We're number one.
We're also, judging by the national discourse, racist and proud of it. We're also stupid and proud of it. We're also mean and proud of it.
I think if one were to honestly review American history, it would be revealed that we have always tended at least toward racist, stupid meanness. But at least, for most of our history, we had the decency to be ashamed of it.
Wednesday, October 21, 2009
Monday, January 19, 2009
The War on Dreams
Words matter. This is, of course, especially true when one is speaking, or writing, or in some way using words to convey an idea. But it is also the case that words inform our thinking. So using words badly leads to thinking badly.
"The war on terror". Who came up with that, and why? Probably they knew what they were doing and didn't want people thinking too hard about what they were really talking about. "Terror" is, of course an emotional response. To what? Sometimes nothing (think "night terrors"). To wage war on terror is like waging war on panic, or euphoria, or nausea. The war on terror might as well be a war on dreams.
So what did they mean, those people who came up with "war on terror". Maybe they meant "war on terrorism", but that, too, is fraught with problems. Terrorism is a tactic. War on "terrorism" is akin to war on "aerial bombardment". That is, it's a rhetorical devise, at best. People trying to eliminate the use of land mines might be said to be "at war with land mines" but that misses the point of what they do. So what is a "war on terrorism"? It could be a war on "terrorists", but that, again, is problematic. Consider John and Samuel (especially Sam) Adams. Clearly they were, by the standards of today and their own time as well, terrorists. Consider Nelson Mandela. Perhaps our war with terrorists is more nuanced than the name would imply. That's likely; wars are usually nuanced, except for those in the cross hairs.
George Bush, Dick Cheney, Condeleeza Rice, they knew what they were doing. If they were to use the words more carefully, more meaningfully, more precisely, it would be clear that what we have is a "criminal" matter, not a "military" one. Terror is a natural emotion for humans (and probably other animals). We can't get rid of it. Sure, we can declare war on it but nothing will change. Terrorism is a valid military tactic and can be no more eradicated than "seize and hold" can. Likewise, terrorists can not be eradicated, else who would exericize the (valid) tactic of terrorism? So we're left with "crime". But we can't say that war on crime is new. We've been at war with crime for centuries. That's what crime means! If we go after crime, then an (yes, let's just say it) Arab student who is in the US legally, who says horrible things about American policy, or American values, or American people is completely within his rights. We cannot prosecute him. We must not restrain him. He has commited no crime.
But what about those plotting to commit crimes in a country where it isn't a crime to do so? Must we wait until those plotters come to the US and execute their plan? Well, consider how we might know that they are in that country and planning their crimes. Do we have some sort of relationship with the host country? Do we have spies? Can we know when the intended perpetrators leave, where they go? It's the same as if they were planning to come to the US to commit a "more benign" mass murder - how would we stop them? How would we know beforehand? That's why we have courts. That's why we have laws. That's why we have police.
"The war on terror". Who came up with that, and why? Probably they knew what they were doing and didn't want people thinking too hard about what they were really talking about. "Terror" is, of course an emotional response. To what? Sometimes nothing (think "night terrors"). To wage war on terror is like waging war on panic, or euphoria, or nausea. The war on terror might as well be a war on dreams.
So what did they mean, those people who came up with "war on terror". Maybe they meant "war on terrorism", but that, too, is fraught with problems. Terrorism is a tactic. War on "terrorism" is akin to war on "aerial bombardment". That is, it's a rhetorical devise, at best. People trying to eliminate the use of land mines might be said to be "at war with land mines" but that misses the point of what they do. So what is a "war on terrorism"? It could be a war on "terrorists", but that, again, is problematic. Consider John and Samuel (especially Sam) Adams. Clearly they were, by the standards of today and their own time as well, terrorists. Consider Nelson Mandela. Perhaps our war with terrorists is more nuanced than the name would imply. That's likely; wars are usually nuanced, except for those in the cross hairs.
George Bush, Dick Cheney, Condeleeza Rice, they knew what they were doing. If they were to use the words more carefully, more meaningfully, more precisely, it would be clear that what we have is a "criminal" matter, not a "military" one. Terror is a natural emotion for humans (and probably other animals). We can't get rid of it. Sure, we can declare war on it but nothing will change. Terrorism is a valid military tactic and can be no more eradicated than "seize and hold" can. Likewise, terrorists can not be eradicated, else who would exericize the (valid) tactic of terrorism? So we're left with "crime". But we can't say that war on crime is new. We've been at war with crime for centuries. That's what crime means! If we go after crime, then an (yes, let's just say it) Arab student who is in the US legally, who says horrible things about American policy, or American values, or American people is completely within his rights. We cannot prosecute him. We must not restrain him. He has commited no crime.
But what about those plotting to commit crimes in a country where it isn't a crime to do so? Must we wait until those plotters come to the US and execute their plan? Well, consider how we might know that they are in that country and planning their crimes. Do we have some sort of relationship with the host country? Do we have spies? Can we know when the intended perpetrators leave, where they go? It's the same as if they were planning to come to the US to commit a "more benign" mass murder - how would we stop them? How would we know beforehand? That's why we have courts. That's why we have laws. That's why we have police.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)