about this war...
Mar. 20th, 2003 07:14 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
memevectorI feel sad about the war plans, in a "bad things are gonna happen now and there's nothing I can do about it" kind of way.
I wrote to Tony Blair already, a month ago. I said I know ze has sources of information that I don't, so therefore logically if I knew what ze knew then maybe I would be convinced. But right now I was not. And I said "write back if you like". Although I was writing more for my own conscience than because I really thought ze would even see my letter emself.
Well, ze didn't write back, and I am still in much the same place - not convinced by the arguments I've heard in favour of going to war at this point. Not like "I know for 100% sure that it's not the right thing", and willing to hear more arguments in favour, but just not convinced. Not that my opinions seem likely to affect the happening of the war anyway, so in a way it's of little moment whether I agree with it or not.
But the thing is, regardless of the subsequent outcomes, and regardless of what people might say later about whether or not it "proved justifiable", there is no way to have a war without people dying and being injured and being bereaved. And there is no way to have a war without leaving some people at the end of it really angry and more likely to be violent than they were before. So even if I were sure that it was going to have some long term results I want, I would still be sad about it.
I'm not like "could never endorse any war" because I'm really glad that I didn't grow up under Hitler so I am glad that people stopped em and the armies under zeir command. But at the same time it's like: human beings are capable of so much, what is it gonna take to shift the culture to the point where other solutions kick in before we get to this stage, and we don't need to fight each other?
Also I've been thinking about responses to the war. Like what is there for me to do in the world, that seems like a fitting expression of where I'm coming from.
I was thinking of a quote from Alice Walker: "... human compassion is equal to human cruelty ... it is up to each of us to tip the balance."
and another one from Iain Banks,
... that people were people, much the same everywhere, and when they appeared to do things that were stupid or evil, often you hadn't been told the whole story, but that sometimes people did behave badly, usually because some idea had taken hold of them and given them an excuse to see other people as expendable (or bad), and that was part of who we were too, as a species, and it wasn't always possible to know that you were right and they were wrong, but the important thing was to keep trying to find out, and always to face the truth. Because truth mattered.
So in a way I think the most appropriate response is to practise not seeing any other human beings as bad (which is my policy anyway). Like Tony Blair who is doing what ze thinks is right (and fuckin' 'ell I'm glad I've not got zeir job). And other people I might disagree with. And Saddam Hussain as well, even though I don't endorse zeir actions. Ze is still a human being, and if I'd had zeir childhood then I might be a lot more like em than I am. And I don't need to ditch that thought in order to think about how best to stop em doing horrible stuff.
I was also thinking as a response to the war I'm gonna give some money to Childline. Obviously that's not about trying to prevent the government from going to war with Iraq. But having read Alice Miller on Hitler's childhood (and on the childhoods of various other people who seemed outstandingly impaired in the empathy department), I feel like there's a connection. I also like it because it's a recognition that not everyone in this country can count on having all their human rights recognised either (though I'd consider giving money to some kind of "rebuild Iraq" thing too). And in any case it's certainly a move in the direction of the future I wanna build.
Well that is what I think today anyway :-)
I wrote to Tony Blair already, a month ago. I said I know ze has sources of information that I don't, so therefore logically if I knew what ze knew then maybe I would be convinced. But right now I was not. And I said "write back if you like". Although I was writing more for my own conscience than because I really thought ze would even see my letter emself.
Well, ze didn't write back, and I am still in much the same place - not convinced by the arguments I've heard in favour of going to war at this point. Not like "I know for 100% sure that it's not the right thing", and willing to hear more arguments in favour, but just not convinced. Not that my opinions seem likely to affect the happening of the war anyway, so in a way it's of little moment whether I agree with it or not.
But the thing is, regardless of the subsequent outcomes, and regardless of what people might say later about whether or not it "proved justifiable", there is no way to have a war without people dying and being injured and being bereaved. And there is no way to have a war without leaving some people at the end of it really angry and more likely to be violent than they were before. So even if I were sure that it was going to have some long term results I want, I would still be sad about it.
I'm not like "could never endorse any war" because I'm really glad that I didn't grow up under Hitler so I am glad that people stopped em and the armies under zeir command. But at the same time it's like: human beings are capable of so much, what is it gonna take to shift the culture to the point where other solutions kick in before we get to this stage, and we don't need to fight each other?
Also I've been thinking about responses to the war. Like what is there for me to do in the world, that seems like a fitting expression of where I'm coming from.
