#76483
07/19/2002 4:00 PM
|
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 3,467
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 3,467 |
It's not often I start a new thread hee. In fact, I think I have done so less than a dozen times, perhaps only five or six. But the following is so good and so inspiring that I think it needs to be read by everyone and thought about by everyone. I ordinarily would pass over something like this since I think most graduation speeches, particularly those at the HS level, are pure pap. This is VERY different:
Defend Civilization Itself
Mark Helprin
Mark Helprin, a novelist and a contributing editor of the Wall Street Journal, was raised on the Hudson and in the British West Indies. After receiving degrees from Harvard College and Harvard's Graduate School of Arts and Sciences, he did postgraduate work at the University of Oxford, and he has served in the British Merchant Navy, the Israeli infantry, and the Israeli Air Force. He was published in The New Yorker for almost a quarter of a century, and his stories and essays appear in the New York Times, Commentary, American Heritage, Forbes ASAP, and many other publications here and abroad. Translated into more than a dozen languages, his books include Refiner's Fire, Winter's Tale, A Soldier of the Great War and Memoir from Antproof Case.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The following speech was delivered to the graduating class of Hillsdale Academy, Hillsdale College's K-12 model school, on May 24, 2002.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I had wanted to speak to you tonight about defense, about the campaign in Afghanistan, and the war against terrorism -- to shower you with facts and figures, which would support my contention that, in regard to the defense of this country, three administrations in a row have not done, and are not doing, enough. Three administrations in a row have not appreciated, and still do not appreciate, the gathering storm. I had wanted to do that, but the president of a surrounding college said, wisely, "Remember the occasion." And I shall, for it is a most worthy occasion, and he is right, it must take precedence over policy, which not only blows with the wind, but disappears with it.
The graduates tonight cannot know what is in their parents' hearts. You have been spared that, until you have children of your own, who are about to take the first step in leaving you . . . forever. Among those of false and mechanistic emotion, the expectation is that your parents will be overjoyed. But in a world where things matter, where love is understood in its relation to mortality, and where there is the courage of commitment -- which is to say, in this world -- they cannot be overjoyed. And this I know not only because I once left my own parents, and then they left, me, forever, but because I have two daughters of your age, and although they must, it breaks my heart to see them go.
My heart will have to wait, however, because by tradition in this the very last act of your extraordinary secondary education I am obliged to impart to you some sort of resolution for which, given the nature of that education, you are particularly suited. It is also my hope that, in regard to resolution, I can outdo the deservedly most famous high school commencement address in all of history, Clarence Darrow's command to a 1918 graduating class: Get out of here, and go swimming. That's admirable, but I would like to add just a little more, and to lengthen it by only a third. My charge to you, then, taking into account who you are and the nature of this institution, is: Get out of here, go swimming, and defend Western Civilization. Admittedly that is a bit more than Darrow asked, but then again he was a Progressive, and Progressives are notoriously permissive with their young. I know that such a charge is most ambitious, but it comes at the right time, both in history and in your lives.
There is a time to lay down arms, and there is a time to take them up, and that we are now in a time to take them up is self-evident. Those for whom it is not self-evident, who would challenge the right to defend against and preempt barbarous attacks upon our persons and our country, and who would instead substitute a distorted inquiry that would end in the condemnation not of the terrorists but of the terrorized, do not find the need to defend their civilization -- Western Civilization -- self-evident. Nor do they find the action of doing so congenial, in that it is something from which they habitually abstain. This is a serious charge, and I have drawn a clear line, but I mean to, so let me give you an example.
Several years ago, I was speaking in a university town in Massachusetts. By some quirk which I hope never to see reproduced, and before I knew what was happening, I found myself debating my entire audience on the subjects of human sacrifice and cannibalism. These well-educated and polite people -- only a few of whom would actually have murdered or eaten one another -- who had sons and daughters, Ph.D.s, and BMWs, were defending the Mayan and Aztec practice of human sacrifice -- that is, in the main, of children -- and the South Sea custom of cannibalism. It wasn't that they were for such things: they weren't. It wasn't that they were not against them: they were. It was that to take the position that human sacrifice and cannibalism are wrong is not only to reject relativism but to place oneself decisively in the ranks of Western Civilization, such a position being one of its characteristic distinctions, and this they would not do. They were ashamed to do so, and they were afraid to do so. My charge to you is that in this, you never be either ashamed or afraid.
Civilization is vulnerable not only to munitions, it is vulnerable to cowardice and betrayal. It is a great and massive thing of many dimensions that can be attacked from many angles. When professors of ethics at leading universities advocate infanticide, you know that civilization is under attack. When governments and churches advocate racial discrimination, you know that civilization is under attack. When a popular "art" exhibit consists of human cadavers in various states of mutilation, including a bisected pregnant woman and her unborn child, you know that civilization is under attack. The list is endless. The daily assault could fill an encyclopedia of decadence and degradation.
You must never fail to stand against such things, to use your education to break the sophistry that surrounds them, and to draw upon it to summon the memory of a thousand struggles, of ten thousand battles, and of the countless millions who fell to establish and defend those principles that not long ago were called self-evident, and that, now and forever, absent moral cowardice, are self-evident.
If civilization can be attacked on many fronts, it can also be defended on many fronts, and to do so you need not necessarily drop into Afghanistan by parachute or found a political party. Last summer, in Venice, I was walking from room to room in the Accademia, which, unlike timid American museums, throws its windows wide open to the light and air of day. As if to bring even further alive the greatness and truth of the Bellinis and the Giorgiones on the walls, the galleries were flooded with music. As is most everything in Italy, it was unofficial. It came from a guitarist and a soprano on a side street. He played while she sang -- gloriously -- Bach, Handel, Mozart, and anonymous folk songs of the 18th Century. Because it was music, I cannot properly convey to you how beautiful it was, but it was accomplished, precise, and infused with the ineffable quality that lifts great art above that which merely aspires to or pretends to be great art. I could not see them from the windows, but when, several hours later, I went outside, they had neither ceased, nor skipped a beat, nor produced a single false note.
They were impoverished Poles, who appeared to be in their late twenties. She was thin, sharp-featured, and hauntingly beautiful. Most people simply passed them by, some dropped a few coins in a basket at her feet, and the visitors to the Accademia had no idea who they were, but she sang as if she were bathed in the footlights of La Scala, where she should have been, and where someday she may be. It did not matter that they were unrecognized, that they sang on the street, or that they were desperately poor, because that day in Venice they rose above everyone else, except perhaps the saints. In this they shared a brotherhood with the American soldier who made the first parachute jump, in the dark, into Afghanistan. For they and he were defending the civilization of the West, and they and he are inextricably linked. Without the soldier, they could not exist except in subjugation, and without them, he would not have enough to fight for.
