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

The 2020 Vote: Bending toward justice

The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice.  --  Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. My hero, Dr. King, was wrong about justice. I love Dr. King. His writings and speeches are collected in a book called “A Testament of Hope”. That book was a revelation for me. Dr. King had a moral clarity that is rare in this world. Many of his observations were accurate, wise, and timeless. But the ‘arc of the moral universe’ statement is misleading. We are promised no such experience in this world. In Dr. King’s time, the quote may have been both accurate and wise. King saw the expanding reach of national newspapers and television networks. When the nation, through that new media, was exposed to the reality and brutality of overt Southern racism--then the nation, which believed it shared a common and decent morality, imposed that morality on the South. While Dr. King’s understanding may have been both accurate and wise, it was not timeless. This is where my moral hero comes u...
Post a Comment
Read more

Federal incompetence is an equilibrium strategy

I’ve heard a number of commentators--right, left, and center--characterize Trump as the pivotal problem with Republican leadership. But why was Trump overwhelming to the Republican party? Why was he gradually embraced by nearly all Republican leadership? And would the Republican party be much different today without him? Each party is made up of different interest groups. Two large factions of the Republican Party are fiscal conservatives and the Christian Right. The fiscal conservatives are dominated by Free Market Fundamentalists. Anti-tax pledges and opposition to virtually any government regulations are Free Market Fundamentalist positions, and those positions are prominent in the current Republican party. The Christian Right wants white Christian conservative values to dominate American culture. They once did dominate American culture, and they want to turn back the clock. These two influential factions of the Republican party do not make natural teammates. Free Market Fundamental...
Post a Comment
Read more

Recommended podcasts (update)

Two years ago I listed my recommended podcasts. Here’s an updated list. Guide: Asterisks are meant to show how timeless the episodes are. One asterisk (*) means the last year or so is likely still relevant.  Three (***) means you could (or should) start from the first  episode and it would still be relevant. The number two (2) means they were also on my list two years ago. I don't necessarily listen to every episode, especially for podcasts that do different topics or different guests (like Vox, Spycast, Hidden Brain). You can’t really skip episodes for serials (podcasts that tell a story, like In the Dark). Tiers are based on a combination of quality and personal preference. Tier 1 In the Dark *** [Crime podcast. Start with season 1. This show is amazing.] Revisionist History *** (2) [Malcolm Gladwell's podcast. First couple seasons were outstanding. The most recent episodes are just ads for Gladwell's other projects.] I Spy by Foreign Policy *** [Fun stuff....
Post a Comment
Read more