Lovin' America By Disparaging It At The Ground Zero Memorial

What the hell else is there to say? Even upon that sacred ground, as part of a memorial to the dead in the greatest single-day mass-slaughter in recent history, they just can't help themselves from injecting a bit of "sophisticated" anti-Americanism.

Karol's hoppin' mad:

Surely the memorial wouldn't be used as a hodge-podge of various criticisms on American history. Right? I mean, that would be crazy. What does our sad history of slavery have to do with 19 maniacs killing 3000 of our people in one horrible day? Or, aside from even America-bashing, what would raising the discussion of Ukrainian democracy or on the history of World War II add to our understanding or experience of 9/11? ...

The Museum of Natural History doesn't have exhibits on space rockets or other scientific marvels. The Metropolitan Museum of Art doesn't hold laser light shows that explain to children about astronomy (or Pink Floyd). The Vietnam memorial in DC didn't tag on a few names of war dead from the Korean war. There's a time and a place for everything. The museum at Ground Zero should have one purpose and one focus: to remember the people that we lost that sad day.

I don't get mad easily. Beyond just being a generally calm, happy person, I'm pretty used to arguing or disagreeing with people and maintaining a happy disposition. Whatever the argument, whether over Iraq or Chimpy McHalliburton, I don't feel that adrenaline rush that I once might've. I don't get angry. Well, this story is the first in a while that made my blood rush. How dare they want to use this place for this idiocy? How could it even be up for debate that some anti-American propaganda should be included?

For some, there's just never an inappropriate time to castigate America as evil.

See, that's how they show their "love" of country and patriotism. It's a higher love, you understand-- one that we couldn't hope to comprehend. The sort of love that expresses itself through constant vitriol.

Eh... A lot of guys, I'm told, do say that they show their love through smacking around their wives, just because they burned a casserole. How else they gonna learn?

But We Need "Perspective" and "Nuance" Update: Perspective and nuance are nice enough, I guess, but I notice liberals only seem to call for them in some situations.

Did any liberals call for "perspective" and "nuance" in response to the racist dragging death of James Byrd, for example? No they did not, and rightly so. It was a horror. There was no "perpsective" necessary to "contextualize" that horror.

Liberals did not recoil from calling that act by its proper name-- evil.

So spare me the claims that liberals are just such amazing thinkers and so supremely objective that they refuse to call evil by its name as a general matter. They can call evil by its name.

In some cases, however, they choose not to, and in fact recoil from attempts to elicit that word from their mouths.

Why the distinction?

I need it explained to me why the racist murder of one man is "evil" (PS, I agree with that assessment) but the racist/religious-maniacal mass-murder of 2800 calls for "context" and "balance."

I need that explained, and I need it explained pretty fucking quickly. I've been asking this question since 9-11 and no one is willing to tell me why it is, precisely, that we should despise James Byrd's killers but "understand the root causes" of Islamofascist rage at the West and its concommitant mass-slaughters.

Suppose we put up a memorial to James Byrd. (We probably have.) Now suppose I wanted a so-called "Tolerance Museum" to stand right next to it, in which I would display exhibits meant to explain the racist hatred of some whites against blacks-- the general animosity towards race-based quotas, the (sorry to bring it up, I know it's touchy) much-higher per-capita rates of ciminality among blacks, etc.

Liberals would scream. In fact, many conservatives would scream, too, and rightly so, as such an "Tolerance Museum" is either by design or by happenstance an apologia to some extent for the murder.

Racial tensions do need to be discussed... but not at a memorial for a man slain due to racist hatred.

Why is this such a difficult proposition for some on the left to comprehend?

posted by Ace at 04:23 PM

| Access Comments