I ask you to join this brotherhood, and, in your own way, whatever that may be, to defend and champion the sanctity of the individual, free and objective inquiry, government by consent of the governed, freedom of conscience, and the pursuit -- rather than the degradation and denial -- of truth and of beauty. I ask you to defend a civilization so buoyant with the presence of God that it need never compel others in His name. I ask you to defend a civilization that rather than deliberately obscuring the difference between combatants and non-combatants, struggles to maintain and respect it. I ask you to defend a civilization of immeasurable achievement, brilliance, and freedom. I ask you to defend civilization itself.
It is not without risk, and to request this of you in the presence of your parents is something I can do only because I ask the same of my own children. Because of the temper of the times (and, some would say, the temper of all times), what may be exacted from you is sacrifice -- of income, position, title, acceptance, respect, perhaps even of life. But what may be provided, or, rather, earned, is a kind of battlefield commission that will give you neither rank nor insignia nor anything but honor. And therein lies the justifying balance, for honor is usually worth at least what you must give up to obtain it. We have heard of late how we are at a disadvantage in the war that has just begun, because in the West we cling to life and comfort at the expense of honor. Our enemies tell us that, and in the telling they barely conceal their enjoyment. Do they really believe this? Because if they do, I have a message for them: The sense of honor in the West may be slow to awaken, but it exists in measures and quantities, when it does awaken, enough to fill the world, as it shall, as it must. How do they think we have come to where we are? How do they think we survived the battles that led to the great revisions in this civilization, its unprecedented turnings, redirections, and rededications -- of which, being entirely unself-critical and subjective, they have not yet had the courage to make even one? They say we have no history. Did we spring from a leaf? How do they think we have come through our five thousand years? Honor. From long familiarity, we know what honor is.
It is what enables the individual to do right in the face of complacency and cowardice. It is what enables the soldier to die alone, the political prisoner to resist, the singer to sing her song, hardly appreciated, on a side street. It is God's valuation and resplendent touch, His gift of strength to those who need it most, when they need it most.
I ask you to defend and protect what is great and good, to choose your battles, but to stand your ground. For little things cascade into big things, and even should the larger battle not go well, hold your position. Even if, in the end, you do not prevail -- though you must -- you will have done right, and the ghosts of those who came before you over many thousands of years, of those who fell unknown and unremembered while doing right, of those who upheld against all pressures and in the face of wounding opposition, will be justly honored, as you will be justly honored, by those who come after you.
Congratulations, and God bless.
TEd
|
|
|
#76484
07/19/2002 8:00 PM
|
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 107
member
|
|
member
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 107 |
Thanks Ted, for sharing that with us. I want my son to read it. He is leaving for college in 4 weeks. I hope he will be an honorable man too.
|
|
|
#76485
07/19/2002 9:38 PM
|
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 1,346
veteran
|
|
veteran
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 1,346 |
I'm sorry if I'm being obtuse here, TEd, but why's it only Western Civilization we should be defending? I'm all for fighting and making sacrifices for Civilization (or at least what I see as the essential values of civilized life) but see no reason to be exclusive about that. Surely we need all the allies we can get in such a hugely important task? Eastern Civilization - I take this to include everything from the Middle East round through India to China, Japan, Taiwan etc - has produced many of the greatest achievements of mankind*. I don't feel inclined to even undervalue that contribution, let alone to put "Eastern" folk in the same category as "the Enemy", which is achieved by implication. This is at the very least an incredibly careless choice of words. At worst it's divisive, to put it very mildly indeed. I'm afraid that one term disables my appreciation of the rest of Helprin's words. Shona* Do I really need to list what Eastern Civilization has given us? The list would probably start with Civilization 
|
|
|
#76486
07/19/2002 11:21 PM
|
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 4,757
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 4,757 |
it's divisive, to put it very mildly indeed
Being not so mild, I found the whole lot to be a poorly argued and tendentious pile of crap.
To cut through all the verbiage and assumed value statements buried like icebergs beneath the words chosen, just ask yourself the following question:
What would the reaction be if the electorates of such bastions of ‘Western Civilisation’ as say the USA, the UK, and Israel were asked to take a 10% cut in our living standards in order to foster the promulgation of civilised values in areas of the world not so currently blessed?
If this choice is presented to ‘western Civilisation’ without being wrapped in the pernicious glitter of hono(u)r, flag, and religion, I am fairly certain the answer would be as dusty as it has always been.
“How do they think we have come through our five thousand years? Honor.” get real – it has had (and continues to have) much more to do with the naked expression of raw power. IMHO only a fool could read history and think otherwise.
But thanks for posting it, TEd, it’s illuminating to see other values being expressed with such rabid certainty…
|
|
|
#76487
07/19/2002 11:39 PM
|
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 742
old hand
|
|
old hand
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 742 |
>the pernicious glitter of hono(u)r, flag, and religion,
Nice phrase, a real keeper. Thanks.
|
|
|
#76488
07/20/2002 1:16 AM
|
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 3,467
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 3,467 |
Shona:
Let them defend their OWN damned civilization! Just kidding, except as noted below.
Of course I agree wholeheratedly with you that the East has given us much. I too have read Durant.
I think what the author is really saying is to fend off barbarism AT HOME! To resist mightily those who would destroy our civilization from within. Yes, he talks about those who would destroy us from without and refers to them as the enemy. But I went back over what he wrote and I do not see where you can infer that he's trying to create a conflict between East and West. Rather he is pointing out to those who have announced themselves our enemies through repeated attacks at home and abroad that we are not gonna put up with that shit any more. Parenthetically, neither "east" nor "eastern," capitilaized or not, appear in the speech. I think the crux of his speech is that he expects US citizens to be doing things to help our country, not to hurt it.
This is not in his speech, but the following reflects my feelings and viewpoints.
Those who side with us are our friends. Those who side with our enemies are our enemies. That's the bottom line. That's the new reality. And if you harbor our enemies you will bear the brunt of your decision. In spades.
As to the nationalistic aspects of it, yes of course that sounds nationalistic, but we do happen to consider ourselves a nation.
And as to giving up ten percent of our standard of living for the good of others, pardon my language, but what the fuck do you think we've been doing for fifty years? No, we haven't bled ourselves dry, but I'd bet we're a lot closer to that than any other nation in the world. We export aid as if it were a common commodity.
No, we aren't perfect; but in the main the United States and the individuals who make up our society do the best they can to increase the living conditions of those in lesser-developed nations.
Hell, I'll put our Peace Corps up against Australia's any time.
I'm very sorry that you reacted negatively to what Halprin said. Perhaps I am becoming jingoistic in my old age, but I do believe that the United States is in the forefront in a bitter battle against tyranny, lawlessness, anarchy, and barbarianism. And if we have to fight that battle alone, we will do so.
I will not apologize for my viewpoint, nor will I become less nationalistic. If others want to wait until a radical Muslim comes along and says, "Bow to Mecca or I'm gong to kill you and all your family" that's their privilege.
