Is That Legal?

Actually, Eric is mistaken that I was responding only to his post. I also responded to a post by someone else, who accused D.G. Martin of "thinly veiled anti-semitic political presumptions." I did not think that was fair.

And I defended Martin against Eric, and to a lesser extent Sally, because I really agreed with most of what she said, because I thought he was trying hard to make people think about, instead of just applauding, BLOOD DONE SIGN MY NAME. (Personally, as a writer, I don't mind if they just applaud, but as a college teacher I am supposed to commend critical thinking.)

I don't agree with Eric's description of Martin's point. Re-reading it, I can't see where Martin equated suicide bombings with burning some unoccupied tobacco warehouses. He raised the comparison, but to compare is not to equate. He was only trying to say that the events in Oxford in 1970 remain relevant, because the question of political violence is very much a part of our lives. I think Eric's response is rather tendentious. If there was a shred of evidence that Martin thinks blowing up a pizza parlor at lunchtime is the same as burning a warehouse after midnight, I would object. But why should we not consider these things alongside one another? To "consider alongside" is not to equate; in fact, it is necesarry to consider things alongside one another in order to demonstrate that they are in fact different. These acts of political violence are obviously different, and I am sure Martin would agree.

Eric's sly rhetorical use of the Titanic and the Lusitania is telling: one was an accident, and hit an iceberg, and the other was an act of war, torpedoed on the high seas. But the warehouses in Oxford were not struck by lightning, and the boiler did not burst in the pizza parlor in Israel; both were acts of political violence. Anyone who considers them alongside one another, as I am about to do, can see that they are different in scale and meaning and intent. The former was an non-lethal act of economic leverage, the other a murderous, monstrous attack on civilians, so the difference could not be more clear. (Of course, we would have to compare them in order to make the point.) Do we really think D.G. Martin would disagree? I think this interpretation of his column verges on demogogic, probably because of Eric's passionate political commitments to Israel, which I can understand.

What is less clear is why Martin's question set off charges of anti-Semitism. That's some pretty loose thinking if you ask me--ad hominem attack, entirely without evidence. And a comparison of the role of violence in the African American freedom struggle and in the Middle East does not strike me as inappropriate. Only if by "comparison," you mean that we are saying these are the same, or that the moral authority (or lack thereof) of one should be transferred thoughtlessly to the other, does this strike me as dangerous.

I am wholly against suicide bombings in Israel and elsewhere. I am wholly opposed to terrorism against civilians. Ditto with bombing civilian populations and invading other countries to take control of their resources, which my country has done on many occasions. These things are not exactly the same as one another, but having compared them, I am still against all of them.

I am sort of an agnostic about those tobacco warehouses in Oxford. Eddie McCoy, who knew the firebombers well, said this in public in Oxford not long ago: "If the people who burned the warehouse was here, they would say, 'What we did was wrong, it won't our warehouse to burn, but you wouldn't listen to us until we did it, and it did do some good. It made Oxford a better place for our children. But partly it was wrong, and we're sorry we hurt your families.'" That answer struck me as very morally thoughtful.

I'm grateful to Tim for responding to Eric's and my comments. It's kind of like the Marshall McLuhan moment in "Annie Hall."

Who I'd really like to hear from is D.G. Martin. Exactly how far does he mean to take the comparison between property damage that inflicts economic coercion and the targeting of human beings? It's true as Tim says that "comparison" is a capacious word, but in the context of Martin's column and his TV show it seemed he was doing a little more than just laying them out there for discussion.

Martin writes, "At a time when we are committed to a war on terrorism, it is serious business to concede that violence and the threat of more violence may have been necessary to bring about racial justice and equality in our home region." His broad use of "violence" here blurs any distinction betweeen the kind that destroys property and the kind that destroys lives. So I, at least, have to take it as an invitation to consider that there just might be times when suicide bombings and other acts of violence against persons are morally justifiable to bring about a higher justice--as justifiable as the destruction of a cash crop or the strategic wasting of chests of British tea.

The suggested questions for discussion in today's reading groups include a possible comparison to the Boston Tea Party. There I think we can safely go. To go farther than that gets into a whole different moral dimension. It's a question that can be legitimately asked--but it seemed to me that Tim's answer was one thing, and that D.G. Martin was rather too easily eliding it to suggest quite another.

It amazes me that people gifted in word usage, logic and coherence seem unable to think strategically. By that I mean able to understand why certain violent acts are carried out, such as suicide bombings, burning of unoccupied warehouses, "invading other countries to take control of their resources", etc. Rather it appears that moral courage of the kind necessary to present logically and coherently an explanation of violence of the kind discussed in previous postings such that the reader can come to his own conclusions is seriously lacking. Agendas are everywhere, shamelessly pushed by writers of great skill. I would rather not know what you think, not hear your outrage, not have your political agenga presented to me, however skillfully done. You can't hide it if you do it, and you'll not make a convert of me by trying.

Destruction of lives and property is serious business, whether it be Stalin adding 6,000 more to his current week's list of political enemies to be destroyed, a home invader in Atlanta, a black man percieved as disrespectful in 1970, or a Katusha rocket fired randomly into Israel. Such things bring outrage and applause but very little apathy. It would be refreshing to find an author who could present all three (outrage, applause, apathy) in proportion without judgement. Let me do the judging.