October 11, 2004
The Enemy Bush Fails To Understand
President Bush says we are at war against terrorists, people who hate, people who know no values, morals, and who have no desire but to kill Americans. It is a simple definition which has 30 second sound bite appeal. But, it is also a simple understanding of a situation America faces which is anything but simple. President Bush has not demonstrated an ability to understand or identify the real enemy behind such labels. And this portends a very dangerous situation for America.
Contrary to a futuristic world monoculture resembling America, there is no international culture, nor international language. Germans still speak German, Russians still speak Russian, and Nepalese still speak Nepalese. But that is language; one small facet of what one discusses when talking about culture. There is a common currency internationally called money, that is relatively universal, but, there is little else that is universally international about the world's societies, no matter how President Bush wants to see it.
One of the absolutely huge cultural differences in the world is one the President appears to not even be aware of, which means he is blind to what he is fighting. Absolutely blind. President Bush, despite his insistence on being able to read the minds of foreigners, does not know the face of the enemy, for the face of the enemy is not a human face, but, deeply historical and cultural differences foreign to most of what we understand as culture in the West.
Western society is based on an empirical tradition handed down from ancient Greece and Rome which is not rooted in religion or theism. Religion and theism are secondary to western society which is driven by inquiry, change, creation and recreation, invention, and the marketability of ideas as the yardstick and measure of successful research and living.
Much of the Eastern and Middle Eastern world does not come from that tradition. The Eastern world inquired into what the world, and man's relationship to it is, thousands of years ago, and set the answers down in writings which became the cornerstones of Buddhism, Hinduism, and Islam: cornerstones of culture in China, Tibet, India, and the Middle East. These texts and writings set down all the answers to what the world is about, and vast numbers of people in the East and Middle East, to this day, look to those writings for their laws, their religion, the questions about who they are, why they are, and how things should be done and how they shouldn't. They do not look to industrialization or technological innovation as necessary improvements to quality of life. They do not value change. In fact, they value tradition which opposes and fights change.
These cultures look back to tradition and rules thousands of years old to satisfy their needs for knowledge and inquiry. Thus, the vast numbers of these people in these cultures do not want to change, and do not want to be changed, neither from within or outside. They want the security and safety and confidence about tomorrow that their traditional knowledge of yesterday provided. They do not want to market change for change sake the way the western cultures do. They want to preserve their nomadic, their traditional, their time honored religious rules for living and social structure. In the West we separate religion from secular affairs. In the East, religion and physical life and governing were forged from one and the same mold.
There is a whole generation out there of Tibetans, Nepalese, Arabs, Chinese, and hosts of others who are threatened by the influences of the West. It has nothing to do with hamburgers, language, or coca-cola. It has to do with pace of life, station in life, predictability in life, time honored traditions in relationships between the individuals and society, all of which are threatened by the empirically based means and ways of the West. This generation resists the influences of modern China, Westernized capitalist rule of oil supported Kings and ruling families, and the commercialized imperialism of the West which paves the way for the destruction of their traditions, their forests, their family farms and shops, villages and pastoral history, and the predictability and security facing the tomorrows of their own lives and that of their children that the past provided.
Whether or not Osama bin Laden opposes the West on these grounds or is simply an opportunist trying to create his own landless nation of followers fighting the West is irrelevant. What is relevant is the fact that OBL and Zarqhawi are using the threat of Western influence as a threat against the historical looking texts of knowledge and wisdom which their cultures were founded upon. And they are using that threat for raising an army and a cause that will not be defeated by killing leaders. For every leader in their fight against Western influence, two will rise to take their place.
President Bush would have us believe it is hatred and terrorism that we are fighting. These are the weapons of our enemy, not their cause. It is an adamant defense of tradition, culture, religion, and law honored for thousands of years as set down in the Koran and generational history in song, story, and folklore, that is their cause, and that cause is what we in the West face as our enemy. Failure to recognize our enemy and why it exists and what motivates it, is begging for a multi-generational war based on the domination of some cultures by others, much in the same way the colonialists and the new nation of the U.S. attempted to eradicate the culture and history and way of life of the American Indian tribes.
The West will probably win this war to destroy their cultures, take over their resources through international corporations, and change their religiously based laws and traditions, in the same ways that we won against N. American tribes and cultures. But, it won't be easy, it won't be won in a generation, and the costs will be extremely high as they were in fulfilling our 'manifest destiny' here in N. America.
The American Indian wars constitute a period of great shame for America, which is why we hide it so deeply in our westerns which demonize and dehumanize the American Indian so we can avert our eyes to our shame. There simply has to be a better way. Christ pointed to it, Buddha pointed to it, Confucius pointed to it, the Upanishads pointed to it, but, as we all know, but don't confess, religion is secondary to our empirical consumer oriented society, and money will dictate our future, not religion.
The war America faces is both with the terrorist attackers of the U.S. as well as the repercussions of U.S. led internationalization of corporate development and exploitation of resources, both human and natural, which peoples of the Eastern and Middle Eastern nations view as a threat to their way of life. They abhor the idea of giving up their job in their Uncle's or Father's shop to work for wages for some international corporation which has its home in Great Britain or America. They abhor the idea that may have to live under secular laws that are not found and bound in their historical and cultural texts of wisdom and knowledge which instruct what a good life, an honorable life, and a religious life is. America must fight the terrorists who would attack us. But, if America ever wants to see an end to that war, it must consider and reshape its relationship with those societies in a manner that is not viewed as a threat to their religion, their cultures, and their philosophies of what constitutes a good and virtuous life.
