This will be for thoughts on events leading up to the dictatorship,the "present" state of it, and anything else generally related.

It does seemed to beat on religion harshly but the Christian religion organization does have billions of dollars and is powerful as the NFL. So I can buy that concept of the Republic of Gilead.

To me, this is one of the aspects of the novel that has always seemed so frighteningly this could happen in my lifetime.

Based on the time-line of the book, I believe the Gilead-period would be happening about now.

I think that it is harder on men then it is on Christianity. After all, even though they talk about the Bible, how many times do they actually mention God or Jesus? They change the Bible verses to fit their twisted political agenda and make it illegal for women to read it for themselves. Remember, the bible being printed in English was one of the main catalysts of the Protestant uprising in Europe. The ability of the common man to read and interpret holy scripture for himself (without someone telling him what it was supposed to mean) changed the entire Christian world.

To take away something so basic from women was evil genius. You remember one of the commanders (Judd, I believe) had said "The big mistake was teaching them to read. We won't do that again." It seemed to me that Christianity, like everything else in this book, was simply a convenient excuse for men to impose their will over women. After all, as the commander told Offred, they didn't have anything else to do.

I find Rachel's comments interesting. I recently read Cleopatra's Nose 39 Varieties of Desire and the author include a brief paragraph about Atwood, how she saw Atwood as shying away from too much of a military feminist stance and that Atwood couldn't bring herself to go that far.

You could say that any religion can be manipulated to control X group. What I found interesting is the reaction of the women of Offred's generation versus her mother's.

I could understand Margaret Atwood shying away from a military feminist stance because sometimes, that position is very self contrastive.

To be honest, I would be willing to vote for a female president who would sign a death warrant or imprisonments for mothers who killed their children and blame it on post partum depression.

I do feel religion play an important part in society, that there is good and evil in this world. But at the same time, religion is not worth killing someone over.

Well Patrick, as a woman who has suffered from post-partum depression, I can honestly say that you probably feel that way because it is something you can never experience, and therefore never identify with.

While some women, like me, merely get "The Baby Blues" and rebound from it rather quickly, for some reason there are women whose bodies never adjust back to what they were before pregnancy. Some women (the women who tend to kill their children) aren't really suffering from what would be called postpartum depression, so much as a postpartum psychosis.

My sister was a happy person until she had her first baby, then spent 3 years locked in her apartment unable to work or do much of anything. When I was finally able to convince her to get out of her apartment and go to a doctor, the doctor prescribed her medication and within 6 weeks her anxiety was reduced to the point that she could live a basically normal life. When she had her second baby, she had her medication ready and never needed it. After my daughter was born, my husband took the last tater-tot off of my dinner plate and I locked myself in the bathroom and cried for an hour. Gratefully, my hormones managed to get back to normal within a couple of months.

We know from science that chemical imbalances in the brain can cause all kinds of mental disorders including psychosis. The problem is that when a woman kills her own child it is such a horrible thing that people cannot look past what they consider to be the ultimate evil act to even allow for the possibility that she was not mentally competent at the time that the crime occurred. (That is not to say that there aren't women who are evil and kill their children for other reasons, but they don't often use the postpartum depression defense.)

Our very nature as human beings and parents cry out for some form of justice. What about the husbands who were aware that their wives were behaving in a bizarre and potentially dangerous manner (like in the case of the Andrea Yates who drowned her 5 children because she was hearing voices and was recently granted a new trial and was found not guilty by reason of insanity)? Her husband knew that she was having mental problems and left his children with her and had people checking in on her. She was mentally incompetent, but he wasn't. Who has the greater responsibility?

This is why I have a problem with men making decisions that impact the lives and health of women. They assume that they know better, and often with no good reason. Men imposing their ideas and eventually their will over women... It is that kind of thinking that led to the Republic of Gilead.

Since I live in Colorado The Republic of Gilead has me thinking about The Promise Keepers and Focus on the Family. Both groups like to talk about how they are "family centric" and about "getting men involved in the church" but in reality they do things like yell horrid things at women without wedding bands pushing strollers (in this case she was the NANNY) and force movie theaters in small towns to stop running movies with "gay themes". Both groups meddle in the law, tell families what to do, and promote "traditional roles" in the family (apparently only 1950's middle class tv shows count as traditional).

