by liberal japonicus
This Slate article links to a zoomable map of the US that "features 308,745,538 dots, each smaller than a single pixel and each representing one person: Caucasians are blue, blacks are green, Hispanics are orange, Asians are red, and other races are brown." Pretty amazing. What do you notice?
What do you notice?
a dead server
What do you notice?
a dead server
it appears to be back online.
i notice:
mostly white folks outside of cities.
the exception is the southeast, the old plantation states, where there are lots of black folks.
hardly anybody at all between the 100th meridian and the west coast. there’s denver, salt lake, phoenix, and a great big whole lot of nobody.
my takeaway: the US contains an extremely wide spectrum of social environments.
it appears to be back online.
i notice:
mostly white folks outside of cities.
the exception is the southeast, the old plantation states, where there are lots of black folks.
hardly anybody at all between the 100th meridian and the west coast. there’s denver, salt lake, phoenix, and a great big whole lot of nobody.
my takeaway: the US contains an extremely wide spectrum of social environments.
The think I notice is how strongly artificial lines stand out. You can easily see the effect of zoning rules, with blank areas that are zoned for commercial or industrial use and darker and lighter areas zoned for multifamily or single family housing. Similarly, you can see that racial and ethnic segregation follows lines. Some cities in my area have reputations as being a place where specific groups live, and it’s pretty clear that people are following those reputations when they choose where to live, since the actual city lines stand out with a color change.
The think I notice is how strongly artificial lines stand out. You can easily see the effect of zoning rules, with blank areas that are zoned for commercial or industrial use and darker and lighter areas zoned for multifamily or single family housing. Similarly, you can see that racial and ethnic segregation follows lines. Some cities in my area have reputations as being a place where specific groups live, and it’s pretty clear that people are following those reputations when they choose where to live, since the actual city lines stand out with a color change.
I notice that the Red States have a whole lot more people of color than the (aptly named) blue states.
I notice that the Red States have a whole lot more people of color than the (aptly named) blue states.
More Fun with Maps: 40 maps that help make sense of the world
More Fun with Maps: 40 maps that help make sense of the world
@sapient:
I don’t think that’s actually true, though. If you look at the bottom 10 states (plus DC) by non-Hispanic white population, 7 (Hawaii, DC, California, New Mexico, Nevada, Maryland, and Florida) voted for Obama in the 2012 election and 3 (Texas, Georgia, and Arizona) voted for Romney. In contrast, of the 10 states with the largest percentage of non-Hispanic Whites, 6 (West Virginia, North Dakota, Montana, Kentucky, Wyoming, and South Dakota) voted for Romney vs. 4 (Maine, Vermont, New Hampshire, and Iowa) that voted for Obama.
I think that what you’re actually seeing is a difference in the distribution of minorities between different areas of the country. Rural areas have been losing population to the cities for a very long time, so rural populations tend to mirror original settlement patterns, while cities are a mishmash of migrants. Our largest minority populations were originally African Americans in the South and Hispanics in the Southwest, plus a few Native Americans still living on their reservations. When those minority groups moved to the rest of the country, they tended to move into cities, where they don’t look as important on the map, even if their population there is very large.
@sapient:
I don’t think that’s actually true, though. If you look at the bottom 10 states (plus DC) by non-Hispanic white population, 7 (Hawaii, DC, California, New Mexico, Nevada, Maryland, and Florida) voted for Obama in the 2012 election and 3 (Texas, Georgia, and Arizona) voted for Romney. In contrast, of the 10 states with the largest percentage of non-Hispanic Whites, 6 (West Virginia, North Dakota, Montana, Kentucky, Wyoming, and South Dakota) voted for Romney vs. 4 (Maine, Vermont, New Hampshire, and Iowa) that voted for Obama.
I think that what you’re actually seeing is a difference in the distribution of minorities between different areas of the country. Rural areas have been losing population to the cities for a very long time, so rural populations tend to mirror original settlement patterns, while cities are a mishmash of migrants. Our largest minority populations were originally African Americans in the South and Hispanics in the Southwest, plus a few Native Americans still living on their reservations. When those minority groups moved to the rest of the country, they tended to move into cities, where they don’t look as important on the map, even if their population there is very large.
I don’t think that’s actually true, though.
If for ‘red state’ in sapient’s comment we read ‘the south’, i.e. the southeast, then IMO he has a point.
The anecdote commonly offered as a way of characterizing the difference between racial composition and dynamics in The North vs The South is that folks in the more traditionally liberal north may well have close to zero interaction with black people (or people of color in general) during the course of an average day, whereas in the south interaction between the races is very very common.
And again, I’m referring basically to the right half of the map, west of the 100th the history and the dynamics are somewhat different, I think.
sapient has a point. In my opinion.
I don’t think that’s actually true, though.
If for ‘red state’ in sapient’s comment we read ‘the south’, i.e. the southeast, then IMO he has a point.
The anecdote commonly offered as a way of characterizing the difference between racial composition and dynamics in The North vs The South is that folks in the more traditionally liberal north may well have close to zero interaction with black people (or people of color in general) during the course of an average day, whereas in the south interaction between the races is very very common.
And again, I’m referring basically to the right half of the map, west of the 100th the history and the dynamics are somewhat different, I think.
sapient has a point. In my opinion.
The anecdote commonly offered as a way of characterizing the difference between racial composition and dynamics in The North vs The South is that folks in the more traditionally liberal north may well have close to zero interaction with black people (or people of color in general) during the course of an average day, whereas in the south interaction between the races is very very common.
Thanks, russell. This is what I’m saying. I’m not valorizing the South in any way: I’m afraid of the “neo-Confederate” movement, and think it’s real – much more real since I live in an area where it exists to a certain exten. But the rural north doesn’t so much face the challenge of how to deal with diversity, so the South is in the trenches, and whenever we talk about race, we should remember that the good and bad reaction to the challenge of racism is being done mostly in the South (and, especially in terms of Hispanic people, the South-West).
The anecdote commonly offered as a way of characterizing the difference between racial composition and dynamics in The North vs The South is that folks in the more traditionally liberal north may well have close to zero interaction with black people (or people of color in general) during the course of an average day, whereas in the south interaction between the races is very very common.
Thanks, russell. This is what I’m saying. I’m not valorizing the South in any way: I’m afraid of the “neo-Confederate” movement, and think it’s real – much more real since I live in an area where it exists to a certain exten. But the rural north doesn’t so much face the challenge of how to deal with diversity, so the South is in the trenches, and whenever we talk about race, we should remember that the good and bad reaction to the challenge of racism is being done mostly in the South (and, especially in terms of Hispanic people, the South-West).
Regarding the neo-Confederates.
Regarding the neo-Confederates.
the rural north doesn’t so much face the challenge of how to deal with diversity
With some exceptions, I would say this is also the case in much or most of the urban north.
Our kind of people live in one place, those other people live someplace else. Maybe two blocks away, but someplace else.
Often, even in cities, there isn’t all that much interaction.
And if rural New England is any kind of norm, the number of folks of color is almost at the noise level.
the rural north doesn’t so much face the challenge of how to deal with diversity
With some exceptions, I would say this is also the case in much or most of the urban north.
Our kind of people live in one place, those other people live someplace else. Maybe two blocks away, but someplace else.
Often, even in cities, there isn’t all that much interaction.
And if rural New England is any kind of norm, the number of folks of color is almost at the noise level.
@russell: If for ‘red state’ in sapient’s comment we read ‘the south’, i.e. the southeast, then IMO he has a point.
Well, yes, if you exclude a big part of the map where his observation is obviously untrue, then it’s a slightly better one. But only slightly better. If you leave out anything west of the 100th Meridian, the states with the lowest non-Hispanic White population still favored Obama in 2012: 6 for Obama (DC, Maryland, Florida, New York, New Jersey, and Illinois) to 4 for Romney (Texas, Georgia, Mississippi, and Louisiana). Admittedly, the Whitest states now look slightly more favorable to Obama, since you drop out Montana and Wyoming for Wisconsin and Minnesota, but that still leaves you with the same 6-4 as for the least white states.
I’ll actually extend my argument from the previous post a bit. I suspect that part of the problem is that we have a slightly outdated idea of where the blue and red states are. The South is no longer solid red. Virginia and Florida voted for Obama in both 2008 and 2012, and North Carolina voted for him in 2008.
But still, I think that the map is harder to read to give a picture of the racial makeup of states than you’d think. Just as a quiz, and just looking at the map, which do you think has a larger percentage of minorities (i.e. people who aren’t non-Hispanic whites) and by how much: New York or Mississippi? Michigan or Oklahoma? Colorado or Pennsylvania? If you can’t get the right answer by looking at the map, then any judgment you make by looking at the map is likely to be flawed.
[Answer key: Mississippi, 0.3%; Oklahoma, 7.9%; Colorado, 9.5%]
@russell: If for ‘red state’ in sapient’s comment we read ‘the south’, i.e. the southeast, then IMO he has a point.
Well, yes, if you exclude a big part of the map where his observation is obviously untrue, then it’s a slightly better one. But only slightly better. If you leave out anything west of the 100th Meridian, the states with the lowest non-Hispanic White population still favored Obama in 2012: 6 for Obama (DC, Maryland, Florida, New York, New Jersey, and Illinois) to 4 for Romney (Texas, Georgia, Mississippi, and Louisiana). Admittedly, the Whitest states now look slightly more favorable to Obama, since you drop out Montana and Wyoming for Wisconsin and Minnesota, but that still leaves you with the same 6-4 as for the least white states.
I’ll actually extend my argument from the previous post a bit. I suspect that part of the problem is that we have a slightly outdated idea of where the blue and red states are. The South is no longer solid red. Virginia and Florida voted for Obama in both 2008 and 2012, and North Carolina voted for him in 2008.
But still, I think that the map is harder to read to give a picture of the racial makeup of states than you’d think. Just as a quiz, and just looking at the map, which do you think has a larger percentage of minorities (i.e. people who aren’t non-Hispanic whites) and by how much: New York or Mississippi? Michigan or Oklahoma? Colorado or Pennsylvania? If you can’t get the right answer by looking at the map, then any judgment you make by looking at the map is likely to be flawed.
[Answer key: Mississippi, 0.3%; Oklahoma, 7.9%; Colorado, 9.5%]
What caught my eye was a huge section of my home town which, according to the map, is almost entirely Asian — red, red, nothing but red. The town as a whole is mostly white (blue), with some variation reflecting individual families, mixed marriages (including mine), etc. But that one big section?
I have a temptation to wander over there, maybe some afternoon as school is getting out, just to see if that can possibly be correct. If it isn’t (and I have serious doubts), that rather throws the entire map into question for me. Whether the problem is the mapping software or the source data, it would indicate that something is seriously questionable.
What caught my eye was a huge section of my home town which, according to the map, is almost entirely Asian — red, red, nothing but red. The town as a whole is mostly white (blue), with some variation reflecting individual families, mixed marriages (including mine), etc. But that one big section?
I have a temptation to wander over there, maybe some afternoon as school is getting out, just to see if that can possibly be correct. If it isn’t (and I have serious doubts), that rather throws the entire map into question for me. Whether the problem is the mapping software or the source data, it would indicate that something is seriously questionable.
I suspect that part of the problem is that we have a slightly outdated idea of where the blue and red states are.
That’s a good point.
My comments (not sapient’s specifically) was addressed more to what traditionally is referred to as ‘north’ and ‘south’, both of which have historically referred primarily to the right hand half of the map.
Mostly, I wanted to echo what I took (perhaps incorrectly) to be sapient’s sense that the conventional wisdom about the liberal north being relatively more tolerant and inclusive, and the ‘bigoted’ conservative south being less so, was maybe not so wise after all.
My apologies to all if I mistook the thrust of sapient’s point.
Your caveats are noted and are IMO well said.
I suspect that part of the problem is that we have a slightly outdated idea of where the blue and red states are.
That’s a good point.
My comments (not sapient’s specifically) was addressed more to what traditionally is referred to as ‘north’ and ‘south’, both of which have historically referred primarily to the right hand half of the map.
Mostly, I wanted to echo what I took (perhaps incorrectly) to be sapient’s sense that the conventional wisdom about the liberal north being relatively more tolerant and inclusive, and the ‘bigoted’ conservative south being less so, was maybe not so wise after all.
My apologies to all if I mistook the thrust of sapient’s point.
Your caveats are noted and are IMO well said.
The schools’ web sites may give you quicker and more accurate information.
The schools’ web sites may give you quicker and more accurate information.
@russell:
The way I’ve heard it described is that a Southern white is OK with an African American living next door, but not with one as his boss. A Northern white is OK with an African American as his boss, but not with one living next door. Of course, both of those are aimed more at New Englanders than New Yorkers. It’s probably worth highlighting that New York and New Jersey have by far the lowest percentage of non-Hispanic whites in the Northeast.
And I’ll be more than happy to admit that my take on this is strongly colored by being from part of the country that was being left out of the discussion, as we so often are. The Southwest has a different set of ethnic issues from the East, and it the longer term it’s probably more significant because the Hispanic population is growing quickly as a fraction of the national population in a way the African American population isn’t. And here in California, at least, Asian immigration is a big deal, too.
I think it’s interesting because the dynamics are very different in the West. There’s an obvious, strong correlation between minority population and election results. It’s not perfect- Texas is much redder than you’d expect given its white population, and Oregon and Washington are much bluer- but it’s a strong guideline.
@russell:
The way I’ve heard it described is that a Southern white is OK with an African American living next door, but not with one as his boss. A Northern white is OK with an African American as his boss, but not with one living next door. Of course, both of those are aimed more at New Englanders than New Yorkers. It’s probably worth highlighting that New York and New Jersey have by far the lowest percentage of non-Hispanic whites in the Northeast.
And I’ll be more than happy to admit that my take on this is strongly colored by being from part of the country that was being left out of the discussion, as we so often are. The Southwest has a different set of ethnic issues from the East, and it the longer term it’s probably more significant because the Hispanic population is growing quickly as a fraction of the national population in a way the African American population isn’t. And here in California, at least, Asian immigration is a big deal, too.
I think it’s interesting because the dynamics are very different in the West. There’s an obvious, strong correlation between minority population and election results. It’s not perfect- Texas is much redder than you’d expect given its white population, and Oregon and Washington are much bluer- but it’s a strong guideline.
Curious – I sent a link to a bunch of other maps that seems to have disappeared. Can someone check on that? Thanks.
Curious – I sent a link to a bunch of other maps that seems to have disappeared. Can someone check on that? Thanks.
Roger Moore, I’m not sure what your numbers mean or where you’re getting them. Looking at the 2010 census if you count up and add together the columns other than “white alone” in New York versus Mississippi, you come up with 47% nonwhite in New York versus 67 percent nonwhite in Mississippi. So I don’t get your .3% more minorities in Mississippi than New York, if that’s what you meant. Sorry if I misunderstood what you’re getting at, or if my math is incorrect, but I’m not seeing it.
As to misunderstanding “red states” and “blue states”, I was really talking about the “confederacy” – so yes, my bad. Since I live in Virginia, a state that voted for Obama, but is gerrymandered to vote red (translate white) for Congress, I don’t consider myself to live in a blue state, having to fight tooth and nail for every Democratic vote that might be possible.
Do explain your numbers please.
Roger Moore, I’m not sure what your numbers mean or where you’re getting them. Looking at the 2010 census if you count up and add together the columns other than “white alone” in New York versus Mississippi, you come up with 47% nonwhite in New York versus 67 percent nonwhite in Mississippi. So I don’t get your .3% more minorities in Mississippi than New York, if that’s what you meant. Sorry if I misunderstood what you’re getting at, or if my math is incorrect, but I’m not seeing it.
As to misunderstanding “red states” and “blue states”, I was really talking about the “confederacy” – so yes, my bad. Since I live in Virginia, a state that voted for Obama, but is gerrymandered to vote red (translate white) for Congress, I don’t consider myself to live in a blue state, having to fight tooth and nail for every Democratic vote that might be possible.
Do explain your numbers please.
I left out the column “2 or more races” in my calculations.
I left out the column “2 or more races” in my calculations.
just plucked dr ngo’s comment from the spam bin. Feel free to comment on those maps as well.
What I noticed was that, they being part of a tiny minority in a particular area, I can find my father and brother on this map.
just plucked dr ngo’s comment from the spam bin. Feel free to comment on those maps as well.
What I noticed was that, they being part of a tiny minority in a particular area, I can find my father and brother on this map.
@Sapient:
Two points:
A) I think your math is wrong. The second page of the document you’re linking to has the percentages calculated and shows Mississippi as 59.1% white and New York as 65.7% white, so I can’t see how you get 67% and 47% non-white.
B) Hispanic ethnicity is counted separately from race by the census. The blue dots on the map represent specifically non-Hispanic whites, so that’s what I was asking about. Since New York has a much larger Hispanic population than Mississippi, and since on average more than half of Hispanics report their race as white, that has a substantial effect on the numbers. If I read that right, it shows that 1.1% of the population in MS is white Hispanic vs. 7.4% in New York.
I got my data from Wikipedia, who had it nicely laid out and sortable by category, but they indicate they got it from the Census. They show Mississippi as 58.0% non-Hispanic White vs. 58.3% for New York, which gives the 0.3% difference I quoted.
@Sapient:
Two points:
A) I think your math is wrong. The second page of the document you’re linking to has the percentages calculated and shows Mississippi as 59.1% white and New York as 65.7% white, so I can’t see how you get 67% and 47% non-white.
B) Hispanic ethnicity is counted separately from race by the census. The blue dots on the map represent specifically non-Hispanic whites, so that’s what I was asking about. Since New York has a much larger Hispanic population than Mississippi, and since on average more than half of Hispanics report their race as white, that has a substantial effect on the numbers. If I read that right, it shows that 1.1% of the population in MS is white Hispanic vs. 7.4% in New York.
I got my data from Wikipedia, who had it nicely laid out and sortable by category, but they indicate they got it from the Census. They show Mississippi as 58.0% non-Hispanic White vs. 58.3% for New York, which gives the 0.3% difference I quoted.
Not trying to fist-fight here, Roger Moore, and you’re certainly right about what Wikipedia says, but I did add together all of the nonwhite categories in the actual census site (except for “two or more races, which aren’t all that significant) in order to get my number, so check it out if you want.
And you’re right, there’s a page two of my link that I didn’t look at. But still, the percentage of white people in New York is quite a bit higher than the percentage of white people in Mississippi – more than 6% higher, not .3% higher. So maybe it’s Wikipedia’s numbers that I’m not understanding.
And for New York, we have to remember that New York City is a huge part of that diversity, which means that rural New York is probably white as a ghost.
I was just on a trip to New England, coming from Virginia, and forget-about-the-map: in rural New England, no black faces to be found. Just anecdotally.
So, I’m not sure what your larger point is (forgetting about the math), but a whole lot of African-Americans live in the South, and that’s where that particular racial battle is still being fought. It’s not being fought in the non-urban North, because blacks don’t live there.
That’s my point. As to the battle for Latino (which sometimes coincides with immigrant) rights, that’s a slightly different, more Southwestern story. Other nonwhite groups fare better, on the whole.
Still, if you care about what happens to racism against African-Americans, you care what happens in the South (the Confederacy) where the spread-out green is on that map that was originally posted.
Not trying to fist-fight here, Roger Moore, and you’re certainly right about what Wikipedia says, but I did add together all of the nonwhite categories in the actual census site (except for “two or more races, which aren’t all that significant) in order to get my number, so check it out if you want.
And you’re right, there’s a page two of my link that I didn’t look at. But still, the percentage of white people in New York is quite a bit higher than the percentage of white people in Mississippi – more than 6% higher, not .3% higher. So maybe it’s Wikipedia’s numbers that I’m not understanding.
And for New York, we have to remember that New York City is a huge part of that diversity, which means that rural New York is probably white as a ghost.
I was just on a trip to New England, coming from Virginia, and forget-about-the-map: in rural New England, no black faces to be found. Just anecdotally.
So, I’m not sure what your larger point is (forgetting about the math), but a whole lot of African-Americans live in the South, and that’s where that particular racial battle is still being fought. It’s not being fought in the non-urban North, because blacks don’t live there.
That’s my point. As to the battle for Latino (which sometimes coincides with immigrant) rights, that’s a slightly different, more Southwestern story. Other nonwhite groups fare better, on the whole.
Still, if you care about what happens to racism against African-Americans, you care what happens in the South (the Confederacy) where the spread-out green is on that map that was originally posted.
in rural New England, no black faces to be found. Just anecdotally.
Not just anecdotally, he said, spoken as a resident of New England.
New York and New Jersey have by far the lowest percentage of non-Hispanic whites in the Northeast.
That’s kind of a low bar.
The numbers on population distribution are all very interesting, likewise how that skews on the urban vs rural dimensions.
The ongoing evolution of states from red to blue to purple, also very interesting.
I guess the only point I was making with my comment is that, in famously liberal and tolerant ‘north’, by which I mean the northeast and the upper mid west, it’s anecdotally less common for whites to interact with blacks or other minorities in the course of their daily lives. As compared with the famously conservative and less-tolerant ‘south’, by which I mostly mean what were once the confederate states.
If you get outside of the cities, you can replace the phrase ‘interact with’ with the word ‘see’.
And I’m using ‘famously’ in my comment here to indicate ‘per the conventional wisdom’, the actual wisdom of which is open to debate.
Things are much much much better than they used to be, and appear to continue to improve by fits and starts, but the top right hand part of the country is pretty damned segregated. Both in terms of where folks live, and in terms of the social environment.
It seems to me.
in rural New England, no black faces to be found. Just anecdotally.
Not just anecdotally, he said, spoken as a resident of New England.
New York and New Jersey have by far the lowest percentage of non-Hispanic whites in the Northeast.
That’s kind of a low bar.
The numbers on population distribution are all very interesting, likewise how that skews on the urban vs rural dimensions.
The ongoing evolution of states from red to blue to purple, also very interesting.
I guess the only point I was making with my comment is that, in famously liberal and tolerant ‘north’, by which I mean the northeast and the upper mid west, it’s anecdotally less common for whites to interact with blacks or other minorities in the course of their daily lives. As compared with the famously conservative and less-tolerant ‘south’, by which I mostly mean what were once the confederate states.
If you get outside of the cities, you can replace the phrase ‘interact with’ with the word ‘see’.
And I’m using ‘famously’ in my comment here to indicate ‘per the conventional wisdom’, the actual wisdom of which is open to debate.
Things are much much much better than they used to be, and appear to continue to improve by fits and starts, but the top right hand part of the country is pretty damned segregated. Both in terms of where folks live, and in terms of the social environment.
It seems to me.
@sapient: Not trying to fist-fight here
I don’t take it as one. I think it’s a genuinely confusing issue, as almost everything tied into American racial and ethnic discussions tends to be. Our beliefs about race and ethnicity are not entirely, or even mostly, rational, so they tend to produce a lot of confusion.
I think the point that you’re missing is the distinction between “white” and “non-Hispanic white”. The census tracks race and ethnicity separately, which is why the table you linked to doesn’t have a “Hispanic” category; it’s only about race. But that’s not the way our racial rules see things; we wind up treating Hispanics as a separate minority category more like racial minorities, even Hispanics who classify themselves as white.
Because of this, census provided data is often divided into two or three separate versions. One will be broken down strictly by race, like the table you provided. There may be one that shows Hispanic vs. non-Hispanic, with further breakdowns by race within each ethnic category. Then there will be a final one that separates Hispanics of all races into a separate category and lists the racial categories without whatever subset of that racial category list themselves as Hispanic. When they do that, people other than the census often fail to label the racial categories as “non-Hispanic” whatever. But if the categories still add up to 100% even with Hispanics separated out, it means that the other groups have had their Hispanic subset subtracted.
That’s important in this case because that’s exactly what the map did; they have a separate color for Hispanics. That means the “white” dots on the map are actually non-Hispanic whites, even though they’re only labeled as “white” in the legend. To get an accurate comparison to the map, then, you need to look not at the census’s race table but at one that includes race and ethnicity and separates out non-Hispanic whites the same way the map does. That’s what the article I linked to on Wikipedia does, and why I linked to that one rather than this one that replicates the data from the table you linked to at the census.
@sapient: Not trying to fist-fight here
I don’t take it as one. I think it’s a genuinely confusing issue, as almost everything tied into American racial and ethnic discussions tends to be. Our beliefs about race and ethnicity are not entirely, or even mostly, rational, so they tend to produce a lot of confusion.
I think the point that you’re missing is the distinction between “white” and “non-Hispanic white”. The census tracks race and ethnicity separately, which is why the table you linked to doesn’t have a “Hispanic” category; it’s only about race. But that’s not the way our racial rules see things; we wind up treating Hispanics as a separate minority category more like racial minorities, even Hispanics who classify themselves as white.
Because of this, census provided data is often divided into two or three separate versions. One will be broken down strictly by race, like the table you provided. There may be one that shows Hispanic vs. non-Hispanic, with further breakdowns by race within each ethnic category. Then there will be a final one that separates Hispanics of all races into a separate category and lists the racial categories without whatever subset of that racial category list themselves as Hispanic. When they do that, people other than the census often fail to label the racial categories as “non-Hispanic” whatever. But if the categories still add up to 100% even with Hispanics separated out, it means that the other groups have had their Hispanic subset subtracted.
That’s important in this case because that’s exactly what the map did; they have a separate color for Hispanics. That means the “white” dots on the map are actually non-Hispanic whites, even though they’re only labeled as “white” in the legend. To get an accurate comparison to the map, then, you need to look not at the census’s race table but at one that includes race and ethnicity and separates out non-Hispanic whites the same way the map does. That’s what the article I linked to on Wikipedia does, and why I linked to that one rather than this one that replicates the data from the table you linked to at the census.
it’s anecdotally less common for whites to interact with blacks or other minorities in the course of their daily lives.
That might be true if we’re talking about rural environments, but the thing about rural environments is that…very few people live in them. Over 91% of the population of MA live in urban environments according the Census Bureau. (CT is similar). So, for those 91% of the population, seeing black people or hispanic people or arabs or asians or indians is a pretty common thing.
Even NH runs over 60% urban and VT and ME run about 40%. Of course, MA has a larger population than those other states combined.
it’s anecdotally less common for whites to interact with blacks or other minorities in the course of their daily lives.
That might be true if we’re talking about rural environments, but the thing about rural environments is that…very few people live in them. Over 91% of the population of MA live in urban environments according the Census Bureau. (CT is similar). So, for those 91% of the population, seeing black people or hispanic people or arabs or asians or indians is a pretty common thing.
Even NH runs over 60% urban and VT and ME run about 40%. Of course, MA has a larger population than those other states combined.
Turb: Even NH runs over 60% urban and VT and ME run about 40%. Of course, MA has a larger population than those other states combined.
I’ve been in VT and ME, and I don’t know what you mean by “urban” but to me the “urban” in VT and ME doesn’t look like “urban” in NYC or DC or Richmond, or Atlanta. For example, I live in Charlottesville, VA, and it is twice the size of Augusta, ME, and about the same size as Burlington, VT. I don’t really consider Charlottesville to be “urban” although maybe it is, technically. It’s a very small place.
Roger: That’s important in this case because that’s exactly what the map did; they have a separate color for Hispanics.
Okay, I guess that explains (to a certain extent – too many alcohols to do the counting) the discrepancies in the math. I’m not sure what your larger point is.
My point is this: if discrimination is still a problem in America (I think it is), discrimination against African-Americans is probably the most severe and longstanding. Discrimination against Spanish speaking immigrants is also severe, especially in some areas of the country, especially against undocumented workers. I don’t know how to assess discrimination against people of Hispanic heritage whose native language is English: my instinct is that it’s not a huge problem. The map doesn’t really tell us that, and neither do the census numbers. I’m not sure how helpful it is to determine the extent of anti-Hispanic racism by the maps or the census data, other than noting the obvious population centers (in the Slate map) in the Southwest.
I don’t claim to have an answer to any of this. Urban centers (even in the South) seem to deal with diversity much more comfortably than rural areas. I was just pointing out that there is, of course, little racial struggle where the population is mostly homogeneous, and it’s easy to feel guilt-free of racism when you rarely encounter anyone of a different race. Obviously people in large cities do encounter people of different races, and do better with it.
Turb: Even NH runs over 60% urban and VT and ME run about 40%. Of course, MA has a larger population than those other states combined.
I’ve been in VT and ME, and I don’t know what you mean by “urban” but to me the “urban” in VT and ME doesn’t look like “urban” in NYC or DC or Richmond, or Atlanta. For example, I live in Charlottesville, VA, and it is twice the size of Augusta, ME, and about the same size as Burlington, VT. I don’t really consider Charlottesville to be “urban” although maybe it is, technically. It’s a very small place.
Roger: That’s important in this case because that’s exactly what the map did; they have a separate color for Hispanics.
Okay, I guess that explains (to a certain extent – too many alcohols to do the counting) the discrepancies in the math. I’m not sure what your larger point is.
My point is this: if discrimination is still a problem in America (I think it is), discrimination against African-Americans is probably the most severe and longstanding. Discrimination against Spanish speaking immigrants is also severe, especially in some areas of the country, especially against undocumented workers. I don’t know how to assess discrimination against people of Hispanic heritage whose native language is English: my instinct is that it’s not a huge problem. The map doesn’t really tell us that, and neither do the census numbers. I’m not sure how helpful it is to determine the extent of anti-Hispanic racism by the maps or the census data, other than noting the obvious population centers (in the Slate map) in the Southwest.
I don’t claim to have an answer to any of this. Urban centers (even in the South) seem to deal with diversity much more comfortably than rural areas. I was just pointing out that there is, of course, little racial struggle where the population is mostly homogeneous, and it’s easy to feel guilt-free of racism when you rarely encounter anyone of a different race. Obviously people in large cities do encounter people of different races, and do better with it.
@sapient: I’m not sure what your larger point is.
My larger point is that I’m not sure how helpful this map is in judging ethnic distribution on a national scale. It’s highly misleading for some of the reasons I’ve mentioned, especially the way maps like this one tend to exaggerate the significance of rural areas. I think it’s more useful for qualitative judgment, e.g. that a specific area is mostly full of people from one group, than it is for quantitative ones. I also think it’s most interesting on the small scale, where you can look at patterns in areas that you know something about and see if they match your expectations.
