It is rare for a college student to trigger a national debate with an opinion column in a student newspaper but, to his credit, Oliver Friedfeld, has done precisely that. Friedfeld wrote an op-ed in the Hoya after he was mugged at gunpoint and defended the black youths who robbed him at gunpoint — a column entitled “I Was Mugged, And I Understand Why” that is drawing praise and ridicule across the country.
The senior explained in the column that
“Last weekend, my housemate and I were mugged at gunpoint while walking home from Dupont Circle. The entire incident lasted under a minute, as I was forced to the floor, handed over my phone and was patted down. And yet, when a reporter asked whether I was surprised that this happened in Georgetown, I immediately answered: ‘Not at all.’ It was so clear to me that we live in the most privileged neighborhood within a city [Washington, D.C.] that has historically been, and continues to be, harshly unequal.
The fact that these two kids, who appeared younger than I, have even had to entertain these questions suggests their universes are light years away from mine.”
Friedfeld appears to argue that it is he — and people like him — who have the most explaining to do: “Who am I to stand from my perch of privilege, surrounded by million-dollar homes and paying for a $60,000 education, to condemn these young men as ‘thugs?’ It’s precisely this kind of ‘otherization’ that fuels the problem.”
It is a thought-provoking piece but one with which I have to disagree. I am not sure what value “otherization” has a social theory, but I disagree that “it’s a lot easier for me to choose good than it may be for them.” This was a crime of violence in a city being ravaged by such violence. Indeed, most such crimes occur in improvised neighborhoods. There is a choice that is made for most people before they reach for a gun and victimize others. Friedfeld insists that this is the price that must be paid for our failure as a society:
As young people, we need to devote real energy to solving what are collective challenges. Until we do so, we should get comfortable with sporadic muggings and break-ins. I can hardly blame them. The cards are all in our hands, and we’re not playing them.
While I commend Friedfeld for writing about his views, I find the sentiments expressed to be more moral relativism that has taken hold of our society. Many families in this country faced terrible poverty but did not turn to violent crime. They made a difficult choice that stayed faithful to the most basic tenets of a moral life. To relieve these men of moral responsibility for their act is to discard any notion of personal responsibility and choice.
I strongly condemn those who are attacking Friedfeld. He offers a personal and genuine view of the relative differences between his privileged life and the life of these muggers. Where I disagree with him is not that comparison, but his conclusion. I can see why Friedfeld does not feel victimized (particularly since he was not shot in the encounter), but that does not make these men any less of criminals. In other words, the wealth differential has more relevance to defining his level of victimization than it does excusing their level of criminalization.
Regardless of the merits, Friedfeld certainly produced something positive from the experience in triggering this national debate. While I disagree with him, the column is an effort by a college student to draw meaning out of such an experience.
99 guspuppet,
Stating the fact basis of Operation Iraqi Freedom is wordsmithing?
Your personally crafted morality that you’re responsible for is antithetical to facts?
The morality of the “laws and regulations” for OIF – the UNSC resolutions enforced by the President under US law – weren’t of the sort that the Nazis were famous for. In fact, the liberal morality underlying the US-led campaign that defeated the Nazis is the same lberal morality, albeit in a more mature form, that underlaid the US-led enforcement of the UN mandates with Saddam.
To wit:
UNSC Resolution 688 (1991):
President Clinton, 1998:
UN Commission on Human Rights, 2002:
President Bush, 2002:
Public Law 107-243, 2002:
UNSCR 1441, 2002:
UN Special Rapporteur on Iraq, Andreas Mavrommatis, 2004:
President Obama, 2011:
When President Obama observed Iraq’s “peaceful progress” in 2011, it was with the US-led peace operations in Iraq. But then Obama prematurely removed the necessary US-led peace operations from Iraq, and worse, unconscionably refused to help Iraq for too long while the Qutbist terrorists resurged in Syria and escalated their attacks into Iraq in 2013 into 2014.
By enforcing the UN mandates and the subsequent peace operations with Iraq, President Bush honored the American liberal morality that defeated the Nazis and secured the peace during the Cold War. By withdrawing the peace operations prematurely and refusing too long to return to Iraq, President Obama abandoned the hard-won peace and betrayed American leadership of the free world.
Dear 99guspuppet; I would like to have you as a neighbor, too;-)
I use the words, us, and we, to awaken a sense of responsibility in the masses that these atrocities ARE being done in our name…the Americans, and we should do something about it. I, too, would have things different, and thank god/goddess, that here are many “who have not bowed the knee to Baal” and who care deeply about others even if they are not kith and kin, and look and smell, and think differently.
