Praise and constructive critique here for the lovely Louise: this is a fab op-ed. It works because you focus on one main idea throughout. In my fangirl opinion, your writing best translates in long-form, like the first-rate essay you wrote for “First Things” on the cockney or your book on the sexual revolution. This is because you’re an original thinker making nuanced points that draw on history, anthropology, and evo psych. Sometimes I’ve felt your short op-eds in the NYT and WSJ don’t “work” as well, because there’s too many large threads jammed in a short word count with less room for development. And these ideas really *do* require explanation and development for the lay-reader. For ex, IMO the mamdani-baby article had too much going on in a short space: ancestral humans, baby psych, and communism. It almost seemed like the writer was throwing disjointed ideas at the reader to see what sticks. This is simply because you don’t have the space in these op-Eds to show your deep, nuanced, and insightful train of thought in the way you would with a long form piece. In any case, the pithy, simple big idea in the Mr. Bean article works fabulously bc it’s “compressible” to a short length. Sadly not all your brilliant ideas are. Said with love for you, Louise from a huge fan!
My point taken from this essay is tangential. We were/are encouraged to see those Afghan men who 'helped' British (and USA?) armed forces as 'noble innocents ' ie savages, uncomplicated souls unlike us lacking in sophistication but entranced by the glamour of the White Man and his Superior Culture. The fact is they were collaborators with an occupying power. In 1945 USA troops ordered to guard camps set up of suspected 'collaborators' in Germany,both men and women,young and old,abused and raped them,stole their food rations and subjected them to humiliation. There was no suggestion that these collaborators were noble. Or innocent. And we know the ill defined aims of the Iraq + Afghan invasions were not noble. To take this further,did our Army actually NEED THAT MANY 'interpreters'. Is it a thing to claim to have been an 'interpreter' in order to get a passage to the west. Because the number looks extraordinarily high.
This may have been an isolated incident, which happens in wars. But you're sensationalizing to make your point. I've read many diaries and letters of citizens and people from concentration camps, and I've yet to read your claim, quite the contrary. Germans and others seem to be astonished by the American. Disregard for revenge. Yet there were many such incidents in stories about Russians.
It must depend on the sources one reads and I don't have notes but seems there is a lot of testimony to the bad treatment of German civilian detainees by young American GIs,or SOME OF THEM. But obviously it was not going to be made widespread well known,it not fitting the narrative.
Praise and constructive critique here for the lovely Louise: this is a fab op-ed. It works because you focus on one main idea throughout. In my fangirl opinion, your writing best translates in long-form, like the first-rate essay you wrote for “First Things” on the cockney or your book on the sexual revolution. This is because you’re an original thinker making nuanced points that draw on history, anthropology, and evo psych. Sometimes I’ve felt your short op-eds in the NYT and WSJ don’t “work” as well, because there’s too many large threads jammed in a short word count with less room for development. And these ideas really *do* require explanation and development for the lay-reader. For ex, IMO the mamdani-baby article had too much going on in a short space: ancestral humans, baby psych, and communism. It almost seemed like the writer was throwing disjointed ideas at the reader to see what sticks. This is simply because you don’t have the space in these op-Eds to show your deep, nuanced, and insightful train of thought in the way you would with a long form piece. In any case, the pithy, simple big idea in the Mr. Bean article works fabulously bc it’s “compressible” to a short length. Sadly not all your brilliant ideas are. Said with love for you, Louise from a huge fan!
Not surprised these Brits were played by a Nigerian charlatan who likes the London life. Tragic.
Great article. Now, somebody do NYC under “Joe Biden.”
My point taken from this essay is tangential. We were/are encouraged to see those Afghan men who 'helped' British (and USA?) armed forces as 'noble innocents ' ie savages, uncomplicated souls unlike us lacking in sophistication but entranced by the glamour of the White Man and his Superior Culture. The fact is they were collaborators with an occupying power. In 1945 USA troops ordered to guard camps set up of suspected 'collaborators' in Germany,both men and women,young and old,abused and raped them,stole their food rations and subjected them to humiliation. There was no suggestion that these collaborators were noble. Or innocent. And we know the ill defined aims of the Iraq + Afghan invasions were not noble. To take this further,did our Army actually NEED THAT MANY 'interpreters'. Is it a thing to claim to have been an 'interpreter' in order to get a passage to the west. Because the number looks extraordinarily high.
This may have been an isolated incident, which happens in wars. But you're sensationalizing to make your point. I've read many diaries and letters of citizens and people from concentration camps, and I've yet to read your claim, quite the contrary. Germans and others seem to be astonished by the American. Disregard for revenge. Yet there were many such incidents in stories about Russians.
It must depend on the sources one reads and I don't have notes but seems there is a lot of testimony to the bad treatment of German civilian detainees by young American GIs,or SOME OF THEM. But obviously it was not going to be made widespread well known,it not fitting the narrative.