The Case *for* an American Empire

[Yorick]

Originally posted by Dirty Meg: quote: Originally posted by Yorick: You're sidestepping the hypothetical question I posed. So, IF it was superior you're saying it would be worth spreading. Let's pull it back a notch then. If the said society BELIEVES 100% without doubt, that it's mode is far superior, can it be forgiven for believing it should pass on that mode?

So, if society BELIEVES 100% without doubt, that a particular ethnic group are inferior, it can be forgiven for believing that they should be enslaved? [/QUOTE]That's not the question I was asking.

Initially it was along the lines of - what if the said society posessed the recipe to a utopian perfect society. Should it keep it for itself, or should it spread it's recipe.

Would it actually be a crime to keep it to itself?

Then, we move the bar, to what if the society simply believed it to be so, regardless of whether it is or not. Can the society be forgiven for acting on that belief.

Paramount to the hypothetical, is that the society believes it is benefitting the rest of the world. That it is operating out of a desire to see good for the other societies. The society would not be believing itself to be superior, but in posession of superior infomation - which can therefore be shared.

I'm just interested in exploring the limits of "live and let live". Do you go and rescue a woman being bashed by her husband, or do you dive in and rescue her. What if she doesn't want to be rescued? Consider Iraq the woman, and Hussein the abusive husband for example.

I think it's all funky. Don't know the answers. I have clear certainty about what I would do, but whether it's right or wrong is circumstancially dependant. That's where pragmatism comes into play.

[Yorick]

Originally posted by Cerek: quote: Originally posted by Yorick: But you didn't answer the devils advocate question, of "WHAT IF it IS a superior society?" What then? Is there a moral obligation to pass around the recipe to this hypothetically superior society?

No, there isn't. Japan has a very successful society also. They have become world leaders in technology and production and their products are in demand all over the world. But Japan doesn't seem to feel any need to spread their social values or structure to other countries, even though they surely feel this structure and set of values is superior by their standards. They seem quite content to keep their society to themselves for the most part. [/QUOTE]Well they did. Japanese Imperialism remember? THey were ruling much of China. However, their society suffered a huge loss in WWII. It still has the constitution America drew up. Their society failed them.

[Yorick]

Originally posted by Azred: I'm surprised rational Catholics haven't muzzled this guy long ago. If we were going to bring about any sort of empire, morality would have nothing to do with it. It would be all about economics, because in the end money is the only real power. The reason we never will bring about an empire is because too many of my fellow citizen have neither the cajones nor the maturity to accept the fact that we have the best in the world to offer the world. Am I saying that we are perfect? No, simply that we have the best to offer; thus, we should be the preeminent nation. The fact that so many people in so many different countries want so many different aspects of American life and culture--music, movies, economic opportunity, social/political/religious freedoms, and even pop culture (much to my own personal distaste)--demonstrates that they also see America as the place to be, or at least the place to emulate. Why are so many Americans afraid of having power or being the best? [img]graemlins/1ponder.gif[/img]

Are you being serious?

[Yorick]

Originally posted by Lucern: Interesting advocacy on behalf of the devil Yorick [img]smile.gif[/img] I'll play the poor sucker who has to go up against him. To advocate imperialism, one has to make an assumption: one's culture, belief structures, way of life, and/or religion is right or at least better than those which one seeks hegemonic domination over. You have to accept it to the point that you don't mind destroying a way of life you consider inferior. Fundamentalist (in a broad sense) belief in any faith that tells you that your way is the absolute truth has to affirm the assumptive declaration above. This is not to say, of course, that all who hold a view of cultural (et al.) superiority are also imperialists. It just seems a prerequisite. I think it's worth noting that studies of sociology and anthropology - two different yet similar approaches to actually looking at human societies, including "our" (Western influenced permutations included) own, will always espouse change from within over coerced change from the outside; that's only in the rare event that a researcher thinks such an opinion based on an individual judgement is appropriate. These are generalizations, but we do have ways of qualitatively, if not quantitatively, studying societies. So the short answer: So what if we're sure! It doesn't mean we're right. It NEVER means we're right. And who are "we" anyway? Certainty about the uncertifiable isn't enough for world-changing actions IMO. That would have to be determined less subjectively. And I do feel the need to interject something into your post Yorick, so pardon my intrusion. Though it's evident you've studied missionary work and/or met missionaries, and though it's true that many did what anthropologists do in order to gain trust before having any success, I'd argue that at some point all missionaries (as well as people trying to assert economic hegemony) have to affirm the same basic assumption that imperialists must make. They can have a respect for the culture, learn the language, earn their trust, but at some point they have to assert their own culture as an alternative. To do this, and to care whether or not a potential convert chooses to pursue it, must mean that the missionary thinks his/her way is right. If not, then why would they be there? I acknowledge that this is different from making a blatant, conscious decision to change a culture perceived as inferior, but the end result of this particular equation remains the same.

