World, Writing, Wealth discussion
World & Current Events
>
Are we to blame?
Had there been no greed, deception, violence or cruelty before 1776 I would consider, at least, the opinion that America is the root of all evil. But we know better than that, don't we? Show me someone who hates and I will show you someone who hates something about himself.
Denise wrote: "I believe that greed is always the main component of destruction, and over the years, greed has increased into hatred. Greed and hatred exists everywhere, so no, America isn't the source of most ev..."Very well said, Denise
Good on you Denise. There's evil just as there is good. Equally matched in nature.
I think the real problem with the West is it has the most advanced technology so it has the ability to do the most damage. It also has the opportunity to do good. Unfortunately, the politicians tend to jump in and do things somewhat impulsively without thinking out the consequences, and in particular, not having a plan for how to finish what they start. Iraq comes to mind here.
Ian wrote: "I think the real problem with the West is it has the most advanced technology.....Unfortunately, the politicians tend to jump in and do things somewhat impulsively without thinking out the consequences..."
I guess being technologically advanced isn't something to be ashamed of. Technological race (especially its non-military applications) is probably a more beneficial competitions than many others...
Yeah, politicians act impulsively and should sometimes show more restraint and pragmatism. On the other hand often there are dynemics that require a response. With complex multiple possibility situs, I guess the error rate will always be quite high...
It is funny there is so much blame towards the West for the problems in underdeveloped nations, but they have no problem embracing Western technology. If the West were truly so evil, then by extension, so are the smartphones the West invented and developed, so are the cars and trucks they love driving around their countries in, or the weapons they take up to oppose the West. Never mind embracing Western medicine when people fall ill.Then again, the rise of extremists is just a typical step throughout history. When civilization reaches a peak, barbarians rise up to demolish it. The Romans had the Vandals and the Chinese had the Mongols. Both civilizations had different results, and our long term survival depends on how we deal with it today. It might not be palatable to most people, but it won't end unless we put our foot down and deal with it aggressively.
One question: Should we call the greatest emperors of the world, who thrived in the spoils of many bloody wars, heroes or terrorists?
Valid question, but I think the answer is more nuanced. Alexander the Great took wives from the foreign lands he conquered to create a blood tie with the new territory. Ancient Egyptians incorporated foreign religious systems into their own in order to demonstrate they had something in common with their newly acquired territory. The Romans built roads and trade routes between pieces of their empire.The issue of whether or not a warmongering ruler is good or bad depends on what they do with their newly acquired lands after the wars. It's one thing to beat a people into submission, it's another to then demonstrate they are better off under your rule...it's another to earn their respect as their new leader. After all, the common person isn't all that interested in the politics except for how it affects them and their lives. If their lives remain unchanged, or get better, they won't think too ill of the new leader. It's only when conditions deteriorate, the poor fall deeper into poverty, and lives end up in greater danger than before, that a ruler will be viewed as a monster.
If to judge by modern perception of the Western values, many would be classified as terrorists. Yet, there would be people in countries with a different set of values that would still call them heroes. We might still have cannibals, for all I know -:) Is Stalin a terrorist or a hero? I bet any poll you hold in Russia specifically the answers won't be unequivocal.
The greatest emperors of the past operated in a different
moral and legal ambience. For centuries the more lands you conquered and the more wars you won were one of the most important criteria for one's virtue. The remnants of the same philosophy are still present nowadays.. Besides, different rules and ethics were applicable to 'ours' and 'theirs'.
The religious rules and commandments didn't change that much, but even under their canons the status of 'saint', 'martyr' or 'savior', was awarded basing on then dominant perception of right and wrong...
It's only relatively recently the value of human life started to matter and yet not everywhere. Some(many?) still think that humans are a cannon fodder.. Cruel? Yes. Despicable? Also. Yet, realistic...
When I was talking about impulsive politicians and technology, I was more thinking of Iraq. I am all in favour of technology, after all I am a scientist by trade.Whether these conquerors were terrorists depends on the definition of the term. There is no doubt that Alexander was totally merciless to those who opposed him. The Romans made an advance, at least some of the time - they would forgive those who opposed them once, if they accepted Roman rule. Much of what happened was for practical purposes - they had to prevent insurrection, and to persuade weaker opponents to give in without fighting. Alexander was quite generous to those who did not fight him. Basically, the whole idea was to try to gain what they could and keep it.
JJAt the end of the day all great conquerors killed, plundered, and looted equally.
After the Kalinga war, Ashoka became a saint almost. But history will still judge him harshly on his massacre at the Kalinga. There is no greatness in killing and waging bloody battles even though there might be compensating factors later. A kill is a kill. There is no nobility, no greatness in it. My heart goes out for child soldiers of ordinary farmers, masons and the lot. Afraid to fight yet, they must for their emperors. Trust me the world must unite against such dispicable acts of violence romanticised because they are carried out in the name of nobility or religion or what have we.
