Attaching a label to an entire nation can give a distorted and inaccurate picture of the populace of that nation, as I've noted above. And it can be a very dangerous thing. This is why I object to the idea of piling up statistics and using them to try to come to the conclusion that "violence is the American way." Or that tap-dancing and playing basketball is the African-American way. Or that eating pasta and singing opera is the Italian way. Or that being compulsively precise, clicking one's heels, and invading Poland is the German way. Or that wearing a serape and sombrero and taking a siesta while leaning against a cactus is the Mexican way. Or that saying "eh?" at the end of every sentence is the Canadian way. Or that . . . you get my point.

No matter how justified they may feel (or for that matter, be) in their grievances against the government of the United States, Osama bin Laden, Al Qaeda, and those of this ilk have stated their assumption that since America is a democracy, the American government is truly representative of the American people. ALL of the American people. Each individual. Therefore, each and every American citizen, they maintain, is to blame for the excesses of the American government. Thus, in their own minds, they justify the indiscriminate slaughter of American citizens by acts of mass terrorism.

This kind of short-sighted, pigeon-hole thinking simply dismisses as irrelevant the millions of people who campaigned against and voted against and demonstrated (and continue to hold vigils and demonstrations and are actively campaigning for the 2004 elections) against the government and its war-like policies. And further, it doesn't take into consideration the questionable nature of the last election, and the fact that the current president did not actually win the popular vote, but got in by having members of his party cobble the ballot-box (something that should be very carefully scrutinized and guarded against in the forthcoming 2004 election).

The same short-sighted, pigeon-hole thinking that might allow one to try to label as "violent" all Americans does not take into consideration the millions of Americans who lead peaceful, productive lives and never commit acts of violence, not ever a swat on the behind of a misbehaving child. Millions of Americans are morally and ethically opposed to violence in any of its forms or under any circumstances. To lump these people together with wife-beaters and the child-abusers and the relatively tiny percentage of those who commit acts of greater violence (even though their ratio to the rest of the population may be higher than in some other countries) is simply inaccurate—and patently unfair.

Okay, the way to demonstrate obviously faulty thinking is to apply the logical argument of reductio ad absurdum*:

Proposition 1: Germans citizens are to blame for Hitler (after all, they elected him, right? Right!)
Proposition 2: Many German citizens were Jewish (true, until Hitler declared them not to be).
Conclusion: The Jews are to blame for Hitler.

Such is the illogic—and the danger—of slapping the single label on an entire nation of people.

Respectfully submitted for your serious and thoughtful consideration.

Don Firth

*The Latin phrase reductio ad absurdum means "reduction to the absurd." It is used to refer to the process of demonstrating that an idea is false by first assuming its truth, and then showing how that truth leads to absurd conclusions which cannot possibly be true. The process is also used in ethical philosophy by assuming the moral validity of some principle, and then showing that acceptance of it would lead to very unethical consequences.