Did we invade Iraq because we thought they were the perpetrators of 9-11? No.
Did we invade Iraq for their oil? (a common belief by many who opposed our imperialistic invasion.) No.
We wanted/needed permanent military bases in the Mideast. We have hundreds of military bases in countries that we pay for, and the governments can get testy about us launching invasions from them. Our military bases in Germany, Ireland, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, etc, were tenuous, many had populations that did not want us there. They were costing us a fortune, and the rent could go up! Apparently, the powers that be thought it would be a “cakewalk” to go in and knock over a third world nation with a despicable sovereign. We would call it ‘Operation Iraqi Freedom’. “Liberation, Yeah! Hundreds of thousands of civilian deaths? Bah! A horrendous disruption of the civil society of a sovereign nation? Bah! it’s in our national interest. “Mission Accomplished!” Not. Within months after the invasion, (and before anyone asked the Iraq people who now had no government) concrete was being poured for the largest United States Embassy in the world, slated to have a permanent staff of two thousand employees. Also, engineering was begun for the installation of 14 permanent military bases, (which had been designed years earlier…just in case;-) to station the largest fighting air force in the world, (ours), able to strike anywhere with in the Mideast and Caucuses without having to get the surrounding sovereign nations permission to transit.
However, bombing an entire society was not as easy as projected.It turned out the “blowback” was incorrectly calculated. We have sown the wind and shall reap the whirlwind. We have Isis.
I think it’s amusing that he’s making such a big deal about his race, privilege, guilt, etc.
The kids who robbed him did not do so because of his race. They did so because he was in an area where there is obviously money to be had. If Georgetown was an affluent black neighborhood, I’m sure the same robbery would have taken place, but the victim would have been black.
As bankrobber Willie Sutton reportedly (but didn’t actually) replied when asked why he robbed banks, “Because that’s where the money is.”
Ask these crooks if they robbed this kid because he was white and they’d probably reply, “Hell no. Georgetown is just where the money is!”
Fix: Bush only came on for the coda, and as such, Bush’s case against Saddam was really Clinton’s case against Saddam, updated from 9/11.
99guspuppet,
The fact basis of Operation Iraqi Freedom is straightforward. However, understanding it does require familiarity with the actual law and policy of the Gulf War ceasefire enforcement.
Unfortunately, widespread misconceptions have confused – obfuscated – the fact basis of OIF for many people.
Fortunately, curing your confusion is done simply by reading the primary sources for OIF, which are free and easily accessed on-line.
Study tip: Clinton, not Bush, is the best source for understanding OIF. The Saddam problem matured during the Clinton administration. Bush only came on for the coda, and as such, Bush’s case against Saddam was really Clinton’s case against Saddam, update from 9/11.
To get you started, these are the basic essential primary sources for understanding OIF (same paragraph with links at http://learning-curve.blogspot.com/2014/05/operation-iraqi-freedom-faq.html#furtherreading):
My explanation of the law and policy of OIF at http://learning-curve.blogspot.com/2014/05/operation-iraqi-freedom-faq.html is a decent cheat sheet, but it’s still better to read the primary sources for yourself.
Eric, as Jane pointed out …… you are hiding behind a blizzard of wordsmithing. I do not care how many laws and regulations are crafted by our betters ( snicker ). The Nazis had “laws” as well. I will stick with my personally crafted morality and be responsible for it.
Jane,
Citing to the actual law and policy of Operation Iraqi Freedom is obfuscation?
Sure looks that way to me, Eric
@99guspuppet
I fear that your wishes will come true. Too many idiotic, liberal twerps live in relatively safe cocoons away from the real world. It will be other people who suffer the violence because, in part, too many liberals fly top cover for the thugs, to stroke their own egos. But, one can always hope!
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
To: Squeeky Fromm ….. I hope your wishes for violence never come true …. what makes your “dream violence” any better than that of anyone else ? Please don’t say it is because it is endorsed by religion or some majority.
Dear Eric, to avoid culpability you have elevated obfuscation to an art form.
I would rather have Jane and Friedfeld as neighbors. They stop and think about the big picture…. they do not resort to thought-bytes, nor to jingoism. They consider other humans as more than a means to an end. I do want to point out to Jane that one should be careful about using the pronouns “us” & “we” . Who are you referring to ? Certainly not me …. I oppose all violence. I am really tired of those whose first tool of choice is punishment , imprisonment & violence. If you want the police & courts to do it for you ( you like using proxies ) , you are no friend of mine. #PrisonWorldAkaAmerica
If Friedfeld wishes to be a sin eater, let him. Better he than me.
