File spoon-archives/postcolonial.archive/postcolonial_2001/postcolonial.0109, message 94


From: Hiswimr-AT-aol.com
Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2001 13:41:21 EDT
Subject: some random thoughts



--part1_15d.ddc0fa.28d0f841_boundary

Dear List Members:

First, I would like to thank those who have been posting messages and trying 
to create a dialogue about yesterday's events; it was helpful in situating my 
own feelings about the incident.

For a good part of the day yesterday I was glued to the TV set watching the 
events unfold, but for the most part I was unmoved. By rote, I called family 
in New York to learn if they were ok and called overseas to inform relatives 
that I was unharmed 
(typically I call them to see if they are ok). I was hypnotized by the images 
on TV but I was not upset; I was in shock at the extent of the attack (they 
were almost as accurate as cruise missiles) but not truly saddened. To some 
of you this will, no doubt, seem an utterly heartless reaction from any human 
being at the destruction of innocent lives (those people who were killed in 
the WTC for the most part ARE innocent; they play no greater role in American 
imperialism than I do).

But the reason I watched unaffectedly as the events unfolded, as if it were a 
billion dollar Hollywood production, is because I have been exposed to this 
type of violence and destruction on a large scale for so many years now. As a 
former resident of Sri Lanka, and one who reads the Sri Lankan news on a 
daily basis, I have come to know the effects of suicide bombs intimately. How 
can I not when the human bomb is part of daily life in that country, where it 
is the weapon of choice, and when for the last several years almost every day 
is marked by casualties in the on going war? Civilian deaths are a common 
occurrence and large scale destruction a consistent reality in other parts of 
the world. So should America be immune? Doesn't this, in the most bloody 
manner, make the world truly one?

My initial reaction to this attack on WTC was that "Terrorism IS terrorism 
wherever and whenever it happens." When the same acts that were committed in 
NYC occur overseas, in some cases the terrorists are construed as freedom 
fighters and CNN dedicates about 10 seconds to cover the entire story. For 
some time now, American policy has been that as long as terrorism happened 
elsewhere it has been ignored and relegated to the nonwestern or third world 
as a local problem, even when, in some cases, they sponsor it.

But then I thought (and have known for some time now) that although violence 
can never bring peace to the world (although Americans have insisted on this 
in relation to Hiroshima and Nagasaki) there are reasons why humans transform 
themselves into bombs. And although the state apparati both in the US and Sri 
Lanka would like to characterize the suicide bomber as the product of 
fanaticism, it is undeniable that there are specific factors and conditions 
that have produced this relatively new and rapidly spreading phenomenon. Some 
of those factors and conditions have already been mentioned by members of 
this list serve. 

So while I can begin to understand the "meaning" behind this "senseless" act, 
I feel compelled that violence, no matter who is behind it, should be 
rejected categorically. So while I condemn acts of American violence, I must 
also condemn those who target civilian populations whether it be the Tamil 
Tigers of Sri Lanka, or any state government (whether it be American, Sri 
Lankan, Israeli, and so on). I refuse to accept that terrorism is acceptable 
(or to be condoned) when carried out by the oppressed and the dispossessed, 
because, contrary to general opinion--that it makes us aware of injustice--it 
blinds far too many people. Or at the least, it makes us all so indifferent 
(like I was) when we see grown men and women jump to their death from the 
80th floor of a burning building. 

Call me naive if you wish, and I'm acutely aware that this is indeed a 
possibility, but I cling with desperation to the notion that we can still 
learn of the countless iniquities in our world and begin to address them in 
some way without piling destruction upon destruction. Do we not promote 
violence as a perpetual way of life if we condone it when the cause and the 
executor suit our purpose? If we do, what hope do we have for the future? Or 
do those words (hope and future) even mean anything anymore? 

Nalin J.

--part1_15d.ddc0fa.28d0f841_boundary

HTML VERSION:

Dear List Members:

First, I would like to thank those who have been posting messages and trying
to create a dialogue about yesterday's events; it was helpful in situating my
own feelings about the incident.

For a good part of the day yesterday I was glued to the TV set watching the
events unfold, but for the most part I was unmoved. By rote, I called family
in New York to learn if they were ok and called overseas to inform relatives
that I was unharmed
(typically I call them to see if they are ok). I was hypnotized by the images
on TV but I was not upset; I was in shock at the extent of the attack (they
were almost as accurate as cruise missiles) but not truly saddened. To some
of you this will, no doubt, seem an utterly heartless reaction from any human
being at the destruction of innocent lives (those people who were killed in
the WTC for the most part ARE innocent; they play no greater role in American
imperialism than I do).

But the reason I watched unaffectedly as the events unfolded, as if it were a
billion dollar Hollywood production, is because I have been exposed to this
type of violence and destruction on a large scale for so many years now. As a
former resident of Sri Lanka, and one who reads the Sri Lankan news on a
daily basis, I have come to know the effects of suicide bombs intimately. How
can I not when the human bomb is part of daily life in that country, where it
is the weapon of choice, and when for the last several years almost every day
is marked by casualties in the on going war? Civilian deaths are a common
occurrence and large scale destruction a consistent reality in other parts of
the world. So should America be immune? Doesn't this, in the most bloody
manner, make the world truly one?

My initial reaction to this attack on WTC was that "Terrorism IS terrorism
wherever and whenever it happens." When the same acts that were committed in
NYC occur overseas, in some cases the terrorists are construed as freedom
fighters and CNN dedicates about 10 seconds to cover the entire story. For
some time now, American policy has been that as long as terrorism happened
elsewhere it has been ignored and relegated to the nonwestern or third world
as a local problem, even when, in some cases, they sponsor it.

But then I thought (and have known for some time now) that although violence
can never bring peace to the world (although Americans have insisted on this
in relation to Hiroshima and Nagasaki) there are reasons why humans transform
themselves into bombs. And although the state apparati both in the US and Sri
Lanka would like to characterize the suicide bomber as the product of
fanaticism, it is undeniable that there are specific factors and conditions
that have produced this relatively new and rapidly spreading phenomenon. Some
of those factors and conditions have already been mentioned by members of
this list serve.

So while I can begin to understand the "meaning" behind this "senseless" act,
I feel compelled that violence, no matter who is behind it, should be
rejected categorically. So while I condemn acts of American violence, I must
also condemn those who target civilian populations whether it be the Tamil
Tigers of Sri Lanka, or any state government (whether it be American, Sri
Lankan, Israeli, and so on). I refuse to accept that terrorism is acceptable
(or to be condoned) when carried out by the oppressed and the dispossessed,
because, contrary to general opinion--that it makes us aware of injustice--it
blinds far too many people. Or at the least, it makes us all so indifferent
(like I was) when we see grown men and women jump to their death from the
80th floor of a burning building.

Call me naive if you wish, and I'm acutely aware that this is indeed a
possibility, but I cling with desperation to the notion that we can still
learn of the countless iniquities in our world and begin to address them in
some way without piling destruction upon destruction. Do we not promote
violence as a perpetual way of life if we condone it when the cause and the
executor suit our purpose? If we do, what hope do we have for the future? Or
do those words (hope and future) even mean anything anymore?

Nalin J.
--part1_15d.ddc0fa.28d0f841_boundary-- --- from list postcolonial-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---

Driftline Main Page

 

Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005