Martin?! Isn't Afrikaans your mother tongue? The kids at school made fun of you for speaking English with an Afrikaans (/Dutch) accent, no?!
... Heroclitus, the angosphere drove it into pieces! That's at least what I think. You clearly are going to disagree, so I kindely would want to ask you to share your thoughts.
I'm not a fan of the abstract Churchillian notion of an Anglo-Saxon race and its supposed interconnections and obligations, as you know, but I'm curious -- what was "driven into pieces" by the US and UK, and how? I'm looking for pointed critiques on specific issues.
I think that the problem of Iraq should have been dealt with by a multinational force, including the USA, the UK, France and Germany. I think this would have constrained the USA from its pathetic an ineffective "shock and awe" strategy and resulted in a much more effective 'hearts and minds" strategy, similar to that eventually employed by Petraeus, but at a much earlier stage. At an early stage Tony Blair did enjoy some influence with Bush, and this was the Blair whose foreign policy was principled (like the intervention in Sierra Leone) and human rights based. He formed a useful axis with Powell against the thugs led by Cheney and Rumsfeld but eventually the thugs won out (until they themselves were sidelined in favour of more moderate people like Rice and the guy who stayed on under Obama - forgotten name). Blair may have ended up as a stooge of George Bush, but he started off as a genuine supporter of a war in Iraq to liberate Iraq from tyranny. Had France been in the game (let's leave Germany out for a minute because their pacifism is now becoming a form of aggressive economic nationlaism all by itself) then this axis could have been strengthened and a real bi-polar approach been followed. The Blair agenda that this was a struggle for human rights and to depose butchers and genocidal maniacs would have been more solid. Blair's eventual weakness in this area would have been avoided with such a European solidarity. The war in Iraq would have been more successfully prosecuted, with much less hatred than exists now, and an Iran that would be much more afraid of the next step by the democracies. What happened was that we got the worst of France - Gaullism - instead. When you have to chose between American exceptionalism and French exceptionalism, then you hold your nose and go and stand with the yanks. You're choosing between a nation that was actually decisive in WW2, standing up to tyranny and a nation that collaborated with Nazism and then, through De Gaulle, propagated the lie that France libeated itself with the Brits and Americans playing a minor role. What we got now was Gaullist posturing by Chirac, specifically aimed at exploiting populism amonst that nasty, nationalist, isolationist sector in France who prefer tyranny to "les anglo-saxons". This is the France that is offended by cultural brashness, and American arrogance, more than it is by gassed children and the piled high corpses of marsh arabs. In a wider sense Europe as a whole has to take the blame for the low esteem that democracy is currently held in globally, and probably not the UK and France in this sense. The USA dominates the globe, but pays to dominate the globe through its taxes. A European defence capability by liberal democracies in Europe should be de rigeur in a world which needs to develop openness, democracy and freedom. Countries like Germany need to cough up and pay the price. As India and China emerge as global superpowers in the next twenty years, European soft power, and the progressive values of democratic capitalism, need to be projected from a strong position of hard power. Left to the USA,the brand of democracy is crumbling, and this does not bode well for the future of either capitalism or freedom in the world. Growth and global prosperity (for everyone) will depend on the ability of entrepreneurs and capitalists to exploit markets in Asia and for many reasons that will only be enabled by the development of open societies in those parts of the world. Either the USA needs to re-brand, or Europe needs to step up to the plate and engage. For me the ideal is both. Sadly the likelihood of either is low, which is why the world is slowly acquiescing to protectionism, nationalism and tyranny.
