« Songs With Staying Power | Main | Was Gone, And Now I'm Back »
March 10, 2006
Defending This Community's Response to Last Week's Assault
I tried to make the points I made on this blog earlier this week: yes, the assault was an act of terrorism, but there are good reasons for us to try to be careful with a word like that rather than jumping up and down and screaming it from the top of every dormitory. "Terrorist" is our enemy-demonization-word-du-jour; we've had them in the past ("Hun," "Jap," "Communist," and they've never worked out particularly well for us domestically. One way to be careful about a word like "terrorist" is to talk about it when we use it -- to open up discussion about the word and its connotations. Yet it is precisely that reflective effort by this university community that seems so annoying to many people. Isn't this what a university community should be doing?
And more to the point, when a victimized university tries to react thoughtfully to an assault, shouldn't there be a little respect for the victim -- for its ways of dealing with being attacked?
Posted by Eric at March 10, 2006 9:11 AM
Comments
Use the word "terrorist," though, and you immediately go for the visceral reaction instead of reasoned investigation of the why and what of the incident.
Posted by: Ms Cornelius at March 10, 2006 6:55 PM
Hello,
and to think that the current debate is about a 'terrorist' striking at the heart of some campus. Anyone have a current count of the dead professors and students at any major Iraqi university? Any idea who is doing the killing, especially in regards to who is paying those snazzily dressed Iraqi police special units which seem to be able to kill whoever they wish?
But no, Americans argue about some fairly arcane issues, not the literally thousands of Iraqis dying over the last few weeks - I guess because fear works in the politics of post-PATRIOT America, while dying natives is just an old, old story.
But remember, if the press doesn't call this criminal a 'terrorist,' then it is the press's fault when America is stabbed in the back. Or something - I am sure we will all hear what we should think in due time.
What a silly debate, in the days when an expanded PATRIOT is soon to be the law of the land. But what a useful debate, too.
Look, over there - a TERRORIST. And there - and THERE. Lucky Halliburton got the contract for 'centers' to handle the looming problem of hundreds of thousands of people needing to be put inside them.
My humble opinion - you have bigger problems in the U.S. than whether someone is defined as a 'terrorist.'
Posted by: question at March 11, 2006 12:41 PM
Geez, next thing maybe you and your comrades will stop using the word "racist" for every policy you disagree with. I won't hold my breath, though.
Posted by: wsm at March 12, 2006 9:08 PM
"Comrades," huh? Ironic word choice, given the substance of the post.
Posted by: Neal at March 13, 2006 10:21 AM
Yeah but you're not being a victim ENOUGH to make them happy...ya see?
/shoot self
Posted by: Lurker #292881 at March 15, 2006 1:01 PM
Lone individual drives car into crowd:
1-Driver is white Christian
A:Driver is crazy (whatever his stated motives about the CIA, the UN, whatever). Incident means nothing about white Christian males in general.
2-Driver is brown Muslim
A:Driver is a terrorist, and (despite his lack of any contact with organized terror groups) represents a threat to America.
Posted by: emma_kill at March 17, 2006 8:45 PM