“Cheap coal” and the logic of sacrifice
They charge us [Christians] on two points: that we do not sacrifice and that we do not believe in the same gods as the State.
- Athenagoras, A Plea Regarding Christians 13, c. A.D. 177
It is because other so-called gods do not right the wrongs of this world that they expose themselves as not gods.
- George Pixley
I’m honestly growing weary of Blackadder’s constant capitalist faith statements here at Vox Nova which blatantly ignore the real lives of actual people. His latest involves astonishingly absurd statements about the costs of coal, given to us through his parroting of quotes from the apparently equally ignorant physicist Freeman Dyson. Having just returned from my second annual Appalachian Studies Association conference — a gathering of activists, academics, educators, musicians and artists — and having heard first hand the stories of real people involved in the issues Blackadder dares to pontificate about, I feel the need to comment.
The New York Times Magazine article BA quotes says of Dyson, “Dyson has great affection for coal and for one big reason: It is so inexpensive that most of the world can afford it.” No where, apparently, do Dyson or BA consider why coal is “inexpensive” or what the true, hidden costs of coal mining might be for human persons and the ecosystems in which it takes place.
I won’t speculate on Dyson’s actual knowledge of such things. Surely he’s no idiot and knows how coal is mined and the human costs that come with it. (I wonder, though, who writes his paychecks and whether or not this has anything to do with the glaring omissions in his “scientific” opinions about the “importance” of coal?)
Blackadder, on the other hand, I will give the benefit of the doubt and assume that he simply has no idea what he’s talking about. Should he wish to inquire into the true costs of coal, I would point him and other interested persons to any number of websites and articles:
Smithsonian
Salon
Mountain Justice
United Mountain Defense
Appalachian Voices
Beehive Collective – True Cost of Coal Project
NYT – Appalachia’s Agony
Theresa Burriss on Appalachia and “Clean Coal”
TheDirtyLie.com
Sludge Safety Project
NPR – Removing Mountains
Dyson’s comment that “Greens are people who never had to worry about their grocery bills” is quickly shown to be a load of s**t if you take a look at reality, as reflected in these links as well as my experience of knowing actual people involved in green and mining justice activism in Appalachia.
As a Catholic, perhaps Blackadder might be particularly sensitive to the witness of Apppalachian Christians who are working directly with those affected by the practices of the “inexpensive” coal industry:
Christians for the Mountains
Catholic Committee of Appalachia
The latter, of course, has been involved in the writing process of the Appalachian Catholic Bishops’ pastoral letters on the region. As a contributor to a blog ostensibly interested in the promotion of Catholic social teaching (and not the views of capitalist ideologues) Blackadder could educate himself by reading their 1975 statement This Land is Home to Me. He might note how little has changed since the bishops proclaimed this document over thirty years ago.
Indeed, Dyson’s optimism about the role of coal in the united states and in the world is hardly new. The view that coal is the “interim kindling of progress” has been the message of the industry since its beginnings. Anyone with actual knowledge of coal-dominated regions has heard this line before.
Of course, I have no doubt that Blackadder has at least a vague knowledge of such realities, as he admits “No doubt there are externalities associated with the use of coal.” But he goes on, “but we are talking about literally billions of people moving from poverty to well being. Is anyone really going to argue that the social externalities of using coal outweigh this? On what grounds?”
This suggests to me that no matter how much evidence he is presented with, BA will buy another well-worn line that such human and ecologial costs are “worth it in the long run.” Some people are simply meant to benefit from other people’s sacrifice, and the people and land of central Appalachia and other resource-producing regions are simply “national sacrifice areas” that are to serve the lifestyle and well-being of the nation as a whole.
Let me be blunt. Underneath BA’s economic views and those of his capitalist heroes lie an insidious sacrificial logic: some people must be sacrificed in order to achieve progress, safety, and/or comfort. Katerina is right to criticize this consequentialist logic for what it is. But not only is it “not helpful,” it is profoundly immoral because it is a logic that necessarily deals death. Truly, BA’s logic here and in many of his posts, is the core, animating logic of the culture of death in its many forms: abortion, war, economic injustice.
Those of us who call ourselves Christians and who meditate on the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ know that in this Paschal Mystery our God not only makes known God’s absolute “NO” to such sacrificial logic, but actually puts an end to it. The cross of the victim Jesus has put an end to sacrifice, and those of us baptized into his death join a Body that echoes the Father’s profound “NO” to the logic of sacrifice. And this is no mere “spiritual” reality on which we meditate apart from our material practices. As Christians we are to say no to such sacrificial logic concretely, among other ways by saying no to any suggestion that groups of people should become the sacrifices upon which “progress” is based.