Gigi De La Paz: “In my opinion, this young man is an idealist.”
I agree. In his naiveté, it’s obvious that Friedfeld does not view the muggers as real people, but rather as objects, abstract objects no less.
Gigi De La Paz: “You don’t have to be a brilliant person to make a decent living, but you might need some guidance and knowledge. Oliver can devote his free time to helping those in need pull themselves out of there circumstance.”
While Friedfeld may be able to teach a particular subject, but I don’t think he’s ready to teach boys how to be men.
In my opinion, this young man is an idealist. Most of us had idealistic attitudes in our youth, but learned over the years that most people make their way in life by the amount of hard work, knowledge, and acquired wisdom that people are willing to put into themselves. It has nothing to do with being poor, rich, white or black, etc.
Oliver Friedfeld gives me the impression of being a wealthy child being sent Scott free to a prestigious college and feels guilty for having such privilege. He has empathy for the youth that mugged him and that is fine. If he is truly empathetic, he should roll up his sleeves and get to work, not handing out to these thugs, but guiding them out of their disparation .
You don’t have to be a brilliant person to make a decent living, but you might need some guidance and knowledge. Oliver can devote his free time to helping those in need pull themselves out of there circumstance. It would be interesting to see if he does.
Meanwhile, these muggers are criminals who need to be removed from the streets and society.
leejcarroll:
How do you figure that Saddam loyalists and Qutbist terrorists “killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians” (Jane) in the name of US citizens by Bush? Especially given that Saddam loyalists did a lot of that killing before Bush was President.
I understand there are folks who prefer centralized NWO/Illuminati type conspiracies, but your theory that Saddam loyalists and Qutbists terrorists were killing Iraqi civilians in the name of US citizens by Bush is radically far out.
The legal basis of the mission disposes of your theory at go.
Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-338):
UNSC Resolution 1511 (2003):
leejcarroll:
You’re wrong on the facts. The facts are the law and policy of the 1991-2003 Gulf War ceasefire plainly show, one, enforcement, including Operation Iraqi Freedom, was compliance-based and, two, Saddam’s noncompliance (material breach) of the UN mandates was confirmed by the UN Commission on Human Rights, UNMOVIC, etc, at the decision point for OIF and then corroborated by the Iraq Survey Group, UN Special Rapporteur on Iraq, etc.
That said, while Bush did not mislead about the compliance-based enforcement nor lie about the pre-war intelligence, however, Bush did make an error in presenting the pre-war intelligence when he deviated from Clinton’s public presentation of the case against Saddam.
Explanation – excerpt from http://learning-curve.blogspot.com/2014/05/operation-iraqi-freedom-faq.html#didBushlie :
…
Four, the public controversy is over Bush’s presentation of intelligence on latter Iraqi NBC stocks and programs, yet the pre-war intelligence that Bush presented was simply the intelligence that was available. Because of Saddam’s record, Clinton and Bush officials enforcing the Gulf War ceasefire were compelled to judge the intelligence in an unfavorable light for Iraq, and 9/11 obliged US officials to increase their wariness due to Saddam’s belligerence and guilt on terrorism. Congressmen, Democrats and Republicans, who independently reviewed the pre-war intelligence in light of Saddam’s record largely shared Bush’s determination. The bipartisan Silberman-Robb WMD Commission “found no indication that the Intelligence Community distorted the evidence regarding Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction”. A partisan Democrat-slanted Senate Select Committee on Intelligence later analyzed pre-war statements by Bush administration officials and concluded they were largely “substantiated by intelligence”, and found no manipulated intelligence nor political pressure placed on intelligence analysts.
Opponents who accuse Bush of lying his way to war with Iraq cite the Duelfer Report finding, “While it appears that Iraq, by the mid-1990s, was essentially free of militarily significant WMD stocks, Saddam’s perceived requirement to bluff about WMD capabilities made it too dangerous to clearly reveal this to the international community, especially Iran.” However, they overlook Clinton’s compliance-based Iraq enforcement escalated after the mid-1990s and peaked with Operation Desert Fox in December 1998. Again, due in part to the success of Saddam’s “concealment and deception activities” (Duelfer Report), the “clear and present danger to the stability of the Persian Gulf and the safety of people everywhere” (Clinton) was imputed from Iraq’s noncompliance with the UN mandates, not from demonstrated Iraqi possession of WMD stocks. Saddam’s “bluff” worked: Iraq’s noncompliance imputed continued possession.
