F *@# You, Susan Sontag!

The BBQ Pit
61

Had Sontag written as clearly as concisely as you did, above, Mandelstam, I would have little beef with her column.

But we may simply have to agree to disagree. What I, and many others, took from her words was quite different than the rational - and accurate - view expressed above.

If this kind of disconnect occurred here, I would be inclined to ask the original poster to clarify his remarks. I suspect that Sontag may have a similar chance.

But there’s a crucial difference: in the main, this board is not populated by professional writers. Ms. Sontag, on the other had, boasts an impressive academic background, and makes her living as, among other things, a writer. As such, I hold her to a particularly high standard. When she writes something that lends itself to multiple interpretations, I have to believe, absent evidence to the contrary, that it is intentional.

There’s a Russian proverb that goes something like: “If tne people tell you you’re drunk - even if you’re sure you’re not, go lie down.” Here, I am not the only person to take from Ms. Sontag’s column a sense of those-guys-weren’t-so-bad and the-USA-is-partially-to-blame.

I have no doubt that you garnered a different impression, and I don’t doubt your reaction for a second. And were I the only one reacting so negatively… well, I’d take the Russians’ advice and go lie down.

But in light of the many reactions similar to mine… I might humbly suggest that I get to keep standing up, for now.

  • Rick
62

And that is the challenge. To try to understand if one’s perceptions are clouded by a reaction to the horrific event. And if they will prevent us addressing the fundamental problems and deal with them rather than trying to deal only with blind revenge. Mandlestam’s answers were truly masterful.

63

Excuse me, samclem - I don’t agree that my reactions are clouded. At best, I think my interpretation is as likely as mandelstam’s. My point is, though, that a professional writer does not create ambiguity accidentally.

mandelstam offers a benign reading of Ms. Sontag’s column. I - and many others - had a more negative reaction. I am suggesting that the existence of ambiguity is no accident – Ms. Sontag deliberately phrased her column to have a critical tone, even if the words, strictly speaking, lend themselves to both a benign and a critical interpretation.

That was the purpose of my “license to be stupid” business a few posts back. We communicate by tone as well as by words. Sontag’s tone, taken as a whole, were at best an embarrassment, and at worst a puerile and despicable display of support for the enemies of this country.

  • Rick
64

Not intending to take this thread to Cuba but as to your perspective I do have a question insofar as it is the hub around which a great deal of this argument swirls. As a “superpower”, despite our stated ideals and best intentions, we often have to make difficult realpolitik decisions as to where our best interests lie. These decisions are rarely perfect and will almost assuredly infuriate some group somewhere. I’m interested in your concept of a “just” foreign policy. What exactly does a does a just U.S. foreign policy entail vs the un-just way it is currently being implemented?

65

astro, this is a fair question and if you want to open a thread linked to this one in GD I will do my best to answer it. Otherwise, I’m content for you to think of me as agreeing with London_Calling’s remarks. Also you can search for my last 15 or so posts in various GD threads all of which have been on this theme (and have sometimes conisted in links to published articles).

Thanks very much for the kind words some of you offered.

66

Thanks ** Mandelstam **. I want to try to offer astro’s some kind of answer here so please feel free to disassociate yourself as I further extrapolate my ponderings.
The starting point, for me, is to acknowledge that the US is primarily a capitalist superpower (or, for the old-fashioned ‘Empire’) that supports it’s capitalist agenda with military muscle – pre-capitalist Empires did it 'tother way around i.e. military conquest followed by exploitation of the indigenous people / resources.

Put that together with the other key distinction between a late 20th century Empire and predecessors; universal suffrage i.e. democracy and we have a new ball game.

From those starting points, we may start to see that the key to any Empire at this point in history is it’s economic agenda (aka ‘Foreign Policy’ for the purposes of this question) and all that flows from that agenda as practiced in the name of the people for the people.

Now the tricky part. US Administrations suffer (in the view of some observers) for an apparent absence of a separation of powers – not as between Church and State but as between Corporations and State. The influence of corporate vested interests through, primarily, the electoral funding mechanism (and as manifest in the Lobby System), is seen to be disproportionate if measured against comparable democracies.

That Corporate input into the Executive influences, if not shapes, many Foreign Policy decisions. One could argue that the interests of Corporations and that of the electorate are one of the same (wealth creation, USA., Inc., etc.) however, naked Capitalism, left to it’s own devises, knows no morality.

In the mean time, the electorate – for whom the elected representatives are making decisions, at least in theory in a democracy - remain in the hands of those who provide information to the them about Policy i.e. Politicians and ‘media’ via the media.