It is human nature to change and adapt and even overcome and reshape adverse situations and conditions. The peoples of the East and Middle East are not opposed to change that comes from their own determination of how to adapt, how to overcome, and how to reshape the inadequacies of their own cultures and societies to survive in the modern world. But, many will fight to the death and with a sense of martyrdom and pride, attempts by the West to force changes upon them motivated by needs of those in the West. The greatest mistake President Bush made was to turn a deaf ear and rein in the decision making ability of our own State Department. Our State Department employs people who are trained and educated in cultural values, paradigms, and fundamental structures of foreign nations. Our State Department was very likely capable of designing a strategy for pursuing terrorists against us which would not increase their armies, entrench anti-American hostility, and protract indefinitely our pursuit of growing numbers opposing us.
It was an appalling failure of our government not to separate the military campaign against al-Queda and others who threaten us, and the diplomatic negotiations with Middle Eastern nations which would have aided our efforts against al-Queda without aiding al-Queda's efforts against us. There is no doubt in my mind that the experts in our State Department had, or could have developed, effective plans for bringing down Saddam Hussein's regime without military invasion of Iraq which strengthened the numbers of our enemies and their resolve to harm and impede our efforts. It would have taken longer, but, when it happened, the U.S. would not have been cast in the Middle East as the greatest threat to Islam and its people's way of life since the Crusades.
And I am 100% confident that nothing I have said would make any sense to George W. Bush, at all. And that is why I cannot vote for a candidate of such ignorance and folly. That is not to say, there is a candidate out there who does understand what this war on terrorism is really about. I am voting for Ralph Nader, but, I don't believe even he understands the immense cultural forces at war here, of which terrorism is only a symptom.
But, Ralph Nader would withdraw from Iraq making stability or civil war in Iraq a regional problem for its neighboring states which would be directly affected by the outcome in Iraq. That would result in Middle Eastern Islamic states finding their own change, finding their own adaptations, finding their own resolutions more consistent with their philosophies, historical understanding, and religious context. And withdrawal would take the first difficult step on the long road toward repairing America's international relations based on rational and predictable good will.
Remaining in Iraq for a decade or more will only serve al-Queda's needs for new recruits, to fuel further anti-American sentiment and hostility, and create an artificial peace and unified democracy in Iraq dependent upon American occupation. It simply defies reason that some day soon, the Kurds, Shia, and Sunni's will share one democratic government in the absence of martial law with or without U.S. presence. Martial law is antithetical to democracy. And that is the fundamental quagmire that is Iraq today. A quagmire of President Bush's and our own Congress' making. Thus, I must take an anti-incumbent position now, and in the future, until such time as we have leadership that demonstrates competence, realistic and pragmatic decision making, and a motivation to serve the interests of the American people instead of making the American people serve the interests of government.
I highly recommend James Burke’s series The Day The Universe Changed for an excellent condensed history of Western societies’ cultural foundations based on change as a value in and of itself.
Posted by: David R. Remer at October 11, 2004 04:29 AMDavid, that’s an interesting piece. The only thing I agree with is that Bush doesn’t understand that al Qaeda is a more imminent threat than autocratic regimes.
Clinton knew what he was doing when he set us on the road of globalization. He and the other “Third Way” leaders like Blair and Schroeder knew it would mean change and upheaval in poor, third world countries, but they felt - as I do - that the prosperity, interconnectivity, and ultimately the stability provided by globalization are worth it.
I’m trying to remember where I read that. It was either Gen. Zinni’s book, “Battle Ready”, the 9/11 Commission Report, or Blumenthal’s, “The Clinton Wars” - or some synthisis of all of them. I read so much of that crap, I can’t keep track of it anymore. :/
I live in SE Asia, and I see countries like Singapore, Indonesia, and Malaysia becoming more stable than ever in their recent histories because of the increasing opportunities they have.
Anyhow, Clinton anticipated the resulting rise in fundamentalism in response to globalization and did all he could to prepare for it despite an opposition party who considered terrorism a “phony issue” that distracted them from the real threat: hanky-panky in the White House.
That part I know is directly out of the 9/11 Commission Report. :)
I also disagree that pulling troops out would be a better solution for exactly the reasons you name,
It simply defies reason that some day soon, the Kurds, Shia, and Sunni’s will share one democratic government in the absence of martial law with or without U.S. presence.
I believe the result of a withdrawal would be a failed state like Yemen, or like Afghanistan before the Taliban took over. To be so starved for security that the Taliban look good is not a place you want to be.
I think the best we can hope for - and it’s not so bad, really - is an international occupation, like Kosovo, until Iraq has a tradition of peaceful transition of power, an uncorrupt judiciary and constabulary, a military subordinant to the civilian government, and a stable economy - hopefully not an oil economy.
David,
Since you have knowledge of the Eastern World as well, I was wondering if you remember the name of the book found in India around 1990 which was dated back to 15,000 BC. The book was shown on the TLC Show Beyond 2000.
AP and David:
It appears to me that you are at opposing sides with regard to the world.
David says that there can be no one world—-no “monoculture resembling America,… no international culture, nor international language…”
AP is arguing in favor of globalization as a solution to many problems in the world.
These two ideas seem diametrically opposed to each other. Perhaps you could each explain the flaws in the other person’s viewpoint, or the flaws in my assessment of your basic positions.
Posted by: joebagodonuts at October 11, 2004 08:47 AM
Perhaps you could each explain the flaws in the other person’s viewpoint
I think I already did that. :)
I really am interested in David’s opinion of my opinion of his opinion, though.
What’s your role in this joe? Are you going to stick your neck out with your own opinion, or just sit back and judge us?
Hey, I’ve never equated the war on terrorists to the American/Indian war, not a bad comparison at all. One difference though; the native americans didn’t fly planes into our buildings … who knows? Maybe they would’ve if they could’ve. And after all these years, it’s purportedly STILL legal to kill them. ‘Dagburned strange cultures (spit … splat), why don’t they awl just git outta our way.’
