After reading the poems and other works from online, from “American
Writers Respond” in addition to “What We are Fighting For” and Elshtain chapter
5, I noticed somewhat of a theme or pattern. In most of the works we read over
the past week, there seems to be a reference to the connectedness of the world,
or to the idea of America as an amalgamation of nations.
In the memorial service at UC Berkeley, Maxine Hong Kingston
asks those gathered with her to repeat the mantra, “May all beings be happy.
May all beings be peaceful. May all
beings be kind. May all beings be free.”
Later in the service, she also recognizes in the congregation a “feeling of
connection with all mankind,” a “collective conscious, the universal soul.”
Naomi Shihab Nye ended her letter “To Any Would-Be Terrorists” with the line “Make
our family proud,” in reference to our collective human family. The letter “What
We are Fighting For” repeatedly refers to the idea of universal human rights,
universal moral truths and universal principles, sentiments that Elshtain
echoes in chapter 5 of Just War Against Terror: The Burden of American Power
in a Violent World. In the poem “Alabanza: In Praise of the Local 100,”
Martin Espada includes images that hearken back to the image of America as an
amalgamation of nations. Galway Kinnell, in his poem “When the Towers Fell,”
also makes references to a global connectedness, in the lines “poor and rich…
wise and foolish, priests and laymen/ nobles, villains… short and tall and
handsome and homely”.
Although I found this interesting, it raised more questions
for me than it brought me to conclusions. While reading these poems, I thought
a lot about the terrorists on 9/11 and how they must have felt about the world.
In my opinion, they had to view Americans, and other foreigners, as strangers
rather than as fellow members of a global community. If that was the case,
would those images have any effect on them? What was the point of including
those images? If the terrorists already hate us, would the poems and other
works incite more anger, in reaction to a comparison to the “American swine”?
Or were the words of solidarity meant to bring more countries to American aid?
Would this then create more of an “us vs. them” mentality, on both sides of the
conflict? Or are the images of one world simply a naïve plea for peace? Feel
free to let me know what you think.
Mike, There is currently a faculty seminar that meets regularly--chaired by Dr. Metres--on globalization. One of the questions that group has taken up concerns what constitutes an individual's primary sense of identity in an era of globalization. There are writers who argue that we are first and foremost citizens of the world, not of our individual nation-states. That sensibility connects with your observations about universal connectedness. I'm dubious about the possibility of the global providing our primary sense of identity. But so, too, am I skeptical about family providing it--notwithstanding Dr. Metres' story about his father.
ReplyDeleteI definitely agree to the globalization theme as seen in the poetry. I think this was very common after 9/11 in the American response almost as a way to deal with grief. There was a plea for humanity and the interconnectedness of our humanity as a call to the the world. You don't see the plea for citizens of the world in the Toby Keith song for example.
ReplyDeleteI found this global interconnectedness as a common theme throughout Nye's letter "To Any Would-Be Terrorists." I think that people like Elshtain, who immediately define the attackers as evil and therefore absolutely unwilling to communicate, compromise, and change, believe that the words of Nye would fall on deaf ears. However, I think the most important part of Nye's work is the title; she doesn't address terrorists but rather "would-be" terrorists.
ReplyDeleteI'm still curious, though. Despite Nye's underlying tone of anger, she remains reasonably calm and kind throughout her work. With that being said, does anybody believe that perpetuating kindness could really solve conflicts and deter "would-be" terrorists? She encourages the "would-be" terrorists to "find another way to live" and tells them to "...plant mint. Find a friend who is so different from you, you can't believe how much you have in common. Love them. Let them love you. Surprise people in gentle ways, as friends do." Most crucial to my point, however, she compromises: "The rest of us will try harder too. Make our family proud."
If the rest of us truly do try harder, could we ever talk Nye's "would-be" terrorists down? Or, as Elshtain argues, are these people “evil,” and therefore subhuman, unwilling to ever compromise?
Bethany, it occurs to me she's talking to Americans as much as anyone else! Which would be a slight dodge of your good question.
ReplyDelete