Tuesday, March 13, 2007
The path to Hell
Via Crooked Timber (http://crookedtimber.org), I find this, from a discussion on the validity (or not) of the second Lancet study of civilian deaths and why (whether) it was mostly ignored by the media, and, in fact, almost everyone:
"I think the problem with the Lancet study is that it rams up against a fundamental presupposition of current ‘Western’ discourse (i.e. among intellectuals) and therefore it can’t really be sensibly discussed. I’ve noticed a hierarchy of ‘acceptable’ ‘sins of the West’.
1: Most acceptable of all are horrors of the past during which ‘we’ did not ‘intervene’. (key example here: Rwanda). This can therefore be spun: ‘we are good, but sometimes we don’t do enough’.
2: Secondly are horrors of the past in which ‘we’ did do terrible things, but it was all a long time ago. Therefore this is spun: ‘Vietnam/the slave trade/the Empire was indeed a terrible thing but it was all a long time ago, and the fact that we disapprove of it now only goes to prove how good we are now.’ (or else, the Christopher Hitchens line: the fact that ‘we’ caused such bad things in the past only goes to prove that ‘we’ have to set them right now).
3: Verging into unacceptable territory (but still, as it were, alludable to) is ‘our’ current collusion with various dictators many of whom practice torture, murder, genocide etc. It is just barely permissable to mention our collusion with the Saudis, Equatorial Guinea, Egypt, Pakistan (etc. etc. etc.) but only if this is spun: ‘they are bad people and they have corrupted us! It is terrible that we are forced to deal with such people, but this is the way of the world.’
4: Completely and absolutely unmentionable (indeed, unthinkable) is a situation where ‘we’ are purely and simply the bad guys. The Lancet study is not so much argued against as ignored (or treated with bug eyed disbelief) because it threatens this taboo. For example, as Mahmood Mandani points out, why do ‘we’ not refer to what is currently going on in Iraq as genocide? It is not obviously much better than what is currently going on in Sudan. The reason, surely, is that then we would have to face the idea that ‘we’ set in motion a chain of events that led to genocide, and that, therefore, ‘we’ are the bad guys."
And I think to a certain extent it is true. Because "we" have good intentions, "we" therefore are not and do not do "evil". Trouble is, pretty much everyone thinks they are doing the right thing. Hell, the men who flew planes into the World Trade Centre thought they were doing the right thing. At the risk of breaching Godwin's Law, bloody Hitler thought he was doing the right thing. There really are very few people out there rubbing their hands, laughing maniacally and setting out to do evil. The road to Hell is indeed paved with good intentions.
"I think the problem with the Lancet study is that it rams up against a fundamental presupposition of current ‘Western’ discourse (i.e. among intellectuals) and therefore it can’t really be sensibly discussed. I’ve noticed a hierarchy of ‘acceptable’ ‘sins of the West’.
1: Most acceptable of all are horrors of the past during which ‘we’ did not ‘intervene’. (key example here: Rwanda). This can therefore be spun: ‘we are good, but sometimes we don’t do enough’.
2: Secondly are horrors of the past in which ‘we’ did do terrible things, but it was all a long time ago. Therefore this is spun: ‘Vietnam/the slave trade/the Empire was indeed a terrible thing but it was all a long time ago, and the fact that we disapprove of it now only goes to prove how good we are now.’ (or else, the Christopher Hitchens line: the fact that ‘we’ caused such bad things in the past only goes to prove that ‘we’ have to set them right now).
3: Verging into unacceptable territory (but still, as it were, alludable to) is ‘our’ current collusion with various dictators many of whom practice torture, murder, genocide etc. It is just barely permissable to mention our collusion with the Saudis, Equatorial Guinea, Egypt, Pakistan (etc. etc. etc.) but only if this is spun: ‘they are bad people and they have corrupted us! It is terrible that we are forced to deal with such people, but this is the way of the world.’
4: Completely and absolutely unmentionable (indeed, unthinkable) is a situation where ‘we’ are purely and simply the bad guys. The Lancet study is not so much argued against as ignored (or treated with bug eyed disbelief) because it threatens this taboo. For example, as Mahmood Mandani points out, why do ‘we’ not refer to what is currently going on in Iraq as genocide? It is not obviously much better than what is currently going on in Sudan. The reason, surely, is that then we would have to face the idea that ‘we’ set in motion a chain of events that led to genocide, and that, therefore, ‘we’ are the bad guys."
And I think to a certain extent it is true. Because "we" have good intentions, "we" therefore are not and do not do "evil". Trouble is, pretty much everyone thinks they are doing the right thing. Hell, the men who flew planes into the World Trade Centre thought they were doing the right thing. At the risk of breaching Godwin's Law, bloody Hitler thought he was doing the right thing. There really are very few people out there rubbing their hands, laughing maniacally and setting out to do evil. The road to Hell is indeed paved with good intentions.
Comments:
'We' don't refer to what is happening in Iraq as genocide because it doesn't meet the definition of genocide as defined by Article 2 or the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. The invasion and occupation of Iraq may be catastrophic, but it isn't genocidal.
Erm, what? Where did I say anything about refering to Iraq as genocide? Are you reading what I wrote?
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
<< Home
