define('DISALLOW_FILE_EDIT', true); define('DISALLOW_FILE_MODS', true); Comments on: Looking my people square in the face http://www.makingchutney.com/2004/09/15/looking-my-people-square-in-the-face/ One part facial hair. Two parts moxy. Tue, 21 Sep 2004 17:32:22 +0000 hourly 1 https://wordpress.org/?v=7.0.4 By: et alia http://www.makingchutney.com/2004/09/15/looking-my-people-square-in-the-face/comment-page-1/#comment-932 Fri, 17 Sep 2004 18:59:41 +0000 http://www.makingchutney.com/posts/2004/09/15/looking-my-people-square-in-the-face/#comment-932 Oy. :shock:

]]> By: chutney http://www.makingchutney.com/2004/09/15/looking-my-people-square-in-the-face/comment-page-1/#comment-931 Fri, 17 Sep 2004 13:31:15 +0000 http://www.makingchutney.com/posts/2004/09/15/looking-my-people-square-in-the-face/#comment-931 I should say right off that only two of the four panelists took this approach. However, the other two didn’t outright argue with them, so it “felt” like the whole panel was taking their approach.

No, no other point than US-Islamic relations (the subtitle, I think). Tends to reinforce Sam Huntington’s clash of civilizations thing, even as it tried to get beyond it (title was something like “hope not hate”).

1. The US sins in question were, in fact, sins: slavery and Native American conquest featured most prominently. But there was no line drawn between them and US-Islamic relations. It was exactly the sort of America bashing that conservatives love to mock.

2. If your point had been made, I wouldn’t have been so peeved. Instead, it was the sins from #1 with perhaps the addition of US colonialism following the Spanish-American War. (And again, only two of the panelists, but they were not rebuked.) “America is a bad egg” isn’t an argument. It’s a sentiment, and not one that many Americans share, so if you’re hoping to persuade with that you won’t get very far.

]]> By: et alia http://www.makingchutney.com/2004/09/15/looking-my-people-square-in-the-face/comment-page-1/#comment-927 Fri, 17 Sep 2004 02:53:06 +0000 http://www.makingchutney.com/posts/2004/09/15/looking-my-people-square-in-the-face/#comment-927 <minorNitPicking>
Godwin’s Law only states that the probability of a mention of the Nazis or Hitler increases (tends towards 1) as the discussion becomes longer. That a discussion is over and a person has “lost” the discussion is a related but separate matter.
</minorNitPicking>

Questions:

1. Granted, a one sided view is not the complete historical record, but in the context of the discussion you describe it appears that the significant historical facts are, at best, not ones we can be proud of. Since I don’t know what events were given in this catalog of American sins, it may be that they were all irrelevant anyway, and I don’t have much patience for guilt addicts myself. But I would like to know more on this point.

2. What were x, y, and z? in this case? They may be decent reasons for not trusting the US, but if other nations engage in them—and I’m sure they do, since one of the things that surprised me about the ’03 invasion of Iraq was that we didn’t re-assemble the old Gulf War coalition—why then trust these nations? Or maybe in terms of int’l relations, trust qua warm, fuzzy feeling is besides the point?

Was the point of the panel any more specific than to discuss US-Islamic relations? (and that sounds rather odd in itself, because the US is a nation, and Islam a religion and a culture—I mean, there’s a mosque two subway stops away from where I live) Was there a break in chorus of mea culpas? (If I knew Latin, I’d put a funny twist on dulce et decorum est pro patria mori, but I don’t, so I can’t)

]]> By: joe http://www.makingchutney.com/2004/09/15/looking-my-people-square-in-the-face/comment-page-1/#comment-926 Thu, 16 Sep 2004 19:07:17 +0000 http://www.makingchutney.com/posts/2004/09/15/looking-my-people-square-in-the-face/#comment-926 is noam chomsky (really) a liberal? tiresome semantic arguments aside, really, dosn’t Paul Wolfowitz have a better stake on that particular term?

]]>