"Being black means never having to apologize" ??

[Travis]

I have to say I'm definitely not a fan of this whole "to explain is to defend" or "to understand is to sympathize" line of reasoning. It reminds me of after 9/11, if you said that al Qaeda knocked down the towers because they were upset about US troops being stationed in Saudi Arabia, and they opposed the pro-Western regime in Saudi Arabia and the secularist regime in Iraq, then you were somehow defending the terrorists. Instead, you have to say they did it because "they hate our freedom." It's enforced ignorance.

Agree that it's dumb to pretend that the enemy is in-human. However I take issue with the idea that believing Al-Qaeda hates our freedoms is ignorance. Because the more I read on Al-Qaeda the more I find out about how there are a whole lot of freedoms we have that they do most certainly hate and ignoring that is as stupid as ignoring all the other reasons behind what happened.

 

[linusrichard]

Agree that it's dumb to pretend that the enemy is in-human. However I take issue with the idea that believing Al-Qaeda hates our freedoms is ignorance.

I did not say that believing al Qaeda hates our freedom is ignorance. I said (or if I didn't say, I meant to say) that it was ignorance to believe that 19 members of al Qaeda murdered 3000-odd Americans in suicide attacks solely because they hate our freedom.

Because the more I read on Al-Qaeda the more I find out about how there are a whole lot of freedoms we have that they do most certainly hate and ignoring that is as stupid as ignoring all the other reasons behind what happened.

I'm sure you're right. But there is a big difference between hating freedom and committing suicide in order to murder several thousand people who enjoy the freedom you hate. The former I take for granted. The latter, to me, doesn't even pass the laugh test.

 

[linusrichard]

Linus Richard makes a very good point in his post. Pretty much underscores what I was thinking, but explains it quite succinctly.

Good post, Linus.

Nominated. Great post.

 

[Cleon]

Agree that it's dumb to pretend that the enemy is in-human. However I take issue with the idea that believing Al-Qaeda hates our freedoms is ignorance.

Perhaps not, but thinking that's the sum total of the reasons behind 9/11 and other attacks is ignorance. And accusing people who try to look at those reasons of "defending" Al-Qaeda is enforcing ignorance.

 

[Travis]

I did not say that believing al Qaeda hates our freedom is ignorance. I said (or if I didn't say, I meant to say) that it was ignorance to believe that 19 members of al Qaeda murdered 3000-odd Americans in suicide attacks solely because they hate our freedom.

Who believes this?

I'm sure you're right. But there is a big difference between hating freedom and committing suicide in order to murder several thousand people who enjoy the freedom you hate. The former I take for granted. The latter, to me, doesn't even pass the laugh test.

You are trying to apply rationality to an irrational act. It may seem laughable to you but you, after all, are sane. The idea that someone would concoct a series of murders based on their interpretations of The White Album is, on the surface, laughable too.

 

[WildCat]

How do you know she's referring to "black culture"? Neither I nor you can read her mind. Is dog fighting unique to African Americans in the South?

You must have missed the Chicago Tribune article on dog fighting in Chicago a few weeks ago.

Dogfighting appalling to most but part of culture to others.

For all you foreigners, I can assure you Chicago isn't part of the Deep South.

 

[Travis]

Perhaps not, but thinking that's the sum total of the reasons behind 9/11 and other attacks is ignorance. And accusing people who try to look at those reasons of "defending" Al-Qaeda is enforcing ignorance.

Which I do not condone either.

 

[linusrichard]

Who believes this?

Murkins.

Sorry to be glib, but I do believe that many people believe this. It is the only reason for the attacks I remember ever hearing from the preznit and the teevee. I'm sure millions of Americans thought "there's got to be more to it," and I'm sure millions of Americans went to various blogs and read Foreign Affairs and the Economist and engaged in some critical thinking. But that still leaves many millions of Americans who were content to believe that it was all about They Hate Our Freedom.

I kind of wonder if more people knew what bin Laden's goals were, if maybe there wouldn't have been so much support for the US fulfilling so many of his goals. A clearer example of rewarding bad behavior I can't imagine.

You are trying to apply rationality to an irrational act. It may seem laughable to you but you, after all, are sane. The idea that someone would concoct a series of murders based on their interpretations of The White Album is, on the surface, laughable too.

Fair enough. You may be right. I have to believe, though, that it has to take something else to drive someone to suicide.

And then your response is Jonestown, or Heaven's Gate.

And then my response is, again, fair enough; you may be right.

 

[varwoche]

I agree with the other posters that I don't understand why race would enter into this discussion. I think Goldberg's point was to just try and humanize Vick a little since he was taking such a beating by people for so long.

Race comes into it because the only song that some people know how to sing is One Note Samba. (e.g. Bigred)

 

[Psi Baba]

linusrichard's post was indeed excellent and accurate. And as it applies to Michael Vick, Goldberg's statement might have made some sense in the light of linusrichard's analysis, if he actually was part of "that culture." But as bigred pointed out (and I'd like to add here that I brought this up way back when shortly after Goldberg's statement was made), that Vick is from Newport News, more specifically, from Hampton Roads, VA. Not the deep south. Not even close. I'm sure the people of Hampton Roads would take exception to being labeled as a culture where "dogs are sport." At least I hope they would. Vick did not live in some kind of isolation that kept him from knowing that the rest of the country would disapprove of that behavior. That's just absurd. The point is, that even if the attempt at explanation is not an attempt to defend, the so-called "explanation" does not hold water in this case because the facts regarding Vick's upbringing are incorrect. So, one has to wonder, if someone is attempting to "explain" or "understand" using false information, what are they really trying to do?