Oops, out of time.
Posted by: Will at October 11, 2004 11:17 AMExcellent post David. Only I would have included kerry in it along with Bush. But maybe they both understand the enemy more than we think and this whole thing is “only” about money. Govt’s get rich off of wars. Why not sacrifice some underlings?
Posted by: kctim at October 11, 2004 11:30 AMAP said: “I think the best we can hope for - and it’s not so bad, really - is an international occupation, like Kosovo, until Iraq has a tradition of peaceful transition of power, an uncorrupt judiciary and constabulary, a military subordinant to the civilian government, and a stable economy - hopefully not an oil economy.”
I certainly hope you will back that statement up with your volunteering yourself to our military service or your sons and daughters, to become maimed, or killed in defending such a multi-generational effort which will continue to make the U.S. soldiers and civilians the direct targets of those who will fight to the death for Self-Determination and against foreign Occupation.
It is so easy to say “force them” with the lives and bodies of others. It was the spending of American bodies and lives by those safe at home that divided this nation over Viet Nam.
Posted by: David R Remer at October 11, 2004 12:22 PMNo, Henry, I am not aware or have forgotten about the discovered text to which you refer.
Posted by: David R Remer at October 11, 2004 12:25 PMjbod said, “David says that there can be no one world—-no “monoculture resembling America,… no international culture, nor international language…”
Excuse you, jbod. That is not what I said. There certainly CAN be one international language. It would be possible for a nuclear war to eliminate 95% of the world’s populations and all of its cultures, resulting in the institution of one international culture. I said there is NO international lanuguage and there is no international culture. And I never said there can be no one world. There is in fact, only one world upon which the human speicies resides.
Get it right or leave it alone.
Posted by: David R Remer at October 11, 2004 12:34 PMkctim, good point. However, Kerry has not spoken directly to this issue. If he is elected, it remains to be seen whether he will avail himself of the experts in the State Dep’t. and CIA who have (I would hope) far better knowledge of the history and cultural dimensions and differences and how they will impact our options for taking out the terrorists, than I do.
We must take out al-Queda, permanently. There are multiple options for accomplishing that. Invading Iraq was one option developed by the Bush administration which is having huge death and fiscal consequences without impacting the original goal. It is not possible for me to determine at this time if Kerry would get smarter about our options or not. There just isn’t enough information.
Posted by: David R Remer at October 11, 2004 12:52 PMExcellent post, David. It’s so easy to become ethnocentric, even when your heart is in the right place, it’s no wonder the Bush administration is capitalizing (and counting) on our being blind to what people in other countries want. It’s so much simpler to think of people as “civilians” or “insurgents” or “terrorists” than it is to think of them as mothers and fathers and children.
In ten or so posts I haven’t seen any Red opinions. Even jbod, who’s usually got something pithy to say, has only offered a rather neutral observation.
Posted by: Alejo at October 11, 2004 01:34 PMDavid
You are correct and FAIR in your last post to me. That is really the best way to look at it. Thanks for keeping me out of the narrowminded partisan mindset, that I so often gripe about on here.
David:
Get it right or leave it alone.
First of all, get over yourself. Self importance is not an admirable quality. Perhaps you failed to note that I ended my post with a request for you to correct any “flaws in my assessment of your basic positions.”
My attempt was to clarify the differences between your position and AP’s position. It seemed to me that with your examples of how strongly certain cultures hold to their historied pasts and traditions, that you were saying that a “monoculture” would not exist.
AP:
I’m not planning on judging you, in the first place. It’s not what I do, nor do I have the time or interest in doing so.
I don’t buy into globalization, if it means something along the lines of a one government world, or making the world essentially homogeneous. But I do agree with the position that prosperity and stability help quell the seeds of revolt, and as such, if we can help make the world more prosperous and stable, there will be less cause for terrorism.
Posted by: joebagodonuts at October 11, 2004 03:59 PMjbod —
There’s no doubt that prosperity and stability do make people less likely to feel violent. The question is, can we bring those conditions about through our own violence? It seems unlikely to me — especially when our violence seems targeted against a specific religion/culture.
Posted by: Alejo at October 11, 2004 04:39 PMjbod —
I agree that prosperous people are much less likely to feel violent, but how will we make people prosper by going to war with them? That’s the part of the plan I’m not understanding.
Posted by: Alejo at October 11, 2004 04:40 PMjbod said: “First of all, get over yourself.”
It is not about me. It is about you misquoting others for whatever your reasons are. You won’t get a free ride for it in this column.
Posted by: David R. Remer at October 11, 2004 06:05 PMIn short what you are saying seems to be that we are suddenly neck deep in a religious war. I agree. But this nation has no experience at all in fighting religious wars. Religious wars are something we left behind, or so we thought, when we settled this continent.
Who is the American Army General, ( Jerry somebody or other?) that got in such trouble recently because he went on the public stump speaking to church and civic groups, sometimes in uniform, and identified this as a religious war. Even George Will wanted him fired immediatly for having done so. It’s a pity.
Of course, Al Qaida’s war against us is religious.Stipulation #1 in OBL’s FATWA of 2002 was, ” First, the west must become Muslim”. If that’s not a religious based war, then what is?
But administration is not admitting that our war against them is religious. It’s off the table, in Washington speak. The fear is that in admitting we are fighting a religious war, OBL will have won a huge advantage in his attempt to unite all Islam against the ” Christian” west.
Posted by: Dixon H Harris at October 11, 2004 07:30 PMDixon, very astute comments. And this is precisely why Bush is not up to the task. This does NOT have to be a religious war. A religious war is, as you say, precisely what al-Queda wants.
To the extent that we invaded Iraq which had nothing to do with al-Queda’s attacks upon the U.S., Bush made and is making this war a cultural and religious war, at least in the eyes of millions upon millions of Muslims.
