4.0910 On the Discussion of War (6/119)

Elaine Brennan & Allen Renear (EDITORS@BROWNVM.BITNET)
Sun, 20 Jan 91 17:04:06 EST

Humanist Discussion Group, Vol. 4, No. 0910. Sunday, 20 Jan 1991.


(1) Date: Thu, 17 Jan 91 10:22:42 MDT (34 lines)
From: Skip <DUSKNOX@IDBSU>
Subject: Re: 4.0906 War

(2) Date: Thu, 17 Jan 91 14:24 EDT (18 lines)
From: "Leslie Z. Morgan" <MORGAN@LOYVAX>
Subject: RE: 4.0906 War

(3) Date: Sat, 19 Jan 91 16:59 PST (18 lines)
From: KESSLER <IME9JFK@UCLAMVS.BITNET>
Subject: Re: 4.0896 Responses ... on War ... and Metaphor

(4) Date: Thu, 17 Jan 91 13:05:13 EST (20 lines)
From: Germaine Warkentin <WARKENT@vm.epas.utoronto.ca>
Subject: Gulf War

(5) Date: Thu, 17 Jan 91 17:18 EST (21 lines)
From: "DAVID L. BARR" <DBARR@WSU.BITNET>
Subject: War and Discussion

(6) Date: Fri, 18 Jan 91 02:57 PST (8 lines)
From: Jack Kolb <IKW4GWI@MVS.OAC.UCLA.EDU>
Subject: Re: 4.0896 On War

(1) --------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 17 Jan 91 10:22:42 MDT
From: Skip <DUSKNOX@IDBSU>
Subject: Re: 4.0906 War

My only objection to having the war discussed on HUMANIST is that the
war is being discussed on scores of lists and after a while one gets
tired of the same arguments over and over. I don't regard this as`
specialization.

Discussion here would be justified if we could somehow give a humanistic
spin to it. Is there a specifically "humanist" way to talk about war --
this war or any other? Willard McCarty has repeatedly tried to get us
to clarify ourselves on the matter, and I share his interest.

If humanism is a philosophy that puts humanity at the center of things,
then at least we could broach the subject of war in those terms. War
ought not be justified (or condemned) in terms of eternal verities --
religion, "peace," or other abstractions that somehow float above
humankind. I see the official justifications for war being very much
humanist, and I would contrast the UN's position with Hussein's
fulminations, which invoke religion and super-human truths at every
turn.

But, is there such a thing as a Humanist contribution to the debate?
Although I don't think much of rhetorical analysis, I do see that
article as a real and specifically humanist contribution to the
discussion. I hope to see others (let's hear from the historians!).
But if all we are going to do is spout our opinions, well we can do
that on a hundred other lists and the opinions don't become more
respectable or weighty for having been posted here.

Ellis 'Skip' Knox, Ph.D.
Historian, Data Center Associate
Boise State University DUSKNOX@IDBSU.IDBSU.EDU
(2) --------------------------------------------------------------22----
Date: Thu, 17 Jan 91 14:24 EDT
From: "Leslie Z. Morgan" <MORGAN@LOYVAX>
Subject: RE: 4.0906 War


I, too, would like to vote in favor of discussion of war. It is at
times very hard to know what to think in this situation: one cannot help
but think of World War II on the one hand, and Korea and Vietnam on the
other. A lot of one's political leanings derive from point of view; for
those of us without an immediate tie (i.e., no relatives involved, no
oil magnates in the family, whatever) it is certainly worthwhile to hear
educated people with admitted views defend them. I, having completed
high school and college during the Vietnam era, am very nervous about
young men dying in a hostile environment and possible future drafts.
There is also the problem of the USSR and the distraction value of the
Middle East crisis. In short, keep talking. We all learn, even if we
disagree with some or all of the premises of the speaker!
Leslie Morgan
(3) --------------------------------------------------------------358---
Date: Sat, 19 Jan 91 16:59 PST
From: KESSLER <IME9JFK@UCLAMVS.BITNET>
Subject: Re: 4.0896 Responses on ... War ... and Metaphor

Personally, I do not mind the discussion of ANYTHING, on Humanist,
because nothing human should be alien to a Humanist. But, I must say,
I recall that in 1974, when I was touring the Western States with a
program in Humanities for small towns under the aegis of the NEH, I was
amused, together with my accompanying crew, to find a marquee above the
entrance to Placerville Community College, in the Motherlode country of
Placerville County of California, that announced, WELCOME,
HUMANITARIANS! This confusion in the popular mind, so called, between a
Humanist and a Humanitarian seems to be present among our colleagues,
some of whose handwringing and/or doubts about the suitability of war
as a subject displays a disappointing similarity with it. Would
Socrates have not discussed War? But the level of his discussion would
have made Lakoff ashamed of his puerile analysis, and by puerile, I
mean just that, Freshman level. Kessler here.
(4) --------------------------------------------------------------27----
Date: Thu, 17 Jan 91 13:05:13 EST
From: Germaine Warkentin <WARKENT@vm.epas.utoronto.ca>
Subject: Gulf War

I am sorry Stephen Clausing has to make his case by accusing those who
wish to speak out of pretending to "moral superiority" or special
status. On CBC news the other morning Kurt Vonnegut was interviewed as
he left the demonstration then going on at Columbia University. He said
very simply but firmly that he was concerned as a citizen and as a
father. I am a citizen too, and of a country which has (in my view
wrongly) gone to war in support of the UN coalition. And I am a mother.
I am neither superior nor special, just a human being with a different
point of view. I have no relatives in the forces of any country, but
the missiles and gas will fall on dear friends in Israel. It seems to
me the responses of Lucinda Jassel and Randal Baier offer much for
thought here. Another correspondent suggested that what was really
important was talking not about our right to speak, but about the issues
themselves. I await that discussion with interest and warm
encouragement. Germaine.

(5) --------------------------------------------------------------27----
Date: Thu, 17 Jan 91 17:18 EST
From: "DAVID L. BARR" <DBARR@WSU.BITNET>
Subject: War and Discussion


I find some irony in the last posting on the war, wherein Stephen
Clausing's obscurantist call for silence was followed by Judy Koren's
eloquent setting forth of a not-unlikely scenario that explains some of
the most baffling aspects of this war (such as Bush's intransigent
refusal to allow Saddam any face-saving).

Perhaps Clausing's friends only engage in political posturing and moral
one-upmanship, but some academics are still capable of discussing issues.
Perhaps he should consider resigning his academic position. The tone,
rhetoric, call for stiffling of dissent seem ill-suited to that arena.
I don't mean this to be ad hominem, but I am deeply offended by this
call for my silence. (Though I doubt I would have spoken out without
the provocation!)

David L. Barr, University Honors Program, Wright
State University, Dayton, OH 45435 dbarr@wsu
(6) --------------------------------------------------------------270---
Date: Fri, 18 Jan 91 02:57 PST
From: Jack Kolb <IKW4GWI@MVS.OAC.UCLA.EDU>
Subject: Re: 4.0896 Responses Part II: Humanist, War, and Metaphor

Can't we deconstruct Iraq? Or chart the relative penile lengthy of
Saddam Huss ein and George Bush? This war is fertile ground for
contemporary critics.