I need help. I need help to understand how and why someone would write a story about how Canadian Women are forcing their beliefs upon Muslim Women. I pasted this chunk below:Alaina disrobes the professional academic, while nonetheless insisting (in reference to Afghanistan) that "Education=peace". There's a bit of a contradiction and some innocence there to be worked through, but it can be done; anyway, I'm impressed that a thirteen-year old can see so clearly the evil of the Western academy's victimary mindset. One might add that it is precisely the white guilt of today's academy that underwrites the postmodern version of the "white man's burden"; on the other hand, the honest recognition of some fundamental cultural differences can be (may be) a way of building more productive, reciprocal, relationships that are not based on guilty assumptions of victimhood. But there will always be some kind of relationship in our global village: one has to be an academic fool to think that crying "hands off Afghanistan" is not just another way of bringing decadent Western desires to bear on the history of that country.At the heart of the relationship between feminism and imperialism is an Orientalist logic that posits Western women as exemplary and emancipated in relation to “Other” (Afro-Asian/colonized) women, thereby charging the former with the responsibility of saving the latter from their backwards (i.e. Muslim), uncivilized cultures.And even though I don’t understand at all the words Orientalist or feminism theory, I do understand what this chunk means, and now I want to speak my truth.
I am the founder of Little Women for Little Women in Afghanistan. I founded this organization 3 years ago, when I was 9 years old. In the fall of 2006, I found out that the privileges that I have, other girls in our world don’t get. I learned about this when I went with my Mom to listen to journalist, author and human rights activist, Sally Armstrong speak about Afghanistan. She told stories about the terrible things that happen to little girls in Afghanistan. I was so moved. It was so upsetting to me that these girls weren’t able to exercise their rights. They were not able to go to school and sometimes they didn’t go to school because they were afraid they would be hurt or even killed.
[...]
No one will ever tell me that Muslim women or any women think it’s ok to not be allowed to get educated or to have their daughters sold off at 8 years old or traded off at 4 years old because of cultural beliefs. No one will tell me that women in Afghanistan think it is ok for their daughters to have acid thrown in their faces. It makes me ill to think a 4 year old girl must sleep in a barn and get raped daily by old men. It’s sick and wrong and I don’t care who calls me an Orientalist or whatever I will keep raising money to educate girls and women in Afghanistan and I will keep writing letters and sending them in the back pack of my friend Lauryn Oates as she works so bravely on the ground helping women and girls learn what it is to exercise their rights. I believe in human rights so I believe everyone has the right their own opinion, I just wish that the energy that was used to write that story, that is just not true, could have been used to educate a girl in Afghanistan. That’s what the girls truly want. That’s what the Women in Afghanistan truly want. I have a drawer full of letters from them that says just that.
Monday, April 05, 2010
When a 13-year old makes more sense than a professional academic, you know...
Terry Glavin introduces us to Alaina Podmorow's Butterflies and Wheels Article:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
44 comments:
Alaina provides me some hope for the future.
Yes, let’s bomb these black savages until they learn the value of good old English Christian values... opps! I mean let’s bomb these afghan acid throwers into oblivion until they learn the value of second wave western feminism! Afterwards let’s fly planes into buildings in America until they have gay rights! Imperialists like you make me sick.
You are already deeply sick, distant from the fundamental morality that is at the origin of human unity.
by the way that second anyonmyous comment is directed at the first one, the one that is all cheap rhetoric, no thinking, no argument.
anonymity has found its right place.
Interesting word verification for this comment: "septic"!
Do you mean fundamental Christian morality? The other type? How about fundamental Islamic morality? None of these things are tangible, so it can be hard to see which one is the one true morality that you talk about. Please clarify.
What argument have I made? It may require you to read between the lines, it is an ironic argument, and therefore may not necessarily clear. What is your argument?
"anonymity has found its right place." Please clarify.
The origin of human unity was, I believe, a real event when the human species first emerged at the dawn of history, a species defined by its use of a distinctive form of symbolic language and religion. This event was memorable and repeatable, starting human cultural evolution. But it was at first but one degree of cultural evolution. It certainly was neither Christian nor Islamic which both entail many degrees of cultural revolution (and are not the last word on our common humanity, whatever believers may think). And yet in that founding event of humanity there must have been the recognition of some kind of shared human morality, a minimal revelation that allowed for a transition from the animal pecking order to a distinctively human kind of cultural order. THis is the rightful inheritance of every human being since all the evidence is that we all share a common origin, a common ancestral mother and father.
When I see what look like snide remarks about our having no moral stake or rightful voice in whether women who want to share in some of the freedom made possible by that originary event should have acid thrown in their faces, I say the person making the remark is out of touch with the fundamental - i.e. originary - morality that all humans share. Even if they have turned, in mental sickness, away from a proper apprehension of our univeral morality, they cannot help but try to undertand this turning away in moral terms. They throw acid in the face or throw about "postcolonial" jargon in an inevitably self-righteous manner. Evil cannot but attempt to justify itself as good. That's because no one can escape from a fundamental human quality - morality, as founded in the common origin of our species.
Your argument, if we are being very charitable in trying to read between the lines, seems to be that the world would be a relatively more peaceful and orderly place if we just left Muslim men alone in their countries to keep their women totally oppressed, to fight each other ruthlessly, to bugger boys (pedarasty is estimated to involve about half the Afghan male population). You might think, well that's all horrible stuff but what can we do about it without making the world even more violent? One might attempt a serious argument here, not that you have tried (real irony, by the way, involves a serious, original insight - i don't see it here).
My response would be, there is no way in this small world we can escape involvement with these people. THere is no way we can avoid the reality that their existence entails threats to ours, just as ours obviously does to theirs. We need to find ways to mediate these threats without losing our minds in cheap rhetoric about "imperialism". It's inevitable, in any cogent undertanding of history, that the economically more powerful peoples are going to have to pressure people who are effectively at war with the now global and single economy. WE could have a serious discussion about how this relationship might best unfold. We cannot have a serious discussion about just keeping our "hands off". At the end of the day we are one species with a shared fundamental morality living in a single global economy that everyone depends on, an economy that demands more and more the recognition of individual rights, for all kinds of reasons having to do with economic and political stability, an economy and civilization serioulsy threatened by terrorist blackmail in a world with ever more access to weapons of mass destruction.
anonymity has found its right place when its words are so amoral - so culturally relativist that they can no longer make any kind of serious moral argument - that one would be rightfully shamed by having them associated with one's public persona.
“The origin of human unity was, I believe, a real event when the human species first emerged at the dawn of history, a species defined by its use of a distinctive form of symbolic language and religion. This event was memorable and repeatable, starting human cultural evolution. And yet in that founding event of humanity there must have been the recognition of some kind of shared human morality, a minimal revelation that allowed for a transition from the animal pecking order to a distinctively human kind of cultural order. THis is the rightful inheritance of every human being since all the evidence is that we all share a common origin, a common ancestral mother and father.”
Well that’s a very fancy way of saying very little isn’t it? You accused me of empty rhetoric, what evidence do you have for this? Are rights really encoded into our DNA or do you simply believe that?
“They throw acid in the face or throw about "postcolonial" jargon in an inevitably self-righteous manner. Evil cannot but attempt to justify itself as good. That's because no one can escape from a fundamental human quality - morality, as founded in the common origin of our species.”
Well how about the immorality of blowing up men, women, and children into bits? Oh wait we do that, we did it to the Afghans, Iraqis, Vietnamese and almost all of southern America. But we can’t possibly be violating fundamental human morality.
“to bugger boys (pedarasty is estimated to involve about half the Afghan male population).”
Paedophilia is prevalent in the Pashtu culture, but I don’t know where 50% came from (it’s in none of the reports I have read, but I’m sure you have); never mind, I’ve got great news for you, he’s called Mohammed Omar! And he hates this practice! You know who was even better? Mikhail gorbachev!
“not that you have tried (real irony, by the way, involves a serious, original insight - i don't see it here).
Ouch! I’m sorry, so many of ideas have already been taken already by philosophers or politicians, it gets hard to be original. Your stuff about a “real event when the human species first emerged at the dawn of history” was pretty fantastic though.
“My response would be, there is no way in this small world we can escape involvement with these people. THere is no way we can avoid the reality that their existence entails threats to ours, just as ours obviously does to theirs.”