Mehreen wrote: "JJAt the end of the day all great conquerors killed, plundered, and looted equally."
I'm not sure I would say they all committed such acts equally. When Hitler conquered much of Europe, he plundered the continent much like ancient rulers did, but he also murdered 12 millions Jews and millions more who were not Jews. He did nothing for the people he allowed to live outside Germany's traditional border and despite being caught up in total war, he did nothing for his conquered lands.
Some in the US on the pro-immigrant side of the issue like to point out that white Americans were all immigrants to the Native lands, but that isn't true. To be brutal our ancestors were conquerors. Immigrants live alongside the native population of their new home, but we slaughtered the Natives of this continent and shipped them off to the most worthless land we knew of. Poverty on reservations is never going to go away except for those few tribes allowed to build casinos and whose land is close enough to a white population base to take advantage. Sure the US is a stronger, far more modern land than it would have been if the Natives had retained control and continued with the simple and sometimes nomadic existence, but frankly we've left them behind in that modernization and have done little to let them take advantage of the "American way of life."
England's warrior kings of the 14th century raised armies, went to war and asked the common people to die for them strictly so they could hold onto the throne. There really was nothing at stake for their soldiers, and their lives were no better off because one guy was in charge instead of another.
But Look at the situation in Mali a year or two ago when the government was on the verge of falling to rebel groups. The French went in, swept over those groups and knocked them down. Then they handed the situation back to the Malinese and pulled out. When Iraq went into Kuwait and took control of the country, the first President Bush took our military in, drove Saddam out of the country, and handed it back over to the Kuwaitis. He didn't push into Iraq and press the victory. Unlike his son, he left Saddam in power because all he wanted to do was liberate Kuwait.
Even going back to WWII, the US joined the Allies to conquer Hitler's Europe and Japan's Pacific empire. The interment of Japanese Americans was not one of our proudest moments, and from our perspective 70 years after the fact, there are many who now question if we were right to use the atom bombs on Japan - regardless of yes or no, it is a fact we killed just as many people when we bombed Tokyo with conventional bombs.
I get what your saying, and war certainly brings out the worst in everyone. But God forgives just about everything if repentance is in the heart. The measure of a leader, of war, etc, should take into account what happens with peace. All aspects should be weighed and we should decided on a case-by-case basis if one conqueror is better or worse than another. Each one certainly commits horrendous acts, but each situation is not necessarily the same
Most of the problems of this World comes from having too many people care only for themselves and their close ones, rather than caring about the common good. Whether it is for money, power, sex or a combination of those, selfishness is our biggest enemy.
Michel wrote: "Most of the problems of this World comes from having too many people care only for themselves and their close ones, rather than caring about the common good. Whether it is for money, power, sex or ..."Selfishness, greed and the 7 deadly sins will eventually destroy us. This process has started ever since humans marked their presence in the world. If it were a planet of the apes, frogs or even snakes, it would have been a different world.
Michel wrote: "Most of the problems of this World comes from having too many people care only for themselves and their close ones, rather than caring about the common good. Whether it is for money, power, sex or a combination of those, selfishness is our biggest enemy...."I think selfishness is natural and constructive even to a degree, because it drives you to succeed and sustain as an individual, rather than sacrifice and depend for/on some common cause, but it becomes a real enemy in hyper-selfishness mode and when it's the only concern with total ignorance of common values. I believe 'common good' is equally important.
I argue that capitalist ideology enhances and encourages selfishness, forgetting to mention the necessary good measure, neglecting and reducing 'common' into insignificant
Tim wrote: "In conflict men create unique, unbreakable bonds, very different from civilian relationships because they are due to common experience - we genuinely do become more than just brothers.In my view society benefitted from the bonds of veterans...."
Can't talk from exeprience here, but intuitively this sounds right!
You can't really neglect or forget 'brothers' when your very life depended on them and your common performance.
Extrapolating this a bit, can one view the entire town or nation as 'brothers'? I think - yes, and one's personal interest shouldn't stop few meters away from his apartment
Nik wrote: "Michel wrote: "Most of the problems of this World comes from having too many people care only for themselves and their close ones, rather than caring about the common good. Whether it is for money,..."Is selfishness a form of self-preservation?
Mehreen wrote: "Is selfishness a form of self-preservation? ..."In a way, I guess. One of our instincts, maybe an atavism of our animal origin (if you believe in Darwin's theory, of course). The need to stand out in order to have more food, men/women, baubles -:)
Tim wrote: "I posted this up on Medium a while back *Warning* bad language.https://medium.com/@stillsoul/steves-... .."
