Dear Mary, Susan, Kate, and Janene: Thank you for your articulate and well grounded perspectives. I could not agree with all of you more strongly. I remember all too well during the 60's when demonstrating for civil rights and marching against the viet nam war that we were called names from the taunting crowds on the sidelines. We were told to "Love America or leave it". To me it was an example of America's dualistic way of looking at the world.
For many, to love america was to never criticize it and they could not see that it was because of our constitution and love for this country and ALL people of the world that we took the position we did. That to love America was to uphold the tenants of freedom and justice alongside peace. I lost count of the number of times I was arrested for peacefully demonstrating and number of blows I took to my face and body by the police. But I would not change my actions one bit. We do not show that it is wrong to kill, maim, and assault by killing, maiming and assaulting. We do not show compassion by pointing the finger at people who resemble the face of an enemy or terrorist. America does not have clean hands in much of its involvement throughout the world. It did not have clean hands when it refused to allow Jews to come to the US during the Holocaust. It did not have clean hands when it placed Japanese Americans into internment camps. And it certainly does not have clean hands with its dealings in the middle east. It did not have clean hands during the mccarthy era which ruined thousands of lives and pitted neighbor against neighbor. The 'hunt' for those different than ourselves flies in the face of true democracy. And too often true democracy is "The road less traveled". That notwithstanding does not in any way mean that I do not love my country or am glad for the personal freedom I feel here. I accept the good and challenge the bad...and at times I challenge the good when I am not sure what the good is based upon. I ask lots of questions. :) Thank you again...you brave and courageous women for speaking up and not being afraid to state your truth. Peace.......Sharon "Pitassi, Mary" wrote: > > A couple of points on a dreary, rainy afternoon in the Midwest of the > U.S.A. > > Kakki wrote, in response to the article Kate Bennett posted: > > "I would ask first if the professor is a Marxist, and if he is not I > would > refer him to this article and then ask him which side he wants to live > under." > > To which I reply: WHOA!!! Are you saying that one has to be, or is > likely to be, a Marxist to criticize American foreign policy in the way > that the author of the article has? If so, I must respectfully but > strenuously disagree. While I have never purported to be anything other > than a good old-fashioned, died-in-the-wool liberal, I am certainly no > Marxist, economically or politically. However, I agree with a good many > of the professor's points. > > My favorite is probably, "Stay away from the ridiculous claims that we > are hated because we respect individual liberties. In the Muslim world, > over > and over again, we consistently HAVE NOT respected individual liberties > but > rather supported tin-pot dictators." I think that this is, > unfortunately, all too true, especially in Latin America, as well as in > the Middle East. But, as that much-maligned Robert Fisk article from a > while back pointed out (correctly, I thought), when we in the U.S. speak > glowingly of "individual liberties," we're really talking about the > liberties of *American citizens,* and not those of the nationals of > other countries who may well make it possible, directly and indirectly, > for us to maintain our American lifestyles. And, too often, we're > referring to the liberties and lifestyles of only *some* American > citizens, at that. > > Kate Bennett then wrote in response: > > "All of this to say that what concerns me the most, in this war against > terrorism, is that it is being reduced to some kind of Batman type of > scenario of good vs evil. It is far more complex than that. And that > kind of > good vs. evil rhetoric is off putting to me. I know I am not the only > one > that feels that way." > > Kate, this has worried me greatly, too. I am not a pacifist. I do > believe firmly in our country's right to defend itself in light of the > attacks of September 11, although, as far I'm concerned, the jury is > still out on the efficacy of military action against this amorphous, > multi-national new enemy, organized terrorism. Yet when President Bush > stated in his speech of September 20 or so that the Taliban hates us > because of "what they see in these two chambers" (i.e., a democratic > government), and then proceeded to produce a laundry list of the > curtailment of individual liberties in Afghanistan, I couldn't help but > wonder. How is "they hate us because of our devotion to the great > principles of democracy" conceptually different, in any way, from "they > hate us for our devotion to the tenets of holy Islam?" > > Both statements laud the speaker's group for something recognized by the > intended audience as a good, and both demonize the Other. Both > statements appear designed, at least in part, to gear up those audiences > for a long, protracted fight. Tellingly, however, both neglect to > mention the down-and-dirty, rough-and-tumble political and economic > realities that may have contributed far more to this conflict than > either side's devotion to its respective Greater Good. > > Finally, Kate wrote: > > "I do believe that in order to "fight" terrorism we need to understand > why it > exists. I don't mean trying to understand Osama, but trying to > understand > why he appeals to his followers. And why others who do not support his > terrorist acts still relate to him. What are the conditions that have > created this situation. And what are the conditions that could alleviate > this for future generations?" > > I agree completely. Let's be united, and let's protect our nation from > this horrifying threat in the best, most efficient way we can. But > while we're doing so, let's remember that it is NOT unpatriotic to admit > that our country has sometimes done wrong. After all, it is composed of > and led by men and women who, while they may have a great many admirable > attributes, are also only flawed human beings. Nor is it unpatriotic to > consider that, although there can be absolutely no justification raised > for the terrible, violent acts of September 11, 2001, the question of > justification for the *anger* that fueled those acts is much, much more > complicated. > > Who was it who said, "those who do not master the lessons of history are > doomed to repeat it?" I fervently hope that we will not be so doomed. > > Off my soapbox--back to my listening corner. > > Mary P., > Madison. > > P.S. The view outside my window is starting to look positively > Hejira-like.