Blackadder also seems to want his readers to be impressed with the fact that Dyson presents himself as a “believer,” quoting Dyson’s summary of Christianity: “The main point of Christianity is that it is a religion for sinners.” As we Christians are about to enter Holy Week and will hopefully meditate intentionally on Christ’s passion, death, and resurrection, I would be infinitely more impressed with Dyson and with Blackadder if they took this week to try to recognize the real “main point” of Christianity: solidarity with the crucified victims of this world and active resistance against the logic of sacrifice that generates such victims.
Trackbacks
Comments are closed.
Trust me, I understand your outrage. It is almost a slap in the face when something is so close to you personally and you know the issues firsthand, but yet others either don’t seem to be aware or simply don’t care.
I try very hard to assume that people just don’t know any better when they make certain claims that ignore the pain that many people go through caused by anywhere from coal mining to war, healthcare, etc. I think that is the case here. I try not to doubt people’s good will (or at least I try very hard to do that). Especially when it is something that is (and should be) so essential to the Christian message.
That being said, as people who have a certain level of education and have access to resources, we HAVE to inform ourselves. We have a moral responsibility to do so and John Paul II says so as well. We spend a lot of time on these blogs and so forth, but how AWARE are we? I will be the first one to say that I’m not aware as I should be.
Let’s be Christians. Let’s get away from statistics that depersonalize situations. I’m a person of math and science and thus believe in numbers, but as a Christian, I only consider them if they allow me to understand better what people go through. Our faith puts the human person at the center of it all. Let’s go back to that center and leave behind any ideology that tries to blur it.
Amen, Katerina.
“…having heard first hand the stories of real people…”
The plural of anecdote is not data.
You are substituting emotion for reasoning. That’s a dangerous tactic when you’re making decisions that primarly impact your own life. But when you’re opining on issues which do not really affect you directly, and which on the other hand do give you the opportunity to feel self-righteous, emotional decision making introduces a terrible possibility for bias and self-deception.
Your call to “resist logic” is fine if you simply want to feel good, but it is disasterous if your intent is to actually do good.
I have lived in China. I have known the coal miners that Katerina talks about. And I can assure you that BA is correct when he says that, as with sweatshops, the desires of the people who have to actually live with both the costs AND the benefits of coal diverge greatly from the paternalistic self-righteousness of Western “activists.”
The plural of anecdote is not data.
Who gets to decide what counts as “data?” You?
You are substituting emotion for reasoning.
Not at all. How is listening to the testimony of the victims mere “emotion?” It is, in fact, a preliminary option (the option for the poor, perhaps you have heard of it?) that makes Christian reasoning possible. It’s the only sort of reasoning that is befitting of Christians.
But when you’re opining on issues which do not really affect you directly…
They, in fact, do affect me directly.
Your call to “resist logic” is fine if you simply want to feel good, but it is disasterous if your intent is to actually do good.
I thought lawyers actually had to be able to read? Is that not the case? I didn’t make a call to “resist logic.” I made a call to resist the sacrificial logic of capitalism.
I have lived in China. I have known the coal miners that Katerina talks about. And I can assure you that BA is correct when he says that, as with sweatshops, the desires of the people who have to actually live with both the costs AND the benefits of coal diverge greatly from the paternalistic self-righteousness of Western “activists.”
I grew up in Appalachia. I know coal miners too. And I can assure you that things are more complicated than BA makes them out to be. Appalachians themselves are rising up against the particular logic that classifies them as a “national sacrifice area,” the logic that BA is selling.
Personally, I think Michael’s criticism here is unfair. It’s just as instrumentalist to make citizens of third world countries suffer because coal can’t be produced, as it is to have coal miners suffer because it is produced. There is suffering and sacrifice either way; that doesn’t mean that coal should be produced, just that the question is a lot more complicated than he grants in the post.
Personally, I think Michael’s criticism here is unfair.
Why does this not surprise me?
You know what’s a dangerous job? Fisherman. Ever see Deadliest Catch? Should we boycott crab as well?
In America, at least, people choose which job for which they will apply. I would think that most, if not all, of those who apply know the risks inherent in the job. Am I wrong?
Alex
There are many issues. One, the job is risky. Second, the job is destructive, and not just for those taking the risk. Now, I think it might be prudent to stop some of the fishing industry, not because of the risk, but because of the environmental destruction going on through over-fishing. The problem with the coal industry is the destruction is widespread, affects more than those taking the risks, and the effects might be permanent (and negative) for the overall environment.
“Vox Nova is a response to the ecclesial mandate to promote the common good in every sphere of human existence. We come from varying backgrounds and carry diverse social outlooks, traversing a wide range of demographics and political sympathies. Vox Nova is free, to the furthest extent possible, from partisanship, nationalism and demagoguery, all of which banish intellectual honesty from rational discourse.
United in our Catholic, pro-person worldview, yet diverging in our socio-political opinions, we seek to provide informed commentary and rigorous debate on culture, society, politics and law, all while unwaveringly adhering to, and aptly applying the principles of Catholic doctrine. We are not intellectually wedded to any single political ideology . . . .”
Without question what sets this blog apart is its pro-person worldview.
“The problem with the coal industry is the destruction is widespread, affects more than those taking the risks, and the effects might be permanent (and negative) for the overall environment.”
Aside from the families who’ve lost the person working at the coal mine, who else does it affect? I really want to know.
In America, at least, people choose which job for which they will apply. I would think that most, if not all, of those who apply know the risks inherent in the job. Am I wrong?
1) The notion that everyone in america “chooses” which job they will take is false. 2) I’m not convinced that everyone who applies for jobs knows the risks involved. 3) The view I am expressing here goes well beyond the risks involved in being a coal miner. It involves the risks to the persons in the entire community as well as the ecosystems in which they find themselves.
Feddie – Do you have a comment to make?
Aside from the families who’ve lost the person working at the coal mine, who else does it affect? I really want to know.
I provided links in my post for a reason. Step one: click on them. Step two: read the word that you see.
MI-
It’s more of an observation. Feel free to delete it, if you like.
What, precisely, have you “observed”? That Vox Nova has a mission statement? Please explain the relevance, or I will probably delete it.
MI-
The point, MI, is that you’re not interested in adhering to VN’s mission statement. You want an echo chamber, and nothing more. That much is evident from the tenor of this post (as well as many of your prior posts).
As for me, I hope you do run Blackadder off. I know of several blogs, including mine, that would love to have him as a contributor.
[Insults, including profanities, deleted.]
The point, MI, is that you’re not interested in adhering to VN’s mission statement. You want an echo chamber, and nothing more.
I don’t want an “echo chamber.” I mean, please. No one at Vox Nova agrees with everything I write, to my knowledge. Nor am I attempting to “run Blackadder off” as you put it. With or without BA, though, the opinions represented at VN are quite diverse. One need not include rabid libertarians, white supremacists, and pro-abortion types in order to adhere to what we have said in our mission statement.
There can be diversity among leftists, to be sure.
And you’re right, one need not include “rabid libertarians, white supremacists, and pro-abortion types in order to adhere to what we have said in our mission statement.” Here’s hoping that Gerald Campbell, a self-professed pro-choicer, will be given his walking papers from VN in the near future.
Enough, feddie.
Michael,
The tenor and content of your post is very insulting, and you haven’t even attempted to answer the main objection to it, which is basically that coal mining both causes and alleviates suffering. By focusing only on the suffering caused, and overlooking the suffering alleviated, you’ve presented a very one-sided picture, and been quite unfair to your fellow contributor.
The tenor and content of your post is very insulting…
I don’t see how.
…and you haven’t even attempted to answer the main objection to it, which is basically that coal mining both causes and alleviates suffering.
Interesting that you consider your own objection (and I think you are the only one to raise this objection) the “main objection.”
By focusing only on the suffering caused, and overlooking the suffering alleviated, you’ve presented a very one-sided picture, and been quite unfair to your fellow contributor.
I said at the very start of the post that it was meant to present the other side of the issue. The point, of course, was to present the other side that was NEGLECTED by Blackadder’s post. But you didn’t seem to have a problem with Blackadder’s one-sided presentation of the matter which said NOTHING about the suffering caused by the coal industry. Where is your objection to his one-sidedness? Why is my presentation of the other side “unfair” when it served precisely to include a major viewpoint that was initially ignored and omitted? What of the “fairness” of BA’s post which neglected to mention the views of the victims of the practices he supports? Is there any “fairness” toward the victims in his post?
Your alleged concern for “fairness” rings awfully hollow.
Michael,
Thanks for the links. I will review them when I get a chance.