And make no mistake about it, radical Muslims are the enemy of every human being in the world who does not agree with them. In the end they will kill everyone who does not knuckle under to them unless they are themselves killed first. The destruction of the West is their published goal. Disbelieve that to your peril, world.
I'm tired of all the cowardice about this issue. They are the enemy of the United States. By word and deed they have declared war against us.
I and all Americans will die in battle before we will bow down to a deity in whose name its believers commit the atrocities we have seen.
Ted
TEd
|
|
|
#76489
07/20/2002 1:20 AM
|
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 3,467
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 3,467 |
It just occurred to me I have stirred a pot on the eve of my departing for a week on Ocracoke Island in NC, lately visited by our own Jackie.
I'm not cutting and running. This was previously scheduled.
It'll be interesting to see what develops in the next week here.
TEd
TEd
|
|
|
#76490
07/20/2002 4:53 AM
|
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 3,146
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 3,146 |
Interesting, TEd. It has a certain Falwell-esque ring to it. "My country, right, wrong or indifferently. Praise the Lord and pass the ammunition."
The idiot also known as Capfka ...
|
|
|
#76491
07/20/2002 7:41 PM
|
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 161
member
|
|
member
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 161 |
>Being not so mild, I found the whole lot to be a poorly >argued and tendentious pile of crap
thank you for telling this I was afraid to do so as an outsider. although I am not so cathegoric about the speech - I appreciate this fine example of English language - but I do not like throwing together poor Polish singers and American soldiers that are paid to do their job. I wonder how much money the author gave to those who were defending the precious civilization.
I remember signing a petition about the situation of women in Afganistan ruled by Taliban: they were publicly stoned to death, schools for girls were closed, women - doctors and University lecturers were forced to leave their jobs.
This was happening two years ago and nobody in US Government ever reacted to this although equal rights for women is one of the latest achievements of the Western Civilization.
if US fights with something this "something" is immediately an enemy of Western Civilization, although yesterday the same "something" could have been "fighters for freedom of their country" against "the Evil".
The Muslim terrorists were grown up by US against USSR and they were "good guys" while invading Tadzhikistan and helping the rebels in Chechnya. The attitude had been changed in one day.
|
|
|
#76492
07/21/2002 12:53 AM
|
Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 273
enthusiast
|
|
enthusiast
Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 273 |
|
|
|
#76493
07/21/2002 1:11 AM
|
Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 833
old hand
|
|
old hand
Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 833 |
I have to confess, I'm with those who are against the speech....I found it just left me with an icky feeling.
I understand what TEd is saying he thinks the speaker is saying about fighting for Western "civilization" at home - however, I don't think the speaker himself made that point terribly clearly. I'm with shona, mav, vika and t'others: 'tis divisive, and a tendentious (had to look that up!) pile o' doo-doo.
IMHO, radical Muslims aren't any worse than radical Christians or radical Jews or radical anything/anyone. If you know anything about Islam - and I must confess I know very little, but enough! - you know that, as with the other two "book" religions (Judaism and Christianity), peace and peaceful actions are basic tenets of the Word of Allah, the Lord, Yaweh - whatever you want to call Him. (Her. It.) To pick on Islam because of Osama bin Laden is to tar all Muslims with the same brush - and the vast majority of them don't deserve that.
As for defending Western "civilization" - well, some of it is okay, but a lot of it ain't that great. Do we really want to pat ourselves on the back for things like the space programme (come on, how has it bettered life on Earth? if each nation with a space programme cancelled one project/mission per year and diverted the money to more appropriate causes, I bet we wouldn't have any starving people on the planet any more); pharmaceuticals (doctors get their info on drugs from drug companies - and drug companies just want to make money - look at the recent horrifying revelations about female hormone replacement therapy - go natural as much as possible, that's my motto!); finance (Enron, etc.); pop culture (Britney Spears, boy bands, what so often passes for "art" or "performance art," rap "music," what so often passes for "literature," etc); environmental practices (tearing down forests at a rate of knots, polluting lakes and other waterways, culling animal populations that would do fine if left to their natural cycles, introducing species where they don't belong, destroying habitat, etc); and much, much more? Where do we get off, holding ourselves up as examples to the world?
No, really?
Let us go in peace to love and serve the board.
|
|
|
#76494
07/21/2002 8:58 AM
|
Joined: Aug 2000
Posts: 2,204
Pooh-Bah
|
|
Pooh-Bah
Joined: Aug 2000
Posts: 2,204 |
Thank you, modgod, for that contribution that so obviously comes straight from then heasrt.
I have wanted to put something in, ever since this thread started, and have held back because I couldn't find the right words to say what I feel without going "over the top."
You have said so much of what I feel (and the rest has been said by the others that you named!) that I don;t need to add. Just to endorse.
|
|
|
#76495
07/21/2002 12:46 PM
|
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 771
old hand
|
|
old hand
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 771 |
I hear you, Rhuby, and thanks ModGod for expressing what I too feel. This brings up a slightly tangential thought for me - I recognized an amazing contrast as a child, learning about the WWII military experiences of my father and my uncle. My dad was Chief Quartermaster on a Navy fueling ship in Alaska, and I don't think he ever saw battle (i.e. Attu) - he froze off half of one lung guiding the ship through a storm, and spent the last couple of years of the war in a Naval hospital with TB.  My uncle was on the front lines - Army infantry, I imagine - and took a bullet that he carried with him for the rest of his life. My uncle (and probably to an even greater degree, my aunt) harbored the bitterness of the ages toward the Japanese because of a bullet from some guy who was just doing his job, same as my uncle. Maybe it's the glaring disparity of their respective service records - but when my dad spoke of the Japanese, it was always with the greatest respect. See, Dad had been a Merchant Marine in the 1920s, long before travel to Asia was an everyday occurrence. His experience in Japan was so profound that *that's* what he carried with him all his life, not the memories of the war. He could have easily succumbed to the same bitterness that my uncle did - after all, if it wasn't for the Japanese, there would have been no reason for him to be in Alaska on that boat during that storm and he would've had full lung function, blah, blah, blah. But he didn't. He had an awareness of the cultural differences borne of peacetime experience, and yet he understood the underlying similarities among humankind. It makes me glad to be my father's daughter.
|
|
|
#76496
07/21/2002 8:39 PM
|
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 4,757
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 4,757 |
I feared I might be wading in with my normal size 9 boots, but it was heartening to hear such perspectives as Vika's and MG's and CKs and Rhuby and others, and I think you are dead right to reflect with pride on your dad's transmitted values FB! Thansk for the link to that article Vernon - funnily enough I had been comparing notes with other board members about McCarthyism so this struck a real chord with me:
Robert Jensen, associate professor of journalism at the University of Texas at Austin […] and many others are concerned about Lynne Cheney's group, the American Council of Trustees and Alumni, which she co-founded in 1995 with Senator Joseph Lieberman, Democrat of Connecticut.
