If America were Iraq, I and all of my neighbors would recognize who the real enemy are. Every city in America would take law enforcement into their own hands if necessary. If Jerry Falwell turned into an al-Sadr, he and his ilk would not be long for this world, even if he claims he does speak for God. He would have died long ago in a gunfight at the OK Corral. We would not be blinded by hatred of the Russians, and blame all of our problems on them. Our houses would not be bombed because we would have already purged them of these (dare I say) evil-doers. You know, the ones who are setting off car bombs left and right, killing all of our young men trying to sign up for duty to defend us, and killing all of our innocent women and children in the process. If it had been Americans who took over that school in Beslan, Russia and committed such horrific and grisly atrocities in our name, we would not only condemn the act, we would go after the attackers ourselves and take them out. Unfortunately, the Muslim world is not like us. Many share the views of that Iraqi woman who performed in the Olympics a couple of weeks ago who had nothing but hatred for Americans. You know, those evil Americans who liberated her country from an evil dictator, thus giving her new found rights to actually go to the Olympics and not be tortured for performing badly, or being Uday sex slave.
I really wish people would start getting a little perspective.
I think it's important to be aware that our own personal perspectives will never match everyone else's. Perspective lives in that, dare I say, "gray realm". It is not black and white. Within our own country not everyone agrees about things, let alone throughout the world. The whole supposed reason the US is in Iraq is to give them freedom (or to protect our "vital interests" depending on when or where you bring it up). Well, according to my definition, freedom includes having the right to hate people, complain about them and make comments that will make them angry. We all do it every day, and it can sometimes even lead to change for the better. Is Iraq's new freedom supposed to be different than ours, only partial, only freedom in the sense that the US is right and good and never makes mistakes, only freedom if their democracy bears perfect resemblence to ours?
There's something about being able to walk in the shoes of others to having/getting perspective. The above Juan Cole blurb is simply a way of thinking outside of the box, or, hearing a different perspective (although it might leave a bad taste for some).
The funny thing about all of these discussions about politics is that all these words we argue about (freedom, terror, nationalism, etc.) fall within the "gray realm". They are defined by each of us in very different ways. For me, freedom means something completely different than for everyone else on the blog, as do all the other things we discuss having to do with arguments. What's the point to discussing anything if we are all expected to be so black and white?
An interesting book, "On Dialogue" by David Bohm might need to be a prerequisite for all of us on this blog. Click for a bit more info. Very interesting indeed.
The purpose of blogs is to give people an opportunity to take turns sharing their views freely. I'm very interested in listening to other views as well as sharing my own. Free exchange of ideas is a powerful thing.
The Juan Cole article was very thought-provoking and asked the question what if America were Iraq. I was attempting to answer that question: the American people would not stand for it, and would take up arms against the insurgents. Unfortunately for the Iraqi people, they've been oppressed for decades and may be somewhat paralyzed by such prospects. I, like every other American (including conservatives), want the Iraqi people to have freedom, human rights and dignity, a peaceful society, and opportunity for prosperity. Americans wish this for everyone on the planet. Al-Qaeda and the insurgents in Iraq do not. The Iraqi people have much better hopes now for realizing these things now that Saddam is gone. The Iraqi Olympic athlete was exercising her new found rights to free speech, whether she's realized it or not. I welcome her comments, even though I find them misguided. The fate of the Iraqi people are in the hands of the Iraqi people, and Al-Qaeda operative Zarqawi and the other insurgents in Iraq know this. That is why they target police recruits - those who are signing up to keeping the peace. That is why they target oil pipelines - that is the Iraqi people's pipeline for realizing prosperity. The insurgents MUST keep people in fear of leaving their homes, using the highways, taking leadership roles, etc. People must be kept in their place in order to be dominated and controlled. Saddam ruled in similar ways. I'm sure if you interviewed Iraqis on the street you'd probably hear from those (whose family members were not kidnapped, tortured, killed) who'd say life was better under Saddam before sanctions. They didn't have random car bombs going off. But I think that view is a little short sighted.
I'm in the process of preparing my answers to your questions! I've gotten all excited now and you might want to prepare for a LONG post. I like your questions....very worth having a "dialogue" about. Anyone else have their own answer to Jeff's questions? They are deeply thought provoking, and considering the many theories about language, I think I've gotten caught up in the question re: dictionaries! Anyway, more to come later.
First off, for me, values also reside in the gray area. I can honestly say that I’m an ethical/moral relativist. And, I can also say that I’m not at all ashamed. Also, I’m not answering all the questions, but I might later…they have ended up taking me too much time!