You feel threatened by Afghanistan cultural practices? You must not have a lot of faith in our cultural strength then.
“We need to find ways to mediate these threats without losing our minds in cheap rhetoric about "imperialism". It's inevitable, in any cogent understanding of history, that the economically more powerful peoples are going to have to pressure people who are effectively at war with the now global and single economy.”
Yea I agree, let’s get those coloured people who don’t understand the wonders capitalism and stick it to em’. I’m sorry but that argument is just disgusting; what about the right to self determination? Economic sovereignty? I mean come on, really? You believe in this? Are you a neo-con?
“We cannot have a serious discussion about just keeping our "hands off"”.
Well we didn’t mind being ‘hands off’ when we used these child screwing acid throwers were working for us, why change of heart now?
“At the end of the day we are one species with a shared fundamental morality living in a single global economy that everyone depends on, an economy that demands more and more the recognition of individual rights, for all kinds of reasons having to do with economic and political stability, an economy and civilization seriously threatened by terrorist blackmail in a world with ever more access to weapons of mass destruction.”
Well you seem to love individual rights, except for the right to life apparently. “terrorist blackmail in a world with ever more access to weapons of mass destruction.” Your confusing different movements, the terrorists you speak of aren’t from Afghanistan and have little to do with it. You’re thinking of the Islamists who come from the Arab states, disaffected middle class young men who are unhappy with their government and the west. These are the people who international terrorist organisations are made up of, not Afghans. By the way Islamists hate paedophilia, if that makes you feel any better, although they are not the biggest fans of women’s rights. I have no idea what WMD’s could possibly have to do with Afghanistan; we would have to invade Pakistan for that, the country we destabilised by invading its neighbour.
“anonymity has found its right place when its words are so amoral - so culturally relativist that they can no longer make any kind of serious moral argument - that one would be rightfully shamed by having them associated with one's public persona.”
I am not a strictly cultural relativist, I believe in morality, I know not everyone shares my morality; I am not concerned with forcing others to see eye to eye with me. But when people do something completely amoral, like murder, in the name of morality, there is something very wrong happening. I am only anonymous because I don’t have a blog account, you assume too much, I am not ashamed of my ‘moral’ objection to murder, (and your anonymous to, pseudonyms are anonymous) My name is: A.J. O’Brien
"Are rights really encoded into our DNA or do you simply believe that?"
-I said nothing about DNA, of course. What I implied is that rights are entailed in the use of human language. The use of language requires and implies a moral imperative of reciprocity, and some degree of freedom and equality. In a very real sense rights are not created by man but discovered by man in the development of the potential inherent in the origin of language.
"Oh wait we do that, we did it to the Afghans, Iraqis, Vietnamese and almost all of southern America. But we can’t possibly be violating fundamental human morality."
-in your smug self-righteousness you seem to miss the possibility that I readily acknowledge having blood on my hands, to the extent i, like anyone, defends any political position (we can only be more or less violent, there is no perfect world without conflict and violence); my point is that your ideas lead to greater blood, to full body coating. Your inability to contrast the inescapable reality of human conflict to anything other than a fanciful projection of your own inherent moral superiority and special pacifying knowledge (a knowledge of reality you can never spell out howevermuch you must blather on as if it is just there in your back pocket) is a habit of mind that has led, when practised by many other Westerners, to millions of deaths. It's what we call Gnosticism, and it's deadly - e.g. a 100 million murdered by the dream of "Communism".
"so many of ideas have already been taken already by philosophers or politicians, it gets hard to be original."
-exactly, that's our fate, but that's no excuse for dripping in nihilistic sarcasm and trying to pass it off as "irony" which is the fruit of great artists and thinkers.
"You feel threatened by Afghanistan cultural practices? You must not have a lot of faith in our cultural strength then."
-that's a non sequitur. THe greatest problem of living in a "global village" is that the successful economy and civil society is now seriously threatened by terrorist blackmail that is soon if not already to be nuclear-tipped. My defense of the Afghan war is in the first place because we have learned what can come out of such a place if left to Taliban-like religious gangs. More generally, anyone who doesn't recognize that conflict and threats from competing societies is the norm, that the strong are always susceptible to Davids, is not in touch with human reality. ANd one can have no strong faith in anything absent a more or less coherent grasp of reality.
"Yea I agree, let’s get those coloured people who don’t understand the wonders capitalism and stick it to em’. I’m sorry but that argument is just disgusting; what about the right to self determination? Economic sovereignty? I mean come on, really? You believe in this? Are you a neo-con?"
-Actually, it's you i find disgusting with your race baiting. For starters, there really is very little difference in the "colour" of Afghans and Europeans, but so what!? Second, no man is an island. There is no possibility of any kind of self-determination or sovereignty for Afghans today absent participation in global systems. (Are they going to defend themselves, their clans, their borders absent participation in the economy that provides the necessary tools, fuels, etc.?) Your inability ot see how freedom and co-dependence are not antithetical but necessarily entwined is the key to understanding the pathology of your thinking. Afghans, in the exercise of their freedom, need and use all kinds of products that come from outside, from the single global economy that no one on planet earth can any longer avoid. This freedom comes with some responsibilities to this single global economy and its security. Afghans are in a struggle between an old world in which people were ruled by war lords to a world in which people are somewhat more ruled by the lords of economic productivity now more or less independent of political (military) elites, i.e. by civil society. If you can't face the choice, the only choice, and see which is the better choice without blathering on about some non-existent Utopia where people are somehow ruled neither (in degrees) by warlord nor by free economic productivity, then this blog is too adult for you.
"Are you a neocon?"
-one has to ask, do you mean "Jew"?? I have never been one for political labels - I defend the sacred centre of social order and freedom and that means at times I am more or less sympathetic to "liberal" or "conservative" ideas...
"Well we didn’t mind being ‘hands off’ when we used these child screwing acid throwers were working for us, why change of heart now?"
-I have never advocated being "hands off". While I always see political choices as choices between two evils, with the imperative being to choose the lesser evil, this way of seeing is not without reason and hope in some long-term amelioration of the human condition. Sarcastic relativism just leads to nihliism and an inability to act or choose between evils, the only choice we have, and not to responsible conduct of any kind.
"You’re thinking of the Islamists who come from the Arab states, disaffected middle class young men who are unhappy with their government and the west."
-if you fail to see that "Islamism", aka high Islamic culture as interpreted under conditions of externally-imposed modernity (high Islam has always existed in tension with traditional folk Islam, now it is open tension with WEstern modernity too and "Islamism" is the result) is now a widespread global movement and that Afghanistan is not immune from it and that the Taliban were precisely a form of turning away, if only an early form of turning away, from folk religion to a modern Islamist ideology, you are not grappling with our world seiously, however much the Taliban are still relatively "folk" figures to the Middle Eastern Islamists. The alliance between them is growing and will continue to grow; and every failed state is anywhere a threat to the West and to the global economy to the extent it will provide harbor to those who completely reject the global economy and civil society and wish a return to a world ruled by Sharia, which in effect would be more likely a world ruled by Taliban-like gangs than by the Arab fantasy of an all-high and serene Caliph.
"But when people do something completely amoral, like murder, in the name of morality, there is something very wrong happening."
-so if I put a gun to the head of a defenseless, innocent person, and you had the chance to kill me first, you wouldn't do so? And if you wouldn't, that makes you more moral than me? Come on....
"and your anonymous to, pseudonyms are anonymous"
-only on one level. If you Google around, you'll see that "truepeers" is a distinct internet persona with thousands of posts or comments on various blogs. THe perceived integrity of that persona is at stake everytime I write under this paradoxical name, a paradox that expresses some of my deeper sentiments.
“rights are entailed in the use of human language. The use of language requires and implies a moral imperative of reciprocity, and some degree of freedom and equality. In a very real sense rights are not created by man but discovered by man in the development of the potential inherent in the origin of language.”
I’m sorry, that is some really nice ideology, somewhat contradictory to your own world view. but its absolute trash; it needs some serious evidence to be credible, physical or metaphysical I dont care.
“-in your smug self-righteousness”
Self-projection?