I don't agree. The British Left is far less anti-religious than the US Left. Abortion is not the Left/Right issue in the UK to the extent it is in the USA with many Catholic leftists having problems with "abortion on demand up to birth". Many liberals and leftists are religious, to a much greater degree than in the USA. The ideology of the Labour Party is often said to be based on a curious mixture of Marxism and methodism. The British Left is actually very faithful to the traditions of the American Revolution. It does not acknowledge this, which is where I disagree with cenydd. It rejects the establishment of religion, as did the American Revolutionists. It rejects the irrational religiosity of the Christian Right, in the same way that Paine and Jefferson rejected the superstitions of christians in the eighteenth centuries. It was not always so in America. At one time - when Massachusetts executed the Boston Quakers - acts of religious persecution and assertions of religious power, were acts of Americans against the Crown. It is I believe British tolerance - learned through bitter experience of religious repression within England - that underpins a hostility to religous dogmatism in America. English puritanism was once so intolerant: as Cromwell became bloated with power and waded knee deep in the blood of Catholics and other religious followers. But from puritanism came the traditions that fed and nourished the English radical tradition of freethinking that Paine and Jefferson followed. This tradition is still strong amongst English radicals, myself included, and determines not only our tolerant attitude towards religious dissenters, but also our intolerance of those who will try and foist their strange and irrational views upon us. Those who reject evolution, deny that there is man-made global warming, dream that there are world governments meeting in secret and that the Revelation to St.John is the literal truth and being acted out before our very eyes, are in fact dangerous snake-oil salesmen and need to be denounced and marginalized at every opportunity. This is not hostility to religion. It is hostility to gobbledegook that some religious people, who are captivated by myth and mischief making, will impose on other religious people who strongly reject this pre-Enlightenment neo-papist garbage. Laus Deo Semper.
When the Christian Right in America starts cutting off heads, blowing up buses, and silencing cartoonists the opinions of Brits on the internal affairs of America will perhaps be welcomed. I come in contact with American Christians on a regular basis. They are not subject to stereotypes or caricatures. All of your hopes and dreams about a more just world based on Enlightenment values depend on European abilities to persuade a non-European world. I think you have a long and uncertain road ahead of you. Perhaps the New Zealanders and Australians will be willing to help.
That's a bit knee jerk for you Albert! Especially as I point out that Brits are NOT hostile to American Christians. Did you read carefully? Brits are much more tolerant of Christians than many American liberals. More Brits in my opinion are Christians and liberals. What is it you disagree with? Brits have a cultural clash - as you pointed out - with the fundamentalist Right. They are a minority and Brits are well aware of this, which is why I can say that we don't see our opposition as one to religion but to fundamentalism. What's your problem here? The opinions of Brits on the "internal affairs" of America are generally welcomed by whichever groups of Americans agree with them. Your views on the British Left are taken on their merits and I already pointed out that you had some insight which British people lacked about themselves. So relax! This is a board about ideas. Having a particular passport does not make you more right or wrong than anyone else. There are Americans who have never left their county who know zilch about the world outside. There are Americans who have traveled the world and understand its wide cultures in awesome depth. As there are non Americans. Their opinions stand or fall based on their reason and evidence. Nothing else. You'll get this. In 1776 everyone knew about their own nation and France. Today France is America. You don't agree but get over it. America is global intellectual property. I know you think the patent has expired but I disagree. It still has a little way to go. Of course American Christians are not caricatures. But Americans allow their political debate to be portrayed as one that has caricatures. The most vocal "Christians" in American politics are as I described. They dominate the discourse. And the others let them. I prefer to highlight their heresy. Additionally there are liberal Christians in America. I am a massive fan of Gillian Welch and Dave Rawlings. They are not really part of mainstream political debate but as Christian songsters they are part of my spiritual life. I too have had a lot of contact with American Christians as a frequent traveler to the USA, mainly to Red States, counting some of these as friends. Vast numbers of Americans are active Christians and these do not irritate me in the slightest. I think judeo-Christian values are generally a very good thing. The majority do not tend to deny manmade global warming nor do they concoct weird anti-rational theories theories like "intelligent design". Nonetheless rightwing American Christians - just look on this website - propose that those who reject this superstitious nonsense are nothing more than godless communists. Logically that includes moderate Christian conservatives, but usually such conservatives - this site is again consistent with this - give these loonies a free pass and let them get on with the abuse. So many reasonable Christian conservatives allow this stereotype to stand, when they should be takiing issue with this drivel. America's problem are the Tories in its midst. And the free rein that other conservatives, who disgree strongly with them, give them nonetheless. The traditions of French and English radicalism which spawned America, need to be re-asserted. And I say this as Tom Paine would, as a citizen of the world. The cause of America is the cause of all mankind. That's what English education never taught me and why the English don't really understand America.
