5 ms·

> (every American life lost matters) Are non-American lives somehow worth less? (Or just worthless?) That's the kind of ethno-centric mindset that doesn't eve

by jfk13 8y ago

> (every American life lost matters) Are non-American lives somehow worth less? (Or just worthless?) That's the kind of ethno-centric mindset that doesn't even bother to count the civilian "collateral damage" as long as our guys are safe in their body armor or -- better -- thousands of miles away directing drones from behind a desk. It doesn't help much with building intercultural trust and understanding, though, or "winning hearts and minds".

skinnymuch 8y ago
OP could have just been saying American lives talking about attacks on American military areas. In which case you assume it is American lives. There’s no way to tell if they were caring more about American or western lives like is an unfortunate case a lot of the time.
yellowapple 8y ago
By "American lives", I meant "lives lost as a result of an attack on American soil". That includes civilian lives, including civilians in American territories (i.e. the Philippines, which was part of America at the time, and Hawaii/Wake/Guam/Midway, which still are). While I understand that this can be an emotional topic, I would appreciate it if you refrained from putting words in my mouth.
- jfk13 8y ago
  The point isn't the exact semantics of "American lives", it's that you chose to identify a particular kind of lives that "matter". Whether or not you meant it that way, it's easy for a reader to see this as implying that other lives matter less, especially as this kind of attitude (and phrasing) is pretty widespread. A more inclusive "every life lost matters" would have served equally well in the context, wouldn't it?
  - yellowapple 8y ago
    The context was an attack on American soil and ascertaining the primary target of that attack. Casualties on the American side are definitely the more relevant metric than, say, casualties on the Japanese side. Besides, the non-American lives lost - that is, the Japanese lives lost - were lost specifically because they were attacking American soil unprovoked and by surprise. While their lives certainly did matter, and I do sympathize with the soldiers and their families who made the ultimate sacrifice for their country, it should be entirely unsurprising that, you know, maybe I'll have a little more sympathy for the defenders. This is not a US-centric mindset, by the way (despite me happening to be American), unless you think extending the same difference in sympathy to Chinese defenders v. Japanese aggressors in the same exact war is somehow "US-centric", or similarly extending the same difference in sympathy to Middle Eastern defenders v. American aggressors.

by jfk13 8y ago

skinnymuch 8y ago

OP could have just been saying American lives talking about attacks on American military areas. In which case you assume it is American lives. There’s no way to tell if they were caring more about American or western lives like is an unfortunate case a lot of the time.

yellowapple 8y ago

By "American lives", I meant "lives lost as a result of an attack on American soil". That includes civilian lives, including civilians in American territories (i.e. the Philippines, which was part of America at the time, and Hawaii/Wake/Guam/Midway, which still are). While I understand that this can be an emotional topic, I would appreciate it if you refrained from putting words in my mouth.

jfk13 8y ago
The point isn't the exact semantics of "American lives", it's that you chose to identify a particular kind of lives that "matter". Whether or not you meant it that way, it's easy for a reader to see this as implying that other lives matter less, especially as this kind of attitude (and phrasing) is pretty widespread. A more inclusive "every life lost matters" would have served equally well in the context, wouldn't it?
- yellowapple 8y ago
  The context was an attack on American soil and ascertaining the primary target of that attack. Casualties on the American side are definitely the more relevant metric than, say, casualties on the Japanese side. Besides, the non-American lives lost - that is, the Japanese lives lost - were lost specifically because they were attacking American soil unprovoked and by surprise. While their lives certainly did matter, and I do sympathize with the soldiers and their families who made the ultimate sacrifice for their country, it should be entirely unsurprising that, you know, maybe I'll have a little more sympathy for the defenders. This is not a US-centric mindset, by the way (despite me happening to be American), unless you think extending the same difference in sympathy to Chinese defenders v. Japanese aggressors in the same exact war is somehow "US-centric", or similarly extending the same difference in sympathy to Middle Eastern defenders v. American aggressors.