F *@# You, Susan Sontag!

The BBQ Pit
21

Good Lord Wendell why are you taking this so personally? Sontag’s trademarked brand of withering social critique and contemptuous disdain for American proletarian values is hardly a newsflash. It’s kept her a busy little gadfly for some decades now.

Why are you so shocked that intelligent people would vehemently repudiate this perspective and question her motives and qualifications to make pronouncements on this issue, especially when over 6,000 of their countrymen lie buried under the remains of the WTC.

Americans are mentally hunkered down in survival mode at this point. What do you realistically expect at this juncture, some reasoned dialectic as to whether or not the hijackers might possibly have some justification for killing American civilians?

Sontag has the freedom to express her opinions and the SDMB members have the freedom to express theirs. If someone wants to attach her academic vitae to make a point about her seeming detachment from the current reality of the disaster for Americans (a point not without some merit I might add) this is not an attack on intellectualism, but on Sontag’s status as a professional academic critiquing Americans desire for “healing and confidence-building and grief management”.

I mean really Wendell look at this final paragraph of her statement.

"Those in public office have let us know that they consider their task to be a manipulative one: confidence-building and grief management. Politics, the politics of a democracy—which entails disagreement, which promotes candor—has been replaced by psychotherapy. Let’s by all means grieve together. But let’s not be stupid together. A few shreds of historical awareness might help us understand what has just happened, and what may continue to happen. “Our country is strong,” we are told again and again. I for one don’t find this entirely consoling. Who doubts that America is strong? But that’s not all America has to be.

—Susan Sontag "

She may have a valid point somewhere in there, but is it any wonder people are pissed with her given the condescending manner in which she expresses herself while people are grieving over the dead.

22

No need to do that when I can simply disagree with your ridiculous claim that ms. Sontag ever stated that “we deserved to get bombed”. Her article is short, so it should take but a moments effort for you to produce the offensive line.

23

Perhaps her views are founded on reverse-racism, I found the following quote:

“The white race is the cancer of human history. It is the white race and it alone–its ideologies and inventions— which eradicates autonomous civilizations wherever it spreads, which has upset the ecological balance of the planet, which now threatens the very existence of life itself.”

http://www.j-turner.com/mindsi/antien2.html

24

Why isn’t lobbing a cruise missle from miles away or bombing from high above considered cowardly, but when people irregard thier well being for thier cause is?

25

I think the idea of “cowardice” in the context of the WTC attack/bombing has less to do with the dictionary definition of coward and more to do with the choice of defenseless civilians as the targets of choice and the surprise attack with no warning which to many is a critical distinction. The US and it’s allies killed massive numbers of civilians in the attacks on Hiroshima, Nagasaki and Dresden but this occurred while in full declared war mode.

Possibly it is just a outdated western convention that civilian populations are not initally targeted without warning when no war is declared. We’re learning better all the time.

26

treis, here is a thread that attempts to explain this. There may be more. I don’t want to turn this thread into a “what is a coward” thread as it has been done before.

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=88291

27

Oh, treis, let me add that I appreciate the question and understand that it is part of my OP (Original Post).

28

Anthracite writes:

> Apparantly, Wendall, by saying you are singling out me
> you don’t have any problem with waterj2

I mentioned you because you posted the first anti-intellectual comment and because you asked who I was referring to. waterj2’s comment was equally bad. And why can’t you learn to spell my name? It’s Wendell. It’s right beside all of my posts.

Saying that you hate all liberal intellectuals because you don’t like the comments of one of them on the terrorist actions of September 11th is just as bad as saying you don’t like all Moslems or Arabs because of them. In fact, I find it even more scary. Some dunderhead who decides to beat up the Indian who owns the convenience store down the street because he’s mad about the bombings is at least trying to attack someone who (in his confused thoughts) has something to do with those actions. Yes, he’s so stupid he doesn’t realize that the store owner is Hindu and not Moslem, and, yes, he’s blaming all Moslems for something that only the tinest percentage of all Moslems are involved in, and, yes, even if most Moslems were involved in terrorism he would be wrong to take personal revenge on any one of them. But at least he was attacking a group that could be connected in some wildly convoluted way with the actions of September 11th.

But by attacking Sontag’s intellectual and academic credentials, you were doing something worst. What you said was as bad as what Falwell and Robertson were doing in blaming homosexuals, abortionists, and the ACLU for the terrorists. You are blaming all intellectuals for the actions of the terrorists, even though intellectuals have no more to do with the situation than homosexuals, abortionists, or the ACLU does.

