or Powell's or me• • •
"Mike and Jon, Jon and Mike—I've known them both for years, and, clearly, one of them is very funny. As for the other: truly one of the great hangers-on of our time."—Steve Bodow, head writer, The Daily Show
•
"Who can really judge what's funny? If humor is a subjective medium, then can there be something that is really and truly hilarious? Me. This book."—Daniel Handler, author, Adverbs, and personal representative of Lemony Snicket
•
"The good news: I thought Our Kampf was consistently hilarious. The bad news: I’m the guy who wrote Monkeybone."—Sam Hamm, screenwriter, Batman, Batman Returns, and Homecoming
January 20, 2008
What A Stroke Of Luck!
As Europeans set about colonizing the planet over the past 500 years, we were extremely lucky: all the people we enslaved/raped/murdered turned out not to value human life like we do. If they HAD valued human life like we do, then we would have had to either stop doing it, or feel bad about ourselves. Fortunately, it turned out neither was necessary. We could carry on with the enslavement/rape/murder, and do it with a light heart.
For example, here's Thomas Jefferson, writing about Africans in Notes on the State of Virginia:
Their griefs are transient. Those numberless afflictions, which render it doubtful whether heaven has given life to us in mercy or in wrath, are less felt, and sooner forgotten with them.
If this hadn't been the case, then Thomas Jefferson, with his moral refinement, couldn't have owned 187 slaves. And thank goodness, because then he wouldn't have had time to sit around philosophizing about how his slaves weren't sad that he enslaved them.
Later, the British got very lucky with Iraqis in the twenties. As Barry Lando explains in Web of Deceit (relying on the work of Priya Satia), they didn't mind being bombed:
"The natives of these tribes love fighting for fighting's sake," Chief of Air Staff Hugh Trenchard assured Parliament. "They have no objection to being killed." The military's argument was that, though the often indiscriminate air attacks might perturb some civilized folks back in London, such acts were viewed differently by the Arabs. As one British commander observed, "'[Shiekhs]...do not seem to resent...that women and children are accidentally killed by bombs."
If Iraqis had minded being bombed, then the British couldn't have seized all their oil. And the British needed that oil, because it powered the machines they used to bomb Iraqis.
More recently, America found out that Vietnamese people are absolutely fine having napalm sprayed on their children. Here's how Gen. William Westmoreland explained it in the documentary Hearts and Minds:
"The Oriental doesn't put the same high price on life as does a Westerner. Life is plentiful. Life is cheap in the Orient."
If Vietnamese had put the same high price on life as we do, then we wouldn't be able to live with ourselves as we killed millions of them in order to occupy their country. And if we couldn't occupy their country, how could we have killed so many of them?
All in all, lots of luck for everyone concerned. This is a lucky, lucky world.
MORE GOOD NEWS!: African slaves weren't just emotionally less sensitive than normal people, but physically less sensitive too:
Negroes...are void of sensibility to a surprising degree...what would be the cause of insupportable pain to a white man, a Negro would almost disregard.
What was great about this was that you could whip slaves without feeling bad about it, because it didn't hurt them. (Some people might ask: well, if it didn't hurt them, then...WHAT'S THE POINT? Some people are rightfully ignored.)
Are Arabs and Vietnamese also less physically sensitive than white people? I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess yes.
—Jonathan Schwarz
Posted at January 20, 2008 01:08 PMWell, sure "they" feel less pain. That's why doctors don't seem to prescribe as much pain medication for "them." (As seen in "The Sideshow" recently.)
Posted by: Kip W at January 20, 2008 03:59 PMWorks EVEN for the guy holding it--- Where there's whip, there's a way.
Posted by: Mike Meyer at January 20, 2008 06:29 PMAnd how about those Belgians? I mean, have you ever seen a Belgian (French or Flemish) express real grief or joy? Never. Well, hardly ever.
So, I say, let's invade (good beer and chocolate) and pretend it's to keep them from splitting.
They soon had this whole business boiled down to a science BTW: early black prizefighters would find that their opponents kept trying to hit them in the belly because they were perceived to be scientifically less sensitive about the face and jaw.