I don’t know how to assess discrimination against people of Hispanic heritage whose native language is English: my instinct is that it’s not a huge problem.
My impression is that it varies tremendously on circumstances. Hispanics who speak English like natives and look “white” blend in pretty well. Ones whose skin is darker are often treated as recent immigrants whether they are or not. I think the latter point is politically significant, since it winds up making immigration a personal issue even for Hispanics whose whole families have been here for generations.
There’s also the issue of ethnic background being tied up with social class. There are a lot of places where Anglos have historically been socially dominant and Hispanics have been an underclass, and that hasn’t gone away. And, of course, Latin American countries have their own messed up politics of race and nationality that immigrants bring with them when they come to the US.
Urban centers (even in the South) seem to deal with diversity much more comfortably than rural areas.
I don’t know for sure that it is “much” more comfortably. One of the things this map shows is that urban centers that are diverse in the aggregate can still be highly segregated by city or neighborhood. That was the underlying principle behind white flight: people who weren’t happy with integration left the diverse parts of their cities for suburbs that are voluntarily segregated. I see lots of signs of integration where I live, most noticeably multi-racial families, but I also know which nearby cities are mostly white, Asian, or Hispanic- and most of them are one or another. I don’t think either one is somehow the true story of what’s going on, but in the aggregate they show that there’s still a lot of discomfort in diversity.
@sapient: I’m not sure what your larger point is.
My larger point is that I’m not sure how helpful this map is in judging ethnic distribution on a national scale. It’s highly misleading for some of the reasons I’ve mentioned, especially the way maps like this one tend to exaggerate the significance of rural areas. I think it’s more useful for qualitative judgment, e.g. that a specific area is mostly full of people from one group, than it is for quantitative ones. I also think it’s most interesting on the small scale, where you can look at patterns in areas that you know something about and see if they match your expectations.
I don’t know how to assess discrimination against people of Hispanic heritage whose native language is English: my instinct is that it’s not a huge problem.
My impression is that it varies tremendously on circumstances. Hispanics who speak English like natives and look “white” blend in pretty well. Ones whose skin is darker are often treated as recent immigrants whether they are or not. I think the latter point is politically significant, since it winds up making immigration a personal issue even for Hispanics whose whole families have been here for generations.
There’s also the issue of ethnic background being tied up with social class. There are a lot of places where Anglos have historically been socially dominant and Hispanics have been an underclass, and that hasn’t gone away. And, of course, Latin American countries have their own messed up politics of race and nationality that immigrants bring with them when they come to the US.
Urban centers (even in the South) seem to deal with diversity much more comfortably than rural areas.
I don’t know for sure that it is “much” more comfortably. One of the things this map shows is that urban centers that are diverse in the aggregate can still be highly segregated by city or neighborhood. That was the underlying principle behind white flight: people who weren’t happy with integration left the diverse parts of their cities for suburbs that are voluntarily segregated. I see lots of signs of integration where I live, most noticeably multi-racial families, but I also know which nearby cities are mostly white, Asian, or Hispanic- and most of them are one or another. I don’t think either one is somehow the true story of what’s going on, but in the aggregate they show that there’s still a lot of discomfort in diversity.
I’ve been in VT and ME, and I don’t know what you mean by “urban” but to me the “urban” in VT and ME doesn’t look like “urban” in NYC or DC or Richmond, or Atlanta.
See, this is the problem I was alluding to. Lots of people visit ME or VT on vacation; tourism is a major economic driver for those states. And when tourists visit, they end up in sleepy little towns where the population drops by a factor of 5 or 10 in the off-season, when all the tourists go home. And then the tourists conclude “this, this is new england”. But it is not, or at least not wholly. Most people in new england don’t live in tiny rural villages. Boston and Acton and Hartford are just as much new england as tiny fishing villages on the ME coast or skiing towns in NH. And a hell of a lot more people living in places like that than in tiny fishing villages.
I live in Cambridge MA and down the street from my house is a cricket bar. Do you have any idea how large a non-white population you need before a cricket bar makes economic sense? My spouse works in a distant outer suburb and the place is filled with non-white folks.
I’ve been in VT and ME, and I don’t know what you mean by “urban” but to me the “urban” in VT and ME doesn’t look like “urban” in NYC or DC or Richmond, or Atlanta.
See, this is the problem I was alluding to. Lots of people visit ME or VT on vacation; tourism is a major economic driver for those states. And when tourists visit, they end up in sleepy little towns where the population drops by a factor of 5 or 10 in the off-season, when all the tourists go home. And then the tourists conclude “this, this is new england”. But it is not, or at least not wholly. Most people in new england don’t live in tiny rural villages. Boston and Acton and Hartford are just as much new england as tiny fishing villages on the ME coast or skiing towns in NH. And a hell of a lot more people living in places like that than in tiny fishing villages.
I live in Cambridge MA and down the street from my house is a cricket bar. Do you have any idea how large a non-white population you need before a cricket bar makes economic sense? My spouse works in a distant outer suburb and the place is filled with non-white folks.
Turbulence, you’re the one who mentioned Vermont and Maine, and the percentage of people who lived in “urban” areas. That’s why I questioned your use of the word “urban” – because any “urbanness” of VT and ME is very small time urban. So I question what those percentages you quoted actually mean.
I don’t doubt at all that Cambridge has a large nonwhite population – many nonwhites (especially cricket players who – my guess – aren’t African Americans from the Great Migration) are probably associated with the universities nearby. That kind of “diversity” is tolerated in most university communities, including my own. And I’m sure that truly urban areas of New England have lots of skin colors making up the population.
But if within the percentages you cite for people who live “urban” environments, you were talking about Burlington VT or Augusta ME (which you were), it’s not the kind of “urban” I think of as “urban”. In other words, I think the percentage you cited is overstated.
Turbulence, you’re the one who mentioned Vermont and Maine, and the percentage of people who lived in “urban” areas. That’s why I questioned your use of the word “urban” – because any “urbanness” of VT and ME is very small time urban. So I question what those percentages you quoted actually mean.
I don’t doubt at all that Cambridge has a large nonwhite population – many nonwhites (especially cricket players who – my guess – aren’t African Americans from the Great Migration) are probably associated with the universities nearby. That kind of “diversity” is tolerated in most university communities, including my own. And I’m sure that truly urban areas of New England have lots of skin colors making up the population.
But if within the percentages you cite for people who live “urban” environments, you were talking about Burlington VT or Augusta ME (which you were), it’s not the kind of “urban” I think of as “urban”. In other words, I think the percentage you cited is overstated.
Instead of people, could they do restaurants? (I’d really like to know where every Indian restaurant is. So I guess I need less broad categories.)
Instead of people, could they do restaurants? (I’d really like to know where every Indian restaurant is. So I guess I need less broad categories.)
Vietnamese restaurants too, please.
Vietnamese restaurants too, please.
sapient, Turb, I have the distinct impression that you two are using “urban” and “rural” in two entirely different senses. Yes, “urban” can mean “city, especially big city” — that is, places with populations in the hundreds of thousands or millions. But it can also (especially if the only distinction is urban/rural) mean “a town with a post office and some stores” in the midst of lots of square miles without those things. Just as “rural” can mean anything from “not a big city” in the former sense to “an area where the nearest house to yours is at least a quarter mile away and probably a whole lot more.”
On the former understanding, there are entire states with zero “urban” areas. But while that may be how someone from New York City or DC would actually see them, it definitely isn’t how the people who live there see them.
sapient, Turb, I have the distinct impression that you two are using “urban” and “rural” in two entirely different senses. Yes, “urban” can mean “city, especially big city” — that is, places with populations in the hundreds of thousands or millions. But it can also (especially if the only distinction is urban/rural) mean “a town with a post office and some stores” in the midst of lots of square miles without those things. Just as “rural” can mean anything from “not a big city” in the former sense to “an area where the nearest house to yours is at least a quarter mile away and probably a whole lot more.”
On the former understanding, there are entire states with zero “urban” areas. But while that may be how someone from New York City or DC would actually see them, it definitely isn’t how the people who live there see them.
@wj:
The Census department definition- which I believe is the one that shows most people in Vermont and Maine as living in urban areas- is fairly loose. They start with an urban core that must meet some fairly basic criteria- an agglomeration of census tracts and/or census blocks each with population density of 1000/square mile or more- and then graft onto it additional areas with population density of at least 500/square mile. The grafted on blocks can be separated from the core, provided the separation is short and there’s a road connecting them. This seems a lot closer to the “village and some stores” criterion than the “city, especially big city” definition, and it even allows outlying hamlets or low density developments of less than 1 person/acre to count as part of the urban area.
@wj:
The Census department definition- which I believe is the one that shows most people in Vermont and Maine as living in urban areas- is fairly loose. They start with an urban core that must meet some fairly basic criteria- an agglomeration of census tracts and/or census blocks each with population density of 1000/square mile or more- and then graft onto it additional areas with population density of at least 500/square mile. The grafted on blocks can be separated from the core, provided the separation is short and there’s a road connecting them. This seems a lot closer to the “village and some stores” criterion than the “city, especially big city” definition, and it even allows outlying hamlets or low density developments of less than 1 person/acre to count as part of the urban area.
My city once had a prosperous Japan-town and a China-town but those areas were condemned during the urban renewal mindset of the 1960’s to make way for a freeway and government office buildings.
Half of my metropolis is now a pretty clean blue and the rest seems pretty well integrated. I am amazed though that red is such a dominant color. Didn’t notice that predominance in my day to day interactions.
I also notice that other than residential neighborhoods that are clean blue the are isolated ones that are clean red.
My city once had a prosperous Japan-town and a China-town but those areas were condemned during the urban renewal mindset of the 1960’s to make way for a freeway and government office buildings.
Half of my metropolis is now a pretty clean blue and the rest seems pretty well integrated. I am amazed though that red is such a dominant color. Didn’t notice that predominance in my day to day interactions.
I also notice that other than residential neighborhoods that are clean blue the are isolated ones that are clean red.
I found it most instructive to zoom in on cities in which I have recently lived to look at the localized demographics. There are some very stark lines evident in Austin and Albuquerque, for example; the latter (my current home) I think of as pretty diverse. Which it is — just not as well mixed as I had imagined.
I found it most instructive to zoom in on cities in which I have recently lived to look at the localized demographics. There are some very stark lines evident in Austin and Albuquerque, for example; the latter (my current home) I think of as pretty diverse. Which it is — just not as well mixed as I had imagined.
After zooming all over the USA I conclude that Sacramento is the most smoothly diversified city (except for the all white part). A history on how that came to be interests me, knowing that it was not always so.
note: The intensity/contrast of fire engine red distorts reality.
After zooming all over the USA I conclude that Sacramento is the most smoothly diversified city (except for the all white part). A history on how that came to be interests me, knowing that it was not always so.
note: The intensity/contrast of fire engine red distorts reality.
Sullivan gave this a Hewitt award.
“With the addition of Sunny, the Obamas now have two black Portuguese water dogs. The Obamas do not have any white dogs, ” – Patrick Howley, Daily Caller.
Of course they don’t, but as we can see from the map, the white dogs live as far away from the Obamas as possible … by choice.
White dog flight.
Sullivan gave this a Hewitt award.
“With the addition of Sunny, the Obamas now have two black Portuguese water dogs. The Obamas do not have any white dogs, ” – Patrick Howley, Daily Caller.
Of course they don’t, but as we can see from the map, the white dogs live as far away from the Obamas as possible … by choice.
White dog flight.
Purely white dogs are a tiny minority. The vast majority is at least partially brown or black and I’d bet there are far more dogs with no trace of white than pure white ones (Even when we start pure at 90% there). At least they tend to stay consostents as opposed to e.g. arctic foxes or hares that go brown in summer and white in winter. You might say many whites do that too but tanning beds have muddied the seasonal pattern.
Purely white dogs are a tiny minority. The vast majority is at least partially brown or black and I’d bet there are far more dogs with no trace of white than pure white ones (Even when we start pure at 90% there). At least they tend to stay consostents as opposed to e.g. arctic foxes or hares that go brown in summer and white in winter. You might say many whites do that too but tanning beds have muddied the seasonal pattern.
Have noticed that in California it is easy to locate state prisons and county jails using this map.
Have noticed that in California it is easy to locate state prisons and county jails using this map.
Hartmut: Yes, but we don’t have dog purity laws that insist any dog with just a trace of brown or black cannot be considered “white,” as we have – or used to have, when it mattered – such laws for humans. If we had gone by color, rather than the “one drop of non-white blood” rule, the USA would be far more white – or at least beige – today.
Hartmut: Yes, but we don’t have dog purity laws that insist any dog with just a trace of brown or black cannot be considered “white,” as we have – or used to have, when it mattered – such laws for humans. If we had gone by color, rather than the “one drop of non-white blood” rule, the USA would be far more white – or at least beige – today.
my town is almost too small to show up.
but, nearby Raleigh is pretty much as i expected: all the black people live on the east side, and the north side is pure white.
the interesting parts are in the west, towards the airport (and RTP), where there’s a high concentration of Asians. but, i’m thinking that “Asian” must include India & Pakistani, too, because i see far more of them than i do east Asians.
my town is almost too small to show up.
but, nearby Raleigh is pretty much as i expected: all the black people live on the east side, and the north side is pure white.
the interesting parts are in the west, towards the airport (and RTP), where there’s a high concentration of Asians. but, i’m thinking that “Asian” must include India & Pakistani, too, because i see far more of them than i do east Asians.
dr ngo, you have no idea how openly racist dog breeders are with regard to their canines* 😉
Listening to them without knowing that they are talking about dogs one would believe to have stumbled over a bunch of Nazis. Not a coincidence though since the Nazis drew that analogy and part of their eugenicist vocabulary from dog breeding.
*not their teeth 😉
dr ngo, you have no idea how openly racist dog breeders are with regard to their canines* 😉
Listening to them without knowing that they are talking about dogs one would believe to have stumbled over a bunch of Nazis. Not a coincidence though since the Nazis drew that analogy and part of their eugenicist vocabulary from dog breeding.
*not their teeth 😉
Way up thread the comment was made that people in urban areas handle diversity better than people in rural areas.
I don’t think this is true, although I can’t site a study or anything of that nature.
I just think that the division based on ethnicity in urban areas argues against an acceptance of diversity.
Also I think people can be pretty accepting when they don’t feel threatened and not having any contact with other ethnicities is an easy way to feel unthreatened.
In other words I don’t think it is a case of urban areas being more accepting and rural areas less so; I think its a case of all white areas being more accepting in theory until a significant number of minority people start moving in, whereupon the lack of acceptance developes.
The whole phenomenon of “they are taking over the neighborhood, they are taking over he schools, this area used to be good before it went black” etc comes from contact.
Some anecdotes
I had a Native American acquaintance in college many many years ago. She grew up in South Dakota where really overt racism was the norm. In Iowa being Native made her exotic and interesting, rather than threatening. I remember her laughing about this. She was kind of annoyed, I think, that some of her art school professors expected her to have some sort of tribal influence in her art, but she wasn’t interested in that.
Another anecdote: I had an acquaintance, African American, who went up to a rural white area in eastern Washington with her white boyfriend who worked for the Forest Service. She was the only black person in the county, the only black person in a hundred miles.
As such she was regarded as interesting. People asked her about being black, asked about how to care for her hair, did she need sunscreen, naïve questions like that. She was a self-confident happy person, and thought the questions were rather sweet. She had grown up in Houston or Dallas, and was used to racism, but a racism that was unspoken, secretive but relentless.
In my rural county, I doubt if anyone thought enough about Central Americans to develop a prejudice against them, until they started immigrating here in numbers.
Way up thread the comment was made that people in urban areas handle diversity better than people in rural areas.
I don’t think this is true, although I can’t site a study or anything of that nature.
I just think that the division based on ethnicity in urban areas argues against an acceptance of diversity.
Also I think people can be pretty accepting when they don’t feel threatened and not having any contact with other ethnicities is an easy way to feel unthreatened.
In other words I don’t think it is a case of urban areas being more accepting and rural areas less so; I think its a case of all white areas being more accepting in theory until a significant number of minority people start moving in, whereupon the lack of acceptance developes.
The whole phenomenon of “they are taking over the neighborhood, they are taking over he schools, this area used to be good before it went black” etc comes from contact.
Some anecdotes
I had a Native American acquaintance in college many many years ago. She grew up in South Dakota where really overt racism was the norm. In Iowa being Native made her exotic and interesting, rather than threatening. I remember her laughing about this. She was kind of annoyed, I think, that some of her art school professors expected her to have some sort of tribal influence in her art, but she wasn’t interested in that.
Another anecdote: I had an acquaintance, African American, who went up to a rural white area in eastern Washington with her white boyfriend who worked for the Forest Service. She was the only black person in the county, the only black person in a hundred miles.
As such she was regarded as interesting. People asked her about being black, asked about how to care for her hair, did she need sunscreen, naïve questions like that. She was a self-confident happy person, and thought the questions were rather sweet. She had grown up in Houston or Dallas, and was used to racism, but a racism that was unspoken, secretive but relentless.
In my rural county, I doubt if anyone thought enough about Central Americans to develop a prejudice against them, until they started immigrating here in numbers.
Up thread a comment was made, as part of a jocular exchange, that we don’t have dog purity laws wherein a basically white dog with a trace of black is considered black.
To respond seriously: there is a pattern of prejudicial thinking about a “breed” of dog that closely parallels a pattern of prejudicial thinking about African Americans.
Pitbulls.
Breed-specific legislation.
For one thing, the term “pitbull” is ambiguous but people treat it as if there is an agreed-upon meaning and as if the meaning is based on science and provides basis for conclusions about an individual dogs.
In fact “pitbull” is a catch all term for smooth coated rat tailed floppy eared dogs, most of whom are mixed breed dogs that might or might not have some American Pitbull Terrier or AmStaff in the mix. But a touch of the tarbrush…
And anyone who makes assumptions about a particular mixed breed dog based on a stereotype associated with a physical appearance is a bigot.
Yet, based on that bigotry literally millions of mixed breed dogs are euthanized in “shelters” every year on the assumption that they are pitbulls and that pitbulls are inherently dangerous.
Of course as soon as I writer this someone will chime in with an anecdote about how a “pitbull” killed a kid or a cat or a small dog.
The dog equivalent of Willie Horton stories, serving the same purpose.
Just for the record: American Pitbull Terriers are, like many pure breeds rated by a professional organization that does temperament testing on behalf of the AKC every year. And every year purebred pits score the same as golden retrievers for sociability with humans.
So the stereotype of real pitbulls as dangerous is bullshit. Andto extend that bullshit stereotyped to dogs that merely look like Ampits is really, really irresponsible.
But prejudice is fear and ignorance plus reinforcing anecdotes. The fearful ignorant person uses the anecdotes as a filter to screen out facts so as to retain the fear. That’s how prejudice is maintained. And not only are facts rejected, but anecdotes that don’t support the prejudice are rejected, too.
And pure bred American Pitbulls aren’t a common breed. Mixed breed dogs that are called “pibulls” are one of the most common types of dogs found in the US. But they get euthanized by the million because of looking like AmPits, and Ampits are the current boogey dog of the middle class imagination.
It’s bad enough that people apply stereotypes to fellow humans, but to impose a fear and ignorance based stereotype on a dog is really unfair. Dogs can’t fight back.
Sorry about the thread jack.
Up thread a comment was made, as part of a jocular exchange, that we don’t have dog purity laws wherein a basically white dog with a trace of black is considered black.
To respond seriously: there is a pattern of prejudicial thinking about a “breed” of dog that closely parallels a pattern of prejudicial thinking about African Americans.
Pitbulls.
Breed-specific legislation.
For one thing, the term “pitbull” is ambiguous but people treat it as if there is an agreed-upon meaning and as if the meaning is based on science and provides basis for conclusions about an individual dogs.
In fact “pitbull” is a catch all term for smooth coated rat tailed floppy eared dogs, most of whom are mixed breed dogs that might or might not have some American Pitbull Terrier or AmStaff in the mix. But a touch of the tarbrush…
And anyone who makes assumptions about a particular mixed breed dog based on a stereotype associated with a physical appearance is a bigot.
Yet, based on that bigotry literally millions of mixed breed dogs are euthanized in “shelters” every year on the assumption that they are pitbulls and that pitbulls are inherently dangerous.
Of course as soon as I writer this someone will chime in with an anecdote about how a “pitbull” killed a kid or a cat or a small dog.
The dog equivalent of Willie Horton stories, serving the same purpose.
Just for the record: American Pitbull Terriers are, like many pure breeds rated by a professional organization that does temperament testing on behalf of the AKC every year. And every year purebred pits score the same as golden retrievers for sociability with humans.
So the stereotype of real pitbulls as dangerous is bullshit. Andto extend that bullshit stereotyped to dogs that merely look like Ampits is really, really irresponsible.
But prejudice is fear and ignorance plus reinforcing anecdotes. The fearful ignorant person uses the anecdotes as a filter to screen out facts so as to retain the fear. That’s how prejudice is maintained. And not only are facts rejected, but anecdotes that don’t support the prejudice are rejected, too.
And pure bred American Pitbulls aren’t a common breed. Mixed breed dogs that are called “pibulls” are one of the most common types of dogs found in the US. But they get euthanized by the million because of looking like AmPits, and Ampits are the current boogey dog of the middle class imagination.
It’s bad enough that people apply stereotypes to fellow humans, but to impose a fear and ignorance based stereotype on a dog is really unfair. Dogs can’t fight back.
Sorry about the thread jack.
There is no jacking an open thread. Well, what I mean is, you can’t jack an open thread because it’s open. When I say “can’t” I don’t mean you’re not allowed to. I mean it’s just not possible.
Remember the skit on SNL way back in the 70’s that was a spoof on The China Syndrome, where the chief operator on his last day at the nuclear plant told everyone, “You can’t put too much coolant in the reactor”? They didn’t know if he was warning them not to put too much coolant in the reactor or if he was telling them that no amount of coolant was too much.
It’s sort of like that. Anyway, good info, Laura, thread jack or not.
Has anyone caught the Rolling Stone article on the student-loan/tuition bubble? That might make for a good topic for a post.
There is no jacking an open thread. Well, what I mean is, you can’t jack an open thread because it’s open. When I say “can’t” I don’t mean you’re not allowed to. I mean it’s just not possible.
Remember the skit on SNL way back in the 70’s that was a spoof on The China Syndrome, where the chief operator on his last day at the nuclear plant told everyone, “You can’t put too much coolant in the reactor”? They didn’t know if he was warning them not to put too much coolant in the reactor or if he was telling them that no amount of coolant was too much.
It’s sort of like that. Anyway, good info, Laura, thread jack or not.
Has anyone caught the Rolling Stone article on the student-loan/tuition bubble? That might make for a good topic for a post.
Thanks, Hartmut and Laura, for shedding a little light into my all-but-invincible ignorance about dogs.
Thanks, Hartmut and Laura, for shedding a little light into my all-but-invincible ignorance about dogs.
By way of partial compensation, I give you some uplifting comments on a particular dog by my sister:
A Musing Amma
(That is “A Musing,” as in one who muses, rather than “Amusing,” although she can also be that at times.)
By way of partial compensation, I give you some uplifting comments on a particular dog by my sister:
A Musing Amma
(That is “A Musing,” as in one who muses, rather than “Amusing,” although she can also be that at times.)
The dog racism got connected with the human one recently by US congresscritter Steve King (R-Iowa).
The dog racism got connected with the human one recently by US congresscritter Steve King (R-Iowa).
Sorry about the thread jack.
Petey and Tige were pit bulls. I rest my case.
Pit bulls are mostly damned by association with their owners, who all too often seem to thrive by proxy on the pit’s reputation for violence and invincibility.
All of that said, I wouldn’t want one to bite me.
Sorry about the thread jack.
Petey and Tige were pit bulls. I rest my case.
Pit bulls are mostly damned by association with their owners, who all too often seem to thrive by proxy on the pit’s reputation for violence and invincibility.
All of that said, I wouldn’t want one to bite me.
King is sponsor of an amendment which he wishes to attach to the agriculture bill. The effect of the amendment would be to nullify state level legal protections for animals. Kathleen Parker has an editorial about it in the Post.
Thank you, Dr. Ngo, for the link to the essay. I also have a dog that makes me laugh. Actually all of my dogs have been like that.
King is sponsor of an amendment which he wishes to attach to the agriculture bill. The effect of the amendment would be to nullify state level legal protections for animals. Kathleen Parker has an editorial about it in the Post.
Thank you, Dr. Ngo, for the link to the essay. I also have a dog that makes me laugh. Actually all of my dogs have been like that.
There always seems to be a boogey dog in America, Whatever dog is associated with ghettos and trailer parks becomes the boogey dog of the middle class imagination. It used to be Dobies and before that Rotties.
There always seems to be a boogey dog in America, Whatever dog is associated with ghettos and trailer parks becomes the boogey dog of the middle class imagination. It used to be Dobies and before that Rotties.
The statistics, at least over here, are led by German shepherds. Dachshunds (the ‘hairless’ variety) is notorious for biting but due to lack of size they are not considered dangerous.
The statistics, at least over here, are led by German shepherds. Dachshunds (the ‘hairless’ variety) is notorious for biting but due to lack of size they are not considered dangerous.
I used to take vibraphone lessons from a guy who had an Italian Mastiff, aka cane corso, as the family pet.
They’re supposed to be aggressive guard dogs, I guess, and I’m sure some are, but this particular dog was an extraordinary sweetheart. Really beautiful kind of dark lavender coat.
Very drooly, very very wrinkly, but very friendly and well behaved.
She would get impatient at the end of the lesson, though, and would pace the room and whine, because my teacher always gave me fat hours and it would intrude on her walk time.
I used to take vibraphone lessons from a guy who had an Italian Mastiff, aka cane corso, as the family pet.
They’re supposed to be aggressive guard dogs, I guess, and I’m sure some are, but this particular dog was an extraordinary sweetheart. Really beautiful kind of dark lavender coat.
Very drooly, very very wrinkly, but very friendly and well behaved.
She would get impatient at the end of the lesson, though, and would pace the room and whine, because my teacher always gave me fat hours and it would intrude on her walk time.
Okay you said “statistics” and that’s my opening to be a total bore!
This is from memory, but you all can do the research if so inclined.
About 2% of our population gets dog bit each year badly enough to report the bite . Of those bites about half are from mixed breed dogs. The remaining half is divided in any given year between thirty or more breeds but the following ten are the most common: pitbulls (but remember that’s a catch all term for dogs that might or might not be American Pitbull terriers or Staffordshire terriers or bull terriers or mixes), German shepherds, shar peis huskies, chows, Great Danes, Rotties,akitas,and Dobies,and I can’t remember the other two.
Given the number of dogs of each of the listed breeds, this means that no breed is represented in number sufficient to draw a conclusion. There are about three million pitbull type dogs in America. There are about seventy thousand shar peis. No breed has a bite record large enough in proportion to the breed’s numbers to indicate a tendency to bite people.
Most dog bite incidents involve the family dog biting a family member. The second most common incident involves a dog and a neighbor that comes on to the dog’s area. Random attacks by dogs on passersby are even more rare that stranger danger sexual assaults on children.
According to the Humane Society the pattern with dog bites is the biting dog is an unneutered male that lives chained up in the yard. This is consistent with the pattern of dogs biting a family member first and a neighbor on he family’s property second.
Chained up dogs frequently become neurotic and fearful. Unsocialized, they fear people. Chained up, they can’t flee so they fight. BSL does not reduce biting incidents. Laws which require owners to spay and neuter and require dog owners to limit the amount of time the dog is chained out do work as a way of reducing dog bite incidents. Possibly this is because such laws cause irresponsible owners to relinquish their dogs.
American Pitbull Terriers and Staffordshire Terriers are big terriers. That means, like all terriers, they are likely to have a prey drive and be unsafe with cats or other small creatures. However prey drive toward small animals does not translate into prey drive toward people. Dogs have thousands of years of domestication behind them so they know the difference between humans and other animals.
The American Pitbull was originally bred from an English breed ( created by crossing English bulldogs with rat terriers), for dog fighting. Ampits can be aggressive with other dogs although most are dog selective, rather than dog aggressive. One hundred years ago when the breed was being developed, aggression toward humans was selectively bred out for practical reasons: it is dangerous to break up a dog fight. So the breeding goal was a dog that would fight other dogs but not transfer aggression toward people.
Of the fifty some dogs rescued from Micheal Vick, only one had to be euthanized for aggression toward people. Ten or so were too dog aggressive to be immediately adoptable. The balance were safe with humans and dogs from the day they were rescued. And these were dogs that had been exposed to horrendous abuse.
Five or six have since become trained service dogs. BTW none of Vick’s dogs were pure bred Ampits.
Okay, I’ll stop now.
Okay you said “statistics” and that’s my opening to be a total bore!
This is from memory, but you all can do the research if so inclined.
About 2% of our population gets dog bit each year badly enough to report the bite . Of those bites about half are from mixed breed dogs. The remaining half is divided in any given year between thirty or more breeds but the following ten are the most common: pitbulls (but remember that’s a catch all term for dogs that might or might not be American Pitbull terriers or Staffordshire terriers or bull terriers or mixes), German shepherds, shar peis huskies, chows, Great Danes, Rotties,akitas,and Dobies,and I can’t remember the other two.
Given the number of dogs of each of the listed breeds, this means that no breed is represented in number sufficient to draw a conclusion. There are about three million pitbull type dogs in America. There are about seventy thousand shar peis. No breed has a bite record large enough in proportion to the breed’s numbers to indicate a tendency to bite people.
Most dog bite incidents involve the family dog biting a family member. The second most common incident involves a dog and a neighbor that comes on to the dog’s area. Random attacks by dogs on passersby are even more rare that stranger danger sexual assaults on children.
According to the Humane Society the pattern with dog bites is the biting dog is an unneutered male that lives chained up in the yard. This is consistent with the pattern of dogs biting a family member first and a neighbor on he family’s property second.
