John Lahr and August Wilson
Truth, Reparations, Reconciliation
By August Wilson
Posted Tuesday, Sept. 11, 2001, at 12:38 AM ETDear John,
I haven't read the news about the Genome Diversity Project, but you reminded me about the UN Conference on Racism in Durban. What do you make of the U.S. pulling out its "mid level" I don't think it even crossed the mind of anyone in the Bush administration that it might be offensive to the 35 million African Americans who have a vivid, painful, and profound historical relationship with racism. I would think a country that overcame at least the horrific aspects of its own aparteid would have much to contribute to such a conference. That it is a country as uniquely powerful and influential on the global stage is that much more disappointing.
The idea that the U.S. is ducking the question of reparations I find equally disturbing. I suspect the idea of reparations is going to be very much a part of our national discourse for years to come. To anyone interested in the idea I would point them toward Wole Soyinka's The Burden of Memory, the Muse of Forgiveness, in which Soyinka examines the results of South Africa's Truth and Reconciliation Committee and its decidedly mixed results. Speaking largely about the African continent, Soyinka ends his argument by calling for "Truth, Reparations, Reconciliation." We here in the U.S. stumble over the first requirement. Truth leads to acceptance of responsibility for your actions. This is what we teach our kids in grade school and at the dinner table. The idea is that this makes them responsible citizens of the future. The consequences and evidence of slavery are all around us and pervades every aspect of life in this country. Until we face up to that and accept responsibility then we can't provide for the peaceful enjoyment of our prosperity, and the lives of our children and grandchildren become encumbered by the social problems of racism that we inherited and that we drag around with us like a sack of cotton.
As for the Arab countries' pushing for language that condemns Israel, one of the tenets that makes this a great country is the idea of free speech. To pull out because we couldn't control the speech of other participants is to my mind hypocritical.
I see it as a missed opportunity. A failure of imagination and global responsibility on our part.
Until tomorrow,
August
Truth, Reparations, Reconciliation
By August Wilson
Posted Tuesday, Sept. 11, 2001, at 12:38 AM ETJohn Lahr is senior drama critic for The New Yorker and author of 18 books. He recently co-authored, with Elaine Stritch, the play Elaine Stritch at Liberty
, which will premier at the Public Theater in New York City in October. August Wilson is the two-time Pulitzer Prize-winning playwright who's best known for his 20th-century, decade-by-decade cycle of plays. Reader Comments From The Fray:
[Thursday Fray Notes: There were harsh words in the "Breakfast Table" Fray; many Fraysters were not happy with the writers' views. The hot topics were moral relativism and moral equivalence: Tom R said "At best August's metaphysics is chaff; at worst his moral relativism is straw fit only for stable bedding." WillV was using the word "obnoxious." Over at the defense table, Zeitguy said "The frenzy of jingoistic violence that is starting to choke off any possibility of intelligent discussion is more toxic than all the burning plastic insulation and jet fuel that is choking lower Manhatten," and ended up "When it comes to freedom of speech, I don't split hairs."
Meanwhile, news from two New York-based star posters: Claude Scales recounted his story here; and Thrasymachus, here.]
OK we've all had our chance to marvel at this notion that, because the hatred which terrorist organizations feel towards the US presumably has some sort of explanation, their actions are at least partially justified. We've all had the chance to notice, among other things, the equivocation between "explanation" and "justification" on which it rests.
But there's another marvel here-- that an argument of this sort should be raised at all by the sort of people who've been raising it. Wasn't it conventional wisdom in lefty circles, prior to Tuesday, that being motivated by hatred aggravates a crime rather than excusing it? Someone was pushing for all those hate-crime laws, and I'm pretty sure it wasn't me. If the trauma of Tuesday were to change anyone's mind on that issue, wouldn't a change in the opposite direction have been a lot likelier? I can understand how watching that day's deluge of horrors would make someone start believing in "hate crime" even though I don't believe in it myself. But how could it make someone stop?
It's getting harder and harder to escape the conclusion that nothing has changed; that the real criterion is, as it has always been, not the presence or absence of hate but rather the palatibility of whatever ideological message comes attached to the crime. If the message is "I hate gays", that's good for an extra sentence. But if it's "I hate America", you've got their respectful attention.