“you seem to miss the possibility that I readily acknowledge having blood on my hands, to the extent i, like anyone, defends any political position (we can only be more or less violent, there is no perfect world without conflict and violence); my point is that your ideas lead to greater blood, to full body coating.”
No, no it doesn’t, look at any of the nations you wish to intervene in, they all have ‘righteous’ state intervention in their history. The truth is, as Marx said, it mostly comes down to dialectics, but there have always been people like your-self who rationalise the burden of empire. Whether it be during the colonial period, the cold war, or today. You belong to a bloody, failed ideology.
“Your inability to contrast the inescapable reality of human conflict to anything other than a fanciful projection of your own inherent moral superiority and special pacifying knowledge (a knowledge of reality you can never spell out howevermuch you must blather on as if it is just there in your back pocket)”
Again self-projection, I don’t try to project my personal ideology on to the ‘other’, only within what I consider my own society. There will always be violence, always resources and power to fight over, I like to think the society I live in is beyond that; but whatever, we are empire. Just don’t coat it in a moral imperative to intervene, recognise it for the ugly, pointless destruction it really is.
“is a habit of mind that has led, when practised by many other Westerners, to millions of deaths.”
Like imperialism? The irony in about half of your statements is almost laughable.
“-exactly, that's our fate, but that's no excuse for dripping in nihilistic sarcasm...”
Well interestingly enough you sound a lot like a nihilist... I’m not, but it may suit you better.
“ THe greatest problem of living in a "global village" is that the successful economy and civil society is now seriously threatened by terrorist blackmail that is soon if not already to be nuclear-tipped.”
Well, no, terrorists do not seriously threaten either globalisation or civil society, they are weak, desperate, and barely able to inflict even a semblance of the damage we can, and have done, to their societies. “soon if not already to be nuclear-tipped.” That is not backed by any evidence at all. Pakistan’s nukes have come under threat because of the destabilisation our intervention has caused; but even so they are not really anywhere within a terrorist’s reach. If you’re talking about Iran than you are seriously misinformed as to the state of their nuclear program, I’ll let you investigate that at your own digression, the IAEA is a good place to start.
“ More generally, anyone who doesn't recognize that conflict and threats from competing societies is the norm,”
Sure, but I am not at all threatened by Afghanistan’s ‘competition’, the middle east is in no state to ‘compete’ with anyone at all. china maybe?.
“is not in touch with human reality”
Speak for yourself.
“-Actually, it's you i find disgusting with your race baiting. For starters, there really is very little difference in the "colour" of Afghans and Europeans, but so what!?”
Yes there is, granted many Afghans are light skinned, but if you have ever seen any they are quiet dark; it varies with their particular ethnicity , to claim that they have the same skin tone as Europeans is... interesting. Besides I was talking about third world nations in general, the parallels between your thought and a 19th century imperialist are simply too strong.
“Second, no man is an island. There is no possibility of any kind of self-determination or sovereignty for Afghans today absent participation in global systems. (Are they going to defend themselves, their clans, their borders absent participation in the economy that provides the necessary tools, fuels, etc.?)”
I wasn’t suggesting them to be completely isolated, when they were under the Taliban they weren’t either, self-determination is not isolation, your using a straw-man to avoid addressing the fact that you’re opposing a recognised human right.
“Your inability ot see how freedom and co-dependence are not antithetical but necessarily entwined is the key to understanding the pathology of your thinking. Afghans, in the exercise of their freedom, need and use all kinds of products that come from outside, from the single global economy that no one on planet earth can any longer avoid.”
Again this is nothing but dribbling ideology, Afghanistan, although marginal, was never completely isolated from the world economy. But if they tried I wouldn’t care, it’s their sovereign nation. I love that use of: “pathology” are you Sigmund Freud now?
“Afghans are in a struggle between an old world in which people were ruled by war lords to a world in which people are somewhat more ruled by the lords of economic productivity now more or less independent of political (military) elites, i.e. by civil society.”
Well I have great news for you; we in nine years have done nothing but reinforce the old war lords the Taliban kicked out. As to the “lords of economic productivity” those guys have been great to us in the west, it’s a real sign of progress when a military warlord is replaced with a glorified gambler.
“then this blog is too adult for you.”
Condensation: a very nice adult form of passive aggression. I though I was the self-righteous one?
“-one has to ask, do you mean "Jew"?? I have never been one for political labels - I defend the sacred centre of social order and freedom and that means at times I am more or less sympathetic to "liberal" or "conservative" ideas...”
Umm. No I was talking about the ideology of neo-conservatives, not their ethnic makeup, I do however know the close relationship between neo-cons and Zionism, so infer what you want, but it’s not true. “I defend the sacred centre of social order and freedom” no you ‘defend’ what you consider to be social order and freedom, your social order and freedom seems to come at the cost of a lot of other innocent people. You are a liberal interventionist; you are in no way a conservative and liberals probably don’t like you either.
“however much the Taliban are still relatively "folk" figures to the Middle Eastern Islamists. The alliance between them is growing and will continue to grow; and every failed state is anywhere a threat to the West and to the global economy to the extent it will provide harbor to those who completely reject the global economy and civil society and wish a return to a world ruled by Sharia, which in effect would be more likely a world ruled by Taliban-like gangs than by the Arab fantasy of an all-high and serene Caliph.”
There are a lot of things wrong with this statement. First if anything is true, the west is a threat to other states. most of the failed states you mention have ‘ours’ or the soviets, or the old imperialists nations dirty hands in them; Interventionism has proved time and time again to have the worst possible effect. They are in no way a threat to the global economy; the economy can threaten itself far more seriously. I may mention that most adherents Sharia do not completely reject capitalism, most Islamists believe in what they call ‘third way’ principles, and even if they did, they pose little realistic threat to it. “Taliban-like gangs than by the Arab fantasy of an all-high and serene Caliph” again you are confusing all kinds of Islamic political movements; you need to read up on the various ‘extremist’ Islamic thinkers, “Milestones” is a good start.
“-so if I put a gun to the head of a defenceless, innocent person, and you had the chance to kill me first, you wouldn't do so? And if you wouldn't, that makes you more moral than me? Come on....”
I probably would, but if I din't, I’m not responsible for your actions, it’s like the journalist who was asked by a Serbian sniper “which one (Bosnian) do you want to save” it’s a false choice. I won’t claim to be perfect; I just take into account the consequences of my actions as well as the consequences of others. Morality is a muddy concept, your hypothetical does not relate in any way to the reality of Afghanistan. You may think a person is innocent or guilty, and you the saviour, but is that reality? A village that you bomb may have been filled with Taliban supporters, who you want dead because of their draconian laws, but are they, women and children included, not innocent? Is what I am doing any better than what they do? I might shoot you in the head and save that person, but what will your family eat? You have to question your belief that anything we do to stop ‘them’ is justified; because we are probably the ones who need to be stopped. Afghanistan is a perfect example for this: we have killed thousands, we have installed a government that is in many ways worse than the one we kicked out, we have destabilised their neighbours (who have nukes), and we have secured years of more suffering for Afghans; man, women and child. This is our own fault, not theirs, not the Taliban’s, the Taliban have their own crimes; but we are no different from the Taliban to the afghan people. What have we achieved on the moral front? Nothing.
“-only on one level. If you Google around, you'll see that "truepeers" is a distinct internet persona with thousands of posts or comments on various blogs. THe perceived integrity of that persona is at stake everytime I write under this paradoxical name, a paradox that expresses some of my deeper sentiments.”
No you’re anonymous, anyone can register under “truepeers” on another forum, is a mask as any other. I gave you may name after you went on a self-righteous rant about anonymity. What is yours? You only need to give initials like I did.
When two people have such different understandings of reality, they can talk past each other forever. But what's the point? No real dialogue is going on, just name calling. One can only wait and see if the verdict of history will shake one or the other to the foundation of her very being. I'll just say that I think your feigned contempt for the "weakness" of terrorism, your special insider knowledge on Iran's nuclear program, is the real mark of the imperialist mindset: it allows you to transform the white man's burden into an excuse to patronize with pieties, while advocating doing nothing. But you can't really do nothing as my seven-year old niece discovered with delight the other day: doing nothing is doing something and one way or another you are still imposing yourself on the other, by all that comes, on the other hand, with the formal inaction on the one hand. After all, that's the human condition. Everyone's existence is always already a threat to everyone else's. All of culture and history is but a mediation of this reality. Asymmetric warfare is a very real thing in our age when individuals with sufficient will and determination can gain access to WMD, or just to box cutters and airplane tickets.
