[Peace-discuss] Casualty posters

[Randall Cotton]

Al Kagan writes:

> As one of those in opposition to Randall's project, let me try to
> answer his questions.
>
> As Randall states, placing more value on the lives of US soldiers
> than Iraqi civilians in indeed morally reprehensible.  I think we
> should not buy into this idea in any way. In fact, it should be our
> job to make sure that the kind of thinking that happened during the
> Vietnam War does not happen again. People still say that 58,000 died
> in Viet Nam.  No, it was certainly over one million people.  It is
> our job to focus on the death and wounding of thousands of Iraqis,
> not a few hundred invaders.

First, I'd like to thank Al for his response. I think it's for the greater
good that we discuss and debate issues like this and you can't really
accomplish that with only one person talking =8-)

What Al is saying here (and correct me if I'm wrong, Al) is that a purpose
of this project should be to persuade people that the life of a US soldier
should not be viewed as having more value than that of an Iraqi civilian.

Indeed, my project never had the purpose Al suggests. My purpose is to plant
(or foster the growth of) the seed of doubt regarding whether this war was
"right" or "just" in the minds of people who only conditionally support this
war. In short, I want to help change minds about this war (or at least nudge
them a bit). Al wants to persuade people that all human lives have the same
value. The purpose Al promotes here is noble and related, but distinct from
my mine.

Now, is my purpose of any less value than the one Al suggests? Even if so,
is it really the case that my intended purpose should be abandoned or
compromised in favor of Al's? And that my project should be opposed if not?

> Whether or not we have a legal right to display the posters of the US
> military dead is besides the point.  Rather what would be the
> consequences of doing so? Since the first person to die was from
> Illinois, it is quite possible that the family will find out that we
> are using this poster. . It is also likely that the family will be
> pro-war and will be very upset.  That could lead to very bad
> publicity for us as well as provoke the pro-war demonstrators. The
> pro-war people are organized and will take every opportunity to try
> to discredit us. We should not underestimate their resources.

I seriously doubt there is any real risk of this. Nevertheless, it does seem
that a few AWARE people are fearful of this. Therefore, I'll not use that
soldier's image (Ryan Beaupre, from St. Anne, Illinois - 80 miles away) or
any other soldier's image from Illinois. This is not a big deal anyway -
regrettably, there's now plenty of other dead soldiers to choose from.

> On the other hand, it is unlikely that anyone will get angry if we
> display the posters of dead or hurt Iraqi civilians.  In fact, I
> think this is the best concrete evidence of the immediate affect of
> the war.  This might get a few people in the middle to wake up.

A few, perhaps. But while none in the intended audience will feel angry if
they don't see US soldiers, they may not feel much of anything else, either.
Many Americans care little about the average Iraqi civilian, especially in
constrast to a US soldier. To pretend otherwise is to bury one's head in the
sand. To avoid engaging them entirely because we don't share their value
judgements is folly and an opportunity lost. Showing only Iraqi casualties
merely preaches to the choir and severely compromises the purpose of the
project.

I think a common mistake made when protesting is to assume other people
think like you (a general, though unfortunate, human tendency) and to only
craft messages that would appeal to yourself or others like you. This
approach is arguably self-defeating. It's important to make the effort to
calculate an audience, envision their point of view (even though it might
diverge wildly from your own), then craft a message that would resonate with
maximum effect.

This is what I've tried to do with this project, and having done so, it's
crystal clear to me that portrayal of US casualties is essential. Recall,
though, that I will indeed have an equal number of Iraqi casualty portrayals
as well.

> I would rather not see AWARE's name on Randall's posters.

Just to clarify, I don't think I ever suggested this =8-) Nor did I ask for
any form of sponsorship, since some are still uncomfortable with the
portrayal of US soldiers.

R