Nice piece. Quite a theory there -:)
Of course not. The West is not to blame for "everything", but that's really not what's being argued when it comes to modern-day issues. If we're talking about ISIS and terrorism as we know it, then there are tons of British, US, and other developed nations' fingerprints on that one. But if we're talking about the big picture, then things get a bit more complicated.In general, the modern world is the size and shape that it is because of one singular event - European expansion and the non-western world. Beginning in the 16th century and on up to the present, European society launched ahead of its Arab, Asian and African counterparts and began systematically colonizing the entire world. By the 20th century, the decolonization process had been complete. But for the next 50 - 100 years, we've seen the post-colonial world struggle with problems that are directly attributable to what came before. This is not to say the west is "to blame", but the problems of today bear a causal relationship to the Imperial era.
Historians have puzzled over this for centuries, and its only recently that any intelligent answers have been produced that explain the reason and the timing of it. Previous explanations tried to justify it with racial theories, while more current ones looked for "cultural" or "climatic" explanations - which are riddled with holes. The answer is that there is nothing special about European civilization, and that the reason for this ascendancy was entirely historical and fortuitous. But that's another story and I'm quick to ramble! ;)
Tim wrote: "The moment humankind created the concept of ownership we were doomed... Doomed I tell you! Doomed... Sorry I stole that line from Dad's Army... :D Not the ownership line, that's mine, but the doome..."Good one! And its very true. While the size and shape of the world today may be the result of European hegemony, it would be hard to imagine that China, India, the Arab world, the Aztecs or the Incas would not have done much the same had they been in a position to.
I wonder what would the Americas look like now if, somehow, Europeans explorers would never have succeeded in crossing the Atlantic and then return to Europe to spread the word about this unknown continent. Would the American native civilizations (Aztecs, Incas, Tainos, Meso-Americans, etc) have been able to advance to a point where they could have repelled late European explorers/conquerors? This premise alone could indeed make a hell of an alternate history novel, wouldn't you thing?
Michel wrote: "I wonder what would the Americas look like now if, somehow, Europeans explorers would never have succeeded in crossing the Atlantic and then return to Europe to spread the word about this unknown c..."Unfortunately, it's been done, and by one of the least talented science fiction authors out there! It's called Pastwatch: The Redemption of Christopher Columbus, by Orson Scott - I wrote one half-decent book decades ago and I've been milking it ever since - Card!
Incidentally, he also plans to write alternate history books about Noah's Flood and the Garden of Eden. Suffice it to say, he's a weird, weird man!
Matthew wrote: "If we're talking about ISIS and terrorism as we know it, then there are tons of British, US, and other developed nations' fingerprints on that one..."I'm not sure. I still think the West takes upon itself too much. To give an example, I had an argument about 1-st Iraq war. Someone brought an article that just b4 Saddam invaded Kuwait, some senior US official visited him and let him understand that US won't do much if he invaded Kuwait. Sort of encouraged him. Ok, even if it's true - did US invade Kuwait or Saddam did? From when some advisors, instigators, collaborators and so on are more important than planners and executors?
I remember there was some news item that before invading Crimea Putin called Obama to put out feelers whether NATO would intervene, as under Budapest Memorandum US and UK undertook to guarantee Ukraine's integrity. Obama supposedly, answered 'no', and Russian army snatched Crimea in days from Ukraine. So is it Putin or Obama?
And even if CIA trained Bin Laden at some stage, did they mean him turn against them? Of course, not.
Does the West employ guerilla fighters for their need? Probably, as it's probably assumed that it's better to act through proxies rather than be directly involved. But are they behind terrorism, suicide bombers or shooters, decapitating and other cruelties?
I think - clearly not
Matthew wrote: "European society launched ahead of its Arab, Asian and African counterparts and began systematically colonizing the entire world. By the 20th century, the decolonization process had been complete. But for the next 50 - 100 years, we've seen the post-colonial world struggle with problems that are directly attributable to what came before...."
I personally fail to see causal relationship between colonialism and post-colonialism and world struggle in last 50-100 years. Don't see how hitler and nazis are connected to colonization, neither - how recent turbulence in some Muslim countries. And most were never colonized by Europeans. Maybe there is connection to conflicts in Africa, but it isn't obvious to me.
Besides, it puts too much emphasis on a single histroical phenomenon, while neglects, for example - Russian movement eastward till Alaska, or Genghis Khan occupying half of the world or Mediterranian civilizations that laid foundations to three major religions...
Matthew wrote: "there is nothing special about European civilization..."
I don't want to sound like I'm trying to rebutt just about everything -:), but I do think there is a lot of special about any civilization, be it European or Ming dynasty or Maya civilization. But I agree that European isn't apriori superior to any other...