“No real dialogue is going on, just name calling.”
You only have yourself to blame. Constantly questioning your opponent’s intelligence, at least in the way you attempted, is a pathetic way to marginalise yourself.
“ I'll just say that I think your feigned contempt for the "weakness" of terrorism, your special insider knowledge on Iran's nuclear program, is the real mark of the imperialist mindset: it allows you to transform the white man's burden into an excuse to patronize with pieties, while advocating doing nothing.”
That is very twisted reasoning. Even if so, you’re the one who advocates the killing of others, the exploitation of their economy, and the coercive transformation of their social structure.
I have no special insider knowledge of Iran’s nuclear program; did you look up the IAEA? There are other sources.
“After all, that's the human condition. Everyone's existence is always already a threat to everyone else's.”
This makes sense, societies have always been fighting over limited resources; but is that a moral imperative? No.
“Asymmetric warfare is a very real thing in our age when individuals with sufficient will and determination can gain access to WMD, or just to box cutters and airplane tickets.”
Well asymmetric was all ways “very real thing”, when was it not real? I guess that’s just sentence structure. Think about the implication of what you’re saying; first there is insufficient evidence that any terrorist organisation is anywhere near close to attaining WMD’s (yet alone successfully deploying them), secondly you need to ask why we are fighting a asymmetric war with ‘them’ in the first place. Because they’re evil? The box cutters are a perfect example of how feeble Islamic terrorism truly is; the highest achievement in recent memory of Islamic terrorism was carried out by men armed with box-cutters. They have no million dollar fighter jets, embargoes or intercontinental missiles. They can be lethal, but are in no way a threat to our way of life. Our ability for terror outstrips theirs a hundred fold.
They can be lethal, but are in no way a threat to our way of life. Our ability for terror outstrips theirs a hundred fold.
-if you could give a coherent account of who "we" are, I might begin to believe you. All I've heard from you is that we are the people who cause all the evil in the world - we make history, they don't - we are the people with the most potential to do evil, and we, because of/despite all our horrors, cannot be seriously hurt. Just how is this "we" going to continue to do anything productive and future-oriented when your kind of self-loathing is ascendant?
And do you really think those who are willing to use and support violence on behalf of the Umma are just a handful of weak men? Do you really think the Umma is incapable of being a serious historical actor, such that our white guilt shall always be an appropriate sentiment, for it will always be us (me) to blame....
When are you going to stop making excuses for those who want to kill you? have you no fear that day might come when you have to stop making excuses, or just fade away?
“-if you could give a coherent account of who "we" are, I might begin to believe you.”
Good question, by we I mean ‘us’, two westerners (I assume your Canadian but I might be wrong), who are in a position of strength due to our own nations alignment with the U.S. empire.
“All I've heard from you is that we are the people who cause all the evil in the world”
We don’t cause all the ‘evil’ in the world; we are responsible for a great deal of it though. Russia and China create similar problems when they engage in imperialism. ‘Evil’ is a complicated concept so I assume you mean it in that narrow sense.
“- we make history, they don't”
Exactly the problem, they do make history, but their destiny is often directly or indirectly dictated to them by ‘us'.
“we are the people with the most potential to do evil, and we, because of/despite all our horrors, cannot be seriously hurt.”
Well yes, we do have the potential for the most evil. Are you denying our immense military, economic, political and nuclear strength? Other people can “hurt” us but they are not in a position to do any of the apocalyptic David and goliath like damage you mentioned earlier.
“Just how is this "we" going to continue to do anything productive and future-oriented when your kind of self-loathing is ascendant?”
By focusing on our own societies? You assume that I self-loath, but it is only a few of the more brutish aspects of ‘our’ society I object to.
“And do you really think those who are willing to use and support violence on behalf of the Umma are just a handful of weak men?"
Well they themselves may not be weak, but their strength as a collective movement is far inferior to ours. They simply don’t have the resources that we have.
“Do you really think the Umma is incapable of being a serious historical actor,”
Yes theoretically, as they have been in the past. But that is nowhere near the political reality on the world stage. Maybe in a few generations, who knows.
“When are you going to stop making excuses for those who want to kill you?”
When are you (‘us’) going to stop making reasons for them to want to kill me?
“have you no fear that day might come when you have to stop making excuses, or just fade away?”
That’s very poetic, but I’m not going to “fade away”. I am not afraid of terrorists on a personal level, and they are no danger at all on a collective level. But on the personal level it is in your rights to be afraid, as they have the slight chance of killing you or fellow citizens tomorrow; less chance than cigarettes or driving but those are the enemys we know. Do you think afghans need to stop making excuses (as they pathetically huddle together before a bomb drops on them) before they fade away?
Damn my post didn't go through. Oh well. Does that happen regularly?
I don't know what happened; blogger sometimes has glitches.
BUt your comment was sent by blogger to our email account so I will post it below and then reply in a bit
---------------------
Anonymous writes:
“-if you could give a coherent account of who "we" are, I might begin to believe you.”
Good question, by we I mean ‘us’, two westerners (I assume your Canadian but I might be wrong), who are in a position of strength due to our own nations alignment with the U.S. empire.
“All I've heard from you is that we are the people who cause all the evil in the world”
We don’t cause all the ‘evil’ in the world; we are responsible for a great deal of it though. Russia and China create similar problems when they engage in imperialism. ‘Evil’ is a complicated concept so I assume you mean it in that narrow sense.
“- we make history, they don't”
Exactly the problem, they do make history, but their destiny is often directly or indirectly dictated to them by ‘us'.
“we are the people with the most potential to do evil, and we, because of/despite all our horrors, cannot be seriously hurt.”
Well yes, we do have the potential for the most evil. Are you denying our immense military, economic, political and nuclear strength? Other people can “hurt” us but they are not in a position to do any of the apocalyptic David and goliath like damage you mentioned earlier.
“Just how is this "we" going to continue to do anything productive and future-oriented when your kind of self-loathing is ascendant?”
By focusing on our own societies? You assume that I self-loath, but it is only a few of the more brutish aspects of ‘our’ society I object to.
“And do you really think those who are willing to use and support violence on behalf of the Umma are just a handful of weak men?"
Well they themselves may not be weak, but their strength as a collective movement is far inferior to ours. They simply don’t have the resources that we have.
“Do you really think the Umma is incapable of being a serious historical actor,”
Yes theoretically, as they have been in the past. But that is nowhere near the political reality on the world stage. Maybe in a few generations, who knows.
“When are you going to stop making excuses for those who want to kill you?”
When are you (‘us’) going to stop making reasons for them to want to kill me?
“have you no fear that day might come when you have to stop making excuses, or just fade away?”
That’s very poetic, but I’m not going to “fade away”. I am not afraid of terrorists on a personal level, and they are no danger at all on a collective level. But on the personal level it is in your rights to be afraid, as they have the slight chance of killing you or fellow citizens tomorrow; less chance than cigarettes or driving but those are the enemys we know. Do you think afghans need to stop making excuses (as they pathetically huddle together before a bomb drops on them) before they fade away?
I mean ‘us’, two westerners... who are in a position of strength due to our own nations alignment with the U.S. empire.
-so this is how you see your position? somewhat "on the side" of the powerful but embarrased by your side. You at once identify with a side, an us, and then reject it; consequently it seems to me you don't have any real or realistic position to offer. You don't seriously ask (it seems) what would I do if i were a responsible party in power (would I be frozen by the certainty that any decision i made - any sign i might give the world - would result in some mis-takes in how reality assimilated that sign?) Would I risk becoming the whipping boy of some new "Bush Derangement Syndrome"?
It seems to me you simply take comfort in the surety (not that you will admit this to yourself i imagine) that there will always be people on the margins of the global economy who will be angry and resentful and sometimes violent, and so as long as you can take this as prima facie evidence that the "empire" is in the wrong and the third-world "victims" in the right, you have yourself a perennial guarantee of righteousness in denouncing the empire (but not a realistic politics). You show no sign of recognizing how the desire for this guarantee is parasitic on our received reality and offers nothing serious in way of its renewal (for anything serious would soon enough be resented by many of our Others and that you cannot implicate yourself in).
