News

Egyptian Activists Kiss Soldiers and Riot Police, Strike Blows Against Tyrants Everywhere

One of the most powerful images of the last few days of upheavel in Egypt is that of an Egyptian women kissing a riot policeman.

There is something inexplicable and impenetrable which any state cannot touch—whether it be a divine monarchy, an oligarchical democracy, a dictatorship, whatever.

One single act has the potency to destroy a tyrant; if not actually, then at least by symbolic subversion. To be human is to watch that humanity continuously knocked down by suppression, and the act cuts right to the core of what it means to be human. To commit the act against the gradual, incremental sort of suppression is especially surprising, because a sudden takeover awakens nearly everyone, whereas the incremental sort is more accurately described as a sort of morphine drip—and to awaken from this, it seems, is far more difficult.

That is not to say that Egyptians were unaware of their station in the 30 years of Mubarack rule, but things were more or less functional for three decades, until the crisis of markets unveiled the illusion.  Tunisia was, naturally, instructive for the Egyptians as well.

Back to the act, though.

The symbolic act that can cripple tyrants overpowers the violent act.  It is so ordinary that most of us forget its innate potency.  With technology what it is, we can capture that moment and record it for all time.  Display it in every far-flung corner of the globe and it has the electromagnetic force of a nuclear blast.

The act is one human kissing another.

In the photo above, an older activist in Egypt kisses a riot policeman—a man she probably does not know, though whom she identifies as human and not some monstrous instrument of the state.  They say that the pen is mightier than the sword; but, this is not true.  It should be amended to “the symbolic act of love is mightier than the state.”  That this woman could sense the humanity in another human being wielded as an instrument, a weapon of the state, is far more powerful.

In that moment, the old women struck a blow to a regime: an act a thousand times more destructive than a bullet, a bomb or a molotov cocktail.  And the understanding is written on the soldier’s face.  He knows. He knows he was being asked by a tyrant to use force against his own people, and for no other reason than to preserve Mubarak’s power—a power preserved in part through U.S. aid.

It’s so perfect that it is beyond the power of words.  It is, as Plato says, something universal that need only be remembered instead of understood.  We know its power because we remember what is was from the shadowy recesses of our minds.  It is an illustration that our shared humanity transcends the idea of the state.

No state on Earth has that sort of power: the power to render the tyrant and the state symbolically extinct.

The meaning and power of this photo reach far beyond Egypt’s borders, though. Mubarak is a dictator, but ample evidence exists that representative democracies are simply an army of pencil-pushing, opportunistic Mubaraks who revel in their own corruption by virtue of the business interests with whom they conspire, backed by a military who will do their bidding.

But that Egyptian woman proved that soldiers, when turned loose on their own people, know who they are firing upon, and they will not do it: not for one tyrant nor a thousand tyrants in a parliament.  And what’s truly inspiring is that the Egyptian people have managed to do this all despite the U.S. government propping up Mubarak’s regime with billions of dollars in aid over the last 30 years.

Of course, it remains to be seen how the military and popular uprising will respond if Mubarak ultimately steps down, but for now that symbolic act of defiance is untouchable.

  1. January 30, 2011 at 3:18 am, Rcarcee said:

    There are a lot of assumptions going on in this article. No one know what is going on in another person’s mind. Please be a reporter and not a hypotheticalist.

    Reply

    • January 30, 2011 at 9:38 am, D. J. Pangburn said:

      Rcarcee,

      If you want reportage, there’s always Reuters and Associated Press, and dozens of other news sources.

      The above article is an editorial.

      If you don’t want an editorial, don’t read the article. Read Reuters or AP.

      Kindly,

      D. J.

      Reply

      • February 01, 2011 at 12:32 am, Mljk2me said:

        If it is an editorial, why does it say ‘news’ at the top of the article and mention it to be an editorial?

        Reply

        • February 02, 2011 at 10:49 pm, D. J. Pangburn said:

          Point taken.

          We don’t have an ‘Opinion’ or ‘Editorial’ category; but the piece is very much an editorial.

          DJ

          Reply

      • February 01, 2011 at 12:32 am, Mljk2me said:

        If it is an editorial, why does it say ‘news’ at the top of the article and mention it to be an editorial?

        Reply

      • February 01, 2011 at 12:32 am, Mljk2me said:

        If it is an editorial, why does it say ‘news’ at the top of the article and mention it to be an editorial?

        Reply

  2. January 30, 2011 at 4:45 am, Mvnoel said:

    Seriously. This article looks like it was written by a teenage girl for her high school newspaper’s opinion section. Do you guys honestly think people buy into commentary this weak in facts? That woman could easily be kissing her son. The picture isn’t clear at all whether she’s an activist or not. Honestly, it seems everyone on this website thinks because they give a shit they can write whatever the hell they want and be edgy or compassionate or whatever the hell is in these days.

    Relax. The person who waits to speak last usually has the most to say. Everybody feels like they need to say something, like they have to be heard. Can’t everyone just be quiet and allow themselves to listen? When everyone talks and no one listens, you get a world full of violence and poverty and an internet full of blogs and pundits.

    Reply

    • January 30, 2011 at 10:07 am, D. J. Pangburn said:

      Mvnoel,

      I guess I’m confused on two points (both related):

      1) If you think there’s so much noise going on vis a vis the Egypt reportage and commentary, what are you reading articles on Egypt for in the first place? Seems rather counter-intuitive to what appears to be your entire philosophy on civilization.

      2) For someone who believes there should be less written commentary on news, you sure seem to have a deep need to post your thoughts in the Comments section. Another contradiction.

      The internet is a marketplace, yes?