Chained up dogs frequently become neurotic and fearful. Unsocialized, they fear people. Chained up, they can’t flee so they fight. BSL does not reduce biting incidents. Laws which require owners to spay and neuter and require dog owners to limit the amount of time the dog is chained out do work as a way of reducing dog bite incidents. Possibly this is because such laws cause irresponsible owners to relinquish their dogs.
American Pitbull Terriers and Staffordshire Terriers are big terriers. That means, like all terriers, they are likely to have a prey drive and be unsafe with cats or other small creatures. However prey drive toward small animals does not translate into prey drive toward people. Dogs have thousands of years of domestication behind them so they know the difference between humans and other animals.
The American Pitbull was originally bred from an English breed ( created by crossing English bulldogs with rat terriers), for dog fighting. Ampits can be aggressive with other dogs although most are dog selective, rather than dog aggressive. One hundred years ago when the breed was being developed, aggression toward humans was selectively bred out for practical reasons: it is dangerous to break up a dog fight. So the breeding goal was a dog that would fight other dogs but not transfer aggression toward people.
Of the fifty some dogs rescued from Micheal Vick, only one had to be euthanized for aggression toward people. Ten or so were too dog aggressive to be immediately adoptable. The balance were safe with humans and dogs from the day they were rescued. And these were dogs that had been exposed to horrendous abuse.
Five or six have since become trained service dogs. BTW none of Vick’s dogs were pure bred Ampits.
Okay, I’ll stop now.
I love rotties. And other animals.
But since this is an open thread, I’m wondering people think about Syria, and what, if anything, should be done about the chemical weapons attacks that occurred today. Just let’m go? It’s their business after all.
I love rotties. And other animals.
But since this is an open thread, I’m wondering people think about Syria, and what, if anything, should be done about the chemical weapons attacks that occurred today. Just let’m go? It’s their business after all.
The reason I mentioned the lead the German shepherd has over here is that it shows the difference between perception which breed ‘means trouble’ and the reality. Most people see Kampfhunde (breeds associated with dogfighting, esp. pitbulls) as inherently dangerous and many attribute it to their mixed heritage while the ‘noble’ purebred German shepherd is maybe not seen as harmless but as a dog that will only become dangeorus when abused (either maltreated or specially trained to become ‘mannscharf’). In reality there are far more incidents of severe injuries involving German shepherds than the ‘inbred killing machines’. It is my impression that the pattern is different. Pitbulls have become the status symbol of a certain kind of people that should not own dogs in the first place because they want the killer image but are often unable or unwilling to exert control over their potentially dangerous pets. The German shepherd on the other hand is unwisely treated as a family dog with many not realizing that there is still a lot of pack behaviour in it. There have been many cases of them being model dogs up to the moment that a baby joins the family. Then they see their position threatened and try to eliminate the new challenger. So, a pitbull becomes dangerous because the owner wants it to be aggressive, the GS because the owners (and the victims) underestimate the potential danger. If people see a pitbull, they smell danger and tend to be cautious. When they see a well-groomed GS they usually don’t. Many kids get bitten when they try to pet a GS without its consent. They would not normally try to pet an ‘ugly beast’ like a pitbull in the first place. As a result there are far more accidents with GS but they are less spectacular and ‘suitable’ for media treatment than ‘pitbull tears kid to pieces’ stories. The ‘noble’ breed makes for a less believable villain than the ugly, mixed ‘fighter dog’. Not even the nazi/holocaust (or the Berlin Wall) connection was able to ruin the good rep of the GS and to draw it down into the nether realm of the bloodhound.
The reason I mentioned the lead the German shepherd has over here is that it shows the difference between perception which breed ‘means trouble’ and the reality. Most people see Kampfhunde (breeds associated with dogfighting, esp. pitbulls) as inherently dangerous and many attribute it to their mixed heritage while the ‘noble’ purebred German shepherd is maybe not seen as harmless but as a dog that will only become dangeorus when abused (either maltreated or specially trained to become ‘mannscharf’). In reality there are far more incidents of severe injuries involving German shepherds than the ‘inbred killing machines’. It is my impression that the pattern is different. Pitbulls have become the status symbol of a certain kind of people that should not own dogs in the first place because they want the killer image but are often unable or unwilling to exert control over their potentially dangerous pets. The German shepherd on the other hand is unwisely treated as a family dog with many not realizing that there is still a lot of pack behaviour in it. There have been many cases of them being model dogs up to the moment that a baby joins the family. Then they see their position threatened and try to eliminate the new challenger. So, a pitbull becomes dangerous because the owner wants it to be aggressive, the GS because the owners (and the victims) underestimate the potential danger. If people see a pitbull, they smell danger and tend to be cautious. When they see a well-groomed GS they usually don’t. Many kids get bitten when they try to pet a GS without its consent. They would not normally try to pet an ‘ugly beast’ like a pitbull in the first place. As a result there are far more accidents with GS but they are less spectacular and ‘suitable’ for media treatment than ‘pitbull tears kid to pieces’ stories. The ‘noble’ breed makes for a less believable villain than the ugly, mixed ‘fighter dog’. Not even the nazi/holocaust (or the Berlin Wall) connection was able to ruin the good rep of the GS and to draw it down into the nether realm of the bloodhound.
People impose their fantasies on animals. The GS as the noble dog, the pittie as the boogeydog, the Maltese as arm candy, the expensive purebred as status symbol.
I’m the kind of person who can’t live without one. I’ve had a pug, a corgie cross and a Maltese and my husband in the same time period had a collie and a GS. None of them were without behavior problems although only the corgie and the Maltese bit people. The Maltese is a killer attack dog, or would be if he had any teeth.
I tend to go for the homely dogs, the passed over sad ones. All of my dogs have been basket cases either physically or emotionally. Both of my husband’s dogs were just sweet to the bone, big brown eyes, flirts.
I don’t have any idea what to do about Syria. Is there anything we can do? I don’t think it’s just their business, but I also don’t know what we can do or where to draw the line between when we have an obligation to intervene in another country and when we don’t.
People impose their fantasies on animals. The GS as the noble dog, the pittie as the boogeydog, the Maltese as arm candy, the expensive purebred as status symbol.
I’m the kind of person who can’t live without one. I’ve had a pug, a corgie cross and a Maltese and my husband in the same time period had a collie and a GS. None of them were without behavior problems although only the corgie and the Maltese bit people. The Maltese is a killer attack dog, or would be if he had any teeth.
I tend to go for the homely dogs, the passed over sad ones. All of my dogs have been basket cases either physically or emotionally. Both of my husband’s dogs were just sweet to the bone, big brown eyes, flirts.
I don’t have any idea what to do about Syria. Is there anything we can do? I don’t think it’s just their business, but I also don’t know what we can do or where to draw the line between when we have an obligation to intervene in another country and when we don’t.
I agree with Hartmut. Not all dogs are right for all people. Among humane dog people, some people are “alpha” people and can manage any dog, and there are people who shouldn’t ever have a dog.
Like German Shepherds, Rotties are beautiful, wonderful, loyal, gentle-with-their-people dogs. I will never love a dog more than I love my Rottweiler (who has lived peaceably with cats and dogs). But she is territorial, and suspicious of some people. She’s not a cuddly stuffed toy. I’m not sure that in my old age I’ll be up for another Rottweiler, as much as I absolutely love the one I now have.
Syria. Is there anything we can do? I don’t think it’s just their business, but I also don’t know what we can do or where to draw the line between when we have an obligation to intervene in another country and when we don’t.
I don’t know yet – I’m in favor of the UN investigation, and working with the UN, and the international community. But if the evidence is clear, and we have some support (which doesn’t necessarily mean the support of the Security Council since Russia is not going to support action) I think we should act.
This is when I disagree with so many people here. I believe we have a duty to act against this kind of atrocity if there’s anything at all we can possibly do. Will it end well? Will we “win”? I don’t know. We, and our allies, shouldn’t tolerate it. The international community shouldn’t tolerate it without acting. Period.
There was no guarantee that we would win against Hitler. If we’d lost, lots of lives lost for nothing. Still, we should have done the work.
I agree with Hartmut. Not all dogs are right for all people. Among humane dog people, some people are “alpha” people and can manage any dog, and there are people who shouldn’t ever have a dog.
Like German Shepherds, Rotties are beautiful, wonderful, loyal, gentle-with-their-people dogs. I will never love a dog more than I love my Rottweiler (who has lived peaceably with cats and dogs). But she is territorial, and suspicious of some people. She’s not a cuddly stuffed toy. I’m not sure that in my old age I’ll be up for another Rottweiler, as much as I absolutely love the one I now have.
Syria. Is there anything we can do? I don’t think it’s just their business, but I also don’t know what we can do or where to draw the line between when we have an obligation to intervene in another country and when we don’t.
I don’t know yet – I’m in favor of the UN investigation, and working with the UN, and the international community. But if the evidence is clear, and we have some support (which doesn’t necessarily mean the support of the Security Council since Russia is not going to support action) I think we should act.
This is when I disagree with so many people here. I believe we have a duty to act against this kind of atrocity if there’s anything at all we can possibly do. Will it end well? Will we “win”? I don’t know. We, and our allies, shouldn’t tolerate it. The international community shouldn’t tolerate it without acting. Period.
There was no guarantee that we would win against Hitler. If we’d lost, lots of lives lost for nothing. Still, we should have done the work.
Without wishing to head off a useful discussion of the issues involved in Syria, I will respectfully ask one and all to leave aside references to Hitler.
Not all analogies are apt. Most, in fact, aren’t.
Other than that simple request, I have no comment to make about Syria. I have no idea what action would be best. There is likely no ideal option.
Without wishing to head off a useful discussion of the issues involved in Syria, I will respectfully ask one and all to leave aside references to Hitler.
Not all analogies are apt. Most, in fact, aren’t.
Other than that simple request, I have no comment to make about Syria. I have no idea what action would be best. There is likely no ideal option.
There is likely no ideal option.
Not sure whether that’s true or not. All I can say is this: if someone does make a decision about one option or another, I hope you aren’t among the chorus of “Wrong Decision!!!!!”
Because now is the time to decide which decision is right or wrong.
There is likely no ideal option.
Not sure whether that’s true or not. All I can say is this: if someone does make a decision about one option or another, I hope you aren’t among the chorus of “Wrong Decision!!!!!”
Because now is the time to decide which decision is right or wrong.
I will respectfully ask one and all to leave aside references to Hitler.
Why? WWII is a pretty important lesson.
I will respectfully ask one and all to leave aside references to Hitler.
Why? WWII is a pretty important lesson.
Again, why?
Again, why?
“Never forget.”
Or in russell’s mind: “Forget! Always forget!”
“Never forget.”
Or in russell’s mind: “Forget! Always forget!”
Because it was a polite request by one of the front-pagers?
If you want to lay out how the US, absent any (afaict) international support for intervention, can get boots on the ground there to deal with the situation, I can put it up as a guest post.
Because it was a polite request by one of the front-pagers?
If you want to lay out how the US, absent any (afaict) international support for intervention, can get boots on the ground there to deal with the situation, I can put it up as a guest post.
If you want to lay out how the US, absent any (afaict) international support for intervention, can get boots on the ground there to deal with the situation, I can put it up as a guest post.
I actually prefaced my comment with this: “I’m in favor of the UN investigation, and working with the UN, and the international community. But if the evidence is clear, and we have some support (which doesn’t necessarily mean the support of the Security Council since Russia is not going to support action) I think we should act.”
Sorry to quote myself.
I’m not suggesting “boots on the ground” without international support.
What I am suggesting is that people not censor discussion of the most obvious and salient history lesson of the last century. Thanks.
If you want to lay out how the US, absent any (afaict) international support for intervention, can get boots on the ground there to deal with the situation, I can put it up as a guest post.
I actually prefaced my comment with this: “I’m in favor of the UN investigation, and working with the UN, and the international community. But if the evidence is clear, and we have some support (which doesn’t necessarily mean the support of the Security Council since Russia is not going to support action) I think we should act.”
Sorry to quote myself.
I’m not suggesting “boots on the ground” without international support.
What I am suggesting is that people not censor discussion of the most obvious and salient history lesson of the last century. Thanks.
Oh, and I get that russell is “polite”, and that I am “rude”.
Oh, and I get that russell is “polite”, and that I am “rude”.
‘Or in russell’s mind: “Forget! Always forget!”‘
I’m going to forget you wrote that.
“Because now is the time to decide which decision is right or wrong.”
Now is the time to make a decision. Later, it’ll be decided whether it was right or wrong.
“I think we should act.”
and
“The international community shouldn’t tolerate it without acting. Period.”
I can’t forget what I don’t know yet. This acting you speak of — what is it?
There will be no “period” after the acting. More likely another decade or so of bloody question marks drenched in blood given the experience in Iraq and Afghanistan, not to mention the last 65 years of history in the Middle East, not to mention the last 2000+ years of history in the Middle East, wherein larger and more dangerous dragons are spawned by each action.
I agree, sapient, that we should pursue avenues via the UN, and I would not be adverse to limited surgical “action” in Syria, but these surgeries in the Middle East tend to start with the notion of an easy appendectomy and end up with a blood-spattered surgical theater and the surgeon — us —- losing a leg and an arm and hundreds of thousands of innocent bystanders outside the hospital being blown to smithereens.
Whatever “action” we take, I fully expect the roiling mass of splintered Syrian opposition on whose behalf we take the action to very soon turn on us and hunt us down as a show of appreciation, the latter of which we will once again in our sunny uncomplicated American way expect like the usual idiots in a Graham Greene novel.
Same with Egypt.
I’ve no doubt had Morsi remained in power he would have deserved a bullet in the head, but I also believe the Egyptian General deserves to be set upon by the Muslim Brotherhood and butchered like a dog.
Israel can kiss my ass too, under its current government.
I imagine there is a “realpolitik” avenue for us with this mess, but what? And if the what? is put forth by someone who sounds suspiciously like the fake Texan accent of Bush 43, I’ll wanna puke.
‘Or in russell’s mind: “Forget! Always forget!”‘
I’m going to forget you wrote that.
“Because now is the time to decide which decision is right or wrong.”
Now is the time to make a decision. Later, it’ll be decided whether it was right or wrong.
“I think we should act.”
and
“The international community shouldn’t tolerate it without acting. Period.”
I can’t forget what I don’t know yet. This acting you speak of — what is it?
There will be no “period” after the acting. More likely another decade or so of bloody question marks drenched in blood given the experience in Iraq and Afghanistan, not to mention the last 65 years of history in the Middle East, not to mention the last 2000+ years of history in the Middle East, wherein larger and more dangerous dragons are spawned by each action.
I agree, sapient, that we should pursue avenues via the UN, and I would not be adverse to limited surgical “action” in Syria, but these surgeries in the Middle East tend to start with the notion of an easy appendectomy and end up with a blood-spattered surgical theater and the surgeon — us —- losing a leg and an arm and hundreds of thousands of innocent bystanders outside the hospital being blown to smithereens.
Whatever “action” we take, I fully expect the roiling mass of splintered Syrian opposition on whose behalf we take the action to very soon turn on us and hunt us down as a show of appreciation, the latter of which we will once again in our sunny uncomplicated American way expect like the usual idiots in a Graham Greene novel.
Same with Egypt.
I’ve no doubt had Morsi remained in power he would have deserved a bullet in the head, but I also believe the Egyptian General deserves to be set upon by the Muslim Brotherhood and butchered like a dog.
Israel can kiss my ass too, under its current government.
I imagine there is a “realpolitik” avenue for us with this mess, but what? And if the what? is put forth by someone who sounds suspiciously like the fake Texan accent of Bush 43, I’ll wanna puke.
Sapient, if someone makes a polite request, that doesn’t automatically make the other person ‘rude’, unless they choose to be.
I also said you could write a guest post and explain how the US could act (as you said you think we should) in the absence of any support. Unless your point is that we should only act with support and since there is no support, then we shouldn’t act. If that’s the case, I’m not sure who you are disagreeing with.
Sapient, if someone makes a polite request, that doesn’t automatically make the other person ‘rude’, unless they choose to be.
I also said you could write a guest post and explain how the US could act (as you said you think we should) in the absence of any support. Unless your point is that we should only act with support and since there is no support, then we shouldn’t act. If that’s the case, I’m not sure who you are disagreeing with.
Last time we put boots on the ground, we ended up with stumps on the ground waiting in line for prosthetic devices at a VA that wasn’t ready for the carnage.
Probably because they believed the glib horseshit put forth by Rumsfeld and company.
A few days to Baghdad, shock and awe, maybe a week later democracy for all and let the shopping begin.
Glib horseshit all reasonable people regardless of political persuasion now hate.
So now we have a more circumspect Administration some are now calling feckless and no doubt we’ll learn to hate that too as we clamor for a return to glib horseshit, in our 21st century schizoid way of dealing with the world.
Last time we put boots on the ground, we ended up with stumps on the ground waiting in line for prosthetic devices at a VA that wasn’t ready for the carnage.
Probably because they believed the glib horseshit put forth by Rumsfeld and company.
A few days to Baghdad, shock and awe, maybe a week later democracy for all and let the shopping begin.
Glib horseshit all reasonable people regardless of political persuasion now hate.
So now we have a more circumspect Administration some are now calling feckless and no doubt we’ll learn to hate that too as we clamor for a return to glib horseshit, in our 21st century schizoid way of dealing with the world.
Again, why?
Because Assad is not Hitler, Syria is not Nazi Germany, and Europe ca. the 1930’s is not the Middle East ca. 2013.
If you want to explain how I am, in fact, wrong about any of that, and that Assad is like Hitler, and Syria is like Nazi Germany, and the Middle East is like Europe ca. the 30’s, the floor is obviously open.
That, in fact, would be a ‘discussion of the most obvious and salient history lesson of the last century’.
Assertions are not discussion, and you aren’t being censored. You’ve been asked, politely, by me, to not Godwinize the discussion of Syria.
You’re under no obligation to do anything I ask. Do as you wish.
Again, why?
Because Assad is not Hitler, Syria is not Nazi Germany, and Europe ca. the 1930’s is not the Middle East ca. 2013.
If you want to explain how I am, in fact, wrong about any of that, and that Assad is like Hitler, and Syria is like Nazi Germany, and the Middle East is like Europe ca. the 30’s, the floor is obviously open.
That, in fact, would be a ‘discussion of the most obvious and salient history lesson of the last century’.
Assertions are not discussion, and you aren’t being censored. You’ve been asked, politely, by me, to not Godwinize the discussion of Syria.
You’re under no obligation to do anything I ask. Do as you wish.
An important difference between WW2 and today is that then the US were willing to go to an all-or-nothing war and ready to accept significant losses in lives for the home team. The idea that the loss of 3000 over several years would critically undermine public support at home would have been seen as absurd then. Today the US are just willing to blow huge amounts of money on war but have become extremly sensitive to losses in personnel. And any potential opposition knows that and acts accordingly. I do not advocate a return to the old model of expendable grunts but one should not forget the limits that imposes on the options menu. I seriously doubt that the US would have prevailed in WW2 with the mentality of today. Sooner or later there would have been an arrangement with the totalitarian governments in Europe and Asia. I would not even exclude the possibility that in the end the US would have backed Hitler (or his successor) against Stalin.
So, I agree with russell here that WW2 analogies are not overly useful for the current situation. The US could easily flatten any opponent at low costs (not yet an option in WW2) but that would not be a real solution to the problem of civil wars. One does not stop an ongoing war between ant colonies by dropping a hand grenade on both and then going in with the sledge hammer.
An important difference between WW2 and today is that then the US were willing to go to an all-or-nothing war and ready to accept significant losses in lives for the home team. The idea that the loss of 3000 over several years would critically undermine public support at home would have been seen as absurd then. Today the US are just willing to blow huge amounts of money on war but have become extremly sensitive to losses in personnel. And any potential opposition knows that and acts accordingly. I do not advocate a return to the old model of expendable grunts but one should not forget the limits that imposes on the options menu. I seriously doubt that the US would have prevailed in WW2 with the mentality of today. Sooner or later there would have been an arrangement with the totalitarian governments in Europe and Asia. I would not even exclude the possibility that in the end the US would have backed Hitler (or his successor) against Stalin.
So, I agree with russell here that WW2 analogies are not overly useful for the current situation. The US could easily flatten any opponent at low costs (not yet an option in WW2) but that would not be a real solution to the problem of civil wars. One does not stop an ongoing war between ant colonies by dropping a hand grenade on both and then going in with the sledge hammer.
Although the “international community” hasn’t spoken with one voice, there certainly does seem to be support for military action from France and Turkey. I think that after the weapons inspectors have completed their mission, there might be additional support.
No one is talking about “boots on the ground”. They’re talking about blowing up military targets. The jury is still out regarding who is responsible for these chemical weapons attacks, but if Assad is gassing people, I believe that the international community should support bombing military targets in Syria.
Although the “international community” hasn’t spoken with one voice, there certainly does seem to be support for military action from France and Turkey. I think that after the weapons inspectors have completed their mission, there might be additional support.
No one is talking about “boots on the ground”. They’re talking about blowing up military targets. The jury is still out regarding who is responsible for these chemical weapons attacks, but if Assad is gassing people, I believe that the international community should support bombing military targets in Syria.
liberal japonicus, thanks for the invitation to do a guest post. I don’t have time to offer a lot of original writing, but the NYT link I provided says a lot about what the international community is discussing. In addition, there is a emergency security council meeting that’s been called. It’s premature to say that there is no international support for military action.
liberal japonicus, thanks for the invitation to do a guest post. I don’t have time to offer a lot of original writing, but the NYT link I provided says a lot about what the international community is discussing. In addition, there is a emergency security council meeting that’s been called. It’s premature to say that there is no international support for military action.
This being an open thread, I’ve been thinking about something of late. This thinking hasn’t led me to what I consider to be an end condition just yet, but I am just going to throw this out there and let y’all beat up on it some, just to see how much damage these thoughts can sustain.
And because I seem to have a masochistic streak.
Events of late, particularly those involving Greenwald, have me recalling things that he wrote years ago that I was rather dismissive of. I was mostly dismissive of his treatment of “Bush authoritarian cultists” because they seemed to me to be childish attempts at amateur psychology.
It’s possible that I was reading him the wrong way, but I don’t want to dredge up his writings of the time and reread. Partially because I haven’t the time, and partially (this is correlated, here) because I find Greenwald to be tedious and long-winded. His words-to-ideas ratio is quite large. It’s far preferable for me to read about what Greenwald is doing when written by someone else. But this isn’t about making style points; I’m just laying out the background.
See, I think Greenwald had a certain point that we have a couple of distinctly different groups in the US: those who are inclined to trust authority, even to excess, for the reason that it can insulate us from external harm, and those who distrust authority and the hazard that internal harm (e.g. loss of privacy and other freedoms) presents to our quality of life.
I think for a while I was willing to grit my teeth and endure what I thought to be temporary measures, on the supposition that they were both temporary and necessary. But it was in fact teeth-gritting endurance and not embrace of state infringement on my freedoms. The Department of Homeland Security and the USA Patriot act raised my hackles. Start naming departments and legislation in a way that you define yourself as anti-American for opposing, and you’ve stepped into territory that Orwell had envisioned.
All of this rah-rah our country bullshit is bad enough if one can assume that our authorities truly do have our best interests at heart. That their missions are to protect us, including protecting our freedoms. But that is in fact not their mission. Their mission is to stand their ground, as departments and agencies, and continue justifying themselves. Their mission is to achieve and exert and maintain authority, and to defend their authority against all challengers. We don’t have agencies whose charter is to do their job so well that they become obsolete in a decade. We have a coral-reef accretion of overlapping and agencies whose collective power only grows; never shrinks.
Some may think of that as a good thing. I say that (getting back to Greenwald) these people are authoritarian cultists. It doesn’t seem to matter who is in the White House or in Congress; what matters is what we permit our federal, state and local agencies to do, and how intrusive we permit them to become. Things are looking up, yet government scrutiny into the affairs of private citizens continues to escalate. My prediction is this: government power rarely sees setbacks. This is not temporary; today’s excess will be status quo in a few years and in a decade or two will be looked back upon with nostalgia. That’s the nature of things, I think. It’s not that we have a group of people who will automatically accept increases in government authority irrespective of who is in office, it’s more that we have people who are willing to accept said increases provided it was their people who introduced them. We have enough of such people that things ratchet upward, seemingly irreversably.
This all came out in a sort of unproofread bolus, so my apologies if it’s incoherent. My intent is not to attack anyone in particular, just sort of get back to this schism that I see that doesn’t divide across D/R lines, but more divides between those who think the government is inherently trustworthy (as long as their people are at the helm, to some extent) and those who think that government power and abuse thereof bears some watching. And it’s not that I think individuals are particularly trustworthy; it’s more that I think that individual freedom is really the whole point of our country’s existence from the get-go.
A few years ago dr ngo referred to me as a Bush apologist, which pissed me off at the time. I’ve had my turn as an observer of apologism, and it pains me to say that to an extent, he was correct. I was willing to make excuses when it was people I preferred in office. I was never really a fan of George W. Bush, but I did extend him a great deal of leeway that I now wish that I hadn’t.
Finis
This being an open thread, I’ve been thinking about something of late. This thinking hasn’t led me to what I consider to be an end condition just yet, but I am just going to throw this out there and let y’all beat up on it some, just to see how much damage these thoughts can sustain.
And because I seem to have a masochistic streak.
Events of late, particularly those involving Greenwald, have me recalling things that he wrote years ago that I was rather dismissive of. I was mostly dismissive of his treatment of “Bush authoritarian cultists” because they seemed to me to be childish attempts at amateur psychology.
It’s possible that I was reading him the wrong way, but I don’t want to dredge up his writings of the time and reread. Partially because I haven’t the time, and partially (this is correlated, here) because I find Greenwald to be tedious and long-winded. His words-to-ideas ratio is quite large. It’s far preferable for me to read about what Greenwald is doing when written by someone else. But this isn’t about making style points; I’m just laying out the background.
See, I think Greenwald had a certain point that we have a couple of distinctly different groups in the US: those who are inclined to trust authority, even to excess, for the reason that it can insulate us from external harm, and those who distrust authority and the hazard that internal harm (e.g. loss of privacy and other freedoms) presents to our quality of life.
I think for a while I was willing to grit my teeth and endure what I thought to be temporary measures, on the supposition that they were both temporary and necessary. But it was in fact teeth-gritting endurance and not embrace of state infringement on my freedoms. The Department of Homeland Security and the USA Patriot act raised my hackles. Start naming departments and legislation in a way that you define yourself as anti-American for opposing, and you’ve stepped into territory that Orwell had envisioned.
All of this rah-rah our country bullshit is bad enough if one can assume that our authorities truly do have our best interests at heart. That their missions are to protect us, including protecting our freedoms. But that is in fact not their mission. Their mission is to stand their ground, as departments and agencies, and continue justifying themselves. Their mission is to achieve and exert and maintain authority, and to defend their authority against all challengers. We don’t have agencies whose charter is to do their job so well that they become obsolete in a decade. We have a coral-reef accretion of overlapping and agencies whose collective power only grows; never shrinks.
Some may think of that as a good thing. I say that (getting back to Greenwald) these people are authoritarian cultists. It doesn’t seem to matter who is in the White House or in Congress; what matters is what we permit our federal, state and local agencies to do, and how intrusive we permit them to become. Things are looking up, yet government scrutiny into the affairs of private citizens continues to escalate. My prediction is this: government power rarely sees setbacks. This is not temporary; today’s excess will be status quo in a few years and in a decade or two will be looked back upon with nostalgia. That’s the nature of things, I think. It’s not that we have a group of people who will automatically accept increases in government authority irrespective of who is in office, it’s more that we have people who are willing to accept said increases provided it was their people who introduced them. We have enough of such people that things ratchet upward, seemingly irreversably.
This all came out in a sort of unproofread bolus, so my apologies if it’s incoherent. My intent is not to attack anyone in particular, just sort of get back to this schism that I see that doesn’t divide across D/R lines, but more divides between those who think the government is inherently trustworthy (as long as their people are at the helm, to some extent) and those who think that government power and abuse thereof bears some watching. And it’s not that I think individuals are particularly trustworthy; it’s more that I think that individual freedom is really the whole point of our country’s existence from the get-go.
A few years ago dr ngo referred to me as a Bush apologist, which pissed me off at the time. I’ve had my turn as an observer of apologism, and it pains me to say that to an extent, he was correct. I was willing to make excuses when it was people I preferred in office. I was never really a fan of George W. Bush, but I did extend him a great deal of leeway that I now wish that I hadn’t.
Finis
You hit a lot of hot buttons there, Mr. Slarti. Good show. I recall some old geezer soon to be ex GOP president nagging us about a “military-industrial complex”. The National Security State is its logical outgrowth…..
Regards,
You hit a lot of hot buttons there, Mr. Slarti. Good show. I recall some old geezer soon to be ex GOP president nagging us about a “military-industrial complex”. The National Security State is its logical outgrowth…..
Regards,
Slarti, I’ve been really uncomfortable with the discussions over the latest domestic spying issues because it seemed to me that people were rationalizing actions taken during the Obama admin. that would not have been rationalized if taken during the Bush admin.
The discussion here turn into such a welter of detail that, to be honest, I got lost. But it seems like lots of people are lost in the trees examining the moss, drawing conclusions based on the state of the lichens on one branch when maybe we should be looking at the whole forest.
I don’t read Greenwald either mostly because he…I have the impression that he has a personal ax to grind with Obama for not being Hilary Clinton. Which doesn’t mean he’s wrong on substance, of course, but there’s lots of other people covering the same issues without the personal grievance.
About Syria: our foreign policy has, over history, swung wildly all over the place. We are still recovering from the glib obscenity of our intervention in Iraq. Well, that’s more to the point, Iraq is still suffering the consequences of that and so are the hundreds of thousands of Iraqi refugees that fled to Syria.
In a post-massive screwup period, I think a reluctance to get involved is sort of inevitable.
Which doesn’t make it wise, of course. But we would have been wise. if we had some some realistic thinking before barging into Iraq, so I appreciate an administration that is going to think before acting on Syria.
If it was up to me, I’d start out with the assumption that there is an obligation to intervene when something evil is being done, but that obligation is tempered by the cold equations of reality: our resources, the factors we cannot control or influence which contribute to the situation, the collateral damage of our actions, and so on.
