Christopher,
I can't reply at length as I must away for a few days -
maybe get back if the list and the world hasn't moved
on too far by then. But suffice to say that I think this
(and others letters) saying that we're all capable of
violence is just ducking the issue. It's really no more
helpful than saying we all have the capacity to steal
except the ones that do it most are the filthy poor
and the filthy rich (a bit like wars really) but we all
try to fiddle our taxes so let's not name the
poor and rich let's just say we're all theiving buggers
and forget it.
After I finished my letter last night I opened the Guardian
which had a piece by the splendidly named Lionel Tiger
(surely not!) examining why terrorisms attracts young
men. It had some very good points and I wish I'd
seen it before my letter - but if he'd had to
qualify it in the way you ask he wouldn't have be able
to make any points. That may be a convienence but
it's a necessary one if anything is going to be said at
all.
To finish, the irritable tone of my last letter was having
my comments tied in with politcians - now does that
make me feel violent! (that's a joke by the way).
Keep well all of you until I get back - and no fighting!
Best G.
-----Original Message-----
From: Christopher Walker <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Wednesday, October 03, 2001 01:55
Subject: Re: back to front
>Geraldine:
>
><snip>
>Your list [of female terrorists] proves that they are the exception to the
>rule [GM]
><snip>
>
>No. It's just a list. And an incomplete one. What it demonstrates is that
it
>is very difficult to be inclusive when talking of these matters. But
>inclusive we must be.
>
>I rather distrust 'overwhelming truths'. I like my truths with a dash of
>caveat.
>
><snip>
>But how can any problem be tackled if people like yourself refuse
>to even acknowledge basic facts. [GM]
><snip>
>
>A 'basic fact' is a building block in some greater argument. I acknowledge
>some of your 'facts'; but I dispute the synthesis. I also add other facts.
I
>think you're expressing irritation at the inconvenience of it all. But
>without that inconvenience we merely shout red-faced at one another.
>
><snip>
>Like it or not we are all enlisted in wars now and some of us want
>to know why and with whom and if identifying an age group and sex
>is a start then for god's sake let's start. [GM}
><snip>
>
>What you refer to as 'identifying an age group and sex' is to create a
>suspect class. As in the application of the sus law. It mistakes a
>correlation for an inherent characteristic.
>
><snip>
>to have to qualify such a simple statement of truth as this with the
equally
>true statement that the overwhelming majority of men aren't terrorists and
>the world has had some spectacularly violent women.. well it's is
depressing
>that your needs should hanker after such salve. [GM]
><snip>
>
>I suspect terrorism has changed its gender profile since the days of the
>RAF, the Weather Underground, the JRA and so forth. Clearly it has changed
>its _religious_ profile. These two changes may be connected. My 'needs' are
>for that richer picture. Sometimes 'simple statement[s] of truth' are
>themselves a salve.
>
><snip>
>I didn't say the 'terrorists' had no foreseeable goal [...] My question was
>what do we do about disaffected young men who have NO goals in life? [...]
>...the war comes home about 10 yards down my street.
>
>So, the violence emanates almost predominately from young males so my
>question was 'What do young men want?' When all these Rebels without a
Cause
>or a Clue finally get one I'd like to know it didn't include blowing me to
>kingdom come [...] I'm well aware of the political cess pool which led up
>to the bombing of New York but we really do need to understand the kind of
>psyche that can do that
><snip>
>
>But you elide the difference between 'tribal', disaffected, goal-less young
>men and terrorists. That elision is _precisely_ why I'm claiming it as part
>of the *mindless violence* topos. Many of the terrorists appear to be well
>educated, middle class, sometimes upper class (bin Laden's doctor chum, for
>example), not all that young and highly focused. Trying to understand that
>kind of psyche means not neglecting these rather tiresome little details.
>
>I say this with feeling. There have been several police raids in my part of
>the world since Sept 11 and a couple of detentions under the PTA. It is
said
>that there used to be a Hamas office within walking distance - a few doors
>down from a synagogue, as it happens. The crack-related shootings happen
>further off.
>
><snip>
>one of the initial effects of the Taleban was to reduce the incidence of
>urban rape. [CW]
>
>Reducing rape by imprisoning women! And all the Afghan women
>cried 'Gee, thanks boys'. [GM]
><snip>
>
>You mock me, but the Taleban _were_ welcomed to begin with and by women:
>rape had been a political/military reward. Hence what happened to
>Najibullah's genitals. Recognising that initial stage isn't to defend the
>Taleban but to describe more precisely what actually happened.
>
>Christopher Walker
|