That group issued a report after September 11 called "Defending Civilization: How Our Universities Are Failing America, and What Can Be Done About It." It said, "When a nation's intellectuals are unwilling to defend its civilization, they give comfort to its adversaries." And it cited more than 100 examples of what it considers unpatriotic acts by specific academics.
"What's analogous to McCarthyism is the self-appointed guardians who are engaging in private blacklisting," says Eric Foner, professor of history at Columbia University. "That's why the Lynne Cheney thing is so disturbing: Her group is trying to intimidate individuals who hold different points of view. There aren't loyalty oaths being demanded of teachers yet, but we seem to be at the beginning of a process that could get a lot worse and is already cause for considerable alarm."
This, for me, is what lies at the heart of this debate: do we abnegate our responsibility to use our intellect in the face of terrifying crimes? I submit that if we do, we truly lose connection with all that is best in the slow and fequently oscillating development of human civilisation - whether the contributions to that civilisation have come from the West, or from the East.
That is why, for me at least, no cosy pattern of pre-digested dogma (whether based on flag or other faith-symbols) will ever cut it: we can never evade our individual and personal commitment to try and think carefully and act judiciously and show love before anger.
As, TEd, for your intemperate personal response to my simple attack on the message you were holding up for glorification ~ well, I think your response speaks for itself. But the facts if you wish to gather them are plainly published - America, for its many sterling qualities, is a net consumer of the world's assets in every territory of the globe. For every $ spent in 'aid' many dollars are grabbed in crippling debt payments in the less developed areas of the globe. I know you to be a very intelligent and good hearted man; I suspect in other times and places you may recognise that your current posts in this thread do not do you justice. I shall not post in this thread again, lest this degenerate into another ugly contest of irreconcilable politics - the intention of my original post was not to belittle your current beliefs, but rather to give you fair warning that other equally intelligent and passionately committed democrats may profoundly and completely differ to your views.
|
|
|
#76497
07/21/2002 10:13 PM
|
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 9
stranger
|
|
stranger
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 9 |
>>> "to give you fair warning that other equally intelligent and passionately committed democrats may profoundly and completely differ to your views."
Amen. (and that said without having been patient enough to have read the long posts on each side, so I have no idea who I'd agree with)
"There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance - that principle is contempt prior to investigation."
--- Herbert Spencer
(PS: Why retitled "something perspiring"? Perhaps bemiring?)
|
|
|
#76498
07/22/2002 1:13 PM
|
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 1,055
old hand
|
|
old hand
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 1,055 |
Ted writes: They are the enemy
Sometimes the enemy is not nearly as clear as it appears to be.
The problem here lies as much in you as it does in your proclaimed foe, Ted.
|
|
|
#76499
07/22/2002 1:21 PM
|
Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 833
old hand
|
|
old hand
Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 833 |
It makes me glad to be my father's daughter.
Thank you for that story, Fiberbabe. I'm glad you're glad! you should be - he sounds like a wonderful man. It is very difficult for people of our (ie yours and mine - sorry everyone else!) parents' generation to forgive the Japanese, as an entire race, for their atrocities during WWII. So good to hear of someone who held an untainted view. It was nice to learn of some of the good pre-WWII things.
On another tangent: I visited Pearl Harbour when I was in Hawaii in 1998, en route to Australia for a year. I was well impressed with the exhibit there (Pearl Harbour, not Oz! though Oz also has plenty of impressive exhibits!). One thing that struck me most forcibly, was that at this US monument, there was acknowledgement that the attack on Pearl Harbour was an almost-perfect military maneuver. I thought that a very generous admission on the part of the US'ns.
And so, putting myself at great risk for some serious strafing on a similar topic: 9/11 was truly horrifying. It will echo around the planet for some time to come. It devastated the lives of many and is still doing so, and I feel great sorrow for those who lost their lives, and those who lost family, in those attacks. But as terrorist attacks, you have to admit they were damn' near perfect. The planning, the thought, the effort that went into to bringing that off.....would have been so much better spent on world aid programmes and initiatives for peace.
So here's to those who have, truly, given their lives to such programmes and been initiators of good: Gandhi, Martin Luther King, Mother Theresa, and many others less-recognized (such as Fiberbabe!), who seek for the good in others and hold that up as a heartening example to us all.
Blessed are the peacemakers. They have so much more to teach us than the warmongers do.
Let us go in peace to love and serve the board.
|
|
|
#76500
07/22/2002 2:27 PM
|
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 5,400
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 5,400 |
Its been interesting reading this.. the opening peice is a ggod example of why patriotism has such a bad name.. but its not so much patriotic, as it is propoganda. and like the best propoganda, stirring.
but MG, your comments..to forgive the Japanese, as an entire race, for their atrocities during WWII. also struck a chord--or i should say sour note.
During WWII there were major cities on both sides destroyed, Coventry comes to mind, and the fire bombing of Dresden.. but almost never mentioned is the firebombing of Tokyo, a city, over 90% made (at WWII) of wooden building.
Most north American and europeans are aware, and distressed by the fire bombing and fire storm at Dresden.. and but are unaware the same was done to Tokyo.. atrocities occured on both sides. and there is still a dispartity of attitudes about what happened in europe, and what happened in far east.
the Japanese have a very different set of values that those that most of western europe, and the their offshoots share.
and values, are neither good or bad, but rather shared or not.
|
|
|
#76501
07/22/2002 3:12 PM
|
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 475
addict
|
|
addict
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 475 |
thanks mod god, you eloquently expressed my feelings in your first post and in most of your second. i couldn't say it better
an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind
|
|
|
#76502
07/29/2002 3:06 PM
|
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 3,467
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 3,467 |
Huh?
I'm having a hard time with this one. That phrase inplies you believe I attacked you personally. I went back and looked at what I wrote, and I don't see that.
Am I misinterpreting what you said or are you misinterpreting what I said?
You said:
America, for its many sterling qualities, is a net consumer of the world's assets in every territory of the globe.
OK. I don't have a problem with that so long as you aren't saying that we're taking things without paying for them. But the last time I looked we bought stuff from around the world from people who were willing to sell stuff. We run a trade deficit. We buy more than we sell. So what we are exporting is dollars. And the people who get those dollars overseas then use them to buy stuff from other places in the world. I don't think we hold a gun to anyone's head to make them sell their stuff to us. So I'm at a loss on what you said. For some reason you made it sound sort of accusatory that we bought stuff overseas for use in the US.
You said:
For every $ spent in 'aid' many dollars are grabbed in crippling debt payments in the less developed areas of the globe.