I was thinking of a quote from Alice Walker: "... human compassion is equal to human cruelty ... it is up to each of us to tip the balance."
and another one from Iain Banks,
... that people were people, much the same everywhere, and when they appeared to do things that were stupid or evil, often you hadn't been told the whole story, but that sometimes people did behave badly, usually because some idea had taken hold of them and given them an excuse to see other people as expendable (or bad), and that was part of who we were too, as a species, and it wasn't always possible to know that you were right and they were wrong, but the important thing was to keep trying to find out, and always to face the truth. Because truth mattered.
So in a way I think the most appropriate response is to practise not seeing any other human beings as bad (which is my policy anyway). Like Tony Blair who is doing what ze thinks is right (and fuckin' 'ell I'm glad I've not got zeir job). And other people I might disagree with. And Saddam Hussain as well, even though I don't endorse zeir actions. Ze is still a human being, and if I'd had zeir childhood then I might be a lot more like em than I am. And I don't need to ditch that thought in order to think about how best to stop em doing horrible stuff.
I was also thinking as a response to the war I'm gonna give some money to Childline. Obviously that's not about trying to prevent the government from going to war with Iraq. But having read Alice Miller on Hitler's childhood (and on the childhoods of various other people who seemed outstandingly impaired in the empathy department), I feel like there's a connection. I also like it because it's a recognition that not everyone in this country can count on having all their human rights recognised either (though I'd consider giving money to some kind of "rebuild Iraq" thing too). And in any case it's certainly a move in the direction of the future I wanna build.
Well that is what I think today anyway :-)
tangentially
Date: 2003-03-19 11:18 pm (UTC)Re: tangentially
Date: 2003-03-19 11:26 pm (UTC)"I have this idea that my LJ is going to be a gender-pronoun-free zone.
"One possible objection to my plan would be that particular people may have a personal objection to being referred to without including their gender. So I'm open to requests from individuals to use a traditional gendered pronoun for them personally, or indeed a particular ungendered pronoun of their choice."
<snip>
"... if I refer to someone by an ungendered pronoun, then I'm not implying some particular experience (or opinion) of their own personal gender. My choice of words is correlated not with something about them, but with my view that it would be better not to drag gender - any gender - into things when it's not relevant."
Ze's not asked me not to :-)
Re: tangentially
Date: 2003-03-19 11:46 pm (UTC)It's always been my opinion that to call someone by a gender-free pronoun when their preferences are known or obvious is rude, but then he's hardly likely to be reading this is he.
FYI Refer to me using male pronouns please.
Re: tangentially
Date: 2003-03-21 12:16 pm (UTC)It seems to me that pretty much everyone makes their preferred binary gender pronoun known. Those are the only pronouns most people use, so really a person has to choose one or have one chosen for them.
The whole idea of gender-free pronouns is that they are a universal replacement for gendered ones (although perhaps only in some contexts, for example a lot of people write using non-gendered language but use gendered language when they speak). If such pronouns are only used for ambiguously gendered people they become other-gendered pronouns, which are entirely different. I can see why a person would object to being called by an other-gendered pronoun when they identify on the binary, just as one might object if called by the wrong binary pronoun. This is because something inaccurate is being implied about them. The use of gender-free language, because of the very fact that is is used universally, has no such implications.
You say that you find it rude to use non-gendered pronouns when a person's binary preference is obvious. In contrast, I would find it rude if someone expected me to ruin the non-genderedness of my LiveJournal on their account. To insist that someone makes repeated reference to your gender against their normal preference seems extremely pretentious to me. I think its rather like insisting that someone call you "sir" or "mr____" when their natural response is to call you by your first name- which I know a lot of people do, and perhaps in some situations it is justified. Personally, I don't tend to respond amiably to such requests (at least not out of scene!)
On the other hand, I don't take any joy in offending random people. If I had to refer to you, or anyone else who I knew objected to non-gendered pronouns, I would not use such pronouns. I'd probably compromise and avoid using any pronouns at all.
Re: tangentially
Date: 2003-03-22 11:09 am (UTC)The use of gender-free language, because of the very fact that it is used universally, has no such implications.
Logically true, but it still might have associations that a particular person dislikes.
I think that makes sense if you think of pronouns as a sort of name. There are names which are clearly "not my name". But there are also some names which logically belong to me but which (for whatever reason) I don't enjoy being called.
I would be interested myself if
(no subject)
Date: 2003-03-19 11:55 pm (UTC)Like the idea of giving to charity as a response. I think I'll do Shelter. on the slightly indirect basis that war leaves people homeless.
(no subject)
Date: 2003-03-20 04:49 am (UTC)I like the Childline donation idea too! It is so vital for every child to feel heard and respected. How else can they learn to hear and respect others, even when they disagree?
(no subject)
Date: 2003-03-20 05:42 am (UTC)Laurence