This debate over whether or not to refer to MS 13 members as "animals" has weirdly reversed the positions of the left and right. The left has normally taken themselves to be the descendants of the heroes of the Scopes Monkey Trial, and thus has argued that it is good for us to recognize that humans are merely another kind of animal. Seeing humanity as separate or special leads to 'anthropocentric' thinking, they normally go on to argue, that blinds us to the fact that animals are much more like us that we are prepared to admit. Vegetarianism and veganism, as well as animal rights arguments, rooted in this basic approach are far more common on the left than otherwise.
The right, meanwhile, has normally advocated the orthodox Christian position that humanity is categorically different from animals: that we, alone of creation, were made in the image of God. In addition to serving to ground laws that tend to follow Christian doctrine, this tends to root right-leaning doctrines of conservation (rather than environmentalism), good husbandry (rather than veganism), and the like. The idea that man is special, and placed on earth with authority over it, arises here.
Of course these days everything is about Trump, and the fact that he said it means that one group must defend it and the other oppose it. Principled arguments are not as common as once.
The dehumanization of MS-13 members is not not something being done by people calling them ‘animals’….they have chosen to dehumanize themselves.
ReplyDeleteI’m pretty sure that during WWII, Americans regularly referred to Nazis as ‘brutes’, ‘beasts’, etc….and I’m quite sure this terminology was used during WWI, there is even a movie whose title, referring to the Kaiser, was The Beast of Berlin. Yet somehow, this did not lead to American-led genocide against the Germans following the conclusion of either war.
Although actually, I’d argue that the term ‘animals’ is probably too mild in this context.
In the film Runaway Train, the older of the two criminals is called an ‘animal’ by the girl they have taken hostage. His response:
“No, worse! Human, HUMAN”
The movie ends with an on-screen quote from Shakespeare:
No beast so fierce but knows some touch of pity.”
“But I know none, and therefore am no beast.”
I think ‘monsters’ would have been better than ‘animals’, but it would have garnered the same response from the Left.
"Monsters," as Chesterton would have pointed out, is orthodox when applied to any human. Made in the image of God but fallen into Original Sin; having a true home in heaven, but living out life in the world.
ReplyDeleteOne thing that's contaminating the "inversion" is that when Trump answered a question (a week ago?) from a round table participant regarding MS-13, and he referred at that time and for the first time to the MS-13 as animals, the Progressive-Democrats, the NLMSM, and the Left generally, dishonestly twisted his words and claimed he was calling all immigrants "animals."
ReplyDeleteTheir lie was quickly exposed, and they've been trying to recover and cover up ever since, including even Pelosi's pious declaration that there's a spark of divinity in each of us. These...persons...now are having to defend their defense of MS-13. Of course, that's a distortion, too, but the Left has encountered someone who's as good at propaganda as they are, and that's a contest they're not used to.
Eric Hines
Yeah, OK. But we got to the truth eventually, and now we're fighting about the real issue.
ReplyDeleteAre humans animals? Yeah, sure, in a way. But in another way, maybe there's something special about being a human and not a dog (or a goat, or whatever). Or maybe having the idea that there's something special about humanity is a kind of arrogance that leads to abuses. There are established positions on this, and nobody's adhering to them this go round. That's interesting to me.
Well, one of the established positions is that there is some behavior so evil that it renders the behavers not human. That's a position that's being adhered to by some.
ReplyDeleteEric Hines
"So Christian morals have always said to the man, not that he would lose his soul, but that he must take care that he didn't. In Christian morals, in short, it is wicked to call a man 'damned': but it is strictly religious and philosophic to call him damnable."
ReplyDelete-Chesterton, Orthodoxy.
"The press takes him literally, but not seriously; his supporters take him seriously, but not literally." - Salena Zito
ReplyDeleteOf course MS-13 gang members are dehumanizing themselves by their behavior. That doesn't resolve the question of how we are to treat them. For one thing, we're not entitled to treat animals cruelly or spitefully. I'd say MS-13 gang members have disqualified themselves from all kinds of human social and institutional benefits, like trust and membership in decision-making. It doesn't mean we get to round them up into concentration camps and conduct medical experiments on them, which is the dark path that many "dehumanizing" mental processes lead to. It may well mean that we often shoot them dead in the street to prevent whatever mayhem they're engaged in at the moment. or lock them up as being far too dangerous to allow to roam free. It certainly means I'm going to invest zero effort into whether we can rehabilitate them into productive immigrant material. We have lots of other prospective immigrants who deserve our limited attention and resources first.
ReplyDeleteAnd to expand on that a bit, it's precisely because they are human--that is, dangerously intelligent and capable of imitating productive members of society just long enough to insinuate themselves among unsuspecting victims--that we are peculiarly harsh with them, and why we are angrier with them than with, say, a rogue tiger.
ReplyDeleteFor what it's worth, I suspect basically the same debate would be taking place in the public if he'd called MS-13 (equally appropriately) "barbarians," "savages," or "monsters," rather than "animals;" the point was the opportunity to tar Trump as having referred to all immigrants by derogatory terms when he meant a particular group of criminals.
ReplyDeleteYou're probably right, Matt. But I would only be critical of the one side, in that case.
ReplyDeleteAs Tex says, of course they're horrible -- particularly because they are doing these terrible things using the gifts they have as humans. "Savages" is surely appropriate.
"...particularly because they are doing these terrible things using the gifts they have as humans."
ReplyDeleteAre they though? Seems to me that they pretty much fully give in to the instinctual drives in seeking protection first, then power, material comforts, and so on- the animal side of us- and toss aside the gifts that set us apart if we'll have them. Their choice. But it seems to make it applicable to call them animals, and not necessarily be denying the human aspect. To say that they're inhuman in some way- calling them by a specific other animal name, or simply "inhuman" I'd have a problem with. Animals? Not so much.
My concern with 'de-humanizing' monsters like them, if it's done, is that it's important we recognize that humans are fully capable of being monsters- that it's not at all beyond us but rather is that to which we fall if we are not raised above it.
My concern with 'de-humanizing' monsters like them....
ReplyDeleteExcept that we're not de-humanizing anyone. As Mr Foster said at the top of this thread, that's something these creatures have done entirely of their own volition, using tools like intelligence and free will. The fact that they used human tools to achieve that goal doesn't make--or leave--them human anymore than apes using the human tool of sign language makes them different than apes. In both cases, they're just tool-using creatures.
Animals are what MS-13 have chosen to be. Their choice. I accept their choice.
Eric Hines
Very Kantian, Mr. Hines.
ReplyDeleteI'm not getting your point, Grim. That I seem occasionally to use some of the same tools Kant did means...?
ReplyDeleteEric Hines
Commenters on Ace quoted from a Twitterer who evidently confused MS-13 with AR-15 and made some crack about asking the kids in that school in Florida how dangerous an MS-13 was. That inspired others to suggest that all we have to do is convince the MSM that an MS-13 is a weapon, and they'll start demonizing it with the rest of us.
ReplyDeleteI don’t mean anything beyond noting the familiarity of the form. I suppose you can infer that you’re subject to the same kinds of criticisms; on the other hand, Kant remains very highly regarded. It’s an approach widely respected even if it is not my own.
ReplyDeleteOh, I wasn't taking offense, or thinking one way or the other at all on your comment. I just wasn't getting your meaning. Especially since I'm not that familiar with Kant.
ReplyDeleteMadam Commissioner T, YGTBSM.
Eric Hines