3 ms·
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 t
by 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 agoThe 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.