Can a human civilization exist with each individual having complete freedom of perspective, especially in regards to right/wrong (values) or what is legal/illegal (law)?A nation/city/state/group can set up a list of what it considers to be “right/wrong”, but I don’t think it will never be consistently followed by the group as a whole. I think this is because we all exist in our own sphere as well as within several others (family, neighborhood, city, state, nation, world). Within our personal sphere, our rights are what we make them. If we act on them, they become part of a group experience. We can do whatever we want as long as we’re prepared for whatever consequences the group we’ve acted within has set up. Do I have the right to use "Hate Speech" and say words like "niggers", "hebe" ? Do I have a right to Cuss? Do I have the right to yell "fire" in a crowded theater? I think it depends on who you ask (relativist talking again), I don’t do that, I don’t like to hang out with people who do (a right of mine), well, never mind about the cussing…I do it and I hang out with people who do! Depending on which sphere/circle you act within, all of these things might be acceptable (or not).
Is setting off bombs and killing people in protest also an appropriate form of expression of opinion? I haven’t decided. I wouldn’t do it, but I sometimes feel like I can understand why someone might…I don’t know if I can say it’s wrong (I know, I know, once I have children I’ll understand that it’s wrong!). Really, though, militaries set off bombs and kill people every day in protest of protesters. I can’t decide if the military is wrong, the individual with no hope is wrong, both are wrong, or everyone’s right and we should blow each other to bits. It’s very disturbing. Why do we have dictionaries? Defining words that aren’t emotional (like, “log” for example”) is very simple. Dictionaries are great for that. But upon delving into the other world of words, they have no use. Words that are used for more than simple description of ‘things’ cannot be defined in a dictionary—and they are usually much more interesting too! Ask someone to define a feeling…it’s hard, but it’s fun! Dictionaries are fun too, but only to find and use as many big non-emotional words as possible. Why speak the same language at all? So we don’t have to grow around grunting at each other? No really, it seems obvious: to convey meaning. Conveying meaning though, doesn’t have to mean changing people’s minds. It should be OK to find our own meaning and do our best to respect others’. Do all cultual/political systems have the same latitude to define these concepts? Yes. That doesn’t mean that I agree with everyone’s idea of what is right/wrong in the world, but there is something to be said for trying to understand other perspectives (again with relativism!).
What is a "Culture War" fought over?In our nation? Things that aren’t a big deal in the scheme of things but keep everyone’s mind off of more sizeable problems.
If America were Iraq, I and all of my neighbors would recognize who the real enemy are. Every city in America would take law enforcement into their own hands if necessary. If Jerry Falwell turned into an al-Sadr, he and his ilk would not be long for this world, even if he claims he does speak for God. He would have died long ago in a gunfight at the OK Corral. We would not be blinded by hatred of the Russians, and blame all of our problems on them. Our houses would not be bombed because we would have already purged them of these (dare I say) evil-doers. You know, the ones who are setting off car bombs left and right, killing all of our young men trying to sign up for duty to defend us, and killing all of our innocent women and children in the process. If it had been Americans who took over that school in Beslan, Russia and committed such horrific and grisly atrocities in our name, we would not only condemn the act, we would go after the attackers ourselves and take them out.
Unfortunately, the Muslim world is not like us. Many share the views of that Iraqi woman who performed in the Olympics a couple of weeks ago who had nothing but hatred for Americans. You know, those evil Americans who liberated her country from an evil dictator, thus giving her new found rights to actually go to the Olympics and not be tortured for performing badly, or being Uday sex slave.
I really wish people would start getting a little perspective.
It's Amy.
I think it's important to be aware that our own personal perspectives will never match everyone else's. Perspective lives in that, dare I say, "gray realm". It is not black and white. Within our own country not everyone agrees about things, let alone throughout the world. The whole supposed reason the US is in Iraq is to give them freedom (or to protect our "vital interests" depending on when or where you bring it up). Well, according to my definition, freedom includes having the right to hate people, complain about them and make comments that will make them angry. We all do it every day, and it can sometimes even lead to change for the better. Is Iraq's new freedom supposed to be different than ours, only partial, only freedom in the sense that the US is right and good and never makes mistakes, only freedom if their democracy bears perfect resemblence to ours?
There's something about being able to walk in the shoes of others to having/getting perspective. The above Juan Cole blurb is simply a way of thinking outside of the box, or, hearing a different perspective (although it might leave a bad taste for some).
The funny thing about all of these discussions about politics is that all these words we argue about (freedom, terror, nationalism, etc.) fall within the "gray realm". They are defined by each of us in very different ways. For me, freedom means something completely different than for everyone else on the blog, as do all the other things we discuss having to do with arguments. What's the point to discussing anything if we are all expected to be so black and white?
An interesting book, "On Dialogue" by David Bohm might need to be a prerequisite for all of us on this blog. Click for a bit more info. Very interesting indeed.
