The Escape Clause
Iqbal Sacranie in the Guardian yesterday:
Across the globe there is a widespread view that we in the west practise double standards and devalue the lives of non-westerners. The former Malaysian prime minister Mahathir Mohammad, earlier this month, said of our actions in Iraq: “There is no tally of Iraqi deaths, but every single death of a US soldier is reported to the world. These are soldiers who must expect to be killed. But the Iraqis who die … are innocent civilians who under the dictatorship of Saddam Hussein would still be alive.”
Hmm. Does Sacranie talk much about the tally of Iranian deaths during the Iran-Iraq war? Or other tallies of Muslims killed by other Muslims? Does he have a thoroughly single standard himself?
There is no shortage of Jews – including Leslie Bunder, editor of SomethingJewish.co.uk and Rabbi Schochet – who recognise that the memorial day in its present format is morally problematic. Still, the MCB recognises that this is enormously sensitive territory and if widening the scope of the day – while ethically right – is not politically feasible currently, then we should consider establishing a separate and truly inclusive genocide memorial day.
Truly inclusive? Truly? How truly? Inclusive of whom?
From the MCB’s news release on its decision not to attend Holocaust Memorial Day in January 2001:
In a letter to the Home Secretary, the Secretary General, Yousuf Bhaliok said that whilst they fully condemn the Nazi Holocaust and sympathise with the families of the Holocaust victims, they have reservations about the actual ceremony…It includes the controversial question of alleged Armenian genocide as well as the so-called gay genocide. In view of the above concerns the MCB believes that it would be inappropriate for them to be present at tomorrow’s ceremony.
So – truly inclusive? Well, no, then, not if the well-attested Armenian genocide is disallowed.
And another thing. The press release concludes with this familiar quotation:
The letter concludes, ” I need hardly say that our reservations concern only the ceremony and not the Nazi holocaust per se. The Qur’an (Al-Maidah 5:32) tells us that the murder of one man is as if one had slain all mankind and he who saves a life shall be as if he had given life to all humanity.”
Not true. That’s a truncated quotation – a vital piece has been left out, as Irshad Manji has been pointing out lately. The real quotation is translated for instance as ‘if anyone killed a person, not in retaliation for murder, or to spread mischief in the land, it would be as if he killed all mankind.’ Irshad Manji usually gives it as something like ‘except as punishment for murder or villainy in the land.’ At any rate, there is a very crucial escape clause – which actually renders the whole thing worthless. Because guess what, anyone who wants to kill someone is perfectly well able to come up with some ‘villainy in the land’ that the prospective murderee has spread, and there you go: carte blanche to commit murder. For instance of rebellious Armenians, who were not murdered in an act of genocide at all, but were killed as enemy combatants or rebels or opponents in a civil war or what have you. Well…that’s what Eichmann said, too. The Jews were enemies of the Reich. That’s what he was told, and that’s what he told the Jerusalem court in 1961. That’s what the Hutus said – repeatedly, insistently, urgently, over the airwaves on Radio Mille Collines – about the Tutsis: they were enemies, rebels, insurgents, and had to be killed before they killed all the Hutus. That’s what happens in genocides. People don’t just say ‘Let’s kill all the Jews now because we don’t like them.’ They use the ‘villainy in the land’ clause.
So the MCB’s fastidiousness about Holocaust Memorial Day is a bit suspect.
Sorry, OB, a little correction there: whatever Eichmann said, he certainly wasn’t saying it anymore in 1963.
Oops. Thanks, Stewart. I thought of looking up the date then went with memory instead. Always a mistake.
…this will be the end of my commentbombing, as I have to go to bed.
Still, life valuation is an interesting subject, regardless of hypocrisy issues. I would estimate my life valuation hierarchy something like this, in terms of emotion/attention, excluding friends and family (very rough, but still…)
1. Swedes
2. Western Europe, the Anglo-Saxon countries
3. Southern Europe, Eastern Europe, Japan
4. Former USSR – european part, excl. Baltic States, Korea, other asian NIC:s
5. Argentina, Brazil, Mexico, South Africa, Middle East
6. China, rest of Latin America, asian former USSR
7. India, sub-saharan Africa excl. SA, anyplace I forgot
Given media coverage patterns, etc. I believe it to be widely shared. (At least here in Sweden, I would wager Sweden takes a somewhat less central role in, say, the US…)
Random comment of the week.
“I would estimate my life valuation hierarchy something like this…[predictable racial hierarchy follows]”
“Random comment of the week.”
Let me itemize the contents of my laundry hamper for the benefit of you all. I’m sure you’ll hang on every word. Plus it’ll be much less offensive.
C’mon now – it’s not a random comment – my point is merely that the Prime Minister’s charge is factually correct. (You did read the bit about valuing lives up top, no?)