WHOA!!! Are you saying that we forced loans on people against their will and then charged them interest on the loans against their will? I must have missed that one. In my experience what we have done is lent massive amounts of money to countries all over the world and then we wrote off most of the loans as good will. I challenge you to support your statement that we have "grabbed crippling debt payments in the lesser developed areas of the globe.
I believe you will find on closer inspection of the books that this is not the case.
And, Mav, I certainly do agree that others may legitimately differ with my views, but I also believe that those who do differ have an obligation to support statements such as those you made above.
TEd
PS
I hope you retract what you said about not posting again. I would feel very badly if I thought that what I said discouraged debate and discussion.
TR
TEd
|
|
|
#76503
07/30/2002 11:04 AM
|
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 1,055
old hand
|
|
old hand
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 1,055 |
"A society of sheep must in time beget a government of wolves." - Bertrand de Jouvenal
|
|
|
#76504
07/31/2002 3:08 PM
|
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 163
member
|
|
member
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 163 |
This has been quite an interesting thread to follow.
"...and values, are neither good or bad, but rather shared or not..."
I think this expresses one of the great problems we are facing today, relativism. The Taliban's values included such things as:
1. Women should not go to school.
2. Women should not work.
3. Women can only go to female doctors (see points 1 and 2.)
The Ku Klax Klan have interesting values concerning non-whites.
The Nazi's had some values concerning how Jews should be treated.
How about genital mutilation, is that value neither good nor bad, just a society's values that must be respected.
The list could go on and on (and unfortunately does).
"North American and Europeans are aware, and distressed by the fire bombing and fire storm at Dresden.. and but are unaware the same was done to Tokyo.. atrocities occured on both sides. "
True. However, sometimes the means do justify the ends. Sometimes when people are fighting to survive, they lose interest in the rules. When you are watching 10's of thousands of your people being killed you are more concerned with saving them than saving the enemy.
A moral question: What if the Allies had an atomic bomb in 1939. Would incinerating Berlin in order to stop Hitler have been justified. Would saving 30 or 40 million lives have been worth a few hundred thousand Berliners? As a guess I would say the answer of Yugoslavian who had most of his relatives slaughtered, or a Polish Jew, would be, for the most part, quite different from that of a Canadian or American.
A somewhat tangential rant about values: There seems to be a fear of judging anyone today. I get sick of hearing, "he (or she) is really a good person, they just did something bad." Imagine how much less crime there would if "good people" stopped committing them.
|
|
|
#76505
07/31/2002 11:01 PM
|
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 1,346
veteran
|
|
veteran
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 1,346 |
Greetings Rouspeteur,
The following is a good thought -
A moral question: What if the Allies had an atomic bomb in 1939. Would incinerating Berlin in order to stop Hitler have been justified. Would saving 30 or 40 million lives have been worth a few hundred thousand Berliners? As a guess I would say the answer of Yugoslavian who had most of his relatives slaughtered, or a Polish Jew, would be, for the most part, quite different from that of a Canadian or American.
Now, I'm not Canadian or American - I'm English by birth and Polish by blood. I'd say that in 1939 the UK would have had to have done what it did anyway. The USA wasn't yet involved, and there wasn't much awareness of the Holocaust - we didn't know how far Hitler would go. Unless you're talking about a time-machine scenario, the nuclear option would be far better used (and probably would be successful) as a threat at that stage.
But I'd quite like to present you with a moral question:
Should Stalin have been an essential ally during World War II? Should he have been allowed to get away with his own reign of terror, mass murder, deportation and annexation of land?
This is newly meaningful to me, as - amazingly - I only recently realised that after the war Stalin was given no less than 48% of Poland, which included the towns in which my parents and grandparents lived until 1939. They could never go home. At the start of the war, Stalin invaded Poland from the East (under the pretext of helping the Poles), at the same time as Germany invaded from the West. And after the war Stalin retained that land won by invasion, in complicity with Churchill and Roosevelt; and that land remains Russian.
So - was this justified? Half of a land you are supposedly "saving", land that belongs to a people who were staunch allies in the War, is taken away from those people. Was this the "greater good", as the Nazis may not have been defeated if not for the USSR?
I think that overall it may - just barely - have been the greater good, and that's a very painful realisation. But it's a very close-run thing. In his time Stalin killed tens of millions of innocent people. An Alliance with Stalin was dealing with the Devil, and was turning a blind eye to a great deal of suffering.
But I'm afraid that there really are no simple answers and there never have been. It is very important to realise that fact.
So relativism appears to remove black-and-white certainties?
Good.
Think about it some more before you act.
Consider your enemy's reasons.
Consider the long-term consequences of your intended actions.
Because you can't turn the clock back once you have acted, and the world is a very small place these days.
There are still near-certainties to be found, but you have to work them out for yourself, and they may not be what you expect.
The truth is often uncomfortable.
|
|
|
#76506
08/01/2002 1:08 AM
|
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 163
member
|
|
member
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 163 |
" So relativism appears to remove black-and-white certainties? Good."
That right, "appears". Look at how successful Stalin was at killing his own people, or Mao in China, or Kim Il Jong (sp?) in North Korea. Communists have killed many times more people than the Nazi's ever did, but no one bans communist parties. Is it important to understand Stalin's reasons for killing 10's of millions of Ukrainians? Would it have made a difference? (Oh, now I see, that's why he slaughtered millions of people, he had a difficult childhood. I feel so much better now.)
The dealing with Stalin was a very straightforward deal with the Devil. Hitler was, at the time, the bigger threat. I doubt the allies had any illusions about Stalin, they just needed him to keep chewing up German units.
" So - was this justified? Half of a land you are supposedly "saving", land that belongs to a people who were staunch allies in the War, is taken away from those people. Was this the "greater good", as the Nazis may not have been defeated if not for the USSR? "
Justified? No. Never. What was, however, the alternative? Declaring war on Russia and forcing them out? England had been fighting for 6 years and the public wouldn't countenance any more death. Unfortunately, the European's defence plans are the same now as they were then. Don't spend money on defence. Retreat when attacked. Ask for someone to help. Bitch and whine about the person giving the help after you are safe.
"But I'm afraid that there really are no simple answers and there never have been."
I disagree, sometimes there are simple answers, but people are too blind to see them. Ignoring a grave threat to your existance is not a rational choice. Now, there aren't always simple answers, but you can't say there are never simple answers.
"Think about it some more before you act. "
Saying there is a simple answer doesn't imply that no thinking is required.
"Consider your enemy's reasons. "
No thanks. Someone saying they want to kill me because I am a citizen of one of the "Little Satans" that support the "Great Satan" is enough for me. It is enough for me to know that they are backward, misogynist, lunatics who must be stopped.
Would knowing Hitler's reasons for wanting to exterminate Jew and Gypsys change anything?
"Consider the long-term consequences of your intended actions. "
No argument here but sometimes the short-term consequences of inaction will eliminate the existance of a long-term. Case in point. Last year there was a conference in Toronto concerning people who had survived cancer as children. Radiation treatment and chemotherapy have had long-term consequences for them. Not treating the cancer has short-term consequence because the person is not around in the long term.
