From un-American to anti-American
It has probably come to the attention of a lot of people that
D. Rumsfeld has been in an uncomfortable position for the last few days. Under the
recent pressure, he has almost acted in a decent way, and even issue several
apologies, although his resignation is still lost in the fog of war.
As you might have guess, I am not a big fan of Rumsfeld, even
if I can appreciate his special and subtle sense of humor from time to time.
Nevertheless, I was a bit surprised by the opening of his speech in
front of the senate committee.
What Rumsfeld said:
"So to those Iraqis who were mistreated by members of
the U.S. armed forces, I offer my deepest apology. It was inconsistent with the
values of our nation. It was inconsistent with the teachings of the military, to
the men and women of the armed forces. And it was certainly fundamentally
un-American."
Full
text
Un -american ?!
The problem I have with this extract of
the speech, is with the use of the word
un-American instead of the word inhuman. Say I'm too much of a human right
activist but it seems that torture is first inhuman and have no nationality. But
I realized that I didn't know the meaning of un-american I was even thinking
that it was a Rumsfeld creation. But I went on my favorite on line dictionary
and get the following definition:
un-A·mer·i·can
adj.
Considered contrary to the institutions or principles of the United States.
It was making sense, torture was against the principles of
US. French doesn't have word for that concept, there is no un-French. May be
it was a Anglo-Saxon thing, thus I looked for un-English:
un-Eng·lish
adj.
-
Not having the characteristics of British people or
practices: The purple shutters on her house had a
decidedly un-English look.
-
Not in agreement with standard English usage.
-
It has different meaning than
un-American, it is about English characteristic, practice or language, nothing against the queen or any institution,
principle or policy.
But back to the speech, I couldn't find the word
inhuman in, which definition is, by the way:
in·hu·man
adj.
-
a. Lacking kindness, pity, or compassion; cruel.
See Synonyms at cruel.
b. Deficient in emotional warmth; cold.
-
Not suited for human needs: an
inhuman environment.
-
Not of ordinary human form; monstrous.
Doesn't it sound more appropriate, does it?
This is a brilliant demonstration of how to use a dictionary,
but what is the point?
I was wondering why Rumsfeld was using this world. Fortunately
I came across an article in "Le Monde" that was explaining that the
word was first used during the McCarthyism year to define all the hidden
enemies, presumably commies. I went even more confused: was Rumsfeld meaning that the torturers were
hidden enemies there to do some sabotage of the good work of the US army?
I though also that it was a gross call to the patriotism of
american people in a subtle attempt to remind them that US is in war.
I was also wondering if American people torture other American, would it be more
or less un-American?
And are inhuman and un-American always exchangeable?
I also start to think that it was also a way to highlight
the difference between American principles and any others, and putting American's
one at the top. Consequently , American people are first American and second
human. So you are first un-American and second inhuman. Thinking of the way
everything has been happening for the last three years, I wasn't much surprised
anymore by Rumsfeld vocabulary, it was even really typical from him and his family
of thinking: the neocon.
In my modest opinion, and with my limited
understanding of it, there is a mixture of arrogance,
self esteem and naivety carried in the attitude exhibited by Rumsfeld and
his friends. Some kind of religious belief in their own superiority over
anyone else. Laws, treaties and regulation are just fences to prevent them to
accomplish their fate, because they are the elite and they
do know. Better than American. Better than non American. Better than all
the people not sharing their views.
American complex of moral superiority or the theory of the
winners...
The way I picture it, Rumsfeld and co see the world as a kind
of strategy game in which US lead the score by far with an impressive and
indisputable hegemony spanning in the cultural, economic and military arena.
Such success is just fuelling all this philosophy: we have won, so we have
clearly higher principles and values, we are superior to everybody and thus we
don't need you, neither your advices or your help because you're loser.
The application of this ideology can have
really big consequences, notably on foreign policy.
The advantages of such a mentality is that you can feel
pretty free to do whatever you think is right. Fences are just there to be
jumped on. Morality is not relevant because you are the best and breaking the
law is OK as long as no one else know. If everything go smoothly according to
your plan, you are in a pretty good tactic position to handle anything.
The inconveniences of this attitude
become apparent in hard time, when things start to go wrong and become harder to manage. Mainly,
you have been building a wall made of misunderstanding and lack of
confidence brick after brick until reaching a state of isolation that the idea
of needing help and asking for it is both unbearable and indispensable.
Ultimately, it is a short view method because globalization
made the US and the remaining of the world increasingly connected and interdependent.
Both need to communicate and to build trusted relationship.
At the moment, anti-Americanism has rocketed everywhere. Europe,
Middle-East, South-America, Asia. But Neocon don't listen to their own people so why
should they listen to foreigners?
Am I anti-American?
I had always thought that I wasn't because I really have
nothing against American people as individual or as a nation. Most of the American i have met
were nice and lovely people. I have been in US and I quiet enjoyed it. I love a
lot of US cultural product. I also know how much Europe own to US from the last
century. More than all this argument, I hate generality as i believe
everybody to be different.
A last reading of my dictionary delude
me:
an·ti-A·mer·i·can
adj.
- Opposed or hostile to the government, official policies, or people of the
United States.
-
So I guess I'm anti American, because I do have a problem against US current
administration and its policies, though not against its people. Before stoning me, please do realize that
I'm a foreigner blogging on an American website, I don't spend my
time spreading hate and insulting you all the time. I came here because I wanted
to practice my English, but also because I was curious about normal American
people, the average Joe and the average Joe mentality.
I reckon my deep ignorance about you and your principle. But is the neo con
mentality really American? It seems to me that the whole torture story is just
another indication how un-American are this ideology. Its contempt for value
that I would think are american,such
as democracy, law and human right, has been associated to them in a numerous
occasion.
Ultimately are the ends justifying all
the means?
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/05/07/iraq/main616250.shtml
http://www.yourdictionary.com/