Michael Wines’ Letter to “FAIR Correspondents”
Here is the full text of Michael Wines’ response to letters generated by FAIR’s June 17, 1999 action alert, “The New York Times‘ Yawning Gap: Between Glowing Portrait of Western Idealism and Reality of U.S. Policy.”
Dear FAIR correspondents,
Because I cannot reply to all correspondence, especially that which is computer-generated, I have generally been spiking your messages after reading them, excepting one or two especially annoying ones which received rather tart replies. That doesn’t advance anything, and to them I apologize, with the suggestion that they read all the way to the end of this note.
Still, I believe that anything which generates 15 or 20 messages deserves a response. This is it. I certainly don’t expect it to change anyone’s mind. As for anything else, I’ll let the article speak for itself.
To those of you who think the article whitewashed the many sins of the Western world, particularly those of the United States–that is, to everyone: I’m neither naive nor jingoistic. I don’t believe the West is virginal or incapable of genocide; one need look no farther than Hitler for proof of that. The United States has committed its share of sins, going back, I guess, to the Indians–oops, Native Americans–whose culture was essentially wiped out.
On the other hand, you can’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good. And there are plenty of people who will argue that the West’s record in the last 100 years is good in comparison to that of many other parts of the world. Living and working in Russia, I can assure you that many Russians would disagree with your premise, even as they criticize–perhaps rightly–NATO’s campaign in Yugoslavia. Extermination was a byword here for decades, with the loss of tens of millions of lives and permanent damage to an intellectually and culturally rich civilization. As any Soviet Jew. Ask the Caucasians.
I’d further remind correspondents–not that you need reminding–that the West was engaged in a cold war with these forces for 50 years, a war fought with proxies, from Guatemala to Afghanistan, who sometimes suffered grievously. Was it wrong to know of death squads in Guatemala and look the other way? Absolutely; it was a reprehensible act for which every American should be ashamed. Does it compare with the deeds of the force waging war on the other side? No way, I think.
To those who would argue that genocide is genocide, and that there is no purchase on a slippery slope between East and West: the world isn’t a perfect place, folks. Nations defend–or try to expand–their interests; you either assert your own or get rolled. I don’t like it, either. Does that excuse reprehensible acts? Nope, not at all. Explain them? In part, I believe so.
Finally, this coda: the intent of this article was not to stage a contest for purest civilization, nor to crown anyone king. It was a look at the West’s intents in Yugoslavia and an attempt to explain, in some small part, why much of the world views things through a different lens.
To those who reminded me that the internet now allows them to escape the intellectual domination of the New York Times: I agree. I think it’s a great thing, though I also believe that anyone who thinks that became true with the advent of the Internet has been pretty intellectually lazy for the last several decades. In any case, I find it ironic that people who are expanding their minds in cyberspace to escape the Establishment media are now taking their instructions–i.e., media alerts–from Internet sites.
I do hope that correspondents read my article in full before dashing off their criticisms. To do otherwise would be pretty robotic, no?
And finally, to those who dispatched abusive and foul language: I’m not sure why e-mail has made some people feel they are empowered to curse and demean total strangers, but it’s definitely a phenomenon. I suggest that you wait an hour and reread your words before pressing the “send” button. You will save yourself considerable embarrassment and increase the chances that your respondent will consider your arguments.
And to all: thank you for writing. As I said, I do not expect anyone to change his or her views as a result of this, but I did want you to know that your messages are read and appreciated.
Rgds
Michael Wines