I must say that by focusing on Appalachia you’ve changed the subject a bit. The Dyson quote in my post had to do with the use of coal in China. China is a net exporter of coal, and while it does import some coal, this is mainly from places like Vietnam. I can’t say that no coal from West Virginia has ever been used in China, but if so it has only been a tiny amount of the total.
I also have to say that your description of my position is both inaccurate and unfair. I don’t believe that “some people must be sacrificed in order to achieve progress, safety, and/or comfort.” The irony here, of course, is that in a previous discussion on sweatshops you stated that even if closing sweatshops did leave sweatshop workers worse off, this was justified as part of the broader struggle against economic injustice. If one of us has embraced the “logic of sacrifice” I’d say you have at least as much claim to the title as I.
The tenor and content of your post is very insulting…
I don’t see how.
How about,
“Blackadder’s constant capitalist faith statements”
“blatantly ignore”
“astonishingly absurd statements”
“his parroting of quotes”
“equally ignorant”
“has no idea what he’s talking about”
“is quickly shown to be a load of s**t”
“Blackadder could educate himself”
“has at least a vague knowledge of such realities”
“no matter how much evidence he is presented with, BA will buy another well-worn line”
“Underneath BA’s economic views and those of his capitalist heroes lie an insidious sacrificial logic”
“Blackadder also seems to want his readers to be impressed”
I am actually sympathetic with your point of view regarding the suffering of those in Appalachia. But your tone and lack of civil discourse defeat your cause. I turn you off after reading the first half dozen of your epithets. Even though I disagree with BA on some issues, I always listen to what he has to say because of how he says it.
Michael, as you read Blackadder’s response above, do you see the difference of tone, civility, and respect?
What people tire from is the mean banter. If you and Mornings Minion promoted your points of view with the care and deliberate Christian respect found in Blackadder’s and Henry Karlson’s posts, I think we would witness some very valuable interchanges.
Blackadder – If I have “changed the subject” from China to Appalachia, I took the cue from you, who abstracted what Dyson said (apparently, if he indeed focused on China) into a general statement about global warming skepticism and a “love of cheap coal.” Perhaps you shouldn’t make those sorts of moves in your posts. The reality, when you take the particulars into account, is much different than you make it out to be.
And no, I do not recall ever saying what you claim I said about sweatshops.
Jeff – A number of those quotes are obviously taken out of context. If my writing turns you off, so be it. Maybe BA can seduce you to is point of view through his nicer, sweeter posts.
Seduce? Again, an implication of ulterior motives.
It is neither niceness, nor sweetness but simple respect.
I sincerely hope that you do not talk that way to your brothers in Christ to their face.
Interesting that you consider your own objection (and I think you are the only one to raise this objection) the “main objection.”
Most of your responses to me have been addressed by others at this point, but I thought I’d point out that my statement that coal mining both causes and alleviates suffering is just a simpler version of BA’s statement below:
but we are talking about literally billions of people moving from poverty to well being. Is anyone really going to argue that the social externalities of using coal outweigh this?
I was not, as you suggest, claiming that my objection was the main objection. I’ll note, btw, that you still haven’t addressed it.
I’ll note, btw, that you still haven’t addressed it.
Yes, I have addressed it, in the second half of this comment.
Some observations:
As a philosopher, I can assure you that, yes, Blackadder (and John Henry by implication) are arguing on purely consequentialist grounds from dogmatic principles of economic modalities. Really, its the difference between reason and dogmatism.
Listless lawyer pulls the classic response: You are all emotion, I am all reason; anecdotal evidence (people suffering, communities poisoned, environmental damage) is not real data (financial and developmental statistics). Of course, LL just simply absconds from real argument and moves to swift dismissal. I find this peculiar, however, given that all Michael I. did was put the human face on the statistics, which is how the social teachings of Catholicism are engendered. When the person is at the center of economic and political analysis (rather than dogmatic principles), then we just simply don’t arrive at the sort of conclusions that some are offering in these posts and comments.
Poli,
Isn’t your first paragraph a strict argument from authority, and your own authority at that?
You simply say, “as a philosopher” and then assert, but you fail to justify you claim that BA and JH’s arguments are as you assert them to be.
Isn’t your first paragraph a strict argument from authority, and your own authority at that?
It wouldn’t be an argument from authority if I am appealing to my own knowledge. That logical fallacy would obtain only if I appealed to an outside authority as the ground of my claim.
You simply say, “as a philosopher” and then assert, but you fail to justify you claim that BA and JH’s arguments are as you assert them to be.
