. If it was dry enough, it will be reduced to charcoal and ash. The similarity of this imagery and the actual events and situation on the ground in these countries must be seen as actual mirrors of each other, simply at different scales. The loss of governmental integrity in Libya, and the current state of tension and conflict between competing factions, is the same as a burning tree slowly crackling, spreading sparks, as in Libyan weapons, to other countries, i.e. surrounding vegetation.
A fire is also unique in its nature of spreading. I've already said a fire must be "touched" in order for it to spread. One could also see it in this sense; fire's method of "conquest", so to speak, is to get others to attack it. In retaliation, fire "counterattacks" with unbridled force, to the fullest extent possible. A candle can set alight a small branch but not a tree trunk. A bonfire can set alight a small tree, but depending on its size not a towering conifer. Fire does have limits to what it can "conquer", but once given an avenue by being touched, this being a metaphor for being attacked, it uses that avenue as a highway to spread itself as much as possible. This indeed is a fundamental aspect, a basic nature, of fire. If the object it comes in contact with is difficult to burn, the fire will putter out, but the more tinder, the more flame. Technically, at certain levels of temperature, fire can burn anything, from rock to plastic to metal, even turning water into steam. This depends on the amount of fire, the substance fueling the flame, and the surface area engulfing the object to be set on fire. The reason why I'm explaining this obvious characteristic is to show that metaphorically, fire can burn *anything* given the right conditions.
The number of wars and conflicts the United States is entering is increasing, not decreasing. Yemen has been added to the mix, and is another example of the US's conquering process as fire. Literal translation is required here. So, imagine everything committed by the United States described below, as simply processes of an object catching on fire.
The United States has initiated conflict with many countries in the last few years without any declaration of war by Congress, which is illegal under United States law. However, this illegality has been studiously swept under the rug and ignored. Yemen is simply another slide down this slippery slope. No war has been declared, and yet the United States now has troops on the ground in Yemen. Although a small number at this time, previously there had been none. As a fire grows, expect more troops to be committed. Before there were troops, there were drones and missile strikes. Before there were drones and missile strikes, there was money, financial aid, given to the ruler of Yemen on our behalf. In such a manner does the fire grow. To delineate, there are two specific processes here which are emblematic of fire's growth:
Legal Parallel:
1. No Formal Declaration of War made by the United States on Iraq
2. No Congressional Approval given for Libyan Conflict
3. No Congressional Approval SOUGHT for Yemen Conflict; Legal Dimension Ignored Completely
Military Engagement Parallel:
1. Yemeni Government provided with funds to work in US interests.
2. Yemen attacked by Drones and Cruise Missiles.
3. Yemen aided by US troops on the ground itself.
*4. Expected Progression: US forces engaging with opposition directly in combat.
In both cases, one can see the similarity to a flame lapping alongside an object, singeing it enough to catch parts of it alight, then ultimately lighting the whole object on fire. You need to be able to see these similarities as being beyond simple artistic representation, to being the actual thing itself. The United States and Israel, and their policies and practices, are the elemental manifestation of fire as manifested in human behavior. Understanding this allows one to see the current global political situation in a greater context; that of a fire, out of control, threatening to burn the entire world down.
No comments:
Post a Comment