As I say, your "position" seems divorced from reality because you nowhere seem to ask how reasonable or how deluded, how necessary, inevitable, or avoidable is this Islam-led "third-world" resentment. FOr example, could you offer us any realistic account of how the West might deal with the violence in and coming out of the Middle East that won't result in "mis-takes" and some kind of resentful backlash against any possible policy? Can you put yourself in George Bush's shoes just after 9/11 and, imagining yourself without any foreseight of what was to come, suggest how the US might have responded to the Taliban's al Quaida sanctuary in a way that would not have - as all strategies in the real world must have - unforeseen consequences, screw ups, resentful backlashes?
When I asked you for an account of "us" I wanted to see if you had any ability to reflect on how the West, or all those who are party to and dependent on the now single global economy, may renew the present global system, defend their stakes in the system (or something like it being the only plausible way of feeding and ordering the world's now science-enabled 7 billion population) against those who want to blow it up because free markets and open-ended science transforming the division of labour can have no place in their religious vision of how the world must be. BUt all you seem to offer is a new-age "white man's burden" that aims to protect the Other from the modern West in which he can never seriously compete, somehow protecting him, i imagine, on some kind of third-world aboriginal reserve where he need never have unhappy contact with the outside world and thus grow resentful at his marginal position thereto.
A i say, I see this as all just an unrealistic rhetorical device to guarantee your sense of righteousness, as was the original White Man's Burden.
We don’t cause all the ‘evil’ in the world; we are responsible for a great deal of it though. Russia and China create similar problems when they engage in imperialism. ‘Evil’ is a complicated concept so I assume you mean it in that narrow sense.
-more evidence that you only see evil in the powerful and not those who attack (rightful, reasonable) power, not that you can have any account of when power is reasonably or rightfully constructed. The fact that the US "empire" bankrupts itself on a military that protects open-seas, free trade, a market that leaves resources open to the highest bidder, that has paid out trillions in royalties to local people who do next to nothing in the way of doing the work to extract, refine, trade, and manufacture said resources, does not seem to affect your blanket denunciation or comparison with the oligarchies of Russia and CHina.
As for evil being a "complicated concept", i think not. I assume you have been lost in some kind of academic metaphysical gymnastics. I was once too; I can sympathize. BUt in the real world, evil is simply unjust violence, an attempt to make others conform to an unrealistic understanding of what best serves human reciprocity. Evil is the use of violent means to insist that the world of (ideal) signs and the larger physical and human socioeconomic worlds be made to conform, that people act like they're "supposed" to. So if our political sign promises, say, "social justice" then evil is that which does unrealistic violence in the name of making reality conform to "social justice".
Another way to say this, and getting back to my earlier comment, is that all of history is nothing but a series of mis-takes, and we can't talk seriously about any policy until we recognize this. Some kind of relationship with Afghanistan is inevitable; and it is inevitable that that relationship will be based on mis-takes of our starting assumptions. Without getting into the anthropology of this at length, I'd argue that the very nature of human freedom and desire make mis-takes inevitable in all walks of life, and perfect conformity to our originary ideas impossible. Evil is the failure to recognize this. Goodness is the recognition that we must always work from, learn from, our mistakes in order to repair the world, to renew our necessary norms and starting ideals by incorporating our mistakes; goodness recognizes that our realistic and necessary starting place is always a mis-take of a norm. If we always want to wash our hands of mistakes, and try to freeze the world so no new asymmetry/mistake ("inequality") can unfold, we can't start anywhere; we become frozen. Evil is the denunciation of mistakes as if they were not always necessary and inevitable, as if it is possible to have some guarantee of self-righteousness, as if the mistake justified some new violence/sacrifice in the name of "social justice", or as if it justified doing nothing and creating power vacumms where other people can suffer and die in instability as long as the centre of the empire can stay above it all.
they do make history, but their destiny is often directly or indirectly dictated to them by ‘us'.
-if one's destiny is "dictated" (and how would that ever be possible, short of murder?) then how does one make history?
Are you denying our immense military, economic, political and nuclear strength? Other people can “hurt” us but they are not in a position to do any of the apocalyptic David and goliath like damage you mentioned earlier.
-maybe not today, but what about tomorrow? It is the clearly stated intent of the Islamist movement to destroy the modern world. They are growing demographically. Many of the people in organizations like the Muslim Brotherhood are engineers and scientists, working and learning in places like our own nuclear power plants. Do you really think nothing bad can come of this movement if left unchecked?
Well they themselves may not be weak, but their strength as a collective movement is far inferior to ours. They simply don’t have the resources that we have.
-they don't aim to compete with us in the productive use of resources. They want to destroy the modern world and only await the means. And can't you see that access to WMD is becoming technically easier and more widespread? If Iran, which openly sponsors terrorists, doesn't have WMD today, surely you can see it is only a short matter of time, and that the OBama administration is not going to stop them because they think like you and would rather create dangerous power vacumms in the world than do anything that might sully their Gnostic righteousness?
Maybe in a few generations, who knows.
-do you have no stake in the future that you're not ready now to think about the legacy we are leaving future generations and about how you want to influence this in a non-passive way? If you're not completely passive, do you not think your actions, whatever they are, may be inevitably resented by your Others?
When are you (‘us’) going to stop making reasons for them to want to kill me?
-resentment is a necessary and always unavoidable aspect of the human condition; it is deadly to "think" it could ever be otherwise.
Do you think afghans need to stop making excuses (as they pathetically huddle together before a bomb drops on them) before they fade away?
-I am not aware that Afghans are in the habit of making excuses for their enemies. They, at least, seem capable of grasping such fundamentals of self-interest without twisting themselves into rhetorical equivalences in the insistence that reality be made to conform to some perfect and symmetrical formality, enforced by some "high-minded" priesthood.
To clarify, while resentment is an unavoidable aspect of the human condition, we are morally charged with the need to mediate it and to minimize it, but not to think we can ever righteously sail above it, or do away with it.
“You don't seriously ask (it seems) what would I do if i were a responsible party in power (would I be frozen by the certainty that any decision i made - any sign i might give the world - would result in some mis-takes in how reality assimilated that sign?) Would I risk becoming the whipping boy of some new "Bush Derangement Syndrome"?”
I don’t like fantasising about power very much, but if you’re suggesting that my leadership would have been anywhere near as weak as the Bush party I’m insulted.
“It seems to me you simply take comfort in the surety (not that you will admit this to yourself i imagine) that there will always be people on the margins of the global economy who will be angry and resentful and sometimes violent,”
There will always be marginalised people, internationally or domestically. Unless some kind of amazing systemic change occurs in the future. Are you seriously suggesting that there won’t be marginalised people?
“and so as long as you can take this as prima facie evidence that the "empire" is in the wrong and the third-world "victims" in the right, you have yourself a perennial guarantee of righteousness in denouncing the empire”
Yes the empire is in the wrong; I stand by that in all my so called smug self righteousness as you rack up the body bags.
“(but not a realistic politics).”
Well not from the prospective of someone who wants an empire. I think you will find that in the near future, unless the U.S.A. makes a startling recovery, your political views will become unrealistic.
“(for anything serious would soon enough be resented by many of our Others and that you cannot implicate yourself in).”
Who?
“could you offer us any realistic account of how the West might deal with the violence in and coming out of the Middle East that won't result in "mis-takes" and some kind of resentful backlash against any possible policy?”
The west doesn’t need to coerce the middle east, almost all of the problems in the middles east are the result of the polices western empires have enforced over the last one hundred years, we have a terrible track record. It’s time for the Middle East to determine its own destiny, any mistakes (no hyphen) made it that process will be of their own making.
The way in which this can be done inevitably will involve the international community; but the empire model you expose simply creates more problems than it attempts to solve.
“Can you put yourself in George Bush's shoes just after 9/11 and, imagining yourself without any foreseight of what was to come, suggest how the US might have responded to the Taliban's al Qaeda sanctuary in a way that would not have - as all strategies in the real world must have - unforeseen consequences, screw ups, resentful backlashes?”
Is that what you are, a devastated bush apologist?