Thus, if you have influence over political decision-making that may, or may not, be in the best interests of the electorate, it is handy to have a media that is also Corporate in character – "Three in the bed and the little one said “Hi, I’m George. Re-elect me”. The ability to actually write the headlines tends shape what it is the public know and their perceptions of what it is they know.

So, my response to the question ‘what is a just Foreign Policy’ would be to begin by reforming the electoral funding mechanism and to create an environment in which independent (non-Corporate) media can flourish. In other words, encourage greater accountability to the people for the actions committed in their name rather than…well what is currently the case.

At least then, any ‘morality’ that may be discerned in a Foreign Policy agenda is more representative of the people’s wishes.
And I don’t think the UK is perfect either. Just in case you were wondering.

67

Sorry, I forgot the inevitable link:

http://www.opensecrets.org/index.asp

68

This is the classic blame-the-victim argument, although I’m not suggesting that is the intent of kaylasdad99. How do you undercut the desire of a bully? Maybe through the criminal justice system when he finally goes too far, or maybe through psychotherapy. But it is wrong, in my view, for the victim (and the U.S. is the victin in this matter) to have to conform his behavior so as not to attract a bully. The bullied kid may learn how to defend himself; but that is not the same as conforming his behavior, and it is not the same as trying to “understand” what is going on in the mind of the bully.

That we should always endeavor to appreciate history and try and to understand why some hate us, of course. But it is one thing to hate us. It’s but another to kill us. If someone hates me, I want to know why. If someone bullies me, I don’t give a shit at their reason. It’s wrong.

69

Thank you, Fenris. I hadn’t been able to find the article before.

I won’t get into specifics, which have been addressed very well. I just want to say that Sontag’s repulsive, hate-filled garbage makes me sick to my stomach. Ugh!

70

Thank you for not suggesting that the blame-the-victim argument is my intent, because it isn’t. At the same time, I can’t help but feel that bringing a “bully” analogy into the discussion does little to advance the debate toward a greater understanding of each others’ views. I think it is perniciously simplistic, for one thing, and for another, it just seems to beg some idjit to
“blame the victim”, by cataloging policies that might appear to make a “bully” label fit the U.S.

[QUOTE]
Originally posted by King Rat
**

Please clarify. Do you not give a shit at their reason for “bullying”, or do you no longer give a shit at their reason for hating you? I maintain that knowing the reason for the hatred is still valuable, and perhaps even essential. I haven’t seen anybody I take seriously calling for understanding anything except the hatred.

71

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by kaylasdad99 *
**

If I hear through the grapevine that someone hates me, obviously I want to know why. What have I done? Is it a misunderstanding? This is a separate thing from being bullied. If I am bullied by someone in the schoolyard, I don’t give a shit what their reason was. Bullying me was wrong. The “reasons” of the bully are irrelevant to me, since it’s not my behavior that’s wrong, and I am under no obligation to conform my behavior to appease a bully. The bully’s reasons may be of relevance to the authorities when I file a complaint. The reasons the bully gives will no doubt be ridiculous (I don’t like the way his hair looked; I think he’s gay; I don’t like black people; ad nauseam). I know why I was bullied: I was an easy target. It was not my fault I was bullied. Do you really think that if you sat down with these terrorists before they committed thier horrific acts and said “I really want to understand why you hate the U.S?” that a rational discussion would have ensued? Like the bully with his “I just don’t like blacks,” the terrorist (if he even bothered to find you, as being from the West, worthy of replying to) would most likely spit out all kinds of hate speech, conspiracy theories, wild accusations, and unfathomable religious dogma. What on earth can we learn from that? That there are extremists in the world who don’t really give a damn about olive branches.

This begs the question: who should we be talking to to find out why we are so hated? Certainly not people whose stated goal is our destruction. All we will get is hate spewed at us. Fuck that. Through diplomacy and other efforts we can learn from OTHER people in the region who have a beef with us, may even hate us, or simply understand the culture and the nature of the people who do hate us.

72

King: “That we should always endeavor to appreciate history and try and to understand why some hate us, of course. But it is one thing to hate us. It’s but another to kill us. If someone hates me, I want to know why. If someone bullies me, I don’t give a shit at their reason. It’s wrong.”

Of course it’s wrong. Who is saying that the attacks weren’t wrong? Certainly not Sontag. I’ll go even further. Do you think that Susan Sontag–Jewish, feminist, New York intellectual Susan Sontag–is flacking for the fundamentalist Taliban? (The irony is that prior to all of this just about the only people who paid any attention at all to the Taliban were feminists.)