Tim wrote: "The moment humankind created the concept of ownership we were doomed.."There is a new concept of 'sharing' - Uber, AirBNB may be just the precursors -:)
To say that West (or Obama as one of our candidates likes to say) is to blame for ISIS and the mess in the Middle East is just another way of excusing the role of personal responsibility. Sure there were things we did over there that didn't help the situation, but at the end of the day, the people are responsible for their own destiny. It wasn't American troops who dropped their weapons and ran away the first time they faced ISIS, nor was it American civilians who invited ISIS into their villages or fled and let ISIS take their homes.I know how this is going to sound, and I know it will be offensive to some, but it sums up the situation nonetheless. With all the controversy over Trump's attacks on the Kahn family who spoke of their son at the DNC convention there is a point that no one has brought up. First off their son was a hero - he joined our military and sacrificed his life for our beliefs. I never joined and never served in the armed forces, so in that respect, that young man was braver and more courageous than I ever was. Trump's bizarre rants on the parents however ended up painting them as the ones who sacrificed - they gave their son for their adopted country - and the narrative almost derails the tale of heroics and misplaces those heroics from the son to the parents.
Now, the parents are immigrants to this country. I will not question their right to be here, and I will not in anyway suggest they should go back; but to be honest, they came to the US because they didn't want to stick their necks out in their home country to make the changes they wanted to see. They didn't sacrifice to make their home a better place, they fled the United States because it was easier. To say they sacrificed their son for this country, it is only because they were too cowardly to sacrifice themselves to make their country a better place.
This is the fundamental issue with the Syrian refugees flooding out. It is easier to run from the problem at home than to stand up and fight for that home and fight for themselves. Maybe our government is wary of the anti-Assad rebels because they've had to turn to some terrorist groups to get support, but I have more respect for them than I do for the refugees, because at least they are standing up for themselves and trying to make their country a better place as they see it. It almost appalls me that our governments deal with so-called rebel factions who aren't even in the country, on the ground, engaged in the actual fighting, and don't even have the support of the fighters. It's similar to the government we tried to form in Libya with politicians who don't even represent the groups that took up arms and actually overthrew their dictator.
But let's be honest again, this isn't just something isolated to the Middle-Eastern, Muslim world. If you're white in America, your ancestors did the same thing. My own ancestors came to the colonies, because frankly they didn't stand up to bring about the kind of society they wanted back in England. It was easier to cross the ocean and come to America where the distance allowed them some freedom they didn't have back home.
The only people who can consider themselves heroes or claim they sacrificed anything in terms of national/international matters are those that did take a stand, those who fought for their countries, and those who tried to make a difference instead of running away and blaming others for the situations.
I know there are often extenuating circumstances that influence one's actions, but taking that stand doesn't have to mean taking up a gun and engaging in violence. The changes brought about during the Arab spring in Tunisia and Egypt came through nonviolent protests by students who simply stood up and said enough. African Americans in this country brought about a lot of change during the Civil Rights movements in the 60s by speaking up, forcing their voices to be heard, but largely sticking to nonviolent protest. The suffragette movements secured the rights for women to vote by speaking up and making their voices heard.
Change starts with the individual. I'm not saying we need to stop accepting refugees from some of these troubled areas or stop intervening to right the wrongs going on, but any efforts the West puts into routing out evil or stabilizing troubled countries will be worthless if the people can't even take responsibility for the situation afterwards. Anybody can be a hero, but more often than not, we choose not to be, because it's easier to blame someone else.
@JJ: I personally lived and worked for two years in Lebanon (1982-84), during the Lebanese Civil War and Israeli 1982 invasion. I lived in an apartment block in a muslim part of Beirut and worked at the Canadian embassy, about one kilometer away, so I was quite close and intimate with my Lebanese neighbors. In the vast majority, they were decent, honest and hard working people who only wished for their families to live in peace and prosper. I also met more than a few refugees in the camps of Beirut. They also wished for peace and to be able to go back to their homes, but couldn't. Why? Because when they tried to resist they got crushed and slaughtered.
JJ, it may sound easy to rebel and resist thugs, but when you are yourself unarmed or poorly armed and you are facing whole squads of murderous thugs armed to the teeth, then your thoughts are not about playing hero: it is about how you can save your spouse and children from being slaughtered. You simply can't imagine the degree of savagery and cruelty that the various wars around the Middle East or Africa have attained. For those armed local thugs, cutting the throat of some civilian or raping a young girl is all in a day's work.