This is why we must cease the efforts to change and topple Middle Eastern regimes, and focus strictly on al-Queda and similar terrorist groups associated with 9/11 or involved in planning or perpetrating near term attacks upon the U.S.
Everyone but Bush and his supporters seem to be able to see this, including Kerry and Nader and Badnarik. And if you look at the Bush rhetoric, one readily sees his attempts to prepare America for a multi-generational war, which is only required if one is intent in destroying Middle Eastern culture by erecting Democratic regimes.
Afghanistan was ripe for such a conversion to a democratic government by its citizens because they have lived in a war torn country for decades with the Russians and then the U.S. They were ready and willing to accept any form of government that would put an end to the war and poverty it caused.
That is not the case in Yemen, Syria, Iran, Egypt, and a most of the other Middle Eastern nations, including many in Saudi Arabia. There is every indication that Bush will pursue his Middle Eastern cultural conversion if reelected. It is just as clear that if he is not reelected, the next administration, Kerry’s, would back off such an agenda, and focus on al-Queda and similar groups surgically.
There is a clear choice here for Americans. Regretfully, the American voters will not view their choice in these terms and with this background of information. And that leaves the door wide open for Bush’s reelection and a multi-generational war not dissimilar from our own historical wars against the American Indians.
Posted by: David R Remer at October 11, 2004 07:59 PMWe are at war, whether we like it or not, with fanatical, religious fundamentalists. They are not attacking us because of globalization; they are attacking us simply because we are not them. I just read an article in a Chinese news site about two Chinese engineers being held hostage by Al-Queda in Pakistan; the deadline for executing one had just been extended while negotiations continue. Culturally, China is very different from us. Also, it is not yet the world economic power that it appears likely to become. This seems to indicate that attacks are not because of culture or economics, but because of something else. That something else is, as I said, because the victims are not like the attackers. Islam has a long history of violence and aggression; we are simply seeing the latest chapters in that long history.
Troy,
While it is true that we are at war, it is not with Islam. Check your history, although Islam has had its history of wars, they are no worse than the western civilization. The group we are fighting now is a spin off of Islam which has its roots in ancient tribal Islam. Sort of like the Evangaligist are a spin off of pruitism (sp) which has its roots based in the Old World split of the chatholic church.
The secert to winning this war is not bombing the entire Middle East, but allowing the truth to come out about the world of religious beliefs and how leaders have abused the people by spinning the facts to fit their point of view. Look throughout history and you can find the religious and political leaders refer to their enemy as evil, un god like, and the devil. Is it any wonder way Bush has tried to abuse Jesus name to fight the war against his brother.
Posted by: Henry Schlatman at October 11, 2004 09:26 PMTroy, they attack us because we support regimes in their midst that they consider to be apostate-unholy, in other words. We also send corrupting influence from our culture their way.
Like most real life motivations, theirs are messy. We are not dealing with an enemy who simply hates us, we are dealing with an enemy with a very conflicted relationship to modernity.
Why is it important we not stereotype al-Qaeda, their subsidiaries, and their potential recruits? Because to defeat al-Qaeda, we must kill its cause. We must take our enemies, and deprive them of the sustainable, rational supports for their actions. We must prove that we have no territorial designs on their nations, that we can look out for Arab and Palestinian interests as conscientiously as we do Isreali interests. And doing this, we must maintain and teach them to maintain their cultural identity enough that they no longer fear or suspect the reforms we push along with them.
We will never win this war if we try to resort to brute force alteration of their traditions and ideologies. You and I both know how stubborn people can be when challenged about what they believe deep down inside. Persuasion of this kind can not be rushed, though fate may take a hand at times.
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at October 11, 2004 09:40 PMHenry,
I think your position is quite wrong. The Koran is filled with violent commands. Author Ibn Warraq points out that
There may be moderate Muslims, but Islam itself is not moderate. There is no difference between Islam and Islamic fundamentalism. At most there is a difference of degree but not of kind.
You can read his full statement here.
Here is another website with many quotes from the Koran exhorting the faithful to violence.
While western civilization has had its share of wars, the civilization is not built upon a book exhorting its people to commit violence. In fact, the Crusades were largely a reaction to Islamic aggression.
Also, western civilzation has done many great things. Among other things, for example, western civilzation is the only civilization where the masters voluntarily ended slavery. Meanwhile, Muslims are still practicing slavery in parts of Africa. While our nation is not perfect, for many reasons, it is the greatest nation in the world. Ever.
Posted by: Troy at October 11, 2004 10:19 PMDavid:
It is not about me. It is about you misquoting others for whatever your reasons are. You won’t get a free ride for it in this column.
David, I did not misquote you. I cut and pasted what you said, though perhaps incompletely. I then asked you to correct my assessment of your statement in case I did not have it correct.
In what possible way is THAT an attempt to get at anything but the true intent of your statement? I think perhaps you are taking out misplaced anger on me, since I’ve only sought to clarify your position.
Alejo:
I dont see us targeting a specific culture or religion; in fact, I think we have gone to great lengths to NOT do so. But your point about violence has its merits.
In some cultures, one can only be considered worthy if they are willing to fight for themselves. To do otherwise is considered weakness, and does nothing more than embolden the other side. I also think that sometimes you simply have to draw a line in the sand and be willing to back it up. I believe Iraq had finally gotten to that point. Actually we drew and erased many lines; finally we had enough.
I hope that the people of Iraq can see that our goal is not to occupy, just as it wasnt in Germany or Japan. Rather, the intent is to eliminate a menace (Saddam), free a country, and then allow it to flourish under its own power. This has worked before (see the aforementioned Germany and Japan) and will hopefully work again.
