[Peace-discuss] N-G letter attacks Lancet study

[Laurie at advancenet.net]

> But it is a much larger group than committedly blindered right-wingers who
have been  > minimizing the catastrophic consequences of this war (and by
extension, of war in
> general).

Stuart,

I realized that you are attempting to address a much larger group than the
right-wingers, neocons, war mongers, or Bushies.  Although I did not
explicitly define the my reference group to just those individuals but left
it open so as to include the masses of people in the middle who just do not
give a damn one way or another, are not committed right-wingers or committed
progressives.  They do not really care about or care to be informed about
the Lancet study or the statistics in it; nor do they care to hear what you
or Henry Seiter has to say; or the statistics and reports coming from the
administration.  These sorts of things are just too detailed and heavy for
most people to wrap their small brains around and of too low a priority to
go to the effort to look up and read except possibly in headline or Readers
Digest form.

Your additional examples on the face of it do not present irrefutable
illustrations (except to those who are inclined to already believe and use
them). To perform my role as resident cynic and skeptic, I would have to ask
how many Serbs are "a lot of Serbs", to what degree were they shook up (were
they all shook up to the same degree?), and what empirical evidence do you
have to back this up? 

>  Forty years ago, when the US Supreme Court ruled that
>  states could not forbid racially-mixed marriages,
>  most of the population thought miscegenation still ought to be
>  illegal.
>  How many would say so today?

 I would also note that, with respect to the above, many today may not
overtly say so because it is not fashionable to say so and they may not
fight to re-establish those laws; but I think that, if you scratch the
surface, you will find that there is a surprisingly large number who still
THINK miscegenation still ought to be illegal just as they still believe in
some old racial and ethnic stereotypes and engage in some covert and
implicit discriminatory biases.  

> And many of us do look at our consciences from time to time.

But even if they do, they examine their consciences with a biased and
jaundiced eye giving their assessment whatever spins are necessary to
justify and rationalize their actions, beliefs, and interpretations.  Some
may make minor modifications in their views and beliefs; some may resolve
the cognitive dissonance using other methods which in the end result in no
changes in their approach or behavior; some may just shrug their shoulders
and say "oops, I fucked up", letting it go at that; and a few actually may
make significant alterations in their beliefs and actions.  That people look
at their consciences does not necessarily mean that they make any changes.

But as I said, it was a good letter.  I hope you are right in your optimism
about who will read it; but I remain skeptical that it will get read and
acted upon by any but those who are in agreement already.  Only time will
tell. 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: peace-discuss-bounces at lists.chambana.net [mailto:peace-discuss-
> bounces at lists.chambana.net] On Behalf Of Stuart Levy
> Sent: Friday, September 21, 2007 1:40 AM
> To: peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
> Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] N-G letter attacks Lancet study
> 
> On Thu, Sep 20, 2007 at 10:59:22PM -0500, Laurie at advancenet.net wrote:
> > Stuart,
> >
> > > Estimates of many hundreds of thousands dead in Iraq -- excess
> deaths,
> > > of people dying at rates much higher than before our 2003 invasion
> -- are
> > > widely dismissed.  Those inclined to disbelieve them should read
> them:
> >
> > The letter is a good one; but unfortunately those who are inclined to
> > disbelieve them or what you have written are not likely to Google the
> > studies or read them - much less change their minds.  You are
> attacking
> > belief system and not merely disputing facts.
> 
> Thanks.  I don't expect Pres. Bush to read the studies, nor Henry
> Seiter,
> whose letter of Sept. 10th this one is responding to.  But it is a much
> larger
> group than committedly blindered right-wingers who have been minimizing
> the catastrophic consequences of this war (and by extension, of war in
> general).
> 
> Even some people who would call themselves progressives have simply
> found these estimates incredible, presumably on some of the same
> grounds
> as Seiter does.  We've heard how careful our military is to avoid
> unnecessary
> harm to civilians, we've been hearing endless estimates of "only" a few
> tens
> of thousands that seem to corroborate each other, etc. etc.  How could
> so many
> be killed without our having heard of it long since?  How could a
> figure
> like a million possibly even be close?  Many won't look, but some will.
> 
> Some minds *do* change.  I wanted to list a couple of other cases,
> and would have if the word limit hadn't been so tight:
> 
>    - Remember the Bosnian war of a dozen years ago?  There were
> widespread
>      atrocities on several sides, but especially of the Serbian
> military
>      against Bosnian Muslims.  Many Serbs simply refused to believe
>      that their own good soldiers could have rounded up and mowed down
>      unarmed civilians.  But then it turned out that (IIRC) one of
> those
>      soldiers had made a video.  Not only did this impress outsiders,
>      it also shook up a lot of Serbs.
> 
>    - Forty years ago, when the US Supreme Court ruled that
>      states could not forbid racially-mixed marriages,
>      most of the population thought miscegenation still ought to be
> illegal.
>      How many would say so today?
> 
>      In this case I don't think there was any single event that
>      changed many people's minds.  Yet they have changed.
> 
> 
> > > How would we feel if an invading country, even one claiming to save
> us
> > > from tyranny, had such an effect in the US?
> >
> > We would be hypocritical and respond with irrational violence,
> resistance,
> > defiance, and rebellion just as the people of Iraq are doing,
> claiming that
> > our actions are legitimate while their similar actions towards us are
> > illegitimate; we would hate them and carry that hatred for decades
> after the
> > incidences has passed into history (just look at attitudes revolving
> around
> > the US civil war and Vietnam) just as the Iraq population might.
> 
> Unfortunately I agree with you here.
> 
> Why are we in the habit of acting this way when people of
> some other cultures do not?  When US soldiers who had
> fought in Vietnam go there today, we often hear that they
> are welcomed, in spite of having participated in vast destruction
> and loss of life.   And if the past invading country gets a
> label, it doesn't appear to be "evildoer".
> 
> I was charmed to read (in translation) a classic Chinese story,
> "Outlaws of the Marsh".  One or another of the characters will be
> travelling peacefully along until being attacked, often nearly killed,
> by a bandit.  Character overcomes the attack, and... what would happen
> in a Western story?  Righteous slaying of the evil attacker?
> Enslavement?
> Surely at least undying enmity.  Not so here.
> Having demonstrated to each other that they are worthy
> opponents, attacker and attackee become fast friends,
> and stick by each other in further adventures.
> 
> 
> > > Can our consciences bear this burden?
> >
> > For those whom you are attempting to persuade, this does not even
> enter
> > their consciences so it represents no burden to them. It is the old
> story of
> > "when it happens to them, it is comedy; when it happens to me, it is
> > tragedy."
> 
> Again I think I am trying to convince a much larger group than you
> suggest.
> And many of us do look at our consciences from time to time.
> 
>     Stuart Levy
> _______________________________________________
> Peace-discuss mailing list
> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
> http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/listinfo/peace-discuss