In defense of the much-criticized intelligence agencies, the imprecision of the intelligence on Iraq due to Saddam’s effective “denial and deception operations” (Duelfer Report) was a known issue early in the disarmament process and accounted for with Iraq’s presumption of guilt, burden of proof, and standard of compliance. To their credit, the pre-war intelligence, while imprecise, correctly indicated Iraq was violating the Gulf War ceasefire. Again, the pre-war intelligence did not and could not trigger enforcement. By procedure, OIF was triggered by Iraq’s material breach of its obligations under the UNSC resolutions, including Iraq’s failure to prove Saddam was disarmed to the standard mandated by UNSCR 687 and related resolutions.
Bush’s mistakes were improperly characterizing the pre-war intelligence estimates as “evidence” rather than as indicators, the normal and proper role of intelligence, and presenting the pre-war intelligence to the public inapposite of its actual, circumscribed role in the operative enforcement procedure. Bush, instead, should have followed Clinton’s precedent in the public presentation: for Operation Desert Fox, President Clinton had cited only to Iraq’s evident noncompliance in terms of deficient cooperation and account of weapons when he declared “Iraq has abused its final chance” and imputed Saddam’s “clear and present danger to the stability of the Persian Gulf and the safety of people everywhere”. Clinton’s citation of noncompliance as the reason for bombing Iraq matched the operative enforcement procedure. When Clinton endorsed Bush’s Iraq enforcement, Clinton stayed consistent with his compliance-based justification for ODF by citing the threat, heightened by the 9/11 attacks, of Saddam’s “unaccounted for stocks of biological and chemical weapons”.
Bush cited properly to Iraq’s evident noncompliance with the UNSC resolutions as Clinton had done for ODF. But in a departure from Clinton’s public presentation, Bush also cited the pre-war intelligence, despite that the intelligence could not trigger enforcement. Propagandists pounced on Bush’s error of presentation to shift the burden of proof from Iraq proving compliance with the UNSC resolutions to the US proving Iraqi possession matched the pre-war intelligence estimates. However, the mistake does not change that Iraqi possession was established in the factual baseline of the Gulf War ceasefire as the foundational premise of the disarmament process. The only legal and reliable way to know Saddam had disarmed was Iraq proving compliance with the standard mandated by the UNSC resolutions enforced under US law. Saddam’s noncompliance – including Iraq’s basic failure to declare and destroy all its as-of-Gulf-War WMD under international supervision – was confirmed by UNMOVIC with the Cluster Document, which imputed the continued possession of proscribed weapons by Iraq, whereupon Bush properly applied the operative enforcement procedure at the decision point for OIF.
Eric the killing was done in the name of US citizens by Bush who, despite your belief to the contrary, lied us (misled us) into war
Jane: “Eric; No, I am not a Saddam Loyalist. But I like to live with eyes wide open.”
If you’re not a Saddam loyalist, then you’re a Qutbist?
You said “we have killed hundred of thousands of Iraqi civilians and made homeless more”. That 1st-person description narrows down your affiliation. Only 2 groups can make the claim of killing hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians and making more homeless: Qutbist terrorists (AQI, ISIS, etc) and members of Saddam’s regime who carried out Saddam’s “all-pervasive repression and oppression sustained by broad-based discrimination and widespread terror” (UN Commission on Human Rights) and then transitioned from Saddam’s terroristic governance of the Iraqi people to the terroristic insurgency against post-Saddam Iraq and the US-led peace operations tasked with “all necessary measures to contribute to the maintenance of security and stability in Iraq … for the purpose of ensuring necessary conditions for … key humanitarian and economic infrastructure” (UNSC Resolution 1511).
I understand your response, Fiver. I don’t know if robbery fits into that argument. It may or may not… I never thought of it in that light. I guess maybe I would not choose right or wrong in that instance, only survival? But I don’t think I would say it was OK afterwards.
Jane’s post is forward-looking. When the government(s) keep enabling this massive fraud among banks, there will be a point in time when a reconciliation will be due. Push will come to shove over all of this.
And they say Americans can’t appreciate irony . . . .
A young man actually does the most Christian things possible in a very difficult situation. He turns the other cheek; he identifies and empathizes with his attackers; and he avoids anger and hate.
Talk about taking the Golden Rule to heart. And yet he still runs afoul of moral relativism!
Tough crowd 😛