this is something i wrote in response to the latest comment in my friend grass's livejournal. i am thinking of cleaning it up and sending it into the new yorker. ;)
his post:
In this week's New Yorker the Talk of The Town column is a collection of essays examining the recent events.
It's encouraging to see some are asking the hard questions.
Susan Sontag asks:
"The disconnect between last Tuesday's monstrous dose of reality and the self-righteous drivel and outright deceptions being peddled by public figures and TV commentators is startling, depressing. The voices licensed to follow the event seem to have joined together in a campaign to infantilize the public. Where is the acknowledgment that this was not a "cowardly" attack on "civilization" or "liberty" or "humanity" or "the free world" but an attack on the world's self-proclaimed superpower, undertaken as a consequence of specific American alliances and actions?"
There is hope, but we all have to take responsibility for the actions of our elected leaders. Don't be silent, speak up and have your voice heard.
Change will have to start with tolerance and understanding, this is a good place to start.
http://www.tolerance.org/
my reply:
that is an excellent question. i have always loved susan sontag. however, (and you knew i had to comment) i take issues with a few things in her statement.
first of all... out of curiosity, though 'American alliances and actions' have had some effect on the terrorist's reasoning (um, isn't that an oxymoron?), wouldn't you think that that wouldn't be the only explanation? i mean, the PLO isn't flying planes into the world trade centers, and out of all of the middle eastern countries, they are the ones who should take the most affront to our 'alliances'. lebanon isn't flying planes into the pentagon, and our 'actions' there have been deplorable at times.
actually... deplorable: on the grand scale of things, as defined by the event that occured on the 11th, our actions as a 'superpower' have been but a penny in a terrorist bank worth millions.
also, i don't like the way the media spins things anymore that you (or susan) does; however, i think she is putting a spin of her own on this one. a phrase such as "cowardly" attack on "civilization" is truthful in my opinion.
i find the use of the word 'cowardly' appropriate in these circumstances because it was an attack on civilians, and because the perpetrators hide in caves and dictator controlled governments that slaughter their own people on a daily basis. no organization would 'claim responsibility' for this. that makes them cowardly, in my book.
as far as it being an attack on 'civilization', any nation that is part of the civilized world abhors this. the ones who tolerate it don't allow their citizens access to television, music, or even kite flying. they cut off women's fingers for wearing nail polish or throw acid on their face for wearing make up. that, to me, is the antithisis of civilization. it is barbaric.
yes, it is true that america was targeted for a reason. and it is also true that our military personel in saudi arabia, and our alliance with israel might have been factors in our targeting. but mostly, the terrorists don't want westerners on muslim land. and since america went to war with iraq to liberate kuwait, america takes the wrap for foreign presence on islamic soil. western culture, in and of itself, goes against everything terrorists believe in; in fact, it is the very thing they seek to destroy. america is the leader of western culture. therefore, we are targeted. when you are playing chess, would you bother taking out a pawn if you had a shot at the queen? of course not.
i agree with our alliance to israel. i don't agree with the fact that we walked away from afghanistan after using them as a pawn in our cold war game with russia. if our nation learns anything from this, i hope that we understand that our actions, especially being ones of a 'superpower', carry with them an inherent responsibility to alleviate any havoc we might have wreaked on innocent parties, such as afghanistan. we can't keep leaving things undone once our own interests have been served.
however, that does not, in any way, imply that we deserved what occured on the 11th. and perhaps that's what offends me the most about comments like ms. sontag's. the implication that you reap what you sow is grossly simplistic, arrogant, and incorrect.
that mentality boils down to this kind of sentiment: 'see, i told you, you trigger-happy biggots. now that you know what it feels like to live in a third world middle eastern country, won't you just simmer down about all those lives lost, and start utilizing your powers like they should have been used all along: by airlifting food to afghanistan? i mean, come on, now... haven't you learned your lesson? forget about bin laden and the taliban... can't we all just get along?'
i do understand that that is not nearly the point susan sontag is making. but it seems to be an underlying thought process woven within. and that makes the credibility of her basic statement wane, in my eyes.
i am young (twenty four), and still have a sense of innocence when contemplating the world on the whole, although aspects of my government and human nature have begun to cultivate twinges of jaded cyniscism within me. i am as liberal as they come, on most things. i am extremely partial to environmental issues, freedom of speech, and the like. i am against the death penalty because i don't believe it should be up to a court of law to decide which murders warrant a sentence of death, and which murders can be bought off by good connections among society and a pricey lawyer. i believe in federal funding of birth control and/ or abortion clinics, because i have seen one too many women in line at the grocery store ahead of me, talking about creating another human being simply so they can acquire a boost on their welfare check.
reguardless of whether life ends up handing me rose tinted glasses or a tumble into some existential abyss, i believe i will always hold one tenant as tantamount to the foundation of my political beliefs: i have a serious problem with laws governing the existence or exstinguishment of human beings. i take the supreme value of life into consideration first in all things: politics, religion, and the like. one should exersize extreme wisdom, deliberation, and caution when deciding to bestow it, or eradicate it.
so to hear someone suggesting, however slightly, that what occured on the 11th was understandable, even in the slightest, is severely disturbing to me. this isn't about cause and effect. it's about mass murder.
12:51 a.m. - 2001-09-24
Recent entries:
cliffhanger - 2005-11-12
Mary - 2005-02-08
Border - 2004-07-26
Propaganda - 2004-02-20
Lifer - 2003-12-05
My profile
Archives
Notes
Diaryland
Random
RSS
others:
dlove
barbylon
cockywrds
dearcynthia
brotherjacob
nevarren
girlhero
thenshesaid
trythisfix
tomfoolery
trhdes
queenkelly
epiphany
trillion