|
To Bob : (and all oither F-minors) Thank you for your post yesterday. It may indeed be a subject that can only be linked tenuously to Glenn Gould. Yet he seems from the many descriptions we have of him to have been a gentle and peace-loving man, who avoided direct confrontation even with individuals who had upset him; I do not think for a moment that he would object to "his" list being used to express these ideas. And I don't think that anybody should worry about offending the British or American members of F_minor. If people really are war-mongers themselves, perhaps they need to be made aware, forcefully, that many others consider their sentiments immoral! (I am perhaps not as gentle and peaceable as Mr Gould). Here in Britain we may have a government that has pushed us into this war, but very few people supported the decision. I personally have not met a single person who feels that war on Iraq is the solution to the problem of Saddam Hussein and his regime, and indeed the various peace marches and rallies that have taken place - even after the start of hostilities - show that there is enormous support for avoiding war and continuing to find a more diplomatic path, as Bob has urged. Of course, now that the fighting is under way, we are being urged to unite and support 'our lads' out there . Maybe the powers-that-be hope that in this manner public opinion will be united and past differences overlooked. But sadly, it is reminiscent of urging us to support the national football team; such unification is artificial, and has nothing to do with moral questions, the rights and wrongs of our position. Obviously I hope that the soldiers and airmen will not be hurt, but ( I guess like many people) I feel even more concern for the ordinary people who lie nightly under a terrible bombardment. This is war, not a game with arbitrary rules. it doesnt matter how much talk there is of only attacking "military' targets and government installations; other people are going to get hurt, and live in fear that they and their families.are facing arbitrary injury and death. I also do not wish to offend anyone, and I recognise the courage of the soldiers; but our military forces are after all not conscripts. Instead, all of them have made at some point a deliberate decision to adopt the military lifestyle, to learn how to fight and, if required, to kill other human beings.(This would be acceptable and necessary if our own country is invaded or threatened perhaps, but ine presesnt war, we are acting as the aggressors.) The military men therefore know what to expect. The ordinary populace however has made no such choice; presumably all they want is to continue their normal day-to-day lives in peace and safety. They are not responsible for the acts of Saddam and his henchmen. It is no good our government spokesmen assuring us that the enemy is Saddam Hussein, and not ordinary Iraqis or people of the Islamic faith; war is too huge and blunt a weapon to aim precisely at an individual. n a purely practical sense, then, avoiding the moral questions for a moment, can this war actually succeed in its stated ends? But of course the moral questions are paramount. Leaving aside the subject of the underlying motives of the British and American governments, which have of course come iunder suspicion, what exactly is an acceptable way of dealing with an evil regime? As Bob says, going to war against the Nazis was perhaps justified, at least understandable. Does Saddam come in the same category? Maybe not on the same scale but of similar nature? He has after all treated some of his own people in a terrible way, and we should not forget that.At what point should the international community intervene? And if this is one of the avowed reasons for toppling Saddams regime. why have we not intervened in similar situations elsewhere in e world? Think of Tibet, for instance. But I am sure enough has been written about that elsewhere. I am not a particularly political beast, and my views might perhaps be seen as naive and uninformed. But it seems to me that sadly, there might not be a single satisfactory answer. Some people I have met seem to think that if you can identify a problem,then here 'must' be an answer. I don't agree. I think there are plenty of complex problems that have no ideal answer; perhaps all we can do is choose the path that is most effective.... and does the least harm. So although I do not, cannot support this war, I dont have any answer to the problem. Yes, diplomacy should work, and in an ideal world is the best way for nations to resolve differences. But wometimes we have to face the fact that it doesnt work. Some nations (And Saddam's regime is surely not the only guilty party!) just dont seem prepared to listen to the other view. Bob writes "Since 1945, the world has been plagued by a continuing string of wars that I cannot possibly classify as having had any necessary or possible virtues" Yes. And ordinary people have become more and more vociferous about expressing their misgivings. we no longer accept blindly what those in power tell us (even if we lack enough clout to stop them in their tracks!) Perhaps this is ,in, part due to modern technology; not only has the moral climate changed maybe, but modern wars are carried out in the full glare of the media. We see things as they happen. A couple of days ago I watched tanks rumbling through the desert. A familiar enough scene from a myriad of war movies; but this was not only real, it was live, happening as I watched. Maybe in the past, war was seen in a more romantic light because we didnt see it happen. Now the journalists and cameramen ride with the troops, and beam their images back to us via satellite. ( its a dangerous job - one of ITVs top journalists has just been killed in Iraq)But maybe one drawback of all this is that we have become blase . The scenes, as I just said, are so familiar from movies and TV productions. Modern communications used to be seen as miraculous ....to bring GG into this again for a moment, think of his description of himself as a child in the thirties, listening to a radio and realising with a sense of wonder that he was hearing the voice of a man speaking maybe hundreds of miles away. Well, I guess we have lost that sense of wonder since now we take it for granted. Gould was fascinated by th possibilities that modern technology opened up in the field of communication, whether or not (in his case) he was communicating musically or verbally. I wonder what he would thought of the modern ability to show war as it happens? If the sight of suffering spurs people into action to stop what is going on, that would be fine. But does it? The other evening, in the canteen where I work, the TV was showing distant shots of Baghdad in flames, under bombardment. Some people watched without comment, some ignored the screen. The problem was, it looked just like the special effects created by a Hollywood movie team, which might be spectacular but you know nobody is really hurt. Something similar happened on the morning of September 11th. A lot of people said that on turning their TVs on unwittingly, for the lunchtime news perhaps (in Britain) they could not understand what they were seeing and their first reaction was "this must be a clip from some disaster movie". It took a few moments for them to realise the full horror of what was happening. We presumably subscribe to F-minor because we love music, and art, and beauty. Glenn Gould strove to create these things, sometimes wonderfully. sometimes in a rather offbeat way ... but the point is that he, and other people like him, contribute something positive that enhances our experience of life. Those that make war do not. Whatever their motives. surely we can try to find a better way to to settle disputes and protect mankind. Kate |