      You don’t have to read articles at Death + Taxes nor offer up commentaries on the commentaries. It’s quite brilliant actually… You kill two birds with one stone: You shut out the noise, so you can better passively ‘listen’ to the world; and you don’t contribute to the noise either.

      Kindly,

      DJ

      Reply

    • January 30, 2011 at 10:09 am, D. J. Pangburn said:

      Mvnoel,

      I guess I’m confused on two points (both related):

      1) If you think there’s so much noise going on vis a vis the Egypt reportage and commentary, what are you reading articles on Egypt for in the first place? Seems rather counter-intuitive to what appears to be your entire philosophy on civilization.

      2) For someone who believes there should be less written commentary on news, you sure seem to have a deep need to post your thoughts in the Comments section. Another contradiction.

      The internet is a marketplace, yes?

      You don’t have to read articles at Death + Taxes nor offer up commentaries on the commentaries. It’s quite brilliant actually… You kill two birds with one stone: You shut out the noise, so you can better passively ‘listen’ to the world; and you don’t contribute to the noise either.

      Kindly,

      DJ

      Reply

      • January 30, 2011 at 6:31 pm, Mvnoel said:

        1) For someone who’s trying to listen, for someone who is trying to figure out what’s really going on in the world, I read articles on Egypt. As Thomas Fowler in The Quiet American says, “Isms and ocracies. Give me facts.” I don’t want speculation, I want analysis. There is a marked difference between the two. This is speculation. I’m guessing you’re not an Egypt expert.

        2) Just trying to help you out DJ. Not that there should be less written commentary, but better written commentary. This just isn’t up to snuff Pangburn. It’s speculation. I think this is a good example of how someone’s ideals for the world has shaped their view of reality. Be careful of “isms and ocracies.” Facts.

        You’re having the best of intentions in writing commentary here just does not excuse the lack of depth of insight in this article. Seriously. I stand by my comment that this is high school shit.

        Reply

        • January 30, 2011 at 6:53 pm, D. J. Pangburn said:

          I was analyzing the symbolic value of the photo, Mvnoel. Nothing more. If this is something you can’t handle, then you shouldn’t be reading the article at all. You gave your opinions, and that is mine.

          A lot of other people have understood the symbolic intent of the piece. Now, I understand your objections, I do, but only inasmuch as it would be relevant if it were purely reportage or commentary such as, “And so it seems the Egyptians will finally have their democracy”; which, as you know, as the type of writing you’ll found in over 20,000 articles and counting on Google News, everywhere from the Washington Post to the Salt Lake Tribune, surprisingly.

          You have a wealth of options from which to choose. I’m not forcing you to read my articles. I’ve disliked many dozens of articles on Egypt and refrained from jumping on Comments section to voice my opinion, because it’s a waste of my time.

          I was not after a commentary like Keith Olbermann or Bill O’Reilly, nor any of the thousands of pieces staff writers for other publications have served up. That doesn’t interest me. That’s not to say that’s what you were expecting when you read my piece.

          “You’re having the best of intentions in writing commentary here just does not excuse the lack of depth of insight in this article. Seriously. I stand by my comment that this is high school shit.”

          That’s your right. You can’t please everyone, no? If I failed you, I can live with that. So… there you have it.

          Thanks for your criticism.

          Kindly,

          DJ

          Reply

          • January 30, 2011 at 6:54 pm, D. J. Pangburn said:

            And I stand by my first response to you.

            DJ

        • January 31, 2011 at 1:38 am, Hotpoet66 said:

          Wow. I don’t know where you went to High School, but you obviously did not learn critical thinking skills or what exactly analysis is, had you learned these things, who knows, you might find enjoyment reading a piece like this.

          Reply

  3. January 31, 2011 at 12:53 am, Peter Sabol said:

    Wonderful!

    Reply

  4. January 31, 2011 at 12:04 pm, Natasha Ch said:

    It is his mother. When he realised his mother was among the anti-government protests he stopped and she came to kiss him. You wont find a hijabbed old woman kissing a stranger on the cheek :)

    Reply

  5. February 03, 2011 at 9:16 pm, Guest said:

    The best part about a picture, is that it can be described however you see fit. No one knows who the woman is, just like they will put a small poor Palestinian wounded child and say that the child suffered from a Israeli attack. Not mentionning that this child could have been placed in this situation by his own relative or a friend. Same with numerous pictures of Lenin on the boat avoiding to be inprisoned by tsarist army. It was taught that Lenin had to run, not to be arrested, but in reality he went abroad to get laid and drunk. Nice, how picture can be interprated to fit the agenda. So, now who truly knows who this woman is and what is the agenda behind it. Could it be a mother, relative, friend. Sure, but no, it is easier to have this description that will make you sound mature and more human then the rest of us. Pathetic. Here is a picture, we have a problem, but every things they know how to deal with it.

    Reply

  6. February 03, 2011 at 9:16 pm, Guest said:

    The best part about a picture, is that it can be described however you see fit. No one knows who the woman is, just like they will put a small poor Palestinian wounded child and say that the child suffered from a Israeli attack. Not mentionning that this child could have been placed in this situation by his own relative or a friend. Same with numerous pictures of Lenin on the boat avoiding to be inprisoned by tsarist army. It was taught that Lenin had to run, not to be arrested, but in reality he went abroad to get laid and drunk. Nice, how picture can be interprated to fit the agenda. So, now who truly knows who this woman is and what is the agenda behind it. Could it be a mother, relative, friend. Sure, but no, it is easier to have this description that will make you sound mature and more human then the rest of us. Pathetic. Here is a picture, we have a problem, but every things they know how to deal with it.

    Reply

Add New Comment

Showing 17 comments
Subscribe by RSS