I'm not sure the lack of action by people would be as believable today. With everyone having cellphones and web access I have a feeling that once something like this started people would be resisting, and considering we are a nation that's over 50% armed, it wouldn't just be complaining behind closed doors. Plus geographically we're such a large country, I'd believe several states forming the Republic of Gilead, while others would splinter off (remember the map of the US in Jericho?). It would just most likely be the states that already have a large conservative and homogeneous religious base (Utah for example).

Lara Amber

As easily as they took over the bank accounts and stopped the women from working, I think whoever took over could also disable cellphones and the internet. Of course, that in itself would cause riots. I was working in a public library on 9/11 and had some really pissed off people because the internet was slow.

Lara Amber wrote: "Since I live in Colorado The Republic of Gilead has me thinking about The Promise Keepers and Focus on the Family. Both groups like to talk about how they are "family centric" and about "getting m..."

I would like to think that people would fight back, but look what happened when the Patriot Act was enacted. People just rolled over and let their rights be stripped from them. I think that if the change were gradual enough it could happen easily enough. As Offred said, if you put a lobster in a pot of cold water and heat it gradually, it wouldn't know what was happening before it was boiled to death.

I don't think that Utah would join a Gileadian type society either, because the majority of their conservative base are LDS and part of that faith is having freedom of choice, freedom of religion, and equality among the sexes (I am speaking as an LDS person myself). I would be more concerned with Southern states, geographically speaking and because they seem a little more fanatical in their beliefs (abortion, etc.).

Has anyone here seen the movie Jesus Camp? That movie was one of the scariest movies I have ever seen. My sisters and I watched it last Halloween because we literally could not think of a movie more frightening. If you haven't, you should. It is a documentary and it is people like that who make The Handmaid's Tale believable.

Rachel wrote:I don't think that Utah would join a Gileadian type society either, because the majority of their conservative base are LDS and part of that faith is having freedom of choice, freedom of religion, and equality among the sexes (I am speaking as an LDS person myself). I would be more concerned with Southern states, geographically speaking and because they seem a little more fanatical in their beliefs (abortion, etc.).

I was only speaking to the fact that Utah is an area where a large percentage of the population is one faith, not the particulars of the faith itself. Think about major cities like Los Angeles and New York where you have people from many different countries and religions.

LDS I think still remains a good example because of some of the behaviors exhibited. There is a strict religious hierarchy with deep pockets. There is quite a bit of oversight over members (visitations to the home, expected to take part in various groups beyond "show up on Sunday", expectation to tithe), but also a lot of support for members (which I consider a good thing, but in theory, could be twisted) and from some people I know, in smaller areas the threat of ostracism for leaving the church or not being a member in the first place still exists.

One of the southern megachurches might be a possibility, but they don't have the same amount of funds and organized structure.

Lara Amber

Liz wrote: As easily as they took over the bank accounts and stopped the women from working, I think whoever took over could also disable cellphones and the internet. Of course, that in itself would cause riots. I was working in a public library on 9/11 and had some really pissed off people because the internet was slow.

See I found the bank account takeover completely unbelievable. Banks would fight back because of the negative press of taking accounts away from the signed account holders (and possibly find themselves barred from international business). Credit card companies would scream because legally they can only go after the person who signed the credit card agreement, so if the credit card is in the wife's name, they can't go after the husband for payment. Plus all the people who aren't married, or keep completely separate finances.

Lara Amber

But it started out as something else, right? First all of their money was tied to a government issued card, which had their sex identified on it. And the president and congress were all assassinated, so the country was in upheaval and looking for someone who could provide structure. They started out by telling them, don't worry, once things calm down we'll have elections again. It was slow and methodical. People adjust to small injustices very quickly.

I would like to think that women would have a stronger reaction, to be sure. I would rather die than suffer the indignity of subjugation. Of course, I might feel differently after being tortured. Can you imagine having your children taken away, knowing that they are going to be indoctrinated with that message? How awful.

Rachel wrote: First all of their money was tied to a government issued card, which had their sex identified on it.