Slarti, I’ve been really uncomfortable with the discussions over the latest domestic spying issues because it seemed to me that people were rationalizing actions taken during the Obama admin. that would not have been rationalized if taken during the Bush admin.
The discussion here turn into such a welter of detail that, to be honest, I got lost. But it seems like lots of people are lost in the trees examining the moss, drawing conclusions based on the state of the lichens on one branch when maybe we should be looking at the whole forest.
I don’t read Greenwald either mostly because he…I have the impression that he has a personal ax to grind with Obama for not being Hilary Clinton. Which doesn’t mean he’s wrong on substance, of course, but there’s lots of other people covering the same issues without the personal grievance.
About Syria: our foreign policy has, over history, swung wildly all over the place. We are still recovering from the glib obscenity of our intervention in Iraq. Well, that’s more to the point, Iraq is still suffering the consequences of that and so are the hundreds of thousands of Iraqi refugees that fled to Syria.
In a post-massive screwup period, I think a reluctance to get involved is sort of inevitable.
Which doesn’t make it wise, of course. But we would have been wise. if we had some some realistic thinking before barging into Iraq, so I appreciate an administration that is going to think before acting on Syria.
If it was up to me, I’d start out with the assumption that there is an obligation to intervene when something evil is being done, but that obligation is tempered by the cold equations of reality: our resources, the factors we cannot control or influence which contribute to the situation, the collateral damage of our actions, and so on.
what slarti said.
not an unproofread bolus, imo it was eloquent and precisely on point.
thanks slarti.
what slarti said.
not an unproofread bolus, imo it was eloquent and precisely on point.
thanks slarti.
I think that one of the main points about WWII was ‘boots on the ground’.
I’m not sure if France (with its historical links to region) and Turkey (bordering Syria) can be equated with ‘international support’. And I’m not convinced that bombing Syrian military targets at a distance is going to be a way to resolving anything. I’m not dismissing that something needs to be done, but I think that a bunch of people blovilating on a blog is pretty meaningless. I’m more than happy to read links and get more information, but when someone posts a link-free comment that goes Godwin off the bat, you aren’t making your case very well.
The Guardian reporting gets at some of the problems and Fabius’ ‘a reaction of force’ is a collocation that I’ve never seen before. Any Francophones around to explain that phrase?
The Guardian also points this out
France, the former colonial power in Syria, has been walking a difficult diplomatic tight-rope. Still haunted by the images of former president Nicolas Sarkozy welcoming Bashar al-Assad to Paris’s Bastille day military parade in 2011, it has been keen to use a firm stance on Syria to make up for early misjudgments in the Arab Spring — namely Tunisia — and also to establish itself with Gulf allies.
Again, I don’t think you are necessarily wrong, but there is unfortunately a lot to sort out.
I think that one of the main points about WWII was ‘boots on the ground’.
I’m not sure if France (with its historical links to region) and Turkey (bordering Syria) can be equated with ‘international support’. And I’m not convinced that bombing Syrian military targets at a distance is going to be a way to resolving anything. I’m not dismissing that something needs to be done, but I think that a bunch of people blovilating on a blog is pretty meaningless. I’m more than happy to read links and get more information, but when someone posts a link-free comment that goes Godwin off the bat, you aren’t making your case very well.
The Guardian reporting gets at some of the problems and Fabius’ ‘a reaction of force’ is a collocation that I’ve never seen before. Any Francophones around to explain that phrase?
The Guardian also points this out
France, the former colonial power in Syria, has been walking a difficult diplomatic tight-rope. Still haunted by the images of former president Nicolas Sarkozy welcoming Bashar al-Assad to Paris’s Bastille day military parade in 2011, it has been keen to use a firm stance on Syria to make up for early misjudgments in the Arab Spring — namely Tunisia — and also to establish itself with Gulf allies.
Again, I don’t think you are necessarily wrong, but there is unfortunately a lot to sort out.
Even if it was an “unproofread bolus”, I hope the proofreader never decides to remove the phrase “unproofread bolus”.
Even if it was an “unproofread bolus”, I hope the proofreader never decides to remove the phrase “unproofread bolus”.
Shorter sapient: L’audace! L’audace! Toujours l’audace!!
Shorter sapient: L’audace! L’audace! Toujours l’audace!!
people were rationalizing actions taken during the Obama admin. that would not have been rationalized if taken during the Bush admin.
i like to think that, someday in the future, this kind of flexible rationalization will be as unremarkable as people applauding rough play from their local sports team while decrying it from the visitors; or people excusing behavior among relatives that they would call the cops for, were it anyone else. but right now, we’re all witnessing the second internet-era Presidency, and easy access to past arguments makes it impossible to deny that people reflexively change their perspective on things when their team moves from offense to defense. a whole bunch of things that were vitally important six years ago are distractions now, and things we ignored in 2007 are the most important things in the history of politics today. and when the next Republican wins, the priorities will move around again. it’s human nature. the things we argue about are just things we argue about: they aren’t always our most deeply-held beliefs.
perhaps, at some point, some people who have been around for a while are going to realize that this is a thing that happens and accept it. i know that most won’t.
people were rationalizing actions taken during the Obama admin. that would not have been rationalized if taken during the Bush admin.
i like to think that, someday in the future, this kind of flexible rationalization will be as unremarkable as people applauding rough play from their local sports team while decrying it from the visitors; or people excusing behavior among relatives that they would call the cops for, were it anyone else. but right now, we’re all witnessing the second internet-era Presidency, and easy access to past arguments makes it impossible to deny that people reflexively change their perspective on things when their team moves from offense to defense. a whole bunch of things that were vitally important six years ago are distractions now, and things we ignored in 2007 are the most important things in the history of politics today. and when the next Republican wins, the priorities will move around again. it’s human nature. the things we argue about are just things we argue about: they aren’t always our most deeply-held beliefs.
perhaps, at some point, some people who have been around for a while are going to realize that this is a thing that happens and accept it. i know that most won’t.
I am interrupting my self-imposed sabbatical from ObWi to (1) second Slarti’s comments and (2) suggest respectfully to those with whom Slarti’s comments resonate on the security state angle, that Slarti was speaking more broadly than the security state and was addressing gov’t in general. At least, that is my take on it.
I am interrupting my self-imposed sabbatical from ObWi to (1) second Slarti’s comments and (2) suggest respectfully to those with whom Slarti’s comments resonate on the security state angle, that Slarti was speaking more broadly than the security state and was addressing gov’t in general. At least, that is my take on it.
What’s worse is when people are flexible about pointing out the flexibility of other people’s arguments. That should remain remarkable – “You only whine about the other guy only whining about the other guy’s other guy.”
What’s worse is when people are flexible about pointing out the flexibility of other people’s arguments. That should remain remarkable – “You only whine about the other guy only whining about the other guy’s other guy.”
Divide by zero error. NaN or Inf may result.
Divide by zero error. NaN or Inf may result.
I agree with Slarti (even about Greenwald’s excessive wordiness, though I wouldn’t go as far in my criticism there).
Andrew Bacevich has a column about this at the Washington Post
link
On Syria, I might cut and paste an email I sent to the New Yorker a couple months back. They almost published a shortened version, but went with someone else’s letter instead. My point was that if you look at the Syrian Observatory of Human RIghts figures, they’re rather confusing. Far more Syrian soldiers and militia and “informants” (read civilians accused of support for Asad and executed by the glorious resistance) seem to be dying than rebels. This could mean a number of different things–
A) The glorious Syrian resistance is actually doing amazingly well considering that they are heavily outgunned, outtanked, and out air-supported. Miraculously, they are killing twice as many as they are losing. Either this is because their strength is the strength of ten because their hearts are pure, or else their tactics include a lot of effective car bombings, or who knows?
B) The info we’re getting from Syria isn’t terribly reliable. And maybe some of those reported dead Syrian soldiers are actually civilians. Or don’t exist, or whatever.
C) Both A and B
What does seem clear is that both sides have a human rights record that would make a buzzard puke. Naturally we should pick a side and call them freedom fighters, as this has always worked out so well in other cases.
BTW, I know some lefties online who go to the opposite extreme and think that Asad is fighting the good fight against Sunni fundamentalist extremism, and that’s not totally wrong, except for the “good” part. I also know that some Christians are terrified of a rebel victory, as are some Alawites. Robert Worth had a superb article on Syria in the NYT Sunday Magazine some weeks back.
I agree with Slarti (even about Greenwald’s excessive wordiness, though I wouldn’t go as far in my criticism there).
Andrew Bacevich has a column about this at the Washington Post
link
On Syria, I might cut and paste an email I sent to the New Yorker a couple months back. They almost published a shortened version, but went with someone else’s letter instead. My point was that if you look at the Syrian Observatory of Human RIghts figures, they’re rather confusing. Far more Syrian soldiers and militia and “informants” (read civilians accused of support for Asad and executed by the glorious resistance) seem to be dying than rebels. This could mean a number of different things–
A) The glorious Syrian resistance is actually doing amazingly well considering that they are heavily outgunned, outtanked, and out air-supported. Miraculously, they are killing twice as many as they are losing. Either this is because their strength is the strength of ten because their hearts are pure, or else their tactics include a lot of effective car bombings, or who knows?
B) The info we’re getting from Syria isn’t terribly reliable. And maybe some of those reported dead Syrian soldiers are actually civilians. Or don’t exist, or whatever.
C) Both A and B
What does seem clear is that both sides have a human rights record that would make a buzzard puke. Naturally we should pick a side and call them freedom fighters, as this has always worked out so well in other cases.
BTW, I know some lefties online who go to the opposite extreme and think that Asad is fighting the good fight against Sunni fundamentalist extremism, and that’s not totally wrong, except for the “good” part. I also know that some Christians are terrified of a rebel victory, as are some Alawites. Robert Worth had a superb article on Syria in the NYT Sunday Magazine some weeks back.
Divide by zero error. NaN or Inf may result.
That’s the best case scenario. Integer divide by zero is undefined behavior (at least in C/C++) so the compiler is under no obligation with respect to generated code for dealing with that case. It can make demons come out of your nose.
Divide by zero error. NaN or Inf may result.
That’s the best case scenario. Integer divide by zero is undefined behavior (at least in C/C++) so the compiler is under no obligation with respect to generated code for dealing with that case. It can make demons come out of your nose.
Here’s a NYT article about the casualty figures as of last June. At the moment I can’t find the Facebook entry on the Syrian Observatory page that gives the breakdown that I used, which included dead “informers”. I did find another from May 30.
NYT article
Here’s a NYT article about the casualty figures as of last June. At the moment I can’t find the Facebook entry on the Syrian Observatory page that gives the breakdown that I used, which included dead “informers”. I did find another from May 30.
NYT article
My previous post with a link to the NYT article didn’t go through. Anyway, I found a May 30 entry on the Facebook page of the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights which gave this breakdown–
Documented deaths by the SOHR from 18/3/2011 to 29/5/2013
96,066 people killed since the beginning of the uprising.
The dead:
35418 civilians (including 4945 children and 3179 women)
12542 rebel fighters
1962 defected soldiers
24591 regular soldiers
17016 pro-regime gunmen (Shabiha, Popular Committee, National Defence Forces)
2459 unidentified persons
2111 unidentifiable rebels
Note that out of 96,000 dead, about 40,000 are allegedly pro-regime soldiers or militia. (I don’t see the informants listed here.)
My previous post with a link to the NYT article didn’t go through. Anyway, I found a May 30 entry on the Facebook page of the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights which gave this breakdown–
Documented deaths by the SOHR from 18/3/2011 to 29/5/2013
96,066 people killed since the beginning of the uprising.
The dead:
35418 civilians (including 4945 children and 3179 women)
12542 rebel fighters
1962 defected soldiers
24591 regular soldiers
17016 pro-regime gunmen (Shabiha, Popular Committee, National Defence Forces)
2459 unidentified persons
2111 unidentifiable rebels
Note that out of 96,000 dead, about 40,000 are allegedly pro-regime soldiers or militia. (I don’t see the informants listed here.)
I went to my New Yorker email, where I had copied a page from the Syrian Observatory that said this–
The Syrian Observatory for Human Rights has documented 100,191 casualties since the beginning of the uprisings in 18/3/2011, from the first casualty in Dera’a, up till 24/06/2013.
The dead include:
36,661 civilians (including 5,144 children and 3,330 women aged above 18 years).
13,539 rebel fighters.
2,015 defected soldiers and officers.
25,407 regular soldiers.
2,571 unidentified casualties (documented with pictures and footages).
2,518 unidentified and non-Syrian rebel fighters (most of which are non-Syrians).
17,311 combatants from the popular defence committees, national defence forces, shabiha, and pro regime informers.
169 fighters from the Lebanese Hezbollah.
The death toll does not include more than 10,000 detainees and missing persons inside of regime prisons, nor does it include more than 2,500 regular soldiers and pro regime militants held captive by rebel fighters. We also estimate that the real number of casaulties from regular forces and rebel fighters is twice the number documented, because both sides are discreet about the human losses resulting from clashes.
—————————
Those are the numbers listed in the NYT article, including the informants, but I can’t find the page now. It would be from the end of June unless they removed it. (Can you do that with Facebook? I don’t use it.)
I went to my New Yorker email, where I had copied a page from the Syrian Observatory that said this–
The Syrian Observatory for Human Rights has documented 100,191 casualties since the beginning of the uprisings in 18/3/2011, from the first casualty in Dera’a, up till 24/06/2013.
The dead include:
36,661 civilians (including 5,144 children and 3,330 women aged above 18 years).
13,539 rebel fighters.
2,015 defected soldiers and officers.
25,407 regular soldiers.
2,571 unidentified casualties (documented with pictures and footages).
2,518 unidentified and non-Syrian rebel fighters (most of which are non-Syrians).
17,311 combatants from the popular defence committees, national defence forces, shabiha, and pro regime informers.
169 fighters from the Lebanese Hezbollah.
The death toll does not include more than 10,000 detainees and missing persons inside of regime prisons, nor does it include more than 2,500 regular soldiers and pro regime militants held captive by rebel fighters. We also estimate that the real number of casaulties from regular forces and rebel fighters is twice the number documented, because both sides are discreet about the human losses resulting from clashes.
—————————
Those are the numbers listed in the NYT article, including the informants, but I can’t find the page now. It would be from the end of June unless they removed it. (Can you do that with Facebook? I don’t use it.)
MckT:
“…. Slarti was speaking more broadly than the security state and was addressing gov’t in general.”
Yeah, but ….
If the NSA was monitoring all Americans to make sure they are receiving healthcare, I’d elevate it to a Cabinet position.
I can trust one thing (verify, too) and not the other.
To wit, if government is so universally dangerous, untrustworthy, and incompetent, why entrust it with the function deemed most important by many …. national defense and security?
Maybe let it cut the grass on the Interstate medians at most, but run the Armed Forces?
One thing I’m against is MckT imposing moratoriums on his presence here. Self-determination is one thing but when we suffer his absence, I think we need government to have a good look-see and apply whatever coercive measures are deemed necessary, I whined.
Also, what cleek wrote.
AND … what Donald Johnson wrote.
Go ahead, America, lower yourself once again into that nest of vipers.
MckT:
“…. Slarti was speaking more broadly than the security state and was addressing gov’t in general.”
Yeah, but ….
If the NSA was monitoring all Americans to make sure they are receiving healthcare, I’d elevate it to a Cabinet position.
I can trust one thing (verify, too) and not the other.
To wit, if government is so universally dangerous, untrustworthy, and incompetent, why entrust it with the function deemed most important by many …. national defense and security?
Maybe let it cut the grass on the Interstate medians at most, but run the Armed Forces?
One thing I’m against is MckT imposing moratoriums on his presence here. Self-determination is one thing but when we suffer his absence, I think we need government to have a good look-see and apply whatever coercive measures are deemed necessary, I whined.
Also, what cleek wrote.
AND … what Donald Johnson wrote.
Go ahead, America, lower yourself once again into that nest of vipers.
And finally, here’s a piece by Patrick Cockburn from June 30 complaining about how gullible much of the Western media is, particularly in portraying the rebels as the good guys. (Though in fairness I think there’s been less of that lately.)
foreign media portrayals of the conflict in syria are dangerously inaccurate
And finally, here’s a piece by Patrick Cockburn from June 30 complaining about how gullible much of the Western media is, particularly in portraying the rebels as the good guys. (Though in fairness I think there’s been less of that lately.)
foreign media portrayals of the conflict in syria are dangerously inaccurate
So anyway, I’d like to know–do we bomb both sides?
So anyway, I’d like to know–do we bomb both sides?
That would at least have the upside of being refreshing.
We actually do bomb both sides in many instances, just not at the same time. One side first, and then when the other side turns on us a few months or years later, we rain vengeance down on them.
I would favor a bi-lateral, highly secretive, super-international agency equipped with a fleet of satellites and given the trigger button to the world’s entire nuclear arsenal.
The word would go out that should anyone start troubles, both sides have 24 hours to cease and desist or they will be vaporized.
In the interim between troubles, this agency would justify its existence by zapping ALL armament manufacturing facilities across the globe.
it would be funded by crowd-sourcing.
We could get granular over time, pinpointing individuals who raise a gun of any kind, a knife, an SUV, or a vial of poison for the purpose of harming another human being.
I suppose we could branch out to inter-species conflict as well.
Donald and I would run it.
Anyone got a problem with that? You have 24 hours to submit your objections and be aware that anonymity has been eliminated by our staff of hackers.
To tell you the truth, I’m more worried about the groups that would favor such an agency — religious end-of-worlders of all stripes.
They get zapped first — gratis — as a warmup.
The initial power struggle between and Donald and me would probably delay implementation but we would have ways of resolving that.
The world would unite as one to destroy us, natch, so they could get back to slaughtering everything that moves.
I read today that Ted Cruz, of all people, is in favor of increasing government funding to identity and destroy all asteroids that threaten to hit the Earth, killing the insured and uninsured alike.
I would be in favor of our new super-agency lassoing one small chunk of careening rock and directing it to conk him in the head, for other reasons.
Already, I’ve gone rogue.
That would at least have the upside of being refreshing.
We actually do bomb both sides in many instances, just not at the same time. One side first, and then when the other side turns on us a few months or years later, we rain vengeance down on them.
I would favor a bi-lateral, highly secretive, super-international agency equipped with a fleet of satellites and given the trigger button to the world’s entire nuclear arsenal.
The word would go out that should anyone start troubles, both sides have 24 hours to cease and desist or they will be vaporized.
In the interim between troubles, this agency would justify its existence by zapping ALL armament manufacturing facilities across the globe.
it would be funded by crowd-sourcing.
We could get granular over time, pinpointing individuals who raise a gun of any kind, a knife, an SUV, or a vial of poison for the purpose of harming another human being.
I suppose we could branch out to inter-species conflict as well.
Donald and I would run it.
Anyone got a problem with that? You have 24 hours to submit your objections and be aware that anonymity has been eliminated by our staff of hackers.
To tell you the truth, I’m more worried about the groups that would favor such an agency — religious end-of-worlders of all stripes.
They get zapped first — gratis — as a warmup.
The initial power struggle between and Donald and me would probably delay implementation but we would have ways of resolving that.
The world would unite as one to destroy us, natch, so they could get back to slaughtering everything that moves.
I read today that Ted Cruz, of all people, is in favor of increasing government funding to identity and destroy all asteroids that threaten to hit the Earth, killing the insured and uninsured alike.
I would be in favor of our new super-agency lassoing one small chunk of careening rock and directing it to conk him in the head, for other reasons.
Already, I’ve gone rogue.
how about we do nothing?
i vote we do nothing in Syria, and focus on getting our own house in order instead.
the world is not our responsibility. we are not the police. we are not the moral compass. we should get the fnck over ourselves.
how about we do nothing?
i vote we do nothing in Syria, and focus on getting our own house in order instead.
the world is not our responsibility. we are not the police. we are not the moral compass. we should get the fnck over ourselves.
An important difference between WW2 and today is that then the US were willing to go to an all-or-nothing war and ready to accept significant losses in lives for the home team.
I’m not sure this is true.
Another way of reading events might conclude that the lack of willingness to make significant sacrifices is evidence that the situation is not, in fact, all or nothing, and therefore does not deserve an all-or-nothing effort.
No tax breaks for high earners in WWII. Frex. Notably, no Truman Committee, either.
Those were the days, weren’t they?
So – nominally an existential crisis, but something which the market, as it were – the collective wisdom as measured in millions of individual choices – rated as something less. Something that that other guy’s kid could go fight.
All of that said, I’m not sure how we’d do if faced with something that actually was an existential threat. That – a true all-or-nothing situation – is a hypothetical that I think we assume away, these days.
An important difference between WW2 and today is that then the US were willing to go to an all-or-nothing war and ready to accept significant losses in lives for the home team.
I’m not sure this is true.
Another way of reading events might conclude that the lack of willingness to make significant sacrifices is evidence that the situation is not, in fact, all or nothing, and therefore does not deserve an all-or-nothing effort.
No tax breaks for high earners in WWII. Frex. Notably, no Truman Committee, either.
Those were the days, weren’t they?
So – nominally an existential crisis, but something which the market, as it were – the collective wisdom as measured in millions of individual choices – rated as something less. Something that that other guy’s kid could go fight.
All of that said, I’m not sure how we’d do if faced with something that actually was an existential threat. That – a true all-or-nothing situation – is a hypothetical that I think we assume away, these days.
No tax breaks for high earners in WWII. Frex. Notably, no Truman Committee, either.
Sorry, awkwardly put.
No tax breaks in WWII.
No Truman Committee now.
Hope that’s clearer.
No tax breaks for high earners in WWII. Frex. Notably, no Truman Committee, either.
Sorry, awkwardly put.
No tax breaks in WWII.
No Truman Committee now.
Hope that’s clearer.
Here for linking completeness is that Robert Worth NYT Sunday Magazine article on Syria that I praised upthread–
link
Here for linking completeness is that Robert Worth NYT Sunday Magazine article on Syria that I praised upthread–
link
And I am willing to join the Count in becoming the world’s policeman, smiting wrongdoers with all the explosives necessary to enforce our righteous will, lest they resurrect Hitler and kill us all, as Godwin warned long ago. Only thus can we ensure that goodness and freedom triumph, as they did in Southeast Asia and many other places since the time of the Good War. And we are willing to distribute rings to our allies, to assist us in this quest to make–oh,nevermind. Different mythology.
And I am willing to join the Count in becoming the world’s policeman, smiting wrongdoers with all the explosives necessary to enforce our righteous will, lest they resurrect Hitler and kill us all, as Godwin warned long ago. Only thus can we ensure that goodness and freedom triumph, as they did in Southeast Asia and many other places since the time of the Good War. And we are willing to distribute rings to our allies, to assist us in this quest to make–oh,nevermind. Different mythology.
Because now is the time to decide which decision is right or wrong.
Sadly I think that time was quite a ways back. A limited intervention to impose a no fly zone along the Turkish border at the beginning of the conflict – before Aleppo was flattened – might just have had a chance of limiting the conflict.
Now, I think there is little possibility of an effective intervention without risking outcomes every bit as bad as will happen without intervention.
In any event, the US military seems exceedingly unenthusiastic about getting involved;
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/syria/10257208/US-will-not-intervene-in-Syria-as-rebels-dont-support-interests-says-top-general.html
Because now is the time to decide which decision is right or wrong.
Sadly I think that time was quite a ways back. A limited intervention to impose a no fly zone along the Turkish border at the beginning of the conflict – before Aleppo was flattened – might just have had a chance of limiting the conflict.
Now, I think there is little possibility of an effective intervention without risking outcomes every bit as bad as will happen without intervention.
In any event, the US military seems exceedingly unenthusiastic about getting involved;
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/syria/10257208/US-will-not-intervene-in-Syria-as-rebels-dont-support-interests-says-top-general.html
To a man with a hammer, every problem looks like a nail.
To an Asianist, all the world’s problems look like Asia.
I don’t have any idea what’s happening in Syria, but what I flash on when the rottenness of the regime is discussed (and I agree that gassing your own people is rotten, if that’s what’s happening) is Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge.
Which was pretty much worse (to its own people) than any government anywhere has been, and that’ll include your Nazi Germany. But it wasn’t clear what was happening, so we did nothing. Probably rightly, since we had done so much to precipitate the situation in which the KR took over and commenced its murderous regime.
And then when, after almost three years, Vietnam finally came in and threw out the Khmer Rouge in 1978, we decided it was time to take sides. So we sided *against* the Vietnamese (because they were linked with the USSR, etc.) and therefore, by default, with the KR (in exile), which we supported diplomatically and otherwise for more than a decade!
I could go into more detail, but that’s not relevant. What is relevant is the perception that “action” may not only be less helpful in a bad situation than inaction, but that in a convoluted situation there’s always a chance that if we *do* act, it will be on the wrong side.
(Other examples drawn from Southeast Asian history available upon request – which I understand is unlikely to be forthcoming.)
YMMV.
To a man with a hammer, every problem looks like a nail.
To an Asianist, all the world’s problems look like Asia.
I don’t have any idea what’s happening in Syria, but what I flash on when the rottenness of the regime is discussed (and I agree that gassing your own people is rotten, if that’s what’s happening) is Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge.
Which was pretty much worse (to its own people) than any government anywhere has been, and that’ll include your Nazi Germany. But it wasn’t clear what was happening, so we did nothing. Probably rightly, since we had done so much to precipitate the situation in which the KR took over and commenced its murderous regime.
And then when, after almost three years, Vietnam finally came in and threw out the Khmer Rouge in 1978, we decided it was time to take sides. So we sided *against* the Vietnamese (because they were linked with the USSR, etc.) and therefore, by default, with the KR (in exile), which we supported diplomatically and otherwise for more than a decade!
I could go into more detail, but that’s not relevant. What is relevant is the perception that “action” may not only be less helpful in a bad situation than inaction, but that in a convoluted situation there’s always a chance that if we *do* act, it will be on the wrong side.
(Other examples drawn from Southeast Asian history available upon request – which I understand is unlikely to be forthcoming.)
YMMV.
I have to agree with russell that American willingness to get involved in WW II was not all that apparent. At least until we were directly attacked. (There was a reason that the Japanese admiral argued strongly against the Pearl Harbor attack. He had lived in the US, and had a good idea what would follow.) And there is no sign that Assad has the inclination, or the capability, to directly attack us.
Which is why I just can’t see us getting involved in a boots-on-the-ground way. Which doesn’t mean that air attacks are off the table. Syria’s geography doesn’t lend itself to military disruption the way the Libya did. But we could do a lot of damage to Assad . . . and his position is weak enough that he can’t afford that. And air strikes have the advantage that they don’t involve a lot of weapons and other supplies that the opposition (who aren’t choir boys) could grab later.
I have to agree with russell that American willingness to get involved in WW II was not all that apparent. At least until we were directly attacked. (There was a reason that the Japanese admiral argued strongly against the Pearl Harbor attack. He had lived in the US, and had a good idea what would follow.) And there is no sign that Assad has the inclination, or the capability, to directly attack us.
Which is why I just can’t see us getting involved in a boots-on-the-ground way. Which doesn’t mean that air attacks are off the table. Syria’s geography doesn’t lend itself to military disruption the way the Libya did. But we could do a lot of damage to Assad . . . and his position is weak enough that he can’t afford that. And air strikes have the advantage that they don’t involve a lot of weapons and other supplies that the opposition (who aren’t choir boys) could grab later.
Let’s leave aside “boots on the ground” which (I think) is an impossible scenario for the US alone, and probably for NATO, and certainly for the UN. And, by the way, not what I was ever suggesting happen.
And Assad’s evil chemical weapon usage is just a hypothesis at the is point. I strongly believe in verification. That’s obviously one of the many things that got us into trouble regarding Iraq.
I was just positing (and using WWII as an example of – no, not boots on the ground or existential threat, but as – “Never forget.”) that we should never turn a blind eye to suffering if all of our tax money toward bombs, etc., can actually do some good.
Honestly, not sure what good it will do. But if the international community (yes, all of us, not just the US) determines always to stand against chemical weapons, mass infliction of civilian casualties, etc., I think that’s good.
But, it seems to be the consensus here: Let them gas away. I think we should all say that in a chorus though: “Let them gas away, even children!!!!”
Because that’s what we’re standing up for here.
(Cleek, we should put our house in order, true. What are the chances of that happening with the Congress that we have, and with the right-wing (and left-wing) citizenship that we have? I’m not hopeful.)
Let’s leave aside “boots on the ground” which (I think) is an impossible scenario for the US alone, and probably for NATO, and certainly for the UN. And, by the way, not what I was ever suggesting happen.
And Assad’s evil chemical weapon usage is just a hypothesis at the is point. I strongly believe in verification. That’s obviously one of the many things that got us into trouble regarding Iraq.
I was just positing (and using WWII as an example of – no, not boots on the ground or existential threat, but as – “Never forget.”) that we should never turn a blind eye to suffering if all of our tax money toward bombs, etc., can actually do some good.
Honestly, not sure what good it will do. But if the international community (yes, all of us, not just the US) determines always to stand against chemical weapons, mass infliction of civilian casualties, etc., I think that’s good.
But, it seems to be the consensus here: Let them gas away. I think we should all say that in a chorus though: “Let them gas away, even children!!!!”
Because that’s what we’re standing up for here.
(Cleek, we should put our house in order, true. What are the chances of that happening with the Congress that we have, and with the right-wing (and left-wing) citizenship that we have? I’m not hopeful.)
I have to agree with russell that American willingness to get involved in WW II was not all that apparent.
That wasn’t actually a point I was making. In fact, I wasn’t making any point at all about WWII. I was simply asking for the “It’s just like Hitler” rhetoric to be put aside.
That said, it is true that support for entering WWII was at best mixed until Pearl Harbor.
But, it seems to be the consensus here: Let them gas away.
To be honest, I’m not seeing that. YMMV.
I have to agree with russell that American willingness to get involved in WW II was not all that apparent.
That wasn’t actually a point I was making. In fact, I wasn’t making any point at all about WWII. I was simply asking for the “It’s just like Hitler” rhetoric to be put aside.
That said, it is true that support for entering WWII was at best mixed until Pearl Harbor.
But, it seems to be the consensus here: Let them gas away.
To be honest, I’m not seeing that. YMMV.
