Politicizing Vicitmization

Another sort-of reprint, but with some new material that covers some more recent issues.

These days, perception is everything, and if you can make yourself appear to be a victim, no matter how good or bad you are, then you have an edge. Of course, I speak of the recent crisis in Israel and Lebanon, but I could speak of many events, going back to the first televised crisis, the Vietnam conflict, a war not officially a war. Indeed, no conflict the United States has participated in since World War II has been officially a war. (and with the recent confrontations with North Korea, most people do not know that that particular conflict never ended. It has simply been a 53 year cease fire) Yet, the media gives conflicts names and they stick. The Iraq conflict, which has been over since 2003, is still called a war, when it should be called an occupation, for that is what it is. Anyone before the television era would call it that. Historically, that is what our presence in Iraq is. Semantics, alas, is in the eye of the propagator. I should point out I am not praising or denigrating the causes and outcomes of these conflicts, just their perception and usage in the public eye. And unfortunately, it has drawn me slightly off topic (which can almost guarantee I'm not using anyone else's words here). So, back to this issue of victimization that is tied into perception and semantics.

Of course, victims need imagery. The United States has benefited from imagery. I really need no further example than 'December 7, 1941, a date which will live in infamy'. FDR's words defined the quintessential victim response(in this case warranted, at least that is the general, and my view) and created imagery that united the country in moving toward war with Japan and Germany. Later, we have used other images to propel us into crisis and conflict, the most recent of course being the fall of the World Trade Center on 9/11. To me, these are examples of victimization being justified to an extent, though I am sure many would disagree with my latter example as opposed to the former. Again, not debating right or wrong, just how these words and images affect us.

Now, as information comes at us with such alacrity it would please the Flash, it is harder to judge the images as most people are simply overwhelmed by the imagery. How many websites and newspaper sites plus cable stations covered the recent crisis in Israel and Lebanon (and by association Iran and Syria) and how many places can one get information on this present North Korean crisis? Amazing, really, how quickly one could access this information and how quickly victims were created before we had even time to think about the crisis. This was especially true in the partisan news outlets and websites (not surprisingly). Hezbollah appeared the victim before the first shot was fired, regardless of whether Israel was justified or not. Personally, I felt Israel was and that Hezbollah used the victim card so much it ultimately allowed them to feel that they 'triumphed'. Indeed, the conflict amounted to little more than a standoff with too many casualties on both sides, but the perception that is being fed to the world at large is a victory for Hezbollah. If by victory they mean continuing to hold a country hostage through tacit approval by their masters in Iran and Syria, then ok, a victory. I am sure I am over simplifying things, and politicization is a tough issue, as is being victimized. On the other hand, I wish we could see things as they are, not what we are led to perceive.

The sad thing about this, and all such conflicts, is that the dead are still dead. And yes, fellow humans dying for what they 'believe' in is never a simple thing either. I just wish they'd stop believing and start thinking. Alas, in the era of instant judgment and gratification, I do not think we will see such a thing soon.

C.