The New York Times podcast The Daily recently aired an episode about Rudy Giulani's involvement with the Trump administration.
At the start of the episode, there was a clip from a speech Giulani made just after 9/11:
RUDY GIULIANI (R), THEN-MAYOR OF NEW YORK CITY: We do not want these cowardly terrorists to have us in any way alter our American way of life. This may go on for some time. We have to end terrorism. I believe the United States government is committed to that. And it's going to require us here in America to go about our way of life and not have them imperil it.
Giulani calls the terrorists "cowardly." He's not the only person to do so. I don't think this is an apt description of a group of of people that hijacked four commercial jet airliners with utility knives and then steered the planes-- kamikaze style-- toward symbolic American targets. While I understand the need to denigrate and insult the terrorists, the last thing they were was "cowardly." It shows a lack of understanding of the enemy.
These people were sanguinary and vengeful and zealous and fanatical and lacking perspective and empathy for other cultures. But mainly, they were true believers, blinded by a certain political position. They were haters, haters of American policy, American military deployment in their Holy Land, haters of American capitalist morality, and American unilateral success on the world stage.
But to call them cowards is to sell them short. It doesn't reflect just how fervently they believed in what they believed. They believed enough to kill and die. In doesn't reflect how dangerous it is to believe in something so strongly that you can't look at other points of view.
Whether it's Islamic terrorists, or our own homegrown right-wing variety of fanatic, you need to accurately assess the motivations of these people. And these people aren't cowards. They are willing to commit violent acts, and often willing to die for their beliefs.
Shakespeare understood this, and Giulani would be well served by re-reading the Bard's most famous soliloquy, the one in Hamlet that begins "to be or not to be."
The context of the speech is that Hamlet is royally fucked up, and he's been royally screwed over. He's been through enough betrayal and heartache that he contemplates suicide. He acknowledges-- correctly-- that his life is a shitshow and that he should probably "take arms against a sea of troubles" and end it. It's "a consummation devoutly to be wish'd."
He doesn't kill himself. In fact, the play goes on another two hours. Hamlet might be a coward-- that's another post-- but more significantly, he recognizes why most people don't commit suicide-- and why he's not going to commit suicide. People don't behave that rashly because of "the dread of something after death."
The unknown.
He doesn't want to rush headlong into the undiscovered country" that "puzzles the will." He's not sure what will happen in the afterlife, "what dreams may come" once his life is over. And he's not going to risk it.
Obviously, he has not heard about the 72 virgins.
Hamlet is religious, but still rationally skeptical. The 9/11 terrorists-- and guys like Patrick Crusius-- do not have this fear. It's scary, how strongly they believe in their convictions. There's no shadow of a doubt in their minds.
Most normal folks-- and even folks like Hamlet, folks that are struggling but still rational-- let their "conscience" turn them cowardly. We lack fervor and unshaking faith, and so our "resolution is sicklied o'er with the pale cast of thought." This cowardice is a blessing in disguise because "enterprises of great pitch and moment . . . lose the name of action."
A lot of these enterprises are downright crazy, and could use reflection and reconsideration. Hamlet takes this to the extreme, and we love him for it.
There are plenty of applicable insults to aim at terrorists. They are rabid and crazed and virulent. But they certainly stand by the courage of their convictions, and that is the problem. They are the anti-Hamlet. They actually complete these suicidal actions, and this -- according to Shakespeare-- is the reverse of cowardly. All us cowards go on living our day to day lives, suffering "slings and arrows," not sure what is to come. That's civilized behavior
Though being devoted is often considered a positive trait, I believe we all need to be a little less loyal, a little less faithful, and a little less principled. It leads down a dangerous road. Instead, let's try to be a little more capricious, a little more detached. Let's be skeptical and occasionally disinterested. Maybe even a little more cowardly. If the terrorists adopted a few of these negative characteristics, the world would be a better place.
How many uncowardly terrorists are being created as we speak in northern Syria?
ReplyDeleteThose who do not know, read, listen to, comprehend, or even attempt to learn history are doomed to repeat it at the cost of many others.
Too cowardly to take it out on the pitch, Dave. Rugby, cricket, soccer. Hell, there were enough of them to field an Aussie rules football team...
ReplyDeleteyeah, it's too bad trump's such a dingbat. syria is really going to suffer, and we actually made headway there. great article about it in the "atlantic: this month . . .
ReplyDeleteit's written by the "black hawk down" guy mark bowen
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2019/11/military-officers-trump/598360/
neil . . . explanation?
ReplyDeletehttps://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2019/09/identity-fusion-trump-allegiance/598699/
ReplyDeleteI don’t know if I buy his argument that Trump supporters have fused their identities with their leader, but if I did, I guess I’d be saying they have something in common with terrorists as you describe them.
that's pretty crazy-- i can't imagine that's the case for most trump voters, but perhaps some. i do think people like his "brand" and don't really care much about his individual policy decisions. but i'm hoping most trump supporters have a much better sense of humor and irony than 9/11 terrorists.
ReplyDeleteWe had a little birthday party at work today for one of my colleagues. He owns a sailboat and he took it out of the water recently, and somehow or other the conversation turned to removing barnacles. I channelled my inner Dave and noted that Charles Darwin was a tremendous expert on barnacles, and that the bulk of his work focused on them, not evolution. Another colleague, a really nice guy with whom I get along well--despite the fact that he is an NRA member with the bumper sticker to prove it, an ardent Fox News viewer and conspiracy fan, and of course an unwavering Trump supporter--looked me dead in the eye and said "There's a lot of convincing evidence against that." I knew what he meant but I said nothing so he added "Against evolution I mean, not barnacles." I'm open to discuss both sides of almost any issue. Unfortunately, evolution falls into the "almost" carve-out. But he really is a nice guy so I summoned every ounce of restraint I have and said nothing until he went back to eating cake. All of this is to say that I agree with this post: some people have to latch onto dogma with all their heart and never let it go, whether it's God, the God-given right to guns, or the great and unmatched wisdom of politicians. Sometimes this gives society great stuff like churches. Other times it gives us not so great stuff like Trump. So instead of latching onto dogma I latch onto beer bottles.
ReplyDeletethat's some heroic keeping your mouth shut . . . i would have been curious about the convincing evidence.
ReplyDeleteFossil were planted there by pseudo-scientists!
ReplyDeletepseudo scientists were planted by dinosaurs!
ReplyDeleteAnd it was hard for them to use a shovel because dinosaurs didn’t have opposable thumbs.
ReplyDelete