I am touched that we are (mostly) in agreement that the Chileans have
the right to be less than saddened at the arrest and probable
prosecution of Pinochet. But I think this is, to use DV's phrase, "too
easy." Pinochet may be an evil man. That I leave open; certainly the
sorts of things he ordered and allowed done to his fellow citizens are
repugnant enough. But have we forgotten the rest of the historical
record, as important as the mere fact of his dastardliness?
To wit: There would be no Pinochet without the United States. U.S.
business and government interests put Pinochet into, and kept him in,
power for most of his career. "He's a son of a bitch," I think Johnson
would have put it, "but he's our son of a bitch." The quote is the
dominant strand in the intellectual history of American third-world
policy this century ( a step up, I grant you, from "Remember the
Maine!")
So my question. Is it "justice" if an 83-year-old man (five will get
you ten he's on the way to the great lockup in the sky anyway; why can't
we get these assholes when they have something to lose in life?) pays
for not only his own sins (we can call them that.....?) but for those of
his accomplices, who go free unchastened? Had the Allies said, damn,
Hitler is dead, so let's forget about Himmler, Streicher, Goering et al
(not to mention little L's like Eichmann), I might be inclined to agree.
Muddying the water a bit, I should point out that Ford Motor Co. never
was held accountable for its initial support of (and its chairman's long
friendship with) Der Fuhrer.........
This message was brought to you by ITT. Have a nice day.
>From owner-foucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Mon Nov 30 16:50:35 1998
>Received: (from domo@localhost) by lists.village.virginia.edu
(8.8.5/8.6.6) id TAA62396 for foucault-outgoing; Mon, 30 Nov 1998
19:11:16 -0500
>Received: from sungod.ccs.yorku.ca
(bdvIiGDtxPTugAYiVKsNeSEzYM+op+E9@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [130.63.236.104])
by lists.village.virginia.edu (8.8.5/8.6.6) with ESMTP id TAA54450 for
<foucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Mon, 30 Nov 1998 19:11:07 -0500
>Received: from sunrise.ccs.yorku.ca
(Lvxuejh/S4Oj/8Jwe9hIGmSOgLm/U7x7@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [130.63.236.87])
by sungod.ccs.yorku.ca (8.8.7/8.6.11) with ESMTP id TAA01713 for
<foucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Mon, 30 Nov 1998 19:11:06 -0500
(EST)
>Received: from localhost (making@localhost) by sunrise.ccs.yorku.ca
(8.8.7/8.7.6) with ESMTP id TAA14466 for
<foucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Mon, 30 Nov 1998 19:11:05 -0500
(EST)
>X-Authentication-Warning: sunrise.ccs.yorku.ca: making owned process
doing -bs
>Date: Mon, 30 Nov 1998 19:11:05 -0500 (EST)
>From: Matthew King <making@xxxxxxxx>
>X-Sender: making@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>To: foucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>Subject: RE: disappeared
>In-Reply-To: <3.0.3.32.19981130172705.0068e4b4@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>Message-ID:
<Pine.SOL.4.05.9811301852110.13460-100000@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>MIME-Version: 1.0
>Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
>Sender: owner-foucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>Precedence: bulk
>Reply-To: foucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
>My stars. Who am I to cast aspersions on the desires of the Chileans?
>Who are *you*, Daniel, to get so worked up on their behalf? (Maybe you
>are someone; if so, well, fair enough.)
>
>I do not deny anyone who has been persecuted their *right* to revenge,
to
>the desire for revenge. It just seems to me that the world would be a
>nicer place if people would forego that right. I'd even venture that
they
>would feel better themselves, that the mania of revenge is not as
>satisfying as attaining a position where you *could* have revenge--and
the
>object of your potential revenge knows it--but you show your lack of
>consideration for the object by *not* taking revenge. (Which, indeed,
to
>answer someone else's question, would be the attitude of the overman.
See
>_Thus Spoke Zarathustra_, particularly the section titled "On the
>Tarantulas"). Who am I to say that? Well, no one. I just offer it
for
>consideration--and again, I do not deny the Chileans their *right* to
>revenge; I do not claim that they are *wrong* to react as they do; I do
>not claim that they *should* react otherwise.
>
>If this is conservatism, well, so be it. As Gabriel Ash said, I have
no
>keys to any dungeons.
>
>Matthew
>
> ---Matthew A. King---Department of Philosophy---York University,
Toronto---
> "Also take no heed unto all words that are spoken; lest thou hear
thy
> servant curse thee: For oftentimes also thine own heart knoweth
that
> thou thyself likewise hast cursed others."