"Because you can't turn the clock back once you have acted, and the world is a very small place these days. "
Agreed. Just because I think that there are cases where there is a clear line between right and wrong doesn't mean I advocate mindless action. But I don't advocate sitting around analysing things until someone actually does something and then criticising them because you would have done something different (an artform in some parts of the world.) The world is also a pretty small place when you don't take action.
"There are still near-certainties to be found, but you have to work them out for yourself, and they may not be what you expect. The truth is often uncomfortable."
Exactly. That's why many people don't want to recognise right and wrong. It makes them feel uncomfortable.
|
|
|
#76507
08/01/2002 1:32 AM
|
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 1,055
old hand
|
|
old hand
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 1,055 |
> It is enough for me to know that they are backward, misogynist, lunatics who must be stopped.
So, he thought big and they called him a phallic.
Perhaps this makes some sense....
"He who joyfully marches to music rank and file,has already earned my contempt. He has been given a large brain by mistake,since for him the spinal cord would surely suffice.This disgrace to civilization should be done away with at once. Heroism at command, how violently I hate all this, how despicable and ignoble war is; I would rather be torn to shreds than be a part of so base an action. It is my conviction that killing under the cloak of war is no different than murder." Albert Einstein
|
|
|
#76508
08/01/2002 8:53 AM
|
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 163
member
|
|
member
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 163 |
"So, he thought big and they called him a phallic. "
Very nice quote but typical. Don't respond to the nature of the evil, just insult people who will do not use weasel-words. If you think someone is small-minded to recognise a threat when it is presented to them, fine. You imply from your choice of quote that if a group of people recognise evil and try to do something about it then they are mindless robots.
Did I say anywhere that I was in favour of war and death? No. If you don't think that people blowing up synagogues and flying airplanes into buildings pose a threat that should be responded to, that is your opinion. I view fighting a war to defend yourself from attack as being much different than attacking in the first place.
Is there any case where you would say: "This must stop. These people must be stopped."
"> It is enough for me to know that they are backward, misogynist, lunatics who must be stopped."
Which part of the above quote is it that offends you so? Which part is untrue? How were women treated? Are they not lunatics? "I must kill in the name of my merciful god." sounded as crazy coming from people fighting in Northern Ireland as from these terrorists. Sort of like the old Monty Python bit (done from memory so I might have a few of the words wrong): "Bless this oh Lord, our holy hand grenade that we might blow our enemies to little bits in thine divine mercy."
As to Einstein's quote, what a load of crap. This comes from a man who knew the power an atomic bomb would have and yet worked diligently helped develop it. A man who escaped the Nazis and then says, "killing under the cloak of war is no different than murder" about the people who fought evil. It's very easy to be a pacifist when you can rely on someone else to save your ass.
Finally, why is it hate-mongering to call an enemy an enemy? Not just an enemy, but an enemy that has clearly said he wants to kill you.
P.S.
If you want to issue more petty insults because my views differ from yours, go ahead. I will attack someone's opinions but not insult them and imply that they aren't too bright for having them.
|
|
|
#76509
08/01/2002 9:41 AM
|
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 4,757
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 4,757 |
Well actually Rous, you've already done something remarkably similar:
Unfortunately, the European's defence plans are the same now as they were then. Don't spend money on defence. Retreat when attacked. Ask for someone to help. Bitch and whine about the person giving the help after you are safe.
That sweeping generalisation emphatically does not hold true of the teeming millions within the UK's borders , let alone the wider diversity to be found amongst the whole of Europe's citizens. It doesn't stand up to a moment's scrutiny.
This level of generalisation and insult of those who hold a contrary view is why, I am afraid TEd, that I cannot take up your suggestion here. If we have learned a few things on this site perhaps one is that international politics seems hard to confine within the bounds of reasonable language.
|
|
|
#76510
08/01/2002 12:44 PM
|
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 11,613
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 11,613 |
I would like to thank all of you for remaining civil. I can sense the underlying depths of feelings. I was so afraid, when I saw the beginning of this thread, that we would have a reprise of the post 9/11 ugliness. I very much appreciate your-all's restraint.
(I realize that "your-all's" probably sounds VERY strange to just about all of you {'cept maybe Keith and Alex}. But mercy, it sure can be a time-saver: the only other way I can think of to express that last sentence would be "...the restraint that all of you are using". Ah, colloquialisms!)
|
|
|
#76511
08/01/2002 12:57 PM
|
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 5,400
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 5,400 |
RE:from Rouspeteur comment "The truth is often uncomfortable. "THE WAYFARER,
Perceiving the pathway to truth,
Was struck with astonishment.
It was thickly grown with weeds.
“Ha,” he said, 5
“I see that none has passed here
In a long time.”
Later he saw that each weed
Was a singular knife.
“Well,” he mumbled at last, 10
“Doubtless there are other roads.”
Steven Crane--
one of my favorites..
|
|
|
#76512
08/01/2002 1:24 PM
|
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 7,210
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 7,210 |
it is incredibly difficult to have a discussion about topics such as these when you can't look into each other's eyes, and offer to get them a cup of coffee, and hold hands and cry together. we all want the best for each other, and there are really very few people that will kill; we can't really know how we will react in any given situation, we can only rely on our best hopes and beliefs, and hope they are strong enough.
formerly known as etaoin...
|
|
|
#76513
08/01/2002 3:47 PM
|
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 1,055
old hand
|
|
old hand
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 1,055 |
Rouspeteur writes:
You imply from your choice of quote that if a group of people recognise evil and try to do something about it then they are mindless robots.
Evil dwells in the hearts and minds of all of us. How can any one group 'recognize' this in certain others? Don't kid yourself that the 'War on Terrorism' is anything other than a clash of two simplistic fundementalisms, each beating the war drum in the name of God on both sides. It might be worth considering whether the basic distrust, fear, and distance you feel towards a seemingly large number of our fellow men and women isn't either the result of spoon-fed propaganda or just a negative and confined Weltanschauung. Either way, these feelings do, of course, haunt us all. Perhaps we can use this 'space' for breaking down those feelings of otherness, rather than trying to strengthen them. We may all have very different histories and cultural influences, but we all infinitely more simliar than most will admit - every atom in every person.
> If you don't think that people blowing up synagogues and flying airplanes into buildings pose a threat that should be responded to, that is your opinion.
You seem to have very strong ideas on regarding this - am I right? You would go to war for it?
I suggest that what you say points to a perpetual tension in society: a significant proportion of people who care enough about single issues, have a more or less unhealthy relationship to them. Change tends to happen initially as reaction, but only if we accept the inevitability of this with its attendant distortions, and strive to keep a longer view, can we discover worthwhile pro-activity. Only in this way will we not be defined by a negative perception of what is at stake.