As to the question: Hmmm. “OH shit some of our polices have had a blow back, he he. Time to re-evaluate our foreign policy, he he. But first ill go after Osama and actually catch him, he he, instead of wastin’ all that time overthrowing the Taliban, making the situation in that country far worse, he he”
"When I asked you for an account of "us" I wanted to see if you had any ability to reflect on how the West, or all those who are party to and dependent on the now single global economy, may renew the present global system,"
No you just asked me to define what I meant by ‘we’, you never asked me for any of that other information otherwise you would have done so directly.
“(or something like it being the only plausible way of feeding and ordering the world's now science-enabled 7 billion population)”
Science enabled? You assume I’m attacking the whole world capitalist system in its entirety, if you want alternatives to this system by people who do hate it look them up in your own time. The use of “ordering” is interesting here as we are talking about the U.S. Empire (or at least I am), are you suggesting that the world needs to be “ordered” by an empire in order for it to feed itself? What if they want to ‘order’ themselves? The history on this subject shows that empires often prevent others from being able to feed themselves trough economic terrorism. An example of this is the agricultural subsidies of first world nations, as well as the demands by international powers to force third world farmers to switch from substance crops to cash crops, inflating food prices in their own nations.
“against those who want to blow it up because free markets and open-ended science transforming the division of labour can have no place in their religious vision of how the world must be.”
You are again making a lot of assumptions about the ability of terrorist to “blow up” the world economic system. If they managed to destroy the entirety of Saudi Arabia’s oil industry they could through a serious spanner in the works.
“BUt all you seem to offer is a new-age "white man's burden" that aims to protect the Other from the modern West in which he can never seriously compete,”
You have the burden of changing the east to be the west remember? I don’t think the Other need to be protected, if they chose not to embrace it they are capable of doing that themselves. They do however need protection from imperialism as they have limited resources to resist.
“-more evidence that you only see evil in the powerful and not those who attack (rightful, reasonable) power, not that you can have any account of when power is reasonably or rightfully constructed. The fact that the US "empire" bankrupts itself on a military that protects open-seas, free trade, a market that leaves resources open to the highest bidder,”
The use of “(rightful, reasonable) power” shows, as you would say: “your pathology”, (no I’m just kidding). The fact is that we are not a rightful, reasonable power. When we are that’s not what they attack us for.
“protects open-seas” from the poverty stricken nations that we helped destroy (Somalia, Indonesia)? “free trade, a market that leaves resources open to the highest bidder” you mean economic hegemony and allowing countries resources to be exploited by the highest bidder right?
“that has paid out trillions in royalties to local people who do next to nothing in the way of doing the work to extract, refine, trade, and manufacture said resources,”
What? This is an incredibly warped world view; I cannot begin to wrangle with just how wrong it is. You ideas on how the world economy works need some serious re-examining.
“As for evil being a "complicated concept", i think not.”
That’s fine, but remembers that Islamists are of the same view.
"I assume you have been lost in some kind of academic metaphysical gymnastics. I was once too; I can sympathize.
No I just meant that evil is a complicated concept, and I was using in one example and one alone.
“evil is simply unjust violence, an attempt to make others conform to an unrealistic understanding of what best serves human reciprocity. Evil is the use of violent means to insist that the world of (ideal) signs and the larger physical and human socioeconomic worlds be made to conform, that people act like they're "supposed" to. So if our political sign promises, say, "social justice" then evil is that which does unrealistic violence in the name of making reality conform to "social justice".”
What? Again you amaze me. This statement completely contradicts your very own world view.
I won’t go into the rest of that post because of time restrictions, but it is mostly a vague explanation of nothing. Please use more paragraph breaks.
“-if one's destiny is "dictated" (and how would that ever be possible, short of murder?) then how does one make history?”
Because it’s when it’s not dictated that it is made by them. “(and how would that ever be possible, short of murder?)” Well yes we use murder; it’s called a war, or at least propping up a dictator.
“It is the clearly stated intent of the Islamist movement to destroy the modern world.”
Debatable. Destroy our domination of it perhaps? Different Islamist groups have different views on the “modern world” and their role in it.
“They are growing demographically.”
Other people exist? They have sex to reproduce? I’m terrified. Tell me do you believe that one of ‘our’ lives is more valuable than one of ‘theirs’?
“Many of the people in organizations like the Muslim Brotherhood are engineers and scientists, working and learning in places like our own nuclear power plants. Do you really think nothing bad can come of this movement if left unchecked?”
Well background checks are useful things indeed. I would ask why would a Muslim brotherhood member have any reason to do anything nefarious to me, unless perhaps something I’m apart of has harmed him.
“-they don't aim to compete with us in the productive use of resources. They want to destroy the modern world and only await the means. If Iran, which openly sponsors terrorists, doesn't have WMD today, surely you can see it is only a short matter of time,”
Again if they want to destroy the modern world and their ability to do so come into question. According to most sources (IAEA) Iran’s nukes will take very long time indeed, as in never. May I mention that the U.S. is also a sponsor of terrorism, and in fact one of its allies is one of the few nations with nukes who is not a part of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty.
“-do you have no stake in the future that you're not ready now to think about the legacy we are leaving future generations and about how you want to influence this in a non-passive way?”
Well I can pose the same question to you, what legacy are we leaving. The way it is looking at the moment we have destroyed both Iraq and Afghanistan and have guaranteed another generation of Islamist uprising.
“-resentment is a necessary and always unavoidable aspect of the human condition; it is deadly to "think" it could ever be otherwise.”
That statement literally means nothing, especially in relation to the question. Even granting that resentment is always unavoidable, there is no reason why it would be directed at us, except for our direct involvement with them. It may go against preconceived notions of yours, but the majority of terrorists (watch their operation announcements) cite direct reasons for their actions.
“-I am not aware that Afghans are in the habit of making excuses for their enemies.”
Well according to you they should.
“They, at least, seem capable of grasping such fundamentals of self-interest...”
No, they need you to tell them what their interests are, according to you at least.
sorry this one didnt go through.
“-more evidence that you only see evil in the powerful and not those who attack (rightful, reasonable) power, not that you can have any account of when power is reasonably or rightfully constructed. The fact that the US "empire" bankrupts itself on a military that protects open-seas, free trade, a market that leaves resources open to the highest bidder,”
The use of “(rightful, reasonable) power” shows, as you would say: “your pathology”, (no I’m just kidding). The fact is that we are not a rightful reasonable power, and when we are that’s not what they attack us for.
“protects open-seas” from the poverty stricken nations that we helped destroy (Somalia, Indonesia)? “free trade, a market that leaves resources open to the highest bidder” you mean economic hegemony and allowing countries resources to be exploited by the highest bidder right?
“that has paid out trillions in royalties to local people who do next to nothing in the way of doing the work to extract, refine, trade, and manufacture said resources,”
What? This is an incredibly warped world view; I cannot begin to wrangle with just how wrong it is. You ideas on how the world economy works need some serious re-examining.
“As for evil being a "complicated concept", i think not.”
That’s fine, but remembers that Islamists are of the same view.
"I assume you have been lost in some kind of academic metaphysical gymnastics. I was once too; I can sympathize."
No I just meant that evil is a complicated concept, and I was using in one example and one alone.
“evil is simply unjust violence, an attempt to make others conform to an unrealistic understanding of what best serves human reciprocity. Evil is the use of violent means to insist that the world of (ideal) signs and the larger physical and human socioeconomic worlds be made to conform, that people act like they're "supposed" to. So if our political sign promises, say, "social justice" then evil is that which does unrealistic violence in the name of making reality conform to "social justice".”
What? Again you amaze me. This statement completely contradicts your very own world view.
I won’t go into the rest of that post because of time restrictions, but it is mostly a vague explanation of nothing, use more paragraph breaks.
i really don't see what you want from me, or why i should continue to comment on this months-old post.
I don't see how your have added much to your original observation - that I make you sick. How many times do you need to say this? I don't see a serious conversation about ideas, nor about how we should act in the world. Again, I only see a young person in vain search of some guarantee of self-righteousness, and my comments suggesting how no such guarantee exists seem to be making little headway and are in some instances clearly misunderstood. I'm not sure if I'm to blame, given my intellectual and verbal limits, or am only having you righteously prove my point.