And that certainly is what you did in your and waterj2’s early posts. You didn’t start by arguing the points in Sontag’s article at all. You started by talking about the degrees she had and the colleges she went to and the books she’s written. You were the one who gratuituously brought up the term “liberal intellectual elite.” You were the one who used the term “professional student.”

I take that a little personally. This is exactly the sort of opposition I had to go through to be able to go to college and grad school. Neither of my parents went to college and none of my grandparents went to high school. I grew up with people who told me that the best that any graduate of our high school could hope for was to go to a second-rate state university and come back to teach high school. They told me that my desire to go to a top college and eventually get a Ph.D. made me a snob and a traitor. They wondered why I spent so many years in college and grad school (and probably thought of me as a professional student). I spent those years scraping through on a very small budget for a good reason. If I hadn’t gotten those degrees I would be back in my small town with some crummy little job.

And I’m proud to be an intellectual. I’m proud that I read a lot of books and magazines. Are some intellectuals jerks? Of course. Some people are jerks. Still, the only way to learn about the world outside your own narrow perspective is to read about it.

That’s why you and waterj2 scare me. When you start attacking intellectuals, I know that I’m next. Soon there’ll be some thug saying, “Hey, let’s beat up that little four-eyed bookworm Wendell Wagner. How dare he go to some fancy college and get some fancy degree? How dare he own so many books? Them intellectuals are all snobs and traitors.”

astro writes:

> Good Lord Wendell why are you taking this so personally?

I’m not addressing Sontag’s article at all. I don’t even think it’s worth the time to read. I’m only addressing Anthracite and waterj2’s attacks.

29

Sigh…for the love of god Wendell read the article. Regardless of whatever merits her point of view might have, her snotty, condescending tone throughout is the key to this entire issue as to why peoples hackles are up and why some perceive her (rightly or wrongly, fairly or unfairly) to be a clueless, ivory tower “elite” pissing on the fallen.

This is not some compartmentalized ad hominem attack on intellectualism. It’s a grievance against a specific intellectual who is being extremely provocative at a time when people are trying to recover from the shock of loss.

30

I was specifically attacking the view that intellectuals inherently have more valid opinions than the rest of us. I see that view as underlying the arrogance I see in Sontag’s writing.

Sontag’s credentials were mentioned because Anthracite and I see believe that while advanced degrees from prestigious institutions are nice, they don’t automatically confer upon the holder any moral authority to tell the rest of us what we should think. We also believe that by focusing exclusively on academic training one can become isolated from the real world, which is a problem when one makes a career out of telling the real world what to think. It is people like Sontag that create the stereotype of intellectuals issuing judgements from ivory towers.

Or, to grossly simplify, we see Sontag as saying “you people who think the terrorists are cowards are wrong, I know the real truth because I’m more educated than the rest of you.” And our response is not really one of hatred, but rather more like “Bwaaaahahahaha.”

No one said they hate all liberal intellectuals. Stop putting words in other people’s mouths.

Actually, my first post addressed her points. I compared her argument to blaming rape victims.

Anthracite’s post listed Sontag’s credentials and rhetorically asked

No one said anything of the sort.

I said that the opinion that the victims deserved it allows evil to fester in the world. In case I wasn’t being clear enough for you, that wasn’t implicating Sontag or anyone else in anything. However, she seemed to be rationalizing evil in the same manner that Osama bin Laden’s supporters do.

Her position that the attack was “an attack on the world’s self-proclaimed superpower, undertaken as a consequence of specific American alliances and actions” is more or less the position of Iraq and the Taliban. She sees an evil act committed, and lets the evildoers off the hook. This is morally wrong in my book, and doing this (in the general sense) helps the causes of evil.

No one said anything about intellectuals in general, merely stupid “intellectual” pundits whose impressive education has not prevented them from being complete and total idiots. And even though we have expressed revulsion towards these people, no one has even suggested violence, or even mentioned hating them.

The only comparison with you is that you profess to be a bookworm, and yet persist in reading things into our posts that aren’t there.

31

I apologize for not spelling your name correctly. It’s not intentional.

Wendell Wagner, you will recall I asked you for some very specific information. Please respond:

  • Where have I been, in your own words, “vent(ing) your spleen on all Moslems or all Arabs” Answer me, Wendell.

No, that’s not what you said, Wendell, and I quoted it several posts above. Two choices, Wendell, pick one - show where I attacked Moslems and/or Arabs. or retract. I’m not going to let you off on this. Proof or retraction, Wendell.

Wendell, if you’re going to keep implying that I am a racist, or ethnically prejudiced, or keep coming up with these funny little scenarios where people get beat up by me, you are about to reap an electronic shitstorm on this Board of unimaginable proportions. You really need to think about this.

