Interesting post from Bjørn Stærk's blog:
Tuesday March 25, 2003
All in a days work 20:25 CET by Bjørn Stærk
I've stumbled into a few discussions about Americans, Bush and the war over the last couple of months, and there are some points I've learned from experience that it's sensible to focus on from the beginning of a discussion, because (though seemingly obvious) they seem to make people here genuinely surprised. Other topics I've learned to avoid, or at least not be the first to mention, because preconceptions people have about them are too strong to disprove without a lot of evidence at hand. One important point I feel compelled to make all the time, one that falls in the first category, is that there are many ordinary, intelligent Americans who support the war on Iraq based on intellectual reasoning. Norwegians see Bush (who we don't trust) on TV, and then we see a lot of people waving flags. It often doesn't occur to us that it's possible to have really thought this issue through, to be well-informed about the Middle East, and still support Bush. I know that it is, (as I know that it's just as possible to well-informed and disagree with Bush), because I read sensible pro-war American pundits and bloggers, (and a lot of well-informed people send me mail and write comments in my blog), but most Norwegians don't. We only see Bush, and we really, really don't trust him.
One topic that falls in the avoid-at-all-cost category - I've burned myself on this repeatedly - is censorship and media bias. I've had a colleague who claims to read that paper regularly inform me that the New York Times is practically a spokespiece for the Republican party, uncritical of Bush and the war, and that it has become so only during the last year. How do you argue with something like that? How do you disprove censorship and media conspiracies? How do you explain the difference between media consensus, (which the US has to some extent, and Norway to a larger), and media censorship?
Again a point in the first category, one that I make sure to explain, is not only that September 11 fundamentally changed how Americans view the outside world, but in what way it changed it. I understand that change of perspective very well, because I was inside the cultural blast zone when it happened, so to speak. I didn't just read about the anger, surprise and sadness, I felt it. Like many Americans, I stumbled around in shock for many days after September 11, (and then I started this blog). Norwegians felt this too - the sympathy was genuine - but much less strongly, and they often seem ignorant about the nature of the change that ocurred. As I see it, 9/11 made Americans realize two things, (as it made me realize them): 1) The Middle East is deeply rotten. 2) Their problems are now our problems. Nothing that has happened since can be understood without these two things in mind - certainly not the willingness of the American people to support a war on Iraq without court-solid evidence that Saddam is a major threat to the world.
This change of perspective also probably affects tolerance for American casualties in war. Common wisdom in Norway has it that the US is extremely sensitive to casualties, and that as soon as the reality of war dawns upon them, as soon as cracks begin to appear in their ultra-clean video game perception of the war, they will realize that they have made a tragic mistake. No doubt the US is sensitive to casualties, as all peaceful democracies are, but less so, I think, than before, and less so than other peaceful democracies. Even so, Norwegian reporting from the US ceaselessly focuses on the shift in public opinion that is expected to come about any minute now. We campaigned against this war like we campaigned against Vietnam, and as far as we know the Americans still live in Vietnam's shadow, so naturally we cover the American peace movement as the 60's peace movement in the process of being reborn. (In reality, of course, it's more like the corpse of the 60's peace movement being brought back to life. Like in Pet Sematary, it may look like the 60's peace movement, and it may sound like the 60's peace movement, but there's no life left inside.)
It might seem somewhat surreal to American readers that I seem to spend more time here in Norway trying to explain that the US really is a democracy, that it does have freedom of speech, and that the proportion of idiots to well-informed people is not significantly higher there than here, (not even among the hawks), than I do discussing the war itself, but that's the way it is. It's all in a days work for -- US Apologist Man!
bearstrong.net |