What might be helpful here would be if you stopped being reactive to my comments, and attempted to make some kind of constructive statement about how order in our global village can be maintained through either the exercise of human freedom or through the exercise of rule by some enlightened priesthood who are sure not to cause massive amounts of resentment from those whom they would rule. Once I see under what kind of rule set you would operate, I'd have something substantial to respond to. But I need seriously considered rules, not just pious thoughts about not harming people, as if we could always be all-seeing in advance of our actions and that these need never have the (un)expected result of harming people.
So, I'm out of this "debate" until I get that. Just a couple of clarifications before i exit.
I don’t like fantasising about power very much
-i'm not asking for a fantasy but if you are going to comment on my blog i expect the minimal decency of someone taking seriously the question of what power should responsibly do. What else is there to talk seriously about unless all we care about is appearing too holy to consider rightful use of power?
And "hands off, they can take care of themselves" (which in a globalized economy and political space is not at all true for any of us) is not a serious answer unless you intend to isolate and starve much of humanity. It is childish just to blame daddy for all the woes of the world family. I want to know how you will act when you are a daddy/mommy, and i want to hear more than just some pious throw-away remarks.
Are you seriously suggesting that there won’t be marginalised people?
-no I am making the point that there will indeed always be marginalized people but that fact cannot justify a knee-jerk politics of always siding with the marginal as if the centre is to blame for all their woes.
smug self righteousness as you rack up the body bags.
-you seem to have no idea how many body bags could be needed as the US "empire" seems destined now to withdraw from all kinds of commitments leaving power vacuums in its place. I just hope you will have then the honesty to count the dead as the result of your desires being realized.
Well not from the prospective of someone who wants an empire.
- i don't want an empire; my politics are highly anti-imperial. BUt I don't make the mistake of thinking that the stronger nations can simply avoid the responsiblity of maintaining a balance of power in the world and maintaining a free market economy, none of which just happens with pious thoughts. THe US is not by any serious description just like the empires of old. In fact it is much more fearful of power and responsibility - it shares a lot in common with your Gnostic way of thinking.
are you suggesting that the world needs to be “ordered” by an empire in order for it to feed itself? What if they want to ‘order’ themselves?
- i think the world can today only be ordered by maximizing free exchange in a global economy. We have to be both free and co-dependent. WE need to be able to hold each other politically accountable and transparent. Until you can move beyond the childish either/or of US empire vs. total independence from the US OTher, you can't begin to have a serious conversation about how the future might be built.
An example of this is the agricultural subsidies of first world nations, as well as the demands by international powers to force third world farmers to switch from substance crops to cash crops, inflating food prices in their own nations.
-on agricultural subsidies we agree; however the idea that countries can develop and become more independent by having half or more of their workforce working small plots of land in subsistence farming is silly. And the idea that any country can today happily isolate itself from the single global economy and its dynamic division of labour is equally silly.
I would ask why would a Muslim brotherhood member have any reason to do anything nefarious to me, unless perhaps something I’m apart of has harmed him.
-that is an exceptionally naive statement showing how someone educated to feel only guilt (at being "white", normal, unmarked) is someone who is not at all educated. It really doesn't matter what you do, good or bad, your existence as a non-Muslim is a threat to someone whose world view is that the whole world should submit to Islam. Read the Koran and see how relentlessly it divides the world into us and them, believer and non-believer. And that was centuries ago, at the very beginning of Islam.
And then, ask yourself if it is not inevitable that humanity must always be divided into groups of us and them, that we will always be implicit or potential threats to each other no matter what we do. (Then we can talk seriously about mediating threats, without the fantasy that they are somehow avoidable.)
According to most sources (IAEA) Iran’s nukes will take very long time indeed,
-I'm sorry but this just isn't so. You need to read more. While no one in civilian life has access to real hard data, there are many serious accounts estimating it is only a matter of a year or a few; some think Iran already has nukes. In any case they surely already have material to make a dirty bomb which could already be in a shipping container on a way to a port near you. And then there are chemical and biological weapons and the thousands of missiles pointed at Israel from Lebanon and Gaza and which are already being used as terrorist blackmail against those who will pay the blackmail instead of contemplating pre-emptive war.
we have destroyed both Iraq and Afghanistan
-we have? And just how are they worse off today than under the Taliban and Saddam? I'm not saying that it's not likely that there will not be a lot more war in the years to come in the Middle East, but it was you just a while ago who was going on about propping up dictators. If we don't do that, then there will be war until some new dictators (or civil society) emerge because what really destroys those countries, from a modern perspective, is their lack of civil society. We may not have yet helped much in this regard, but I think we have helped marginally compared to what they had before.
Even granting that resentment is always unavoidable, there is no reason why it would be directed at us, except for our direct involvement with them.
-if by us, you mean the leading global economic and military powers, then yes it is unabodiable that resentment will be directed at our leading position, no matter what we do. It is just a question of what mediates that resentment more and what less. There is no escaping a highly inter-connected world.
“i really don't see what you want from me, or why i should continue to comment on this months-old post.”
If you are tired or bored that is fine, we don’t need to continue.
“I don't see how your have added much to your original observation - that I make you sick. How many times do you need to say this?”
Until you see why, although that may be impossible.
“I don't see a serious conversation about ideas, nor about how we should act in the world.”
True but you only have yourself to blame, your long stream of consciousness posts are almost impossible to comprehend at times.
“Again, I only see a young person in vain search of some guarantee of self-righteousness”
You make a lot of assumptions now don’t you.
“What might be helpful here would be if you stopped being reactive to my comments, and attempted to make some kind of constructive statement about how order in our global village can be maintained through either the exercise of human freedom or through the exercise of rule by some enlightened priesthood who are sure not to cause massive amounts of resentment from those whom they would rule. Once I see under what kind of rule set you would operate, I'd have something substantial to respond to. But I need seriously considered rules, not just pious thoughts about not harming people, as if we could always be all-seeing in advance of our actions and that these need never have the (un)expected result of harming people.”
This is exactly the problem; your thought process is all over the place here. You need to work on keeping to a few points and staying relevant. I don’t want your manifesto and you don’t really want mine. I won’t go in to my beliefs about how I would construct the world, mostly because I know I can’t, and neither can you. You also make a lot of assumptions about any alternatives to imperialism that exist.
“And "hands off, they can take care of themselves" (which in a globalized economy and political space is not at all true for any of us) is not a serious answer unless you intend to isolate and starve much of humanity.”
On what grounds will starvation occur? Starvation is often caused by hands on approach. Besides who said the entire modern global economy will complexly collapse upon the end of empire.
“It is childish just to blame daddy for all the woes of the world family. I want to know how you will act when you are a daddy/mommy, and i want to hear more than just some pious throw-away remarks.”
What? Mommy and daddy? Who’s the mummy? If you were a capitalist you would know that there is not meant to be a “daddy” in a free market system. In a more realistic version of the world I would advocate a system of negotiation between nations on how their economies would work, as the equals they are, rather than being a “daddy”.
“knee-jerk politics of always siding with the marginal as if the centre is to blame for all their woes.”
Well sure, but in reality the blame does lay at our feet. That does not mean that certain classes inside marginalised countries don’t play a role in this process.
“you seem to have no idea how many body bags could be needed as the US "empire" seems destined now to withdraw from all kinds of commitments leaving power vacuums in its place. I just hope you will have then the honesty to count the dead as the result of your desires being realized.”
There will be many, but I feel no responsibility for the actions of others. The system I’m apart of is currently doing the majority of the killing, and destabilizing the nations it’s involved in create the power vacuums in the first place. You may not like to see it that way, but almost all of the nations where violence is prevalent have had western involvement over the last 100 years. If intervention is necessary, than the empires are not capable of successfully performing this task.
“i don't want an empire; my politics are highly anti-imperial.”
No, no their not.
“BUt I don't make the mistake of thinking that the stronger nations can simply avoid the responsiblity of maintaining a balance of power in the world and maintaining a free market economy, none of which just happens with pious thoughts.”
They don’t maintain a free market economy, they maintain their economic hegemony. There is also currently no balance of power; after the cold war ended the world has been left skewed towards the U.S. With Russia in ruins and china not currently up to the cast of asserting its self.