See that would stop me right there. I could never see the people agreeing to that sort of setup. Oh heck, let's be honest, I could never see the corporations agreeing to it. Pass up the opportunity to have branded cards in people's wallets? Give up all control of your client's information and accounts to a goverment entity? There would be ads non-stop on the air paid for by Visa and Amex using front groups like "concerned citizens for card diversity" about how this program was a "bad idea" and asking for identity theft from pickpockets and hackers. Then you've got the privacy advocates screaming about why the government or one of their subcontractors should have access to every transaction of private citizens.

Plus, I could see no reason at all for investment accounts and retirement accounts to be tied into this. Especially for people like me who invest in foreign markets in addition to domestic.

I also didn't see the killing of the president and congress being more then a shock factor. In reality our line of succession for the presidency only involves congress for two slots out of 18 outlined successors to the presidency. The governors have the right to appoint replacements to the Senate. So you might have seats sitting empty for a few weeks, but there would be no need for national elections for the vacancies. Some people would be appointed by governors, some by state legislatures, and some by state election. Even if all 18 successors to the presidency were assassinated, the governor appointed replacements to the Senate would just vote and elect a new President Pro Tempore of the Senate, who would fulfill the term. (Of course, good luck getting your hands on 100 Senators, 435 Representatives, and 15 additional people in line for the presidency, because they don't spend their days all in one room, or even in one city.) You would also likely have to kill the Supreme Court, since they would likely be providing oversight to the whole thing. I'm pretty sure our government has several contingencies plans already written up for "someone explodes DC".

Lara Amber

Granted, it would be far more difficult to pull something like this off today than it would have been back when this book was written. The internet, facebook, twitter... It would make it difficult for a coup to succeed. I think the better point Atwood made was about the lobster in the pot. I think that when rights are stripped away gradually "for our own protection" it makes it difficult to know the difference between sitting in a hot tub and swimming in a plate of drawn butter.

I mean, we can't say that it wouldn't happen, because some of it already has. I personally consider the Patriot Act a huge knock to my rights as a human being and a free citizen of the United States. Do you remember after 9/11 when people were being interviewed about the idea of the Patriot Act and how many people said that they would be willing to give up some of their freedoms if it meant that they were safer? Not only that, many people went so far as to state that anyone who didn't support the Patriot Act wasn't patriotic.

It seems to me that we don't need anyone else to put us in the pot. We little lobsters put on a swimsuit and climb in all on our own, then invite our friends to come on in because the water is fine.

I have to admit that while I can see such a thing happening, I agree with Lara's comments about the President and Congress.

For me, Atwood's description of the process has its believablitly. I could see the bank thing occuring, if enough presence was brought into it. Atwood doesn't really give us a blow by blow. And I thought it was interesting that in one interview she implied that such a thing wouldn't happen in Canada.

But we do see aspects of Gilead in places thorughout the world.

I don't support the Patriot Act myself but at the same time, I did not feel troubled unless I lose my rights. I guess I need to be more suspicious of the government telling me what to do for my own good.

I guess in some ways I am just very pessimistic. I don't have very much faith in our government or our elected officials. I certainly don't trust them to properly implement a contingency plan for government operation if someone were to come along and shoot them all. Even more so, I wouldn't trust that SOME of them weren't in on it to begin with. Power is corrupting and addictive and some people are willing to do more to get it than others.

I just don't think it would be as hard to pull off as we might hope.

Rachel wrote: "Well Patrick, as a woman who has suffered from post-partum depression, I can honestly say that you probably feel that way because it is something you can never experience, and therefore never ident..."


That is true that I never experienced that or would but I still think that no matter how mentally ill a person is, or how depressed or sick that person is, it is very monsterous to kill children (and innocent adults), regarding if children are that person's or not. Actions count more than words to me, and if someone of either gender is willing to make the hard decision to imprison someone who committed such horrible deeds or put him or her to death, it is the right decision to me.

I guess I should have not lumped post partum depression or assume that defense attorneys would use that as an general excuse, I was wrong to be harsh about that and am sorry. But I do think someone who would kill or seriously injure someone helpless or innocent deserves/needs imprisonment or death despite the type of mental illness that person have.

Thanks for discussing that even if I disagree with some of the things.

