Author
|
Topic: My Overwhelming Sadness For America
|
Gaia_Child
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3015
|
posted 14 December 2003 06:21 PM
I feel such a profound sadness for the United States, and for the other Western countries which have stood so resolutely behind the White House.I worry that the Bush/Blair unilateralism and privatization piracy risk severe repercussions for Western publics. In terms of an Arab or Muslim backlash that could take a disastrous, even thermonulcear, form. Much of the Western public, so easily swayed by patriotism, media propaganda and plain narrow-mindedness, cannot seem to see how the Iraqi invasion played in the Arab and Muslim world. How starting a war based on enormous lies undermines the very credibility of the West. How Bush and Blair couching the war so clearly in terms of "Good" and "Evil", and "God" and "Country" inflames the Islamic believer, and the Arab nationalist. I am saddened by the continued susceptibility of the Western public to appeals to the White Man's Burden. And by the continued refusal of most Westerners to look as critically on Western-caused atrocities as they do on Islam-caused horrors. By the continuing inability of the Anglo-American Middle to feel discomfort at the insanity of their own societies. The U.S. could never control Vietnam, because the U.S. refused to identify with the Anger of the Colonized. Israel cannot stop the violence of the Gaza for the same reason. Any Zionist or carpet-bombing anti-Communist can find rhetorical reasons to dismiss their "enemies" cause. Any Zionist or 1960s anti-Communist could comfort themselves in moral outrage at Tel Aviv suicides and Viet-Cong dirty tricks. But the Moral Certainty of the Empire doesn't quell the Anger of the Other. It only feeds it. I am afraid about what the future may hold. What strange brew will come from the mix of Western arrogance and Arab anger. I find the human species very odd, ugly, enormously able to self-deceive and deny. I feel great embarassment at belonging to this species. This stupid, short-sighted, greedy ape. Yet, at the same time, I cannot quell my enormous concern for humanity's Fate. I would not feel such overwhelming worry, if at the core, I did not also feel a great measure of Love.
From: Western Canada | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rufus Polson
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3308
|
posted 15 December 2003 02:08 AM
Gaia Child, I think you're expecting a lot of people. What are we supposed to be, here? Avatars of a perfectly rational supreme deity created in His image, or something? No. We're just these critters who, like essentially all other critters, are basically obsessed with getting more and making more of ourselves. And we happen to have acquired this cool dodge, this extra cleverness, which lets us do it way bigger time than all the other critters. Yay us, sort of. So here we are, we're these mutants capable of getting more lolly than anything else out there can; it frankly amazes me that we ever show the slightest glimmerings of anything like wisdom, even formed the concept at all. I'm really not surprised that we hardly ever let it guide our collective decision making.But by the same token, I doubt an intelligent seagull, or crow, or raccoon, or wolverine, or caribou, or tuberculosis bacillus, or what have you, would be doing any better. They all take what they can get, they're all held in balance by other things that take back from them--for that matter, in the case of many, it's a fluctuating balance, where in some years they get numerous and in other years they're pared back. I was going to say that the difference with us is that we've broken that balance, but I'm not at all sure we have. It's just fluctuating rather wider in the case of humanity; as we erode the world's carrying capacity, we're gonna get pared back eventually. The four horsemen gonna ride. But again, that doesn't necessarily mean we, or the ecosphere, will be wiped out. Just pared back heavily. It'll be a horrible time to live through, I expect. But I also expect there'll be something on the other side.
From: Caithnard College | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Gir Draxon
leftist-rightie and rightist-leftie
Babbler # 3804
|
posted 16 December 2003 12:32 AM
Bush/Blair unilateralism?? HUH?USA + UK = bilateral (bi- 2) USA + UK + AUS + 32 others = multilateral, right? quote: Much of the Western public, so easily swayed by patriotism, media propaganda and plain narrow-mindedness, cannot seem to see how the Iraqi invasion played in the Arab and Muslim world.