As an example of that, I will tell you about a personal experience of mine in Beirut. In 1982, Palestinian refugees occupied a number of camps in the southern suburbs of the city, protected by PLO militiamen, along with the Syrian Army and a few other muslim militias allied to the PLO. Then, the Israeli Army invaded Lebanon and came all the way to Beirut, putting siege to the Palestinian camps and to the muslim half of Beirut. I saw PLO militiamen fight hard for months before they were forced to make a deal with the Israelis in order to avoid further slaughter: the PLO agreed to be leave Beirut by boat to Libya (under U.S. Navy escort). In return, the Palestinian refugees in the camps were promised protection. However, not long after the PLO fighters left, the Israelis let Christian Lebanese militiamen enter the camps, supposedly so that they could 'disarm' the refugees. What happened next is known as the 'Sabra and Chatila Camps Massacres', with over 800 men, women and children slaughtered in cold blood. Some refugees, who had weapons, did their best to defend themselves but were overwhelmed. The same kind of horrors have happened too many times to be counted around the Middle East. My point is: if your own government is unable or unwilling to defend you and your family, then what is the point of having your family slaughtered because you tried to resist the same bunch of murderous thugs who just made your national army run away? Let's not call for others to play heroes when we ourselves live in a safe place.
You gave as an example the Civil Rights Movement of the 60s in the U.S.A.. Well, the American police didn't rape protesters 'en masse' and the rednecks who wanted to lynch a black man still ran the risk of facing justice one day. So, I find your comparisons between refugees from Syria and protesting blacks in the 60s less than convincing.
JJ, it may sound easy to rebel and resist thugs, but when you are yourself unarmed or poorly armed and you are facing whole squads of murderous thugs armed to the teeth, then your thoughts are not about playing hero: it is about how you can save your spouse and children from being slaughtered. You simply can't imagine the degree of savagery and cruelty that the various wars around the Middle East or Africa have attained. For those armed local thugs, cutting the throat of some civilian or raping a young girl is all in a day's work.
As an example of that, I will tell you about a personal experience of mine in Beirut. In 1982, Palestinian refugees occupied a number of camps in the southern suburbs of the city, protected by PLO militiamen, along with the Syrian Army and a few other muslim militias allied to the PLO. Then, the Israeli Army invaded Lebanon and came all the way to Beirut, putting siege to the Palestinian camps and to the muslim half of Beirut. I saw PLO militiamen fight hard for months before they were forced to make a deal with the Israelis in order to avoid further slaughter: the PLO agreed to be leave Beirut by boat to Libya (under U.S. Navy escort). In return, the Palestinian refugees in the camps were promised protection. However, not long after the PLO fighters left, the Israelis let Christian Lebanese militiamen enter the camps, supposedly so that they could 'disarm' the refugees. What happened next is known as the 'Sabra and Chatila Camps Massacres', with over 800 men, women and children slaughtered in cold blood. Some refugees, who had weapons, did their best to defend themselves but were overwhelmed. The same kind of horrors have happened too many times to be counted around the Middle East. My point is: if your own government is unable or unwilling to defend you and your family, then what is the point of having your family slaughtered because you tried to resist the same bunch of murderous thugs who just made your national army run away? Let's not call for others to play heroes when we ourselves live in a safe place.
You gave as an example the Civil Rights Movement of the 60s in the U.S.A.. Well, the American police didn't rape protesters 'en masse' and the rednecks who wanted to lynch a black man still ran the risk of facing justice one day. So, I find your comparisons between refugees from Syria and protesting blacks in the 60s less than convincing.
//@Nik: I'm not sure. I still think the West takes upon itself too much.//Glad you mentioned these things, Nik. Because if we're being honest, the "west" - if we're talking as a whole - really does not take responsibility for any of this. Scholars and individuals assert that there is blame to be had, but our politicians and public discourse does not acknowledge much in the way of the role played by past events, nor do they come up with solutions. They are constantly reacting to the latest development and attempting to make justifications for present-day policy.
Case in point, Saddam did indeed invade Kuwait in 1991 because he felt he had tacit US support do so. This was the product of his discussions with Donald Rumsfeld during the Iran-Iraq war which occurred a few years prior, during which time the US equipped Saddam with chemical and biological weapons and satellite intelligence so he could bombard Iranian cities and commit a crime of war.
When Saddam was put on trial after Operation Iraqi Freedom, he was tried by an Iraqi court, and the only charge was the murder of a group of southern Shias in Iraq. The reason they could not try him in the Hague, and the reason the gassing of northern Kurds, his invasion of Iran, and his invasion of Kuwait did not come up, was because the US knew that if any of these crimes were talked about, their involvement would become a matter of public record.
This remains, to this day, something the US government has not acknowledged openly.
As for training Osama bin Laden, the US' involvement goes far beyond that. It extends to training the mujaheeden and equipping them during the Afghan War and even to the very reason the Russians occupied the country. During the late 70s, the Carter administration understood there was civil war brewing in the country between the secular, socialist regime in Kabul and the tribes that wanted Islamic rule. They deliberately armed the guerrillas, knowing that if they destabilized the Afghan government, they would call on the Soviets for aid, and the Soviets would be forced to endure a war akin to Vietnam.
