It occurred to me this morning that moral indignation might be another factor. Growing numbers of riled-up people are butting up against one another, their butting-up facilitated by 24/7 news.
Of course, I've been feeling some moral indignation myself, to judge by some recent posts here—on al Qaeda, for example, or on eating animals. Not to mention a few on religion.
But my immediate provocations might have been a couple of items in local papers this morning. The first was a letter to the editor from a man indignant that he didn't make an "al-Qaida-linked" hit list:
Why didn't I make that list?And he even tells "aspiring Muslim martyrs" where to find him and what inscription to look for on the "crusader T-shirt" he often wears. "I'll be expecting some loser yelling 'alla-hu akbar' or whatever," he says.
Have my many letters to the editor expressing my contempt for the Islamists gone unnoticed? Does it count for nothing that I led the applause on our United flight when the pilot announced the killing of bin Laden?
A hit list was mentioned only in the third of three reports I found:
- The New York Times, "Al Qaeda Urges Attacks in West" (June 3);
- Kitat Konenut's New York blog, "Al Qaeda Urges American Muslims to Buy Guns for Terror Attacks" (June 6); and
- newsmax.com, "Al-Qaida Website's Hit List Targets US Leaders" (June 17).
I'm afraid you'll be taken to a beating by persons who will misconstrue what you argue. You're walking on a mine field.I wondered, however, why I would need to be misconstrued.
The other provocation was the front-page photograph of three boyishly proud-looking male adults that illustrated the article, "Men snag possible world-record catfish." They're shown with a 143-pound blue catfish across their laps.
The pride was front-page news, and the article revealed the important information that one of the men will "get to talk junk to my brother and dad all year long."
But there was no mention that the bottom-feeding catfish will never get to feed again.
_______________
June 24. As a result of a comment on this article, I submitted a letter to The Chapel Hill News yesterday. It was published this morning; the third comment on this post provides the letter's text.
July 3. Mr. Hurley's response was printed on July 1. And I submitted a follow-up question this morning; its text is provided in the first comment of yesterday's post, "'Daughters of thy uncles and aunts'."
When I read the post about the man who wrote many letters to the editor, I had questions running through my head.
ReplyDeleteThe first was a gut reaction. Who is he trying to impress with his bravado? Some of his buddies? I thought about it a little more and wondered his age. Had he served in the military in Iraq or Afghanistan? Or perhaps wished he had. Did he lose a friend or family member to terrorist? I’m sure there are many possibilities. Myself, I prefer to keep a low profile.
All I (or any reader, and the editor, too, I think) had to go on was the letter-writer's name and city (Chapel Hill).
ReplyDeleteIf he actually, as he implied, led a cheer upon hearing the news of the death of Osama bin Laden, then that says something, but I'm not sure what. I myself didn't cheer (and didn't encounter anyone cheering, although I of course read about celebrations in New York and elsewhere).
I could write a letter to the same editor in which I put your questions to the man who often wears a "crusader T-shirt." And I might do that.
I'm finding more and more that if I don't do something when I think about it, I forget and it doesn't get done. I just submitted the following letter to the Durham Herald-Sun for its Chapel Hill Herald section:
ReplyDeleteCould Mr. Frank Hurley, whose letter, "Terrorists' hit list omission lamented," appeared yesterday, possibly tell us a bit more about where he is coming from. I referred to his letter on my blog (http://moristotle.blogspot.com/2011/06/moral-indignation.html) and one of my own readers, who served two tours in Vietnam before his final tour in Germany, where he lives , asked:
"Is he trying to impress someone with his bravado? I thought about it a little more and wondered how old he is. Has he served in the military in Iraq or Afghanistan? Or does he wish he had? Did he lose a friend or family member to terrorists? I’m sure there are many possibilities. Myself, I prefer to keep a low profile."
For "full disclosure," I'm 68, have never served in the military (and don't wish I had), and haven't lost anyone close to terrorists, but neither do I keep a low profile: I criticize and occasionally ridicule Islamists on my blog, for which I have been warned by a friend: "I'm afraid you'll be taken to a beating by persons who will misconstrue what you argue. You're walking on a mine field."
And, finally, I don't believe that I'm trying to impress anyone with my bravado. I'm not sure I have any. But I do suffer from occasional moral indignation.
Letter published this morning in The Chapel Hill Herald, and on its website.
ReplyDeleteFrom a friend of thirty years:
ReplyDeleteWell...These are deep waters. Morality. The varieties of human behavior. Where humanity is headed. What an individual should do, and shouldn't do. What one can do, and is unable to do.
I think you're right to phrase it "suffer" from moral indignation. It's not a pleasant state.
Added to it, I think, is the suffering from the knowledge that one has very little (if any) control over what humanity as a whole is doing, or where it's going.
Very little solace to offer from these quarters, I'm afraid.
I replied:
I appreciate wise comments.