The discussion is my favorite part! lol

Anyway, I think that many people feel similarly to you in that regard. It is a terrible thing. But personally, I have to separate the women like Andrea Yates who drowned her children because she was 100% certifiably nuts (and hearing voices), and Susan Smith, who drowned her kids because she wanted to run off with her boyfriend who didn't want kids (and then blamed it on a black man). The loss of life is equally tragic, but only one of them is criminal (in my opinion). Don't you think that there should be some kind of differentiation between the two women, judicially speaking? And when you look for criminal culpability, what would you say about Andrea Yates's husband, (Andrea, who had been diagnosed with postpartum psychosis, had confessed to planning to drown the children, had been hospitalized and then released) who was told by her psychiatrist to have her supervised at all times. Know that his wife was psychotic, suicidal and homicidal, he left her alone with their five young children. As far as I am concerned, he was far more responsible for the deaths of those children than she was, but he was never charged for a crime. Where is the justice in that?

My guess is that it is more of a crime to be a crazy woman in the state of Texas than it is to be a criminally negligent man.

P.S. Sorry for the extensive use of parentheticals. (I use them a lot.) lol

Rachel wrote: "P.S. Sorry for the extensive use of parentheticals. (I use them a lot.) lol "

1. Love the discussions so far.
2. (I use them a lot, too).

Yeah..., I would think Susan Smith would also deserves to be imprisoned and feel okay thinking that and while Andrea Yates' husband was neglectful, he did not do the deed...I have worked with mentally ill people and most of them can take responsiblity for their actions,(even though I had to preach at them for it, they do so at the end) and know from right from wrong. I even believe that one paranoia chronic who consistently threatened to kill me know the difference between right and wrong because when I took him to court for his death threats, he played innocent asking the district attorney when confronted with scrawled death threats letters in his handwriting, going, 'hmmm...I wonder who wrote all these death threats to poor Patrick?' at which point I cracked up laughing. (I also had to laugh again because that person wants his house, car, gun, and his ninja costume back.)

Even if the person was psychotic, there are steps he or she can take to reduce or lower that incident like taking medication, leading a stable life, getting sleep, working with therapist and pyschiatrist.

Unfortunately, I do sympathize with her Yates' husband because it is very heartwrenching to live with a love one who have mental illness. And it is often difficult to hospitalize a person dx with mental illness because the government is concerned with patients' rights.

While it may be ideal to have justice and freedom, sometimes you can't have both. In extreme cases like children being murdered, I would strongely desire justice than freedom because with freedom comes responsibility. And doing something grotesque like killing a trusting person or child, it is too dark in my opinion to allow that person to get out of jail for that or use mental illness as a defense.

This is such an interesting discussion! I agree with Rachel that religion was used as an excuse for the men of Gilead to do what they wanted to do. And I think it is chilling because we see happening in various societies and cultures in our modern world. Although 'The Handmaid's Tale' is not a new book, it is just as frightening now because it IS so plausible.

I have saved two very good quotes that I came across in my reading recently. Both seem applicable to this discussion. The first one is by Dan Simmons... "Any allegiance to a deity or concept or universal principal which puts obedience above decent behavior toward an innocent human being is evil." (Slightly paraphrased by me, and, I think, from 'The Fall of Hyperion'.)

Another good one from a short story by Karen Joy Fowler is "Mother was just glad to have me out of the house and harm's way. She did give me some advice. You can always tell a cult from a religion, she said, because a cult is just a set of rules that lets certain men get laid." (Pretty funny, yes...but also true IMO.)

So...there's my philosophy on the standard for an admirable religion and where it crosses the line into evil. R/x: Apply to individual and/or group as necessary.

;-) What do you all think????

Also, I don't want to sidetrack this interesting discussion, but something I've always wondered about readers of "The Handmaid's Tale", it is do men (or can men) find it as chilling as a female reader would? What do you think????

Okay, I love that definition of a cult.

Chilling as a female reader should almost be its own thread. That would be a very interesting discussion.

I agree, it could be its own thread. I think it would depend on the male reader. I think it would be difficult for a white male to really sympathize with the subjugation and marginalization of women, after all, historically speaking they have always been the ones with the power.

There is a movie with John Travolta called "White Man's Burden" in which the roles of black and white are reversed. My husband (who is black) says that it is a very powerful movie, while his white acquaintances just thought it was messed up.

Anyway, I don't mean to say that white men can't identify at all with the story, just that I think it would be difficult for them to connect to it on the same level that most women would be able to.

And I LOVE the cult definition.