Bullshit - now saying, and I quote myself:

…is akin in your book to “blaming all intellectuals for the actions of the terrorists”? Please show where I say, or imply that, Wendell. Put up or shut up, stop dancing around the question.

FTR, I wanted to be a professional student at one time. So stop putting words in my mouth, and try to listen to me instead, Wendell.

Oh yeah…we’re really scary. Me and waterj2 are just like Alex and his Droogs, right? :rolleyes:

(maybe I should start a round of “Singing in the Rain” now too, huh? :rolleyes: )

When you imply I am a racist, or attacking certain ethnic groups, and refuse to answer my questions, all based on a comment about how I don’t care what liberal intellectuals say, yes, I will respond back to you. Why should I not?

And did I say “intellectuals” with no qualification, Wendell? Did I? Please answer my direct, simple question. Yes or no, and provide a quote. Put up or shut up, Wendell.

Oh, sweet thundering Christ. You really don’t get it, do you? This last statement of yours is so insane I don’t even know how to properly respond to it. A little help?

32

Meanwhile, back at the subject at hand…
Bricker wrote

I did as well. Here’s my letter:

33

I was thinking Beethoven’s glorious Ninth might be more appropriate.

::singing::
“Freude schoner Gotterfunken,
Tochter aus Elysium,
Wir betreten feuertrunken,
Himmliche dein Heiligtum!
Deine Zauber binden wieder,
Was die Mode Streng geteilt;
Alle Menschen werden Bruder,
Wo dein sanfter Flugel weilt
…”
::collapses into paroxysms of agony::
Damn Ludovico method :mad:

34

It’s also the position of all those people who fault Clinton for limiting the nations “specific actions” to cruise missiles and assassination attempts. Do you really mean to imply that they too are terrorist sympathizers, or have you just not thought things through well enough to have an informed opinion ?

35

I’ve already informed the Toronto Star I will be cancelling my subscription for vile, pro-terrorist comment they’ve made. I guess I won’t be replacing it with The New Yorker.

36

Rickjay-

Which Star article are you referring to? (I’m not doubting you, I just want to read it for myself.)

37

No. Saying that Clinton could have prevented the attacks by eliminating the terrorists preemptively is not the same as saying that the attack was a response to specific US actions. I think it’s stupid to blame Clinton for not trying harder to eliminate bin Laden, but doing so is in no way sympathetic to the terrorists.

Neither.

38

In that case, what is your chain of reasoning from ms Sontag’s statements to your claim that she “sees an evil act committed, and lets the evildoers off the hook” ?

Your objection to her percieved “condescending tone” is hardly enough to warrant such wild accusations of immorality.

39

It will be so nice when people stop lumping together anything that isn’t “Rah-rah-sis-boom-bah-America-Rocks-Kill-The_soulless-fucks” as siding with the terrorists, or not being sufficiently grief-stricken, or even outright treason.

As Sontag herself said in that very column:

“The unanimity of the sanctimonious, reality-concealing rhetoric spouted by American officials and media commentators in recent days seems, well, unworthy of a mature democracy.”

If you want to understand or debate her point in this little commentary, resurrect Fenris’ “We don’t need to understand” thread in the Pit. Read xeno or matt_mcl or any number of others for a better understanding of what she’s saying.
Sigh…

40

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Wendell Wagner *

Consider these statements in relation to one another:
**

**

(emphasis added)

There’s a school of thought, Wendell, that holds education in high regard, a great gift that carries responsibility along with it. It isn’t particularly shocking when someone whose main sources of information are Jerry Springer and The National Enquirerer blurts out idiocies. Dismal–but not suprising.

The bar’s set higher for those with ample, formal, documented “mastery” of knowledge. The knife cuts both ways: greater gift, greater accountablity. Claiming the title of intellectual includes a burden along with the prestige. They have every possible resource to know better.

And no, it doesn’t matter a damn how ANYONE earned their erudition. Anti-intellectualism exists. Tough. So do a lot of other stupid prejudices that affect a lot of people. Either a life of the mind is worthwhile in itself or it isn’t.

Nailing an intellectual for writing crass stupidities isn’t an attack on the life of the mind. And it isn’t something that only other intelllectuals and academics can do, in suitably dignified, rarefied journals. It’s a perfectly legitimate means of holding the person accountable for their words in relation to the respect they claim for their learning.

I’m frankly flummoxed that you’re projecting this discussion as an attack on intellectualism and yourself personally over an article you blithely dismiss as “not worth reading”. What Sontag wrote was the whole point. It was published in a popular magazine based on her status AS an intellectual.

Veb