[amc] Re: Demonizing Our Enemies
- From: "Ray Gingerich" <RGingerich@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <amc@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2003 18:16:50 -0600
Re: [amc] Demonizing Our EnemiesNevitt,
Just before I received your message, I received the following from MennoLink: a
demonstration of your point.
You might consider sending your message to MennoLink.
Ray
******************************
From: Sue C. Wheeler, Lansing, MI
I'm pretty disgusted at the disrespect that passes for
"humorous" and "creative." (See following post). One place that didn't have
a _protest_ this weekend was Baghdad. A
demonstration, yes. Full of vitriolic America-hate.
How about these slogans?
-Hey Saddam, why are you fat when your kids are
starving?
-How many dead sons-in-law buys a good night's sleep?
-Sudan and Libya: How the UN spells Human Rights
-France and Germany: Oil not principles!
-Saddam hates Americans even if they're peaceniks!
I don't have the stomach to go on. Guess I won't win
the prize. Sue W.
--- "Karl S. Shelly, Goshen, Indiana"
<Karl.S.Shelly.guest.21841@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
(edited for brevity, sw)
> Cheney, Bush, Rumsfeld: Axis Of Diesel
> Draft The Bush Twins
> George Dubya: Weapon Of Mass Distraction
> Has Anyone Seen Our Constitution Lately?
> If War Is The Answer We're Asking The Wrong Question
> Killing Innocent People Is The Problem, Not The
> Solution
> Peaceful Solution Not Daddy's Retribution
> Rich Man's War Poor Man's Blood
> Smart Bombs Don't Justify Dumb Leaders
> Somewhere In Texas a Village Has Lost Its Idiot
> Stop Mad Cowboy Disease
----- Original Message -----
From: Nevitt Reesor
To: amc@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Monday, February 17, 2003 4:05 PM
Subject: [amc] Re: Demonizing Our Enemies
Ray, et al,
With regard to the temptation to demonize our enemies I have the following
thoughts. ("Groan!" they say with a collective sigh!) I think such demonization
is a bad idea if for no other reason that it appears contradictory for those
who preach peace. (Incidentally, as people of peace I don't think we are under
any obligation to have no enemies. We certainly have enemies, we are just
supposed to love them.)
But as I was thinking about this recently, it also occurred to me that
certainly Bush and his buddies can't really be total idiots. The connection
with the issue of demonization is that we have to have some reason to demonize
our enemies. In the case of soldiers I presume one reason often given is that
the enemy are not quite human: they are "gooks," or "japs," or "krauts," etc.
They aren't like us good people. In the case of political discourse we can
demonize our enemies by claiming that they are just stupid as compared to us
who are smart.
But surely Bush and company have "good" reasons for their policies and plans.
Bush may have had a 'C' average at Yale, but I'm guessing he is at least as
intelligent as I am, and if not, surely his handlers are reasonably sharp. So,
when he or others make really bizarre claims, e.g., when Powell suggests that
Osama's comments show a connection between his terrorist network and Iraq, the
logic of which seems patently ridiculous, I suspect we would be closer to the
truth if we say there are hidden reasons which underlie such claims since the
stated reasons make no sense. In this case we have to ask, what are the hidden
agendas according to which their reasons do make sense? We will still probably
not endorse these hidden agendas, but, if we could discover them, we could at
least address the real issues rather than just calling people "stupid idiots."
So, in short (!), I don't think the conflicts between us and our enemies are
about higher and lower intelligence. I think they are about differences of
values. They have certain values which justify their actions, we have different
values which justify our actions. If we really wanted to engage the enemy
meaningfully it would be at this level. However, I doubt if this will happen
anytime soon. The powerful are never likely to divulge their values, their real
reasons for acting as they do, because they are politicians in a
pseudo-democracy and they are afraid the public would never accept their real
values or real reasons. So, they just have to do what they know is best for us
in spite of what we might think. Furthermore, from "our" side, we don't want to
argue about values because it takes too long, it's too abstract, and we don't
really believe we will ever change their minds (nor do we believe they will
change ours). So, instead we just operate at the level of a power struggle. We
try to amass enough power to overcome their power. . . . might makes right. The
difference is that we try to restrict the exercise of our power and might to
acts of emotional and verbal violence rather than physical violence.
Nevitt
Other related posts:
