Susan Sontag remembered

“the truth is that Mozart, Pascal, Boolean algebra, Shakespeare, parliamentary government, baroque churches, Newton, the emancipation of women, Kant, Marx, Balanchine ballets, et al., don’t redeem what this particular civilization has wrought upon the world. The white race is the cancer of human history; it is the white race and it alone — its ideologies and inventions — which eradicates autonomous civilizations wherever it spreads, which has upset the ecological balance of the planet, which now threatens the very existence of life itself.”

Susan Sontag “What’s Happening in America (1966),” in Partisan Review (New Brunswick, N.J., Winter 1967; reprinted in Styles of Radical Will, 1969)

But obviously it’s not racist, because it’s not directed against dark-skinned people.

What’s your point? Am I supposed to be outraged that media like Slate or the NYTimes aren’t titling their obits Susan Sontag, Intellectual Racist, Dies at 71? Or am I just supposed to marvel at how deftly you’ve drafted her death into your freedom march to recognize the white victims of racism?

And you’re not quite being fair quoting her since she “…later retract[ed] her notorious remark about the white “race” being a “cancer” by saying that it slandered cancer patients.” (Susan Sontag.

She was the female equivalent of the “angry young men”, in a way. Interesting but prone to hyperbole.

Susan, see you next tuesday.

No, but you probably should be outraged that all the obits of this absolutely ridiculous, hateful, untalented woman glossed over passages like the one above, and displayed almost complete forgetfulness of the nonsense she wrote in 2001 legitimizing the 9/11 attacks, as well as her endorsement of the governments of Cuba and North Vietnam, and her mid-60s rave about Leni Riefenstahl. She also never had the guts to stick with these positions, and turned right around as soon as conventional wisdom proved her wrong or controversy got whipped up in the media. Oh, and she was also a plagiarist who ripped off other authors for a lot of her atrocious novel, In America, and then claimed this was purely for “literary effect.” Uh-huh. Paging Stephen Ambrose…

Personally, I hope she’s roasting in the Ninth Circle of Hell, where Ed Koch predicted a couple of years ago that she’d end up.

almost complete forgetfulness of the nonsense she wrote in 2001 legitimizing the 9/11 attacks,

Oh, bullshit.

She was an inflammatory asshole, but that was her societal role. Here’s her 9/11 comment:

The un-inflammatory way to say the same thing would be “we were attacked by men of suicidially deep conviction, so to call them cowards is a comforting rhetorical dodge that will come back to haunt us in the end. The reason they attacked us was anger at specific American policies in the Middle East, so resorting to the comforting dodge that they instead hate our abstract concepts will do the same. And it scares me that no one even thinks to criticize these dangerous misconceptions.” That she doesn’t couch it all in the language of quibbling disagreement sets off “TRAITOR TRAITOR” klaxons, apparently.

Probably applies to Michael Moore, too, actually. Yes, she went off into looney overreaction like endorsing NV, but good lord, “the ninth circle?” You’re not leaving a lot of rhetorical room for anyone who actually kills people; I suppose war criminals are a breed of space alien.

Her societal role? What the hell does that mean exactly? You could say that to justify the contributions to society of everyone on the planet, from Charles Manson to Tom Chick.

Also, you can’t moderate Sontag’s craziness on 9/11 be rewriting it. If that were possible, well, I’m sure there are some neo-Nazis out there who would be perfectly willing to soften Mein Kampf if you were willing to give it a second chance.

And come on. This Sontag-Maher crap that “We were the cowards, these guys flew planes into buildings!” is reprehensible bullshit. For starters, to get control of the planes, these brave non-cancerous, non-white heroes apparently cut the throats of unarmed flight attendants and pilots and male passengers in first class. How courageous! And then there’s the whole, let’s kill innocent office workers thing. Nothing says bravery quite like the slaughter of unarmed, unwary civilians sitting at desks on a Tuesday morning!

Her societal role? What the hell does that mean exactly? You could say that to justify the contributions to society of everyone on the planet, from Charles Manson to Tom Chick.

AUGH FLAG IS RED MUST ATTACK FLAG ARUGHGHGH.

Under what definition of cowardice are these guys cowards? They were willing to kill themselves for their crazy-ass beliefs. Man, stop seeing red for a minute and think about it. “Coward” is not the same as “attacks civilians” or “is a real big asshole.”