Posted by: En Ming Hee at January 20, 2008 07:29 PMAlso, take note: not all is lost. The sensitivity of human beings to emotional and physical pain can be increased with a steady diet of Big Macs.
Posted by: En Ming Hee at January 20, 2008 07:42 PMTheir griefs are transient. Those numberless afflictions, which render it doubtful whether heaven has given life to us in mercy or in wrath, are less felt, and sooner forgotten with them.
Whatever race issues are in here there is plenty of empirical evidence that supports that quote as a statement of fact; the idea that the more you have, the more you hurt. Suicide rates are highest, for example, in precisely the demographics and countries where most would intuit they should be the lowest; Japan, Sweden, USA middle-class whites.
It might not be pretty and it might not be the kind of sensibility you want but give Jefferson a break. He was an observer and a trail blazer in *many* arenas; considering his vantage point he did pretty damn well. The first draft of the Declaration of Independence, for example, has a serious statement against slavery (though, I'm one of those who believe Paine wrote the document so I'm using that unfairly). [The much discussed Jefferson DNA in black Americans today could have come from a couple of other male members of his family so don't include that as a retort without the qualification.] There are plenty of sincere monsters to make the point without dragging in the borderline cases for name recognition value.
It also makes one ask, What is the point of that post? The only thing that comes through is that whites/Europeans are bad. Sure, but it's a goofy and distracting point. Liberia denied the vote to their own "blacks" for 76 years, IIRC, longer than the US did. Why mention that? Blacks who should have known better, who went through the worst the world could serve at the time, went ahead and committed the same sins so blacks must be worse? If you change the word "blacks" for "persons" all that become truism, if a tautology.
So the point is perhaps that people in general, throughout all history and entirely regardless of color, class, or religion do bad things to each other? Mmmmmm. Good point. That will make everyone stop and think about fucking up Iran.
[I'm a fan, but this kind of post gains nothing. You can cover the same territory better. Or perhaps booster for an anti-war presidential candidate instead of muddying the waters with the issue that currently hurts the only guy who would definitely not fuck up Iran or incarcerate another 1,000,000 black kids; the real racists are revealed in their answer to question of pro or con on the Drug War.]
It also makes one ask, What is the point of that post?
To be honest, the main point is just me taking notes. Sticking stuff here is the easiest way for me to remember it for later, and I wanted to remember the Jefferson quote.
Beyond that, the point is just that whoever has power convinces themselves that the people they're beating the crap out of don't really mind. Over the past 500 years that's been Europeans more than others. But anyone else will behave exactly the same way if they have enough power.
Whatever race issues are in here there is plenty of empirical evidence that supports that quote as a statement of fact; the idea that the more you have, the more you hurt. Suicide rates are highest, for example, in precisely the demographics and countries where most would intuit they should be the lowest; Japan, Sweden, USA middle-class whites.
I think I'm going to need more evidence than that.
Posted by: Jonathan Schwarz at January 20, 2008 08:09 PMWhatever race issues are in here there is plenty of empirical evidence that supports that quote as a statement of fact; the idea that the more you have, the more you hurt.As Jonathan said - can we see the evidence. From my observations the heartbreak of a parent in "USA middle class whites" at the loss of a child is no different from that of a poorer (or browner) parent. Perhaps Ashley can share her experiences which suggest otherwise.
The only thing that comes through is that whites/Europeans are bad.No, what comes through is that oppression, slavery, slaughter and occupation are bad. And people find ways of justifying evil because they know what they are doing is evil. And it is a good idea to look at the beam in our eye rather than search for others who have done evil to justify what we have done. Posted by: empty at January 20, 2008 09:14 PM
dear ashley,
regarding your parenthetical statement :
[I'm a fan, but this kind of post gains nothing. You can cover the same territory better. Or perhaps booster for an anti-war presidential candidate instead of muddying the waters with the issue that currently hurts the only guy who would definitely not fuck up Iran or incarcerate another 1,000,000 black kids; the real racists are revealed in their answer to question of pro or con on the Drug War.]
please realize that not everything boils down to politics or electioneering, and that's one of the main reasons i like this bleargh more than most.