You may have a point here, but the anti-war movement's hands are not clean. There are BOTH happy and rejoicing Iraqis AND angry and resentful ones. Both "sides" only represent one side- Bush & co. with their rose colored glasses and the anti-war movement with their doom and gloom. The fact is that neither are true, and that both sides are attempting to brainwash a somewhat apathetic populace. quote: How starting a war based on enormous lies undermines the very credibility of the West. How Bush and Blair couching the war so clearly in terms of "Good" and "Evil", and "God" and "Country" inflames the Islamic believer, and the Arab nationalist.
What were they supposed to do? Its a WAR. Of course they are going to "inflame" those on the other side. quote: I am saddened by the continued susceptibility of the Western public to appeals to the White Man's Burden. And by the continued refusal of most Westerners to look as critically on Western-caused atrocities as they do on Islam-caused horrors. By the continuing inability of the Anglo-American Middle to feel discomfort at the insanity of their own societies.
Is it White Man's Burden, or is it a refusal to look the other way because Hussein in Iraq (allegedly) could never have harmed people in Europe and NA? We do too much looking the other way in my opinion. And don't think that doesn't apply to "allies" of the USA such as Saudi Arabia.
From: Arkham Asylum | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
al-Qa'bong
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3807
|
posted 16 December 2003 02:04 AM
quote: What were they supposed to do? Its a WAR. Of course they are going to "inflame" those on the other side.
Some definitions are needed. What's a war? I'm serious. What part of what the US government and its followers (who seem to behave as one - quite less than the sum of their parts) are doing is conducting "The WAR" and what is something else? Who is "the other side"? How can you tell?
From: Saskatchistan | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Agent 204
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4668
|
posted 16 December 2003 07:47 AM
quote: Originally posted by Rufus Polson: Gaia Child, I think you're expecting a lot of people. What are we supposed to be, here? Avatars of a perfectly rational supreme deity created in His image, or something? No. We're just these critters who, like essentially all other critters, are basically obsessed with getting more and making more of ourselves. I was going to say that the difference with us is that we've broken that balance, but I'm not at all sure we have. It's just fluctuating rather wider in the case of humanity; as we erode the world's carrying capacity, we're gonna get pared back eventually. The four horsemen gonna ride. But again, that doesn't necessarily mean we, or the ecosphere, will be wiped out. Just pared back heavily. It'll be a horrible time to live through, I expect. But I also expect there'll be something on the other side.
This is my view, more or less. I think a lot of progressive people expect too much of humans, and figure that we should magically "do the right thing" because we're smarter. Our intelligence is just another adaptation, and like any other adaptation, it can backfire. It wouldn't be the first time. When microorganisms first developed photosynthesis, around a million years ago, they had an immediate advantage over their competitors, but they unleashed a biological catastrophe that has never been exceeded, before or since, because a byproduct of their adaptation was oxygen, and it poisoned the world. The world recovered from that, and it will recover from us. Whether or not we will is unclear, but like you I have hope.
From: home of the Guess Who | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478
|
posted 16 December 2003 09:06 AM
Every once in a while, Gaia, I am overwhelmed by feelings very like the vision you've laid out so carefully above. At the moment, I especially share your sense of dread -- I also fear that bad things are about to happen to people who are not bad but just refuse to see from any perspective but their own.And then, of course, no guarantees that anyone else will be spared either. We can't go on. We must go on. We go on. Slight drift -- question to Mike Keenan: quote: When microorganisms first developed photosynthesis, around a million years ago, they had an immediate advantage over their competitors, but they unleashed a biological catastrophe that has never been exceeded, before or since, because a byproduct of their adaptation was oxygen, and it poisoned the world.
Just before this happened, what was in the world that was to be poisoned by oxygen?