Of course, as pointed out below, he could himself also be accurately charged with just this very sin. And well, if you were offended, too bad. Try it on yourself sometime (I.e, the next time the TV anchor goes: “and in other news, seven hundred people are feared killed today in India after an overloaded car ferry overturned. And now the weather…”) It will work, trust me.
“Try it on yourself sometime … It will work, trust me.”
Did. Doesn’t.
“Did. Doesn’t.”
Sure, sure.
Oh yeah, everyone’s as racist as you, huh?
OK folks calm down.
I think Dobeln has a (non-racist) point here- although I’m still not 100% sure of the relevance of his post.
For example, we do all care about our families more than others- What would you call someone who neglected their children to look after complete strangers?
Furthermore, part of the outrage against the July 7th bombers was precisely that they struck against their fellow British people. Why should anyone feel outraged at this if there isn’t a special connection, for British people, in being British?
Again, part of the concern about some British muslims is precisely that many of them feel more connection with the real or imagined suffering of fellow muslims elsewhere in the world rather than their own people
“although I’m still not 100% sure of the relevance of his post.”
The lack of relevance and utter gratuity of it makes me just a tad suspicious.
“Again, part of the concern about some British muslims is precisely that many of them feel more connection with the real or imagined suffering of fellow muslims elsewhere in the world rather than their own people.”
That’s just it, though: People of that mindset don’t consider Brits “their own people”. It’s the triumph of racial/religious neo-tribalism over cosmopolitanism.
“I think Dobeln has a (non-racist) point here- although I’m still not 100% sure of the relevance of his post.”
Well, the entire post was about the Malaysian premier charging that lives are not being valued equally throughout the world, a statement which I found to be rather unremarkable, as just a short glance at any news programme reveals it to be true, on average.
Usually, though, the debate on this subject is limited to a) pointing out the hypocricy of other parties ( a charge that is virtually always true), and b) indignantly proclaiming yourself to care equally about the lives of everyone in the whole wide world, unlike all those other racist bumpkins around you (a claim that is almost never true). Ironically, this latter charge is usually primarily levelled at the lefty J-school crowd, as they are the talking heads on the telly. Go figure.
There is one primary exception to the hierarchy of suffering outlined above, though: If suffering can be co-opted for some cool political/ideological/economic purpose, it will be. Of course, as soon as the usefulness of the suferees has ended, things tend to revert to their usual state.
“The lack of relevance…”
Like I said – it cuts to the heart of the whole issue. Yes, the premier is a hypocrite on this issue, but so are virtually everyone.
“…and utter gratuity of it makes me just a tad suspicious.”
Well, you would have a point here, if the purpose of this discussion was to determine if I am a crass/mean person or not. As things stand though, I am just some dismembered text producer on the internet, so it’s probably better if we just stick to debating the issue at hand, rather than my degree of niceness / racism.
As for the racism charge, I am not really in a position to accurately decompose the underlying reasons for my feelings. Perhaps it’s partly racism, perhaps not. But I doubt me caring more about dead Japanese than dead Chinese has something to do with anti-chinese / pro-japanese racism…
“It’s the triumph of racial/religious neo-tribalism over cosmopolitanism. “
Well, I would rather say it’s the triumph of one set of tribalism over another, I.e. regligious/ethnic tribalism over ‘pure’ nationalism.
What is “pure” nationalism? I take it you don’t mean ethno-nationalism, since you contrast it with ethnic tribalism?
“that lives are not being valued equally throughout the world, a statement which I found to be rather unremarkable, as just a short glance at any news programme reveals it to be true, on average”
True, but no less depressing for being true. And finding this depressing isn’t necessarily grandstanding.
“so it’s probably better if we just stick to debating the issue at hand”
Which apparently is your personal preference re the comparative worth of nationalities/races. Seriously, dude.
“indignantly proclaiming yourself to care equally about the lives of everyone in the whole wide world … Ironically, this latter charge is usually primarily levelled at the lefty J-school crowd, as they are the talking heads on the telly. Go figure.”
Well, regardless of the purity of the levellers’ motives, it IS deplorable that our media ignore so many atrocities abroad (especially when you consider how much time they spend dwelling on trivialities). Why NOT call them out on it?
“What is “pure” nationalism? I take it you don’t mean ethno-nationalism, since you contrast it with ethnic tribalism?”
Yea, excactly – the flag-waving kind vs. the “blood and soil” variant.
“Which apparently is your personal reference re the comparative worth of nationalities/races. Seriously, dude.”
Well, if it was just my own ranking of comparative worth that was the big issue here, that might be true, but as things stand that was merely an illustration of a widespread (near universal?) phenomenon.
“Well, regardless of the purity of the levellers’ motives,”
Well, the motives are probably often true, in some sense. The degree to which one actually lives out those true motives tends to be abysmal though…
“it IS deplorable that our media ignore so many atrocities abroad (especially when you consider how much time they spend dwelling on trivialities). Why NOT call them out on it?”
