Skip to main content

New Yorker letter to editor

(In The New Yorker, 2/4/08, p5)

Jeanne Guillemin, a senior fellor in MIT's Security Studies Program, wrote an excellent letter to the editor regarding how Americans talk about casualties. I'm unable to find a link to a full-text example, but here is an excerpt:

"In wars since 1945, American combat mortality figures have
sharply declined, while the exclusivity of the American claim on memorialization
has intensified, as if U.S. soldiers were the only casualties in Korea or
Vietnam or, more recently, Iraq, and the deaths of many thousands of civilians
killed in those distant conflicts merited no acknowledgment and carried no
meaning. Whose deaths matter and whose do not always tells a great deal about
American politics and culture."

Comments

rjhintz said…
So, what do you think Jeanne Guillemin means by saying, in the excerpt you quote, ..."the exclusivity of the American claim on memorialization has intensified, as if U.S. soldiers were the only casualties in Korea or Vietnam or, more recently, Iraq, and the deaths of many thousands of civilians
killed in those distant conflicts merited no acknowledgment and carried no meaning. Whose deaths matter and whose do not"?

Does "exclusivity of the American claim on memorialization" mean that other countries and other cultures don't recognize their war dead and wounded? Or that Americans don't recognize anyone else's recognition as having value? Or something else?

And is she saying that civilian casualties are not recognized by Americans? A quick Google search on the term "civilian casualties" brings up pages of references. I'm not sure what counts as acknowledgment, but even one website devoted to Iraqi civilian casualties such as www.iraqbodycount.org would seem to count, at least, as minimal acknowledgment.

And what does she mean by saying that the civilian deaths "carried no meaning"? Meaning to whom? What sort of meaning? Clearly there are many people, Americans included, who are deeply troubled by any civilian casualty. The meaning of a civilian death might be said to be seen as a reason to bring an end to the war.

Is there evidence for any of this? Of course, one might say that the very publication of a note with such content in a respected publication is a counter-example to all that she asserts. But perhaps you have a different opinion?
February 1, 2008 at 12:59 PM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Real Estate in America

We sold our house this summer and bought a new home. The experience has led me to reflect on homes and home-buying in America. As in any industry, there are good and bad incentives at work in real estate. A home seller would like to get the highest price for their house and sell it in a reasonable period of time. The industry operates on a commission system so that the agent seeks to sell the house at a higher price. This incentive works, but only to a point. Consider the impact of $5000 on the seller vs. the agent. Six percent of $5000 is $300. After the realty company and purchasing agent take their cut, the agent isn't left with much. A $5000 difference in the price of the house means little to the agent, but a lot to the home owner. Does an agent become successful by getting the highest price or by turning over lots of houses? The answer is obvious. An agent's ideal world is not one where people get exactly the right price for their homes, it is a world where everyone is wi
2 comments
Read more

Welfare for the wealthy

I was struck by today's Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel. Not literally, but in the Crossroads section, on opposite sides of the spread, were two articles that reflect our nation's "welfare for the rich." On 2J, a local economics instructor's article "Tax for Miller Park didn't help economy." He criticized a previous article which had suggested the opposite. The previous article was based almost entirely on reports by Major League Baseball, which clearly has a huge bias. This week's article takes an objective look, and summarizes that taxpayer's don't get much in return, but the fat cat players and executives of MLB walk away with huge paychecks. The drive to fund new ballparks almost never starts with taxpayers--it starts with the deep pockets of baseball executives, PR campaigns and connections with political power. On 3J, George Will was taking on the Fed ("What the Fed should never do"), rightly criticizing it for bailing out Bear
Post a Comment
Read more