Shinobi said:
And I think the point Society and I made still stands...it shouldn't happen to ANYONE. Not everyone who lives in the US is a citizen.
I agree that it shouldn't (in the ethical sense) happen to
anyone, but the distinction you're making here-- about not all American civilians being citizens-- is:
A)
not the distinction Society was making, which was concerned with nationalism (i.e., Americans supposedly seeing themselves as "more worthy of legal protections", or "inherently better" than citizens of other nations), and...
B) not really germane to the discussion, because as I noted in my initial post, the more logical interpretation of the father's words ("this shouldn't happen to any American citizen") is that "should not" was being used to indicate that such an action was not
probable or expected,
not in the normative sense of "it
ought not to happen, morally" (which would necessarily
have to apply to people of all countries, since all human life is of equal value); the reason I believe that my interpretation is more logical is, firstly, because the father made no other racist/jingoistic comments that would force us to view his comment in a negative light; also, because this American citizen/American civilian dichotomy is wholly artificial and inapplicable when viewed in light of the context I proposed (which there is no reason to argue against; i.e., no mitigating cues/comments), since American citizens and American residents are entitled to
the same legal protections, and so it would not be
probable or expected for this to happen to
either American citizens or any other American civilian. I feel that it's pretty clear that he used the word "citizen" not to indicate one's legal status (i.e., that of a legal US citizen), but rather in the sense of "an inhabitant of this country who is entitled to the legal protections of this country's laws".
Also, as mentioned, Society was
not making the distinction between American citizens and OTHER American civilians, but rather between "American lives" and "other human lives" (presumably from other countries; fart's "jingoistic" comment, which Society didn't see fit to correct, supports that interpretation, since it sets up the dichotomy between Americans and those of other nationalities; Society's own words, particularly his later "clarification" about the supposedly analogous "this shouldn't happen to whites", also support this view).
I just
firmly believe that his jumping to that conclusion (and, yes, yours and fart's as well, if you're making the same exact point, which is not as clear
) was
wholly unwarranted based on what was actually said. Again, I realize that there is a
lot of "an American life is worth more than another's life" sentiment making the rounds in this country (which is reprehensible and totally indefensible, morally), but I honestly
do not feel that this is an instance of such foolish thought. I also feel that to read everything he did into a comment that I
totally didn't read any of that in betrays some sort of bias or rush to judgment for whatever reasons. I feel that this is wrong (being that it is unsupported by the evidence), and wanted to point that out.
The same way that I wouldn't give a guy a free pass if he asserted that American lives are worth more than French or Iraqi or Somalian lives (and I've taken numerous people to task for precisely that over the years; Centuryon comes to mind), I am not going to give a guy a free pass to impugn the motives or character of a man who said nothing wrong. I just can't do it. Society had no basis whatsoever to say what he did in this situation. Hope you can understand.