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

Voter Fraud

There's been a lot of talk in Wisconsin about voter fraud and what needs to be done to prevent voter fraud. I'd like to address what the real voter fraud is and what it is not. There has been no substantial voter fraud proven in this state in recent memory. No statistically significant voter fraud has even been alleged. The accusations that are tossed around have more to do with someone standing too close to a polling station when they hand out literature than with someone actually voting in an illigitimate way. One couple in a recent election voted by absentee, then again at the polling station. They were caught easily. The system worked. The fraud that is used to justify so-called voter reform is not a problem. It's not just fear of getting caught that deters voter fraud today. In modern America, voter fraud is by-and-large a very inefficient way to influence an election. You have to find a group of people who are willing to commit crimes, you have to subvert the system a...
1 comment
Read more