In my opinion, attempts to pooh-pooh Islamicism and direct our attention away from its dangers in the direct aftermath of the WTC attack is misdirection, nor do I think I have displayed a closed mind because I have dared to say so.
Nadine,
My apologies for not getting back to you fairly quickly. I was almost out the door for a day trip yesterday when I typed my reply. Just now getting back on SI. And I will not have read the posts. 233 since I logged off yesterday.
Also, on the category of "Islamicism", I'm unfamiliar with that. Care to bring me up to date?
I have a couple of points to make. The first is a more specific version of the general one. The general one is that it's generally unwise to dismiss arguments on the basis of personal characteristics of the arguer. I say "generally" because I can imagine circumstances where it is relevant. But, in general, one's learning is diminished by doing so.
As for Said, specifically, I think the loss is much greater. Whatever you may think, he is clearly, as a literary theorist, one of the dominant intellectuals of our time. He has also been remarkable clear, at least for an academic, about his political convictions. It would be dumb to the point of believing the editorials in Investor Business Daily to read that Nation essay without knowing about those convictions. But that hardly makes the argument wrong. Particularly, the argument that Huntington gets it all wrong when he over generalizes. And that such over generalization contributes to very bad policy. To date, the Bushies appear to have avoided that mistake, though this typer worries about Wolfowitz (hope I spelled that correctly).
Probably time to end this exchange, either now or with your reply. Or we will run the danger of creating a thread on Said rather than Ken's attempt to have one on international policy.
John |
