I'd like to contribute to the vast outpouring of text which will
accompany the rather scary events of today... if you've managed to avoid
the news (how?) then the government is claiming to have foiled a major
terrorist threat to blow up aeroplanes between the UK and the USA. All
the airports on this side of the Atlantic are completely log jammed, as
draconian security measures are implemented - shoes are X-rayed, and not
even spectacle cases are allowed as hand luggage.
I've been meaning to write something about terrorism anyway, so let's
see if I can't get some sort of coherent policy together here.
I want to make a couple of almost-unrelated points. The first is to do
with the role of terrorism in terms of war, and the practice of killing
people. the second is to do with terrorism and its relationship with
technology.
To start with, the idea of a 'war on terror' is, I believe, an empty
slogan, and one I disapprove of. Before 9/11, it was not unusual to hear
the phrase "One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter".
Curiously, though I haven't heard it that much recently. I suspect it's
because we've become targets, and all of a sudden the situation has
polarized; indulging in seeing both sides of the argument doesn't seem
quite so attractive now, as opposed to when these guys were trying to
blow people up in foreign countries (where they do things differently).
Let me also say this: I believe terrorism is valid as the last weapon of
the dispossessed. Or more correctly, those who believe they have no
other option. If some authoritarian state invaded Britain, and I was
left with no other means to resist them, then causing disruption through
fear might be my final tactic, before I was hunted down and killed. If I
can't rule it out for myself, then how can I rule it out for others? The
problems come when we look at that pithy definition I just put forward.
The young men who (for example) attacked London in July were members of
British society, with a vote each. They were no more politically
dispossessed than I; and yet they felt driven to this. I've tried to ask
myself why - I pride myself on empathy, I think it's very important -
but I can't understand. For all our current government's shortcomings
(and I really won't go into that), they're still subject to the workings
of democracy, and eventually - eventually - they must come to heel,
because they can be voted out. I am not disenfranchised. Nor were they.
If other methods are open to you, then terrorism cannot be acceptable.
(let's throw in an interesting fact here - apparently 40% of British
Muslims aged 18-35 (ish) believe Princess Diana was killed by the
British establishment because she was about to marry Dodi al Fayed - a
Muslim. That was on a Jon Snow program on More4 the other night, called
"What Muslims want")
This brings us to the second point I wanted to raise, which is to do
with the relationship between terrorism, democracy, and technology.
First off, it's fairly obvious that it's a lot easier to get hold of
deadly stuff now than it was twenty years ago. This is a trend which can
only go one way - material goods are becoming cheaper, information is
spreading more widely, it's inevitable that bad people are going to get
their hands on nasty stuff and that this will happen more often.
Secondly, and more importantly, the fact that extreme views can now be
spread more widely thanks to technology (I'm think mostly of the
internet, but that trickles through to other media too) has two results:
one, those with a predilection to believe this stuff are more likely to
be exposed to it; and second, they will come to understand how isolated
their views are from the mainstream. In previous eras, politics was much
more the preserve of those who cared enough to take it up, and they were
more often the ones with extreme views - so the silent majority stayed
silent, and the extremists got a disproportionately large amount of
influence, which suited them just fine. But it also made them more
likely to use conventional politics to achieve their ends. Now, however,
when the mood of the population can be much more accurately judged,
politics has become more and more about the centre ground, and the
extremists are being sidelined. It's ironic, but I think the very
mechanisms that are allowing us to get closer to the ideals of democracy
(for better or worse) are encouraging those with extreme views into
extreme actions.
40% of British Muslims aged 18-35(ish) believe Princess Diana was killed
by the British establishment because she was about to marry Dodi al
Fayed - a Muslim.
Forty per cent!
54 comments:
Agreed that War on Terror is an oxymoron: terrorism is a criminal act, best fought by police methods, and not a war, fought with soldiers. I'd cite today's news as evidence of that: the plot was foiled by "community leaders" informing the police, not by bombing the crap out of Birmingham.
Terrorism can never be acceptable. Every interest group has voice in the UN, if nothing else -- no one is so disposessed that they have a right to blow up a cafe or 300 people coming back from vacation. No one.