Posted by: joebagodonuts at October 11, 2004 10:43 PMTroy,
Although I like a good debate, I must tell you that you need to look deeper into the words that was written by man. Both religions are based in the old religous beliefs of fire which dates back to Verdi. While one promotes enlightment (knowledge) the other promotes tribal beliefs (i.e. values).
As far as the issue of salvery goes both cultures are guilty of it. True freedom from any form of oppression is in the ability of a civilization to allow everyone ine the society to have equal and fair access to everything that is good.
Even though America has come a long way to realizing the problems associated with acheiving this goal, our policies and actions have still kept many of our own citizens bound in slavery by limiting them economically. Can you honestly state that every American or the nations we deal with is treated equally and fairly? Just look at how the Bush administration has dealt with France over the Oil for food program. Is that with the teaching of western beliefs?
Posted by: Henry Schlatman at October 11, 2004 10:47 PMI certainly hope you will back that statement up with your volunteering yourself to our military service or your sons and daughters
That’s your rebuttal, David? Really? Boo.
I do agree with the position that prosperity and stability help quell the seeds of revolt, and as such, if we can help make the world more prosperous and stable, there will be less cause for terrorism.
That’s exactly what I’m talking about, joe. I’m not into the world government/black helicopter thing, just promoting prosperity and freedom around the world. I’ve seen first-hand the positive impact it’s having in SE Asia. Singapore is a monument to globalization, Indonesia just had it’s first real presidential election ever, and Malaysia is prospering. And Australia is really kicking some butt.
David,
Thanks, I just thought you might remember it since I know you have interests in SE Asia. The reason I wanted to find out is the book basically stated how the Mason War of 15,000 BC took place.
If you take written history from that point in time your view of the world changes as you realize how the tells of the lost societies and tribes play out in real time.
Posted by: Henry Schlatman at October 12, 2004 04:07 AMjbod, you certainly did misquote. I will post this again for your review.
jbod said, “David says that there can be no one world—-no “monoculture resembling America,… no international culture, nor international language…”Excuse you, jbod. That is not what I said. There certainly CAN be one international language. It would be possible for a nuclear war to eliminate 95% of the world’s populations and all of its cultures, resulting in the institution of one international culture. I said there is NO international lanuguage and there is no international culture. And I never said there can be no one world. There is in fact, only one world upon which the human speicies resides.
I have added bold to key words which constitute the misquote. I fail to understand why this resistance to an obvious error. Your comments are customarily very reasonable and rational.
I was describing the state of affairs as they are. Your misquote indicates future tense about what is possible, which I did not address in using the word ‘is’, while you changed the subject to the future with the word ‘can’ and ascribing the word ‘can’ to me, which I never used in that context.
Posted by: David R. Remer at October 12, 2004 07:13 AMDavid:
And I cannot understand your anger over my statements. You appear to ascribe nefarious motives to my comments, when none are there. (You said, “It is about you misquoting others for whatever your reasons are. You won’t get a free ride for it in this column.”)
I wrote what I thought you to be saying, and I asked for clarification of whether my comments were correct. Comments are always up to interpretation, and by asking for your clarification, I opened the door for your response. This can be called fact-checking. In conversation, it is as simple as asking “Do i have your position correctly stated?”
The response to that is typically either a “Yes, you do” or a “No, THIS is what I am saying.” You chose neither course—but rather a tiny fisted rant in which you accuse me of having “reasons” for having misquoted you. By the way, when you quote someone, the part you are quoting remains INSIDE the quotations—-FYI. The rest becomes what the second writer is ascribing.
In any event, David, you state that my comments are “customarily very reasonable and rational”. It is beyond me why you think, then, that I would have any motive other than seeking a clearer understanding of your position, in contrast to that of AP’s position. As I said, perhaps you were reacting to something else. At this point, I’ve made my case, and I will rest with it as such. If you have been offended in any way, I extend my apologies for that.
Posted by: joebagodonuts at October 12, 2004 08:11 AMJoebagodonuts,
Just wondering, for no real reason, Are you a cop ?
Your pen-name sounds like one a cop would pick.
(before you ask…no…i’m not really a beagle)
Henry,
While both cultures may be guilty of slavery, only ours put a stop to it. Slavery has existed on every continent, but western culture is the only one where the masters voluntarily stopped the practice. If it ended anywhere else, it was through the slaves forcing the end. In some places, Muslims are still practicing slavery.
It is a statistical fact that, no matter how prosperous a society becomes, ten percent of the people will still be in the bottom ten percent in income. That is unavoidable. What you need to examine is our way of life. Many of today’s poor have a higher standard of living than the very wealthy did less than one hundred years ago. The percentages of today’s “poor” who own their own homes, computers, cars, cell phones, etc. are astonishing. Starving people around the world want to come here because even our poor are overweight; they are not starving.
True freedom from any form of oppression is in the ability of a civilization to allow everyone ine the society to have equal and fair access to everything that is good.
Henry, with these words, are you not describing our society? It may not be a perefect match, but it is certainly much closer to your words than any Islamic society is. Take a look at the role of women in each. Take a look at the role of minorities. There is really no comparison. Immigrants, both legal and illegal, are lining up to come to the US because they see it as a land of opportunity. Many also have the freedom here that would be unthinkable in their own countries. Despite what some scholars in ivory towers might argue, all cultures are not equal.
Troy,
You might want recheck your facts on Americas’ Poor and the fact that millions live below the poverty line in this country. You talk about 10% of any population of any culture is an acceptable standard to be poor. But the fact of the matter is our economy has left our 10% behind. Over the last 20 years this group of people has lost 13% of their income while the top 20% has seen an income growth of 10% in the last year. Now, this move has nothing to do with anyone working harder for their money, coming up with a new idea, or that a person is lazy. No, Bush’s tax cuts along with a steady influx of illegal and legal imagration has forced unskilled labor wages low.