And Assad’s evil chemical weapon usage is just a hypothesis at the is point.
and
But, it seems to be the consensus here: Let them gas away.
You know, you can’t say the first and then accuse people of the second. Well, you can, but you look like an absolute idiot. You go on and on about ‘letting our leaders govern’, but when we say we aren’t sure, and we step back to presumably let Obama or (fill in the blank) make that decision, you get in high dudgeon and accuse people supporting the use of chemical weapons and of calling you rude. As if you being tagged as rude is somehow the issue here.
Your last comment to Cleek is really revealing. We have less chance of putting our own house in order, but bombing Syrian targets from afar is something we can do.
Given the current state of affairs in Egypt, and Iran and Russia defending Assad’s regime, I think lobbing some cruise missiles is definitely NOT the thing to do. You disagree. Fine. But if you accuse Russell of being forgetful again, you won’t be censored, you will be gone. I don’t care if your ‘style’ is to make link free assertions and then conclude that people who express doubts are supporting the use of chemical weapons, it is not going to fly here. I hate to be the heavy, but you ignored the polite request, so consider this your warning.
And Assad’s evil chemical weapon usage is just a hypothesis at the is point.
and
But, it seems to be the consensus here: Let them gas away.
You know, you can’t say the first and then accuse people of the second. Well, you can, but you look like an absolute idiot. You go on and on about ‘letting our leaders govern’, but when we say we aren’t sure, and we step back to presumably let Obama or (fill in the blank) make that decision, you get in high dudgeon and accuse people supporting the use of chemical weapons and of calling you rude. As if you being tagged as rude is somehow the issue here.
Your last comment to Cleek is really revealing. We have less chance of putting our own house in order, but bombing Syrian targets from afar is something we can do.
Given the current state of affairs in Egypt, and Iran and Russia defending Assad’s regime, I think lobbing some cruise missiles is definitely NOT the thing to do. You disagree. Fine. But if you accuse Russell of being forgetful again, you won’t be censored, you will be gone. I don’t care if your ‘style’ is to make link free assertions and then conclude that people who express doubts are supporting the use of chemical weapons, it is not going to fly here. I hate to be the heavy, but you ignored the polite request, so consider this your warning.
FWIW, an anecdote about our current-day situations, and WWII.
The generation before me all lived through the Depression, then WWII. Father, father-in-law, step-father, all served in one theater or another during WWII. Mother-in-law built Corsairs in Akron, Rosie the Riveter style.
Right after 9/11 my wife and I were talking with my in-laws about what was going on.
Their main issue was that they heartily hoped we did not go to war over the 9/11 attacks.
So, that’s a data point.
Every period of time is fairly unique, every historical situation has its own dynamics. It’s not that fruitful, IMO, to try to make decisions about What To Do Right Now based on what you think you learned from the last time around.
That’s called ‘fighting the last battle’, and it’s basically dealing with a situation, now gone, that you’re carrying around in your head, rather than dealing with the situation that’s actually in front of you.
It is especially fruitless, IMVHO, to try to decide What To Do Right Now based on what other folks, mostly long dead, did or did not do 75 or 80 freaking years ago.
Assad is not Hitler, Syria is not Nazi Germany, and the Middle East today is not Europe ca. the 1930’s.
Further, there is not one person among us who can say with any authority or confidence what they would have thought we should or should not have gone to war with Hitler in the 30’s. We don’t know that because we weren’t there then. Other people were there then, not us, and those people came to their own conclusions, and took their own decisions and actions.
None of us has any claim of authority, moral or otherwise, to make based on what other folks – not us – did or did not do then.
If we want to talk about Syria, we should talk about Syria. Not Hitler, not Vietnam, not even Iraq and Afghanistan except as those more recent events affect what we are actually capable of doing now.
I don’t know enough about the specifics of the situation in Syria to even try to have an intelligent opinion about what we ought to do. What I do know is that HItler has fnck-all to do with it.
FWIW, an anecdote about our current-day situations, and WWII.
The generation before me all lived through the Depression, then WWII. Father, father-in-law, step-father, all served in one theater or another during WWII. Mother-in-law built Corsairs in Akron, Rosie the Riveter style.
Right after 9/11 my wife and I were talking with my in-laws about what was going on.
Their main issue was that they heartily hoped we did not go to war over the 9/11 attacks.
So, that’s a data point.
Every period of time is fairly unique, every historical situation has its own dynamics. It’s not that fruitful, IMO, to try to make decisions about What To Do Right Now based on what you think you learned from the last time around.
That’s called ‘fighting the last battle’, and it’s basically dealing with a situation, now gone, that you’re carrying around in your head, rather than dealing with the situation that’s actually in front of you.
It is especially fruitless, IMVHO, to try to decide What To Do Right Now based on what other folks, mostly long dead, did or did not do 75 or 80 freaking years ago.
Assad is not Hitler, Syria is not Nazi Germany, and the Middle East today is not Europe ca. the 1930’s.
Further, there is not one person among us who can say with any authority or confidence what they would have thought we should or should not have gone to war with Hitler in the 30’s. We don’t know that because we weren’t there then. Other people were there then, not us, and those people came to their own conclusions, and took their own decisions and actions.
None of us has any claim of authority, moral or otherwise, to make based on what other folks – not us – did or did not do then.
If we want to talk about Syria, we should talk about Syria. Not Hitler, not Vietnam, not even Iraq and Afghanistan except as those more recent events affect what we are actually capable of doing now.
I don’t know enough about the specifics of the situation in Syria to even try to have an intelligent opinion about what we ought to do. What I do know is that HItler has fnck-all to do with it.
(This comment was placed in the wrong thread. I’m moving it here, so if someone with the keys wishes to delete the misplaced comment, that would be appreciated.)
But if you accuse Russell of being forgetful again, you won’t be censored, you will be gone.
This is rich, lj.
I’d like to know where in your posting rules, or anywhere else, it’s inappropriate to talk about real issues that are occurring right now, and ask whether (considering our wealth, and military might) we are in a position to do something, and whether we should. I don’t think that russell or anyone else is a “bad person”. He’s quite articulate about stating his own views, and he really doesn’t need your threats.
I too was brought up by people who lived during WWII. I’ve said this before – they were totally against unilateral military action and the kind of b.s. (and lying) that got us into the Iraq war. They supported the UN and cooperation with the international community. And they (speaking of the generation of leaders who experienced that war) certainly didn’t do everything right, especially in the aftermath. Still, sitting passively by while powerful bully governments kill innocents seems one of the main object lessons of that war.
It is especially fruitless, IMVHO, to try to decide What To Do Right Now based on what other folks, mostly long dead, did or did not do 75 or 80 freaking years ago.
This is where I disagree. History has a lot of lessons. I’m not saying that every time anything happens in the world, it’s WWII. But using our zillions of dollars worth of military might to join with the international community to stop bully governments from gassing its own citizens seems to be something worth considering and discussing in open forums. It’s an extremely bad idea to ignore the lessons of the past just because “Godwin!”. Should we be the world’s policemen? That question, and the answer “no!” was the stock conversation of the Vietnam war. I think the conversation should be a little larger than that. Should there be a world’s policeman at all? What responsibility do we have to the rest of the world, if any? What is the line between isolationism and appropriate engagement? What does the admonishment “Never forget” mean, if anything?
I brought up the topic of Syria in order to consider it. I understand that the issues aren’t a “no brainer”. To those people who considered the issues in good faith, without the usual gratuitous sapient bashing, thanks.
(This comment was placed in the wrong thread. I’m moving it here, so if someone with the keys wishes to delete the misplaced comment, that would be appreciated.)
But if you accuse Russell of being forgetful again, you won’t be censored, you will be gone.
This is rich, lj.
I’d like to know where in your posting rules, or anywhere else, it’s inappropriate to talk about real issues that are occurring right now, and ask whether (considering our wealth, and military might) we are in a position to do something, and whether we should. I don’t think that russell or anyone else is a “bad person”. He’s quite articulate about stating his own views, and he really doesn’t need your threats.
I too was brought up by people who lived during WWII. I’ve said this before – they were totally against unilateral military action and the kind of b.s. (and lying) that got us into the Iraq war. They supported the UN and cooperation with the international community. And they (speaking of the generation of leaders who experienced that war) certainly didn’t do everything right, especially in the aftermath. Still, sitting passively by while powerful bully governments kill innocents seems one of the main object lessons of that war.
It is especially fruitless, IMVHO, to try to decide What To Do Right Now based on what other folks, mostly long dead, did or did not do 75 or 80 freaking years ago.
This is where I disagree. History has a lot of lessons. I’m not saying that every time anything happens in the world, it’s WWII. But using our zillions of dollars worth of military might to join with the international community to stop bully governments from gassing its own citizens seems to be something worth considering and discussing in open forums. It’s an extremely bad idea to ignore the lessons of the past just because “Godwin!”. Should we be the world’s policemen? That question, and the answer “no!” was the stock conversation of the Vietnam war. I think the conversation should be a little larger than that. Should there be a world’s policeman at all? What responsibility do we have to the rest of the world, if any? What is the line between isolationism and appropriate engagement? What does the admonishment “Never forget” mean, if anything?
I brought up the topic of Syria in order to consider it. I understand that the issues aren’t a “no brainer”. To those people who considered the issues in good faith, without the usual gratuitous sapient bashing, thanks.
By your own admission, you say we have to wait until there is confirmation. Yet you wrote: But, it seems to be the consensus here: Let them gas away. I think we should all say that in a chorus though: “Let them gas away, even children!!!!”
Please note this from the posting rules:
We therefore reserve the right to warn and, if necessary, ban commenters who show a consistent pattern of blatant disrespect toward groups of people (e.g., people of a given race, military status, sexual orientation, or religion), when that disrespect is coupled with an apparent lack of interest in providing evidence for one’s views or engaging in reasoned argument about them.
The people on this blog are ‘a group of people’, and your claims that we are supporting the use of chemical warfare (despite your own fncking point that it has not been verified) deserves a warning.
I’m going to have very spotty internet access until the middle of Sept, so if, when I can get online, I find you making blanket accusations, I’ll block you and the front-pagers will then have a discussion about whether to make it permanent. So I suggest that you cite particular commenters and you be reasonably civil.
Please note this is not a ‘threat’. This is a ‘warning’. There was no reason to accuse Russell of forgetting history and there was no reason to accuse ‘the consensus here’ of supporting the gassing of civilians. You climbed out on that limb all on your own. Just because someone you attack is articulate doesn’t mean that you can ignore civility because they should be able to defend themselves. That’s a bully’s line as well. So stand down or get out.
I offered you the opportunity to make a guest post and the offer still stands. (that goes for Donald as well). Mail a text file to libjpn at gmail. I would welcome a post that gives details and links so I could know more. But you probably won’t be very happy if you do post something and you find yourself being blocked for responding.
This is my last word on the subject. If you want to figure out which side of the line you are erring on, refer to this, cause I’m not going to spend any more time explaining it.
By your own admission, you say we have to wait until there is confirmation. Yet you wrote: But, it seems to be the consensus here: Let them gas away. I think we should all say that in a chorus though: “Let them gas away, even children!!!!”
Please note this from the posting rules:
We therefore reserve the right to warn and, if necessary, ban commenters who show a consistent pattern of blatant disrespect toward groups of people (e.g., people of a given race, military status, sexual orientation, or religion), when that disrespect is coupled with an apparent lack of interest in providing evidence for one’s views or engaging in reasoned argument about them.
The people on this blog are ‘a group of people’, and your claims that we are supporting the use of chemical warfare (despite your own fncking point that it has not been verified) deserves a warning.
I’m going to have very spotty internet access until the middle of Sept, so if, when I can get online, I find you making blanket accusations, I’ll block you and the front-pagers will then have a discussion about whether to make it permanent. So I suggest that you cite particular commenters and you be reasonably civil.
Please note this is not a ‘threat’. This is a ‘warning’. There was no reason to accuse Russell of forgetting history and there was no reason to accuse ‘the consensus here’ of supporting the gassing of civilians. You climbed out on that limb all on your own. Just because someone you attack is articulate doesn’t mean that you can ignore civility because they should be able to defend themselves. That’s a bully’s line as well. So stand down or get out.
I offered you the opportunity to make a guest post and the offer still stands. (that goes for Donald as well). Mail a text file to libjpn at gmail. I would welcome a post that gives details and links so I could know more. But you probably won’t be very happy if you do post something and you find yourself being blocked for responding.
This is my last word on the subject. If you want to figure out which side of the line you are erring on, refer to this, cause I’m not going to spend any more time explaining it.
It appears that the Syrian regime is indeed responsible for the chemical attack, given their unwillingness to allow UN inspectors access to the location;
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-23809409
It appears that the Syrian regime is indeed responsible for the chemical attack, given their unwillingness to allow UN inspectors access to the location;
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-23809409
I don’t actually object to the “gas away” comment very much, though I’d be one of sapient’s chief targets.
If the UN wants someone to bomb a few military targets, I wouldn’t object very much so long as it is limited to that. I don’t know if it would do any good, but maybe it would make Asad or the rebels or whoever did this go back to massacring people in more approved ways, with bullets for instance. Israel has bombed them a few times, aiming, I believe, at some alleged missile stockpiles.
But my sarcasm earlier still stands–the rebels do exactly the same things in Syria that has sapient justifying drone strikes in other parts of the world, so if we’re supposed to be the world’s policeman, then shouldn’t we be bombing both sides? I don’t see how one escapes the logic there. In the case of Syria, Obama drew a red line regarding chemical weapons, so in large part you see people arguing we might have to bomb because of the usual credibility argument, but that of course is a separate issue. Credibility on war crimes is something the US lost a long time ago, but this sort of credibility involving red lines is more the playground variety, where we have to show that we’re tough guys and mean what we say.
The NYT has another front page story on the Syrian rebels, this time about how one faction kidnapped an American journalist and held him until he managed to escape. To be fair, some other rebels helped him when he reached them.
I don’t actually object to the “gas away” comment very much, though I’d be one of sapient’s chief targets.
If the UN wants someone to bomb a few military targets, I wouldn’t object very much so long as it is limited to that. I don’t know if it would do any good, but maybe it would make Asad or the rebels or whoever did this go back to massacring people in more approved ways, with bullets for instance. Israel has bombed them a few times, aiming, I believe, at some alleged missile stockpiles.
But my sarcasm earlier still stands–the rebels do exactly the same things in Syria that has sapient justifying drone strikes in other parts of the world, so if we’re supposed to be the world’s policeman, then shouldn’t we be bombing both sides? I don’t see how one escapes the logic there. In the case of Syria, Obama drew a red line regarding chemical weapons, so in large part you see people arguing we might have to bomb because of the usual credibility argument, but that of course is a separate issue. Credibility on war crimes is something the US lost a long time ago, but this sort of credibility involving red lines is more the playground variety, where we have to show that we’re tough guys and mean what we say.
The NYT has another front page story on the Syrian rebels, this time about how one faction kidnapped an American journalist and held him until he managed to escape. To be fair, some other rebels helped him when he reached them.
Donald, I read the article about the captured journalist too, and am linking to it.
I understand that it would be difficult or impossible to support a faction of rebels in Syria that would necessarily improve matters there if they won, and that’s one of many, many reasons that a full-fledged invasion isn’t what I have suggested.
If the UN wants someone to bomb a few military targets, I wouldn’t object very much so long as it is limited to that.
I agree with this, or more strongly put, I would support it. I would support a credible international movement to do it even without the UN since Russia and China seem not to be interested at all in condemning Asad.
As to not doing anything, I don’t see how that path wouldn’t just embolden other tyrants to do the same thing to troublesome ethnic minorities, etc. (And, yes, the bullets are just as bad.) The world does need to be policed – not by the United States alone, but by its own community of nations. It was a miracle that the UN security counsel approved the Libyan actions, but that’s the kind of effort we should hope for IMO.
Donald, I read the article about the captured journalist too, and am linking to it.
I understand that it would be difficult or impossible to support a faction of rebels in Syria that would necessarily improve matters there if they won, and that’s one of many, many reasons that a full-fledged invasion isn’t what I have suggested.
If the UN wants someone to bomb a few military targets, I wouldn’t object very much so long as it is limited to that.
I agree with this, or more strongly put, I would support it. I would support a credible international movement to do it even without the UN since Russia and China seem not to be interested at all in condemning Asad.
As to not doing anything, I don’t see how that path wouldn’t just embolden other tyrants to do the same thing to troublesome ethnic minorities, etc. (And, yes, the bullets are just as bad.) The world does need to be policed – not by the United States alone, but by its own community of nations. It was a miracle that the UN security counsel approved the Libyan actions, but that’s the kind of effort we should hope for IMO.
It’s an extremely bad idea to ignore the lessons of the past just because “Godwin!”.
There are a handful of issues with invoking Hitler in a discussion of current events in Syria.
First and foremost, it’s not a good historical analogy. The two cases are not alike. What might have been an appropriate response to Hitler is therefore not necessarily an appropriate response to Assad’s alleged use of gas against his Syrian opponents.
Second, it’s a cheap rhetorical stunt, which tends to distract from and obscure a useful, substantive discussion of the issue at hand. In political discussion, in particular political discussion in online fora, invoking Hitler has, for a long time, been considered a sufficient predictable and risible parlor trick that it does, in fact, have its own name.
Questioning whether we should respond to Assad’s alleged use of chemical weapons with military action is not anything like being unwilling to go to war with Hitler in the 1930’s. The two things are not alike.
Further, sitting in our armchairs in 2013, with the history of Nazi Germany’s aggression, genocide, and fanatical and insane cruelty well documented and taught to every school child, and asserting that we ought to have gone to war with him prior to Pearl Harbor is not at all like being a person alive in the 1930’s and having the same choice to make.
Lastly, if we want to learn lessons from the past, the rise of Hitler in the 30’s is not the only tutor available. There are many, many, many, many, many incidents which might direct our thinking and decision making. Not all of those would argue for aggressive intervention in Syria.
Invoking Hitler, and claiming that folks who disagree with you about some topic or other are Just Like Those Folks In The 30’s Who Buried Their Heads In The Sand!!! does nothing but turn whatever reasonable argument you might want to make into the ranting of a clown.
That’s why people might ask that it be left off the table.
Syria is involved in a civil war. It’s far from clear who the good guys and the bad guys are, or even that there are good and bad guys.
Many innocent people will likely be killed. That happens in wars, which is a statement that should surprise you not at all, because it’s one you make yourself with some frequency.
The use of chemical weapons, if true, would be a serious violation of international law, and deserves a strong response. I don’t know what range of responses are available legally, and I don’t know what range of responses would actually make the situation better rather than worse. So, I don’t offer an opinion about what, specifically, we should do.
If you have some good ideas, I’m sure folks would be interested in hearing them. You’ve been offered a guest post to make your case. If it’s that important to you, you might want to take LJ up on it.
It’s an extremely bad idea to ignore the lessons of the past just because “Godwin!”.
There are a handful of issues with invoking Hitler in a discussion of current events in Syria.
First and foremost, it’s not a good historical analogy. The two cases are not alike. What might have been an appropriate response to Hitler is therefore not necessarily an appropriate response to Assad’s alleged use of gas against his Syrian opponents.
Second, it’s a cheap rhetorical stunt, which tends to distract from and obscure a useful, substantive discussion of the issue at hand. In political discussion, in particular political discussion in online fora, invoking Hitler has, for a long time, been considered a sufficient predictable and risible parlor trick that it does, in fact, have its own name.
Questioning whether we should respond to Assad’s alleged use of chemical weapons with military action is not anything like being unwilling to go to war with Hitler in the 1930’s. The two things are not alike.
Further, sitting in our armchairs in 2013, with the history of Nazi Germany’s aggression, genocide, and fanatical and insane cruelty well documented and taught to every school child, and asserting that we ought to have gone to war with him prior to Pearl Harbor is not at all like being a person alive in the 1930’s and having the same choice to make.
Lastly, if we want to learn lessons from the past, the rise of Hitler in the 30’s is not the only tutor available. There are many, many, many, many, many incidents which might direct our thinking and decision making. Not all of those would argue for aggressive intervention in Syria.
Invoking Hitler, and claiming that folks who disagree with you about some topic or other are Just Like Those Folks In The 30’s Who Buried Their Heads In The Sand!!! does nothing but turn whatever reasonable argument you might want to make into the ranting of a clown.
That’s why people might ask that it be left off the table.
Syria is involved in a civil war. It’s far from clear who the good guys and the bad guys are, or even that there are good and bad guys.
Many innocent people will likely be killed. That happens in wars, which is a statement that should surprise you not at all, because it’s one you make yourself with some frequency.
The use of chemical weapons, if true, would be a serious violation of international law, and deserves a strong response. I don’t know what range of responses are available legally, and I don’t know what range of responses would actually make the situation better rather than worse. So, I don’t offer an opinion about what, specifically, we should do.
If you have some good ideas, I’m sure folks would be interested in hearing them. You’ve been offered a guest post to make your case. If it’s that important to you, you might want to take LJ up on it.
The use of chemical weapons, if true, would be a serious violation of international law, and deserves a strong response.
I don’t really need to write a guest post, because this sentence represents my opinion. So maybe I should just say “What russell said.” I certainly won’t be banned if I stick to that formula.
The use of chemical weapons, if true, would be a serious violation of international law, and deserves a strong response.
I don’t really need to write a guest post, because this sentence represents my opinion. So maybe I should just say “What russell said.” I certainly won’t be banned if I stick to that formula.
Invoking Hitler, and claiming that folks who disagree with you about some topic or other are Just Like Those Folks In The 30’s Who Buried Their Heads In The Sand!!! does nothing but turn whatever reasonable argument you might want to make into the ranting of a clown.
By the way, russell, you read a lot of extra words into the few that I wrote.
Invoking Hitler, and claiming that folks who disagree with you about some topic or other are Just Like Those Folks In The 30’s Who Buried Their Heads In The Sand!!! does nothing but turn whatever reasonable argument you might want to make into the ranting of a clown.
By the way, russell, you read a lot of extra words into the few that I wrote.
IMVHO what I took away from your words is more than reasonable.
Perhaps I misunderstood your point. It happens.
At the risk of furthering the godwinization of the thread, perhaps you would like to make clear exactly what lesson we should take away from the Nazi period when considering what, if anything, we should do about Syria.
IMVHO what I took away from your words is more than reasonable.
Perhaps I misunderstood your point. It happens.
At the risk of furthering the godwinization of the thread, perhaps you would like to make clear exactly what lesson we should take away from the Nazi period when considering what, if anything, we should do about Syria.
No one is threatening to ban you, sapient. It is not even (to my knowledge, which is generally pretty up-to-date on issues concerning this blog) being discussed behind the scenes. The threat, such as it is, is all in your head.
So.
No, that’s not it. It’s been explained to you, repeatedly, that the issue with your crying Hitler is that it’s inapt, not that you’ve somehow violated some rule or other.
I interpret russell’s warning to you is that if you persist in making this kind of inapt comparison, he will all of a sudden be a bit less polite with you. He may lose patience. He may even unleash the rhetorical Kraken.
For the time being, though, the only thing that is happening that I can see is that you are being warned to stop being silly, with the possible consequence that russell will give you some detailed and possibly unpleasant instruction on how silly you’re being. For my part, I’m inclined to grant him a bit of leeway in this matter, because I happen to agree with him.
Saddam Hussein? Yeah, he was just like Hitler.
Incidentally, thanks to russell and others for their kind words yesterday. As it happens I had lunch with a friend, and said friend shared a bit of his Vietnam experience with me (that he had never shared in the >25 years prior that I have known him) that left me rocked for much of the remainder of the day and night. As I am not really comfortable passing any of that along at this point, just know that I am grateful.
Per McKTx, my observations were not confined to NSA, but as NSA appears to be the most visible & threatening part of the iceberg at present, it’s what I had in mind while writing.
No one is threatening to ban you, sapient. It is not even (to my knowledge, which is generally pretty up-to-date on issues concerning this blog) being discussed behind the scenes. The threat, such as it is, is all in your head.
So.
No, that’s not it. It’s been explained to you, repeatedly, that the issue with your crying Hitler is that it’s inapt, not that you’ve somehow violated some rule or other.
I interpret russell’s warning to you is that if you persist in making this kind of inapt comparison, he will all of a sudden be a bit less polite with you. He may lose patience. He may even unleash the rhetorical Kraken.
For the time being, though, the only thing that is happening that I can see is that you are being warned to stop being silly, with the possible consequence that russell will give you some detailed and possibly unpleasant instruction on how silly you’re being. For my part, I’m inclined to grant him a bit of leeway in this matter, because I happen to agree with him.
Saddam Hussein? Yeah, he was just like Hitler.
Incidentally, thanks to russell and others for their kind words yesterday. As it happens I had lunch with a friend, and said friend shared a bit of his Vietnam experience with me (that he had never shared in the >25 years prior that I have known him) that left me rocked for much of the remainder of the day and night. As I am not really comfortable passing any of that along at this point, just know that I am grateful.
Per McKTx, my observations were not confined to NSA, but as NSA appears to be the most visible & threatening part of the iceberg at present, it’s what I had in mind while writing.
As I’ve stated, allowing bullies to commit blatant, massive atrocities against their own civilian population serves to encourage the practice. As a matter of maintaining international norms, the international community needs to respond. Period.
As I’ve stated, allowing bullies to commit blatant, massive atrocities against their own civilian population serves to encourage the practice. As a matter of maintaining international norms, the international community needs to respond. Period.
The question of what sort of response you think might be appropriate is now more relevant than ever.
I imagine that there is some amount of jaw, jaw going on that doesn’t show up in the media. When that doesn’t pan out, what next? And after that, what?
The question of what sort of response you think might be appropriate is now more relevant than ever.
I imagine that there is some amount of jaw, jaw going on that doesn’t show up in the media. When that doesn’t pan out, what next? And after that, what?
I agree that whatever is going on in Syria right now, it is not the equivalent of what Hitler did. But I think Sapient’s point was that if there had been some kind of interevention early in Hitler’s regime, maybe things would have worked out for the better. This isn’t an uncommon notion, but of course not provable. But I think he meant to relate it to Syria in the sense that early intervention now might avoid worse things happening later.
I don’t know if that’s true or not. The situation is so complex and so messy and the US doesn’t have a lot of credibility or moral authority with the Syrain government that it’s really impossible to say what some kind of intervention would do.
I agree that whatever is going on in Syria right now, it is not the equivalent of what Hitler did. But I think Sapient’s point was that if there had been some kind of interevention early in Hitler’s regime, maybe things would have worked out for the better. This isn’t an uncommon notion, but of course not provable. But I think he meant to relate it to Syria in the sense that early intervention now might avoid worse things happening later.
I don’t know if that’s true or not. The situation is so complex and so messy and the US doesn’t have a lot of credibility or moral authority with the Syrain government that it’s really impossible to say what some kind of intervention would do.
by all means, let’s get involved in another ME war.
nothing bad could possibly come of that.
by all means, let’s get involved in another ME war.
nothing bad could possibly come of that.
I look forward to the very many places in sub-Saharan Africa that we will be bombing.
I look forward to the very many places in sub-Saharan Africa that we will be bombing.
When that doesn’t pan out, what next? And after that, what?
I don’t think that whatever is done or not done will “pan out.” It will send a message that what’s happening violates international norms. Not everything “pans out” into a Panglossian dream.
I look forward to the very many places in sub-Saharan Africa that we will be bombing.
By “very many places in sub-Saharan Africa”, I’m not sure which country you mean. There are other countries working with the UN in the Congo. I’m sure you don’t need a link to know about France in Mali and the Ivory Coast.
No, we don’t have to be involved in everything. But the international community must be, and we are a part of that.
When that doesn’t pan out, what next? And after that, what?
I don’t think that whatever is done or not done will “pan out.” It will send a message that what’s happening violates international norms. Not everything “pans out” into a Panglossian dream.
I look forward to the very many places in sub-Saharan Africa that we will be bombing.
By “very many places in sub-Saharan Africa”, I’m not sure which country you mean. There are other countries working with the UN in the Congo. I’m sure you don’t need a link to know about France in Mali and the Ivory Coast.
No, we don’t have to be involved in everything. But the international community must be, and we are a part of that.
As I’ve stated, allowing bullies to commit blatant, massive atrocities against their own civilian population serves to encourage the practice.
I guess what’s not clear to me in the case of Syria is who is a bully and who is not, and who is a civilian and who is not.
I completely agree that the use of chemical weapons violates international law and merits a strong response.
As to who is the good guy and who is the bad guy in the underlying Syrian civil war, and who (if anyone) does or does not deserve our support, I don’t know enough to have an opinion.
If you (sapient) would like to share your thoughts on who the worthy party in Syria is, and why, I suspect the guest post offer is still open.
As I’ve stated, allowing bullies to commit blatant, massive atrocities against their own civilian population serves to encourage the practice.
I guess what’s not clear to me in the case of Syria is who is a bully and who is not, and who is a civilian and who is not.
I completely agree that the use of chemical weapons violates international law and merits a strong response.
As to who is the good guy and who is the bad guy in the underlying Syrian civil war, and who (if anyone) does or does not deserve our support, I don’t know enough to have an opinion.
If you (sapient) would like to share your thoughts on who the worthy party in Syria is, and why, I suspect the guest post offer is still open.
They’re already aware that gas attacks violate international law. That message has been sent.
But you’re not talking about sending a message; you’re talking about dropping ordnance. So: let’s talk about that. Let’s talk about what we decide to start doing, and how we decide to stop.
You want to, for instance, target Syrian military aircraft on the ground? In the air? What?
They’re already aware that gas attacks violate international law. That message has been sent.
But you’re not talking about sending a message; you’re talking about dropping ordnance. So: let’s talk about that. Let’s talk about what we decide to start doing, and how we decide to stop.
You want to, for instance, target Syrian military aircraft on the ground? In the air? What?
sapient, you should also be aware that Syria has a not-insubstantial Air Force. So it’s not that we could just waltz in and they’d just let us. It would have to be a fairly extensive effort. It’s not going to be a surgical strike.
Syria also has rather extensive mobile SAM forces. Again, go read. It’s not going to be like Afghanistan, or like Iraq round 2, in terms of anyone being able to simply fly in and rule the skies. It would be more like Iraq round 1.
