Slashdot Mirror
Little Red Book Draws Government Attention
narcolepticjim writes "An unnamed Dartmouth student was visited by Homeland Security for requesting a copy of Mao Zedong's Little Red Book for a class project." From the article: "The student, who was completing a research paper on Communism for Professor Pontbriand's class on fascism and totalitarianism, filled out a form for the request, leaving his name, address, phone number and Social Security number. He was later visited at his parents' home in New Bedford by two agents of the Department of Homeland Security, the professors said."
If you mean the University of Massachusetts, Dartmouth, you're right.
but he had to fill out a form because he was requesting an inter-library loan. I don't know how your school works, if the loan department can psychically detect what you want to request and save you the trouble of filling at a form or whatever, but obviously his school works the old-fashioned way.
Not that this excuses the utterly retarded HomeSec nonsense, of course.
http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/mao/work s/red-book/
coral
http://www.marxists.org.nyud.net:8090/reference/ar chive/mao/works/download/red-book.pdf
There are way too many US colleges that routinely violate the privacy of their students and expose them to identity theft by using their Social Security Number as a student ID number, because it's ostensibly unique and they sometimes also need it if the student's an employee or has a government loan. Fortunately neither school I attended did that, but it's extremely common. Similarly, many US states use the SSN as a driver's license number, and all of them collect the SSN in keep it in their databases. And many medical insurance companies use SSNs as a customer ID number (HIPAA's changing that a bit, but Medicare's still based on SSNs so they usually need it anyway.) And too many companies use SSNs as an employee ID. It's appalling, but get used to it.
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
Terrorism for Dummies is available at your local federal governmen't printing office.
It's called an "Army Field Manual"
They've got How-To's on everything from training insurgents, fighting a counterinsurgency battle, improvised explosives/munitions/booby traps/guns/silencers/, code breaking, psychological ops, interrogation... the list just keeps going. And that doesn't include Marine field manuals.
The U.S. Army has put into print enough information that terrorists don't need any other sources. And when I say "For Dummies" I really mean it, those field manuals are written for the lowest common denominator.
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!
I got paid a visit for reading material that was hardly "subversive" -- it was published by the U.S. military! Read all about it here and here... I was reading the literature on a plane, to be sure, but a home visit from the feds seemed way over the top. To their credit, however, the Marshals seemed to be nice enough and they didn't seem to think I was a threat to national security, and I haven't been bothered since the visit to my house. Though I wonder whether there are now federal files on me, and whether I'm being looked at funny at the airport.
Errr, gonna have to try harder. Maybe some mods on /. will blindly accept the "quotes" you send at them, but some of us like to research things before we believe them.
http://www.snopes.com/quotes/caesar.htm
"Yet as popular as the quote is, it's not real. These words are not anything Julius Caesar ever wrote or said. No biographies of Caesar or histories of Rome contain these lines, and scholars who have made it their business to know everything about the man draw a blank on this quote. Likewise, Shakespeare did not stuff this soliloquy into the mouth of the title character in his play Julius Caesar, nor did any of the Bard's other characters utter it. No record of this quote has been found prior to its appearance on the Internet in late 2001."
Unless you're living in a void and not critically evaluating what you read, Mao's little red IS harmless.
Mao certainly caused a lot of deaths, but contrary to leaders like Stalin, Mao was more a flawed leader that screwed up badly than someone whose core ideology involved mass murder, and if you read the little red book you will see that reflected in a lot of what he is saying.
Most people reading it will find themselves agreeing with a lot of it, either because it is vague enough so as to be more or less apolitical, or because it plain makes sense. Most of those same people will probably never like Mao, nor will they they ever become apologists for what he did. Even the Chinese Communist Party readily admits that Mao had many flaws and that many of his policies should never have been carried out because they were disasterous and caused vast numbers of deaths that could have been avoided with better leadership.
But you will also likely find that many of the things in Maos little red book are things you can agree with exactly because it contains admonishions of how to act that the Chinese Communist Party really ought to be learning from.
A few examples (NOTE: There are certainly far more controversial quotes too - particularly regarding the Leninist concept of democratic centralism - I'm not trying to whitewash Mao, just to show a side most peopke don't know - for the other side, read the book):
"A proper measure of democracy should be put into effect in the army, chiefly by abolishing the feudal practice of bullying and beating and by having officers and men share weal and woe.".