ISIS was the direct result of the US invading Iraq in 2003, which resulted in the full-scale destabilization of the country due to the sheer incompetence and negligence of the Bush administration. There ineptitude in playing off Shias against Sunnis also led to the civil war and the ongoing popularity of Al-Qaeda and now ISIS in the northwest, and their abrupt withdrawal in 2009 created the vacuum which has allowed for their resurgence. So yes, there is responsibility to be had. But it hardly being acknowledged.
//I personally fail to see causal relationship between colonialism and post-colonialism and world struggle in last 50-100 years.//
I didn't mention Hitler, I was talking about the problems of the post-colonial world for the past 50-100 years. These are all attributable to the damage done to the non-western world by Europeans between the 16th and 20th centuries - a period characterized by slavery, genocide, conquest and underdevelopment. If you don't see the relationship, allow me to illustrate it for you.
In Africa, Asia, South America, and the Middle East, wherever Europeans colonized (the only exceptions were Japan, Thailand and Afghanistan, so yes, Europeans did colonize most of these) the legacy of the European underdevelopment has remained. In all former European colonies, the economies were built around the export of raw materials or crops alone. No real economies were built, they took deliberate steps to ensure that local natives didn't occupy middle class positions, and the ridiculous borders - which bore no resemblance whatsoever to the people living there and reflected where one country's influence started and another ended - were drawn up.
This contributed to a culture of enduring poverty and economic collapse after the Europeans withdrew, and the ridiculous borders contributed to border conflicts and power struggles between ethnic groups. Europeans also facilitated these conflicts by actively undermining democratic governments and attempt at reform in the post-colonial world and coming to the support of dictatorships, always for the sake of protecting their own economic interests. As President Jacques Chirac of France famously said "Africa was not built for democracy", which he said to a cheering Nigerian regime while visiting the country in the 90s.
As for the last bit, I don't mean to say special in the unique sense of the word. More in the "exceptional" or somehow better than everyone else sense. We see this attitude in two place today - one being among people who think European society was culturally or racially superior to others, and Americans who believes their culture is somehow unique in terms of how it values freedom and democracy.
Michel wrote: what is the point of having your family slaughtered because you tried to resist the same bunch of murderous thugs who just made your national army run away?..."I think J.J. refers to those instances of Iraqi army fleeing ISIS and unwilling to fight and gives an example of Syrian rebels that fight rather than run away.
Of course, it's easy to discuss these things from the safety of your home, but is to run away the only solution? Who would stop the thugs then? Admitedly, there are people that fight.
There were countries that chose not to resist Nazis and hardly put any effort in defending against the invasion, succumbing to superior force. And there were Soviets who sacrificed 20 mil people to win. There were people living under nazis and those joining partizans fighting against superior forces from the woods. Both approaches are not without drawbacks, but there was once a notion of defending your home or fighting for your country.
Not saying refugees don't deserve help and compassion though..
Matthew wrote: Glad you mentioned these things, Nik. Because if we're being honest, the "west" - if we're talking as a whole - really does not take responsibility for any of this...."You are right, of course, I meant people in the West, who primarily point at their own countries as the prime source of evil for whatever mishaps happen anywhere and prefer to blame terror, ISIS and other nasty and cruel things as lying in direct responsibility of their own governments or that of their neighbors. I respect your opinion though, Matt and of those people too! And I understand that if you assume the role of the global leader, the responsibility should also be of the same level.
Maybe it's less sexy, but I'm with that part of the West that doesn't see that terror is designed in the White House or ISIS is given orders from 10 Downing street. I'm exaggerating, of course, but still.
Was Saddam an American puppet? I don't think so. Is Al Bagdadi Western creation? Ayatollas? Assad?
I believe Michel's description of thugs for whom to kill and rape is just business- as- usual and I believe that's not the mentality borne by western armed forces.
I agree with you though that there were many blunders, lousy handling and so on. Is everything perfect and noble in the West? Of course, not, but I think the difference is distinct between mentalities and values.
It's not a secret that US, Russia, China, UK and so on are the biggest suppliers of arms, so any armed conflict you can stretch to involvement.
Well, trying Saddam for murder sounds grave enough. Were other possible charges omitted to hide something? Could be. And I wouldn't be surprised, if it so happened to avoid domestic criticism. Was Saddam, Kusai and so on excellent and kind dudes, heroes and martyrs? I don't think so.
Matthew wrote: "//Europeans did colonize most of these - the legacy of the European underdevelopment has remained...."
But what can you expect? That they would build everything tip top and then call the natives and give them the keys?
A friend of mine returned this summer from spending vacation in Portugal and he says: "Dude, these guys ruled such a big chunk of the world, where all this glory disappeared?" The way he describes, the country doesn't look that luxurous itself (and no offense meant, of course, to Portuguese).
You know, all the colonies wanted independence, so they assumed they could take care of themselves. But maybe success of this or that former colony depends on its own population rather than heritage left by former rulers? Take US or Australia as former UK colony and India. How would you explain the difference between the well-being in India and that in the US?