From: gone | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
DrConway
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 490
|
posted 16 December 2003 03:07 PM
Anaerobes, incidentally, operate off sulphides, do they not? Anyway, one thing I have been less than sanguine about is the continued survival of the Anglo-American portion of the continent. I said in 1997 that "North America is dying". That may have been an overstatement, but since then I think I am probably still correct. The US's continued reliance on military spending, while it frees Canada of the same requirement, nevertheless binds us to a common fate if the US disintegrates in any degree - and certainly, the US economy is feeling the effects of a sustained redirection of government spending into, essentially, unproductive expenditures, since the goods produced and the services rendered have no counterpart in the civilian sector. A country that once built a highway network under the rubric of allegedly military needs now can no longer adequately maintain those roads. A country that once set itself the goal of being better than the Soviet Union is now becoming a cracked-mirror image of that other nation.
From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
arborman
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4372
|
posted 16 December 2003 06:46 PM
I have a similar sensation quite often. I get overwhelmed by the sheer scope and destructiveness of the mistakes that humans are able to make as a species.For about 5000 years we have been struggling with developing ways to live in large groups, without destroying the carrying capacity of the world around us, and without destroying the groups we are trying to build. I suspect it has gone on for more than 30000 years, but the first 25K or so didn't do as well (at developing larger and more complex societies). I often fear that we are about to reach the limits of this current social experiment, and see some serious shrinkage and collapse of the international scene, and particularly international economics. I don't think it will be pretty, no civilisational collapse ever has been. As for what to do about it, I don't know. None of us can change the world alone, we might not be able to change it collectively. I have come to the conclusion that it is beside the point. All we can do is try to contribute to the experiment this time round, and hope that it either works, or at least doesn't make it impossible for any future societal experiments to happen (for humans anyway). One of my favourite books is called "The Man in the High Castle" by Philp K. Dick. The premise is that the Axis won WWII, and it takes place in Japanese controlled Western USA. While I can't go into the brilliant concepts of colonised/coloniser etc. that the book explores, one of the main issues of the book was essentially how humans remained human within the context of a world that was about to be completely dominated by Nazi ideology and practices. Essentially, there was no hope for the world, but the characters still faced individual moral and ethical decisions and dilemmas. Brilliant novel, and what I took out of it was the basic concept that we have to be as ethical and moral as possible, regardless of the eventual outcome on the global scale. We might not be able to save the world, or even just keep it going for another 20 years. We might not be able to do anything at all, and someone might push a button or start a chain of events that destroys it for good. That doesn't remove our role in making decisions and performing actions that will contribute, in some way, to finding a way out of the current mess. A digression, but I sometimes think that one of the biggest weaknesses on the left and in the center is fatigue when faced with massive issues like this. So many of us see the world and world events that are well beyond our control, feel like we can't do anything to change it, and give up, more or less. Move to the burbs, focus on mortgage payments etcetera, and hope it all works out, and that the right wingnuts don't do too much damage while they have control. Part of Western culture's fixation with heroes and quick fixes, rather than thoughtful discussion and gradual development of solutions to complex problems. If we can't fix it all at once, it can't be fixed (eg. poverty).
From: I'm a solipsist - isn't everyone? | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Agent 204
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4668
|
posted 16 December 2003 08:48 PM
quote: Originally posted by arborman: I often fear that we are about to reach the limits of this current social experiment, and see some serious shrinkage and collapse of the international scene, and particularly international economics. I don't think it will be pretty, no civilisational collapse ever has been. As for what to do about it, I don't know. None of us can change the world alone, we might not be able to change it collectively. I have come to the conclusion that it is beside the point. All we can do is try to contribute to the experiment this time round, and hope that it either works, or at least doesn't make it impossible for any future societal experiments to happen (for humans anyway).