> Is there any case where you would say: "This must stop. These people must be stopped."
Conflict will always occur, physical or not, and the most profound change will always occur where the two most different forms of mankind clash. The following quote reflects my views. We must always remember that no country or person that participates in any war is ever free of guilt, regardless of how provoked they are. Certainly Western countries like Britain and the U.S. who produce the diabolical weapons used by both sides in the conflicts have bloodied their hands in more conflicts than I'd care to mention. To view these wars as 'just' is to admit yourself a conditioned animal.
All advanced thinkers, all men who realize the divine plan, desire and intend the solidarity of humanity. And the patriot, in the narrow and infuriated sense of that word, is a traitor to the true interest of man. It may be neccessary, now and then, to defend one's own section of mankind from aggression; but even this should always be done with the mental reservation: "May this war be the nurse of a more solid peace; may this argument lead to a better understanding; may this division lead to a higher union."... The deliberate antagonizing of nations is the foulest of crimes. It is the Press of the warring nations that, by inflaming the passions of the ignorant, has set Europe by the ears. Had all men been educated and travelled, they would not have listened to those harpy-shreiks. Now the mischief is done, and it is for us to repair it as best we may. This must be our motto: Humanity First.
|
|
|
#76514
08/01/2002 4:11 PM
|
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 11,613
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 11,613 |
by, I couldn't help but think of Shona's Gandhi ref. as I read your post. Gandhi found the press a major factor in furthering his cause as he promoted non-violence. I think I'll put the link here, too: http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Lobby/8522/gand_eng.html
|
|
|
#76515
08/01/2002 4:27 PM
|
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 163
member
|
|
member
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 163 |
Can you ever answer a straight question with a yes or no?
Is it wrong to fly airplanes into buildings?
Is it wrong to blow up synagogues?
Apparently not. According to you we all have evil in our hearts to some degree or another and therefore nothing is ever really wrong.
Yes a lot of people do bad things but there is an expression: Two wrongs don't make a right.
Regardless of what other do, is it wrong to fly planes into buildings in order to kill as many people as possible?
"It might be worth considering whether the basic distrust, fear, and distance you feel towards a seemingly large number of our fellow men and women isn't either the result of spoon-fed propaganda
I never indicated that I say I have a, "basic distrust, fear, and distance you feel towards a seemingly large number of our fellow men and women?" I was referring to a small group of terrorists not an entire culture. I suppose since you revert again to insults that you don't have any better argument.
As to the rest of it. You say don't judge, no one is free of guilt, and yet so far you have insulted me personally several times. What does that say about tolerance, understanding other peoples and other cultures?
I will not respond further to someone who has a need to be insulting.
|
|
|
#76516
08/01/2002 4:46 PM
|
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 163
member
|
|
member
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 163 |
"That sweeping generalisation emphatically does not hold true of the teeming millions within the UK's borders , let alone the wider diversity to be found amongst the whole of Europe's citizens. It doesn't stand up to a moment's scrutiny."
Actually, I wasn't considering great Britain as part of Europe when I wrote that. My sweeping generalisation was regarding the governments, not the people. I included the words "defence plans" for a reason. These are the purview of governments as an entity not an expression of the desires of 100% of the population. Obviously, every individual in Europe does not hold the same view. I would also not call my statement hate-mongering any more than saying, for instance, "the US should not invade Iraq" or "the US policy towards Cuba is criminal" would be hate-mongering against the US. Hate is a very strong word and bandied about much too much.
When talking about government actions you must almost always generalise because no matter what a government does, it never has 100% support.
"...generalisation and insult of those who hold a contrary view "
I agree. You must have been reading some of the responses to me. I don't think generalisation is a crime of just one side and I have not had the intention of deliberately insulting anyone. If that has been the case, I would apologise.
|
|
|
#76517
08/01/2002 5:34 PM
|
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 5,400
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 5,400 |
This is interesting..
one of the problems that arises, it how do you deal with violence directed towards your self?
If i chose nonviolence (negotiations, talks, the UN or other routes on a national scale)- and my counterpart chooses violence..what do i do?
the natural reaction is to respond to violence with violence.. but then, I , (Personally, or as a nation) am behaving in a way that i have defined as morally reprehensible.... i am lowering my standards, i am allowing others to dictate my responses.. and once others know how to provoke a response in my by doing X, you can bet your bottom dollar, that is exactly what they will do, time after time!
the alternates are not good, and not fast.. but the Dali Lama has not called for violence in response to China's invasion of Tibet.... he has responded with non violence, because he is not going to let China's behavior govern his.. This is a very difficult thing to do..on a personal level, and harder to do on a governmental or political level, allit takes is one person, to miss behave and ruin it for all.. all it take is one Tibetan national to shoot one Chinese soldier, to have China say, Tibet is waging war, and we must kill all the Tibetans left in this city, this province, this country.
When it comes to a response to the WTC and Pentagon attacks, we, the people of the US do have a choice.. we can chose violence or we can chose other options.. There are other choices.. the "natural one" might be to return the attack.. but is that the right one?
Some think that other choices are not as effective.. but actually, since violence really only results in a short term solution, and not in a long term one.. violence (ie, war) is just a quick and dirty fix.. Nonviolence is slower, much slower, but the long term outcome is better (short term, violence, the outcome is much worse..)
being able to reach a political maturity to be able to chose a reactions is difficult.. and sometimes, violence might be the best choice you make.. there might be times when countering violence with violence is the choice that you make.. but all to often, i think, the reactions is visceral, and not thought out... and we leave ourselves at the mercy of others...we let their behavior, their violence, provoke a violent response in us.. we let them control our behavior...
i wish i could say, that i always am able to control my own reactions, and that i don't fall into the trap of being provoked.. but i get better each day, and i stive to be better.
Is it wrong to fly airplanes into buildings?
Is it wrong to blow up synagogues?
Yes.. but is it also not wrong for me to respond by blowing up town, airports and military bases? If my responce to a wrong is to commit my own wrong, what difference is there between me and my enemy? and if there is no difference, then why is he my enemy?
how can i change my enemy into my friend? can i do that by behaving violently towards him? or should i respond differently?
|
|
|
#76518
08/01/2002 6:24 PM
|
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 163
member
|
|
member
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 163 |
of troy,
I do not think that violence should ever be the first reaction but there are times when violence becomes an unfortunate necessity.
Choosing non-violence is the best route in most cases, but not all. The real trick is defining for yourself those cases. It would be nice if these things were always clear and you could just tick off the right answer.
1. Someone trying to drag my child into a car. -- Automatic, do whatever it takes to stop him.
2. Someone assualting your neighbour. -- Intervene or just phone the police?
3. Someone assaulting that neighbour you really detest. --Well....
The idea of negotiation only works if the other person wants to negotiate.