Again, please try to keep this distinction clear: to want to reconsider US policy is not a) to condone or justify terrorism or b) to capitulate to terrorist demands. In a case like ours, changes in policy are not only just, they’re also pragmatic. Or do you insist that the only defense against terrorism that you’ll accept is a violent one? (And if so, just how many friends and relatives of yours are on active duty in the armed forces right now?)

Here is an excellent link worth reading whether you agree with Sontag or not (it’s got lots of information on the Taliban and bin Laden).

http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20011008&c=3&s=hiro

73

I’ve already posted this in a GD thread, but thought I would re-post both excerpt and link here. The author is citing Michael Klare.

“In an article for Salon.com, [Klare] suggested that the United States indict Osama bin Laden and his associates as mass murderers and organize a multilateral campaign that pursues their capture as a criminal manner, not a war. Additionally, Klare would have the United States mount an effort to encourage influential Muslim clerics to condemn bin Laden as an enemy of true Islam. “To win over peace-minded Muslims to our side in this struggle,” Klare writes, “we will, of course have to show greater sympathy for their concerns.” That is, recognize context and revisit U.S. policy in the Middle East – not to appease bin Laden (who cannot be appeased) but to construct a coalition that can help us achieve justice without a war that could create new set of problems, such as civilian casualties, instability in important nations, and greater antipathy toward the United States. Klare’s strategy might even be less likely to stir further terrorism than a heavy-handed military-oriented approach.”

Source: http://www.tompaine.com/opinion/2001/09/21/3.html

74

King, I didn’t notice at first that you live in NYC. I just wanted you to know that I can imagine how infinitely hard it must be.

75

Mandelstam Good posts. I appreciate it. I’m not quite ready to let Sontag off the hook yet, but she is starting to take so much flak for her column that I’m almost starting to feel sorry for the wretched woman. A new New Yorker (my family has had a subscription for as long as I can remember) has since come out sans letters section. I can only guess what they will publish next week.

76

Saw Sontag on some cable channel pushing a book or something. She was asked about this column which apparently (imagine that) drew a lot of fire. Her reaction was as despicable as her column in my opinion. She said that she was in the same category as Hillary Clinton, that people disagree with her for the sake of disagreeing with her. “If I said the sky was blue, they’d disagree”.

Nonono, no need to apologize for defending hell-bound fiends while the bodies were still warm. The complainers couldn’t possibly have had a point; isn’t the blue sky obvious. Another one of those vast right-wing conspiracies.

Those NewYorkers never did acknowledge my letter, but then I didn’t really expect them to.

77

That’s right Bill. The NewYorker can’t let it get out that someone disagrees with an article they published. It would ruin them.

78

What would compound the 9/11 tragedy, I think, is a reaction that refuses self-examination. Condemning the attacks is obviously the only sensible thing to do. However, declaring that changing US foreign policy is “letting the terrorists win,” as I’ve heard time and time again, is indeed sanctimonious. I am not suggesting change in order to appease terrorists. Rather, I would recommend that America take this opportunity to reassess the justice and ethical content of its own actions. In that way America can indeed emerge stronger from this catastrophe.

I don’t think such a shell-shocked nation can be blamed for reacting the way it did. I just think that at some point America will have to reconcile with itself and with the rest of the world, and define for itself a truly ethical foreign policy.

This isn’t a matter of blame-the-victim logic or anything else. It’s a matter of sitting down and trying to figure out what the U.S. can do to improve the world. The country has a fantastic opportunity to do so now.

79

Eternal wrote

To perhaps clarify: I sent them a letter on the subject (posted earlier in this thread as well), and never neard back with any sort of response, even a form “thanks for writing” letter. I’ve written plenty of letters to the editor of various publications (and seen several published as well), and always I get some sort of response, generally even some level of indication that it was actually read and comments on it’s contents. Not this time.

My comment wasn’t that my letter was buried in fear (obviously that’s ridiculous); my comment was that it was rudely ignored.

80

Hey Bill H, The New Yorker printed exactly ONE letter in response to Sontag’s diatribe, so don’t feel too bad that yours wasn’t picked. The letter they printed basically just said that Sontag was incorrectly defining courage. The letter writer invoked Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics. I don’t have a copy of the letter. I’m no expert on philosophy. Here are a couple of quotes from a couple of websites.

http://www.utm.edu/research/iep/a/aris-eth.htm

I know that the letter writer was saying that Sontag is in error when she stated that the terrorists “weren’t cowards”. I’m sure that there is some poster out there who can prove this using Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics; I just don’t know enough about it.