It's quite true, of course, that American Christians, even those one the political right, are 'not subject to stereotypes or caricatures'. The irony there is that it is some of their number who so doggedly persue the stereotypical characterisation of different religious groups, and dismiss the beliefs of others on the basis of such things - dismissing 'the many', or indeed the whole, on the basis of the actions of 'the few' (and those that are effectively controlled by 'the few', as I'll explain in a moment), rather than realising that people of other faiths are equally 'not subject to stereotypes or caricatures' simply on the basis of having a certain personal faith. The issue of 'cutting off heads, blowing up buses, and silencing cartoonists' is an interesting one in itself, and some thought should be given as to why those things have been happening in some areas more than others. Certainly Christianity has had its fair share of violence acts perpetrated in its name in past centuries, but I'll be the first to agree that such things are now relatively rare in the Western world (although they do happen occasionally). What has changed for the western world is the spread of genuine (universal suffrage) democracy, and with it a relatively free press, much improved public education, and vastly improved living standards for the majority. Lives are less of a daily struggle for most people (allowing them to consider more than where their next meal is coming from), the people have a broad education to enable to consider things in a logical and educated manner, have access to all kinds of information about the world to consider (from all kinds of perspective, not just their leader's), and have governments they can change (some might argue about how much 'real' change that brings, but that's a slightly different issue than actual autocratic and brutal dictatorship). Some of that (education and access to information in particular) is pretty recent stuff, though - mostly over the last century and a half, improving progressively, and at an ever increasing pace, to the point we have now reached. The question then has to be asked why the Middle East has not 'modernised' in the same way - why is the area controlled largely by dictators who live in luxury themselves while keeping their countries poor and ignorant, controlling them through propaganda, religion and fear? That's a state which was pretty normal in Europe in the days of autocratic royal control, only a couple of centuries ago, and persisted long after that in certain ways as governments continued to use the traditional methods of 'keeping the masses quiet' (including through religion) right up until universal suffrage and beyond (especially where autocratic 'communism' gained control, of course). The answer, of course, is largely down to the influence of Western powers in terms of their various occupations and support for such regimes when they have been 'useful', 'friendly' or just 'an enemy of our enemy'. We have collectively allowed that situation to persist. We have held up their development by keeping their dictators in control, and even where they have been 'overthrown' (as in Iran, for example), they have been overthrown by another dictatorship bent on maintaining its power to oppose us on the basis of our actions that led them to the point of needing to rebel (and using the tools of ignorance and propaganda, together with violence, to maintain the 'support' of their people). It isn't that the religion itself is inherently creating 'the terrorists', but that we have created the circumstances in that part of the world where violence and terrorism can grow (and grow specifically in opposition to us and our 'Imperialism', a charge which has much justification against European powers, and even against the USA who are no strangers to propping up friendly regimes or funding and equipping equally brutal 'rebels' like Bin Laden just because they happen to be opposing someone the USA opposes). In that context, religion is a major vehicle of population control and incitement to fight, just as it has historically been in Christian Europe. Autocratic leaders use religion to tell the people what to do, and to believe that what they (the dictator) are doing is right and justified and should be supported to the last drop of blood, and so on (manipulating and twisting isolated passages from religious texts, spreading their own interpretations, and instilling the 'fear of God' into anyone who thinks about opposing them). That's how it has always been, today's Middle East is not doing anything new in that, and the context that has created that current situation is down to centuries of policy towards them from the West. What is interesting at the moment is what has been happening most recently, with the people (despite their obvious physical disadvantages against their well equipped (by us!) dictatorial regimes) starting to become increasingly discontented, and venting their anger against their own governments on the streets. Of course, as such things are, they are at the moment multi-faceted, with different groups (including 'fundementalist' groups) having different ideas of the way forward, and so on (and there is a danger in that, of course - looking at Post-WWI, Post-'Imperial' Germany would highlight some of those!). However, something is changing throughout the Middle East, and I suspect that is in no small part due to the increasing access to 'education' through the internet and other media from outside, and the fact that it is becoming increasingly hard in the modern world for their dictators to control