I would submit that by having a different attitude -- that some are freedom fighters -- we have contributed to a moral corruption of a portion of the population on a scale unimagined by any of the world's religions, much worse than any, say, porn or other cultural phenomena.
Had say, after the Munich Olympics, the West recalled the ambassadors from every Arab country, and rather than the embargo, refused to buy any Opec oil, we would be in a different world today.
I saw a play last week called "Two Rooms". It was writen about Beirut in the late 1980's. It could have been written yesterday.
An American professor, kidnapped by Hezbollah, eventually begins to see the point of view of his captors. He says that "it's not a war about religion, as much as a war for the very ground they're all standing on. Everyone's home, property and ancestry lie within this region. Americans, on the other hand, haven't felt that protective pull to the land since the Civil War. 'We're not different from these people,' Michael realizes. 'We've just forgotten.'"
The action in the play takes place in the captive's cell, and in a similar room back home where his wife tries to deal with the situation with both a newspaper man and government official, who have very different agendas. All in all, it was not a terribly cheerful story, (although there were some laughs), but I'm sure everyone came away with something to think about.
for //War on Terror// read //War on people who might jeopardise our access to oil//
heh.
Matt - well said Sir. I find terrorism shocking but it's completely understandable as a last resort. I applaud your honesty when you state that you can see circumstances (however far fetched) until which you too would become a terrorist. We all would. Even Arthur would.
What is shocking is that I believe it would take the most serious and dire of situations to drive me to that position. It would have to be my last resort as it could literally be the last thing I do. So what of those people who under different circumstances might have perpetrated a huge single act of mass murder today?
Was terrorism their only option? It makes me sad and angry to think that they thought it was. In my country, here in the UK, 21 people thought they had no other way to voice their views, no way of winning others to their cause, than to kill thousands of innocent fellow citizens. It's so sad to think that these people are that disenfranchised and that disposessed. That says as much about me, you, my country and yours as it does about them. We need to look at ourselves as well as them and ask what it is that we have done that makes them want to act in this manner. The answers lie within.
"One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter" - that's as true now as it ever was. You just ask the oppressed bombed, terrorised residents and therefore victims living in Afghanistan, Iraq, Palestinian territories, Lebanon and Israel. And had it not had been for a brave voice, London or New York earlier today.
I'm of the opinion that terrorism has become a convenient tool for the world's politicians to whip up foment in their favour. Frankly, acts of terror, worldwide, have resulted in around 20,000 deaths (if we include Iraq) in the days since September 10, 2001.
This is about 6 months worth of road deaths in the US, or 2 years worth in Germany, or almost 3 years in France...
It's enticing to terrorists to use fear to effect attacks, in order to gain publicity for their cause. Governments spring to the ready when they detonate just one bomb. It would make more sense to simply ignore a few incidents.
Horse drawn buggies, steam ships, clockwork airplanes...
Our current batch of politicians are overstating the risk from terrorism. Terrorists do choose targets based on maximum terror value (otherwise they'd be guerillas), but we need the powers that be to talk the threat down, not fan the flames.
The ludicrous responses we see in the US and UK - throwing out shampoo, taking off shoes, strip searching little old ladies - all incite public fear, not calm it.
Years ago on the Halfbakery, I half seriously proposed banning all luggage from planes, to be carried separately (I'll have to find it on the Wayback Machine). Everyone came up with valid objections, but funny how close the current measures have come to that. This inconvenience to the general public only achieves the terrorists' aims.
Ban luggage, and they'll switch to SAMs.
matt -- it's not democracy that's the problem -- it's the unwillingness of modern nations to call things as they are, and to deal with things that have to be dealt with.
john -- having literally been subjected to terrorism directly more than once,I am fairly confident in saying, no, I wouldn't. No one knows people's limits to be sure -- I'm reminded of Herbert's The White Plague, but I have never condoned it and never will.
I despair of explaining the difference between freedom fighters and terrorists to you, so no more comments on that. Suffice it to say, whatever self-examination you're willing to undertake, it will not be enough to create female only beaches, as they are already doing in Italy, where apparently the Pope can handle mixed beaches, but the clerics can not. Convert, maybe, that ought to do it.