"Yes.. but is it also not wrong for me to respond by blowing up town, airports and military bases? If my responce to a wrong is to commit my own wrong, what difference is there between me and my enemy? and if there is no difference, then why is he my enemy? "
I do not think that it is the same. Especially the military base. Airports are military targets and fair (as much as anything in war is ever fair) game. Random bombing of civilians or deliberately targeting them is a crime. The Geneva Convention also holds that combattants that deliberately set-up in civilian areas in an attempt to avoid an attack are the one who are responsible if any civilians are killed.
Again a really simple example: If a policeman comes upon a man shooting children in a school and kills him. Is the policeman no different than the shooter? Is this a wrong in response in response to a wrong?
I use what I feel to be such a clear example to point that sometimes I feel there are cases where violence is the only choice. There are only a few such cases but they do exist. Violence is, however, too often the first response.
Murder is wrong. Killing not necessarily so. To me, killing in a heated situation such as the school example above might be a necessity. However, I do not feel capital punishemnt is ever right, regardless of the crime.
|
|
|
#76519
08/01/2002 7:01 PM
|
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 5,400
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 5,400 |
did any one see this op ed article earlier this week in the NYtimes? http://www.nytimes.com/2002/07/29/opinion/29THAR.htmlhere is the beginning..
Words, words, words," Hamlet famously moaned when Polonius asked him what he was reading. Such dismissiveness is often echoed by observers of the international diplomatic scene. "More empty talk," a journalist said to me the other day. "What difference will it make?"
He was referring to the meeting I was attending, a United Nations-organized seminar in Copenhagen on peace in the Middle East. But he could as well have been talking about the confabulations of the food summit in Rome earlier this year or the World Summit on Sustainable Development in Johannesburg next month. I have no doubt critics are dusting off the cliches for that one, preparing to denounce one more gabfest.
But why has talking become so unpopular? Talk, we are told, is a poor substitute for action; all too often talk becomes an end in itself, masking the absence of real progress. The remedy is simple: abolish the talking-shops.
Yet talk is the necessary precursor for action. Nothing can change unless the world agrees, through talk, upon change. The series of United Nations conferences in the 1990's — on subjects ranging from population and women's issues to human rights and development — established new global norms in all these fields and defined standards now accepted by most countries. Talking got them there.
It is true that many international meetings are consumed by what T.S. Eliot called "the intolerable wrestle with words and meanings." But that process ends up producing a form of words that is full of meaning to those who did the wrestling (even when those who didn't may have trouble finding the meaning). Such talk lays down markers, articulates aspirations, identifies common approaches, reveals gaps and helps bridge them. Without talk, there would never be agreement; without agreement, there would be no action.
Even when talk does not lead to agreement — even when it degenerates into received wisdom, time-honored conventions, tired formulas and, perhaps worst of all, insider jargon — it still helps change perceptions and establish new levels of acceptability for both familiar and unfamiliar ideas. Repeated talk alters the substantive threshold in the talkers' minds: as you listen, positions you would never think of adopting become comprehensible to you; the process of reacting to what is said reveals your own assumptions to you. i almost want to invite her to join us in this discussion.. we don't all agree.. but we are learning to use words, words, words effectively!
|
|
|
#76520
08/01/2002 7:13 PM
|
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 1,055
old hand
|
|
old hand
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 1,055 |
I don't know how I was so insulting to you, Rouspeteur; that really was not my intention. My intention was to cast things in a light other than that of the 'them vs. us' blaming game, not malign your character. I do think war proponents use schoolyard logic though, and it's about time we all grow up. By resorting to, or sanctioning violence we all admit defeat.
> Can you ever answer a straight question with a yes or no?
Some questions need no answer. Why would I think the acts you describe to be anything but horrific? Are you not just looking for affirmation of someone else's wrong-doing in order to sanction more killing? There's little point in indirectly indicting me based on a question that gets us nowhere. If you can't or won't extrapolate out of my above posts that I think all wars (including the attacks you mention) are stupid and animalistic (read 'wrong'), then I suggest you are just dodging the real debate. Why? Because no one, not you or anyone, can give any reasons in favour of violence other than 'Look what they've done!'.
Anyway, it's kinda handy that you're insulted by me, because now you don't have to think up a riposte.
|
|
|
#76521
08/01/2002 8:04 PM
|
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 131
member
|
|
member
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 131 |
Choosing non-violence is the best route in most cases, but not all. The real trick is defining for yourself those cases. It would be nice if these things were always clear and you could just tick off the right answer.
1. Someone trying to drag my child into a car. -- Automatic, do whatever it takes to stop him.
2. Someone assualting your neighbour. -- Intervene or just phone the police?
3. Someone assaulting that neighbour you really detest. --Well....
The idea of negotiation only works if the other person wants to negotiate.
I'm with you rous. We'd all like to live in a rosy little place with our rosy little glasses never having to deal with strife, contempt, threat, etc. Even the good Lord sanctioned a little destruction in his earlier works, didn't He?
|
|
|
#76522
08/01/2002 8:24 PM
|
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 3,467
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 3,467 |
BY:
Here's a direct question for you.
Assume that the country of Germany is sitting there minding its own business when a group of Muslim terrorists invades your territory and kills 3000 of your citizens in a sneak attack. The terrorists say they are declaring war on Germany and will pursue the war until every German in the world is either dead or is bowing to Mecca five times a day.
Can you seriously tell us that since war is wrong you will not defend yourself and your country to prevent the annihilation of all Germans and all things German?
As I have said before, they ARE coming for you if you let them. Not today, not tomorrow, not next week, but if civilization does not stop them these subhuman barbarians will destroy civilization as we know it. You can look away and say that the majority of Muslims are peaceful, friendly folk, and that they obviously do not pose a threat to you. In the long run you will be annihilated by these radicals if you do not resist them. There is no middle ground on this. None.
I sense that you don't believe that such a thing can actually happen. Not too far back in history far too many Jews, Roms, homosexuals, et alia, all believed that the Nazis couldn't REALLY be so inhumane as to murder them and use their bodies for diabolical medical experiments. Unfortunately, since they didn't believe, the great majority of them died violent, ugly deaths. I don't know it to be the case, but I suspect strongly there were similar levels of disbelief in the Ukraine, Cambodia, China, etc.
I hope and I pray that these radicals never visit upon you the horror and the inhumanity they have visited upon us and the Israelis, not to mention the people of Afghanistan, the Sudan, etc. But if they do, I know in my heart that the United States will be at your side, whether you want them there or not. We are not going to shirk our duty to destroy them utterly before they destroy us.
I urge you to read the recently published book on the Taliban, authored by a Pakistani journalist named Ahmed Rashid, where you will find adequate support for the position that nothing will stop these people until they are all dead, dead, dead. Or until everyone in the West is dead.
TEd
TEd
|
|
|
|
|