The purpose of blogs is to give people an opportunity to take turns sharing their views freely. I'm very interested in listening to other views as well as sharing my own. Free exchange of ideas is a powerful thing.
The Juan Cole article was very thought-provoking and asked the question what if America were Iraq. I was attempting to answer that question: the American people would not stand for it, and would take up arms against the insurgents. Unfortunately for the Iraqi people, they've been oppressed for decades and may be somewhat paralyzed by such prospects. I, like every other American (including conservatives), want the Iraqi people to have freedom, human rights and dignity, a peaceful society, and opportunity for prosperity. Americans wish this for everyone on the planet. Al-Qaeda and the insurgents in Iraq do not. The Iraqi people have much better hopes now for realizing these things now that Saddam is gone. The Iraqi Olympic athlete was exercising her new found rights to free speech, whether she's realized it or not. I welcome her comments, even though I find them misguided. The fate of the Iraqi people are in the hands of the Iraqi people, and Al-Qaeda operative Zarqawi and the other insurgents in Iraq know this. That is why they target police recruits - those who are signing up to keeping the peace. That is why they target oil pipelines - that is the Iraqi people's pipeline for realizing prosperity. The insurgents MUST keep people in fear of leaving their homes, using the highways, taking leadership roles, etc. People must be kept in their place in order to be dominated and controlled. Saddam ruled in similar ways. I'm sure if you interviewed Iraqis on the street you'd probably hear from those (whose family members were not kidnapped, tortured, killed) who'd say life was better under Saddam before sanctions. They didn't have random car bombs going off. But I think that view is a little short sighted.
Hi Jeff,
I'm in the process of preparing my answers to your questions! I've gotten all excited now and you might want to prepare for a LONG post. I like your questions....very worth having a "dialogue" about. Anyone else have their own answer to Jeff's questions? They are deeply thought provoking, and considering the many theories about language, I think I've gotten caught up in the question re: dictionaries! Anyway, more to come later.
Also, YIPEE, I have my own account!!
First off, for me, values also reside in the gray area. I can honestly say that I’m an ethical/moral relativist. And, I can also say that I’m not at all ashamed. Also, I’m not answering all the questions, but I might later…they have ended up taking me too much time!
Can a human civilization exist with each individual having complete freedom of perspective, especially in regards to right/wrong (values) or what is legal/illegal (law)?A nation/city/state/group can set up a list of what it considers to be “right/wrong”, but I don’t think it will never be consistently followed by the group as a whole. I think this is because we all exist in our own sphere as well as within several others (family, neighborhood, city, state, nation, world). Within our personal sphere, our rights are what we make them. If we act on them, they become part of a group experience. We can do whatever we want as long as we’re prepared for whatever consequences the group we’ve acted within has set up.
Do I have the right to use "Hate Speech" and say words like "niggers", "hebe" ?
Do I have a right to Cuss?
Do I have the right to yell "fire" in a crowded theater?
I think it depends on who you ask (relativist talking again), I don’t do that, I don’t like to hang out with people who do (a right of mine), well, never mind about the cussing…I do it and I hang out with people who do! Depending on which sphere/circle you act within, all of these things might be acceptable (or not).
Is setting off bombs and killing people in protest also an appropriate form of expression of opinion?
I haven’t decided. I wouldn’t do it, but I sometimes feel like I can understand why someone might…I don’t know if I can say it’s wrong (I know, I know, once I have children I’ll understand that it’s wrong!). Really, though, militaries set off bombs and kill people every day in protest of protesters. I can’t decide if the military is wrong, the individual with no hope is wrong, both are wrong, or everyone’s right and we should blow each other to bits. It’s very disturbing.
Why do we have dictionaries?
Defining words that aren’t emotional (like, “log” for example”) is very simple. Dictionaries are great for that. But upon delving into the other world of words, they have no use. Words that are used for more than simple description of ‘things’ cannot be defined in a dictionary—and they are usually much more interesting too! Ask someone to define a feeling…it’s hard, but it’s fun! Dictionaries are fun too, but only to find and use as many big non-emotional words as possible.
Why speak the same language at all?
So we don’t have to grow around grunting at each other? No really, it seems obvious: to convey meaning. Conveying meaning though, doesn’t have to mean changing people’s minds. It should be OK to find our own meaning and do our best to respect others’.
Do all cultual/political systems have the same latitude to define these concepts?
Yes. That doesn’t mean that I agree with everyone’s idea of what is right/wrong in the world, but there is something to be said for trying to understand other perspectives (again with relativism!).
What is a "Culture War" fought over?In our nation? Things that aren’t a big deal in the scheme of things but keep everyone’s mind off of more sizeable problems.
» Post a Comment