And: " With regard to economic democracy, the representatives elected by the soldiers must be ensured the right to assist (but not to bypass) the company leadership in managing the company's supplies and mess."
And: "We must not be complacent over any success. We should check our complacency and constantly criticize our shortcomings, just as we should wash our faces or sweep the floor every day to remove the dirt and keep them clean."
And: "We should be modest and prudent, guard against arrogance and rashness, and serve the Chinese people heart and soul. . . ."
And: " Our duty is to hold ourselves responsible to the people. Every word, every act and every policy must conform to the people's interests, and if mistakes occur, they must be corrected -- that is what being responsible to the people means."
The biggest "danger" the little red book constitutes is that it might make some readers see the difference between communist ideology and what has been practiced in the name of communism in totalitarian states - the greatest bulwark against support for communist ideas today is that most people still think of countries like China, North Korea or the old Soviet Union as representative of communist ideology, rather than as dictatures that flagrantly abuse it's symbolism and phrases. How many people today consider the Inquisition representative of Christian ideas (I don't, and I'm an atheist), or for that matter consider Hitlers support for the church as proof churches are evil?
However, the Chinese Communist Party is really the organisation that should worry most about people actually reading and understanding Mao and realising just exactly how far from the goals of the Chinese revolution they have moved.
They better hope the Chinese people don't start taking to heart quotes like the ones above, or the following one, and start expecting for them to be followed:
" Every comrade must be brought to understand that the supreme test of the words and deeds of a Communist is whether they conform with the highest interests and enjoy the support of the overwhelming majority of the people."
If you'd like to see for yourself what it actually says, all of Mao's little red book is available online
1. Why would a student have to write down a SSN for a book loan, but not have to write down the class for which he is requesting the book?
The UMass system when I was there asked for your SSID/student ID and the various other pieces of information, but not what class you were doing it for (you could include it as optional information). The reason is that they really don't care if you're reading it for a class, multiple related classes or for your own personal improvement.
2. If he *did* have to write down his class, then why would the [DoHS] waste resources on this case?
See 1
3. Why would a book by Mao be on a watch list?
The article mentioned that the student had been abroad for a significant amount of time; it was probably a totality of the evidence. (Note: not justifying the situation, just saying how it probably came about)
4. Why does it seem just a little too convenient that this unnamed student is being investigated by the NSA while doing research for a class on "fascism and totalitarianism"?
The course is Ideologies of Power, as has been pointed out. Fascism and totaliarianism might be part of the course or an Honors' Colloquium, which typically takes part of the course and creates a focused presentation, research paper or discussion group for an extra credit plus honors credit in the area of the course. This would also explain why a course text was not available in the UMass Library system.
5. Why are none of Robert PontBriand's classes (the professor in question, according to TFA) listed as "fascism and totalitarianism"?
See 4
I don't know about anyone specifically going to jail for being a Communist, but in California, no person can teach in a public school and be a member of the Communist Party. It is grounds for immediate dismissal.
You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
This illegal spying and stuff has been going on since before bush was in office. Actually it isn't illegal either but that another story.
We have always had agreements with other countries to spy and tap phone conversations. If something interesting is found they alert the proper authorities. This was automated around 1997 and now key words are caught and automated recording takes place. Typically, our agreements with the other countries allow them to collect the data on US citizens while we collect on their citizens. This gives the appearance of the government not having to deal with the constitution.
This project is commonly refereed to as Echelon Here is a tad bit more info on it
The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act authorized spying and searches in terrorist/national security and other related matters regardless of the nationality or location of the person(s) being spied on. Originally this act intended for a court consisting of around 11 members to approve the actions. This court regularly reports to congress. Unfortunately (fortunately depending on your outlook), in 1979, President Carter decided that under certain circumstances could allow government officials to bypass these procedures. This was probably a reaction to the hostage crisis during his term. President Clinton expanded this a little in '95. Bush using the processes from these executive orders changed the policy being used to take advantage of them. Unlike Carter and Clinton, his provision were made into law by provisions in the patriot act.. Your probably right in that these executive orders go against the constitution but until they are successfully challenged, they are law and therefore legal. (That doesn't mean it rite though.)
