Pinter’s Nobel lecture

That title should provide ample warning there may be a political minefield ahead. Have you had a chance to read Harold Pinter’s Nobel Lecture?

The part I’ll quote isn’t about US politics as you might expect, but some writerly advice about politics in theatre:

“Political theatre presents an entirely different set of problems. Sermonising has to be avoided at all cost. Objectivity is essential. The characters must be allowed to breathe their own air. The author cannot confine and constrict them to satisfy his own taste or disposition or prejudice. He must be prepared to approach them from a variety of angles, from a full and uninhibited range of perspectives, take them by surprise, perhaps, occasionally, but nevertheless give them the freedom to go which way they will. “

© THE NOBEL FOUNDATION 2005

My suggestion is to read Mr. Pinter’s entire lecture with that same objectivity, perhaps as if he were a character in a play, talking about another country, not the US. That may help to set aside any immediate emotional reaction and give you a chance to think through what he has to say. I found it necessary afterward to do a little research. What follows are the questions I asked myself and the thought processes I went through.

While I’m saddened by the fact that Mr. Pinter seems to blame all Americans for what he calls US war crimes, and while I would love to be able to say I have no personal responsibility in those alleged crimes, I have to remind myself we live in what we call a democratic nation, where everyone has a voice, where we’re told we have the power to make changes based on what the majority thinks is right. The question is, how well informed are we about those decisions?

I followed my reading of Harold Pinter’s lecture with some disheartening accounts of the possible far-reaching effects of US use of depleted uranium weapons in the Gulf War, in the Balkans, and in the current conflict in Iraq, and the harm those weapons have done on all sides. Are depleted uranium weapons a factor in Gulf War Syndrome? No one can say, since that malady is still, by most accounts, a mystery.

One has to wonder at what level the decisions are made to use such weapons, and who is weighing the effects against the potential costs. Who are we letting make up our collective mind? How do we define weapons of mass destruction, and do we believe some nations should be allowed to use them but not others? Who decides what constitutes acceptable losses, and who gets to decide who loses? These are the kinds of decisions which, looking back, sometimes appear to have been made by the most ignorant, unthinking, uncaring people we can imagine. People who must have some motive other than protecting you, me, or anyone else—or idiots. Yet these decisions were made by Americans we’ve chosen as leaders. Leaders who expect to be able to recruit soldiers, to convince young people that serving in our armed forces is a good idea. Leaders who expect us to trust their decisions when even they can’t say how extensive the effects of these decisions may be. Aren’t we all at least a little responsible for any decision our government makes?

If we truly support our troops, then surely we need to support a desire and active effort to keep their orders from being issued by those who have little regard for life—any life, whether it be the lives of presumed enemies, of those civilians—including children—who may fall victim to collateral damage, or of our own troops as they carry out orders—orders that can have a double edge, putting soldiers first in immediate danger of direct attack, and second in danger of possible long term illness or disability down the road—perhaps their families as well.

In considering whether the continued use of depleted uranium weapons is such a terrible thing, imagine how you would be viewed if you weren’t sure whether your car would stop on its own before hitting a pedestrian, so you decided to keep your foot off the brake and wait to see what happened. Should you be considered a criminal if you hit the pedestrian? What if you killed them?

What horrifies me most is that there isn’t greater public outcry when we learn of things like the longterm effects of depleted uranium weapons, and if there is outcry, why the news media chooses to ignore or pass over it so often.

Of course we don’t want to look at our own ugliness.

Rest assured, the world is looking. Ignoring or taking umbrage at Harold Pinter’s words is a little like walking down a public street naked, telling ourselves we’re fully clothed, then being surprised and outraged when others notice we’re not.

Now, if Mr. Pinter were to read my post, he’d likely wonder what about his lecture I was responding to. The truth is, I’ve only touched on one or two paragraphs. The first I quoted. The second contained the words “depleted uranium.” You really have to read his entire lecture to know what he said. He said a lot. Again I encourage reading it while suspending judgement and emotions. Take it in. Think about it. I believe all Americans owe it to ourselves to face such criticism with an open mind. Do some research. Then attempt to separate truth from fiction.