|
October 2001
Below are links to three editorials in The Nation, sort of about September 11.
It's not exactly critical that these articles be read to better understand what happened on September 11, though there are some clues, and insightful data about *other* issues. It's more important to read these for insight on how and why certain people have responded the way they did.
Hitchens #1 ------ The issue at hand is about the evils of 'moral relativity' which Hitchens charges of Chomsky and other liberal spokespeople. Chomsky attempts to refuse the debate presumably because the issues surrounding September 11 are far too complex to address back and forth via editorials, and extend beyond personal philosophies. The real point of Hitchens' first article was only to say the terrorist acts happened because of fanatical religious fascism, that that is very bad, and to call it anything else is weak. Absolutely. He also believes we need to strongly demonstrate our commitment to accountability. He then snidely accuses Chomsky of being in the relativist camp, the camp that undermines any justifiable anger with statements like "but, we deserved it." Hitchens, rightfully so, is not satisfied with that answer. However, this is not Chomsky's answer either, though it is part of a larger philosophy he has that because of years of American foreign policy abuses on other nations we are likely to be the target of increased resentment. Hitchens continues with accusations stemming from an email Chomsky wrote that we, many readers, have unlikely seen. The email in question is one Chomsky sent to a few press people as a quick response, that made its way onto the web and some extra in-boxes. Hitchens mostly now wants us to know that Chomsky, the moral relativist, is bad, and everything you might read from Chomsky and his ilk will be tainted with that bad perspective. His example is a statement Chomsky made paralleling the bombing of Sudan under the Clinton administration in 1998 to the collapse of the WTC. Hitchens, launching into an attack on credibility vis a vis Chomsky's position on Sudan (and Hitchen's smug comment that it was Hitchens, himself, who first called the Sudan bombings a war crime) does little to prove his original thesis: that there is a terrible, fanatical, and fascist regime that needs to be punished. If his thesis in actuality is that the regime won't be punished because of moral relativism, I think he has many more words to write. The second article is just angry and defensive masturbating of his (admittedly extensive) knowledge base. Granted, the Husseini rebuttal (as printed) is absurd. But what of Husseini's reply are we not reading? I'm not willing to take Hitchens at face value, because he himself falls to silly attacks that we should watch Husseini for his own potentially terrorist acts, which is just as absurd. The second piece continues to prove the existence of the fanatical, fascist regime with some added clarity that we are "too soft" on fascism. But is it really people like Chomsky that will contribute to our nations inability to treat the situation with seriousness and moral responsibility. Because the focus of Hitchens' pieces are unclear, people have chosen to focus on the parts of his editorials that were directly aimed at Chomsky, instead of his other more provacative ideas. This just demonstrates our culture's, and the editors at the nation's, desire for cockfights. It was a slight slip of arrogance or jab from Hitchens, not even so well-defined, written mostly as an example that people might relate to, on what is moral relativism and why he thinks it's bad. The ideas that *this was an act of fascism and evil* and *we are too soft on fascism* are not mutually exclusive from *we should get the hell out of the middle east, and by the way, other terrible things are happening in the world too that we contribute to* and *people are only going to get angrier with us.* [ this starts to get at a premise that had America been more helpful to civilians in the middle-east in the first place, no one would be following bin ladin around. ] Chomsky then enters to defend himself, as he says, reluctantly, and understandably. There is no need for Chomsky to engage in a battle about his positions in which the social, historical, and racial context (moral relativism) is in fact very relevant to an action and any judgment on it. That opinion is not the one we need to focus on. The debate should not be about which personal philosophy is more appropriate. Rather, as scholars, they should be outlining possible causes and effects and philosophies that come into play, so that other, less scholarly people like myself, might be better equipped to form opinions. This is why many more, if not all of us, need to become the scholars. Start reading. All bickering aside, I agree with Hitchens whole-heartedly that as a culture we water down truths that we are unprepared psychologically to bear. We are weak, fallible creatures. That seems obvious, at times necessary, and also sad. And I suspect Chomsky would agree, on principal, though he tends to be more generous about circumstance. I also agree that we cannot wash this over with only "but we deserved it," though it should be impossible to say we can't understand the anger and resentment. It's also unlikely that Chomsky would base an entire case on the "we deserved it" statement. I have no disagreement with Hitchens' opinions that the events of September 11 were terrible terrible acts that demand a strong, and moral, response (and Chomsky would add, probably, humane). But I do think his pre-emptive attack on Chomsky (as a vehicle to explain his position on moral relativism) is petty and doesn't do much to further his agenda. Chomsky's clarifications on Sudan were successful in re-establishing credibility for his position that the bombing was significant and horrific, as much, if not more than the attacks on the WTC. However, I'm really not interested in the minimizing of one event for the other. I'd rather be learning more about the facts (that they both possess) than watch grown men growl about blame and futility. I wish both had made more effort, as Chomsky suggests Hitchens should have. Would more effort from Hitchens been enough to engage Chomsky to more carefully spread his knowledge? And is the lesson to be learned: if someone sends me a lazy opinion I should not take the time to refute or add clarity... If this is not the right forum, as Chomsky states, I wonder then, what is? And how many months later will Harpers publish the transcripts? back ||| home | words | music | friends | email klever |