As for the ban on torture loophole? I think you are misreading somethign here. All this deal did was say that interrogators accused of using improper methods could offer as a defense that they were acting on orders that a reasonable person would believe to be lawful. This doesn't mean that i could order you to starve a person until they talk and you would get away with it. What it does say is that if an order is lawful to a reasonable person you can use that as a defense. This means if i order you to wake the prisoner at different time in the night to disrupt thier sleeping habits and confuse them, as long as a reasonable person wouldn't consider that torture, you wouldn't get in trouble. Imunity isn't even mentioned either. This is a purposed bill too, it hasn't made it's way into law and needs to be cleared with debate before it becomes law.
I know it is fun to bash Bush and the current administration. People always do it when thier party isn't in control. Lets be honest here and bash him for stuff that needs to be bashed. Saying we can toruture people even though existing law says we cannot is stretching the truth a bit. This doen't mean it hasn't happend and if it did, those resoncible should be presecuted. Saying ilegal wire taps or ilegal spying isn't being truthfull either. The facilities that made it possible were put in place well before bush or his cronies came to power. Under current law, regular law enforcment have to get permision from a judge (well except for patriot act provisions). But we can see were government officials aren't held to that law unnder certain circumstances. Is it right that government officials can spy on it's citizens without going thru the regular chanels? Probably not but that doesn't mean it is not legal.
In case anyone is wondering, executive
I don't know about anyone specifically going to jail for being a Communist, but in California, no person can teach in a public school and be a member of the Communist Party. It is grounds for immediate dismissal.
)
It's important to understand the distinction between being a communist and being a member of the Communist Party. (A lot of people miss this distinction in discussions of McCarthyism, for example.) Being a communist is one thing -- i.e. believing in and espousing communist ideals, associating with other communists, etc. The Communist Party, however, was actually an American branch of the Party in the U.S.S.R. -- it took orders from Moscow, had the goal of violently overthrowing the U.S. government, and was involved in espionage within the U.S. (See, for example, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_Party_USA.
Basically, it's the difference between being sympathetic with Al Qaeda (totally legal, if not moral) and being an active member of Al Qaeda.
Cheers,
IT
Power corrupts. PowerPoint corrupts absolutely.
The professor mentioned in the story (Dr. Brian Glyn Williams) took the time to answer these points. I'm pasting it verbatim here.
-----
Dear Bill,
Delighte to hear from you and I hope my response is of service. If you could post it I would be most grateful.
I am one of the professors mentioned in your 'conspiracy theory response' (Dr. Brian Glyn Williams)With all due respect I wanted to add a few comments. A. The incident with our Univ. of Massachusetts history student happened several weeks ago, I was asked to comment on President Bush's sweeping surveillance activities only yesterday. I cited this incident as an example of the White House policies' very real applications and how they trickle down to the university level. My description of the incident was in response to an inquiry from a reporter at the Standard Times, New Bedford who called requesting a commentary and I thought it was appropriate. B. There are several key sections omitted in the version here in the USA of the Little Red Book and we are proud of our student trying to search out the original. This is exactly the sort of primary document research that makes for good history!
C. I have tenure and I do not know how you came to the assumption that I do not, my web page brianglynwilliams.com clearly states that I am Associate Professor of History. But I do appreciate your reference to the field work I do in Afghanistan and Central Asia in trying to understand the roots of jihadism and terrorism. It is precisely this sort of cutting edge research and teaching I hope to protect. One must go to the original sources to get the facts, wether it be jihadi webpages or Mao's Little Red Book. I am hardly a liberal firebrand, I just want to carry out my research unfettered by the fear of investigation and encourage the same in my students. D. I know this student well. He is the real thing, he is mature, honest, reliable, hard-working and genuinely interested in getting to the truth on issues, i.e. he is everything we train our students to be. The fact that Dr. Bob Pontriband who is by the way a passionate educator who seeks to instill just this sort of above-and-beyond-the-call-of-duty research in his students also vouches for him lends two voices to his defense. I sincerely hope that your questions are meant to be the sort of critical inquiry we expect from our students and not some reflexive attempt to de-legitimize our reporting of what it is frankly a rather disturbing act of surveillance that does not seem to be an example of productive, preemptive counter terrorism. Sincerely,
Dr. Brian Glyn Williams
Associate Professor of History
University of Massachusetts, Dartmouth