We should start a Female/Male thread on this. I think it could really open an interesting dialogue. The book itself intended to confront gender roles, so I think it would be wholly appropriate to examine it from a gender perspective.

Like Rachel, I am pessimistic about government. Power does corrupt and is addictive.

If you take aways small freedoms a bit at a time, people tend to be passive an go along. Look how many pay not attention to politics and/or never vote.

It could happen in any country, including here. It might take a while, but it could happen.

"Liz wrote: As easily as they took over the bank accounts and stopped the women from working, I think whoever took over could also disable cellphones and the internet. Of course, that in itself woul..."

These things wouldn't have to be done right away. I believe that the type of situation in this book COULD come about quite easily, if not all that fast. All it would take are unscrupulous people in a position of power (not that that is ever gonna happen [sarcasm:]). It has nearly happened here in the US not all that long ago: 1950s and Eugene McCarthy.

All that really has to happen is to have people outraged or even just a little peeved really, about something. Get some innocuous laws passed to take care of it, then let the thing snowball.

Example: Homelessness. Its not pretty. Let's make it illegal. Round up all the homeless people and put them to work somewhere since unemployment probably caused the homelessness. A bit later, let's just re-define homelessness.... let's say that you're homeless if you don't own your home. There are a lot of people who rent.... Thing is, if it happens at the right pace, people don't notice that something bad is going on. They only see the 'eyesore' of the homeless people is gone. As long as bad laws and such don't impact them directly, they don't do anything. Witness Germany in the 1930's.

“The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.” Edmund Burke

MB wrote: "I have saved two very good quotes that I came across in my reading recently. Both seem applicable to this discussion. The first one is by Dan Simmons... "Any allegiance to a deity or concept or universal principal which puts obedience above decent behavior toward an innocent human being is evil." (Slightly paraphrased by me, and, I think, from 'The Fall of Hyperion'.)

Another good one from a short story by Karen Joy Fowler is "Mother was just glad to have me out of the house and harm's way. She did give me some advice. You can always tell a cult from a religion, she said, because a cult is just a set of rules that lets certain men get laid." (Pretty funny, yes...but also true IMO.)

So...there's my philosophy on the standard for an admirable religion and where it crosses the line into evil. R/x: Apply to individual and/or group as necessary."

MB, I really like both of those definitions!!
Thanks for sharing!

I have to say that I don't find this any more "chilling" as a woman than I do as an Asian. Atwood's Gilead may or may not ever come to be, but this kind of dictatorship has existed throughout humanity's long history--Nazi Germany anyone? This type of behavior exists because as long as it doesn't happen to you specifically, it doesn't really matter. Americans are exceptionally good at this on the global level. It's easy to say, "I've got my own problems" and turn your head from someone else's.

How easy would it have been for all women to have just said "No"? The government couldn't kill them all. But the ones who weren't handmaids just gave thanks that they weren't in their place. It was easy. It was the human instinct to survive.

Lara Amber wrote: "See I found the bank account takeover completely unbelievable. Banks would fight back because of the negative press of taking accounts away from the signed account holders (and possibly find themselves barred from international business). Credit card companies would scream because legally they can only go after the person who signed the credit card agreement, so if the credit card is in the wife's name, they can't go after the husband for payment. Plus all the people who aren't married, or keep completely separate finances...."

But it starts with the federalization of banks...Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac for one. If you have the power, you get to make the rules. And it would happen so quietly and so indirectly. First there would be changes in your banking policy. (How many of us REALLY read all the paperwork your bank and credit card companies send you? You give up more of your rights simply because within the fine print, it says if you do NOT reply by a certain date you legally abdicate your right of refusal. But if you do refuse these changes, the bank holds the right to close your account.) You wouldn't really notice it until you went into the bank to go do some routine but out-of-norm change to your account. That's when they tell you, oh, by the way, the policy changed and this is what you have to do. I'm terribly sorry for the inconvenience, but you could please sign forms A, B, and C. And before you know it, your husband now has all the legal rights to your account and you mysteriously have none.

Meghan wrote: "...Atwood's Gilead may or may not ever come to be, but this kind of dictatorship has existed throughout humanity's long history--Nazi Germany anyone?..."

Yep- thought of this many times before.

