Questions About Savagery
A friend and now commenter, M@, had this to say in the comments:
I think there's a difference, and I was very careful in my definition. In the past, we as Americans have been savages. However, have we ever directly targeted civilians? No. Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Dresden, these don't count along the lines of the definition that I offered, and I stand by it: anyone who directly targets civilians is a savage. Are we targeting civilians in Iraq? No. Did we target civilians in Afghanistan? No. Did we target civilians in Vietnam? Not especially, though there were incidents where the line between civilian and combatant was sufficiently blurred to make it impossible.
You're right that we were the insurgents during the Revolutionary War... But not even the militia targeted British civilians. There is no greater case of an "apples versus oranges" comparison than comparing the tactics of General Washington to the tactics of Abu Musaab al-Zarwawi. General Washington and his forces ambushed British soldiers and, in some cases, captured shipments of military supplies from military freight vessels. The terrorists in Iraq (I reject the term "insurgents" because it lends a legitimacy to the tactics and motives of the enemy that is wholly undeserved) target women, children, the elderly; they kill indiscriminately.
These people answer all of their problems with violence, and they have no concept of moral consistency. They aren't savages because of the culture they practice, the aren't savages because they don't follow our religion, they aren't savages because they disagree with me on politics. They're savages because they prey on the innocent.
The whole point of the passage from Brave New World is that the aforementioned character isn't a savage; it's irony. This isn't irony; it's the real world.
That having been said, I appreciate you keeping me honest!
So I find it ironic that you use the word savage, I find it ironic in light of the section from brave new world where the one normal guy of the bunch is the "savage" where everyone else in the world is the civilized group. Part of me only says this to caution you against using the word savage when in regards to the terrorists. You are walking a fine line of trying to demonize the enemy, something that both sides have always done. During the revolutionary war, we were the “insurgents” playing the best game of gorilla warfare that we could, by any means necessary, and because we won, it becomes a grand thing. It was not all that long ago that we as the US targeted civilian targets. How many civilians died in Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Savage is in the eye of the beholder.
I think there's a difference, and I was very careful in my definition. In the past, we as Americans have been savages. However, have we ever directly targeted civilians? No. Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Dresden, these don't count along the lines of the definition that I offered, and I stand by it: anyone who directly targets civilians is a savage. Are we targeting civilians in Iraq? No. Did we target civilians in Afghanistan? No. Did we target civilians in Vietnam? Not especially, though there were incidents where the line between civilian and combatant was sufficiently blurred to make it impossible.
You're right that we were the insurgents during the Revolutionary War... But not even the militia targeted British civilians. There is no greater case of an "apples versus oranges" comparison than comparing the tactics of General Washington to the tactics of Abu Musaab al-Zarwawi. General Washington and his forces ambushed British soldiers and, in some cases, captured shipments of military supplies from military freight vessels. The terrorists in Iraq (I reject the term "insurgents" because it lends a legitimacy to the tactics and motives of the enemy that is wholly undeserved) target women, children, the elderly; they kill indiscriminately.
These people answer all of their problems with violence, and they have no concept of moral consistency. They aren't savages because of the culture they practice, the aren't savages because they don't follow our religion, they aren't savages because they disagree with me on politics. They're savages because they prey on the innocent.
The whole point of the passage from Brave New World is that the aforementioned character isn't a savage; it's irony. This isn't irony; it's the real world.
That having been said, I appreciate you keeping me honest!
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home