information. That is a very positive thing, of course, but we in the West do have to be careful not to get blamed for our previous actions in a way that sees the people unite not only against their own governments, but against us as 'common foe'. There are dangers there for our governments, but also for our people, if we allow the agenda towards them to be politically and socially led by our own brand of Christian 'religious fundementalists' and their biases towards people of a different faith - we don't want them to see all this newly available information, just for them to see that 'the west' hates them and their faith and wants to destroy them - that would be somewhat counter-productive to any desire for world peace and an end to 'global terrorism'! It is actually possible that the world could end up in a state of real war beteen religions in the future (actual war between the religions at large, not the kind of 'phoney war' we now have, involving small groups of extremists, and based on ignorance and twisting of passages by small groups and brutal dictators for their own ends). That is something mankind really needs to avoid, obviously! If it happens, though, it will be the result of the actions of extremists ON BOTH SIDES 'attacking' each other (in physical and other ways that cause people to feel the need to defend themselves or oppose 'the other religion') and escalating it to the point where more moderate people become increasingly drawn in. We need to be aware of that danger so that we can prevent religion from once again being the vehicle which drives the known world to a state of conflict. In order to prevent this, we need to keep 'our own' religions fundementalists from dictating the policy towards other religions on the basis of their own religious biases. We need to act on the understanding that, even when some small groups are seeking to justify terrible acts through their religion (through the ignorance of themselves and others), no religion's entire membership is 'subject to stereotypes or caricatures', and that we shouldn't 'begrudge any one his or her faith', whatever that faith might be. Only through that understanding can we persuade other groups (as they become more modernised, educated, democratic, and so on) that we are not the 'devils' that their religious extremists are suggesting, and that we should be working together to oppose such attitudes (rather than them uniting with the people who have such attitudes, in order to oppose us). Religion and personal faith can be a huge force for moral good, of course. It can also be manipulated and abused to persuade people to do the most appauling things against other human beings in the belief that they are doing 'God's Will'. History proved that many times over. We need to realise that, and learn the lessons of history, in order to stop it from happening again. That means, in my opinion, it is essential to keep religion out of direct control of mainstream politics, particularly in areas of policy (internal and foreign) where different religions meet. It's doubly important, in my view, that the west does this at a time when the part of the world where another religion is largely based is not yet in a modernised social position, with a fully free and fully educated population, to be able to do that effectively for itself. We mustn't allow them to believe that our religious fundementalists represent our entire populations, and conversely we mustn't fall into the trap of believing that their religions fundementalists represent their entire populations. It is situation like that which have brought about so many religious wars in the past (including the centuries of religious wars within the UK) - each side believing the other to be inherently 'evil', and acting accordingly. That is the main reason why I think we need to keep religion out of mainstream politics, and I suspect many on the 'British Left' would agree with me.
And this is very much the general attitude of the British Left on the subject - everyone is entitled to his or her faith, whatever faith that might be. It is a personal thing and a basic human right. It's not 'religion' that the British Left dislike (in fact, the Church of England, though it mostly steers clear of direct interference in politics, could certainly be said to be inherently politically 'left wing', particularly on social issues), but religious extremism and fundementalism having a direct influence over politics and government (partly because it inevitably tends to infringe on the human rights of people of different faiths, who are equally entitiled to their own personal beliefs).
How ironic that the Established Church of England should now (almost) mimic the secularism of Jefferson that religion is a personal matter that should not impinge u[pon public affairs. This is the point. Cenydd's other post is interesting. It reminded me that the real identified enemy of islamic fundamentalism is secular liberalism and that the basis of this is understood to be the separation of Church and State instituted originally by St. Paul.. It is generally Christian conservative fundamentalists (in all countries) who call for capital punishment, corporal punishment, the repression of women, the censorship of evolution, limits to free speech (blasphemy laws), prayer in schools and government, etc.. Islamic fundamentalists have no problem with this. They would prefer the judeo-Christian world to revert to judeo-Christian theocracy to prevent to corrosive effect of global secularism and the subsequent Reformation and Enlightenment that this would bring to the islamic world.
