> > which is what a lot of folks in the political "middle" think about ObL Inc.
> > they say, "sure, there's lots of problems in the ME, problems we caused,
> > but most people don't engage in terrorism. doesn't really cut it."
> >
> >
> > kelley
>
>
>Though I'm not sure I see the relevance of your remarks to the ones that I
>posted,
i was pointing out that an argument you feel comfortable with--that some actions aren't excusable (even when accounting for structural factors (social conditions))--is the very argument many folks are using in their understanding of the ME and ObL Inc (+taliban). my students from poor neighborhoods use the same reasoning as you did in class when we do the unit i entitle, tongue-in-cheekily, "it's the economy stupid". we look at a poor white deinustrializing rural town, a white dindustrializing suburban enclave, and a deindustrializing urban inner city. all three areas have problems with teen pregnancy/motherhood, "wilding boys", and public violence.
after reading Eli Anderson's work, _Code of the Streets_ and _Streetwise_, my students--all people of color and many of them trying to get off welfare--invariably say that they really dig the sociological analysis. they understand and have the tools to elaborate further that it's not solely a culture of poverty, it's not about race or ethnicity, that there are higher teen pregnancy rates, higher rates of single motherhood, or higher rates of public violence, etc. rather, it's the economy, stupid.
it's a wonderful moment to see them get it and master the tools they need to articulate this -- the sociological imagination.
however, invariably they also say, BUT, i don't care, there are some people who are assholes. some behavior is not tolerable. i can understand why they do it. BUT, i live in the same world, under the same conditions and i haven't engaged in the same behavior.
which brings us back to the analogies people were making with how to deal with crime.
i just think that, if you, steve, want to have an unforgiving attitude toward one single guy who made a mistake he regrets, then you and others might try to understand that, since you're capable of the same reasoning as that which others are making in their assessments of this idiotic war, then you might understand why some folks have an unforgiving attitude toward ObL Inc and now the Taliban.
kelley
> i would instead calim that it doesn't really matter much whether
>it cuts it or not. The issue at hand is not whether one supports the
>resort to terrorism, since very few (aside from perhaps, say, Ward
>Churchill) support the turn of some to WTC/P attacks on civilians. What is
>more important is asking what conditions (structural factors to borrow
>from your lexicon) give rise to the likelihood that persons will resort to
>that strategy as one of a number of alternatives? If, for example, a
>'middle' American would argue that US active support for Bin Laden types
>in Afghanistan, support of Israeli settlements, etc. etc. etc. doesn't
>increase the likelihood that #s of persond turnign to WTC/P type
>strategies, I would argue they are seriously mistaken. This much is no
>longer even really a question in the mainstream press...Why should it be
>on the left?
>
>Steve