Unimaginable to whom??????????????

Question

‘An unimaginable loss of life’
By Bill Fletcher Jr.
-Guest Columnist-
Updated Sep 13, 2006, 11:18 am


Reconnecting the international struggles of Black people (FCN, 05-07-2006)
As the actual events and details surrounding the alleged terrorist plot to blow up commercial airliners unfold, the fear and foreboding that has lived within many of us since 9/11 resurfaced. Yet, in the initial announcement of the alleged plot, there was a reference by a British official that caught my attention. Describing the alleged plot, this official went on to say that the outcome of such bombings would be an “unimaginable loss of life.”
Let me be clear that, as far as I am concerned, any attack on non-combatants is criminal and should be condemned. Yet, in thinking about the comment by the British official, my first and continuing response was: Unimaginable to whom? The probable numbers of people who would have been killed might have gone as high as 15,000 (a very rough guess). In today’s world, 15,000 dead civilians is not an unimaginable figure unless, of course, one means 15,000 dead civilians from Western Europe, the United States or Canada.
I do not wish to be harsh or unsympathetic, but let’s count a few numbers and you tell me what conclusions you come to. Since 1997, approximately four million people have been killed as a result of the civil war (and foreign interventions) in the Congo. That comes down to approximately 444,000 per year or 37,000 per month or about 1,200 per day. I would call that figure unimaginable (even though it happened), or perhaps inconceivable in the sense that this Planet has permitted four million people to die with very little international attention.
Or a few miles to the north in the Sudan for over 20 years, more than two million people were killed in the north/south civil war that recently ended. In the Darfur region of the Sudan, over 400,000 people (not part of the two million) have died as a result of the fighting between rebels and government-backed militia, and this number starts around 2003.
Or, if we wish to be more modest, we can see the more than 1,000 Lebanese civilians killed as a result of Israel’s collective punishment of that country, a collective punishment that has specifically targeted civilians and civilian targets, this from an allegedly civilized nation.
Should I mention Iraq? More than 2,600 U.S. personnel dead and by most reports more than 100,000 Iraqis dead as a result of an illegal war (by the way, that is more than 30,000 dead per year or about 80 dead per day). This does not count the hundreds of thousands of Iraqis who died as a result of the U.S./British sanctions against pre-war Iraq.
So, I found myself wondering about this term “unimaginable loss of life.” The potential tragedy of a terrorist attack on civilian aircraft would deserve condemnation should even one person die as a result. But telling us about an unimaginable loss of life when the government of Britain, let alone the United States, has been prepared to sit back and watch, or participate, in the massive loss of life in countries of the global South is nothing short of disingenuous.
This highlights the issue of the relative importance or unimportance of the lives of different peoples. Four million dead in the Congo is absolutely unimaginable. It is difficult to even count to four million sitting in the same place. It is unimaginable that so many people could lose their lives and yet the Congo has to fight to get the attention of major news media in Western Europe, the United States and Canada. Short of a titillating incident or an obvious and gross atrocity, the loss of 1,200 people per day does not seem to merit our consideration.
Perhaps, I have a different imagination?
(Bill Fletcher Jr. is a Washington, D.C.-based writer and activist involved with labor and international issues. A former president of TransAfrica Forum, he is now a visiting professor in Political Science at Brooklyn College-CUNY. He may be reached at [e-mail].)

Answer 1

I don't put much credence in rhetoric from the mouths of politicians. We can say anything, it's pretty easy to do.

In the instances of Congo, Rwanda, Darfur, Iraq, etc etc. much of this death, if I'm not mistaken, was due to INTERNAL conflict for command and control (more Iraqis die due to power struggles between sects than any ordnance from Western military). We do not see these massive death counts as attacks of one people upon another, rightfully or wrongfully so, but as internal strife that the international community is wary of and careful not to interject without sufficient justification and reasonable probability of resolution.

The Rwandan and Congan events are saddening, because of all the peoples of Africa I have met in my lifetime, each has been truly and genuinely kind, caring and friendly. It is sad that the legacy of European colonization has left a power and social vacuum on such a beautiful and wondrous continent. The West is partly to blame, Islamic fundamentalism is partly to blame, and human will is, as always, left to suffer and break.

The Lebanese people were silent when Hezbollah patrolled its southern region. When Hezbollah attacked Israel with rockets and kidnapped soldiers or crossed over the border to attack checkpoints. The Lebanese people were silent when 1000's of men and millions of dollars of weapons flowed freely into Lebanon via Syria and Iran and who knows where else. The Lebanese people are foolish to think that Israel would not defend itself against these pinpricks and try to silence them once and for all. The infrastructure destroyed by Israel was meant to both halt weapons imports by road or plane and halt hostage export by road or plane. The people were silent, and implicitly supported a terrorist group and paramilitary organization with a non-national agenda, and they suffered when this group was repelled. Nothing criminal so far as I can tell, the IDF specifically targets military assets, but when these assets reside in civilian areas and use civilians as cover, the blame can hardly be placed on a nation attacked. Just like the blame can hardly be placed on the U.S. for routing out terrorists WHEREVER they may be, because their intent is not to negotiate or settle a grievance, but to KILL KILL KILL Americans. Nothing criminal in defending oneself against future, unwarranted and instigated attacks.