For those who argue it could not happen, I would say that is having far too much faith in human beings. Many people would sit back and "let it happen". As Rachel previously pointed out, the Patriot Act is proof of that. The outrage over the act was terrible small compared to the population of this country. Now, who even discusses it, let alone fights against it? Not many.

The technology is beyond the time period this starts out in and women are out in the workforce strongly, so the details/methods would certainly be different. But, it still could happen.

Rachel wrote: "We should start a Female/Male thread on this. I think it could really open an interesting dialogue. The book itself intended to confront gender roles, so I think it would be wholly appropriate to examine it from a gender perspective."

It would be interesting to know how many men are reading (have read) the book.

Are you thinking two separate topics, for example "Men Discussion" and "Women Discussion"?

I think one thread would be better. Something along the lines of:

"Your perspective on The Handmaid's Tale as a man or woman"

I don't think we need to be divisive, I just think it would be interesting to see how different people read and interpret the book, the parts that they found most interesting and provocative and how it made them feel as a man or woman.

Done. New topic created.

Meghan wrote: "How easy would it have been for all women to have just said "No"? The government couldn't kill them all. But the ones who weren't handmaids just gave thanks that they weren't in their place. It was easy. It was the human instinct to survive.
"

Keep in mind, with the rampant infertility and the popular belief that the infertility was a women's issue only, many of the women in the world Atwood created would try to justify the setup in their own minds as the best way to keep the population growing (or stable).

And: women can be very cruel to other women. We often hurt each other for reasons as simple as "it happened to me so now it will happen to you". We don't protect each other as we should.

Meghan wrote: "This type of behavior exists because as long as it doesn't happen to you specifically, it doesn't really matter. Americans are exceptionally good at this on the global level. It's easy to say, "I've got my own problems" and turn your head from someone else's."

While I agree with your basic premise (of it being a human trait), I've got to dispute your slam on Americans. Americans are no more or less likely to do this than any other country's population.

The United States of America sends billions of dollars in aid to other countries, has interposed militarily (whether rightly or wrongly) in many many cases, set up trade sanctions to help pressure countries to reform internally, sends volunteers out to assist at everything from major catastrophes (ARC, USAR) to basic sustenance improvements (Peace Corps), and 'mission groups' who target specific projects. These are all Americans - staffing them or funding them.

I have to agree with Carolyn, I don't think this is an American state of mind, so much as a human state of mind. Most people look out for their own best interests and just assume or (if they are feeling a bit proactive) hope that someone else is taking care of the problem.

The example of Nazi Germany came up. An entire nation stood by while those atrocities took place, and an entire WORLD chose to look the other way until it was too late for millions of Jews. I believe that if Hitler had been just slightly less ambitious and kept his interest to exterminating only the Jews in Germany, no one would have ever done anything. It wasn't that long ago that Milosevic was engaged in genocide and ethnic cleansing. I met a Serb a few years back who said that Milosevic was a great guy and did not do any of the things that he was accused of. I met a Sunni Muslim woman from Iraq who declared that Saddam Hussein was a brilliant leader and a good man. I met a boy from Africa who saw his entire family slaughtered, and only managed to get away because he was up in a tree when they lit his house on fire with his family inside, while he listened to them burning alive. These kinds of things are still going on in Africa and the world tip toes around the problems in the name of diplomacy. It doesn't matter that the people who commit these crimes could not possibly care less about diplomacy than they do. They care about money and power, period.

Most people have compunctions about sticking their nose in other people's business. They may talk about it behind their backs, and rant about the injustice and the horror, but in the end they still leave it to someone else to fix. The problem is that the WHOLE WORLD is leaving it for someone else. It is sort of like the paradox of doing something tomorrow, because as we all know, tomorrow never comes.

It is difficult to do something...during the time of Nazi Germany, many of the people in the world were traumatized by the nationalism, and aggression of World War I where the conflict started in the Balkan region, so they were reluntant to invade Germany while that country was committing genocide. It was only until Germany started invading other countries that other European countries decided to act. It is like you are damned if you do, damned if you don't. We shouldn't have war but at the same time, we should not stand by and not do anything when something wrong as killing innocent human beings is going on. It depended on whatever that person can act on his good impulse, including wasting the bad guys like I brought up earlier. I don't how I would have reacted since I tend to be a timid and fearful person myself.