But anyone else will behave exactly the same way if they have enough power.
prime example: in india, we were expected to hate pakistani's and support indian aggression(in kashmir and other places) just because they were, you know paki's. it's gotten a bit better over the past 3-4 years or so, but that feeling is still there.
right, and from what I gather the Iranians are positively shivering with anticipation for all the MOABs, daisy cutters, cruise missiles, bunker busters and cluster bombs the USAF and USN will soon be thoughtfully dropping on their heads. they seem to get that's it's for their own good. sensible people, the Persians.
Posted by: ran at January 20, 2008 11:04 PMAshley: "People do bad things to each other" is one lesson of nearly any remotely political commentary (at least any that's worth reading)—if that's as deep as you're willing or able to go. And if that's all you got from this brief but illuminating and useful look at the role that dehumanization plays in oppression, you gave it a shallow reading indeed.
(Apparently in large part because you were tweaked by Jon's observation about Jefferson. Yes, Jefferson was a trailblazer in many areas, but that's absolutely irrelevant to Jon's point that part of the reason he was able to spend his time blazing trails and thinking deep thoughts was that he'd stolen the freedom of nearly 200 human beings—and had convinced himself of utter absurdities to help him do it in good conscience. Again, something useful and important to think about.)
I figured these posts were supposed to be a sort of verbal Rorschach test. This one looks like upper management's human relations directives for subordinates.
Or, if you tilt it a little, rabid dogs devouring a bloated carcass.
Posted by: buermann at January 21, 2008 02:34 AMDarn. I guess the spiffy new pain guns (
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Active_Denial_System ) won't work on Iraqis. Or maybe they'll just have to turn them up a bit.
Speaking of suicide, the topic is discussed in the early part of Taleb's The Black Swan, which I was reading yesterday. Taleb was a teenager in Lebanon when the civil war there broke out, and a "quant" (quantitative analyst and trader) on Wall Street during the sudden and puzzling Crash of 1987. He stated that more people killed themselves in the latter circumstances (suddenly being wiped out financially) than the former (human-made hell all around them).
There are probably reasons for this. But one of Taleb's main points is that we are very good at using our intellects to develop retrospective explanations, being able to make up plausible stories about why something has happened. We are less good at observing what is happening now, understanding its consequences, and consequently predicting what is going to happen. But - we keep telling ourselves we ARE good at the latter - and if we are lucky a few times in a row, we are certain that we are right.
Which reminds me of Vonnegut - one of Bokonon's rhymes from Cat's Cradle:
Tiger got to hunt
Bird got to fly
Man got to ask himself why, why, why
Tiger got to sleep
Bird got to land
Man got to tell himself he understand
re: Suicide.
A possible explanation: when you have nothing, you turn inwards. That's where your identity comes from. When your identity is founded in status, it is founded in possessions.
When these are lost, the identity is shattered. Purpose is destroyed.
An inner identity can be damaged, or even shattered e.g. by torture, but it is much more robust being founded in something less transient, the self.
c.f.
http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/matthew/matthew6.htm#foot13
It is a perceived lack of purpose that leads to suicide in most cases, AIUI.
Posted by: me at January 22, 2008 07:51 AMI think "me" has a point, but I'm not sure what this suicide question has to do with the question of "hurting more". If you commit suicide, it doesn't necessarily mean you hurt more than someone who doesn't. Maybe you have different values, or different brain chemistry, or simply a weaker character or a more shallow outlook on life. It doesn't mean your pain is actually more.
Posted by: Serafina at January 22, 2008 10:11 AMOh, and also, I question our ability to obtain statistics on the number of suicides that take place in really horrible conditions. How would you find out about that? If someone wanted to commit suicide in a warzone, they could just walk into the right street and it would look like any other war-killing. And who would report these suicides, and to whom? Who would do the data collection, and with what methodology? If a slave committed suicide, how would a historian many years later find out about it, unless the master happened to take some special note of it?
It's easier to find this kind of information about people living in relatively free and stable conditions.
Posted by: Serafina at January 22, 2008 10:14 AM