The war in Iraq was HARDLY illegal, as set forth by dozens of UN resolutions approving use of force to get Saddam to comply with UN sanctions and weapons inspections. He played cat and mouse, and got the short end of the stick. Talk is cheap when not enforced, and the Arab and Muslim world knows this. Do we risk millions of Israelis and Jordanians dying in a nuclear winter because we weren't tough enough on Iran? I don't think so. Perhaps the WMD argument was shoddy, but the record is much wider and longer and more comprehensive against Saddam Hussein, the ultimate criminal to humanity who fed his enemies alive to rabid dogs for his childrens' amusement. That is criminal, ousting him is NOT.

Let's be fair. Africa needs a complete and global revitalization program, initiated and managed from within. When Africans realize the cycle of warlords, civil strife and rampant murderous retribution excludes them from the global capital markets and access to wealth, healthcare and other social resources, they will begin to slow down the martial and rhetorical inter-fighting, and coalesce to form practical and functional alliances to exploit their own tremendous spirit and natural resources. The wealth of the world resides in Africa, and only Africans should enjoy the bulk of that bounty. IF they are willing to stem the tide of sectarian and religious conflict and band together on economic and survival grounds, much of the unreported genocides will dissipate. Though S.A. is struggling with new diseases (stronger strain of TB) and old ones (AIDS), that nation showed what cooperation and the retirement of historical grievances can do to transform a nation and rise above the din of poverty, war and disease.

The West is not completely deaf or blind to Africa's plight, but it cannot be impactful without cooperation and engagement from the indigenous peoples. Westerners tend to exploit natural resources and indigenous peoples because there is profitable demand in gold, diamonds, oil and uranium. There is a profit motivation. That motivation should be adopted and embraced by the African people to elevate their standards of living and help spread the wealth amongst themselves, rather than watch it sail off in large ships. Radical Islam won't help in this matter, nor will endless flows of free capital from the West. Africa is for Africans, and they must embrace their future and rise above the immediate and work in unison for a shared and brighter future built BY THEM.

As for U.S./British sanctions against Iraq, again, these were brought upon that nation by their criminal and obstinate leader, Saddam Hussein. Same thing is happening in N. Korea, and Iran is heading for the same dose of medicine. Neither Iraq, Iran or N. Korea have or had pleasant or productive designs on the world. Their regimes are ones based on ethnic and religious dominance, hatred and violence towards diversity and extortion of peaceful people through threats both rhetorical and real. Let us not defend those who are beyond the tolerance of reasonable and peaceful people, but place those who do not wish to exist peacefully, quickly and swiftly out of business.

Here's to better coverage of the African Continent in mainstream media and internet news forums, and here's to the defeat of the TRUE enemies of global peace and productivity.

Answer 2

Obama will only be a 1 term president. Things have only gotten worse since he's been in office. His efforts have only been band-aids on a very large open wound. It just keeps bleeding. Don't know, or care for that matter, who may get into office next. The same thing will continue. They will have a very large problem that CAN NOT be fixed. This is a hole that is dug so deep, well you get the idea.

Answer 3

I think the tenor of your question is why do we white Europeans /North Americans value the lives of others of our own race so much higher than those of Africans or Asians.
I don't really know the answer to that, only that it's a sad fact.
Partly, I think, it's our media, even the publicly owned ones pander to the latent racism of their viewers/readers, even if sometimes unconsciously. Many people here are totally unaware of what's going on in other parts of the world, due to that attitude.

Answer 4

Yes, I agree that it was an unfortunate choice of words, and I thought so at the time. But this was a guy just giving his initial gut reaction. It is hardly worthy of such a long-winded riposte. It is obvious that the column was written to call attention to these other injustices, and this remark was used as the excuse to gain publicity. I don't condemn it for that.

Answer 5

I've been using this site for less than a day, and already I'm amazed at how rude people can be when their on the internet and they don't have to look at someone face to face. In answer to your question, this sort of catastrophe is unimaginable to people like Americans who have no imagination, and are neither shocked nor appalled by news of 4 million dead in another country. Its not that we don't care, we just prefer not to think about it. Someone tells you 100,000 Iraqis died in the Iraq war so far, and it doesn't faze us, because we have no frame of reference. But fly someone to Iraq, show them the dead children, show them the bombed out houses, the families wiped out, the poverty and grief that this war has caused and they may think differently. I just try to put myself in their position, and imagine what it must be like to have a war going on in your backyard. And when I think about that, I can't justify this needless war, with so many dead for no reason, and I understand that 3,000 dead Americans is a tragedy, and my heart goes out to their friends and family, but it still does not rationalize the murder of civilians in a country unrelated to the 9/11 attacks. That's about the best answer I can give, and I hope that you won't be discouraged by the animosity of ignorant people.

Answer 6

So the words of the Brittish official mean nothing in YOUR opinion becuase of what is going on currently in the congo. I think you should take your gripes to the UN as we all do.

Answer 7

While this article has good points and I was prepared to comment, I was discouraged when I realized you just cut and pasted someone elses work. Your originality or personal thought is what??

Answer 8

unimaginable to the limited mind.

Answer 9

Way too much to read, so what exactly is the question?

Answer 10

Hey Shaniqua, that's a lot to read.