Do you hold the UK or the US complicit in the bombing of the Buddhist statues by the Taliban, pre 9/11?
What did the US due to create the bombing in Mumbai? Outsourced white collar service jobs to India rather than to Pakistan?
Have you asked yourself why the Mosque still stands in Jerusalem, while Sunnis and Shiites have no issue blowing each other's mosques in Iraq?
Have you asked yourself where would people be dancing on the street if those planes have gone down?
There are philosophies and movements that are dangerous. Sure, they may have root causes, and sure, not everyone involved in them is evil incarnate and some are just following orders. It does not change the fact that they are dangerous, and determined.
I'm in general agreement on the stupidity of the "War On Terror" and other orwellian efforts, especially the War On Drugs.
Which is wholly separate from my opinion that we are in WWIII.
Matt, I think that you summed up my feelings exactly but in a better way than me.
I'm also with Hector on this one. Turn the fucking screw and lead them where we want them to go.
at least get my name right.
// it's the unwillingness of modern nations to call things as they are, and to deal with things that have to be dealt with // - I agree, but you don't really want it to be called as it really is...
There is no difference between terrorists and freedom fighters - it's just the side that you're standing on that defines it.
I do not hold the US and UK complicit for bombing of the statues. That was an awful thing to occur, but was not terrorism, it was wanton vandalism.
The US and the UK helped create the environment for the bombing in Mumbai by not condeming terrorism in all its forms but only condemning terrorism we doesn't like.
Why do we criticise Palestinian terrorism yet support Israeli? Why did the US (specifically) explicitly and implicitly support the IRA?
Humour me, why does the mosque still stand in Jerusalem?
Moving on from this pointless tit-for-tat, I do think that talk of terrorism serves our politicians well. It's fear which now creates the motivation for political change - it rather suits politicians to have us live in fear. Fear is the greatest weapon of any terrorist.
Certainly the US should not have supported the IRA in any form.
And the mosque stands for the same reason we don't dance on the street when a building collapses in Qana. I guess it's because we are not sufficiently disposessed.
I daresay the French Resistance would have been considered terrorists had the Germans won WWII. Nelson Mandela, one of the most respected men of our age, has been described as such.
I can understand why some of the terrorists of today feel so strongly about their cause. Thankfully I can't understand why they feel so strongly that they need to express it in this way and I hope that I never have to understand that. I am saddened that they feel it is the only way to express it.
I don't honestly know how pervasive support for the IRA was but as I said I agree. It was always wrong. Terrorism is always wrong. I think you'd find that my view on this is consistent. It was wrong for Begin in the King David Hotel. It's always wrong.
What you say about perspective seems to me to imply that you say that it is sometimes justified. If you are not saying that, then I guess we've come to as much agreement as we're ever going to on this topic.
I'm saying call a spade a space : terrorism is terrorism whereever you find it. In Iraq, in Northern Ireland, in Lebanon and in Israel. The US refuse to call it and that's dangerous.
I can fully understand why people become terrorists. I can therefore understand terrorism. It can therefore be justified. The French resistance during WWII is a fine example of justified terrorism.
What saddens me is people who cannot see that terrorism can be justified or who can't understand it. It suggests a total lack of empathy for a fellow man and his situation.
Then you are saying that everything can be justified and there is no right or wrong. And then, I guess, we shall have to remain in disagreement. A not unexpected result, I suppose.
not quite. I'm saying that I can understand in some instances why terrorists are terrorists. I'm saying that sometimes it's justifiable. I'm sayings it's wrong, but possibly no wronger than the force that dragged them to the conclusion that terrorism was their only option.
I'm out of here.
That analysis would work if the freedom fighters goal was a palestinian state, and he occasionally, by mistake, hit an Israeli restaurant because he thought the army's chief of staff was there.
But, if his stated goal is the destruction of Israel, and he hits the restaurant because teenagers go there and then his friends dance on the street, then that analysis breaks down. Otherwise, the same analysis could be used to justify the carpet bombing of most of the middle east by Israel -- after all, survival and disposession is at stake
Statistically, you're entirely right. Politically, governments will do whatever it takes not to seem weak or submissive.
statistically he is entirely right until I get to telecommute because Manhattan has been irradiated and the Middle East is a sea of glass.
