No subject
barbara100 at jps.net
barbara100 at jps.net
Wed Oct 10 14:59:22 CDT 2001
I picked out these few questions from two recent interviews because I think they're applicable to some of our recent discussions. I won't bother with the links--You all know where to find him....
Question from Tennisball: What do you consider the most reliable source of news covering the WTC and the alleged conspirators?
Noam Chomsky: The best thing to do is read widely and always skeptically. Remember everyone, including me, has their opinions and their goals and you have to think them through for yourself.
Question from Arthur Buonamia: What can we as citizens do to influence a foreign policy change that is humane, and just.
&
Question from John-Boston: Given recent major media portrayals of "pacifists" or "peaceniks" advocating we "do nothing," would you correct the record by outlining ethical actions, like UN justice and humane foreign policy?
Noam Chomsky: On the first question, we should bear in mind that we are extremely privileged. We live in a very free, very democratic society. Unlike many other places in the world, we can act and speak in all sorts of ways without fear of state punishment and retribution. That leaves all kinds of avenues open to us, from meetings with neighbors or in a church or whatever organization you're in to publication to organization to demonstrations to political action to there's just every means available. It can be effective. It has been in the past and it can be now. There is no shortage of means, if there's a shortage, it's of willingness to use them. They're available. On the second point, I don't know exactly what the media means by pacifists. Tere are a small number of people, people who I very much respect and who I've known for year, who are true pacifists. They don't believe in violence. Yes there are such people. I don't happen to agree with them and never have, but I respect the position. However, what's called the peace movement has never taken that view. I know very few people who were not in favor of fighting the war against Hitler if they'd been alive or in retrospect. What the serious peace movement has been asking for is pretty much what the Pope just asked for, openly. He said, and he's right, it was a terrible crime and when there is a crime, those who are responsible should be held accountable and brought to justice, but without harming great numbers of innocent people. If somebody robs my house and I think it was someone in the neighborhood across the river, I don't go out and kill everyone in that neighborhood, that's not the way you proceed. They way you proceed is through lawful means. And they're available, and there are plenty of precedents for them. The United States should, if it can, and that's not going to be easy, present a credible case against whoever was responsible for these atrocities. That is not going to be easy, which is probably why they haven't done it, but that has to be one as
inary. And then there are measures that can be taken through international institutions.
JC: can I talk about something that I've found curious in the last week or so, and in fact fascinates me. And it is that when people like you, and we had John Pilger on this program in this time slot last week, and Alexander Cockburn, and Robert Fisk, and Edward Said, making points that point at the complexity of America's role in the world, and how difficult it is to be black and white now about anything. You get this odd kind of backlash from unexpected quarters. And I'm sure you're aware Christopher Hitchens in the Nation seems to have gone in search of sort of a reduction ad Absurdum of this position, in an article which is a bit of a go at you, and reduces much of what people like you and Robert Fisk and John Pilger are saying, to the level of a caricature, sort of liberal wimpiness. I quote: "Meet people who complain that this enemy is us, really." In other words, Christopher Hitchens appears to be claiming that you and John Pilger and Robert Fisk, I don't know if he names Robert Fisk, but you know what I mean, exonerate the Taliban or Osama bin Laden, or whoever the perpetrator is ultimately revealed to be, and lay the blame at the feet of the U. S.
NC: I read his articles, and they're a little surprising to me. The choice of targets is kind of odd. I mean, why didn't he pick the Wall Street Journal? The Wall Street Journal since the attack has been the only newspaper, in fact, who has run several quite serious articles on attitudes towards the U. S.In the Middle East region. In fact, I've quoted them a lot in interviews and articles. They of course keep to what they call 'moneyed Muslims': bankers, professionals, business men with ties to the U.S., and they run through their objections to the U. S., which, as the Journal points out, are well known. And they're pretty much the same ones that Fisk or Pilger or I point out as well. They are well known, and they're important, as the Journal points out. USA Today has run articles on this. Anyone who is even semi-sane will try to look into the reasons for a terrorist attack. Unless your goal is to ensure that violence escalates and there are more such attacks, unless that's your goal, what you will do is try to think through what lies behind this. The same is true if a robbery takes place in the streets. If my house is robbed, I don't respond by killing everyone in the neighborhood where I think the thief came from. You try to pursue criminal procedures. But you also ask yourself why. And is there some reason? And that's true when IRA bombs go off in London. The British reaction isn't, "Okay, let's bomb Boston, where most of the funding comes from." If it's sensible, and it was to an extent, you try to find out where this is coming from. Now almost every crime, whether it's a robbery or a colossal atrocity like Tuesday September 11,there's something behind it. And often what's behind it has legitimate elements, and if you're serious, like the ones I mentioned, there's some legitimate element. That's what the Wall Street Journal, for example, is exploring. Then you have to ask yourself well, how are we going to deal with these legitimate elements? What Hitchens is saying in those articles, to the extent that I
d them (I frankly don't understand them, they're unintelligible), but what he appears to be saying, is that you shouldn't look for the reason, because that's a justification. It's not a justification. If Britain asks what lies behind the IRA bombings and says, "Well, let's do something about Northern Ireland," that's not justifying them. That's being sane, and trying to reduce the level of violence. To object to that is to say, "Okay, fine, let's commit ourselves to tribal warfare. Let's become like the hard men in Northern Ireland, who just want to kill everyone on the other side and not ask why." You can do that if you want, and you know where that goes to.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
mail2web - Check your email from the web at
http://mail2web.com/ .
More information about the Pynchon-l
mailing list