Matthew wrote: the ridiculous borders contributed to border conflicts and power struggles between ethnic groups..."
Yeah, arbitrary borders drawn with a ruler often neglected indigenous groups...
Matthew wrote: Africa was not built for democracy"
In my opinion, assuming that everyone's made of the same mold is erroneous. How many democracies there are in Africa nowadays? Not many, right? It's like missionaries, who were roaming Africa and converting everyone's Christian. There are different mentalities and culture and democracy may turn out not fit for all. And if you ask me, even in the West we see sometimes the 'show' of democracy rather than real democracy, where people self-govern through decisions adopted by majority of votes.
Matthew wrote: somehow better than everyone else sense"
Agree that no civilization is superior
Nik wrote: "Matthew wrote: Glad you mentioned these things, Nik. Because if we're being honest, the "west" - if we're talking as a whole - really does not take responsibility for any of this...."You are righ..."
That's it exactly. The history of colonials, and the history of institutions like the CIA's, MI6 and other post-colonial institutions, have been a long comedy of errors. It's not evilness or avarice that propel them, but rather a constant need to correct for their past mistakes.
And in that respect, none of these people were creations of the West. To say so would deny any responsibility to those individuals and groups themselves. But it is accurate to say that there are "western" fingerprints on all of them.
//But what can you expect? That they would build everything tip top and then call the natives and give them the keys? //
Of course I wouldn't expect that. But that's not the point. The point is they did everything to create economies of dependency that were slaved to their own. And, with the exception of the British building academic institutions in their colonies during the inter-war years (i.e. in the 1920s and 30s) none of the empires did anything to prepare them for independence - despite claiming that they were going to.
To say "they weren't capable of taking care of themselves" is no different than European denying independence movements their freedom based on the excuse that "they can't take care of themselves". It was a racist excuse, where people were infantalized and oppressing them was justified as being "for their own good".
And it's also completely contrary to the facts. In the past 30 years, the developed nations of the world have advanced farther than in the past 300. The idea that colonies were somehow better off under European rule is therefore been proven to be completely false.
//ow many democracies there are in Africa nowadays? Not many, right?//
Not quite true. Just about every African nation began with a democratic franchise. Over the past few decades, almost every African nation has struggled with military coups, dictatorships, the restoration of civilian governments and free elections, corruption and abuse, civil wars, et al. And today, despite enduring problems, most African nations are run by democratic (or at least quasi-democratic nations). The era of African dictatorships is running its course. And it has nothing to do with culture. It has everything to do with stability.
However, once again, it seems were in agreement on all the rest and I don't think we're that far apart on any issue really. And I apologize for the long-winded answers. Before becoming a writer I was a history and social sciences teacher. I've got the resume of a long-talker! :)
As far as ISIS is concerned, my view is that if you invade another country, you take responsibility for everything that follows, until you leave the country in good shape. Iraq was a disaster because the US had no idea what to do with it, it committed too few troops to enforce whatever it wanted, or to enforce law and order. Then the so-called Arab spring - the west intervened because they thought this was a good idea from their point of view. Again, nobody bothered to ask why were the countries like they were, and nobody asked were things that bad for the citizens that they could not get very much worse? It was simply meddling for domestic political ends, and that to me is a crime.
Ian wrote: "As far as ISIS is concerned, my view is that if you invade another country, you take responsibility for everything that follows, until you leave the country in good shape. Iraq was a disaster becau..."Well said. "The break it, you bought it" approach. It's a shame more governments didn't follow this philosophy in the past.
I don't think we are far apart too. I think it's important that Matthew wrote: "However, once again, it seems were in agreement on all the rest and I don't think we're that far apart on any issue really. And I apologize for the long-winded answers...."everything and foreign policy specifically shall be subject to public discourse, opinions and criticism.
I'm for a snappy style, but brevity is not always the best choice -:)
Matthew wrote: "To say "they weren't capable of taking care of themselves" is no different than European denying independence movements their freedom based on the excuse that "they can't take care of themselves"....."
Sure, that would be patronizing, therefore I didn't say and certainly didn't mean exactly that. My point is: rather than blame poor heritage, build your own paradise! We have very successful examples of former colonies be it Hong Kong (if you can view it as such) or Canada and much less successful of countries in the terms of well-being of their citizens, that were never colonized
Michel wrote: "@JJ: I personally lived and worked for two years in Lebanon (1982-84), during the Lebanese Civil War and Israeli 1982 invasion. I lived in an apartment block in a muslim part of Beirut and worked a..."I won't deny there aren't flaws in my argument. I do realize it's not "easy" to stand up for everyone, and I understand that at the same time you might decide to take that stand, people still have to eat or feed their family. I don't take the position that refuges should stay where they are and we should close the borders, but rather the opposite, that if you have this kind of horror going on then we shouldn't turn our backs on them.