As far as salvery, starvation, and honelessness in America, I know you got to be joking if you do not realize that this things go on in our country everyday.
Posted by: Henry Schlatman at October 12, 2004 09:59 AMWhoooaaa!!!! there, Troy. You said: “but western culture is the only one where the masters voluntarily stopped the practice.[slavery]”
Troy, the masters did not stop voluntarily. They fought a horrendously bloody civil war over the issue and lost. But that didn’t even stop them for 100 years. In the early 1960’s, while the descendents of slave owners in the South could not legally hold deed to human beings, they certainly continued to deny human and civil rights to Blacks, shunned them everywhere, and kept Blacks to the best their ability uneducated, in order to insure Southern whites had ready access to low pay uneducated labor.
It took another set of riots and confrontation between descendents of slave owners and Federal troops to break the cycle in the 1960’s finally opening the door full human and civil rights for Blacks.
There is no way in hell that can be supported as ‘voluntarily’ giving up slavery. Even today, the would be slave owners vote as a block for the Republican Party as they continue to punish the Democratic Party for enforcing integration and equal education and public access to facilities. Voluntarily ? Not even, voluntarily…Troy.
Less than 45 years ago, a black woman driving from Alabama to Texas could not find a rest room to use for the entire length of the trip, unless she had family or friends she knew along the route. No, not volutarily….
Posted by: David R. Remer at October 12, 2004 12:48 PMA link stolen from Alejo and OpenDemocracy
I think it’s interesting to see the perspective of an “everyday Iraqi.” There’s so much I could post here, but I thought this interesting,
“In Iraq, it is different….
Saddam Hussein fell, and the Iraqis did not seek a religious leadership like Iran… the Iraqis have a moderate temperament in religion…not extremist, nor exaggerated. Neither like the extremist Shi’aa in Iran, nor the extremists Wahabis in Saudi Arabia.
Yes, historically, the Iraqis respected their religious leaderships, but they never made Political leaders out of them.
They were spiritual leaders, but without politics.
This is how the reality is here….”
jbod, I apologize as well if the misquote was inadvertent. I spent hours crafting this article, rewriting and wordsmithing it a couple times, to insure that the written words accurately reflected both the facts and the logic of the conclusions.
I have no problem at all if folks don’t agree with my conclusions. Too often though, I find folks in debate restate what someone else said in order to change the premise of their argument in the attempt to discount their argument. That is not debate, that is mischaracterization deliberately conducted in order to convince others against a point of view. Bush and Kerry do this at every turn, spin artists do this all the time, and it is not informative.
I assumed that was what you were doing, in order to set up a situation where AP and I could fight over premises you proposed, rather than the premises laid out in the article. It seems apparent that that was not your intent and that I misjudged the intent of representations of what I said. I apologize. When someone says “Remer said” I expect what follows those words will either quote my own words exactly, or carefully represent precisely what I said. Neither was the case so I jumped to conclusions.
Posted by: David R. Remer at October 12, 2004 01:06 PMBeagle:
Woof woof woof bark arf arf arf
Translation: No i am not a cop. A friend of mine used to use the term Joebagodonuts to represent “everyman”, as in “yknow, not every joebagodonuts can get into Harvard” . So its more of an inside joke about how we can feel so selfimportant while actually having such little effect on the world.
David:
I regret to inform you that after all your hours of wordsmithing and editing, I skimmed your article. Perhaps after a more thorough read, your points will be clearer to me. That having been said, I hope in the future you will know for certain when I am attempting to bait or slam you. I try not to be as subtle as you were giving me credit for. While I do try for witty insults, I also tend to be the proverbial bull in the china shop.
All is well with the world.
Posted by: joebagodonuts at October 12, 2004 02:04 PMjbod said: “Perhaps after a more thorough read, your points will be clearer to me.”
It is not a simple topic nor simple thread of connections and relationships. I know Bush supporters like things simple, like their President. If an easy read were prerequisite for publishing, little worth while or informative would ever be written.
There is nothing simple and uncomplicated about politics, history, philosophy, democracy and a host of other vitally important subjects. If only more folks would take the time read for comprehension instead of skimming, there might be more unanimity in this country.
Hey, but, screw it, right, we all know anyone who writes a compound sentence structure and provides more than two paragraphs to explain something is an intellectual liberal and not to be trusted in the first place, right? So, why waste time reading anything that requires effort to comprehend, or doesn’t make you laugh, eh?
Given the shift in the polls, however, it would appear some folks are making an effort to understand and comprehend, compared to 2 months ago, eh?
Posted by: David R. Remer at October 12, 2004 02:48 PMDavid —
I feel the same frustration you do. What kind of country do we live in when we want our leaders to be just like us? I guess all you have to do is look at the stats on readership: 50% of the population did not read ONE SINGLE BOOK last year.
All you well-read people need to have more kids. I’m not doing it.
Posted by: Alejo at October 12, 2004 02:58 PMAlejo said: ” 50% of the population did not read ONE SINGLE BOOK last year.”
I would bet that 50% included President Bush, but, his spin artists would counter that he read a children’s book to school children… We all saw it on video, so, I would probably lose that bet… :-)
Posted by: David R. Remer at October 12, 2004 03:08 PMDavid —
Yes, but did he finish the book? He certainly had a good excuse if he didn’t….
Posted by: Alejo at October 12, 2004 03:12 PMHenry,
No matter what we do, 10 % of the people will ALWAYS be in the bottom 10% of the population in income. That is a mathematical fact. You can talk about people being left behind all you want, but, the fact is, even the poorest members of society have a higher standard of living than the wealthiest people did in the past.
As for tax cuts forcing wages lower, that is nonsense. Regretably, we have minimum wage laws that prevent wages from dropping below a certain point; those laws are what hurt the unskilled workers. Why should a company be forced to pay a higher wage to an unskilled worker? That is economic suicide.