The C of E is now 'Established' in name only, of course - I'm not sure how well understood this is outside the UK. It's nominal ceremonial 'Supreme Governor' happens also the be the ceremonial 'Head of State', and there are some residual formal connections with 'government' here and there, but it really has no political role (unlike the role it had at times in the past, of course). They do communicate, of course, but it has little influence over the government, and the government has little influence over it. Of course, it only covers England and some offshore islands, too, not the rest of the UK (although it does still have formal links with the Church in Wales, that has been disestablished since 1920). It is somewhat ironic that the political landscape seems to be so much less influenced directly by religion in a country where there is an 'Established' church than it is in the US, which has a separation of church and state so deeply embedded at the core of its foundation. How long it will remain 'Established' is a matter of debate - personally I suspect moves to end that may come not too long after the death of the current monarch, particularly in she is succeeded by her eldest son (who has long been said to prefer a formal title along the lines of 'Defender of Faith', rather than the current 'Defender of THE Faith'). It is interesting to note, of course, that the current spiritual leader, the Archbishop of Canterbury, does not actually come from the Established C of E at all, but from the disestablished Anglican Church in Wales, so presumably he at least would be unlikely to have any kind of fundemental opposition to the concept of church 'disestablismentarianism'.
In all honesty Plymouth... You are a nice, intelligent and good-looking (in my imagination at least! ) young man. However, there is no need to try to intelectually impress me or to show off. I like you anways... Pfff... In all honesty I don't want to do this 'cuz I know this will cause for me to get my ass kicked by posters like Heroclitus, Cenyyd and Viv. And I'm especially afraid of Viv! There's a reason the Hadrian Wall was built... On a more serious note: are you being serious, Plymouth?! The entire crisis we are going through basically find it's root in the so-called "Anglosaxon world". It was labeled the "end of history", with nice catchphrases like: "TINA!" etc. The Washington Consensus proves to be an utter failure, Continental Europe made the mistake to blindly step in the car too -- as highlighted by German oppossition leader of the SPD in my thread: "Commercial Banking Should Be Split From Investment Banking": Yes/No?!
On a sidenote -- UK is, I believe, going through, out of lack for a better word, an identity crisis of unseen proportions. In the process they are going absolutely bonkers, especially in their quest to safe-guard the interests of about a couple of hundred people on the back of the entire British populace. The British "sonderweg" leads to nowhere -- and that is all I have to say about that entire mess known as the "UK".
What is the difference between East Asians and Arabs? Both were subjected to colonialism. Both were exploited. There is a difference. Can anyone articulate the difference?
The British Left reminds me of my first wife. I can still see the look of shock on her face as I walked away for good.
lol, Thank you. But I'm not trying to show off -- I was just making a point. I certainly agree that the Washington Consensus is an utter failure, like you. But I'm not sure how it has driven the world to pieces. Clearly things are in a bad way, but there have been financial crises before, and many of them were not of America's or Britain's doing. Not to mention that this is only one global crisis -- and, in any event, we see how well the Franco-German bloc handles economic policy with the current Eurozone fiasco... I don't think 100% of the blame can be placed on any people, culture, government, or whatever else have you. The whole system, be it tinted by Anglo-Saxon or Gallic shades, is a total disaster and entirely unsustainable.
That the Asians adopted Western methods and institutions whereas the Arabs did not, I assume you mean.
Yes. The Arabs couldn't adapt to changed circumstances. They still can't. Arab culture can't come to grips with modernity. The Arabs have attempted to do so with their adoption of Baathism, Arab Socialism, and Pan-Arab Secularism. Each attempt failed. Now the Arabs are reverting to Islamism. Their culture can't adapt because it is based on unalterable rules dictated by their god. The renowned British-American scholar Bernard Lewis addressed the subject in a tour de force called: [ame="http://www.amazon.com/What-Went-Wrong-Western-Response/dp/0195144201"]Amazon.com: What Went Wrong?: Western Impact and Middle Eastern Response (978019514420: Bernard Lewis: Books[/ame] East Asians were able to adapt by understanding the new rules and exploiting them within the Western context. East Asians have been so successful that they are bringing the Western Era to an end.
... No need to be so dramatic, Albert. I'm sure you are very nice person, but you aren't exactly a Liberal -- which Heroclitus is. That's the only thing I'm saying.