 

[quarky]

Vick should have eaten the dogs.

 

[Richard Masters]

Who believes this?

Rudy Giuliani.

 

[uruk]

You must have missed the Chicago Tribune article on dog fighting in Chicago a few weeks ago.

Dogfighting appalling to most but part of culture to others.

For all you foreigners, I can assure you Chicago isn't part of the Deep South.

I read this article from National Geographic: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/02/0218_040218_dogfighting.html

It seems to imply that the problem of dog fighting exists in all 50 states in both rural and urban areas.

I think it is naive to think that dog fighting is associated with a particular culture.

 

[ponderingturtle]

For the 18 trillionth time on this planet, NOT ALL BLACK THINK OR ACT ALIKE. NOR DO ALL WHITE PEOPLE. Condemn Whoopi Goldberg if you want, but don't start a thread attacking all black people or implying that all black people (or all of society) have a certain bad idea because one black person may say something that seems foolish. (and if you're not pointing out black people specifically, use the term "apologists," not "black apologists.)

While true it does not invalidate the point that there is a black culture in the US. Look at the attempts to change the misoginist view of women in the music as an example of one part of the black comunity trying to change a different one.

It is not a remarkable claim to me that the way american black culture defines manhood, that someone invested in that culture would have problems admitting mistakes.

 

[Pardalis]

I have to say I'm definitely not a fan of this whole "to explain is to defend" or "to understand is to sympathize" line of reasoning. It reminds me of after 9/11, if you said that al Qaeda knocked down the towers because they were upset about US troops being stationed in Saudi Arabia, and they opposed the pro-Western regime in Saudi Arabia and the secularist regime in Iraq, then you were somehow defending the terrorists. Instead, you have to say they did it because "they hate our freedom." It's enforced ignorance.

If I say that a bank robber or drug dealer or Enron executive committed his crime because he wanted to have more money, there's nothing offensive about that (other than the perhaps offensive obviousness of it). But if I say that al Qaeda committed its crimes in response to US policy in the Middle East, or that Vick committed his crimes in part because he grew up around people who thought dogfighting was cool, then somehow I'm defending al Qaeda or Michael Vick? It doesn't make sense.

I think it's rooted in this need some people have to see people who do certain things as non-human. So we might describe dogfighting or terrorism or torture or the like as "inhuman," or we might describe (as has been done in this thread) Michael Vick as a "monster." Good people are praised for their "humanity." My problem with all of this is that it ignores what we know about humans, which is that many of them are cruel, stupid, cowardly, etc.

Someone (maybe author and JREFer David Wong, but I don't remember) pointed out something I found interesting. If you start talking about bin Laden's hobbies, his favorite flavor of ice cream, his first date, stuff like that, it can offend people! Why should this be? It's because we need bin Laden to not be human. Humans have favorite ice cream flavors. Monsters orchestrate terrorist attacks. Never mind that you're not defending bin Laden one iota by talking about his personal life - merely showing that he is human is seen as a defense. It's the same with Michael Vick. If you talk about the culture in which Vick grew up, the forces that shaped him, or what motivated his crimes, you're talking about him as if he were a human. Humans have motivations. Monsters fight dogs.

What I feel we shouldn't forget is that humans are a very diverse group, and capable of evil. Hitler and Stalin were every bit as human as MLK and Gandhi.

Saying Al Qaeda attacked the US because of the US foreign policies is oversimplifyng things, and undully putting the blame on the US. That's why people see it as apologizing for them, which it is in a sense.

These guys are sociopaths. No matter how much you try to understand why they did what they did, or if you are foolish enough to believe the reasons they gave (you have fallen into their propaganda trap BTW), these are brainwashed sociopaths.

It's like saying, and forgive my Godwin, that the reason the Nazis tried to exterminate the Jews was because the Jews really did try to take over everything. Of course you wouldn't say that, but why do you give any credence to what these AQ savages say? Not only are you giving them credence, but also giving them legitimacy. You're playing their game.

That guy Vick also must have sociopathic tendencies to do that to animals without remorse, and to enjoy it, no matter what his cultural background is.

 

[Travis]

Murkins.

Sorry to be glib, but I do believe that many people believe this. It is the only reason for the attacks I remember ever hearing from the preznit and the teevee. I'm sure millions of Americans thought "there's got to be more to it," and I'm sure millions of Americans went to various blogs and read Foreign Affairs and the Economist and engaged in some critical thinking. But that still leaves many millions of Americans who were content to believe that it was all about They Hate Our Freedom.