I think the point I'm trying to make is that we often look to governments to help us, but for our part, the real question is what are we doing to make our lives better? While I get that many people don't have ready access to the necessary weapons, and that some of these massacres happen before the victims even know it's coming, but we do see throughout history examples of people standing up. Recently, we saw it in Libya, and we have the Syrian rebels trying to fight. Students in Iran tried to stand up during the Arab spring despite what it might mean for them. Sure, you have elderly in any population or women in certain countries who have been raised to think their only strength is to care for the children, so they might only look at it as trying to save their children, but in the flood of refugees crossing Europe right now, how many are "fighting age?" How many don't have families to worry about? I honestly can't answer that not being in Europe and seeing it, so I won't say they should stay home and stand up, but it's something to think about.
I'm sure there are many who would disagree though that the treatment of blacks in this country is somehow better because we have our legal system to stand behind. It used to be many of the rural law enforcement personnel were white supremacist to some extent, looking the other way when black bodies turn up, looking the other way when the Klan plants a flaming cross on a black lawn or throws rocks and bricks though their windows. It was local law enforcement actively blocking "white" schools when courts ordered desegregation. Even if you found agents actively pursuing justice for racially based crimes back in those times, I doubt it was any consolation to Martin Luther King, or little girls killed in church bombings, or civil rights workers taken to the woods and murdered.
I apologize for sort of forgetting where i was going with this. Discussing the issues in this country sort of froze my mind on how we're still dealing with our own issues and our population remains divided on race today because as a society, we're still afraid to face some of the shame in our past, and I wonder, in addition to wondering if people of the world aren't doing enough for themselves, if we have a right to criticize others' homes when we haven't even straightened up our own. That and I keep looking up and seeing the comment above me with the line "rather than blame poor heritage, build your own paradise!" And there is a lot of truth in that.
A contentious thread in the past, but we are not shunning away -:)
Given the recent activity, I believe we are shunning away :-)
Ian wrote: "Given the recent activity, I believe we are shunning away :-)"Are we?
It's maybe now Mr Mueller needs to come back with some results to rekindle some popular discussions -:)
Yep, for some it will be like fighting a fire with gasoline :-)
I've been reading through these posts trying to get an idea of the different sides of this question. Now I have a question: Do people actually read every word of all these very long posts? I can't stick with it, but maybe that's just me. Shorter, more succinct posts, in my opinion, would be more effective.
Scout wrote: "I've been reading through these posts trying to get an idea of the different sides of this question. Now I have a question: Do people actually read every word of all these very long posts? I can't ..."GR, puts a cap of 12K characters on a post, other than that (and subject to our rules) I'm for letting people express themselves however they like -:)
So, is the West the source of all evil?Italy, for example, accuses France for impoverishing Africa:
https://www.voanews.com/a/italy-franc...
Scout wrote: "I've been reading through these posts trying to get an idea of the different sides of this question. Now I have a question: Do people actually read every word of all these very long posts? I can't ..."You mean like twitter? ;)
Nik wrote: "So, is the West the source of all evil?Italy, for example, accuses France for impoverishing Africa:
https://www.voanews.com/a/italy-franc..."
They are not entirely wrong. France, Britain, Belgium, and Italy too (they are not blameless) played a major role in creating Africa's underdevelopment problem. And not just in terms of how they structured the colonial economies, but how they helped keep the trend going in the post-colonial era.
The term for it is "neo-colonialism", where the former imperial power makes alliances with kleptocrats who keep their people in poverty and allow foreign companies to plunder their countries resources, so long as they are given a piece of the action.
The US also took action to favour its corporations getting favoured status. But it raises the question of who is really to blame? My view is that the colonial powers were for not instilling the right mechanisms to stop leaders plundering, but that was because they too were plundering. We have to accept that colonisation was to get profits and monopolies, and the locals were ignored as long was they stayed passive. Like stupidity, the world was not (and still is not) short of greed.
Ian wrote: "The US also took action to favour its corporations getting favoured status. But it raises the question of who is really to blame? My view is that the colonial powers were for not instilling the rig..."Good assessment. And it is true, isn't it? Americans fear government tyranny and rightly so. But how many times has this fear been used to promote corporate tyranny? As a teacher of mine used to say, the American system is not so much capitalism as corporate feudalism.
Not sure how corporate behavior or mentality differs between mainland and elsewhere. The greed, if it's the driver is still there, the regulation might be more constraining though
Sure, I guess the West is hardly angelic and altruistic in its approach, but to say that it's to blame for almost everything: from terror to bad harvest, I think is tendentious, patronizing and largely overstating. Is the West the source of most evil? So why, for example, so many want to live there and not the other way around?
What do you think?