“THe US is not by any serious description just like the empires of old. In fact it is much more fearful of power and responsibility.”
No, no its not. I’m not going to bother to give details on why, I suggest you see the history of the last 100 years and review just how “responsible” these empires have been.
“i think the world can today only be ordered by maximizing free exchange in a global economy. We have to be both free and co-dependent. WE need to be able to hold each other politically accountable and transparent.”
I’m sorry, but until you see that this is not at all what the U.S. empire actually does, we cannot have a “serious” conversation. Your condensation is a little thick don’t you think?
"however the idea that countries can develop and become more independent by having half or more of their workforce working small plots of land in subsistence farming is silly.”
That’s not at all what I said, you’re making assumptions again. Many cash crops that the farmers cultivate are done on small plots of land anyway. I was referring to the pressure to switch from the crops themselves, which causes food price inflation.
“And the idea that any country can today happily isolate itself from the single global economy and its dynamic division of labour is equally silly.”
Again a straw man.
“It really doesn't matter what you do, good or bad, your existence as a non-Muslim is a threat to someone whose world view is that the whole world should submit to Islam.”
That is a ‘childish’ generalisation of Islamist thought. Certainly Islamist groups have persecuted non-Muslim minorities in their own nations (the Copts etc.) but their desire to do so in other non-Muslim nations, without previous provocation, is marginal. And the ability of those who do genuinely have this world view to do any real damage is even more marginal.
Even within the various Islamists groups there is belief in protection of minorities. I might also mention that even in truly medieval pre-modern Islamic societies, of centauries past, non-Islamic minorities lived relatively safe lives. Unlike those non-Christians who lived in Europe. Another point is that before, and possibly after, the rise of the Islamists other secular terrorist groups existed in the Middle East.
“Read the Koran and see how relentlessly it divides the world into us and them, believer and non-believer. And that was centuries ago, at the very beginning of Islam.”
I have read the Koran, and I have read the Bible, I have read secular theory. I could give you a lot of quotes that contradict (and prove) what you say, including those from Islamic extremists. I might again mention that secular Middle Eastern groups before the Islamists fought the same imperialism their extremist contemporaries fight today.
“(Then we can talk seriously about mediating threats, without the fantasy that they are somehow avoidable.)”
They are only unavoidable because we make them unavoidable, we are in their counties. The only unavoidable conflict is with other aggressive powers such as China. How do we deal with them? I honestly don’t know. Although if the Soviet Union is any example its subjects eventually shrugged it off (oversimplification I know).
“I'm sorry but this just isn't so. You need to read more. While no one in civilian life has access to real hard data, there are many serious accounts estimating it is only a matter of a year or a few;”
Could you name some? Let me guess neo-con pundits.
“some think Iran already has nukes.”
Well they know something both the U.N. and the U.S. don’t know.
“In any case they surely already have material to make a dirty bomb which could already be in a shipping container on a way to a port near you.”
Why would they? They don’t have a rational reason to attack my nation (and don’t just simply say that there crazy because it’s not true). Iran knows that it is under the spotlight, you don’t think Iran wants to be destroyed do you?
“And then there are chemical and biological weapons”
Umm... no, I mean they may have some, but I need some evidence as to their effectiveness and real possibility of use.
“and the thousands of missiles pointed at Israel from Lebanon and Gaza and which are already being used as terrorist blackmail against those who will pay the blackmail instead of contemplating pre-emptive war.”
You mean thousands of pathetically feeble missiles that do next to nothing compared to the power of Israel?
“-we have? And just how are they worse off today than under the Taliban and Saddam?”
Well the Taliban brought a brutal end to a brutal civil war (more or less). That war has just been reinitiated by our pathetic attempt to create a government in that country, the Taliban may not be able to refill the vacuum we leave when we eventually get out of that nation, but they will try. So we have literally guaranteed another generation or two of warlord strife.
As to Iraq we killed hundreds of thousands of people, played the ethnic groups of each other so badly there will be a few generations of sectarian war, allowed Iran to fill a massive power vacuum, and now it is possible that Iraq may become a Shiite theocracy! Never mind the possibility that Turkey might invade Kurdistan.
There are many other problems, these are some of the simple ones, but yeah, Iraq is a lot worse off. Surely it would have been good if the Iraqi people had kicked Saddam out, as they had attempted to do in the past (on our orders, which we betrayed them on) but they didn’t, and now Iraq and Afghanistan are both more messed up than they were ten years ago, and its directly our own fault.
“if by us, you mean the leading global economic and military powers, then yes it is unabodiable that resentment will be directed at our leading position, no matter what we do.”
Well fine, you can ascribe to the simplistic belief that people only hate us because they are jealous if you want to. But it may occur to you to think that it might be the means we use to maintain that power that causes resentment, especially if it is from people who are not particularly interested in material wealth.
Again if you want to end this conversation now, without replying, you can if you want to. I won’t hold it against you. I was getting sick of my posts not getting uploaded properly anyway (it sucks). If you wish to do that just reply “goodbye” or something of that nature.
If you were a capitalist you would know that there is not meant to be a “daddy” in a free market system.
-actually, free markets depend on "big men", e.g. entrepreneurs who advance new desires and new divisions of labour to produce these products/desires at the expense of previous products and markets. Resentment of those who take such a lead, resentment in the name of consumer or national/religious sovereignty is an essential feature of free markets. The US is hated not so much for being an empire - which it isn't in any traditional sense - but for being the home of market leaders and for having a government that uses political/military power to support free global commerce, not anything like traditional empire and tribute flow. IT is your politics htat will lead to a reversion to traditional empire and tribute after brutal wars. But you refuse to see the choice: we either have rule by the economic players in the global market, or by warlords. You somehow think we can have the former without any political leadership from the stronger nations and would-be defenders of the global market. But you offer no account of how that could be possible. You hate the leadership that comes with free markets; you pretend to hate warlords. You will get the latter.
Well sure, but in reality the blame does lay at our feet.
-saying it doesn't make it so; I think that statement is wrong-headed in many ways; but that possibility is what you seem unwilling or unable to discuss. You say it over and over but you give nothing by way of a compelling argument/analysis. You are not really interested in why we have a global economy and how it works (to what degree it is a rational and reasonable system); You are not very interested in exploring the anthropological nature of resentment, blame, scapegoating. You are not intersted in offering your alternative rule set for global interaction.
So, I don't really see anything to discuss. What I find so amazing in your discourse is that you make every excuse in the book for the resentments of the Muslim world; you believe their resentment is somehow "rational" (but just try thinking rationally about the nature of resentment when you feel resentful - it can't be done); you are absolutely dripping in the apologetics of white guilt and yet you also claim that all this guilt and making excuses for the other is not based on fear of the other's violence. Any violence he offers is simply a rational response and will go away if we become nice boys. It's unbelievable! How can you be so naive?
I can't really talk ideas with you because you are brainwashed by the academy of white guilt to see a reality which is very different from the reality I think i know. All that's left is for me to go out and pick up a dartboard and a big picture of Edward Said.
Adieu.
I won’t bother to attack your agreements, ill agree the debate is over.
And now that this debate is over I’ll tell you what you are: a blogger. A blogger, who claims to have the authority of real-politick on their side, but does not have a semblance of reality in any of their theories. Indeed you come up with many interesting original theories, but cannot face up to the fact that they are not really any good.
You post long winded stream of consciousness rants that are barely worth reading, and poorly structured, and yet you blame me for not posting my own manifesto. I never wanted to discuss manifestos with you, that is not why I’m here. You say I “you give nothing by way of a compelling argument/analysis” but I have over and over again, you simply chose to ignore the history of the empire and all the strife it has caused.
You seem to have some kind of intellectual trauma in your history, and for some reason try to project it on to me. For example accusing me of being brainwashed by the so-called “academy of white guilt” (by the way I’m brown, but I think you mean intellectual white guilt). You also can’t help yourself but be condescending to someone who challenges you, but fails to see that your opponent sees that as nothing more but manifest insecurity.
“from the reality I think i know”. At least you’re honest, because the reality you think you know is no reality at all.
“dartboard and a big picture of Edward Said.”
Ok then, you have some problems if you’re bothered to hate Said to that extent.
On that note I say goodbye, unless you reply again.
Post a Comment