A few responses to Kakki's response to me. First, I wrote, and Kakki responded:
"> 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 is really debatable. How can we explain the fact that tens of millions of people from South America, Central America, Iran, Palestine, Iraq, Pakistan, Cuba, Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, China, Korea and Russia have fled to our country. If we were the "great imperialist Satan" who has help ruin their countries and interfered with their "democratic" elections, why the hell do so many of them want to come here? The facts belie a lot of the criticism against the U.S." What facts bely the criticism? I'll get to that later. But as to notion that the fact that millions of people around the world have immigrated to the United States somehow weakens the assertion that the U.S. has engaged in systematic interference and suppression of civil liberties in other countries: I can't agree. That's comparing apples and oranges. In fact, my original point was, although the U.S. is, for most U.S. citizens and residents, a beacon of rights and opportunities, those who have been on the receiving end of U.S. foreign policy have not always been so lucky. To me, it's no surprise that some have seen the lay of the land, and decided that they'd much rather be on the inside of the fence than the outside. OK, that last was a little glib. Let me be more serious. There will always be individuals of courage and ambition who will see life in the U.S. as the best way to further their own personal dreams and to care for their families. My grandfather, Michael Pitassi, was a shining example of that. A bright, ambitious boy in the tiny village of Ateleta in the Abruzzi region of south central Italy, he realized early on that a life spent in his small town held no promise for him. So, at the age of 16, speaking no English and armed with only a third-grade education but having already mastered two trades, he shipped off to the United States, worked as a butcher to pay the relative who had put up the money for his passage, switched to what would become a lifetime of work as a stonemason, and rose to become a partner in his own successful business, which developed a national reputation within its own niche. He lived to see two of his children and the first of his six grandchildren graduate from college, and to hear that first grandchild--me--tentatively begin to speak of becoming a lawyer. Truly, he crafted a life for himself that would have been utterly impossible in the village in which he was born. But does the fact that Michael Pitassi had the courage and persistence to take full advantage of an opportunity he saw negate the fact that the U.S. supported the government of Fulgencio Batista in Cuba before Castro's revolution in 1959? That U.S. Marines occupied Nicaragua more or less continuously from 1912-1933, when they were replaced by a National Guard commanded by Anastasio Somoza, with whom the U.S. enjoyed quite cordial relations? That the U.S. later overtly and covertly supported the Contras in that country? That it restored the Shah of Iran to the Peacock Throne, directly setting in motion the events, and the reaction to those events, that, in the minds of many, created the environment in which Islamic fundamentalism would eventually thrive? And does it negate the increasing evidence that U.S. involvement in the overthrow of the democratically-elected Socialist government of Salvador Allende in the 70's extended to the highest ranks of government, including Henry Kissinger himself? In fact, an edition of "60 Minutes" detailing those charges had aired here two days before the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. When I first received notice on my computer that something vague had occurred involving a crash and a hijacked plane on the morning of Tuesday, September 11, my first thought was that some terribly confused or deranged relative of a victim of the Chilean coup was making a tragic statement. The reason? As one who has lived and studied in Chile, the date of September 11 was already indelibly etched on my mind. Allende's government was violently overthrown on September 11, 1973. Some immigrants made their decision to adopt the U.S. as their new and permanent home before any of these events happened. Some didn't know about them. Some would have come anyway, for purely personal reasons. And yes, some, like the particular U.S. Muslims interviewed for a recent New York Times article (don't recall the date; could probably find it if I rummaged around at home), are frank in saying that, even though they disapprove of many, many components of the "American way of life," they came here and remain here because they are treated better here than they would be anywhere else. Which, again, doesn't contradict my original point. The U.S. actions described above are FACT. They MUST be considered when evaluating how we have come to the place in which we find ourselves now. And second, Kakki wrote: "The situation now, our current reality, is that we are suddenly at war and in a state of emergency. There really are more pressing concerns for Americans right now than to be ruminating every day about all the mistakes we made to get us to this point. I would rather Nightline be telling me about the latest Anthrax or other kinds of attacks, and how the war is affecting our world than being lectured about all the actions that have brought us to this point right now." But in my view, it is precisely *because* we are in a state of emergency that it is so crucial that we understand what our role in the world has been, and how what we actually did has influenced what some terrorist extremists may believe about us, with varying degrees of accuracy. Would you want a doctor treating you for Anthrax (and I hope to GOD that never happens to any of us!!) who understood only imperfectly how Anthrax works? And without that understanding, how could a vaccine be developed? Understanding the whole context, which *definitely* involves the actions of other countries but also includes those of our own that we may find less than savory, need not take the form of "ruminating" without action, or without devising positive changes. Indeed, it will be most effective if it occurs in conjunction with these other two. But, in my opinion, it must occur. T.S. Eliot wrote, in quite another context, "in my end is my beginning." Here, within the solution *must* be found the fullest possible understanding of the problem, or we will have learned nothing, and others, within our borders and without, may be tragically victimized again. In respect and friendship, Mary P. Wishing my dear grandfather were here to lend his wisdom and vast insight to my view of the incredible events of the last month and a half, but knowing that he would have been heartbroken at the direct attack on the country that he loved.
