[lit-ideas] Re: Victor Hanson in Iraq
- From: "Lawrence Helm" <lawrencehelm@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2006 23:00:28 -0800
Andreas,
In one of the paradigms used to explain this modern world, Samuel P.
Huntington breaks it down into well-known segments called ?Civilizations.?
What you propose is not a world-explaining paradigm, Andreas. The Muslim
world is a Civilization and opposing it does not comprise racism any more
than their attacks against the West comprise racism. You subject yourself
to self-befuddlement when you try to force it into those terms -- much as
Edward Said did in his Orientalism. Note that ?racism? isn?t a term the
Militants use unless they do so to gull naïve Leftists into thinking they
are after all just like them. According to your view, we would never be
able to defend ourselves in a future Clash of Civilizations, because you
define ?Civilization? as ?race? and our defense perforce would be racist.
As to the NYROB article that you find so revelatory, even to the point of
invoking it as fact rather than what it truly is, namely, theory; the new
ideas were brought up by James Bowman in his book Honor, A History. I?m not
referring to his rehash of the Bush/Rumsfeld evils, but only the idea that
hammering Saddam was just the sort of retaliation that the Arabs as a
civilization, would best understand in that it confronts their honor system.
However, I?ve lost interest for the time being. The race (as in horse race
not racism) is over and we can check our tickets to see how well we did.
Way back after 9/11 I speculated about whether Bush would have the fortitude
to engage in an effective war against Militant Islam before the Leftists
stopped him. He accomplished quite a lot, chasing the Taliban and Al Quaeda
out of Afghanistan, intimidated Pakistan into curtailing its nuclear
proliferation, intimidated Libya into giving up its nuclear weapons, and
smashing Saddam Hussein. The Democrats are saying he doesn?t win anything
unless he builds a viable nation in Iraq, but that?s BS. He wins in the
Bowman sense because he hammered both the Taliban in Afghanistan and Saddam
and his Baathists in Iraq. Yeah, it would be nice if the Iraqi government
makes it, but if it doesn?t, well tough. We defended our honor in the Arab
sense. We retaliated for their 9/11 by much more destruction than they
perpetrated upon the U.S. In a realpolitik sense, if anyone is sensible
enough any longer to speak in that sense, we could advance the argument that
if they, using military or paramilitary means, do another 9/11 in any of our
cities, they can expect the same level of response that they got in
Afghanistan and Iraq. That could deter certain sorts of Militant Islamic
aggression if the aggressors believe that the US has not lost its stomach
for the fight. Hopefully the Democrats will assure the Islamic militants
that is not the case.
When the Democrats win in 2008, will they be able to utterly abandon the
?war against Terror?? I think not. Many of them, but not the Leftists
among them, have argued that the war should be fought, just not the way Bush
& Rumsfeld fought it. And if someone were to look back in the archives and
read what I wrote after 9/11, he would find that I described that as all I
hoped for. Quibble about how to fight it all you want -- just as long as
you keep fighting -- and make it clear to Militant Islam that you will
continue to do so.
Lawrence, returning to Melville and other literary matters
-----Original Message-----
From: lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Andreas Ramos
Sent: Monday, December 11, 2006 9:35 PM
To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: Victor Hanson in Iraq
From: "Eric Yost" <eyost1132@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> You are very amusing with the "racist" stuff. It's sort of like a Salem
townsfolk's cry of
> "witch," and has the same weight. I mean, you think I'm a racist too, and
if you said that
> to anyone who knows me -- and that includes quite an ethnically diverse
group -- they
> would laugh at you.
Let's look at definitions of racism:
- A form of discrimination based on race, especially the belief that one
race is superior to
another.
- The inherent belief in the superiority of one race over all others and
thereby the right
to dominance.
- The belief that one 'racial group' is inferior to another and the
practices of the
dominant group to maintain the inferior position of the dominated group.
Often defined as a
combination of power, prejudice and discrimination.
- Defined broadly as stigmatization of those we perceive as different from
us; defined
specifically as the doctrine that inherent differences among the various
human races
determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea
that one's own race
is superior.
And it goes on and on. Just search Google.
So what do we have here? Attacking a country that had nothing to do with
9.11, to torch its
cities and inhabitants simply to make a demonstration for others, to destroy
its government
just to prove an ideological point... what do you call that?
The Bush White House feels that the Arabs are basically some sort of target,
an object they
can manipulate as they like. This is racism in its pure form.
It's a racist war. Its supporters are racists.
yrs,
andreas
www.andreas.com
Other related posts:
