Week 5
Monday, July 13th 2:00pm
Monday, July 13th 2:00pm
On page 112 “[t]his chasm between the thing one pretends to be and the thing one really is – it’s not an exclusively Republican phenomenon” how does this resonate with you?
Thinking about the term: "lesser of two evils," our pre-reading question is at what point does a choice stop being a "relative harm" and become an "absolute evil" that a person of conscience can no longer support, regardless of how bad the alternative might be?
Chapter 7
In the seventh chapter, Omar El Akkad examines the "lesser of two evils" political logic that dominates Western liberalism. He recounts attending a 2015 Republican primary debate at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library where he observes how a Republican establishment that privately despised Donald Trump eventually surrendered all principles to him to maintain a path to power. He notes that this dynamic is mirrored in the Democratic establishment, which uses the "existential threat" of the far right to demand loyalty from voters while simultaneously bankrolling and defending a genocide in Gaza. El Akkad posits that for many modern liberals, the principal concern is "what one is seen to be" rather than what one actually does by allowing meaningless pageantry and slogans to replace the work of achieving justice.
Chapter 8
Chapter 8 explores fear as a "currency of justification" that allows the state to abdicate restraint and enact wholesale violence. El Akkad contrasts his own "irrational" fear of nationalist flags and border crossings, with the state’s manufactured fear of immigrants, Muslims, and Palestinians, which has the purchasing power to move armies and obliterate thousands of lives. He then draws from his experience reporting on the "Toronto 18" terrorism case, he discusses how the term "terrorism" is applied almost exclusively to Brown people to justify extraordinary laws and secret detention. Then, he wearily concludes by noting the hypocrisy of politicians who fiercely condemn a peaceful protest outside a Canadian hospital while remaining silent about the systematic military destruction of every hospital in Gaza.
Chapter 7
El Akkad describes the moral floor that no longer exists when we talk about genocide, and the (mis)belief that you can change a system from the inside, rather than have the system change you. How did this chapter show the dichotomy between what we stand for and what we actually do?
The quote on page 123 “The system does not work for you, was never intended to work for you, but as an act of magnanimity on our part, you may choose the degree to which it works against you”, when we think of how institutions engage with discourse and civic duty, how does this quote reflect, or not, your experience?
Chapter 8
El Akkad describes the differences in how the brutality is perceived in his novel American War,depending on the audience (Egypt and the United States). How can we reflect on how the perception impacts the narratives being told globally right now?
There are descriptions of fear, and the language around fear in this chapter sits with us and lingers when we experience something that frightens us. What stands out for you about the descriptions of fear in this chapter?