I didn’t realize that slavery was still going on in the US. Where is that? While starvation and homelessness are problems, they are much smaller problems than ever before, and those are problems that are unlikely to be completely eliminated in a free society.
David,
I beg to differ; the masters in the northern states did voluntarily stop practicing slavery. They then imposed their views on the southern states. Even though we fought the Civil war, that does not change the fact that the abolition of slavery was from within our society; it was not due to a slave revolt. And, I didn’t say that discrimination ended just because slavery was outlawed. That took a long time and many court battles. Of course, there are some bigots out there even today, but they are on the fringes of society, not in the mainstream. My words are still true: our society is the only one that voluntarily stopped practicing slavery.
Posted by: Troy at October 12, 2004 03:30 PMDavid:
It’s apparent that you took offense at my skimming your finely tuned and painstakingly written post. I can see it in the way you generalize about the intellectual capacity of Bush supporters who you obviously place beneath your own vaunted scholarly level.
I can also see an unseemly academic arrogance in your perception of your own writing. You seem to be thinking, “How could someone skim MY writing…the worldly wisdom of David Remer…after I took MY time to dispense MY wisdom to those less fortunate than me. It cannot be that MY writing did not fully engage them—-it MUST be a problem with THEM….yes, the problem lies with those who have a different opinion than I have.”
You choose to exercise your free speech with a cheap stunt that insults pretty much half of our country. The irony is that while you write about my inability or laziness, along with that of other Bush supporters, to comprehend you, I’ve now been able to comprehend your true nature from your latest post.
I’d rather have been left with the better version of you that I thought I’d seen before.
Posted by: joebagodonuts at October 12, 2004 04:21 PMDavid & JBOD,
Boys, boys, boys. Calm down. It’s all a misunderstanding.
Will one of you please comment on Faiza’s blog or Zaid Al-Ali’s article and the insider view of Iraq?
Posted by: CER at October 12, 2004 04:38 PMTroy, beg all you wish. The fact that the South fought a civil war to keep slavery intact stands 180 degrees opposed to your assertion that our society gave up slavery voluntarily. You did not qualify from “fron an external power” so you statement stands untrue and unfactual. Rewrite it in your own mind all you wish, history opposes and common knowledge stands opposed.
Posted by: David R. Remer at October 12, 2004 05:17 PMjbod, fortunately for me, folks aren’t held responsible for how others read what they write. The article stands, everyone here is free to read it, skim it, mis read it, whatever, save copy it without attribution. One of the great things about living in America or any of dozens of other democracies on earth.
I always find it humorous though when someone casts aspersions on a group, and individuals choose to take it personally by including themselves in that group. Herds are fascinating, unless you are a cowboy driving them, then they are just boring.
Anyway, perhaps you will quote exactly what others say, and perhaps not. Up to you. Perhaps we can find agreement on other issues, despite my highly esteemed and haughty intellectual liberal affront to those who disdain such appearances. I assure you it is my ignorance about the world around me that drives my learning, and even conceding when I am mistaken or wrong. But, judge as you will.
Posted by: David R. Remer at October 12, 2004 05:27 PMDream on, David!
Our society, in its entirety, gave up slavery. The fact that one segment embraced it is unimportant because I was specifically speaking of our western civilization, not our western civilization with the exception of the south. Your latest post does nothing to change my basic point: the slaveholders, on their own (yes, the south went to war over it, but they lost!) gave up slavery. This is the only time that has happened on any continent, and slavery has existed on every continent.
Posted by: Troy at October 12, 2004 07:29 PMTroy, you mean it was taken away from them. But, spin it how you want. It is a public forum for all to see.
Posted by: David R. Remer at October 12, 2004 07:55 PMTroy,
While the poor will always be among us, it is also how a civlization will be judged. Source: Jesus
The intent of minimum wage is to force businesses to pay a livable wage that helps an American lifts themselve out of proverty not the government.
On slavery in the Western civilization just web search the many cases documented in the last century. Than we will talk.
Posted by: Henry Schlatman at October 12, 2004 11:00 PMTroy, if you consider Haiti a part of Western Civilization, as you rightly should, you should read the history of the slave revolution there that set them free. Bloody mess that was.
Posted by: David R. Remer at October 13, 2004 12:49 AMDavid and Troy,
Here is an article from 2003 right here in America about slavery still being active.
Ending Slavery in America
Just in case it does not link here is the web address: http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/149716_slaved.html
Posted by: Henry Schlatman at October 13, 2004 01:07 AMHenry,
The minimum wage laws actually restrict employment. With it, employers are forced to hire workers for more money than their skills dictate. Given that option, many employers will simply not hire the workers so that they don’t get less productivity than they are paying for. Also, the vast majority of people earning minimum wage are in households with incomes in excess of $50,000 per year. Minimum wage laws hurt our young and the unskilled; if they aren’t hired, they can’t very well get the necessary skills to earn higher incomes. Higher incomes come from acquiring skills. Here are links to three columns by economist Thomas Sowell dealing with the problems with minimum wage laws, the working poor, and living wage nonsense.
Thanks for the article, but it changes nothing. Certainly, some people are despicable and would do anything, including having slaves, but any such slavery is illegal and not government sanctioned. In fact, the mere fact that we get outraged over incidents outlined in the article proves the point: slavery is not accepted today.
David,
While Haiti may be in the western hemisphere, I don’t recall ever hearing it described as part of western civilization.
Understand oneself before trying to understand others.
Posted by: sreekesh menon at October 13, 2004 11:10 PMDavid
You and I agree and disagree frequently. On this we agree. Your article is well written and to the point.