Okay, I am an American first thing. So I don't mean to come off as a hater. But yes, Americans ARE isolationists. That's not to generalize and say ALL Americans don't have a global interest, but the overall population does not care--and I don't mean care on a humanity level, but on poltical one.

And it's not me who says this. Pick up a newspaper and read how many people comment on this. How many Americans can name the prime minister of ENGLAND (our "best" friend)? Let alone China? Because I can guarantee you, the majority from those countries can tell you who our president is. And does anyone know the current state of politics in Pakistan (a holder of nuclear weapons)? Or how many can name the 5 permanent members of the United Nations Security Council? Living in another country and traveling the world, I witness how the rest of the world is very educated on global events (even poor rural villages), whereas the common American's global knowledge is extremely limited.

And I don't believe it's because Americans are stupid or snobbish or elitest. Most of it factors into location. We're an island (practically) to ourselves with no direct ties to the "old" world. Our fierce desire for independence has made it a mindset that we depend on no one. We also don't have the history that everyone else has. We are still a young nation compared to everyone else. Europe and Asia are all tied together because of their history together, as well as the other Americas. We have in recent years been pressured by various allies to step in and "help" out in various crisises and unless it's on our own initiative, we do not get involved.

And I agree about what you all said about WWII. My point was only that beyond the Jews and the holocaust (because you're right, everyone ignored that one), Hitler invaded France and England--two very important political allies to the US. They asked us for help. France was occupied by the Germans! And yet we still chose to do nothing.

My comment wasn't a humanitarian response. It was in response to the argument that people wouldn't tolerate a repressive government taking over. And I'm arguing that yes they would because historically it's done all the time.

I agree with you Meghan (as evidenced by my earlier posts), the only point I disagree with is that it is a uniquely American behavior. The point I was trying to make was that I believe it to be a human behavior, shared throughout the world. We Americans have a bad rap, but I don't really see the rest of the world being better. They may be more educated in world affairs, but they aren't more proactive with their knowledge. If ours is a crime of ignorance, theirs is a crime of acquiescence. I find that to be far worse.

I don't think anyone would suggest that you were presenting a humanitarian argument and I didn't intend for my response to come across that way either, though I suppose it is difficult to avoid when you look at the the kinds of things that people ignore these days. I was simply using examples from my personal experience of people from all over the world exhibiting the same behavior.

Also, I agree with you that an oppressive government could take over. I think it would be easier to do if it were incremental, I think Americans would fight tooth and nail if it were a sudden attack, or at the very least, I would like to think so.

Rachel wrote: "I agree with you Meghan (as evidenced by my earlier posts), the only point I disagree with is that it is a uniquely American behavior. The point I was trying to make was that I believe it to be a ..."

Well, I never said it was uniquely American. I said we were just exceptionally good at it. And it is easy to be uninvolved if you are unaware of what's happening. And Americans are unaware because they choose to be unaware. And that ignorance has been our excuse for far too long. It shouldn't be a matter of who is worse, but fixing our own mistakes and improving our own selves.

Our global ignorance doesn't make us bad people in the world's eyes. But it does lessen us, as ignorance always does. If we want our fellow Americans to take a stronger stance against the injustices of the world, we need to understand what's really happening within it and be an active participant. Then Gilead remains relegated to "speculative" fiction.

(But I do appreciate your arguments. I haven't had this much fun in a book discussion in a while. Thanks!)

Me too! Way to go Margaret Atwood!

You are right, we are very good at not paying attention to what is happening around us. It makes me sad, actually. I am afraid that as long as most people feel too unaffected by the woes that plague us (as a nation and as a world) no one will really step forward and do anything. I don't think that most people feel like they are in danger of having a secret wire tap. Heck my own husband said just a couple of weeks ago that it was ridiculous for me to rage against the Patriot Act because it really only applies to people who are doing bad things. My husband is very intelligent, well informed, and has lived all over the world, including 3 years in Afghanistan. (As you might guess, he and I live on different ends of the political spectrum.) I think that is one of the reasons our country was so unified after 9/11. I don't think I know a single person who didn't feel as though it was an attack on them personally. But memories fade and now we are pretty much back where we were, though a little less resistant to our government when they do things that they promise will make us "safer."

I probably shouldn't be thinking about this stuff at this time of night. It tends to get me really wound up and then I can't get to sleep.