>
-----------------------------(Ecclesiastes)--------------------------------
>
>
______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
the right to be less than saddened at the arrest and probable
prosecution of Pinochet. But I think this is, to use DV's phrase, "too
easy." Pinochet may be an evil man. That I leave open; certainly the
sorts of things he ordered and allowed done to his fellow citizens are
repugnant enough. But have we forgotten the rest of the historical
record, as important as the mere fact of his dastardliness?
To wit: There would be no Pinochet without the United States. U.S.
business and government interests put Pinochet into, and kept him in,
power for most of his career. "He's a son of a bitch," I think Johnson
would have put it, "but he's our son of a bitch." The quote is the
dominant strand in the intellectual history of American third-world
policy this century ( a step up, I grant you, from "Remember the
Maine!")
So my question. Is it "justice" if an 83-year-old man (five will get
you ten he's on the way to the great lockup in the sky anyway; why can't
we get these assholes when they have something to lose in life?) pays
for not only his own sins (we can call them that.....?) but for those of
his accomplices, who go free unchastened? Had the Allies said, damn,
Hitler is dead, so let's forget about Himmler, Streicher, Goering et al
(not to mention little L's like Eichmann), I might be inclined to agree.
Muddying the water a bit, I should point out that Ford Motor Co. never
was held accountable for its initial support of (and its chairman's long
friendship with) Der Fuhrer.........
This message was brought to you by ITT. Have a nice day.
>From owner-foucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Mon Nov 30 16:50:35 1998
>Received: (from domo@localhost) by lists.village.virginia.edu
(8.8.5/8.6.6) id TAA62396 for foucault-outgoing; Mon, 30 Nov 1998
19:11:16 -0500
>Received: from sungod.ccs.yorku.ca
(bdvIiGDtxPTugAYiVKsNeSEzYM+op+E9@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [130.63.236.104])
by lists.village.virginia.edu (8.8.5/8.6.6) with ESMTP id TAA54450 for
<foucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Mon, 30 Nov 1998 19:11:07 -0500
>Received: from sunrise.ccs.yorku.ca
(Lvxuejh/S4Oj/8Jwe9hIGmSOgLm/U7x7@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [130.63.236.87])
by sungod.ccs.yorku.ca (8.8.7/8.6.11) with ESMTP id TAA01713 for
<foucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Mon, 30 Nov 1998 19:11:06 -0500
(EST)
>Received: from localhost (making@localhost) by sunrise.ccs.yorku.ca
(8.8.7/8.7.6) with ESMTP id TAA14466 for
<foucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Mon, 30 Nov 1998 19:11:05 -0500
(EST)
>X-Authentication-Warning: sunrise.ccs.yorku.ca: making owned process
doing -bs
>Date: Mon, 30 Nov 1998 19:11:05 -0500 (EST)
>From: Matthew King <making@xxxxxxxx>
>X-Sender: making@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>To: foucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>Subject: RE: disappeared
>In-Reply-To: <3.0.3.32.19981130172705.0068e4b4@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>Message-ID:
<Pine.SOL.4.05.9811301852110.13460-100000@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>MIME-Version: 1.0
>Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
>Sender: owner-foucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>Precedence: bulk
>Reply-To: foucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
>My stars. Who am I to cast aspersions on the desires of the Chileans?
>Who are *you*, Daniel, to get so worked up on their behalf? (Maybe you
>are someone; if so, well, fair enough.)
>
>I do not deny anyone who has been persecuted their *right* to revenge,
to
>the desire for revenge. It just seems to me that the world would be a
>nicer place if people would forego that right. I'd even venture that
they
>would feel better themselves, that the mania of revenge is not as
>satisfying as attaining a position where you *could* have revenge--and
the
>object of your potential revenge knows it--but you show your lack of
>consideration for the object by *not* taking revenge. (Which, indeed,
to
>answer someone else's question, would be the attitude of the overman.
See
>_Thus Spoke Zarathustra_, particularly the section titled "On the
>Tarantulas"). Who am I to say that? Well, no one. I just offer it
for
>consideration--and again, I do not deny the Chileans their *right* to
>revenge; I do not claim that they are *wrong* to react as they do; I do
>not claim that they *should* react otherwise.
>
>If this is conservatism, well, so be it. As Gabriel Ash said, I have
no
>keys to any dungeons.
>
>Matthew
>
> ---Matthew A. King---Department of Philosophy---York University,
Toronto---
> "Also take no heed unto all words that are spoken; lest thou hear
thy
> servant curse thee: For oftentimes also thine own heart knoweth
that
> thou thyself likewise hast cursed others."
>
-----------------------------(Ecclesiastes)--------------------------------
>
>
______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com