--Fully Brusque Man
(To reply, click here.)
[Tuesday Fray Notes: There was, of course, only one topic for discussion. Compared with some of the other threads, (and typical of the "Breakfast Table" Fray) there were fewer calls for revenge, and more serious thoughtful posts. Mike J quoted from W.H.Auden's great poem September 1 1939 here.]
Walking down Pennsylvania Ave toward the Archives Metro station I saw something that I've only seen in movies--people scrambling to "get the hell outta Dodge." Five lanes of a six lane two-way avenue were commandeered by traffic going in the same direction, and cars were creeping over into the last remaining lane. People are scared, and they should be. But, what I saw was only a half step down from the type of public hysteria where it's no holds barred, every man for himself.
The attacks on the WTC, State Department, and Pentagon, are no less than acts of war. The loss of life in New York is tragic. But, what bothers me most is that the terrorist acts have produced exactly the desired reaction. I'm typing from my home in a Maryland suburb because I left work early out of fear. And now I'm angry. I'm angry because the fear and confusion is exactly what the terrorist hopes to promote. I'm angry because the object of my anger isn't here in front of me where I can see justice done.
I'm most angered by the fact that the terrorist has been successful--whether or not his ultimate goal is achieved (I'm very confident that it won't be) he has already won a major victory...
--Tony Adragna
(To reply, click here.)
Fear is only your daily bread if you choose to eat it... No doubt America is filled with yammerheads who will bay and cry for other innocents to be killed in exchange for our dead innocents. Americans don't, or shouldn't, commit foul deeds to trade for foul deeds. Bury and mourn the dead, take a close look at who rejoices and who joins us in mourning, rebuild and repair. Only then after a steady and thoughtful hunt for the guilty and weighing of evidence should anyone begin to decide what to do. Tomorrow the sun rises for most of us, and the Post Office will be open, coffee will need to be brewed, etc.
--Neill Hamilton
(To reply, click here.)
What we are faced with is our society's--our civilization's--enemies, on whom we ought now to wage war without stint and war without pity. Globalization has limits; all of humanity does not go forward together after all. Some must be excluded, and that is cause for great sadness. There is every reason to think that this coming war will change our way of life in some regrettable ways, will make us less tolerant and optimistic. It will be the price of our future
--Joseph Britt
(To reply, click here.)
We cannot allow the reptilian part of our brains control our response to this atrocity. If we throw bombs at people who have nothing to do with this act we will confirm the opinion of our enemies that we are no better than the terrorists. The terrorists will then win recruits and support. We should ask ourselves two questions: (1) How can we obtain adequate proof of who is really responsible for this crime and take appropriate measures that do not harm innocent people? (2) Why are there people in the world as intelligent as these terrorists who hate us so much that they would commit this evil act and sacrifice their own lives in the process. "Nuke 'um" is not a response worthy of our country.
--Thomas D. Hennessy
(To reply, click here.)
(9/11)
What did you think of this article?
Join The Fray: Our Reader Discussion Forum
SPONSORED CONTENT
PRINT
DISCUSS
E-MAIL
RSS
RECOMMEND...
Facebook
MySpace
Mixx
Digg
Reddit
del.icio.us
Furl
Ma.gnolia
Sphere
StumbleUpon
After Fort Hood, There's No Excuse for the Ban on Women in Combat
What Does "Stable Condition" Mean? Absolutely Nothing.
Jim Carrey's Admirably Restrained Scrooge
The Great New Single That's a Little Bit Whitney Houston and a Little Bit Rusted Root
Joe Biden Explains His Gaffe-Evasion Strategy
The Box: A Creepy, Confusing Thriller From the Guy Who Brought You Donnie Darko
Reader Comments From The Fray:
[Thursday Fray Notes: There were harsh words in the "Breakfast Table" Fray; many Fraysters were not happy with the writers' views. The hot topics were moral relativism and moral equivalence: Tom R said "At best August's metaphysics is chaff; at worst his moral relativism is straw fit only for stable bedding." WillV was using the word "obnoxious." Over at the defense table, Zeitguy said "The frenzy of jingoistic violence that is starting to choke off any possibility of intelligent discussion is more toxic than all the burning plastic insulation and jet fuel that is choking lower Manhatten," and ended up "When it comes to freedom of speech, I don't split hairs."