It’s possible that a cruise missile strike would do some good. But I’d want to hear specific ideas. Not that I’m in any sort of position to decide anything.
sapient, you should also be aware that Syria has a not-insubstantial Air Force. So it’s not that we could just waltz in and they’d just let us. It would have to be a fairly extensive effort. It’s not going to be a surgical strike.
Syria also has rather extensive mobile SAM forces. Again, go read. It’s not going to be like Afghanistan, or like Iraq round 2, in terms of anyone being able to simply fly in and rule the skies. It would be more like Iraq round 1.
It’s possible that a cruise missile strike would do some good. But I’d want to hear specific ideas. Not that I’m in any sort of position to decide anything.
Sam Goldwyn (or Frank Capra or someone else in Hollywood) is supposed to have said:
If you want to send a message, try Western Union.
Most of the Vietnam War was fought, long after we had given up believing it was actually winnable, in order to send a message (in that case, that America Honors Its Commitments?). Or as I used to explain it to my undergraduates, If you want to know what the US was doing in Vietnam, you need to know this old camp song:
(Sings, to the tune of Auld Lang Syne)
We’re here because
We’re here because
We’re here because
We’re here.
We’re here because
We’re here because
We’re here because
We’re here.
(Repeat ad nauseam)
Sam Goldwyn (or Frank Capra or someone else in Hollywood) is supposed to have said:
If you want to send a message, try Western Union.
Most of the Vietnam War was fought, long after we had given up believing it was actually winnable, in order to send a message (in that case, that America Honors Its Commitments?). Or as I used to explain it to my undergraduates, If you want to know what the US was doing in Vietnam, you need to know this old camp song:
(Sings, to the tune of Auld Lang Syne)
We’re here because
We’re here because
We’re here because
We’re here.
We’re here because
We’re here because
We’re here because
We’re here.
(Repeat ad nauseam)
As to who is the good guy and who is the bad guy in the underlying Syrian civil war, and who (if anyone) does or does not deserve our support, I don’t know enough to have an opinion.
As I think I already said, getting involved in the civil war beyond a response to the chemical weapons attack is not what I’m advocating.
I guess what’s not clear to me in the case of Syria is who is a bully and who is not, and who is a civilian and who is not.
I agree that some of the rebels are bullies. I linked to an article illustrating that very point. An attempt is being made to investigate the chemical attack. Perhaps it will become clearer who did it, what people were its intended targets, etc. Again, I think it’s prudent to find out what happened. From what we know now, it seems like the Syrian government was using gas against a civilian population – that’s what’s in the news.
I completely agree that the use of chemical weapons violates international law and merits a strong response.
Again, we’re in agreement.
So it’s not that we could just waltz in and they’d just let us. It would have to be a fairly extensive effort. It’s not going to be a surgical strike.
I don’t know whether that’s true or not. Israel has launched limited strikes against Syria. I don’t claim to be an expert, and I don’t know what’s feasible. There seems to be a discussion of potential responses going on in the administration.
As to who is the good guy and who is the bad guy in the underlying Syrian civil war, and who (if anyone) does or does not deserve our support, I don’t know enough to have an opinion.
As I think I already said, getting involved in the civil war beyond a response to the chemical weapons attack is not what I’m advocating.
I guess what’s not clear to me in the case of Syria is who is a bully and who is not, and who is a civilian and who is not.
I agree that some of the rebels are bullies. I linked to an article illustrating that very point. An attempt is being made to investigate the chemical attack. Perhaps it will become clearer who did it, what people were its intended targets, etc. Again, I think it’s prudent to find out what happened. From what we know now, it seems like the Syrian government was using gas against a civilian population – that’s what’s in the news.
I completely agree that the use of chemical weapons violates international law and merits a strong response.
Again, we’re in agreement.
So it’s not that we could just waltz in and they’d just let us. It would have to be a fairly extensive effort. It’s not going to be a surgical strike.
I don’t know whether that’s true or not. Israel has launched limited strikes against Syria. I don’t claim to be an expert, and I don’t know what’s feasible. There seems to be a discussion of potential responses going on in the administration.
For those who think that the evidence that Assad used chemical weapons is unconvincing, consider this.
1) Even Russia is calling on Assad to allow those inspections. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/24/world/middleeast/syria-chemical-attack.html?_r=0
2) Assad is refusing to allow UN inspectors to check the area.
If there is a scenario where Assad would continue to refuse to allow those inspections, but he didn’t really use chemical weapons, I’m having trouble seeing it. Would anyone care to make some suggestions as to how his behavior makes any sense if he did not use them?
For those who think that the evidence that Assad used chemical weapons is unconvincing, consider this.
1) Even Russia is calling on Assad to allow those inspections. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/24/world/middleeast/syria-chemical-attack.html?_r=0
2) Assad is refusing to allow UN inspectors to check the area.
If there is a scenario where Assad would continue to refuse to allow those inspections, but he didn’t really use chemical weapons, I’m having trouble seeing it. Would anyone care to make some suggestions as to how his behavior makes any sense if he did not use them?
Can someone explain why the Syrian government using chemical weapons is worse than using traditional ordnance? Do chemical weapons cause people to become more dead than regular bullets? Is being burned alive by incendiary weapons a more pleasant death than being killed by sarin?
Israel has launched limited strikes against Syria.
Yes, Israel is definitely a country we should emulate. They keep bombing countries and they’re so very effective at it. Look at how much they’ve accomplished!
Can someone explain why the Syrian government using chemical weapons is worse than using traditional ordnance? Do chemical weapons cause people to become more dead than regular bullets? Is being burned alive by incendiary weapons a more pleasant death than being killed by sarin?
Israel has launched limited strikes against Syria.
Yes, Israel is definitely a country we should emulate. They keep bombing countries and they’re so very effective at it. Look at how much they’ve accomplished!
Would anyone care to make some suggestions as to how his behavior makes any sense if he did not use them?
Could be they were used, but by mistake/without Assad’s authorization. It is a war after all, and a civil one at that.
Would anyone care to make some suggestions as to how his behavior makes any sense if he did not use them?
Could be they were used, but by mistake/without Assad’s authorization. It is a war after all, and a civil one at that.
Someday, when and if Slart is ever up to it, I’d like to read a front page post regarding his conversation with his Vietnam vet friend.
Or, any other subject.
I agree that the Hitler analogy is neither apt nor helpful for reasons cited above, but I’ve been reading about World War I over the past two years (Keegan, Fussell, Peter Gay) and if I could take the wayback machine to that time and place a few days after Archduke Ferdinand was assassinated and some extraordinarily prescient individual of the time had thought to ask the question “How shall we prevent the rise of Hitler and the tens of millions of deaths in World War II”, not to mention the Bolshevik Revolution”, I would respond: “Don’t fight World War I. The Austro-Hungarian Empire should do NOTHING in response to the assassination of the Archduke beyond the usual diplomatic tongue-lashings.”
Then I would add “Period.” and made a show of wiping my hands of the entire subject and skedaddled as quickly as possible back to the now, probably to tell everyone how to conduct present affairs.
Of course, even from my privileged perspective in the wayback machine, my words would have been fruitless because it was evident that the European Powers had a diplomatic and military war machine in place that was rearing to go at the slightest provocation and go it did to kick off the savage, blood-soaked 20th Century with its technological innovations in the service of maximum butchery.
So, I’m still troubled by this formulation (that sounds like something Sebastian would write) of sapient’s: ” As a matter of maintaining international norms, the international community needs to respond. Period.
The declaration “the international community needs to respond” may be obvious but it most assuredly does not end with a full stop “Period”.
It demands an explanation of “What?” and “How?” and a chewing over of the effects of the whats and the hows on the future of this monstrosity of a travesty of a tragedy of the Mideast, not to mention the ramifications for American interests.
Which I’m sure is what is going now at all of the proper high levels, which Slart termed “jaw, jaw”.
May I remind all of us that George W. Bush and Dick Cheney, with a cast of bipartisan enthusiasts, provided the latest callow impetus for setting much of this recent Mideast conflagration on its course (how much it’s hard to tell, especially by them) purposefully and with intent with the invasion of Iraq, except, in their callowness, they expected sweetness and light and shopping to follow, not to mention elections wherein the “right” people would ascend to power and peace would reign.
Jesus f&cking Christ on a unicycle!
No doubt Bush and Cheney would have been right at home in 1914 Europe.
Anyway, I’m assembling an amateur mercenary, expeditionary force to sneak into Syria and Egypt — Orwell/Hemingway Spanish Civil War style — to kill al-Assad and al-Sisi (I read he gave orders to clear the streets by shooting directly at the heads, necks and chests of the protesters; not gas, but there it is), drive ambulances, and raise whatever banners we can.
al Assad’s daddy murdered tens (hundreds?) of thousands of Muslim Brotherhood members 30 years ago and I don’t remember our response then, probably nothing?
I see sapient has written ” I don’t claim to be an expert, and I don’t know what’s feasible. There seems to be a discussion of potential responses going on in the administration.”
Fair enough.
Someday, when and if Slart is ever up to it, I’d like to read a front page post regarding his conversation with his Vietnam vet friend.
Or, any other subject.
I agree that the Hitler analogy is neither apt nor helpful for reasons cited above, but I’ve been reading about World War I over the past two years (Keegan, Fussell, Peter Gay) and if I could take the wayback machine to that time and place a few days after Archduke Ferdinand was assassinated and some extraordinarily prescient individual of the time had thought to ask the question “How shall we prevent the rise of Hitler and the tens of millions of deaths in World War II”, not to mention the Bolshevik Revolution”, I would respond: “Don’t fight World War I. The Austro-Hungarian Empire should do NOTHING in response to the assassination of the Archduke beyond the usual diplomatic tongue-lashings.”
Then I would add “Period.” and made a show of wiping my hands of the entire subject and skedaddled as quickly as possible back to the now, probably to tell everyone how to conduct present affairs.
Of course, even from my privileged perspective in the wayback machine, my words would have been fruitless because it was evident that the European Powers had a diplomatic and military war machine in place that was rearing to go at the slightest provocation and go it did to kick off the savage, blood-soaked 20th Century with its technological innovations in the service of maximum butchery.
So, I’m still troubled by this formulation (that sounds like something Sebastian would write) of sapient’s: ” As a matter of maintaining international norms, the international community needs to respond. Period.
The declaration “the international community needs to respond” may be obvious but it most assuredly does not end with a full stop “Period”.
It demands an explanation of “What?” and “How?” and a chewing over of the effects of the whats and the hows on the future of this monstrosity of a travesty of a tragedy of the Mideast, not to mention the ramifications for American interests.
Which I’m sure is what is going now at all of the proper high levels, which Slart termed “jaw, jaw”.
May I remind all of us that George W. Bush and Dick Cheney, with a cast of bipartisan enthusiasts, provided the latest callow impetus for setting much of this recent Mideast conflagration on its course (how much it’s hard to tell, especially by them) purposefully and with intent with the invasion of Iraq, except, in their callowness, they expected sweetness and light and shopping to follow, not to mention elections wherein the “right” people would ascend to power and peace would reign.
Jesus f&cking Christ on a unicycle!
No doubt Bush and Cheney would have been right at home in 1914 Europe.
Anyway, I’m assembling an amateur mercenary, expeditionary force to sneak into Syria and Egypt — Orwell/Hemingway Spanish Civil War style — to kill al-Assad and al-Sisi (I read he gave orders to clear the streets by shooting directly at the heads, necks and chests of the protesters; not gas, but there it is), drive ambulances, and raise whatever banners we can.
al Assad’s daddy murdered tens (hundreds?) of thousands of Muslim Brotherhood members 30 years ago and I don’t remember our response then, probably nothing?
I see sapient has written ” I don’t claim to be an expert, and I don’t know what’s feasible. There seems to be a discussion of potential responses going on in the administration.”
Fair enough.
Assad is refusing to allow UN inspectors to check the area.
You realize that in the recent past, US intelligence agencies have infiltrated UN inspection teams, right? Given that sapient and a great many pundits are trying to push the US into invading Syria, wouldn’t it make sense to maybe avoid giving US intelligence agencies on the ground intelligence and diplomatic immunity?
Assad is refusing to allow UN inspectors to check the area.
You realize that in the recent past, US intelligence agencies have infiltrated UN inspection teams, right? Given that sapient and a great many pundits are trying to push the US into invading Syria, wouldn’t it make sense to maybe avoid giving US intelligence agencies on the ground intelligence and diplomatic immunity?
Yes, limited strikes. Against specific targets. Which could all be struck from outside of Syrian airspace. Not saying they were, but they could have been.
Yes, limited strikes. Against specific targets. Which could all be struck from outside of Syrian airspace. Not saying they were, but they could have been.
Turbulence has raised an interesting point: why do we (= world community, generally) regard some weapons as worse than others, when the result in any event is killing?
Certainly the use of the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki has provoked far more protest over the past few generations than, say, the fire-bombing of Tokyo, which actually killed more people.
Gas became a military/moral issue in WWI, and was considered so abhorrent that it was scarcely used in WWII or since, though heaven knows humankind found a myriad other ways of disposing of “the enemy.”
The aerial bombardment of Guernica provoked outrage – and at least one great work of art – where comparable incursions/death by ground troops were forgotten, if not forgiven.
I have some sympathy with the view that any restriction on weaponry, any “line in the sand” that curtails killing, is probably a step in the right direction, and the fact that there is a historic consensus – nearly a century old – against the use of gas may make this a good place for a stand of some sort, even if the underlying logic may be flawed.
Turbulence has raised an interesting point: why do we (= world community, generally) regard some weapons as worse than others, when the result in any event is killing?
Certainly the use of the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki has provoked far more protest over the past few generations than, say, the fire-bombing of Tokyo, which actually killed more people.
Gas became a military/moral issue in WWI, and was considered so abhorrent that it was scarcely used in WWII or since, though heaven knows humankind found a myriad other ways of disposing of “the enemy.”
The aerial bombardment of Guernica provoked outrage – and at least one great work of art – where comparable incursions/death by ground troops were forgotten, if not forgiven.
I have some sympathy with the view that any restriction on weaponry, any “line in the sand” that curtails killing, is probably a step in the right direction, and the fact that there is a historic consensus – nearly a century old – against the use of gas may make this a good place for a stand of some sort, even if the underlying logic may be flawed.
To expand:
The Israeli strikes against targets in Syria were not primarily used as deterrents; rather, they were used to eliminate those specific targets.
If you have some notions that some international coalition forces might be used to that same effect w/regards to Syria, please share your thoughts with us. Otherwise, this is an inapt comparison.
To expand:
The Israeli strikes against targets in Syria were not primarily used as deterrents; rather, they were used to eliminate those specific targets.
If you have some notions that some international coalition forces might be used to that same effect w/regards to Syria, please share your thoughts with us. Otherwise, this is an inapt comparison.
“So, I’m still troubled by this formulation (that sounds like something Sebastian would write) of sapient’s: ” As a matter of maintaining international norms, the international community needs to respond. Period.”
“that” being the Sebastian-sounding “still troubled by this formulation”, not sapient’s statement.
By the way, none of my nonsense is meant as a verbal gas attack against anyone, except Bush and Cheney.
“So, I’m still troubled by this formulation (that sounds like something Sebastian would write) of sapient’s: ” As a matter of maintaining international norms, the international community needs to respond. Period.”
“that” being the Sebastian-sounding “still troubled by this formulation”, not sapient’s statement.
By the way, none of my nonsense is meant as a verbal gas attack against anyone, except Bush and Cheney.
Can someone explain why the Syrian government using chemical weapons is worse than using traditional ordnance?
Arguably not worse, just illegal on its face if true.
Humans are, among other things, bloodthirsty SOBs, so we make rules to try to keep the carnage within some kind of bounds.
I won’t claim it’s logical, or even particularly good.
Can someone explain why the Syrian government using chemical weapons is worse than using traditional ordnance?
Arguably not worse, just illegal on its face if true.
Humans are, among other things, bloodthirsty SOBs, so we make rules to try to keep the carnage within some kind of bounds.
I won’t claim it’s logical, or even particularly good.
I think that dying by having e.g. all of your skin blistered from your body, or e.g. having your lungs so badly damage that you die by slow suffocation are considered to be a level of cruelty above getting shot of fragged to death.
Just by way of explanation. Not saying it’s the explanation.
I think that dying by having e.g. all of your skin blistered from your body, or e.g. having your lungs so badly damage that you die by slow suffocation are considered to be a level of cruelty above getting shot of fragged to death.
Just by way of explanation. Not saying it’s the explanation.
The pinnacle of Western civilization and culture at the time, 1914 Europe, gave us chemical weapons.
Not that others wouldn’t have though of it and used it had they been first, but we always seem to be at the forefront of deadly force.
By the way, this, along with threats to default on the nation’s debt should be very helpful as the President’s deals with this dangerous situation on the Mideast.
http://money.msn.com/business-news/article.aspx?feed=AP&date=20130823&id=16834951
You know, what is happening in Syria and Egypt could happen here too someday, given the delightful nature of some among us.
The pinnacle of Western civilization and culture at the time, 1914 Europe, gave us chemical weapons.
Not that others wouldn’t have though of it and used it had they been first, but we always seem to be at the forefront of deadly force.
By the way, this, along with threats to default on the nation’s debt should be very helpful as the President’s deals with this dangerous situation on the Mideast.
http://money.msn.com/business-news/article.aspx?feed=AP&date=20130823&id=16834951
You know, what is happening in Syria and Egypt could happen here too someday, given the delightful nature of some among us.
“as the President’s deals with this dangerous situation on the Mideast.”
It’s Friday. See ya.
“as the President’s deals with this dangerous situation on the Mideast.”
It’s Friday. See ya.
Arguably not worse, just illegal on its face if true.
OK, but so what?
I mean, the US government doesn’t generally care about international law. So why would we start now?
I mean, we started a war that killed a million people for no apparent reason. If we’re going to start taking international law seriously, shouldn’t we do something about that first? Or that whole detainee torture thing maybe?
I think that dying by having e.g. all of your skin blistered from your body, or e.g. having your lungs so badly damage that you die by slow suffocation are considered to be a level of cruelty above getting shot of fragged to death.
Sarin and VX don’t have those effects. Incendiary weapons do, and they’re totally legal. So I’m not sure what you’re trying to say here.
Arguably not worse, just illegal on its face if true.
OK, but so what?
I mean, the US government doesn’t generally care about international law. So why would we start now?
I mean, we started a war that killed a million people for no apparent reason. If we’re going to start taking international law seriously, shouldn’t we do something about that first? Or that whole detainee torture thing maybe?
I think that dying by having e.g. all of your skin blistered from your body, or e.g. having your lungs so badly damage that you die by slow suffocation are considered to be a level of cruelty above getting shot of fragged to death.
Sarin and VX don’t have those effects. Incendiary weapons do, and they’re totally legal. So I’m not sure what you’re trying to say here.
Mustard gas does. I think it’s the memory of mustard gas that drives the continued aversion to gas attacks.
My opinion, unbacked by anything, admittedly. But Syria reputedly also has mustard gas.
Mustard gas does. I think it’s the memory of mustard gas that drives the continued aversion to gas attacks.
My opinion, unbacked by anything, admittedly. But Syria reputedly also has mustard gas.
What incendiary weapons are you referring to? Incendiaries are not completely unconstrained.
What incendiary weapons are you referring to? Incendiaries are not completely unconstrained.
The idea of banning some weapons because they are excessively cruel has been around for awhile–expanding bullets, for instance, were banned, I think. Though I never understood that. I’m not a hunter, but I thought hunters used such bullets for big game because they made a quick kill more likely. But I might be wrong. Anyway, on the main point, the idea of banning weapons for excessive cruelty has been around, but I’m not sure that the choices made on what to ban and what not to actually make much sense. As Turb just pointed out.
On the government surveillance front, the Washington Post has this article (which I found on digby’s blog hullabaloo) about the idiotic FBI file on the writer William Vollmann (who has written a literally encyclopedic tome on the subject of political violence–maybe they thought that indicated an excessive interest in the subject?)
link
The idea of banning some weapons because they are excessively cruel has been around for awhile–expanding bullets, for instance, were banned, I think. Though I never understood that. I’m not a hunter, but I thought hunters used such bullets for big game because they made a quick kill more likely. But I might be wrong. Anyway, on the main point, the idea of banning weapons for excessive cruelty has been around, but I’m not sure that the choices made on what to ban and what not to actually make much sense. As Turb just pointed out.
On the government surveillance front, the Washington Post has this article (which I found on digby’s blog hullabaloo) about the idiotic FBI file on the writer William Vollmann (who has written a literally encyclopedic tome on the subject of political violence–maybe they thought that indicated an excessive interest in the subject?)
link
What incendiary weapons are you referring to? Incendiaries are not completely unconstrained.
The convention indicates that you can’t use incendiary weapons against civilian populations. But, you can’t legally use any other weapon against civilian populations either.
This is my point. If Assad is killing lots of civilians, and we think that’s a sufficient reason to invade Syria, then we should do that. It doesn’t matter whether he kills those civilians with Sarin or fuel air bombs or rolled up newspapers: the problem is the killing of civilians, not the precise mechanism by which it happens nor the legality of that mechanism.
But we obviously don’t think that merely killing lots of civilians is a sufficient justification to invade Syria. If we did think that, we would have invaded Syria long ago.
What incendiary weapons are you referring to? Incendiaries are not completely unconstrained.
The convention indicates that you can’t use incendiary weapons against civilian populations. But, you can’t legally use any other weapon against civilian populations either.
This is my point. If Assad is killing lots of civilians, and we think that’s a sufficient reason to invade Syria, then we should do that. It doesn’t matter whether he kills those civilians with Sarin or fuel air bombs or rolled up newspapers: the problem is the killing of civilians, not the precise mechanism by which it happens nor the legality of that mechanism.
But we obviously don’t think that merely killing lots of civilians is a sufficient justification to invade Syria. If we did think that, we would have invaded Syria long ago.
OK, but so what?
Now you’re asking stuff that is way, way above my paygrade.
I’m not disputing your basic point, I’m just noting that FWIW lines in the sand have been drawn. However arbitrary.
Some weapons are more cruel than others, some hideously so, and some have been outlawed, but there are still about eleventy-hundred ways to inflict some serious pain on your fellow human.
I have no explanation for it other than to say that humans are enormously creative, and can also be enormously cruel and bloodthirsty.
No news there.
OK, but so what?
Now you’re asking stuff that is way, way above my paygrade.
I’m not disputing your basic point, I’m just noting that FWIW lines in the sand have been drawn. However arbitrary.
Some weapons are more cruel than others, some hideously so, and some have been outlawed, but there are still about eleventy-hundred ways to inflict some serious pain on your fellow human.
I have no explanation for it other than to say that humans are enormously creative, and can also be enormously cruel and bloodthirsty.
No news there.
My attitude toward human conventions is that we make stuff up as we go along, but I’ll play along because I share the bullets are better than gas ethos in situations in which those are the only choices.
Why? I don’t know. Beyond my pay grade, too.
I’m sure Wayne LaPierre would be in an uproar if a guy entered a grade school in New England and put the kids and teachers down with poison gas, but for some reason he wouldn’t recommend arming the janitors and security guys with similar weapons, and i doubt he would favor getting rid of the American poison gas stockpile, all despite the Founders obviously 20/20 foresight, via commas, that the population should be armed without specification of caliber.
Why, I don’t know. But, I’ll play along.
Watching a person outraged ethically with the plight and suffering of factory-raised chickens dismantle a Whole Foods roasted chicken, which had been lovingly cosseted, fed sumptuously and free of chemicals, and allowed to range free, with his or her bare hands and stuff the meat of the creature down his or her gullet, daintily wiping the life-juices of the bird from their chins, is fine by me.
My attitude toward human conventions is that we make stuff up as we go along, but I’ll play along because I share the bullets are better than gas ethos in situations in which those are the only choices.
Why? I don’t know. Beyond my pay grade, too.
I’m sure Wayne LaPierre would be in an uproar if a guy entered a grade school in New England and put the kids and teachers down with poison gas, but for some reason he wouldn’t recommend arming the janitors and security guys with similar weapons, and i doubt he would favor getting rid of the American poison gas stockpile, all despite the Founders obviously 20/20 foresight, via commas, that the population should be armed without specification of caliber.
Why, I don’t know. But, I’ll play along.
Watching a person outraged ethically with the plight and suffering of factory-raised chickens dismantle a Whole Foods roasted chicken, which had been lovingly cosseted, fed sumptuously and free of chemicals, and allowed to range free, with his or her bare hands and stuff the meat of the creature down his or her gullet, daintily wiping the life-juices of the bird from their chins, is fine by me.
Yes, I agree with this.
But there’s no way “invade Syria” happens without attendant civilian casualties. I realize I’m not saying anything surprising, here.
Yes, I agree with this.
But there’s no way “invade Syria” happens without attendant civilian casualties. I realize I’m not saying anything surprising, here.
The pinnacle of Western civilization and culture at the time, 1914 Europe, gave us chemical weapons.
actually…
The pinnacle of Western civilization and culture at the time, 1914 Europe, gave us chemical weapons.
actually…
Damned internet
Damned internet
Is this thread still open?
If so, I picked this up at Kevin Drum’s:
“A middle-aged man in a red golf shirt shuffles up to a small folding table with gold trim, in a booth adorned with a flotilla of helium balloons, where government workers at the Kentucky State Fair are hawking the virtues of Kynect, the state’s health benefit exchange established by Obamacare.”
The man is impressed. “This beats Obamacare I hope,” he mutters to one of the workers.
“Do I burst his bubble?” wonders Reina Diaz-Dempsey, overseeing the operation. She doesn’t. If he signs up, it’s a win-win, whether he knows he’s been ensnared by Obamacare or not.’
Then he warned the government not to mess with his Medicare when it comes time for him to sign up.
He must have been flummoxed, not by the 2400 pages in the law, but the big words on the pages.
We should place that willfully stupid Republican f*ck in charge of determining whether or not and to what extent Syrians have been gassed, so we get the story right.
In the age-old conundrum of bullets versus gas, I’m hard-pressed to decide which should be used on the vermin in the Republican Party — officeholders, media clowns, internet lying filth, the bugs in the base — who have THIS country so finagled into gross, willful ignorance on every issue.
The Administration’s flexibility in implementing this law to allow all parties involved time and room to adjust should include this rule: “If you can’t identify the program you freely just signed up for as Obamacare, then return home, watch FOX and go f*ck yourself.”
When it comes time to overthrow the Republican Party by means they will finally understand, I hope we can import the Syrian opposition and whichever side of the Egyptian mess proves more ruthless so we have someone in this country who knows how it should be done.
Is this thread still open?
If so, I picked this up at Kevin Drum’s:
“A middle-aged man in a red golf shirt shuffles up to a small folding table with gold trim, in a booth adorned with a flotilla of helium balloons, where government workers at the Kentucky State Fair are hawking the virtues of Kynect, the state’s health benefit exchange established by Obamacare.”
The man is impressed. “This beats Obamacare I hope,” he mutters to one of the workers.
“Do I burst his bubble?” wonders Reina Diaz-Dempsey, overseeing the operation. She doesn’t. If he signs up, it’s a win-win, whether he knows he’s been ensnared by Obamacare or not.’
Then he warned the government not to mess with his Medicare when it comes time for him to sign up.
He must have been flummoxed, not by the 2400 pages in the law, but the big words on the pages.
We should place that willfully stupid Republican f*ck in charge of determining whether or not and to what extent Syrians have been gassed, so we get the story right.
In the age-old conundrum of bullets versus gas, I’m hard-pressed to decide which should be used on the vermin in the Republican Party — officeholders, media clowns, internet lying filth, the bugs in the base — who have THIS country so finagled into gross, willful ignorance on every issue.
The Administration’s flexibility in implementing this law to allow all parties involved time and room to adjust should include this rule: “If you can’t identify the program you freely just signed up for as Obamacare, then return home, watch FOX and go f*ck yourself.”
When it comes time to overthrow the Republican Party by means they will finally understand, I hope we can import the Syrian opposition and whichever side of the Egyptian mess proves more ruthless so we have someone in this country who knows how it should be done.
Cleek is talking about Greek fire, which predates the use cited by a few centuries. I suppose it would classify as “incendiary”.
Cleek is talking about Greek fire, which predates the use cited by a few centuries. I suppose it would classify as “incendiary”.
Then he warned the government not to mess with his Medicare when it comes time for him to sign up.
They should have just extended Medicare to the entire population and called it done.
Then he warned the government not to mess with his Medicare when it comes time for him to sign up.
They should have just extended Medicare to the entire population and called it done.
‘smoking out’ has probably been around since the stone age and is in essence chemical warfare. And it is very likely that sulphur and similar substances have been used to enhance it long before anyone took the effort to write it down.
I am rather cynical about chemical weapon bans. I think it had a lot more to do with their relative ineffectiveness and the difficulty to control them. Plus the fear of retaliation in kind with substances that might be worse than the ones onself has at one’s disposal. Conventional weapons are far less unpredictable.
‘smoking out’ has probably been around since the stone age and is in essence chemical warfare. And it is very likely that sulphur and similar substances have been used to enhance it long before anyone took the effort to write it down.
I am rather cynical about chemical weapon bans. I think it had a lot more to do with their relative ineffectiveness and the difficulty to control them. Plus the fear of retaliation in kind with substances that might be worse than the ones onself has at one’s disposal. Conventional weapons are far less unpredictable.
“A middle-aged man in a red golf shirt shuffles up to a small folding table with gold trim, in a booth adorned with a flotilla of helium balloons, where government workers at the Kentucky State Fair are hawking the virtues of Kynect, the state’s health benefit exchange established by Obamacare.”
The man is impressed. “This beats Obamacare I hope,” he mutters to one of the workers.
“Do I burst his bubble?” wonders Reina Diaz-Dempsey, overseeing the operation. She doesn’t. If he signs up, it’s a win-win, whether he knows he’s been ensnared by Obamacare or not.’
She should have told him. I can’t imagine why she didn’t. She could have educated him very nicely!
“A middle-aged man in a red golf shirt shuffles up to a small folding table with gold trim, in a booth adorned with a flotilla of helium balloons, where government workers at the Kentucky State Fair are hawking the virtues of Kynect, the state’s health benefit exchange established by Obamacare.”
