My to-be graduate school hosts a discussion board for incoming students of the department of government. A recent discussion began about whether Turkey should be included into the EU, and somehow it digressed into a discussion about terrorism. Having just finished teaching a course here on terrorism, I posted an opinion that contended that we need to stop looking at terrorism as just merely evil; that in certain circumstances, with certain actors, violence could be legitimate and sometimes that violence comes in the form of what we call 'terrorism'. I didn't say that violence was good - it is not good, but when there are no other means of adjudicating grievances (as some states don't have such an infrastructure) violence comes as a last resort to draw attention to issues the world doesn't know about. It's very rarely successful, and people should be encouraged to pursue other means of expression. But I think these 'other means' have to be made available before we start condemning them. Anyway, there are a lot of things involved, my point was that it wasn't a clear-cut issue, and I realized that it was not an orthodox suggestion.
A few hours later, two guys (well-educated, they are both from California) contended that all terrorists were simply evil and if we don't kill them, they will kill us. I was accused of being swept-up by a moral relativism of the worst kind, and more.
I guess I've always been used to having people around me who were willing to see multiple sides of the argument, to consider different views and perspectives. Now I see that even if you were educated - and I don't see education as a right, but rather as a privilege - s/he may still not have the ability to put themselves in someone else's shoes. This skill, apparently, is also a privilege, and a gift. I just don't know what I should do with it anymore.
Wednesday, May 09, 2007
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
First thing that comes to mind to me when I ponder the word terrorism are its two root words: 'terror' and 'ism', which implies that the doctrine being practiced and preached is at its core 'terror'. Not all those who use violence are necessarily preaching its virtue but using it as a means (by far the only means at hand in certain situations). By the same token, these educated Californians you spoke to are rather rudimentarily elucidating the same concept: 'if we don't kill them, they will kill us'. Unfortunately it may be at a point where the 'other means' of thwarting or defending what they would fear and define of as 'terrorists' in certain situations are not developed enough. In that case their violent solution can also be justified. That truly is an unsettling reality when it is at a point that violence as a solution can be justified on both ends. I always try to see the multiple sides of the argument, which is why , perhaps a rational education can bestow the ability upon the 'educated' to rationalize anything. Although, I do think these Californians could have chosen a more eloquent way to pose their rationalization.
Post a Comment