I'd bet you that those who think it was about "Hating our Freedoms" have heard about the foreign policy issues and whatnot. The thing is they see no problem with those foreign policies and therefore they think that opposition to them is based on them "Hating our Freedoms." It's not that they're unaware that we have troops in Saudi, or that we meddle in the affairs of many countries over there, it's that they see no problem with the US doing that and think that one could only oppose such things by being filled with an irrational hatred.

I kind of wonder if more people knew what bin Laden's goals were, if maybe there wouldn't have been so much support for the US fulfilling so many of his goals. A clearer example of rewarding bad behavior I can't imagine.

Possibly but think about it this way: a man wants to get you to fight him and he comes over and smacks you in the head. Knowing his motive you might just continue to sit there and not give him what he wants but if he just keeps smacking you in the head eventually you will have to put a stop to it and that might mean giving him what he wants, a fight.

 

[Pardalis]

And BTW, the US is in Saudi Arabia because Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait, and SA was next on his list as they didn't have proper military to defend themselves. So if OBL wants to blame someone, it should be Hussein.

It must be our Judeo-Christian mentality, to think that everytime someone attacks us it must be our fault.

 

[uruk]

These guys are sociopaths. No matter how much you try to understand why they did what they did, or if you are foolish enough to believe the reasons they gave (you have fallen into their propaganda trap BTW), these are brainwashed sociopaths.

Brainwashed more than likely, but sociopaths? I think that is a naive view.
I think most terrorists feel they are doing a duty for thier religion/leaders/people/whatever.

Would you call soldier who is killing and bombing in a war a sociopath or simply doing his duty for his country?

The terrorists seem to be idealistic and motivated by what they feel are injustices and assaults against thier beliefs/country/people. They are simply responding in any way they can to a percieved threat. Now wether the threat is real or not is another argument.


There are a growing number of reports that suggest that terrorist is some countries are more affluent and educated than the rest of thier populace.
http://www.brookings.edu/es/commentary/journals/tradeforum/papers/200405_sambanis.pdf
http://idei.fr/doc/wp/2007/foreign_aid.pdf
http://www.irs.princeton.edu/pubs/pdfs/477.pdf

I am not trying to justify or appologise for thier action, But arent we just as guilty of being "brainwashed" and dehumanizing by calling the terrorists sociopaths and monsters? Because they most likely have been told that we are sociopaths and monsters by thier leadership.

I think that we should defend ourselves, but we should also try to seek out the root cause and see if there is anything that can be done to settle or end the violence.

If not, then the result is more of the same.

 

[uruk]

Possibly but think about it this way: a man wants to get you to fight him and he comes over and smacks you in the head. Knowing his motive you might just continue to sit there and not give him what he wants but if he just keeps smacking you in the head eventually you will have to put a stop to it and that might mean giving him what he wants, a fight.

Then he's won. He got what he wanted. To beat him into the ground untill he gives up doesn't mean you win. You've allowed yourself to be manipulated by him. And the beating has its consequences also, which is what he may have wanted.

Ther are many ways to resolve the issue without violence, but some of them may not be savory to a certain mindset.

 

[linusrichard]

Saying Al Qaeda attacked the US because of the US foreign policies is oversimplifyng things,

Not much.

and undully putting the blame on the US.

Not at all.

That's why people see it as apologizing for them, which it is in a sense.

No it isn't. Any more than saying a bank robber robbed a bank because he wanted money apologizes for the bank robber and blames the depositors.

These guys are sociopaths.

No question there.

No matter how much you try to understand why they did what they did, or if you are foolish enough to believe the reasons they gave (you have fallen into their propaganda trap BTW), these are brainwashed sociopaths.

All criminals are sociopaths. Well, that's arguable. Let's say nearly all criminals whose crimes have victims are sociopaths. That doesn't mean they don't have motives.

It's like saying, and forgive my Godwin, that the reason the Nazis tried to exterminate the Jews was because the Jews really did try to take over everything.

No it's not. It's like saying the reason the Nazis tried to exterminate the Jews was because the Nazis believed that the Jews really tried to take over everything. Which, with respect to at least the rank-and-file Nazis, I think is probably true. (Historians, jump in.)

Of course you wouldn't say that, but why do you give any credence to what these AQ savages say? Not only are you giving them credence, but also giving them legitimacy. You're playing their game.

So you would categorically believe the exact opposite of everything bin Laden ever says? If he says up is up, you'll believe up is down? I believe bin Laden's statements about his motivations because I think he has more reason to tell the truth than to lie, and because what he says seems plausible. I don't take it as the gospel, I don't believe it on faith. It might be false, but I think it's more likely that it's true. When I think a thing is more likely to be true than false, I believe that thing. I think that's a better policy than simply disbelieving everything a "savage" says no matter what. I think that's how we ended up believing Saddam had WMDs. He said he didn't, and he's evil, therefore he must have had them. Only, he didn't have them. Liars only lie when it's in their perceived interest.

Note also that I don't believe bin Laden's gripes are necessarily true or legitimate. I only say that I believe they are sincerely held.

That guy Vick also must have sociopathic tendencies to do that to animals without remorse, and to enjoy it, no matter what his cultural background is.

I think I agree. So does that mean there's something wrong with inquiring into his cultural background, or that doing so is a defense of Vick? Of course not.