Great post. Thanks mate. [img]smile.gif[/img]

Re. missionaries, my Grandfather was an old school missionary in Tanzania. My mother grew up there. They all learned Swahili and he ran a business that contributed to physically building up the community. He trained people. So he immersed himself within the culture, brought physical benefit to the culture, and then attempted to spiritually help them.

When he was there, Witchdoctors held many people in fear and dread. People would fall sick and die when cursed by them. Psychosematically induced. He worked to rid people of this fear and mental slavery.

He's passed on now, but his definition of Christianity was "One hungry beggar, telling another hungry beggar where to find bread".

So then my mother married my Dad, who became a missionary of sorts, to miners, cattle station owners and Aboriginal communities in the far north west of Australia. In the desert areas. I went to school a couple of times, in Aboriginal schools when he'd visit some one of their towns.

You could by definition call my work in New York "missionary work" if you were using certain definition barometres. Or here in Singapore also. The mode and nature of it has changed. I support myself. I'm not paid by people in the home country.

My wife and I have a good friend who is a missionary in Kenya. She runs a school and educational system that seeks to empower children. It also distributes food and other things. She raises support in America. She draws no money from Kenya, but relies on American donations. That's "old school" missionary support.

So yeah, I have some experience with missionaries and the mindsets. I'm keenly aware of the negative stereotyping. I knew Aboriginal women who were part of the "stolen generation" for example. Despite it being a GOVERNMENT initiative to integrate Aboriginals into white society, it is the missionaries get painted as evil perpetrators of cultural imperialism.

My Uncle has been running the entire health department for the Northern Territory of Australia for years now. His biggest problem is that Aboriginal leaders simply do not want Western medicine. Even though it will benefit them and stop certain problems like cataract blindness.

Does he, as a European, impose western values on people who would prefer to live damaged? He sort of has to, as Arnhem land is practically an autonomous zone within Australia.

But these are questions.

Do we wade in and stamp out female genital mutilation amongst cultures in Africa? How else is the mother - daughter cycle broken? Surely it would take unmutilated women, removed from the cultural cycle, to present a different picture of womanhood.

Not easy questions I would think.

[ 11-26-2004, 02:07 PM: Message edited by: Yorick ]

[Yorick]

Stratos I pm'd you to further discuss this.

[Stratos]

Originally posted by Yorick: I think the Bin Laden example is most pertinent. To a fundamentalist Wahabist like Bin Laden, America is a 'great Satan' a den of corruption, immorality and evil. One just has to look at Jerry Springer, the crime rate, problems with elections, US military aggression, and the messages about America contained in the violent and pornographic films it exports, to actually see that the Wahabists have a point. He may believe he is "freeing the world" from America's evil influences, in the same way that America is "freeing the world" from terrorists. He uses violence. America is using violence. So is what's good for the goose, good for the gander? Or is only one side in possession of a moral highground. Who is determining what is "right?"

I have been asking myself that question myself. Unfortunately, the jury is still out on that one.

Then I'm sure you'll be able to give me the name of at least one society that embraced it.

The early Christian churches is the answer you're looking for, yes?

Besides, as an ideal it's old regardless of if any whole societies has been modelled after it or not.

And yet the point remains that democracy did develop under monarchies. Look at England for example. Not even a constitution. No enshrined separation of church and state. Still ruled by a monarch. Yet one of the most democratic, progressive societies around. Holland, Sweden, Norway, Denmark. All still have their monarchs. All progressive social democracies.

Developed despite the monarchies. All royal families in Europe have gradually lost power, and most have almost nothing left. Nowadays, it doesn't really matter much for the politics in these countries if the have a monarch or not. They're kept more out of tradition and the positive image they can grant their country.

And how did we get to the "age of exploration? What factors were involved in the shaping of societies? Even within "Christendom" itself, the Protestant north begat a more vibrant creative society than the more socially restrictive Roman Catholic south. Both surpassed the Islamic states inventiveness despite the Islamic states initially being more advanced in things like mathematics and castle construction. You cannot remove the inventions and ideas from the social setting they were fostered by, or reactionary against. The fact is, the industrial revolution occured in a "Christian" nation. The printing press - that allowed bibles to be reproduced instead of handwritten. The monastery - safeguarding knowledge, learning and education through the "dark ages". The musical and artistic achievements fostered and insitgated by the church - Handel, Michelangelo etc. I'm not claiming all artistic achievement for Christianity, but pointing out the climate of creative invention and expression that has existed in particular in Protestant northern Europe, as opposed to the conformism of say Confucian China, or the rigid social immobility of caste imprisoned India - that have shaped the world as we know it, for better or worse.

