[lit-ideas] Back to the Lancet Study

From: "Simon Ward" <sedward@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sat, 10 Mar 2007 23:27:06 -0000
It appears the Times 

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/iraq/article1469636.ece 

decided to have another go at the Lancet report on Iraqi deaths since the US 
invasion. Unfortuantely, the Times article was, to put it crudely, crap. Here's 
a critique:

http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2007/03/london_times_hatchet_job_on_la.php#more

Hidden in the comments section of another blog entry 

http://crookedtimber.org/2007/03/09/i-used-to-be-amused-now-im-just-disgusted/

are some poignant observations by a certain 'Hidari'. 

QUOTE
I think the problem with the Lancet study is that it rams up against a 
fundamental presupposition of current 'Western' discourse (i.e. among 
intellectuals) and therefore it can't really be sensibly discussed. I've 
noticed a hierarchy of 'acceptable' 'sins of the West'.

1: Most acceptable of all are horrors of the past during which 'we' did not 
'intervene'. (key example here: Rwanda). This can therefore be spun: 'we are 
good, but sometimes we don't do enough'.

2: Secondly are horrors of the past in which 'we' did do terrible things, but 
it was all a long time ago. Therefore this is spun: 'Vietnam/the slave 
trade/the Empire was indeed a terrible thing but it was all a long time ago, 
and the fact that we disapprove of it now only goes to prove how good we are 
now.' (or else, the Christopher Hitchens line: the fact that 'we' caused such 
bad things in the past only goes to prove that 'we' have to set them right now).

3: Verging into unacceptable territory (but still, as it were, alludable to) is 
'our' current collusion with various dictators many of whom practice torture, 
murder, genocide etc. It is just barely permissable to mention our collusion 
with the Saudis, Equatorial Guinea, Egypt, Pakistan (etc. etc. etc.) but only 
if this is spun: 'they are bad people and they have corrupted us! It is 
terrible that we are forced to deal with such people, but this is the way of 
the world.'

4: Completely and absolutely unmentionable (indeed, unthinkable) is a situation 
where 'we' are purely and simply the bad guys. The Lancet study is not so much 
argued against as ignored (or treated with bug eyed disbelief) because it 
threatens this taboo. For example, as Mahmood Mandani points out, why do 'we' 
not refer to what is currently going on in Iraq as genocide? It is not 
obviously much better than what is currently going on in Sudan. The reason, 
surely, is that then we would have to face the idea that 'we' set in motion a 
chain of events that led to genocide, and that, therefore, 'we' are the bad 
guys.

UNQUOTE
[lit-ideas] Back to the Lancet Study

Other related posts:
