Sontag’s column was not merely non-jingoistic, but used the attack to condemn American policies without considering the idea that perhaps the people that did it simply murderers. As I said, criticising America’s foreign policy for pissing off the terrorists is like criticising a rape victim for dressing provocatively.
Her statements failed to condemn the people that did evil, while dwelling on criticising the actions of the victims before and after the act.
While we’re at it, her parenthetical assertion that courage is a “morally neutral value” is stupid as well.
I dont know about RickJay, but this apology for terrorism by Haroon Siddiqui did it for me. The title says it all: “It’s the U.S. foreign policy, stupid”.
Damn. The link doesn’t work. You must go to http://www.thestar.com/ and then click on columnists, then on Haroon Siddiqui, then on the editorial in question.
No it isn’t, and it won’t be no matter how many times you or anyone else says it. And you aren’t even saying it right anyway; the analogy you are looking for is to say a rape victim deserved to be raped because of the way she dressed, and I don’t see * anyone * saying that we deserved to be attacked in the way we were.
What she is saying, in a less apologetic, eggshell-walking way than is being said around here, is that it is dishonest and wrong for us to claim that we are perfect and wonderful, and there is no legitimate reason that anyone would hate us, and any hate they do have for us amounts to nothing more than jealousy. That’s ridiculous as well as being profoundly unhelpful. And it is NOT the same as saying that any such hate should be expressed by killing innocent people.
But again…go to that other 5 page thread for that conversation.
And by the way, I don’t know what you think you meant by “simply murderers” but I disagree with that statement as well. Murder isn’t really all that simple in any case, and it is definitely not simple when it involves 20 men who are knowingly going to their deaths to take out as many thousands of others as they possible can in the process. That isn’t “simple murder”.
No. That’s precisely why I’m not using that analogy. Don’t claim that I am trying to say something I’m not. I can choose my words on my own to express my feelings.
People can act in ways that increase the likelihood that they will become victims. Sontag, in this case, focuses on demonstrating that the US acted in a way that some evil people thought merited the murder of 6400 US citizens. I think it is absurd to even consider acts of terrorism as making the terrorists point about our foreign policy.
The world is a large place, with several billion people in it. The US is a country whose actions are felt around the world. Of course we are going to piss people off. To take the fact that people are pissed off at the US as evidence that the US has acted incorrectly is stupid, because there is no way to not piss anyone off.
There is a case to be made that the US acted wrongly in its foreign policy. There is a case to be made that the US should have acted exactly as Osama bin Laden would have liked. A case I’d disagree with, but it could be made.
The murderers that took control of those planes did not make that case. The murder of innocent Americans in mass numbers is not a logical argument in favor of changing US foreign policy. To use last Tuesday’s actions as the starting point for making the terrorists case about US foreign policy is callous, opportunistic, and not logically valid.
They killed people, maliciously and on purpose. The circumstances of how they did it don’t change the moral aspect of taking human life.
“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.”
Is this really worthy of contempt?
Rick, I think you misunderstood Sontag. She didn’t say the terrorists’ acts were “appropriate.” Nor did she commend their bravery. She wrote:
“In the matter of courage (a morally neutral virtue): whatever may be said of the perpetrators of Tuesday’s slaughter, they were not cowards.”
Her point seems to be that “Tuesday’s slaughter” was morally reprehensible, but that morally reprehensible acts are not necessarily cowardly. Deeds may be evil but not cowardly. What were described as “cowardly” attacks on “liberty” were actually politically motivated attacks on the citizens of the world’s most powerful nation. That’s what Sontag’s saying though, in doing so, she’s not saying that they were any less wrong or horrible for all that.
Sontag’s position may seem debatable or even downright wrong to people who have never been deeply angered, shamed or depressed by some US policies in the middle east and elsewhere. But it should not be mistaken for a defense of terrorist acts; nor for a statement of thousands of New Yorkers “deserving” to die. There is a very clear distinction between condoning, justifying or commending terrorism (which Sontag definitely does not do), and lamenting the unreadiness of many to discuss the roots of anti-American sentiments (which are experienced by people around the world who don’t themselves condone or participate in terrorism).
I have to agree with Sontag that “a few shreds of historical awareness” would help us to be wise and just as well as strong at a time like this.
waterj2*“To use last Tuesday’s actions as the starting point for making the terrorists case about US foreign policy is callous, opportunistic, and not logically valid.”*
But Sontag isn’t “making the terrorists’ case” about US policy. She is making her own case about US policy, and, even more, about the need to think about history at a time like this.
I think that except for self-defense, it is never justified to beat the shit out of somebody. It just isn’t. Ever. But if someone I knew decided to beat the shit out of me one day, I’d wanna know why. It doesn’t mean I would think it was ok for them to do so. It doesn’t mean I wouldn’t want redress for the wrong they had done me.
I can recognize that someone has behaved badly without thinking that they did so out of the blue. If someone I know personally beats me up, they probably have a reason. Maybe it’s a bad reason, maybe it’s a good one. I’d like to know what it is either way. And by good reason, I mean only that they have a legitimate beef with me, not that their means of dealing with it was acceptable. And if someone has a legitimate beef with me, their bad behavior does not mean I have not behaved badly myself.
Well, same thing here, on a big, fat, deadly scale.
Listen, mandelstam, you may have a registration here at the SDMB that gives you license to post on these boards - but you don’t have a license to be stupid. Your interpretation of Sontag’s message is wrong.
Here’s why. My first sentence, above, is clearly a gratuitous insult. But is it? All I said was, “…you don’t have a license to be stupid.” That’s true, is it not? No one has a “license to be stupid” - if they issued such licenses, Lord knows I’d be in line for license #1. So, technically, the words are not incorrect, and should not be taken as an insult… right?
Of course not - because that’s not how people communicate. People communicate through context, tone, and shared awareness as well as through words. It’s clear that Sontag’s tone was conciliatory towards the terrorists; while she is correct, for example, to call courage a “morally neutral” quality, in pointing this out in this way, she seems to suggest that maybe these guys weren’t all that bad.
My experience in writing letters to the editor suggests that a four hundred word discourse on this subject would have little chance of seeing print; I therefore chose in my letter to highlight a summary of my ire towards her column, rather than prove it piece by piece. The fact remains, though, that as Marge Schott taught us, if you’re going to compliment Hitler, you need to be crystal clear about what you’re saying. Sontag was not, and she’s professional enough to have left that ambuguity by design, not accident.
Rick
PS - As I hope was clear, the first sentence of my post was made for purely illustrative reasons - I think you’re very sharp.
Those words couldn’t get much smoother:
seems
suggests
maybe
weren’t bad
Sorry, but I can’t be that gentle. Ms. Sontag flat out defended them from others who called them “cowards”. She pointed out their reasons, implying if not actually stating that their actions were rational and acceptable.
Ms. Sontag’s writing was reprehensible and I only hope she feels the hot ire of the public and is removed from this position where she can continue to disperse lies and traitorous propoganda.
This is just silly. Everyone is unanimous in condemning the bombings? Uh, yeah.
And check out the words. “Rhetoric”. “reality-concealing”. “Sanctimonious”. “Spouted”.
So condemning the bombings is spouting sanctimonious reality-conceality rhetoric? Or is it saying we should hunt down the people who did this?
Susan Sontag hates America, and this quote proves it. We made the terrorists mad, and then we have the NERVE to complain about it when they bomb us! A MATURE democracy would understand! A MATURE democracy would never do things to make people mad!
Again, Bill, I think you’re missing the point of Sontag’s remarks with regard to cowardice. Her goal wasn’t “defend” poor terrorists against meanspirited charges of cowardice. Her point was to criticize the media and our government for portraying this mind-numbing mass murder in a manipulative light.
Her point was that when we’re asked to view the terrorists as cowardly haters of freedom and humanity we remain in a state of denial about what their acts meant to them. And, as a result, we remain in ignorance about what that might mean for us.
Were the terrorists monstrous fanatics who committed mass murder against innocent people from all over the world? In my view–yes, of course, and nowhere do I see Sontag suggesting otherwise. But there’s a reason why they chose to level their hatred against the symbols of American financial and military power; there’s a reason why they chose the US rather than, say, Switzerland or Belgium which are also prosperous Western democracies with a secularist outlook.
