Sociology and Explanations (Re: Hitchens responds to critics

brettk at unicacorp.com brettk at unicacorp.com
Wed Sep 26 08:11:04 PDT 2001


Hi Wojtek,


>Most people known to be associated with the terrorist activities come from
>the privileged or middle classes - they have money, education, social
>connections, they travel abroad, and study in foreign universities. Could
>you please explain how they are "oppressed."?

Just because they are middle class doesn't mean they can't be a member of an aggrieved group, and doesn't mean they can't turn to violence. I didn't say that only individuals who are oppressed turn to terrorism, I was only saying some members of an oppressed group usually turn to violence and/or terrorism. I made no predictions about the economic and social status of the people who get involved in terrorist activities.


>What is more, if the "oppression" explanation were true, how come that the
>US has not been terrorized by Latin Americans (where the US behavior was
>truly deplorable) but has been terrorized by Middle Easterns, even though
>the US role there has been quite beneficial (cf. preventing the European
>retaliation for the nationalization of the Suzez Canal by Naser, forcing
>the return of Sinai to Egypt, liberation of Kuwait, not to mention a
steady
>influx of petro-dollars)?

The US hasn't been terrorized by any Latin American groups, but there has been plenty of violent resistance in Central and South America. Look at the Cuban revolution, or the Sandinista rebellion. Look at what's going on in Columbia right now. There are other examples. That the US hasn't been targeted by a Latin American group could be a matter of luck or lack of resources on the part of those who might be willing to do so, or other reasons.

And while some US action in the Middle East might be commendable, some US interference has been despicable.


>The proposition that oppression breads resistance and the US is a just
>target of that resistance belong the the realm of morality play - not a
>materialist analysis.

I never said US oppression necessarily leads to resistance against the US specifically. Obviously the US has been relatively immune from this kind of attack. Usually it is the client state that has to endure the retribution. And I certainly never stated that the US was a _JUST_ target. I never justified any kind of terrorist activity, nor do I believe terrorism can be justified. I merely tried to point out that people consistently turn to it under certain circumstances, so it can be explained and predicted.

Brett



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list