We will however be responsible for the blood bath in Iraq that will follow our leaving. On this I have come to the conclusion, oh well.
Our advantage in Afganistan was the relitive poverty and lack of education of that country, and the overtly repressive regieme probably helped a little too. We may still have a chance here to create a democracy, but I doubt it.
Iraq is another story however. Not a few of the population there have lived with western luxuries, the types of things that an oil economy can bring you. This will cause unrest and bloodshed for generations to come. History, I fear will see this adventure as one of the most colossal failures of all times. I now think that the harder we push, the worse it will become.
As far as the rest of the Middle East and Asia, the colonial powers were only able to succeed only so far with the heathens.
Throughout the east, men are capable of feeling rich without owning anything, this is a foreign concept to a capatalist society.
The only way we will be able to have a truely global society is to do it their way not ours.
A man that doesn’t have running water doesn’t feel the need of a dishwasher.
Posted by: Rocky at October 14, 2004 12:18 AMTroy, Haiti is a democracy and it is in the western hemisphere. So what prevents it from being a civilization, exactly, the fact that it is a largely black population?
Your response is inexplicable. Or is it?
Posted by: David R. Remer at October 14, 2004 07:37 AMTroy,
Check your economic history, please!
Every time minmum wage has been increased in this country our economy has boomed. Although there is a balancing act to carrying out the implmentation of the increase, it causes revenues to increase in local, state, and federal taxes; in consumtion of goods and services; and in savings.
Under Clinton we wittnessed two or three MW’s which like you the opposition said it would cost jobs, etc. Yet, the economy rose by several points as our GDP grew.
As far as employers having to hire people that do not work, I direct you to your local Wal-Mart store where asking a clerk to help you find something is an adventure. Yes, some people do not deserve the money they get paid; however, this problem is not just a MW issue. How many repairmen, doctors, and lawyers fall into this same group? No, bad work habits, lack of intellegence, etc. is the leading causes in that isse not the cost of forcing a livable wage out of an employer.
Besides, is it fair for me as a businessman, who pays my employees above a livable wage to have to pay increased taxes because you as a businessman wants to pay your employees a wage that forces them to get public assistance? No, finding a way where both of us and our employees can all make a livable wage and increase our opportunities in life is alot better than causing our government to keep increasing taxes to handle the problems caused by our stubborness to think intellegently.
Posted by: Henry Schlatman at October 14, 2004 08:52 AMDavid,
I expected better from you than to imply that I am a racist. That is a cheap shot.
Go look at any western civilization textbook; I don’t think you will find any references to Haiti. By your reasoning, Brazil, Mexico, etc. would be included in western civilization too, yet they are not thought of in that way.
Also, a slave revolt in Haiti changes nothing in my argument; one country does not a civilization make. You are deliberately ignoring all of the other countries that do make up western civilization. Those other countries did put an end to slavery many years after Haiti’s revolt.
I’m sorry, Troy, but you simply lack facts. All democracies are considered part of western civilization. In addition, you artfully dodged my directing to you to Great Britain. Zulu uprising and how about India - talk about western civilization being thrown back for enslaving a people, it is the grandest example of them all.
You took a position which is indefensible, it got holes shot through it that one could drive a truck through, and yet, you are unwilling to concede that you got this one wrong. This simply means that it is pointless to debate with you on this topic, since, you refuse to acknowledge any facts or counter-arguments which weaken your position regardless of their veracity and ubiquitious acceptance.
Go ahead, get the last word. This debate has demonstrated all that it can about the topic and the debaters.
Posted by: David R. Remer at October 14, 2004 09:21 AMDavid,
Your spinning is making me dizzy. It is truly incomprehensible how you can hold fast to your weak arguments. You again resort to cheap shots; I expected better.
Posted by: Troy at October 14, 2004 09:38 AMA fascinating and generally elevating conversation going on here based on Mr. Remer’s thoughtful article. As someone who has spent most of his adult working life living in SE Asia, Africa or the Middle East in “development” work, I generally agree with Remer’s position regarding the ultimate motivation of the “traditionalists” vs. the “modernists” (not terribly accurate terms but they may suffice for the purposes of this missive). However, it should be stressed that 1) there is a real continuum of popular feelings in the Third World about “globalization” or “Westernization” or whatever label is festooned on the complex, growing integration of the world economically, culturally, and even physically (telephony, modern transportation) from avid support to deep alienation and 2) that this process has actually facilitated the very reaction to it (primarily through the Net, the media and modern transport). In addition, I would take issue with the notion raised by some posters that the world is becoming more homogenized: this process is very much a two-way street in many ways. Jakarta MacDonalds serve far more bowls of rice than they do bags of french fries. But these superficialities aside, what we are seeing is partly a reaction not so much to change, which is an inevitable part of human experience, but the incredible pace of change and the blaring cacophany of this change as experienced in the 24/7 multimedia bombardment in the lives not only of the West but increasngly also in the great and smaller cities of the Third World. And some of these may have counterintuitive effects. Some modest farmer groups in Maharashtra State in India use Internet cafes to track commodity prices so as to avoid or better bargain with the often manipulative middlemen traders that used to gouge them. I doubt that they resent the intrusion of the Net on their lives.
This is not meant to be a justification of either globalization or certainly the despicable war against Iraq launched by Bush. However, it should be noted that the Roman Empire and the Caliphate (so beloved by the Islamists) were truly the “globalizations” of their era. Both eventually “collapsed” or more accurately evolved into something else. Eventually, and probably far more rapidly than these older empires, due to our immigrant-based, polyglot culture, we will evolve into something that is not the warped conservative and truly “reactionary” political culture that seems rampant today if only because the intense information flows and exchanges of goods and people really do flow two-ways not one way.
Keep the conversation going.
Posted by: Cairo Jim at October 15, 2004 06:57 AM
