Thanks for your response Eugene. I think Amos Oz puts it well in the NYTimes
today.
Molly
Struggling Against Fanaticism
By AMOS OZ
The real struggle is not between nations or religions, but
rather within them: a battle between fanatics and everyone
else.
http://www.nytimes.com/2001/09/14/opinion/14OZ.html
Eugene Matusov wrote:
> Hi everybody--
>
> Thanks Ana for the interesting reflection provided by Noam Chomsky. I
> think he makes important points although I do not fully agree with him
> since he seems to put too much agency on Western countries at expense of
> other countries and people whom he seems to consider victims who just
> react to aggression...
>
> Here are my concerns. While we are mourning this tragedy, new tragedies
> are being in preparation... Bush administration threatens everybody who
> in their view supports, harbors, or sympathizes with terrorists with a
> war. Many Palestinians celebrating the successful on streets
> automatically become a target. Afghani and Iraqi (Iranian? Libyan?
> Syrian? Pakistani? Chechen? Irish? Basque?) people fit the description
> of the target for the Bush's anti-terrorist strike as well, of course.
>
> I think it is very productive to focus on what defines "terrorist
> action." Are bombings of Dresden (no military targets at all, more than
> 100,000 civilian casualties) or Hiroshima in WWII, or Tripoli (in
> 1986?), or Baghdad (1991), or Belgrade (2000), or Grozny (Chechnya) are
> acts of (state) terrorism? Where are boundaries of "non-terrorist,
> military action"? How is terrorism defined: by the target and intention
> of the action or by impact on civilians (so-called "collateral damage")?
> Is it OK for the sake of fighting terrorism to bomb a city? These are
> difficult questions that should be decided before any military action is
> taken place.
>
> One more concern. I understand that a shock caused by the tragedy can
> disrupt one's thinking and it takes different time for different people
> to regain a sense of control. However, I noticed anti-intellectual
> sentiments among people I interact with probably based on the
> emotion-cognition dualism. Some people believe that it is almost immoral
> to think ("intellectualize") during tragedies like we all faced. I do
> not think that thinking is "cold" by definition. Moreover, if one
> refuses to think someone does it for him or her. I'm not comfortable
> when currently "thinking" is mainly done by "political experts" and
> politicians. I think we should engage in public/civic dialogue before
> rushing in "the war of the XXI century".
>
> What do you think?
>
> Eugene
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Angel Lin [mailto:ENANGEL@cityu.edu.hk]
> > Sent: Friday, September 14, 2001 1:42 AM
> > To: xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> > Subject: Re: tragedy in New York
> >
> > Dear Everybody,
> >
> > I really felt shocked and sad for what happened--saw it just minutes
> after
> > the event on Hong Kong TV--couldn't believe it at first, and
> immediately
> > hoped that members in the xmca community are well and alive.
> >
> > Eugene is right--it's an extremely violent way of communication, if it
> can
> > be seen as communication at all, by those who somehow felt/thought
> that
> > they had exhausted all other peaceful ways of communication. Mike, I
> have
> > to point out the danger of your metaphor, though--perhaps it's
> precisely
> > the (irrational, unjustified?) feeling of being positioned as
> "children"
> > (in relation to US) that has motivated such an inhuman way of
> communication
> > to make a statement about their position in the world?
> >
> > In mourning...
> > Angel
> >
> > At 01:18 PM 9/11/01 -0700, you wrote:
> > >I don't think its difficult to understand why the people who carried
> out
> > >these acts of destruction, and many to come, did what they did.
> > >
> > >It never ceases to amaze me how convinced we are that God is on our
> side,
> > >so we are not only justified, but morally required, to act in such
> ways.
> > >
> > >I shudder to think of the sequalia, with the bloodbath in the middle
> east
> > >as a ready-to-hand model.
> > >
> > >One of the few clear generalizations from the developmental
> literature
> > >on the use of physical punishment with children is that it creates
> more
> > >violent children...... just to bring the conversation down to a level
> > >where I have some professional competence.
> > >
> > >Meantime, I am waiting to hear from friends in New York whose
> children
> > >just may have been working downtown today.
> > >
> > >mike
> > >
> > >
> > ***************************************************************
> > Angel Lin, Ph.D.(Ontario Institute for Studies in Education,
> > University of Toronto)
> > Assistant Professor, Department of English and Communication
> > City University of Hong Kong
> > Tat Chee Ave., Kowloon, Hong Kong
> > Fax: (852) 2788-8894; phone: (852) 2788-8122
> > E-mail: enangel@cityu.edu.hk
> > http://www.cityu.edu.hk/en/staff/angel/angel.html
> > http://www.tesl-hk.org.hk
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Oct 10 2001 - 15:49:14 PDT
The LCHC website last updated in 2022. The files now available herein are being maintained strictly for historical reference, research, and recordkeeping purposes. The content of the site has not been altered or updated since archiving. Content on this site may not meet current digital accessibility standards. If you require an alternative, accessible format of any information found on this site, please contact Bruce Jones, bjones@ucsd.edu to request an accommodation.