Is it not obvious to you that the consequence (benefits more than it harms) justifies the means in Blackadder’s post and follow-up comments? On what exactly are you unclear?
A couple points in response to Poli:
1) As Aquinas tells us, the argument from authority is the weakest form of argument. What then are we to make of the argument from self-proclaimed authority?
2) If you had read my comments, you would have noticed that I did not say the argument wasn’t consequentialist. I said that both Michael’s and BA’s argument are consequentialist, so that merely labeling BA’s argument consequentialist is not an effective critique. Both policies (allowing coal production, and prohibiting coal production) bring about a great deal of suffering. In such situations, a discussion of which consequences are worse seems entirely appropriate to me.
3) You have a very odd conception of ‘putting the person at the heart of every economic matter’. If the inquiry under discussion is: “what is best for people in developing nations?”, how is it an effective response to refuse to consider empirical evidence about what, in fact, helps people? I know you are fond of calling other people ‘dogmatic,’ but I’m still trying to reconcile your a priori refusal to consider any evidence that runs contrary to your first inclination as an indictment of other people as dogmatic.
Poli,
Let me quote something that Kat said in the prior thread:
My question is this: if it’s okay for us to continue to use energy (including the coal produced electricity that is powering your computer) despite the negative and sometimes nasty effects that this has, why is it not okay for people in China to do so? If the convenience of using computers is enough to justifying using coal, why is it suddenly anti-person and consequentialist to say that people in China should be free to do so when not doing so would mean the difference in many cases between life and death, poverty and comfort?
Perhaps I’m so blinded by my “dogmatic principles of economic modalities,” but I really don’t get it. Could you explain it to me?
John Henry,
1) Two responses: (i) You just used Aquinas as an authority; (ii) I didn’t appeal to an authority.
2) G.E.M. Anscombe, the Catholic moral philosopher, coined the term “consequentialism.” As a manner of ethical argument, it is taking the consequence of an action as justifying the action or it is taking several consequences of actions and, on the basis of which consequence appears most favorable, choosing that corresponding action. You have done just that in your remarks.
3) There much confusion here in your remark. First, what evidence have I refused to consider? Second, your attempt to counter my personalist claim is subject to consequential analysis–you appealed to the outcome of the action (benefiting “people in developing nations”) as opposed to considering the value and dignity of all persons involved in the action. N.B.: I am concerned with all persons involved in the action. Third, I am not fond of calling people “dogmatic,” but I am willing to do so when dogmatism abounds.
So your three points here are a bit misfired. Perhaps if you were clearer in what you are tying to argue, I will be able to follow you.
G.E.M. Anscombe, the Catholic moral philosopher, coined the term “consequentialism.” As a manner of ethical argument, it is taking the consequence of an action as justifying the action or it is taking several consequences of actions and, on the basis of which consequence appears most favorable, choosing that corresponding action. You have done just that in your remarks.
Consequentialism is not the view that consequences matter in determining morality. Rather it is the view that only consequences matter in determining the morality. Any sane moral philosophy is going to say that consequences make a difference in a wide number of cases. If one wishes to label any argument that appeals to consequences as “consequentialist” one may do so. But in that case John Henry is right: both the arguments for the use of coal and the arguments against it on these threads involve appeals to consequences, and so both are consequentialist in that sense.
Blackadder,
Perhaps you ought to consider all that Katerina wrote instead of extracting one small quote. But, hey, I’ll bite:
The issue is not over not using energy (I never claimed it was). The question is whether the means for producing energy are themselves ethical, especially in light of Catholic teaching. I think you would get away with your arguments if you were arguing among secularists. But you cannot ignore the working conditions, environmental damage, and the poisoning of communities around coal mining, coal burning, and waste removal. You look only to the beneficiaries of coal, which is where your dogmatism is most revealed. I identify at least one formal principle to which you adhere in this area:
If the overall benefits of coal use outweigh the damages and harm this use causes, then coal use is ethically permissible.
On a superficial level, this principle looks good (which may be why you have been seduced by it). However, this is a purely formal principle without matter. When we fill the form with matter (negative magnitudes that I outline above), we must either qualify the principle or eliminate it if we are to be consistent with the fundamental Catholic principles on human dignity and value. If it can be shown (and I believe it has) that human dignity is harmed by coal production and use, then coal use must be either reformed or eliminated. It doesn’t matter if we are in the U.S. or China (this is a red herring that you have introduced, which is really just a misreading of Katerina). If coal production–as it is really conducted in reality (as opposed to in principle in your mind)–violates dignity, it should at least be altered.