We can certainly try to contribute to the experiment (indeed we must) but we should also be doing something else. We should do our utmost to prevent collapse, but we should also prepare for the possibility that it will happen. And I don't mean simply stockpiling goods like the survivalists (though that might well have to be part of it) but stockpiling information (hard copies, of course). You mentioned that Phillip K. Dick novel, I've got a recommendation of my own- A Canticle for Liebowitz by Walter Miller. It takes place many centuries after a nuclear war, and centres around a Catholic monestary devoted to the Liebowitz of the title. Liebowitz was a scientist who had stockpiled information to rebuild civilization, but the new civilization that arises heads down a similar path. What strikes me about the novel is that Liebowitz himself was too narrow in his selection- he included (rightly) all the important scientific works that he could, but perhaps part of the problem was that that was all he included. A good Liebowitz wannabe should look at stockpiling other works as well- works of history, philosophy, and politics. In short, we should look at trying to start the next experiment off on a better foot than this one. [ 16 December 2003: Message edited by: Mike Keenan ]
From: home of the Guess Who | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
arborman
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4372
|
posted 16 December 2003 11:20 PM
I read that book as well. I think the problem this time out is resources. We are using them all, a civilization that would follow any apocalyptic event would be hamstrung from the start. We've dug up almost all of the easy to reach stuff. Focusing on keeping this experiment going, but redirecting it to more sustainable and humanist (as opposed to unsustainable and inhuman) is what I try to focus on. We have a lot of amazing things here, and some really awful things. Protect the amazing, work to remove the awful. It may all be pointless, but everything is, ultimately. Might as well concentrate on making things better. What I did at work today could be irrelevant, it could make a small difference. I can't make a big difference, so I have to accept the small one for now and try to work with enough people to make a big one later. If it turns out badly that's better than acting surprised when there isn't any gas left for my SUV or food for my kid 20 years from now.
From: I'm a solipsist - isn't everyone? | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
lagatta
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2534
|
posted 17 December 2003 02:31 PM
Arborman, I'm trying to get an EU passport - I'm much happier when I'm in Europe. However if you are attached to BC, remember you have a lot to lose. Even in Vancouver, you are very close to the mountains and the sea, and despite all the horrific suburban sprawl in your beautiful region - what they did down in the paradise of California is sadder still - you are still not too far from relatively unspoilt nature. A lot of the forests I've been to in Europe are replanted in straight lines and as neat as a well-tended urban park. In the Low Countries there seems to be no "real" nature at all. Many North Americans would find themselves cramped in prosperous Western European cities - even my friends who have relatively highly-paid professional jobs, such as full-time journalists or full professors, live in relatively small flats. Some have country houses. This has improved somewhat if you have a portable job and are prepared to live in a smaller town or village, with information technology, but such places tend to be insular, and while polite, reserved towards folks from "away", even if they are from another region of the same country. I'm a hardcore urbanite, but people who like space and the outdoors could feel very stifled in prosperous European cities. It is a pleasure to see relatively little evidence of dire poverty, though there is social exclusion in the housing estates of London and the immigrant suburbs of Paris. And there are regions that are as sad as abandoned rust belt towns in North America - in the North of England, Northern France, the former East Germany etc.
From: Se non ora, quando? | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
arborman
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4372
|
posted 17 December 2003 03:15 PM
I agree. To be honest I like much of Eastern Europe more than the west, for some reason.There is a lot in Vancouver and its environs that I am willing to fight to protect, of course. However, I have family in Greece, and may look that way someday... Drifting a bit here.
From: I'm a solipsist - isn't everyone? | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gaia_Child
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3015
|
posted 17 December 2003 03:27 PM
First of all, I want to thank everyone for their responses. I especially appreciated your insights, Rufus. I find it quite ironic, actually. When I read your post, I recalled that only a week before, I had provided a similar analysis to my in-despair friend. We were discussing why humans cannot respond honestly to debates on major world issues (ie. modify and adapt their belief structures and opinions when faced with contradictory, but true, information.) And, equally important, why people cannot seem to think outside of the intellectual and cultural boxes which they inhabit. And I replied to my friend, "When confronted with human dysfunction, always remember that we are just big-brained apes. Just baboons who can do calculus. And then most of the contradictions and injustices in human behaviour will seem less perplexing, and hence, emotionally more manageable." We weren't creatures who evolved to bring abstract and complete Justice and Love. We were creatures who evolved to survive and reproduce.
From: Western Canada | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|