Belated Answer
September 20th, 2006 | by Craig |A few days ago, I posted this little ditty in which I posed a hypothetical question, “Based on past behavior, does a victim deserve what they get?”
The answer was, publicly and privately an overwhelming, “No!”
Which is what I expected.
So, to follow up with my observations: Why do so many on the left (and far right) say that the U.S. “deserved” 9/11?
If you believe that the U.S. deserved 9/11, please explain the disconnect, ‘cuz I just don’t get it.
Much of the “justification” that I’ve heard boils down to: “Well, the U.S. has behaved badly before, so, really, we kind of deserve it.”
So, I ask, how is this different?
20 Responses to “Belated Answer”
By Chad on Sep 20, 2006 | Reply
Oooh, nice setup!
By Craig on Sep 21, 2006 | Reply
I kinda thought I telegraphed it, what with the long wind-up and all.
By Chad on Sep 21, 2006 | Reply
Maybe I’m just an obtuse liberal. I missed it entirely. Well, not entirely — I noticed it wasn’t your usual style of post.
I guess you’re still waiting for an answer, eh?
By Craig on Sep 21, 2006 | Reply
Chad, you are many things. Obtuse is not one of them.
By Chad on Sep 21, 2006 | Reply
It’s interesting to me how this comment thread has gone five deep so far with only you and I posting on it.
I’ll come clean here — I almost fell for your little trap. I almost said that, hell yes people deserve what they get, but I didn’t because I’m not quite sure I believe that.
And that would have made me quite the hypocrite, as I didn’t believe that we deserved what we got on September 11th.
Which is completely ass-backwards from what you were going for, but what the hell.
By Jeff on Sep 21, 2006 | Reply
I kinda wonder if anyone who believes we deserved 9/11 reads your blog, Craig. What makes you think it’s a popular position?
By Craig on Sep 21, 2006 | Reply
Well, at least one does.
It’s just something that struck me, Jeff. If it doesn’t do anything for you, then just walk away; it never happened.
By Jeff on Sep 21, 2006 | Reply
I wouldn’t be surprised if Mark believes such a thing, but that post certainly doesn’t show it.
I’m just curious. Your question is certainly fair to people who believe that and I realize this isn’t the point of your post. It’s just that I see people say some on the left believe such things and that it’s significant number of people, but I simply don’t encounter it.
By Colby Natale on Sep 21, 2006 | Reply
To the point made by Mark’s post, why can’t there be a difference between the idea that you “deserve” what you got, based on the past, and the idea that “what goes around, comes around”? I think Mark is going for the latter, which is different. The U.S. did not deserve to get attacked, but perhaps its occruence is not surprising based on our past history.
One should point out that Mark’s post involved the government itself, and 9/11 decidedly involved ordinary citizens. I am sure the people who died on 9/11 (2001) did not directly aid the overthrow in 1973, so they didn’t deserve anything.
By Chad on Sep 22, 2006 | Reply
One nit I’ve just got to pick there:
I am having a really hard time wrapping my head around how there can possibly be a meaningful difference between the concepts of “‘deserving’ what you got based on the past” versus “what goes around comes around”. Maybe you can explain that better, because that’s just going in one big circle for me.
I am beginning to believe that the meme of America getting what it deserved on 9/11 is maybe less percasive than I first thought. It’s hard, but not impossible, to find evidence on the internet of people believing this directly. But what is more common, much much more common is people attributing either those words to someone else, or the concept expressed in some different way that someone has gelled to mean that we got what we deserved.
I certainly know that I’ve encountered it maybe twice in person, but in all honesty, it seems that the indignance is perhaps greater than the action.
Which I’m not sure is such a bad thing. I’ll have to consider that further.
By Craig on Sep 22, 2006 | Reply
Jeff–
Perhaps my travels around the intarwebs have left me with the impression that it’s a growing sentiment. I have nothing to back it up other than I saw it a lot a couple of weeks ago.
I thought Mark had made a post about the US deserving it, but I think it must have been a comment elsewhere. I didn’t look too hard for it, so I took the first convenient post. My bad.
Karmic retribution is something else entirely. I mean, who didn’t do a little happy dance when Jeff Dahmer bought it in prison? I’d be lying if I told you I didn’t (and maybe even still do) think he got what he deserved.
But, still, a nation — in and of itself — is amoral. Was the USSR an “evil empire?” Not really, but the guys who were at the wheel were not very nice, to say the least.
By Mark T on Sep 23, 2006 | Reply
Would love to comment in my own defense. WIll this get through?
By Steve T. on Sep 23, 2006 | Reply
The idea that liberals are always “blaming America first” has become so pervasive in right wing news and talk shows that some simply just take it as gospel.
There is nothing wrong with using the events of 9/11 as an opportunity for some retrospection on our foreign policy. That anyone has to come here and tell you that that doesn’t mean we believe those people deserved to die is a little ridiculous.
By Craig on Sep 23, 2006 | Reply
Calm down, Steve. I cited Mark as one example; perhaps an iffy one at that.
Surely you’re not suggesting that there aren’t any folks on the left who do believe that? Besides, I think when your knee jerked, you missed reading some of my post.
Here’s the relevant quotes:
Then I asked:
So if you don’t believe it, you’re off the hook.
You protest overmuch, methinks.
This is the comment I remembered, but was too lazy to dig up at the time:
Those weasel words at the end try to negate the previous paragraphs, but really don’t do the job.
By Steve T. on Sep 23, 2006 | Reply
All that looks like is a little foreign policy retrospective. I guess that’s not allowed in your book.
I read your post, and all the comments in it. You have yet to prove your point.
By Craig on Sep 23, 2006 | Reply
Well, I try to ’splain it to ya, simple as I can.
1.) I used a movie as a Macguffin to get to the point that most people don’t think that a person should be vicitimized due to their past behavior. I think I made that one, more or less.
2.) I used that as an allegory to ask why some people (on the left and the right) say that the U.S. deserved what we got, due to our past actions.
It’s really nothing more than a thought experiment. Nowhere did I say that we shouldn’t be reflective on our past foreign policy decisions. To the contrary, I think todays actions should be informed by our past mistakes.
The Griz are on now, so I’ll catch you at halftime.
By Steve T. on Sep 23, 2006 | Reply
The fact is that you used Mark T.’s foreign policy retrospective as an example of someone who believed America deserved what they got. This is very much off base. That I took it as a shot at all liberals was off base on my part.
For you to call Mark’s attempt at keeping things in context “weasel words” only shows that you are seeing a lot into that post that simply is not there.
I’m gonna have a busy time at work this evening because of those damned Griz, so perhaps I will catch you tomorrow. Enjoy the game.
By Craig on Sep 23, 2006 | Reply
The passage I’ve quoted is a whole litany of wrongs followed by the phrase “We’ve done stuff.” Up to there, it sure sounds like, “We deserved it.” Mark has said repeatedly that he enjoys figuratively poking folks in the eye for enjoyment, so I’m inclined to take the semi-apology at the end with a grain of salt.
As for your having to work hard because of the Griz, I have to agree with Nelson when he says, “Ha ha!”
By Craig on Sep 23, 2006 | Reply
Totally off-topic, but someone forgot to let Sac State know that there was a football game on today.