Go right ahead, but really, I wager it will change very little.
Why? Egoism and tribalism. I care more about family and friends than about other people. The nation state is the most successful attempt yet at leveraging family/tribal feeling to a larger group of people, thus I care at least a bit about my ‘tribesmen’. Also, the more similar someone is to myself, the easier I have to relate to them.
Now, in a way it would of course be Kumbaya swell if this could be changed somehow, but like I said above – I kind of doubt it.
“True, but no less depressing for being true. And finding this depressing isn’t necessarily grandstanding.”
True – I am probably somewhat overly pessimistic above, partly due to technological advance. Some TV pics of starving kids will most likely induce a slight/moderate increase in aid from richer people to poorer ones, even across cultural divides. A UN batallion or two might be sent to (INSERT HELLHOLE HERE) after the slaughter has subsided. But no, I don’t really think we will get past that in the foreseeable future, for the reasons outline above. Also, I think my ‘hierarchy of suffering’ will remain a good guide of where attention will be going for, well, a long time.
“True, but no less depressing for being true. And finding this depressing isn’t necessarily grandstanding.”
It is depressing but it is also pretty much unavoidable. Racism and prejudice are subtly different (in this sense I think). Somebody brought up in an intensely racist environment can hardly help being racially prejudiced even if they strive sincerely to eliminate it. Is such a person really a racist?
So if somebody has a deeply rooted prejudice but consciously is totally colorblind, s/he might react differently to a bomb in London than to a bomb in Kenya. Being aware of the prejudice surely helps in overcoming it, but it is bound to be a slow process.
Apologies for rambly post.
“Go right ahead, but really, I wager it will change very little… Now, in a way it would of course be Kumbaya swell if this could be changed somehow, but like I said above – I kind of doubt it.”
Seems to be this month’s trolling bait: “Why are you bothering to decry these things? Who cares? ‘Twas ever thus and ’twill ever be so. Who do you think you are, anyway? Stop preening.”
“It is depressing but it is also pretty much unavoidable. Racism and prejudice are subtly different (in this sense I think). Somebody brought up in an intensely racist environment can hardly help being racially prejudiced even if they strive sincerely to eliminate it. Is such a person really a racist?”
This of course assumes a nurturist hypothisis – I would place my bet on the heritability square. But apart from that, I pretty much concur.
“Seems to be this month’s trolling bait: “Why are you bothering to decry these things? Who cares? ‘Twas ever thus and ’twill ever be so. Who do you think you are, anyway? Stop preening.”
Trolling bait? Please. In this case, the empirical evidence is indeed mostly on the side of hopelessness. And yes, I do get kind of tired of watching people constantly pretend this isn’t so, especially when they insist on engaging in conspicuous compassion.
While dobeln’s posts may not be openly racist, writing out a list is rather anorak-y. I mean, ‘Former USSR – european part, excl. Baltic States’ You must have to pay really close attention to the news and have an atlas handy before deciding whether you give a) a shit or b) half a shit.
Do you ever mis-hear, find yourself caring and then have to back track when you realise it was ony sub-saharan Africa? Damn, wasted empathy.
Of course everybody is most affected by that which is closest to home (geographical or otherwise) but to imagine that you can create a hierarchy of compassion is evidence that dobeln’s legendary smugness is finally softening his brain.
Our response to suffering depends on many factors, including our own comlexity. Deciding in advance to care more about dead Japanese than dead Chinese suggests a lack of complexity that – if we didn’t know better – would suggest simple minded racism.
Maybe he should develop some kind of numerical point system. or even, given the precedent, an “Empathy Color Code” system. Let’s see, guerilla war in Togo combined with devastating floods in Switzerland means my level of empathy is “mauve” today. :)
Perhaps I’m simple, but what was the point of dobeln’s graduated list of those regional/racial groups who get his sympathy? He seems to think that anyone (in the developed Western countries, at least) who doesn’t share his prejudices is a liar with a silly or unsavory agenda. Speaking for myself, I don’t favor one region or race over another when donating money to charities. The tsunami victims received just as much money from me as did the hurricane victims in the Gulf Coast. Genocide in Africa disturbs me just as much as genocide in Europe. No, it has nothing to do with ‘political correctness’ or ‘preening’ self-righteousness…unless dobeln wishes to call be a liar, an accusation that would get him a punch in the mouth if he were bold enough to say it to my face. It would seem that in assuming that he is acting as a brave teller of unpleasant truths to liberal ‘hypocrites’, dobeln is doing a little preening of his own.
Our response to suffering depends on many factors, including our own comlexity. Deciding in advance to care more about dead Japanese than dead Chinese suggests a lack of complexity that – if we didn’t know better – would suggest simple minded racism.
– Don
On target, as usual, Don. I wish I had said it half so well.
And I would love to see dobeln take up Mr. Miller’s hilarious suggestion.