Whether the current strategy is working is clearly arguable. But with a nuclear Pakistan that can go Islamic revolution at any time and a soon to be nuclear Iran, something better be done.
There seems to be much discussion about freedom fighters/terrorists, and while I find this very interesting, I can't help but think that the absence of religion in the discussion means that it misses a pertinant point, alluded to in the original post, and by Joyce and Arthur, regarding 'stated goal' and 'our ground'.
To my mind, previous terrorist groups have been bound together by a cause that is geographical in nature. That is, one institutional body (government/country) occupies a territory against the wishes of the group. The body may be an oppressive regime, a 'foreign' government, or whatever.
It appears to me that the current climate of terrorism, while connected to geographical conflicts, is not centrally about one piece of ground. The terrorists are not nationalist freedom fighters looking to reclaim their land (per se). Many different groups, with different nationalities, and different grudges see certain Western countries as the enemy. The common thread that connects the terrorists is a sect(s) of faith.
The ramification of this is that these, otherwise disparate, groups unite under a common goal - and common enemy. The terrorist strikes are not singularly about 'freeing territory A' or 'undermining the government that rules this land' or 'freeing our people' anymore - that may be the primary explanation and tool of an individual's motivation but the goal of the terrorist group has changed. It actually becomes primarily about causing damage to 'the enemy'. With the dissolution of specific motivation (freeing specific territory X - insert cause here, cf. Iraq War) and introduction of the common thread of religion and belonging to 'the cause' it becomes possible to win new sympathisers - and even new fighters - without them ever personally being oppressed/threatened.
Looking back at what I've said, much appears to be non-sequitor, so...
Going back to the freedom fighter/terrorist debate: it was my (perhaps naïve) understanding that terrorists attempted to acheive their objective by destruction and terror of a general population, thus pressurising government - freedom fighters, or rebels, would be attempting to fight against an army/military force of some kind. The implication is that f'f'ers aren't so much about collateral damage and killing their own people...
Jon: You are (possibly deliberately) confusing terrorists with guerrillas. Terrorists deliberately strike civilian targets, while freedom fighters target military and government targets.
Of course, the Bush administration makes the same mistake, in the other direction (again, possibly deliberately).
I'm John, he's Jon - and I agree with what you've just said.
They are trying to rid Arabia of Western influence -- where Western influence is primarily visible by the race of the various sheiks to get bigger and better yachts and a new wonder of the world in Dubai
The West is paying a price for creating the mujahadeen in Afghanistan -- which was certainly a partial morphing into Al Qaeda. But it was Cold War realpolitik that created those situations. This is why to my mind it is so critical to say that it is always wrong, and it always was wrong, and we are paying the price for it.
There is both a goal and a choice of means for a given movement. The Neo Nazi party or its many variants, which are legal in the States, may not be terrorist in nature and perfectly willing to work within political frameworks. But surely everyone can understand that there is nothing to negotiate there?
I don't understand why that is obvious, but it is not similarly obvious with Al Qaeda, or a movement that calls for the destruction of Israel, or a country which teaches the Protocols Of The Elders of Zion in schools, etc. And on top of that uses terrorist means.
Why does one even look for accomodation or negotiation, where the only goal of such a movement is to gain power until the point where it doesn't have to negotiate?
I just don't get it. I truly don't understand how it's not obvious to everyone that this is a matter of survival for Western Civilization.
The most important point is that you don't always get to choose your enemies: sometimes they choose you.
We are living in a post-Enlightenment world, trying to understand the motivation of the adherents of the largest remaining, mediaeval, patriarchal social system on Earth.
The question is not really one of faith, to define terrorists. Shining Path is not a religious sect, after all... it's extremely Maoist. Terrorists are better defined as those who use violent means to impose their political or social will on others whilst not under the aegis of a ruling government.
This is not a battle for the survival of Western civilisation, Arthur... that is hardly under threat. This is a battle for the survival of Arab civilisation, which has been in a long decline and is being rapidly subsumed by Western culture (Read American culture) which is why they are so determined to hurt us and particularly the US. It's about mediation or cessation of (their perception) our imposition of an hegemonistic culture that threatens their assumed, or traditional, position in their world.
The way forward is not going to be armed conflict, because that merely increases the resolve of both sides to impose their views. It has to be inclusion and compromise, for there to be any significant progress. This is a lofty ideal, certainly, but the alternative is simply more pain. It's almost impossible to eradicate a viewpoint from a society. I imagine it is particularly so, when there are over a billion people holding that viewpoint.
//40% of British Muslims aged 18-35(ish) believe Princess Diana was killed
by the British establishment because she was about to marry Dodi al
Fayed - a Muslim.//
Which doesn't really show much beyond the fact that a little knowledge leads to conspiracy theorising. Diana was, as the facial appearance of her second son shows, a bit of a shagger and not too discriminating, either. She wasn't about to marry al Fayed. She would have to be clinically loopy to take on Mohammed al Fayed as a father-in-law!
... although she had experience in dealing with such rogues in her former father-in-law.
This is exactly my stance, too - I need add nothing else.
But if you do that, you'd have to then position the spotlight of fear elsewhere - for example, how does anyone know that the catering staff and baggage handlers don't contain sleepers? Passengers will demand to see an audit of the credentials of the ground crew.
This whole terrorism bollocks serves only two groups of people - those who perpetrate and organise it, and those in the western governments it is directed against.
As soon as 9/11 was done, Osama was public hero number one - elevated in status - astronomically - by George W et al's failure to capture him (despite sending in the entire US army) Iraq must have surely been an attempt gain a quick and easy victory in order to distract the public away from the total failure in Afghanistan. He is now able to inspire people on a global scale, his words are broadcast by all media channells, and people listen intently to him - they never did before. But they do now.
Likewise, the hardliners in the US, UK and beyond have been very quick to take advantage of the situation, bolstering their positions and putting into place vast swathes of authoritarian legislation that no-one would ever dream of allowing normally.
So the hardliners go further taking their hawkish approach, bombing, invading etc - this of course elevates the statuses of those who are seen to stand up against them - ever further gloryfying and justifying those people, and their actions. Providing them in the process with real political capital that they simply would not have had before.
We have made Osama Bin Ladin *more* powerful than he used to be, and the same thing goes for the leader of Hezbollah.
The hardliners on both sides can expect to gain personally in terms of power, but only by continuing to escalate the violence. And in order to do that, they *both* must keep their respective publics fearful of 'the other'.
And we're falling for it.
Hector -- I don't necessarily believe that force is the answer. But I do believe that accomodation is not always possible, and though you cannot eliminate movements and beliefs, you CAN defeat them when they excercize power -- as we have with Nazism, and Soviet style communism. You can make certain points of view sufficiently shameful that they cannot easily be advocated openly -- like racism.
But yet we have not done that here. Otherwise I'd be hearing more about the textbooks in Saudi schools and less about "peaceful religion".
Once you think through the fact that you cannot bring lotion or gatorade on a plane anymore, however, or lookup the story on female only beaches in Italy I refered to earlier, you'd reconsider whose civilization is at risk here.
As to how smart we've been about this so far, an anecdote from this morning, when a frustrated anti-terrorism expert said "thank god Richard Reid didn't put that explosive in his pants".
Your statistical point is cute, to be sure, but you know that terrorism is not only "V" style convenience for some Orwellian government -- it is the potential for trillions to be erased from the economy, at a snap of the fingers because people would again reduce flying, etc. Your estimate of those killed can be dwarfed in the use of a bio weapon -- or for that matter by GPS capabilities for Hizbollah rockets. As the West excused freedom fighters and treated the problem as a law enforcement issue, the scope and audacity of attacks has climbed. 93 wtc bombing was designed to bring towers down. Had the stairways not been illuminated after the 93 attack, many more would have died. In 93, they were reacting to an American presence in Saudi -- which was a result of a fully sanctioned international cooperation and a war in which Arab countries participated on our side to save themselves!
The only real answer, or the beginning of such an answer, is getting off oil.
And zen -- superficially your argument is true -- as true as for instance the Republicans using the Soviet Union threat during Reagan's years.
But that doesn't mean that it would have been good for the Soviet Union to persevere or win, does it?