The man is impressed. “This beats Obamacare I hope,” he mutters to one of the workers.
“Do I burst his bubble?” wonders Reina Diaz-Dempsey, overseeing the operation. She doesn’t. If he signs up, it’s a win-win, whether he knows he’s been ensnared by Obamacare or not.’
She should have told him. I can’t imagine why she didn’t. She could have educated him very nicely!
Yes, I guess since they were “hawking the virtues” of Kynect, they could have gone the whole nine yards, to make government more like the private sector hawkers, and upsold the bigger picture.
Let me guess why not: The state workers are instructed to downplay the Obamacare connection by the Democratic Governer Breshears, who despite not being eligible for re-election in 2015, is afraid to hurt Democratic chances in the forthcoming race.
Also, Mitch McConnell and Rand Paul, two sadists who when reports trickled in of Obamacare hawking would have their staffs on the horn to state agencies threatening their funding and whose ad staffs would begin filming attack ads featuring in slo-mo gummint bureaucrats brainwashing, intimidating, and browbeating the citizens of Kentucky into relinqushing their freedom, their vital bodily fluids, and a kidney to the darkened visage of Barack Hussein Obama hovering menacingly in a hospital hoodie while on the phone to the Muslim Brotherhood seeking advice on efficiency measures in the exchanges.
But yeah, she should have told him.
And then asked him to please, sir, keep your weapon holstered.
Yes, I guess since they were “hawking the virtues” of Kynect, they could have gone the whole nine yards, to make government more like the private sector hawkers, and upsold the bigger picture.
Let me guess why not: The state workers are instructed to downplay the Obamacare connection by the Democratic Governer Breshears, who despite not being eligible for re-election in 2015, is afraid to hurt Democratic chances in the forthcoming race.
Also, Mitch McConnell and Rand Paul, two sadists who when reports trickled in of Obamacare hawking would have their staffs on the horn to state agencies threatening their funding and whose ad staffs would begin filming attack ads featuring in slo-mo gummint bureaucrats brainwashing, intimidating, and browbeating the citizens of Kentucky into relinqushing their freedom, their vital bodily fluids, and a kidney to the darkened visage of Barack Hussein Obama hovering menacingly in a hospital hoodie while on the phone to the Muslim Brotherhood seeking advice on efficiency measures in the exchanges.
But yeah, she should have told him.
And then asked him to please, sir, keep your weapon holstered.
What Russell ..etc.
What Russell ..etc.
If Assad is killing lots of civilians, and we think that’s a sufficient reason to invade Syria, then we should do that.
Turb, a better point might be, if we feel that’s a sufficient reason to do something then we should do it. There is a long way between “do nothing” and “invade Syria.” Acting like those are the only two choices only confuses the discussion — in an area whichis already complex enough.
If Assad is killing lots of civilians, and we think that’s a sufficient reason to invade Syria, then we should do that.
Turb, a better point might be, if we feel that’s a sufficient reason to do something then we should do it. There is a long way between “do nothing” and “invade Syria.” Acting like those are the only two choices only confuses the discussion — in an area whichis already complex enough.
“Acting like those are the only two choices only confuses the discussion -”
I liked Turb’s point about how if we are really concerned about war crimes, we should change the incentives for our own politicians so they commit less of them. But it’s easier to blow people up elsewhere. That’s a problem. We do act as if we only have two choices when it comes to atrocities–blowing them up elsewhere or not blowing them up. If we want some sort of global structure where bad actors might have to face consequences, then we should be willing to abide by the same rules.
“Acting like those are the only two choices only confuses the discussion -”
I liked Turb’s point about how if we are really concerned about war crimes, we should change the incentives for our own politicians so they commit less of them. But it’s easier to blow people up elsewhere. That’s a problem. We do act as if we only have two choices when it comes to atrocities–blowing them up elsewhere or not blowing them up. If we want some sort of global structure where bad actors might have to face consequences, then we should be willing to abide by the same rules.
There is a long way between “do nothing” and “invade Syria.” Acting like those are the only two choices only confuses the discussion — in an area whichis already complex enough.
I don’t think that’s true. I haven’t seen anyone proposing anything that’s both politically feasible and likely to be effective.
I mean, I guess we could just give a few billion dollars worth of military hardware to the mostly Islamist rebels, but that seems politically infeasible, no? And while Americans, especially the particularly ignorant ones on TV, love to fantasize about the efficacy of bombing, I see no reason the believe that would be effective. Syria isn’t Rwanda. If we want to end the killings there, we’re going to need to take out Syrian air defense, most of the Syrian air force, and then put troops on the ground with heavy weapons. I just don’t see a way around that.
But perhaps I’m wrong. Can you describe a military option that is both politically feasible and likely to be effective? Since you claim there are many other choices, why don’t you share some of them with us?
There is a long way between “do nothing” and “invade Syria.” Acting like those are the only two choices only confuses the discussion — in an area whichis already complex enough.
I don’t think that’s true. I haven’t seen anyone proposing anything that’s both politically feasible and likely to be effective.
I mean, I guess we could just give a few billion dollars worth of military hardware to the mostly Islamist rebels, but that seems politically infeasible, no? And while Americans, especially the particularly ignorant ones on TV, love to fantasize about the efficacy of bombing, I see no reason the believe that would be effective. Syria isn’t Rwanda. If we want to end the killings there, we’re going to need to take out Syrian air defense, most of the Syrian air force, and then put troops on the ground with heavy weapons. I just don’t see a way around that.
But perhaps I’m wrong. Can you describe a military option that is both politically feasible and likely to be effective? Since you claim there are many other choices, why don’t you share some of them with us?
The discussion on dogs perked my interest so I watched the following on Netflix streaming video. Recommended.
Long known as “man’s best friend,” there are more varieties of dogs than any other species on Earth. This documentary takes a closer look at the history of dogs, and how humans have taken an active role in shaping their appearance and behavior. An installment of National Geographic’s “Explorer” series, the program explains how mankind manipulates science in the interest of creating the perfect pet.
Science of Dogs: The relationship between dogs and their human masters is explored
Unfairly known as violent killers, pit bulls have suffered from the stigma of negative media coverage that has lead to citywide bans across the country. This documentary strips away the preconceptions to show the loving companions these dogs can be.
Beyond the Myth: Peeling away the preconceptions to show the loving companions pit bulls can be, this documentary sheds new light on the unfairly stigmatized animals.
The discussion on dogs perked my interest so I watched the following on Netflix streaming video. Recommended.
Long known as “man’s best friend,” there are more varieties of dogs than any other species on Earth. This documentary takes a closer look at the history of dogs, and how humans have taken an active role in shaping their appearance and behavior. An installment of National Geographic’s “Explorer” series, the program explains how mankind manipulates science in the interest of creating the perfect pet.
Science of Dogs: The relationship between dogs and their human masters is explored
Unfairly known as violent killers, pit bulls have suffered from the stigma of negative media coverage that has lead to citywide bans across the country. This documentary strips away the preconceptions to show the loving companions these dogs can be.
Beyond the Myth: Peeling away the preconceptions to show the loving companions pit bulls can be, this documentary sheds new light on the unfairly stigmatized animals.
On the subject of the historical use of chemical weapons, in confrontations with the locals, Europeans who arrive with and after Columbus where sometimes subject to incapacitating bombardments of gourds filled with burning chilli peppers.
On the subject of the historical use of chemical weapons, in confrontations with the locals, Europeans who arrive with and after Columbus where sometimes subject to incapacitating bombardments of gourds filled with burning chilli peppers.
I’ve heard that incapacitating bombardments of gourds filled with burning chili peppers were considered by the locals at the time to be prophylactic vaccinations against measles, yellow fever, cholera, syphilis and private property, but the Europeans objected to this unwarranted infringement their freedom to spread the pox.
Columbus relegated his crew to part-time status to avoid the impositions and costs of healthcare via flying, flaming gourd.
They retired to the poop decks of the Nina, the Herpia, and the Pustule to scratch out a living.
I’ve heard that incapacitating bombardments of gourds filled with burning chili peppers were considered by the locals at the time to be prophylactic vaccinations against measles, yellow fever, cholera, syphilis and private property, but the Europeans objected to this unwarranted infringement their freedom to spread the pox.
Columbus relegated his crew to part-time status to avoid the impositions and costs of healthcare via flying, flaming gourd.
They retired to the poop decks of the Nina, the Herpia, and the Pustule to scratch out a living.
The deeper and broader historical references to “chemical” warfare, however defined, raise a question in my mind.
At what point, and where, was warfare so routinized among competing, but still conversing, societies that the concept of “rules of war” arose? I suspect that relatively early on (middle ages?) there were certain rules of elite (knightly) warfare, some of them enfolded into chivalric codes, but I doubt if these prohibited doing whatever you felt like to enemy rank-and-file or civilians, i.e., peasants. But at some point enough different countries, close enough to communicate but still prone to fighting each other, began to say “Maybe there ought to be rules for this. . .” When? Where?
(I’m not aware of any such rules in Asian history, but I’ve also never looked for them. China would never have tried to reach consensus with anyone else on anything, much less rules of war, since no other country was considered “equal” to China in any respect. Japan may have had internal rules, associated with samurai codes, but as in Europe I doubt the commoners benefited. By World War II it was widely alleged/believed that the Japanese basically did not understand or accept the principles of “civilized” warfare – e.g., on the treatment of prisoners – but in itself, even if true, that could equally suggest that they had “rules,” just not identical to Western [= “civilized”] ones.)
The deeper and broader historical references to “chemical” warfare, however defined, raise a question in my mind.
At what point, and where, was warfare so routinized among competing, but still conversing, societies that the concept of “rules of war” arose? I suspect that relatively early on (middle ages?) there were certain rules of elite (knightly) warfare, some of them enfolded into chivalric codes, but I doubt if these prohibited doing whatever you felt like to enemy rank-and-file or civilians, i.e., peasants. But at some point enough different countries, close enough to communicate but still prone to fighting each other, began to say “Maybe there ought to be rules for this. . .” When? Where?
(I’m not aware of any such rules in Asian history, but I’ve also never looked for them. China would never have tried to reach consensus with anyone else on anything, much less rules of war, since no other country was considered “equal” to China in any respect. Japan may have had internal rules, associated with samurai codes, but as in Europe I doubt the commoners benefited. By World War II it was widely alleged/believed that the Japanese basically did not understand or accept the principles of “civilized” warfare – e.g., on the treatment of prisoners – but in itself, even if true, that could equally suggest that they had “rules,” just not identical to Western [= “civilized”] ones.)
dr ngo, see the Lieber Code.
dr ngo, see the Lieber Code.
The idea of ‘customs of war’ was known in European antiquity but usually in the negative, i.e. in the context of somebody complaining that somebody else is violating them. But they are referred to as unwritten rules, i.e. not a codex anyone has signed on to.
The idea of ‘customs of war’ was known in European antiquity but usually in the negative, i.e. in the context of somebody complaining that somebody else is violating them. But they are referred to as unwritten rules, i.e. not a codex anyone has signed on to.
dr. ngo, you might find this worth perusing, especially footnote 3.
dr. ngo, you might find this worth perusing, especially footnote 3.
Sapient, Hartmut, Turbulence: Thanks all three. I figured there was some scholarly literature on this point (I didn’t imagine I was the first one to raise these questions!) and you’ve led me in the right direction.
Within these various frameworks, I suppose what interests me most right now is the “customs of war” before they are codified. The codification and idea of literally “signing on” I figured would come relatively late in the historical process. The Victorians were dab hands at codifying what was already in practice, viz. the Marquess of Queensberry Rules for boxing, established a century or so after the first “rules” and millennia after men started hitting each other for fun.
What intrigues me now, however, is the early stages, when people started to think, “Hey, maybe there should be rules . . .” and in this particular regard I was intrigued by the ICRC article to which Turbulence linked and its emphasis on the early idea of “just war” and presumably unjust war, without much consideration of rules for “war” in general. Only in the early modern period – and I’m flashing on Grotius articulating ideas of “national sovereignty” around the same time? – does it come to be accepted that there will be wars, whether just or unjust, so maybe we should start thinking about how we fight them independent of whether they are “just” or not.
All this, of course, is entirely within the framework of European political thought; I remain curious about non-Western civilizations (Indian, Chinese, Japanese in particular) and whether or when they came up with the same questions, to which of course they may have posited very different answers.
Now if only I still had graduate students looking for a possible thesis topic!
Sapient, Hartmut, Turbulence: Thanks all three. I figured there was some scholarly literature on this point (I didn’t imagine I was the first one to raise these questions!) and you’ve led me in the right direction.
Within these various frameworks, I suppose what interests me most right now is the “customs of war” before they are codified. The codification and idea of literally “signing on” I figured would come relatively late in the historical process. The Victorians were dab hands at codifying what was already in practice, viz. the Marquess of Queensberry Rules for boxing, established a century or so after the first “rules” and millennia after men started hitting each other for fun.
What intrigues me now, however, is the early stages, when people started to think, “Hey, maybe there should be rules . . .” and in this particular regard I was intrigued by the ICRC article to which Turbulence linked and its emphasis on the early idea of “just war” and presumably unjust war, without much consideration of rules for “war” in general. Only in the early modern period – and I’m flashing on Grotius articulating ideas of “national sovereignty” around the same time? – does it come to be accepted that there will be wars, whether just or unjust, so maybe we should start thinking about how we fight them independent of whether they are “just” or not.
All this, of course, is entirely within the framework of European political thought; I remain curious about non-Western civilizations (Indian, Chinese, Japanese in particular) and whether or when they came up with the same questions, to which of course they may have posited very different answers.
Now if only I still had graduate students looking for a possible thesis topic!
This is an off-the-cuff comment: I took several international law classes in college, and “customs” and “norms” are very important in international law (and common law, in general). That said, people weren’t held to account for much (and still aren’t as often as they should be) because international law is so difficult to administer and enforce.
As to Asia, we know that the Mongol invasion was (to the European sensibilities) a huge series of atrocities, and left its mark on world culture to the current day. During the conquest of new territory, the Mongols were ruthless, but after the conquest, they had some surprising tolerance of local cultures, and created institutions that were more meritocratic than pre-existing cultures offered. A fascinating book on that subject is Genghis Khan and the Making of the Modern World.
It’s pretty clear that the warrior ethic in Japan (for example) valued sacrifice, but wasn’t particularly interested in humane treatment of conquered people. The Rape of Nanjing comes to mind.
The actual attempt of nations to enforce humane conduct in their relationships with each other happened as a result of the World Wars. Obviously WWI (and the League of Nations) failed. WWII has been somewhat more successful in the development of the law (although obviously, as has been discussed, we’re nowhere near there yet).
Enforcing norms when possible is hugely important to the development of the law, and the recognition of the power of the international community to enforce human rights.
We’ve talked a lot about drone warfare, etc. In my view, attempting to limit war (as much as possible) to the bad actors who are causing international problems, rather than waiting until they acquire political control, and then having to fight entire armies (which consist of soldiers, many of whom are not on board with the cause) is a step in the right direction in the development of international justice. Obviously that is a broad and simplistic statement, but I’ll put it out there.
This is an off-the-cuff comment: I took several international law classes in college, and “customs” and “norms” are very important in international law (and common law, in general). That said, people weren’t held to account for much (and still aren’t as often as they should be) because international law is so difficult to administer and enforce.
As to Asia, we know that the Mongol invasion was (to the European sensibilities) a huge series of atrocities, and left its mark on world culture to the current day. During the conquest of new territory, the Mongols were ruthless, but after the conquest, they had some surprising tolerance of local cultures, and created institutions that were more meritocratic than pre-existing cultures offered. A fascinating book on that subject is Genghis Khan and the Making of the Modern World.
It’s pretty clear that the warrior ethic in Japan (for example) valued sacrifice, but wasn’t particularly interested in humane treatment of conquered people. The Rape of Nanjing comes to mind.
The actual attempt of nations to enforce humane conduct in their relationships with each other happened as a result of the World Wars. Obviously WWI (and the League of Nations) failed. WWII has been somewhat more successful in the development of the law (although obviously, as has been discussed, we’re nowhere near there yet).
Enforcing norms when possible is hugely important to the development of the law, and the recognition of the power of the international community to enforce human rights.
We’ve talked a lot about drone warfare, etc. In my view, attempting to limit war (as much as possible) to the bad actors who are causing international problems, rather than waiting until they acquire political control, and then having to fight entire armies (which consist of soldiers, many of whom are not on board with the cause) is a step in the right direction in the development of international justice. Obviously that is a broad and simplistic statement, but I’ll put it out there.
Something that can’t be left out is of course this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melian_dialogue
We know of course that the neocons fully subscribe to the Athenian position. Too lazy to dig it up but there were some rather explicit statements in that direction from within the Cheney/Bush administration.
Something that can’t be left out is of course this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melian_dialogue
We know of course that the neocons fully subscribe to the Athenian position. Too lazy to dig it up but there were some rather explicit statements in that direction from within the Cheney/Bush administration.
I did a little research:Sengoku, Unification, Edo periood, Mito Rebellion, Boshin War, Satsuma Rebellion, First Sino-Japanese War, Russo-Japanese War. I was trying to see if there were historical changes in the Japanese warriors treated enemies or conquered populations, had traditions or practices that were weakened under fascism. Or not.
But then I read sapient’s 2:12
“It’s pretty clear that the warrior ethic in Japan (for example) valued sacrifice, but wasn’t particularly interested in humane treatment of conquered people. The Rape of Nanjing comes to mind.”
Hell, animals, just animals, Not like those nice mongols.
I did a little research:Sengoku, Unification, Edo periood, Mito Rebellion, Boshin War, Satsuma Rebellion, First Sino-Japanese War, Russo-Japanese War. I was trying to see if there were historical changes in the Japanese warriors treated enemies or conquered populations, had traditions or practices that were weakened under fascism. Or not.
But then I read sapient’s 2:12
“It’s pretty clear that the warrior ethic in Japan (for example) valued sacrifice, but wasn’t particularly interested in humane treatment of conquered people. The Rape of Nanjing comes to mind.”
Hell, animals, just animals, Not like those nice mongols.
Good job, bob mcmanus. But you really didn’t explain the Rape of Nanjing, did you?
I didn’t say, and don’t think, that the Japanese are or were animals. I think they (like the Germans of the pre-WWII era) were one of the most highly civilized, artistic, aesthetically cultured and informed people of the world. I love Japanese culture and art.
But brutal they were.
Good job, bob mcmanus. But you really didn’t explain the Rape of Nanjing, did you?
I didn’t say, and don’t think, that the Japanese are or were animals. I think they (like the Germans of the pre-WWII era) were one of the most highly civilized, artistic, aesthetically cultured and informed people of the world. I love Japanese culture and art.
But brutal they were.
Oh, and you’re welcome offer the results of your research.
Oh, and you’re welcome offer the results of your research.
By the way, bob, was your research on wikipedia, or what? I get it that you are an Asian “scholar”.
Sapient-bashing is much appreciated here. But I prefaced my comment that it was off the cuff. I don’t claim to be a scholar on Asia. I read a book about Genghis Khan, I took many Russian history courses, and studied the Mongol invasion, and I understand Asian warfare from a Western point of view (including stories from my parents and their friends who participated in WWII). I studied international law in law school. I lived in Japan during my childhood (during the post-WWII occupation). I was raised during my infancy by a Japanese nanny. My own mother loved everything Japanese, and I learned a less-informed appreciation of Japanese culture from that. Japan has been way too expensive for me to visit in my adulthood, so I haven’t been there since. I have been to China, and have studied some Chinese history (including the cultural revolution – not exactly a lesson in how to foster human rights).
But I’m not a scholar on the subject of the ethics of Japanese warfare. Please spill forth on your scholarship. I am happy to learn. I do know that Iris Chang killed herself after intensively studying the Japanese conquest of Nanjing. WWII veterans told me personally about atrocities that they witnessed.
That doesn’t mean that Japanese people (or Asian people) are “bad”. It might mean that they have view of war that doesn’t allow for compassion.
Please educate us otherwise. Happy to learn.
By the way, bob, was your research on wikipedia, or what? I get it that you are an Asian “scholar”.
Sapient-bashing is much appreciated here. But I prefaced my comment that it was off the cuff. I don’t claim to be a scholar on Asia. I read a book about Genghis Khan, I took many Russian history courses, and studied the Mongol invasion, and I understand Asian warfare from a Western point of view (including stories from my parents and their friends who participated in WWII). I studied international law in law school. I lived in Japan during my childhood (during the post-WWII occupation). I was raised during my infancy by a Japanese nanny. My own mother loved everything Japanese, and I learned a less-informed appreciation of Japanese culture from that. Japan has been way too expensive for me to visit in my adulthood, so I haven’t been there since. I have been to China, and have studied some Chinese history (including the cultural revolution – not exactly a lesson in how to foster human rights).
But I’m not a scholar on the subject of the ethics of Japanese warfare. Please spill forth on your scholarship. I am happy to learn. I do know that Iris Chang killed herself after intensively studying the Japanese conquest of Nanjing. WWII veterans told me personally about atrocities that they witnessed.
That doesn’t mean that Japanese people (or Asian people) are “bad”. It might mean that they have view of war that doesn’t allow for compassion.
Please educate us otherwise. Happy to learn.
I’ve not studied Japanese history as such, though I’ve dabbled in it here and there. But what I am more familiar with is the history of the Japanese occupation of Southeast Asia, which was not as across-the-board horrible as it is sometimes depicted or remembered. (Many of the worst excesses were committed in the latter stages of the war, when the Japanese were losing and running out of resources; had they been winning, life under the Japanese would have been much easier, I suspect.)
One particular “fact” comes up frequently, however: most Japanese soldiers believed surrender, even against overwhelming odds, was dishonorable. This not only helps account for the “resistance to the last man” encountered (by the US) in the islands of the Pacific, but also the Japanese treatment of POWs, who by the very fact of their surrender had given up the right to be treated with honor. As a result, it is said, Japanese POW camps were far more brutal than German “stalags,” evidenced both by descriptive evidence, which might be exaggerated, and by comparative mortality rates, which seem pretty clear.
The European tradition differs sharply on the possibility of honorable surrender, although this different perspective may often have been “honored in the breach.” I wonder if this goes back to differences between the European “chivalric” code and the samurai code, about both of which I am profoundly ignorant?
I’ve not studied Japanese history as such, though I’ve dabbled in it here and there. But what I am more familiar with is the history of the Japanese occupation of Southeast Asia, which was not as across-the-board horrible as it is sometimes depicted or remembered. (Many of the worst excesses were committed in the latter stages of the war, when the Japanese were losing and running out of resources; had they been winning, life under the Japanese would have been much easier, I suspect.)
One particular “fact” comes up frequently, however: most Japanese soldiers believed surrender, even against overwhelming odds, was dishonorable. This not only helps account for the “resistance to the last man” encountered (by the US) in the islands of the Pacific, but also the Japanese treatment of POWs, who by the very fact of their surrender had given up the right to be treated with honor. As a result, it is said, Japanese POW camps were far more brutal than German “stalags,” evidenced both by descriptive evidence, which might be exaggerated, and by comparative mortality rates, which seem pretty clear.
The European tradition differs sharply on the possibility of honorable surrender, although this different perspective may often have been “honored in the breach.” I wonder if this goes back to differences between the European “chivalric” code and the samurai code, about both of which I am profoundly ignorant?
I’m quite happy for anyone to point to any practice in any culture that should be held up as something that we should strive for, or codify, as a tenet of the law of war regarding human rights. I offered the Lieber Code as something that was a first effort (an example of the fact that, in the West, the idea of jus in bello was bandied about, but wasn’t really honored until quite recently.)
bobmacmanus, I invite you to submit an example from your research of Asian history. Please go first since you are ready!
I’m quite happy for anyone to point to any practice in any culture that should be held up as something that we should strive for, or codify, as a tenet of the law of war regarding human rights. I offered the Lieber Code as something that was a first effort (an example of the fact that, in the West, the idea of jus in bello was bandied about, but wasn’t really honored until quite recently.)
bobmacmanus, I invite you to submit an example from your research of Asian history. Please go first since you are ready!
St Bartholomew, The Vendee, Terror, Napoleonic Wars, after the Paris Commune, Algeria…
…and what are “the French” really like?
What do you want, Sapient, horror stories? I got them. Incidents of mercy? Got some. Scales on which to weigh them and output nihonjinron of a thousand years?
We usually say “The Nazis did X” or specific people, organizations in time and place, not the “Germans did X” That’s a start, and one that is important to the Japanese. That they do it to/for themselves doesn’t mean we have to.
No Surrender/suicide? Damfino.
Small island, big sea to east, bad sea to west…not easy to run or hide. Small group affiliation and loyalty was taught in the cradle and consciously enforced by authority.
Why did Socrates choose the hemlock and Thucydides choose exile?
St Bartholomew, The Vendee, Terror, Napoleonic Wars, after the Paris Commune, Algeria…
…and what are “the French” really like?
What do you want, Sapient, horror stories? I got them. Incidents of mercy? Got some. Scales on which to weigh them and output nihonjinron of a thousand years?
We usually say “The Nazis did X” or specific people, organizations in time and place, not the “Germans did X” That’s a start, and one that is important to the Japanese. That they do it to/for themselves doesn’t mean we have to.
No Surrender/suicide? Damfino.
Small island, big sea to east, bad sea to west…not easy to run or hide. Small group affiliation and loyalty was taught in the cradle and consciously enforced by authority.
Why did Socrates choose the hemlock and Thucydides choose exile?
As far as “rules of war” and not having them before Modernity, well, Achilles was not admired for trashing Hector, Creon had a case against Antigone, The Punic Wars were considered horrible, and everybody agreed that Magdeburg was something really different.
Standards, practice and a discourse don’t feel that new.
As far as “rules of war” and not having them before Modernity, well, Achilles was not admired for trashing Hector, Creon had a case against Antigone, The Punic Wars were considered horrible, and everybody agreed that Magdeburg was something really different.
Standards, practice and a discourse don’t feel that new.
I tend to think that rules of war arose out of the notion of proof by combat: our champion fights your champion, the best man wins (unless some god intervenes). Poison arrows were considered to be out of bounds in the Iliad (though Greek myth has them resorted to in order to kill Paris)
Those rules of war, with God (or gods) deciding the victor, was taken up by Christianity, so that crossbows, for example, were forbidden when fighting against other Christians, but were quite alright for non-believers and as this excerpt points out, were probably banned because they allowed commoners to kill noblemen
In a highly stratified society like medieval Europe, any technology that could put the power to instantly kill a chivalric knight, a nobleman, a prince or even a king into the hands of a commoner was seen as an abomination in the eyes of God. Crossbows weren’t just weapons that could win battles, they were equalizing instruments that could overturn the natural order of society.
Accordingly, Pope Urban II banned the use of crossbows in 1096; a prohibition that was upheld by Pope Innocent II in 1139. However, while the church frowned on Christian-on-Christian use of the crossbow, the religious authorities had no problem when the weapons were being pointed at non-believers during the Crusades.
So my takeaway is that rules of war are ways to prevent combat from destabilizing the social order. The notion of honorable surrender has the captured lord taxing his subjects to pay his ransom so he can go back to ruling over them. Assigning the rules of war some sort of higher morality really is wishful thinking.
As far as Japan, that doesn’t happen in Japanese history because it was very clear that the winner was going to make sure that the losing family didn’t have any heirs to continue the name and at any rate, the philosophy of the samurai was zen, which meant was intrepreted as each encounter should be treated like the last. Furthermore, culturally, after the unification of the country by Hideyoshi, the Tokugawa and Toyotomi fought, with the Tokugawa winning. A continual problem in Japanese history is that when you have a warrior class arise, after the fighting is over, you have to figure out what you are going to do with them. The Tokugawa gave samurai the choice of being retainers for the daimyo or become peasants. No samurai were allowed to hold land. By creating an ethos that requires unquestioning sacrifice, you can at least keep them contained.
I tend to think that rules of war arose out of the notion of proof by combat: our champion fights your champion, the best man wins (unless some god intervenes). Poison arrows were considered to be out of bounds in the Iliad (though Greek myth has them resorted to in order to kill Paris)
Those rules of war, with God (or gods) deciding the victor, was taken up by Christianity, so that crossbows, for example, were forbidden when fighting against other Christians, but were quite alright for non-believers and as this excerpt points out, were probably banned because they allowed commoners to kill noblemen
In a highly stratified society like medieval Europe, any technology that could put the power to instantly kill a chivalric knight, a nobleman, a prince or even a king into the hands of a commoner was seen as an abomination in the eyes of God. Crossbows weren’t just weapons that could win battles, they were equalizing instruments that could overturn the natural order of society.
Accordingly, Pope Urban II banned the use of crossbows in 1096; a prohibition that was upheld by Pope Innocent II in 1139. However, while the church frowned on Christian-on-Christian use of the crossbow, the religious authorities had no problem when the weapons were being pointed at non-believers during the Crusades.
So my takeaway is that rules of war are ways to prevent combat from destabilizing the social order. The notion of honorable surrender has the captured lord taxing his subjects to pay his ransom so he can go back to ruling over them. Assigning the rules of war some sort of higher morality really is wishful thinking.
As far as Japan, that doesn’t happen in Japanese history because it was very clear that the winner was going to make sure that the losing family didn’t have any heirs to continue the name and at any rate, the philosophy of the samurai was zen, which meant was intrepreted as each encounter should be treated like the last. Furthermore, culturally, after the unification of the country by Hideyoshi, the Tokugawa and Toyotomi fought, with the Tokugawa winning. A continual problem in Japanese history is that when you have a warrior class arise, after the fighting is over, you have to figure out what you are going to do with them. The Tokugawa gave samurai the choice of being retainers for the daimyo or become peasants. No samurai were allowed to hold land. By creating an ethos that requires unquestioning sacrifice, you can at least keep them contained.
So my takeaway is that rules of war are ways to prevent combat from destabilizing the social order.
This was probably true until the 19th and 20th centuries and the Geneva Conventions. But the Geneva Conventions represented a real attempt by a significant number of countries to agree on defining and enforcing standards of behavior purely for humanitarian reasons.
