[thechat] West v. East (was: civilized vs uncivilized)

[Joe Crawford]

Erika Meyer wrote:
> http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,46915,00.html
> So let me get this straight: in order to defeat the "uncivilized"
> world, the "civilized world" is reducing civil liberties, declaring
> global war, expecting to kill innocents in the process.  Good work,
> guys.  Brilliant.

as a general description of an event, this aptly described both unjust
and just wars - it perfectly describes the US in World War II.

I see your point, but it's not a strong argument against war. 

> The thing that fascinates me a bit about all this is the type of
> figure Bin Laden is becoming, with US help.  He's turning into the a
> Geronimo-like figure.  I hesitate because I know that Geronimo, Crazy
> Horse, Sitting Bull et all were represented as hostile and dangerous
> Indians when in fact they were trying to keep their people's way of
> life intact. I don't know to what extent Bin Laden is misrepresented
> or not.
> 
> Remember Chief Joseph and Geronimo, how long they eluded US soldiers,
> how long it took to finally defeat these leaders and their
> followers...  how many innocents were shot or starved in the
> process...

Or Pancho Villa (never caught) or the Communist Cubans led by Castro, or
indeed the Arabs fighting a guerilla/terrorist war against the Turks
(watch Lawrence of Arabia for a slice of this) - or hey, the Zapatistas
in Mexico, the Kymer Rouge in Cambodia.

> The other thing that strikes me as odd... if this is a war between
> the civilized and the uncivilized... (or whatever... I haven't heard
> what Bin Laden's group calls it) and both of them are so willing to
> use violence to win...
> 
> This feels very disorienting.

Well, I think Chris Hitchens (definitely a guy I like for his relentless
classic leftism) most recent column in the guardian was pretty good -
not sure if it got referenced here yet. He posits the conflict brought
to our attention on 11 September as a conflict between West and East - 
between Western Culture indeed, and hardline Islam-gone-mad, "Fascism
with a Muslim Face". It was a take I found unique enough to make the
hair on the back of my neck stand up - because the implication is that
we may be /fated/ regardless to fight this foe whether we want to or
not.

The trick for us (and here I mean the US, but also the Western Worls)
will be elicit some classic Islamic Tolerance - which apparently is a
value forgotten among too many Mohammedan Faithful. Heck, too many of
our own local religions forget the value of tolerance.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Archive/Article/0,4273,4261623,00.html

<snippet>
It is something worse than idle to propose the very trade-offs that may
have been lodged somewhere in the closed-off minds of the
mass-murderers. The people of Gaza live under curfew and humiliation and
expropriation. This is notorious. Very well: does anyone suppose that an
Israeli withdrawal from Gaza would have forestalled the slaughter in
Manhattan? It would take a moral cretin to suggest anything of the sort;
the cadres of the new jihad make it very apparent that their quarrel is
with Judaism and secularism on principle, not with (or not just with)
Zionism. They regard the Saudi regime not as the extreme authoritarian
theocracy that it is, but as something too soft and lenient. The Taliban
forces viciously persecute the Shi'a minority in Afghanistan. The Muslim
fanatics in Indonesia try to extirpate the infidel minorities there;
civil society in Algeria is barely breathing after the fundamentalist
assault. Now is as good a time as ever to revisit the history of the
Crusades, or the sorry history of partition and Kashmir, or the woes of
the Chechens and Kosovars. 

But the bombers of Manhattan represent fascism with an Islamic face, and
there's no point in any euphemism about it. What they abominate about
"the west", to put it in a phrase, is not what western liberals don't
like and can't defend about their own system, but what they do like
about it and must defend: its emancipated women, its scientific inquiry,
its separation of religion from the state. Loose talk about chickens
coming home to roost is the moral equivalent of the hateful garbage
emitted by Falwell and Robertson, and exhibits about the same
intellectual content. Indiscriminate murder is not a judgment, even
obliquely, on the victims or their way of life, or ours. Any observant
follower of the prophet Mohammed could have been on one of those planes,
or in one of those buildings - yes, even in the Pentagon. 
</snippet>

	- Joe <http://artlung.com/>