Scrutiny on the Bounty
I recently picked up a copy of Original Zinn: Conversations on History and Politics, a collection of some of David Barsamian's interviews with Howard Zinn. I always enjoy Howard Zinn's perspectives on things, but I still read anything of his--or anything of anyone's--with a certain amount of scrutiny. I came across this statement and felt that it failed to pass my scrutiny:So this point I just made about the media and misinformation is something that's very, very troubling, because I believe that if the American people were really informed about what has been going on in the Middle East, if they really were informed about the history of the Middle East...if they know how much the United States had to do with keeping Saddam Hussein in power, with giving him chemical and biological weapons in the 1980s when he was fighting against Iran...we wouldn't have this support for the war that the polls tell us a majority of the people in the United States express.
I agree that if Americans were more informed about some history of the Middle East, we would be better off, but I don't think the fact that Saddam Hussein used to be America's friend is going to shake any hardline conservatives out of their support for the war. While people like Studs Terkel and Gore Vidal might lament America's historical amnesia--and while I agree wholeheartedly with their diagnosis--I would imagine there are plenty of conservatives who are well aware of the fact that Saddam Hussein was once an ally. Of course, this is just a guess on my part. Maybe I'm wrong and Howard Zinn knows something I don't. But I think if that little fact entered the head of someone with a penchant for racial prejudice (and there are plenty of conservatives who fit that description), it's not going to change their opinions on the war or the Middle East or much of anything that really matters. Middle Easterners are subject to some of the same racial stereotypes as Far Easterners: they're sneaky, they're conniving, they're not trustworthy. Nineteen of them could board a plane looking like innocent passengers, going on a business trip or heading for a vacation--but they turn out to be homicidal hijackers! (The distinction here is that Middle Easterners are stereotyped as being conniving because of their Islamic faith, whereas Far Easterners are stereotyped as being conniving because of their business savvy.) So if Saddam Hussein once had the trust of Americans, it would mean to progressives that America's only criterion for international friendship is cooperation with U.S. global hegemony and U.S. corporate interests--and if a "friend" starts being uncooperative, that friendship will quickly dissolve. But to a hardline conservative, it's only going to reinforce the idea that Middle Easterners aren't trustworthy; we should assume they're all terrorists and be more cautious in the future (id est, more willing to imprison them domestically and decimate their populations in their homelands).
Maybe I'm off the mark. Maybe I'm misunderestimating the intelligence of conservatives. But it's been my experience that the political rhetoric of the most fanatical conservatives tends to read like a comic book.
Incidentally, this is a good example of a case in which I agree with George Lakoff's ideas (in Don't Think of an Elephant!). In this case, the facts don't matter. It would take something else to convince a war supporter that he or she is wrong. Ultimately, I have more confidence in the persuasive power of facts than Lakoff has, but it's confidence, not faith. There are definitely times when a fact can enter someone's warped worldview and change nothing--when the wrong fact might even reinforce that warped worldview.
In better news, I found out a Lebanese restaurant opened near my house. I now have a place to buy falafel that is within walking distance and doesn't require waiting at crosswalks.
I wonder if any human has ever tried to build an anthill.
I agree that if Americans were more informed about some history of the Middle East, we would be better off, but I don't think the fact that Saddam Hussein used to be America's friend is going to shake any hardline conservatives out of their support for the war. While people like Studs Terkel and Gore Vidal might lament America's historical amnesia--and while I agree wholeheartedly with their diagnosis--I would imagine there are plenty of conservatives who are well aware of the fact that Saddam Hussein was once an ally. Of course, this is just a guess on my part. Maybe I'm wrong and Howard Zinn knows something I don't. But I think if that little fact entered the head of someone with a penchant for racial prejudice (and there are plenty of conservatives who fit that description), it's not going to change their opinions on the war or the Middle East or much of anything that really matters. Middle Easterners are subject to some of the same racial stereotypes as Far Easterners: they're sneaky, they're conniving, they're not trustworthy. Nineteen of them could board a plane looking like innocent passengers, going on a business trip or heading for a vacation--but they turn out to be homicidal hijackers! (The distinction here is that Middle Easterners are stereotyped as being conniving because of their Islamic faith, whereas Far Easterners are stereotyped as being conniving because of their business savvy.) So if Saddam Hussein once had the trust of Americans, it would mean to progressives that America's only criterion for international friendship is cooperation with U.S. global hegemony and U.S. corporate interests--and if a "friend" starts being uncooperative, that friendship will quickly dissolve. But to a hardline conservative, it's only going to reinforce the idea that Middle Easterners aren't trustworthy; we should assume they're all terrorists and be more cautious in the future (id est, more willing to imprison them domestically and decimate their populations in their homelands).
Maybe I'm off the mark. Maybe I'm misunderestimating the intelligence of conservatives. But it's been my experience that the political rhetoric of the most fanatical conservatives tends to read like a comic book.
Incidentally, this is a good example of a case in which I agree with George Lakoff's ideas (in Don't Think of an Elephant!). In this case, the facts don't matter. It would take something else to convince a war supporter that he or she is wrong. Ultimately, I have more confidence in the persuasive power of facts than Lakoff has, but it's confidence, not faith. There are definitely times when a fact can enter someone's warped worldview and change nothing--when the wrong fact might even reinforce that warped worldview.
In better news, I found out a Lebanese restaurant opened near my house. I now have a place to buy falafel that is within walking distance and doesn't require waiting at crosswalks.
I wonder if any human has ever tried to build an anthill.