I wrote this a long time ago, and hesitated a long time before sending it.
I think this thread is important, and that Andrew raises some crucial points that need an answer. One shouldn't discard it too easily. That's why I decided to send this post. Andrew says: >The chief lesson of the 20th Century is that evil can happen without a >discernible cause. Evil sustained is a choice. When it happens, one >must respond in an intelligent and brave manner, or it will not be >stopped. In the case of many crimes, such as serial murders, there is >no "reason" why they happen. Science has not given us a complete >profile of what creates a murderer, and it never will. It can't. It is >not immoral to recognize evil and to face it. Come on, Andrew! I find this very weird. "Evil can happen without a discernible cause"? What does that mean? Of course, evil _can_ happen without a discernible cause. But: 1/ That doesn't mean that evil _must_ happen without a discernible cause; I mean, evil _can_ happen with a discernible cause, too; 2/ There is not _a_ discernible cause for nazism (and no undiscernible cause, neither), nor BTW for Stalinism; but one can understand, or try to understand, why the social and political soil in Europe was ripe for Hitler and his friends (defeated revolutions; militias ramping around; depression; a woman cost a cigarette, a cigarette cost a heap of money; people got crazy because those were crazy times; the superego of the urban rabble blew up). To say that Hitler is irrational, and that for that reason (uhm), reason can't explain him, is to accept the irrationalist argument. But arguing of the irrationality of Hitler to explain (away) nazism is a double error: nazism was a political mass movement. Those people that say that evil is a hidden devil that only waits in the foils of society to jump out at a unpredictable moment are disarming us to try and understand the roots of social phenomena in order to avoid the perils next time. All things social are a blend of deep forces that compel humans with the actions of humans in that fields of forces. There is never _a_ cause but a bundle of complex actions and reactions. Then you jump to individual murders: "science has not given us a complete profile of what creates a murderer". Thank God, I say! We must have some mystery left� Today (27 September) a Swiss broke into a canton legislature meeting, killed a lot of people and then killed himself. http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/ap/20010927/wl/switzerland_rampage_14.html That was a crisis of folly. That was one individual murderer. But even here there was a social pretext. But you have also those mass phenomena that come and go by waves, and that you can trace down to certain social trends: hooliganism in England, outbreaks of violence in the French "banlieus", aso. Many reasons why each particular youngster turns into a violent kid have perhaps nothing to do with the social climate: perhaps he wants to kill his father and marry his mother, or he could possibly have been a gangster or a serial killer, in a more calm environment; [Then again, in other circumstances he could be a good polemist, or a boxer, or a cop, or a war hero. Who knows? they have been discussing the innate and the acquired for decades]. But, in this instance, the bouts of social violence, the form of the violence, its mass character _have_ certainly something to do with the general situation. Am I justifying murder? Am I "appeasing" the youth "with an unwarranted sympathy and understanding"? Well, I have been accused of that during discussions with some otherwise gentle friends. Of course, when you risk being stabbed in the metro it is difficult to keep calm, reasoned and "reasonable". And it's very difficult to oppose people that think that a "thug is a thug" and one must reestablish the death penalty. Because, you know, "there is no reason for the rebellion", "they are just little scoundrels" (rebels without a cause?) that must be fought in a brave and virile manner in order to save society. Andrew says: >Chomsky fails, however, to condemn terrorists and the governments >sympathetic to them for not using those same channels to redress their >grievances, however. Chomsky has explained many times why he addresses his government and not the "other side": because the other side won't give a damn about what he says and anyway it has no effect. Imagine Chomsky writing an open letter to Bin Laden, or Kim il Sung, urging them to behave themselves� He prefers to act in a manner that he can influence the politics of his country and his countrypersons. In this case, I think he is right. Although in other instances, I am not so sure. Well, I don't know. He just is too parochially American, perhaps. [You know, Chomsky is a very stubborn person. I am in a very good situation to know it, because as a translator I became interested in linguistics and read many books by him. He will never evade a good argument, he's got strong teeth and you must be very resilient to resist him. I think this icon of the past ain't gonna retire easily:)] But, make no mistake, as Bush II would say: Chomsky said that the WTC attack was a crime against humanity: this means that it must be punished with the utmost rigor and that there is no period of limitation for it. Andrew says: >A large part of the hatred, however, is created by Arab propaganda that >is wildly anti-Semitic (yes, I know Arabic people are Semitic), >anti-Western, and bloodthirsty in its calls for the death of Westerners >and Jews. We have precious little such rhetoric here in the US. Let us >not forget how the totalitarian regimes of the past succeeded in >engendering hatred in their own populace for a designated scapegoat and >enemy. That is in part what is happening here, against the US and >Israel. Yes, yes. Do you realize what you are saying? "Arab propaganda". You don't say "fundamentalist Muslims' propaganda". Could it be that Arabs have this in their genes? Well, in France there has been a sudden bout of antijew hate crimes (you know, in France there are a lot of Arabs and some Jews). That is really a terrific situation: poor and stupid people beating and harassing poor Jews that live in popular neighborhoods, where they have lived in peace for decades. They say they want the Jews to feel the pain of Palestinians! Do you think this has nothing to do with Middle East? Have you any solution, apart from being brave and beating back the Arabs? But which Arabs? Seems to me that you risk drifting away into the conflict of civilizations waters� which is just what bin laden and all integrists want. [Don't misinterpret me: I despise this antijew bullshit, for more reasons than one.] Wait a minute. All of a sudden, I am struck by the light! Dear Andrew, you found a "large part" of the cause for this particular evil: "Arab propaganda". Andrew says: >Yes, there is resentment of America in the Arab world. It is unclear >under Chomsky's reasoning, however, why there was no network like Bin >Laden's in Nicaragua, Southeast Asia, or East Timor. Again, what do you mean by "Arab world"? Afghanistan? http://www.afghan-web.com/facts.html Iran? Indonesia? Well, in all those places you mention there are many undignified people and some bloodshed. In fact, there is no shortage of butcheries and evil, in the form of "esquadr�es da morte", a.s.o., in other forms of networking. Indonesia, Philippines� Only they don't kill Americans in the USA. On the other hand, in fact, why should there be a "why" and why should Chomsky know it? Evil springs eternal from nowhere� Notwithstanding that, I will try some "whys". 1/There is one thing that distinguishes Islamic countries from the other places: the secular movements and parties down there have been crushed with the help of "Anglo-Saxon" (eh! eh!) and French propaganda, armies and secret services. (Even nowadays, who is supporting the Front of Socialist Forces in Algeria, for instance? Nobody). The fruit was ripe, the integrists reaped it. 2/ Islam was a great civilization, long before Berlusconi was born, "though he was born a long long time ago". They have this sense of decay and defeat at the hands of barbarians (Remember the phrase of Disreali against an opponent in Parliament? "We had a book, when your ancestors were barbarians"). Like the Greeks� 3/ Islam is a crescent, neighboring Europe. It is the place where the tectonic plates (South and North) join. Which explains the volcanoes. 4/ here are two other explanations: their religion and their civilization or their genes. I won't consider this. One last final remark, Andrew: why do you want Chomsky to apologize? Even if he is wrong, I find it very strange that you want him to submit to a public ritual of repentance. I haven't seen this since the "cultural revolution" and the Maoist autocritiques. This is too long. Ciao. Manel _____________________________________________________________ Sign up for FREE email from TimorLeste.net at http://www.timorleste.net