Don’t misunderstand me: none of these reasons exonerate terrorism, or justify terrorism–much less turn suicidal mass murders into heroes. But what they do do is embed these terrible acts in historical and political contexts that we as Americans have a need to discuss and debate amongst ourselves. Sontag asks us to do precisely this; she does not ask us to forgive or hallow terrorists, or–heaven forbid–to believe that innocent New Yorkers (Sontag’s own neighbors) died b/c they had it coming.
Rick: “It’s clear that Sontag’s tone was conciliatory towards the terrorists”
I really don’t see that Rick. What I read in Sontag is despair over the media’s foreclosure on honest assessment of our nation’s policies. As I said above, for me the distinction is extremely clear.
Listen, I nearly lost someone very dear to me on September 11. I grew up in New York City in full sight of the World Trade Center. I am still sickened by the loss of life, still shocked by the unreality of it, still hoping to wake up from a nightmare. In these respects, I’m willing to bet, there is very little if any difference between you and me and Sontag.
But I believe with Sontag that Americans need to think about their government’s role in the 21st century as the world’s only remaining superpower. Here’s the thing. If you had asked me on September 10: “Do you think that American foreign policy is just, wise and likely to minimize terrorist violence?” I would have said (sadly), “No.”
I can’t change that feeling just because this terrible thing has happened. And neither, I suspect, can Sontag.
Two points: #1) I am soooo sick of hearing how the terrorists were “brave”. They were not. They were cowards of the lowest order. To attack civilians, Unarmed civilians is the height of cowardice. Had they, say, taken up arms and attacked a military base, fine. I’d say they were idiots, but brave.
It ain’t brave if your target can’t fight back.
Or would you say rapists are brave for daring to risk horrible prison sentences to brutalize their (inevitably smaller and weaker) victims?
#2)
(emphasis, mine)
And I’d reply (happily) “Great! It’s wonderful that we aren’t giving into terrorists!”
Look, the question of “Is America’s foreign policy just and wise?” is open for debate and a topic I believe has lots of room for rational, well-thought-out discussion.
“Likely to minimize terrorist violence”? Th’ hell with that. I can’t think of one change I’d make to appease those murderers. Not one. And although I’ve asked this question multiple times, I’ve yet to get an answer: What changes would you personally have us make in our foreign policy to minimize terrorist violence? (be specific: no fair saying “I’d stop supporting corrupt governments”. Name countries, leaders, etc)
Would you withdraw all protection from Israel? Stop proping up the Egyptian/Israeli peace? Stop humanitarian aid to other nations?
I haven’t heard one single terrorist demand that I’m willing to even put on the bargaining table.
And if, while I was in the hospital after being beaten up, and someone had the gall to tell me that my attacker was brave, that he had a point, that I wasn’t handling the situation correctly, and used words such as “sanctimonious” and “reality-concealing” to describe my reaction to getting beaten up, I’d think that person was a jackass.
I did not see anywhere in the column, which seems to no longer be available online, where she uttered a single word that would imply that she had any opinion one way or the other about the morality of the terrorists. The only thing she says about them is that they were brave, but that that’s morally neutral.
The only party she passed moral judgement on was the US.
I haven’t said that she condones the terrorist attack. I haven’t said that she blames the US for it. But she does use it as an excuse to condemn America.
And I agree with Fenris that the aims of our foreign policy should not be to placate those most willing to perpetrate mass murder upon our citizens. That old “millions on defense, not one dime in tribute” attitude.
I’m not going to give you specifics because the topic has been discussed in several threads (the Beirut camp massacres, the impact of Iraq of the no-fly zones, the Israel-Palestinian question, etc.) around the board. Nor is it relevant, IMHO, because “one single thing” wouldn’t “appease” them. However, all of those ‘reasons’ and much else besides trace back to two things:
Israel
On-going protection of the oil fields.
From those 30-50 year old Foreign Policy building blocks, (the perception or reality - take your pick of) US Foreign Policy has branched out, evolved with developments, impacted more widely and caused ever deepening resentment / hatred. Repeatedly, and over decades, or, more relevantly, generations.