The suffering is compounded (I was musing this morning) by some thoughts along the lines of how "minority" are my core values/beliefs, as though I have developed into a being hardly fit for the world we're in. I'm contemplating a blog article today under the title, "Failed." (Of course, some of the failure is ironic victory over empty tradition and pervasive false belief. But not all of it.)
My friend replied:
I don't think your core values/beliefs are that unusual. Yes, in the minority, but not that tiny a minority. And you have good company: Mark Twain, H.L. Mencken, Ambrose Bierce—just a few fellow Americans who come to mind. Or how about Voltaire? Buddha?
Meanwhile, maybe listening to a late Beethoven quartet would help.
To my friend, another comment:
ReplyDeleteIt's nice to think/hope that there are many kindred spirits, if still a minority. Also nice that events yesterday morning sidetracked me from my "Failed" idea and I published "Live, laugh, love" instead, something quite at the other end of the moral/intellectual spectrum.
From another kindred-spirited friend:
ReplyDeleteYour friend has made some wise observations. As for me, I am not bothered by holding minority views. I have all my life and will until the end. And the more I see of majority values (if they're in fact discernible), the only regret I have is that people in this country never seem to grow up and out. I read something the other day (I don't remember the source) in which the speaker (or writer?) said of his own good deed that if it were in fact rewarded, it would be the first time in the history of the republic that a good deed (or virtue) was in fact rewarded. The remark is perhaps a bit hyperbolic—but just a bit. It says a lot about the country.
I hope that the remark is more than just a bit hyperbolic, but perhaps he's right. This will bear thinking about.
I read an "opiniator" piece in The New York Times yesterday that seems appropriate in the context of a "country that never seems to grow up and out": "The Ways of Silencing."
From the aforementioned friend of thirty years:
ReplyDeleteGlad to see that at least one other person in the country understands that most Americans seem locked in a permanent state of adolescence. I sometimes hope that a true leader will one day have the courage to tell them it's time to grow up. But since our "leaders" are politicians, that ain't likely to happen.
I'm off to Wisconsin for a while. I will take the pulse of Middle America (at least as it represents itself in that neck of the woods), and report back if I find anything positive.
I look forward to a dispatch from Middle America, hoping that my friend of thirty years will detect there some tendency—even there—for a few folks to skew toward the thinking end of the bell-shaped curve.
And from my other kindred-spirited friend (also aforementioned):
ReplyDeleteThank you for the opinion piece ["The Ways of Silencing," cited two comments up]. I have framed the problem (issue?) as a sort of deliberate inflation of a common currency which we trusted for a long time. The "spinsters" (those who misuse language for various purposes), empowered by the ease with which misinformation can be spread in the electronic world, have flooded the public with words that they deliberately misuse. In doing so, they have achieved two goals:
(1) Some of the public has quit reading and listening because they perceive that words are so laden with lies that they can't be trusted.
(2) And the rest of the public uncritically buys into the lies because the words are chosen to make them feel good.
E. g., I do a small burn every time I get mail from Anthem Blue Cross. Why did they have to spend millions to stick the word "anthem" in their name? Probably to convey false images of patriotism or religiosity associated with what the company is selling.
"Anthem," "patriot," "freedom," "choice," and many other words have all been so distorted by the contexts in which they are used by spinsters that they no longer have value (meaning). Of course, when a member of the public finally gets turned off by the hype, he or she quits listening—even when, finally, someone is trying to convey an honest thought or insight.
Or they just continues to listen to what makes them feel good. Either way, the spinsters succeed.
In the Advertising Age, language is but a sales tool? Wasn't here a classic about advertising published the decade we were in high school?
Ah, yes, Vance Packard, The Hidden Persuaders (1957).
From Wikipedia:
Packard explores the use of consumer motivational research and other psychological techniques, including depth psychology and subliminal tactics, by advertisers to manipulate expectations and induce desire for products, particularly in the American postwar era.
He identified eight "compelling needs" that advertisers promise products will fulfill. According to Packard these needs are so strong that people are compelled to buy products to satisfy them.
The book also explores the manipulative techniques of promoting politicians to the electorate.
The book questions the morality of using these techniques.
Reply from other kindred-spirited friend:
ReplyDeleteYes, that was back in the day when it was feared advertisers were using words to get at our subliminal feelings (the assumption being that most of us then could resist the ordinary hype.) Now the hype is celebrated as truth because it's framed to reinforce prevailing bias and urban myth. No more having to worry about subliminal impulses! Just give them what feeds their egos and prejudices.
Reply to other kindred-spirited friend:
ReplyDeleteI don't remember Packard's book, but I'm sure I read it. Do you know whether The Hidden Persuaders talks about uses of language other than their (and images') just being slipped in subliminally? Did Packard maybe foreshadow some of what linguists such as George Lakoff (who's particularly interested in how politicians frame things to silence the opposition) have learned since the fifties?