I did not say the use of coal is immoral, so let me stop anyone from attributing that statement to me.
I wish I had time to say more, but I really have to get back to my thesis. This is not a cop-out. Rather, I have a real deadline to meet outside the casual world of blogging. I’ll be back, though!
Consequentialism is not the view that consequences matter in determining morality. Rather it is the view that only consequences matter in determining the morality.
This is correct. I did not imply or suggest otherwise. The burden is on you to show that you are not arguing only from consequences (you have yet to do so).
Again–back to the thesis. I’m sure we’ll revisit this soon.
As a manner of ethical argument, it is taking the consequence of an action as justifying the action or it is taking several consequences of actions and, on the basis of which consequence appears most favorable, choosing that corresponding action.
If this is consequentialism, then I have no problem with it. It’s only when consequences are used to justify an otherwise immoral action, that I think consequentialism is problematic. As a means of deciding between two moral choices, justifying the action based on its consequences is perfectly fine as far as I’m concerned.
Thank you, gentlemen, for turning this into a profitable discussion.
If this is consequentialism, then I have no problem with it.
I think you may be confused over what consequentialism is. The question is whether the consequence is seen as a necessary condition of the morality of an action (acceptable in Catholic framework) or a sufficient condition (consequentialism). The latter is not compatible with Catholic morality. I recommend the critique of consequentialism in John Paul II’s Love and Responsibility for more on this.
I’m having trouble seeing how “consequentialism” is anything but a complete irrelevancy here. On the one hand, someone says, “The good of using coal (more economic development for the world’s poorest people) outweighs the bad things that are caused by coal (pollution).” On the other hand, someone else says, “The good of not using coal (preventing pollution and strip mining) outweighs the bad things caused by not using coal (preventing billions of poor people from escaping desperate poverty by using the same form of energy that I’m using to type these words).”
Both sides are weighing consequences, and both are agreeing that it’s OK to cause some bad things to happen to people as long as more good things happen to other people.
I think you may be confused over what consequentialism is.
Your previous definition was very imprecise; BA’s comment clarified it.
This is an area I know very little about, but from having read the Smithsonian article Iafrate links to, I can’t imagine the current techniques are ethical. I don’t know too much about the human costs y’all are talking about, but the environmental damage alone as well as the human hubris involved in destroying a mountain in the manner described is too significant.
If it can be shown (and I believe it has) that human dignity is harmed by coal production and use, then coal use must be either reformed or eliminated. It doesn’t matter if we are in the U.S. or China (this is a red herring that you have introduced, which is really just a misreading of Katerina). If coal production–as it is really conducted in reality (as opposed to in principle in your mind)–violates dignity, it should at least be altered.
I did not say the use of coal is immoral, so let me stop anyone from attributing that statement to me.
Right. Well, if it could be shown beyond a doubt that coal production is immoral, then, sure, it would be consequentialist (in the bad sense) to just argue about the benefits an immoral action would provide. But my understanding of BA’s argument was that it implicitly assumed that coal production, despite some harmful consequences, was not immoral, per se. In that sense, I think your charge of consquentialism was unjustified because it assumed a fact not in evidence. Namely, that coal production is immoral.
I wish I had time to say more, but I really have to get back to my thesis. This is not a cop-out. Rather, I have a real deadline to meet outside the casual world of blogging. I’ll be back, though!
Not a problem. I often find myself pulled in two different directions by comments threads. On the one hand, I find the space and interaction constraints rather limiting, and wish that I could just sit down with whoever I was arguing with for a couple of hours and hash things out. There’s so much that I want to say, and I’m constantly feeling like I have to oversimplify things or present arguments in reader’s digest form in order to keep it from running too long. On the other hand, even what I do write takes up too much of my time. I’m sure that the subject here will come up again at some point in the future when you aren’t operating under a deadline.
I don’t really know who I dislike more, the guy inadvertently advocating the destruction of my patria, or the guy who likes us under a microscope? The guy with the “I [heart] Peabody” bumbersticker, of the one with the “I [heart] noble savages” one?
[second half deleted]
Franklin – That’s an interesting critique of my post. I’d be interested to know which part you think manifests a belief in the “noble savage,” because that’s an image I too am interested in critiquing. In fact, I’d invite you to click through some of my other posts on Appalachia, my home, in which I specifically bring up that image and criticize it. I’d be happy to send you drafts some writing I have been doing on the subject as well.
I deleted the other half of your comment because I didn’t want you to embarrass yourself.