If you want one single change, I’d plump for: (From the terrorist perspective and that of the wider Islamic society) Not impinging on, or trying to shape the lives of people, countries and religion, for your own national interest without regard to the consequences for those peoples or the affect it will have on their attitude towards you.
Commonly termed ‘Imperialism’.
And I’m not making any judgements, just trying to answer your question.
Fenris, I’m really too much of a lightweight to go toe-to-toe with your entire post.
I suspect you are falling into the Fallacy of the Unexcluded Middle (if that’s the name for it), here. The qualities of cowardice and bravery are not two sides of the same only-game-in-town coin. To say that a (particular) stinking murderous pigfuck is not a coward is not to say that such stinking murderous pigfuck is brave.
[/QUOTE] originally posted by Fenris** #2)
(emphasis, mine)
And I’d reply (happily) “Great! It’s wonderful that we aren’t giving into terrorists!”
Look, the question of “Is America’s foreign policy just and wise?” is open for debate and a topic I believe has lots of room for rational, well-thought-out discussion.
“Likely to minimize terrorist violence”? Th’ hell with that. I can’t think of one change I’d make to appease those murderers. Not one. And although I’ve asked this question multiple times, I’ve yet to get an answer: What changes would you personally have us make in our foreign policy to minimize terrorist violence? (be specific: no fair saying “I’d stop supporting corrupt governments”. Name countries, leaders, etc)
Would you withdraw all protection from Israel? Stop proping up the Egyptian/Israeli peace? Stop humanitarian aid to other nations?
I haven’t heard one single terrorist demand that I’m willing to even put on the bargaining table.
Fenris **
[/QUOTE]
To be candid, I couldn’t name a single terrorist demand, period. I don’t think anyone here has any ideas of placing any specific terrorist demand on any particular bargaining table.
That said, I really don’t believe that minimizing terrorism can be accomplished by acquiescing to terrorists’ demands. If terrorism can be minimized, it can only be done by: (1) interdicting the maximum possible number of terrorists/potential terrorists on the planet (I have my doubts whether this can be done at a price that will be other than ruinous for civilization), or (2) undercut the terrorists’ own desire to attack us. Look, the pigfucks on those airplanes were wrong, they were monstrous, and they did an atrociously evil thing. Do you honestly believe that they viewed themselves as evil? I’m here to tell you they didn’t. Not any more than I believe I am evil, even though I have not risen up in arms despite hopeless odds against a government that carries out policies which the pigfucks consider blasphemous and sacrilegious. But the pigfucks saw me as evil, I bet, for my complicity in blasphemy and sacrilege. Please note here, these guys were pigfucks, not because of what they believed, but because of what they did.
Perhaps it’s not doable, but a practice of crafting policies with at least the attempt to be sensitive to the fact that one nation’s interest is not the be-all and end-all to everyone affected by the policies, and recognizes that even those who oppose the policies do not view themselves as evil, may encourage people to recognize that we do not see ourselves as evil. If they achieve this insight, they will be equipped to begin to understand us. These are some of the properties I believe will necessarily be in a foriegn policy that is “wise and just,” and that’s the one I’m going to hold out for.
To add to this: The perception amongst Islamic Intellectuals (here in London) is that the people who perpetrated the 9/11 were a different kind of terrorist from before. In the past it was relatively easy to identify, to ‘profile’, the type of people who might do this: Young, often Palestinian, uneducated, oppressed, no expectations, Islamic fundamentalist…
The evidence from 9/11 (what we know of those particular terrorists) is that the ‘cause’ has now established itself amongst the professional, educated, married middle-classes – or at least among the radical elements of the middle classes.
The people who, one would think, had a lot to live for. That is a very serious development.
OK, I’m sick and tired of the “Imperialism” charge. How exactly is the US imperialistic in the Middle East? Oh, we support Israel. And we buy oil from lots of countries, and we have defended countries threatened by their neighbors. And we sell weapons to countries that are our allies. And we make lots of movies, TV shows, music, books, magazines and websites that people over their watch, listen to, and read.
Should we not allow people in the Middle East access to our popular culture? Should we impose a boycott on Middle East oil? Should we refuse to trade with Middle East countries? Should we refuse to help defend our allies?