Meanwhile, news from two New York-based star posters: Claude Scales recounted his story here; and Thrasymachus, here.]
OK we've all had our chance to marvel at this notion that, because the hatred which terrorist organizations feel towards the US presumably has some sort of explanation, their actions are at least partially justified. We've all had the chance to notice, among other things, the equivocation between "explanation" and "justification" on which it rests.
But there's another marvel here-- that an argument of this sort should be raised at all by the sort of people who've been raising it. Wasn't it conventional wisdom in lefty circles, prior to Tuesday, that being motivated by hatred aggravates a crime rather than excusing it? Someone was pushing for all those hate-crime laws, and I'm pretty sure it wasn't me. If the trauma of Tuesday were to change anyone's mind on that issue, wouldn't a change in the opposite direction have been a lot likelier? I can understand how watching that day's deluge of horrors would make someone start believing in "hate crime" even though I don't believe in it myself. But how could it make someone stop?
It's getting harder and harder to escape the conclusion that nothing has changed; that the real criterion is, as it has always been, not the presence or absence of hate but rather the palatibility of whatever ideological message comes attached to the crime. If the message is "I hate gays", that's good for an extra sentence. But if it's "I hate America", you've got their respectful attention.
--Fully Brusque Man
(To reply, click here.)
[Tuesday Fray Notes: There was, of course, only one topic for discussion. Compared with some of the other threads, (and typical of the "Breakfast Table" Fray) there were fewer calls for revenge, and more serious thoughtful posts. Mike J quoted from W.H.Auden's great poem September 1 1939 here.]
Walking down Pennsylvania Ave toward the Archives Metro station I saw something that I've only seen in movies--people scrambling to "get the hell outta Dodge." Five lanes of a six lane two-way avenue were commandeered by traffic going in the same direction, and cars were creeping over into the last remaining lane. People are scared, and they should be. But, what I saw was only a half step down from the type of public hysteria where it's no holds barred, every man for himself.
The attacks on the WTC, State Department, and Pentagon, are no less than acts of war. The loss of life in New York is tragic. But, what bothers me most is that the terrorist acts have produced exactly the desired reaction. I'm typing from my home in a Maryland suburb because I left work early out of fear. And now I'm angry. I'm angry because the fear and confusion is exactly what the terrorist hopes to promote. I'm angry because the object of my anger isn't here in front of me where I can see justice done.
I'm most angered by the fact that the terrorist has been successful--whether or not his ultimate goal is achieved (I'm very confident that it won't be) he has already won a major victory...
--Tony Adragna
(To reply, click here.)
Fear is only your daily bread if you choose to eat it... No doubt America is filled with yammerheads who will bay and cry for other innocents to be killed in exchange for our dead innocents. Americans don't, or shouldn't, commit foul deeds to trade for foul deeds. Bury and mourn the dead, take a close look at who rejoices and who joins us in mourning, rebuild and repair. Only then after a steady and thoughtful hunt for the guilty and weighing of evidence should anyone begin to decide what to do. Tomorrow the sun rises for most of us, and the Post Office will be open, coffee will need to be brewed, etc.
--Neill Hamilton
(To reply, click here.)
What we are faced with is our society's--our civilization's--enemies, on whom we ought now to wage war without stint and war without pity. Globalization has limits; all of humanity does not go forward together after all. Some must be excluded, and that is cause for great sadness. There is every reason to think that this coming war will change our way of life in some regrettable ways, will make us less tolerant and optimistic. It will be the price of our future
--Joseph Britt
(To reply, click here.)
We cannot allow the reptilian part of our brains control our response to this atrocity. If we throw bombs at people who have nothing to do with this act we will confirm the opinion of our enemies that we are no better than the terrorists. The terrorists will then win recruits and support. We should ask ourselves two questions: (1) How can we obtain adequate proof of who is really responsible for this crime and take appropriate measures that do not harm innocent people? (2) Why are there people in the world as intelligent as these terrorists who hate us so much that they would commit this evil act and sacrifice their own lives in the process. "Nuke 'um" is not a response worthy of our country.
--Thomas D. Hennessy
(To reply, click here.)
(9/11)