Also, you can’t moderate Sontag’s craziness on 9/11 be rewriting it.

Can you explain the logical difference between my version and hers?

Oooo, good link. Thanks for providing that. I’d never read that before.

I’m not sure why anyone would call that nonsense, it seemed fairly insightful to me and a very accurate depiction of the dishonesty and rhetoric that America always uses when psyching itself up for violence.

Jason- Societal role? Christ, you won’t ever admit the left has idiots. Either they are too fringe to count, or they are just playing their “societal role.” Look, you can rewrite something crazy into something sane! No shit.

I somehow doubt you’ll play the societal role card next time somebody calls Ann Coulter insane.

Does Coulter have a valid point? Ever?

Yes, she was effectively an idiot, because she was so inflammatory and insensitive she never converted a single person. But the ninth circle?

Probably. I don’t read her, but even a blind squirrel…

That’s not really relevant, though. Sontag was a screeching harpy of absurdity, Coulter the same, and merely because Sontag falls on the fringe of your side is no reason to defend her.

The coward line is because they attacked a non-military target without any notice of hostilities. They attacked an easy target because it was easy. They attacked New York because of what we’ve done in Saudi Arabia.

Equating the bombing of military targets in Iraq with the wholesale slaughter of civilians is not having a point. It’s being an idiot.

There’s nothing in that Sontag piece that I disagree with or think is unduly inflammatory.

Sontag’s dead? Damn. At least her idiot rants were well written.

Equating the bombing of military targets in Iraq with the wholesale slaughter of civilians is not having a point. It’s being an idiot.

Yes, it’s clearly obvious that innocent civilian casualties in the service of an ambiguous Iraq policy is pure and holy.

Just because you and I don’t agree with her doesn’t mean she’s evil, and I’m pretty sure she hasn’t actually wished for people to die, like Coulter.

That is a pretty weak argument. Are you really suggesting that people that generate hateful ideological arguments and seek to protect and rationalize objectively bad, murderous regimes are not responsible for their words, so long as they don’t actually, directly kill anyone? Is your new standard for evil “associated with pro Iraq war” and for good or neutral “not associated with pro Iraq war”?

Just because you and I don’t agree with her doesn’t mean she’s evil, and I’m pretty sure she hasn’t actually wished for people to die, like Coulter.

So it’s exaggeration when Sontag wishes white people would just fucking pack their shit up and die, but not when Coulter explicitly traffics almost entirely in hyperbole and inappropriate analogy? Hell, if anything I would say Coulter has an edge on Sontag, because at least she has a sense of humor mixed in with her lack of substance.

Are you really suggesting that people that generate hateful ideological arguments and seek to protect and rationalize objectively bad, murderous regimes are not responsible for their words, so long as they don’t actually, directly kill anyone?

This is Orwell-before-he-renounced it idiocy; anyone who argues deposing Saddam is a bad idea is objectively a Saddam lover!

I know it’s hopeless to even try to discuss it in this jingoistic era, but “our killing lots of Iraqi civilians pointlessly for years isn’t that much different from the civilians killed in 9/11”, while I disagree with it, isn’t an insane political view.

Did she actually wish for whites to drop dead? All I can find is that cancer quote.

I’m just amazed at how much anger her and Moore generate. It’s incomprehensible; she’s an asshole, but to hear people talk she’s a war criminal.

We killed thousands of Iraqi civilians pointlessly?
Isn’t the theory right now that the sanctions and bombings killed Saddam’s WMDs? That’s a point.

And “we”? There’s a little bit of difference between enforcing internationally approved sanctions that set up a situation where a despot can starve his populace and FLYING A PLANE INTO A CIVILIAN BUILDING FOR THE EXPRESS PURPOSE OF KILLING AS MANY CIVILIANS AS POSSIBLY.

Also, what the hell? I’m amazed by how much anger Coulter and Rush generate. You can’t keep pretending that people like Mayer and Midnight don’t exist.

That was the express purpose? I always thought it was about the WTC being as good a symbol as any of the imperialist/capitalist US. Sort of like doing it against the Statue of Liberty, except having a target that would actually affect said capitalist/imperialist ways.

Capitalist? I think you’re letting your views bleed into their views.

Sure, they did it because it was a significant landmark and knocking it down hurt the economy, but this wasn’t their bold stroke against the inequity of the market. “Fuck you, America.” is their one sentence mission statement.