I disagree on those reasons for those percieved differences. For a start, we shouldn't forget that there have been, and still are, some pretty brutal dictatorships in parts of Eastern and Southern Asia too, of course (North Korea, Burma, China, etc.), and also some countries where there are high levels of poverty and ignorance among the population (and that same belt of contrasting increased business success with abject poverty extend around to the Indian Sub-Continent), and even 'terrorism' in places. The countries which are leading the upsurge in the overall fortunes of the region are not the only story. Not everyone in that part of the world is feeling the great surge of wealth, and some of those that are getting the benefits are also suffering from some of the industrialisation short-cuts that are being taken. Many of those places are just as 'far behind' as the Middle East in terms of human rights, and in terms of the wealth of the few actually creating a significantly better quality of life for the population overall. I use the term 'quality of life' quite deliberately there - some may have jobs in the new industrial society, but are given the effectively value within their society (to their employers, and in terms of legislation to ensure they aren't simply exploited literally to death) that industrial workers were given a century or more ago in Europe. There is obviously economic development and advancement in that part of the world, but it shouldn't be assumed to be a uniform picture of a region with societies that have uniformly advanced and transformed overnight to the kind of 'modern' standards that we in the west have taken for granted for the last century or so. It also has to be remembered that some of the influences which have been beneficial to advancement have been very direct indeed - the US assistance for South Korea, the existance of Hong Kong under UK control through the 20th century, and the direct influence in Singapore and Taiwan of the US, UK and newly developing Japan in the post-WWII period. Where the west has sought to keep the Middle East down, it has done the opposite in certain parts of the Far East. This was for its own reasons again, of course, much of it to do with containing China both politically and militarily - somewhat ironic, perhaps, that some of this effort has probably acted to assist China in the long term through its own industrial/financial ambitions. That said, there are different factors in different regions, and in many ways the Middle East has suffered a great deal because of its oil, and the fact that it is so important to the economies of the west. The reality is that much of our policy towards them over the last century has prioritised keeping that oil flowing, no matter what the cost in terms of propping up dictators has been. As long as the oil has kept flowing, the west hasn't really cared who is in charge, how much of the money they have kept for themselves, and how badly they have treated their populations. It is us who have perpetuated the situation and not allowed it to change, for the sake of our own economic interests, and now we are seeing the results of that. We also have a very specific factor in the whole issue of Israel. Of course, it would be futile to suggest that it should never have been created, and realistically it was probably inevitable, given the nature of immigration into that region even before the creation of the state of Israel, that it would have come into being one way or another. However, it isn't that hard to understand it leaving a slightly sour taste in the mouths of others around the region, particularly when their relatively uneducated ignorance leaves them so vulnerable to having their opinions shaped through propaganda by leaders (national and religous) with a specific interest in getting the people to unite against something other than themselves. I'm absolutely not anti-Israel, as I have said, but some of the issues around Israel, and in particular its expansion beyond its original borders and the way it has sought to solidify those through settlement, have not improved the situation in the region generally (or the image of the 'Imperialist' west that have 'supported' them by blocking any international attempts to do anything about it). They have not only inflamed the situation generally, they have actually helped to perpetuate the problem of brutal dictators being kept and supported in power by the west because they were seen to be 'friendly' in agreeing in effect to stick to firing their weapons against their own people instead of against Israel. Having said all that, of course, there are some countries in the Middle East that are more 'advanced' societies than others in the terms that i have been talking about, but that is largely as a result of those in friendly people that were being kept in power through western money and politics acting as 'benevolent' autocrats towards their own people. That was more by luck than any kind of judgement on the part of the west, though! In a sense it could perhaps be said that we acted in some ways to keep the Middle East backwards to protect a 'friend' in that region, but built the Far East up to contain an 'enemy' within that region. There's more to it than that, of course, but the way in which parts of the two regions contrast in their development does have that kind of element to it. The people of the Middle East have not 'adapted' their 'culture' to more 'modern' approaches and ideas because we, for our own political reasons, have provided the mechanisms to their governments and leaders to prevent them from doing so (which they used so that they couldn't threaten those governments or leaders with 'dangerous' ideas like democracy and free-thinking). 'We' (the west) have created that situation in the Middle East by our actions.
It all comes down to Israel and the British sense of fair play and doing the right thing. I think America has paid a very high price for its support for Israel. That much is obvious. What British leftists are only now starting to realize is that alienation is a two way street. Tony Blair talked America into doing Europe's killing in Bosnia and Kosovo. No British PM will ever again have sufficient influence with America to cause us to repeat that mistake.