But have those thing happened *because* of Christianity, or are there other reasons? Wouldn't the same thing have happened if Europe had another religion? Wouldn't, say, Bach have made Islamic music if the Muslim had conquered Europe and converted us all?

You can justify any action with the bible. It's called TAKING IT OUT OF CONTEXT.

I just said how it been used, not that it was a correct usage (however we define that.)

I wasn't commenting on it's value, but the uniqueness of it's message. Thanks for acknolwedging it finally. [img]smile.gif[/img] Cheers Stratos. Have a good day. I need to get to bed.

Fair enough. Have a nice sleep. [img]smile.gif[/img]

[Yorick]

Originally posted by Stratos: I have been asking myself that question myself. Unfortunately, the jury is still out on that one.

Nothing to say. [img]smile.gif[/img]
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Besides, as an ideal it's old regardless of if any whole societies has been modelled after it or not.[/QUOTE]I'm not disagreeing per se, you just need to present proof if it's existence to back up the notion that the idea was realised before then. Yes,xxxxxxxxx

reducing the pious, the rich, the Priests, the Kings and the holy men, to the same level as everyone else.

He also had female disciples and broke racial discrimination customs (giving water to the Samaritan) as well as treating outcasts the same as anyone else (Lepers and the mentally ill for example) and giving children the same access rights as adults.
xxxxxxxxx


Societies like Egypt elevated their King to 'god' level and viewed other cultures as inferior.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Developed despite the monarchies. All royal families in Europe have gradually lost power, and most have almost nothing left. Nowadays, it doesn't really matter much for the politics in these countries if the have a monarch or not. They're kept more out of tradition and the positive image they can grant their country.

Well no, you can't say "despite". Nowhere else in the world did Monarchies allow democracy to develop. There was a moral obligation on Christian rulers to rule in a certain way. In the same way that American slaves used the bible to demand fair treatment and concessions from their bible reading owners, so, if a monarch was legitimised by Christianity would they need to work within Christian morality to remain legitimate.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxx


[/QUOTE]You can't remove ideas and creations from their contextual settings. What we have is what happened. There is no "what if we remove this factor" and getting the same result. Would America be the same without the civil war? Of course not. Would Europe be the same without Christianity? Of course not.

We have the historical factual side-by-side development of the Islamic world, the Roman Catholic world, the Orthodox world, and the Protestant world.

The Islamic Caliphates possessed the lands that were traditionally in the best area for scientific breakthrough - straddling the land linking the three continents, thus receiving ideas before anyone else. All the major advances of civilisation up til then occured within that area and moved out.
Iron working, bronze, city building. You name it.

The centre of gravity gradually moved northwest to the cities around England, Holland, Germany and Scandinavia. The Protestant north.

Look towards the Catholic south and you have Galilleo forced to recount his findings because of the Churches ideas about the flat earth, and rotation of the stars. (Despite the bible detailing the earth as a globe)

That single insistence - that the earth was the centre of the universe - HELD UP scientific research for centuries. The protestants were free from the centralised Catholic reach. Free to develop theologies and sciences that would allow society to disagree with the very system that gave it it's creative freedom.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

So if you head back towards the Islamic centre, you find creative restrictions. The Sufis regard music highly, but other parts of Islam are more restrictive. It's a socially rigid society. Creativity MUST HAVE freedom of expression, freedom to make mistakes and criticise. It's no mistake, that the periods of the greatest human artistic achievement have occured in times of economic and governmental chaos.

Think northern Italy during the rennaissance for example.

I just said how it been used, not that it was a correct usage (however we define that.)

Looking at the entire work, seeing the global message and checking that with the majority of other humans who have done the same. Then placing smaller messages within that context.

Fair enough. Have a nice sleep. [img]smile.gif[/img] [/qb]

I did. Thanks Stratos. It's now 12:22pm for me. [img]smile.gif[/img] Ahhhhhhhh.

[ 11-29-2004, 11:19 PM: Message edited by: Larry_OHF ]

[Azred]

Yes, I am serious.

[Donut]

Originally posted by Azred: Yes, I am serious.

Of course you are. Many men believe their wife to be the most beautiful. Even though others know different.

[Sythe]

Originally posted by Illumina Drathiran'ar: I haven't laughed that much in days... "What about 13-year-olds being given contraceptives? These days, all American teenagers are clinically obese and incapable of sexual intercourse anyway—so it’s a moot point."

If man eating aliens came to Earth. They would visit the U.S. first. We U.S. citizens are fattening ourselves for the slaughter. [img]graemlins/hehe.gif[/img]