The fact that this concept is so new in world history is why it’s so difficult to administer and enforce, but also why it’s so important to enforce. Chemical weapons are banned by the Geneva Conventions. As Turbulence notes, there are other brutal ways to kill people, but attempting to abide by and enforce the current law makes it more likely that the law will continue to develop.
So my takeaway is that rules of war are ways to prevent combat from destabilizing the social order.
This was probably true until the 19th and 20th centuries and the Geneva Conventions. But the Geneva Conventions represented a real attempt by a significant number of countries to agree on defining and enforcing standards of behavior purely for humanitarian reasons.
The fact that this concept is so new in world history is why it’s so difficult to administer and enforce, but also why it’s so important to enforce. Chemical weapons are banned by the Geneva Conventions. As Turbulence notes, there are other brutal ways to kill people, but attempting to abide by and enforce the current law makes it more likely that the law will continue to develop.
No samurai were allowed to hold land.
I am not sure there was that big a feudal difference between an income based on a land grant or fief and being granted a stipend based on a relationship to clan and han. A lesser noble in Europe still had to fight for the Duke and King above him.
A 30 koku grunt samurai, if landowner, would have what, 10 peasants to fight for him? Not a power base. Still in a dependent feudal relationship.
Where it gets more interesting is higher samurai, the 200-500 koku management. These stipends were inheritable.
The separation of samurai from land was pretty overtly, like the sword hunt, to keep the peasants down, rather than the samurai down. A village could not generate or hire a knight for itself.
(See movie Seven Samurai, with ronin fighting ronin over surplus from village. Daimyo and shogun wanted that rice.)
Anyway, I think the loyalty to daimyo precedes the Tokugawa system by several hundred years.
Alternate attendance nearly bankrupted daimyo, but was profitable for grunt retainers.
Unquestioned loyalty and Junshi were matters of fashion, for instance, and the bakufu had to legislate against it.
It was a horrible hierarchical world, but I think there was also a romance attached to living in a oppressive meaningless world. Love suicides also came in and out of fashion.
No samurai were allowed to hold land.
I am not sure there was that big a feudal difference between an income based on a land grant or fief and being granted a stipend based on a relationship to clan and han. A lesser noble in Europe still had to fight for the Duke and King above him.
A 30 koku grunt samurai, if landowner, would have what, 10 peasants to fight for him? Not a power base. Still in a dependent feudal relationship.
Where it gets more interesting is higher samurai, the 200-500 koku management. These stipends were inheritable.
The separation of samurai from land was pretty overtly, like the sword hunt, to keep the peasants down, rather than the samurai down. A village could not generate or hire a knight for itself.
(See movie Seven Samurai, with ronin fighting ronin over surplus from village. Daimyo and shogun wanted that rice.)
Anyway, I think the loyalty to daimyo precedes the Tokugawa system by several hundred years.
Alternate attendance nearly bankrupted daimyo, but was profitable for grunt retainers.
Unquestioned loyalty and Junshi were matters of fashion, for instance, and the bakufu had to legislate against it.
It was a horrible hierarchical world, but I think there was also a romance attached to living in a oppressive meaningless world. Love suicides also came in and out of fashion.
I might contend that shinokosho and alternate attendance were generated from a grunt samurai ethos, and were a reward and incentive to low-level samurai in an attempt to keep daimyo contained. Bottom-up.
The reason Edo Japan was more peaceful that 30-years-war Europe or before, was that there really wasn’t a nobility with an independent power base.
Daimyo were upper management.
I might contend that shinokosho and alternate attendance were generated from a grunt samurai ethos, and were a reward and incentive to low-level samurai in an attempt to keep daimyo contained. Bottom-up.
The reason Edo Japan was more peaceful that 30-years-war Europe or before, was that there really wasn’t a nobility with an independent power base.
Daimyo were upper management.
“But the Geneva Conventions represented a real attempt by a significant number of countries to agree on defining and enforcing standards of behavior purely for humanitarian reasons.
The fact that this concept is so new in world history is why it’s so difficult to administer and enforce, but also why it’s so important to enforce”
Mulling over these two sentences. They seems relevant to other situations, somehow.
“But the Geneva Conventions represented a real attempt by a significant number of countries to agree on defining and enforcing standards of behavior purely for humanitarian reasons.
The fact that this concept is so new in world history is why it’s so difficult to administer and enforce, but also why it’s so important to enforce”
Mulling over these two sentences. They seems relevant to other situations, somehow.
Sapient, I understand that there is a humanitarian impulse there, but there is an element of realpolitik that you seem to be missing, or at least studiously avoiding. The Lieber code was not simply a humanitarian impulse, but a way of getting European nations to not recognize the Confederacy. dr ngo could probably give us a lot of details about the use of the Lieber code to sanction the right of reprisal against the Moro. The Geneva convention only arose after the battle of Solferino, and the various colonial excursions were curiously excluded, so the use of weapons of war by the RAF against rebelling tribes in the Middle East in the period between WWI and WWII, for example, didn’t fall under any of these humantarian impulses. As Sven Lundquist notes, in his great book, The History of Bombing
The laws of war protect enemies of the same race, class, and culture. The laws of war leave the foreign and the alien without protection. When is one allowed to wage war against savages and barbarians? Answer: always. What is permissile in wars against savages and barbarians? Answer: anything.
This link is to an interesting pdf about the ‘other’ as defined by the rules of war and, in relationship to the Geneva conventions, page 6 discusses the peculiar status of Dunant, considered the founder of the Geneva conventions.
Sapient, I understand that there is a humanitarian impulse there, but there is an element of realpolitik that you seem to be missing, or at least studiously avoiding. The Lieber code was not simply a humanitarian impulse, but a way of getting European nations to not recognize the Confederacy. dr ngo could probably give us a lot of details about the use of the Lieber code to sanction the right of reprisal against the Moro. The Geneva convention only arose after the battle of Solferino, and the various colonial excursions were curiously excluded, so the use of weapons of war by the RAF against rebelling tribes in the Middle East in the period between WWI and WWII, for example, didn’t fall under any of these humantarian impulses. As Sven Lundquist notes, in his great book, The History of Bombing
The laws of war protect enemies of the same race, class, and culture. The laws of war leave the foreign and the alien without protection. When is one allowed to wage war against savages and barbarians? Answer: always. What is permissile in wars against savages and barbarians? Answer: anything.
This link is to an interesting pdf about the ‘other’ as defined by the rules of war and, in relationship to the Geneva conventions, page 6 discusses the peculiar status of Dunant, considered the founder of the Geneva conventions.
Bob, I always want to dive into discussing things Japanese, but I worry that it would only be of interest to you and me. I do agree that the sankin kotai arrangement is what makes the whole system work.
But there is also the point that the system fostered Japanese cultural unity, created a transportation network that was more advanced than any European nation and created a national financial system because the daimyo had to sell local goods to pay off debts. Like everything else here, it seems, it is always hard to separate causes and effects.
Keeping that in mind, what the prohibition of samurai owning land does is that it makes the class boundaries very clear for the shi nou kou sho division (warrior, peasant, artisan and merchant). I’ve always wondered about this Western tendency to ‘slum’, and create roots that are much more plebian in order to win respect and I don’t think it really operates so much here. Of course, keeping the merchants at the bottom of the pyramid means that conspicuous consumption is something done very in a very hidden way, which is why you end up spending all this money on very plain kimono whose lining is expensive and why you get an aesthetic sense of wabi-sabi. As well as kirisute gomen. Strange country.
Bob, I always want to dive into discussing things Japanese, but I worry that it would only be of interest to you and me. I do agree that the sankin kotai arrangement is what makes the whole system work.
But there is also the point that the system fostered Japanese cultural unity, created a transportation network that was more advanced than any European nation and created a national financial system because the daimyo had to sell local goods to pay off debts. Like everything else here, it seems, it is always hard to separate causes and effects.
Keeping that in mind, what the prohibition of samurai owning land does is that it makes the class boundaries very clear for the shi nou kou sho division (warrior, peasant, artisan and merchant). I’ve always wondered about this Western tendency to ‘slum’, and create roots that are much more plebian in order to win respect and I don’t think it really operates so much here. Of course, keeping the merchants at the bottom of the pyramid means that conspicuous consumption is something done very in a very hidden way, which is why you end up spending all this money on very plain kimono whose lining is expensive and why you get an aesthetic sense of wabi-sabi. As well as kirisute gomen. Strange country.
It’s easy. Those who have access to the newest war toys are members of the club and are to be treated with respect. Those that lack them are free game.
Whatever happens, we have got
The Maxim gun, and they have not.
(Hilaire Belloc)
The venerable Maxim gave way to tanks and airplanes, then came nukes, and these days it is drones. Next step autonomous terminators. Those who fall behind can of course forfeit their club membership, although most still follow the maxim that ‘once in, never out’. The current club president disagrees though and claims the right to dole out membership cards or to seize them at his discretion.
It’s easy. Those who have access to the newest war toys are members of the club and are to be treated with respect. Those that lack them are free game.
Whatever happens, we have got
The Maxim gun, and they have not.
(Hilaire Belloc)
The venerable Maxim gave way to tanks and airplanes, then came nukes, and these days it is drones. Next step autonomous terminators. Those who fall behind can of course forfeit their club membership, although most still follow the maxim that ‘once in, never out’. The current club president disagrees though and claims the right to dole out membership cards or to seize them at his discretion.
To the extent that such conversation is available to those of us who don’t have a pre-existing insider-baseball view of such things: no. Interested. Japanese-language references are also of interest, provided their definitions are also provided.
Speaking for myself, I mean.
To the extent that such conversation is available to those of us who don’t have a pre-existing insider-baseball view of such things: no. Interested. Japanese-language references are also of interest, provided their definitions are also provided.
Speaking for myself, I mean.
ditto.
ditto.
I understand that there is a humanitarian impulse there, but there is an element of realpolitik that you seem to be missing, or at least studiously avoiding.
Thanks for the link. I’ve started the article and plan to finish it a bit later.
I hold with my position that the humanitarian impulse was paramount in drafting the Geneva Conventions. As stated in the article:
The laws of war, as an unmistakable product of late nineteenth century philanthropic reformism, were above all the brainchild of a few visionaries on a deliberate course to remedy what were perceived as some of the international system’s worst tendencies. It thus bears mentioning, to begin with, that the great ‘humanitarian’ lawyers of the second half of the nineteenth century were very also much men of their time. They may not have been the worst of their time — in fact they were probably quite generous, forward-looking individuals, imbued with a spirit of historical optimism. But they were certainly no better in that they would have taken as axiomatic such things as Europe’s civilizing mission and a more or less articulated discourse on the inequality of races.
The fact that the humanitarian impulse wasn’t all-encompassing or perfect doesn’t mean it wasn’t a humanitarian impulse, or a significant beginning. The fact that the originators of the Geneva Conventions decided that they would attempt to agree among signing nation-states how to behave in warfare does not mean that millenia-old patterns of invasion and conquest of “barbarians” would disappear in an instant. In fact, our current discussion of “colonialism” and the accompanying atrocities uses Geneva Convention morality as the norm, with many humanitarians (as the article states) calling out the abuses of colonialism as violating the norm. Before they were adopted, what was the norm? There was no norm.
History following the Geneva Conventions has included a discussion of how to conform to the new humanitarian norm, and in what ways we have failed and why. Arguing about whether the Geneva Conventions were self-serving, or imperfect, or served the cause of real-politik is like asking the perpetual question of whether there is really such a thing as altruism, considering that kindness is self-serving in so many ways.
Anyway, the article is a very thoughtful discussion of these issues – thanks again.
I understand that there is a humanitarian impulse there, but there is an element of realpolitik that you seem to be missing, or at least studiously avoiding.
Thanks for the link. I’ve started the article and plan to finish it a bit later.
I hold with my position that the humanitarian impulse was paramount in drafting the Geneva Conventions. As stated in the article:
The laws of war, as an unmistakable product of late nineteenth century philanthropic reformism, were above all the brainchild of a few visionaries on a deliberate course to remedy what were perceived as some of the international system’s worst tendencies. It thus bears mentioning, to begin with, that the great ‘humanitarian’ lawyers of the second half of the nineteenth century were very also much men of their time. They may not have been the worst of their time — in fact they were probably quite generous, forward-looking individuals, imbued with a spirit of historical optimism. But they were certainly no better in that they would have taken as axiomatic such things as Europe’s civilizing mission and a more or less articulated discourse on the inequality of races.
The fact that the humanitarian impulse wasn’t all-encompassing or perfect doesn’t mean it wasn’t a humanitarian impulse, or a significant beginning. The fact that the originators of the Geneva Conventions decided that they would attempt to agree among signing nation-states how to behave in warfare does not mean that millenia-old patterns of invasion and conquest of “barbarians” would disappear in an instant. In fact, our current discussion of “colonialism” and the accompanying atrocities uses Geneva Convention morality as the norm, with many humanitarians (as the article states) calling out the abuses of colonialism as violating the norm. Before they were adopted, what was the norm? There was no norm.
History following the Geneva Conventions has included a discussion of how to conform to the new humanitarian norm, and in what ways we have failed and why. Arguing about whether the Geneva Conventions were self-serving, or imperfect, or served the cause of real-politik is like asking the perpetual question of whether there is really such a thing as altruism, considering that kindness is self-serving in so many ways.
Anyway, the article is a very thoughtful discussion of these issues – thanks again.
“As Sven Lundquist notes, in his great book, The History of Bombing
The laws of war protect enemies of the same race, class, and culture. The laws of war leave the foreign and the alien without protection. When is one allowed to wage war against savages and barbarians? Answer: always. What is permissile in wars against savages and barbarians? Answer: anything.”
“The History of Bombing” is a great book and that’s a great quote from it, but weirdly put together–it sort of anticipates the internet if I am remembering the right book. The pages are in chronological order, but the text has you jumping around from beginning to end to middle and then somewhere else until eventually you’re done. I also liked “Exterminate all the Brutes”, by the same author.
“As Sven Lundquist notes, in his great book, The History of Bombing
The laws of war protect enemies of the same race, class, and culture. The laws of war leave the foreign and the alien without protection. When is one allowed to wage war against savages and barbarians? Answer: always. What is permissile in wars against savages and barbarians? Answer: anything.”
“The History of Bombing” is a great book and that’s a great quote from it, but weirdly put together–it sort of anticipates the internet if I am remembering the right book. The pages are in chronological order, but the text has you jumping around from beginning to end to middle and then somewhere else until eventually you’re done. I also liked “Exterminate all the Brutes”, by the same author.
What is the Obama Administration’s legal authority for any bombing of Syria that it might undertake?
What is the Obama Administration’s legal authority for any bombing of Syria that it might undertake?
“Legal authority? We don’t need no steenkin’ legal authority!”
“Legal authority? We don’t need no steenkin’ legal authority!”
sapient, I chose the article because it was balanced, so simply quoting the section that talks about humanitarian impulses without acknowledging the other sections is the point I am trying to make. I realize that you haven’t read the whole thing, but the conclusion has this
More importantly, the laws of war have exported and universalized a highly particular form of inter-state violence. In their contemporary international positivistic variant, the laws of war are a very specific response to a peculiarly Western problem. The emergence of the very idea of war is a result of medieval theologians’ attempts at distinguishing between prohibited private violence and licit (‘just’) public violence. From the start, war is linked to the state, a uniquely Western construct: war is the specific form of violence of the state in its external relations. War is in fact so central to the Western state that it becomes, de facto, an essential part of its domestic coming into being. The French Revolution, the advent of conscription, the Napoleonic wars, the emergence of nationalism and liberalism as political forces profoundly transformed the conditions of warfare in the nineteenth century by pitting entire nations against each other, with potentially devastating consequences. These radical developments, largely unknown anywhere else, and extending as they did the theatre of operations to the territories of entire states, announced the total wars of the twentieth century. As such they threatened the very fabric of the nascent international community. It is in this context of breakdown of communal values and anxiety about the ravages of war that the need for enforcing positive restraints on warfare arose.
Specifically, the laws of war reaffirmed the need to entrust the conduct of warfare to a warrior class capable of enforcing restraint. International law provided the very culturally situated way in which these norms were to be enforced, ‘in accord with both the progress of juridical science and the needs of civilized armies’. Thus the regulation of war took the specific form, in the West — and in the West only — of the standard machinery of international law-making, from solemn diplomatic conferences to sophisticated international treaties, and the various organizations entrusted with their enforcement.
There are a number of other points that I would pull from the text, but since the discussion has moved on, I’ll leave it there.
sapient, I chose the article because it was balanced, so simply quoting the section that talks about humanitarian impulses without acknowledging the other sections is the point I am trying to make. I realize that you haven’t read the whole thing, but the conclusion has this
More importantly, the laws of war have exported and universalized a highly particular form of inter-state violence. In their contemporary international positivistic variant, the laws of war are a very specific response to a peculiarly Western problem. The emergence of the very idea of war is a result of medieval theologians’ attempts at distinguishing between prohibited private violence and licit (‘just’) public violence. From the start, war is linked to the state, a uniquely Western construct: war is the specific form of violence of the state in its external relations. War is in fact so central to the Western state that it becomes, de facto, an essential part of its domestic coming into being. The French Revolution, the advent of conscription, the Napoleonic wars, the emergence of nationalism and liberalism as political forces profoundly transformed the conditions of warfare in the nineteenth century by pitting entire nations against each other, with potentially devastating consequences. These radical developments, largely unknown anywhere else, and extending as they did the theatre of operations to the territories of entire states, announced the total wars of the twentieth century. As such they threatened the very fabric of the nascent international community. It is in this context of breakdown of communal values and anxiety about the ravages of war that the need for enforcing positive restraints on warfare arose.
Specifically, the laws of war reaffirmed the need to entrust the conduct of warfare to a warrior class capable of enforcing restraint. International law provided the very culturally situated way in which these norms were to be enforced, ‘in accord with both the progress of juridical science and the needs of civilized armies’. Thus the regulation of war took the specific form, in the West — and in the West only — of the standard machinery of international law-making, from solemn diplomatic conferences to sophisticated international treaties, and the various organizations entrusted with their enforcement.
There are a number of other points that I would pull from the text, but since the discussion has moved on, I’ll leave it there.
There are a number of other points that I would pull from the text, but since the discussion has moved on, I’ll leave it there.
I have, since my earlier comment, read the entire piece, and still appreciate it, so thanks. And since I did take the time, I think it’s worth discussing a bit more.
I don’t agree with everything that’s stated or concluded by the author. My problem is, in some degree, on his emphasis, although towards the end of the article, it’s more than that.
For example, the author briefly discusses the importance of combatants to identify themselves as such in order to protect their own sides’ civilians from harm. This is a real problem in wars against people who aren’t organized into armies.
People, like al Qaeda, who target civilians and live among civilians (thereby violating norms that nation-states have adopted for war protocol), are in many ways acting in a manner totally opposed to developing international morality (albeit, sure, that of Western enlightenment principles). Instead of condemning that behavior, many people (including many people who comment here) believe that these people should be treated with even more regard than combatants, i.e., with the same “due process” rights accorded to common criminals under the jurisdiction of the United States.
I understand that the author traces problems arising first from colonialism, then wars of independence which arose against colonialism – his point being that partial imitation of Western paradigms (in order to belong to the International Community, and discard the position of “other”) displaced earlier cultural limits on heinous warfare. I don’t, in any way, mean to understate the horrors and damage of colonialism. But the author (even though explicitly trying to avoid a “noble savage” romanticism) tends to ignore the fact that all humans, even non-Westerners, are capable of huge horror and violence, and in dealing with each other in this ever more interdependent global community, have to come up with common ground rules. Either that, or obliterate each other with more efficient genocides.
We need to keep at it, and not by giving people who put civilian lives at risk more rights than those who are careful not to do so.
Also, the author’s penultimate paragraph is this:
It may well be, therefore, that the spread of the West’s own model of centralized, industrialized violence — essentially the fabrication of a dehumanized war machinery — to the rest of the world, manifested itself in an exponential increase in the overall amount of violence experienced by humankind.
Steven Pinker wrote a book that disputes this. Pinker’s view is also controversial , but the evidence is by no means one-sided.
I’d like to believe that there’s hope in enlightenment ideals, which have brought much of the international community towards trying to work towards positive change. I think that Mégret tends to downplay the possibilities inherent in the sincere attempts at increasing the kind of humanitarianism that the Geneva Conventions and other international human rights initiatives have represented.
There are a number of other points that I would pull from the text, but since the discussion has moved on, I’ll leave it there.
I have, since my earlier comment, read the entire piece, and still appreciate it, so thanks. And since I did take the time, I think it’s worth discussing a bit more.
I don’t agree with everything that’s stated or concluded by the author. My problem is, in some degree, on his emphasis, although towards the end of the article, it’s more than that.
For example, the author briefly discusses the importance of combatants to identify themselves as such in order to protect their own sides’ civilians from harm. This is a real problem in wars against people who aren’t organized into armies.
People, like al Qaeda, who target civilians and live among civilians (thereby violating norms that nation-states have adopted for war protocol), are in many ways acting in a manner totally opposed to developing international morality (albeit, sure, that of Western enlightenment principles). Instead of condemning that behavior, many people (including many people who comment here) believe that these people should be treated with even more regard than combatants, i.e., with the same “due process” rights accorded to common criminals under the jurisdiction of the United States.
I understand that the author traces problems arising first from colonialism, then wars of independence which arose against colonialism – his point being that partial imitation of Western paradigms (in order to belong to the International Community, and discard the position of “other”) displaced earlier cultural limits on heinous warfare. I don’t, in any way, mean to understate the horrors and damage of colonialism. But the author (even though explicitly trying to avoid a “noble savage” romanticism) tends to ignore the fact that all humans, even non-Westerners, are capable of huge horror and violence, and in dealing with each other in this ever more interdependent global community, have to come up with common ground rules. Either that, or obliterate each other with more efficient genocides.
We need to keep at it, and not by giving people who put civilian lives at risk more rights than those who are careful not to do so.
Also, the author’s penultimate paragraph is this:
It may well be, therefore, that the spread of the West’s own model of centralized, industrialized violence — essentially the fabrication of a dehumanized war machinery — to the rest of the world, manifested itself in an exponential increase in the overall amount of violence experienced by humankind.
Steven Pinker wrote a book that disputes this. Pinker’s view is also controversial , but the evidence is by no means one-sided.
I’d like to believe that there’s hope in enlightenment ideals, which have brought much of the international community towards trying to work towards positive change. I think that Mégret tends to downplay the possibilities inherent in the sincere attempts at increasing the kind of humanitarianism that the Geneva Conventions and other international human rights initiatives have represented.
Instead of condemning that behavior, many people (including many people who comment here) believe that these people should be treated with even more regard than combatants, i.e., with the same “due process” rights accorded to common criminals under the jurisdiction of the United States.
Any approach that views dealing terrorism in a law enforcement framework rather than in a combat/war framework has to do that. It’s not something that is optional. So rather than framing this as a ‘[fill in group here] don’t deserve those rights’, it might be better to argue why a law enforcement approach is inadequate rather than make the moral argument that [group X] doesn’t deserve those rights. Of course, you might sincerely believe that the moral argument is correct, but I don’t. Please note that this is my own point of view, and may or may not represent the views of others here.
In a sense, you are underlining Mégret’s thesis, that for the laws of war to be enforced, there has to be a group of people to whom these laws are not applicable to. This seems to go in precisely in the opposite direction of reducing the level of violence that you argue is inherent in the creation of the rules of war because if those people defined as outside the boundaries of the rules of war now have greater resources with which to inflict violence, so the possibilities inherent in making the rules of war applicable to this situation are going to increase rather than decrease the amount of inflicted violence. I think one sees in the creation of ‘the War on Drugs’ a similar arc.
Steven Pinker wrote a book that disputes this
As a linguist, I’ve read a lot of Pinker, and his trajectory to ‘thinking man’s Malcolm Gladwell’ doesn’t particularly impress me. I’ve only read excerpts of Better Angels, but it exhibits the same sort of problems that I had with Blank Slate, a dressing up of the opposite point in straw whose flambé is then paraded around as a proof. Rather than have us think about what violence actually is and how our definitions of it may have changed over time, he constructs a faux-statistical framework that defines violence in a way that declines rather than noting that our various constructs allow us to separate ourselves from violence. More problematic imo is that he resolutely refuses to acknowledge that one of the ways violence has reduced in his definition is that our definition of violence has expanded. Part of our ‘better angels’ is marking more things as violent behavior, making a ‘core’ of violent behavior less acceptable. Ironically, the rules of war do the exact opposite, making a core of essentially homicidal behavior ‘justified’ and a much smaller circumscribed segment as war crimes. I’m not suggesting that it is possible to move from the current regime to some alternative regime, but in rushing to proclaim the ‘humanitarian’ aspect of the rules of war, you seem to accept that war is just a part of human existence, which seems much less optimistic than anything I can think of.
In any case, ‘sincerity’ is not really a very meaningful metric in determining the value of a framework. I have no doubt that any number of people are ‘sincere’ about what they are doing, but it isn’t really something that makes the framework good or bad.However, by limiting their viewpoint and failing to take into account other options or other possibilities, their sincerity actually prevents better options from being considered.
Instead of condemning that behavior, many people (including many people who comment here) believe that these people should be treated with even more regard than combatants, i.e., with the same “due process” rights accorded to common criminals under the jurisdiction of the United States.
Any approach that views dealing terrorism in a law enforcement framework rather than in a combat/war framework has to do that. It’s not something that is optional. So rather than framing this as a ‘[fill in group here] don’t deserve those rights’, it might be better to argue why a law enforcement approach is inadequate rather than make the moral argument that [group X] doesn’t deserve those rights. Of course, you might sincerely believe that the moral argument is correct, but I don’t. Please note that this is my own point of view, and may or may not represent the views of others here.
In a sense, you are underlining Mégret’s thesis, that for the laws of war to be enforced, there has to be a group of people to whom these laws are not applicable to. This seems to go in precisely in the opposite direction of reducing the level of violence that you argue is inherent in the creation of the rules of war because if those people defined as outside the boundaries of the rules of war now have greater resources with which to inflict violence, so the possibilities inherent in making the rules of war applicable to this situation are going to increase rather than decrease the amount of inflicted violence. I think one sees in the creation of ‘the War on Drugs’ a similar arc.
Steven Pinker wrote a book that disputes this
As a linguist, I’ve read a lot of Pinker, and his trajectory to ‘thinking man’s Malcolm Gladwell’ doesn’t particularly impress me. I’ve only read excerpts of Better Angels, but it exhibits the same sort of problems that I had with Blank Slate, a dressing up of the opposite point in straw whose flambé is then paraded around as a proof. Rather than have us think about what violence actually is and how our definitions of it may have changed over time, he constructs a faux-statistical framework that defines violence in a way that declines rather than noting that our various constructs allow us to separate ourselves from violence. More problematic imo is that he resolutely refuses to acknowledge that one of the ways violence has reduced in his definition is that our definition of violence has expanded. Part of our ‘better angels’ is marking more things as violent behavior, making a ‘core’ of violent behavior less acceptable. Ironically, the rules of war do the exact opposite, making a core of essentially homicidal behavior ‘justified’ and a much smaller circumscribed segment as war crimes. I’m not suggesting that it is possible to move from the current regime to some alternative regime, but in rushing to proclaim the ‘humanitarian’ aspect of the rules of war, you seem to accept that war is just a part of human existence, which seems much less optimistic than anything I can think of.
In any case, ‘sincerity’ is not really a very meaningful metric in determining the value of a framework. I have no doubt that any number of people are ‘sincere’ about what they are doing, but it isn’t really something that makes the framework good or bad.However, by limiting their viewpoint and failing to take into account other options or other possibilities, their sincerity actually prevents better options from being considered.
I’m not suggesting that it is possible to move from the current regime to some alternative regime,
Well, I guess my biggest complaint about Mégret’s view is that he offers no “alternative regime.” Is there an “alternative regime?” I don’t see it. If you can refer to it, please do, because I’m not understanding any kind of proposal – he just criticizes International law as being an inadequate legacy of imperialism.
you seem to accept that war is just a part of human existence, which seems much less optimistic than anything I can think of.
I do, actually, believe that war in some form will be with us (meaning “the world”) for awhile, just as I believe that crime will. When you say that Any approach that views dealing terrorism in a law enforcement framework rather than in a combat/war framework has to do that, sure. But that’s irrelevant to my point considering the fact that it isn’t being treated that way now by the US Government, and that it is not effective or possible to do that in the context of certain places that have insufficient legal infrastructure to provide criminal procedure (Yemen, for example). Still many people insist on criminal procedure, not as an effective tool in these circumstances, but as some kind of a fundamental right of terrorists with whom we’re at war. It’s logically inconsistent, but also ethically so.
Anyway, I would have found the article more convincing if the author had offered an alternative proposal as to how the world’s humans could cause each other less damage. Although he made an interesting case about the ironies of international law, his solutions were nonexistent.
But thanks for thought-provoking article and discussion.
I’m not suggesting that it is possible to move from the current regime to some alternative regime,
Well, I guess my biggest complaint about Mégret’s view is that he offers no “alternative regime.” Is there an “alternative regime?” I don’t see it. If you can refer to it, please do, because I’m not understanding any kind of proposal – he just criticizes International law as being an inadequate legacy of imperialism.
you seem to accept that war is just a part of human existence, which seems much less optimistic than anything I can think of.
I do, actually, believe that war in some form will be with us (meaning “the world”) for awhile, just as I believe that crime will. When you say that Any approach that views dealing terrorism in a law enforcement framework rather than in a combat/war framework has to do that, sure. But that’s irrelevant to my point considering the fact that it isn’t being treated that way now by the US Government, and that it is not effective or possible to do that in the context of certain places that have insufficient legal infrastructure to provide criminal procedure (Yemen, for example). Still many people insist on criminal procedure, not as an effective tool in these circumstances, but as some kind of a fundamental right of terrorists with whom we’re at war. It’s logically inconsistent, but also ethically so.
Anyway, I would have found the article more convincing if the author had offered an alternative proposal as to how the world’s humans could cause each other less damage. Although he made an interesting case about the ironies of international law, his solutions were nonexistent.
But thanks for thought-provoking article and discussion.