Nor does it mean that the Soviet threat could have been ignored.
Debate all you want the correct strategy and whether we make more enemies. No doubt we made more enemies when we bombed Germany and Japan. In the end, you have to have to either have the will to win, or decide to submit. Containment, which in the end worked against the Soviet Union, is by no means guaranteed to work here -- because of both the large populations succeptible to the movement, and because of oil revenues.
As Tom Friedman says, we're funding both sides of the war on terror. Got to get off oil.
Oh ho dear, I should have known this would cause trouble. 35 replies...oops.
Haven't read any of the responses yet. I just spent this morning having a camera shoved into places a camera was never meant to go, so I'm not in any fit state to take anything in right now. I do look forward to reading them later, though ;)
Damn, airport security really is getting strict.
Oh dear! You have my sympathies!
Figure out Nasrullah's, or bin Laden's, location within a kilometre and lob a TacNuc into the neighbourhood. The level of international opprobrium will be little different to what you've already endured.
Oh, such a tempting thought.
I wonder if a TacNuc would work in Wiziristan -- too many mountains.
Nasrullah is probably in Damascus, don't you think?
As to the flying thing, I really do think we're going to wind up requiring a Gom Jabbar test before you can get on an airplane. This is intolerable.
absolutely - I for one am reluctant to fly until the draconian measures are over.
Thanks, Calum :)
Well, I should have guessed Arthur and Jon would shoulder most of this conversation! I'd like to respond to one or two things.
Arthur's viewpoint that this is WWIII is not that unusual - I was reading an article in the Financial Times a couple of weeks ago which specifically addressed it (can't remember a word of it, though, sorry).
Reading on... I think any direct comparison with Nazism or Communism is incomplete, though - they both came from a Western tradition, and were entirely political (notwithstanding the whole cultish aspects of Hitler Youth, the Nuremburg Rallies, etc.). What we're dealing with here is something of an entirely different order. For a start, it's much, much smaller.
I wish I'd watched more of that Jon Snow program, it was fascinating. What I found truly fascinating was that people who had access to the same information I had had come to radically different conclusions. Forty per cent of young Muslims! But they knew as much about Diana as we did; they could read the same papers, see the same TV. How did they come up with this? Is there some overload effect going on here, where if we get too much information we start seeing phantom patterns in the chaos? Or is it simply that we see what we want to see, and nothing else? And if so, why did they want to see that?
These people are not ill-educated; on the contrary, most suicide bombers are very well-educated people. I'm not making this up; it's a well-known phenomenon. One of the points Jon Snow made is that many of them see Jews as a cosmic evil, footsoldiers for Satan in the great battle that is life. I might sneer at such drivel, but to them it is self-evident - as self-evident as it is to Arthur that democracy is inevitably good (sorry Arthur, I'm probably going way too far with that - can I apologize now and get it over with?).
As people have alluded to, there's a long history of politicians using religion and terrorism for their own gain (I'm thinking of the hashishim and the Old Man of the Mountains, specifically). I'm reminded of Bruce Sterling, who wrote in his book Distraction about a spambot which has gotten hold of a list of truly unhinged people which the government has unfortunately mislaid (the list, not the people), and essentially sends them spam urging them to kill named people, in the same badly written way we now get spam urging us to buy Viagra. It doesn't have to be that good to persuade people, if it's what they want to hear.
But I'm drifting again.
There are people who wish to cause us harm, and they have discovered a way to get hold of the means to do it. As I said before, I expect this to get worse. Personally, as I wrote here, I don't think they have to go that far to cause disruption and make their point, epecially in a crowded place like the UK. But I don't think that woujld accord with their, er, biblical sense of justice (hey, it's a figure of speech, that's all).
Anyway. this is gonna run and run. Interesting that so many people came up with different definitions of what a terrorist is, though. Wanna hear something really scary, though? Again, this is from that Jon Snow program. Traditionally, second generation and third-generation immigrants become progressively westernized and less hardline than their parents. This is true of pretty much every group of immigrants who have come to the shores of the UK. But for some reason, this is not true of the current generation of British Muslims. Apparently, they are more hardline than their parents. They've seen what our culture has to offer - heck, they've lived it, and they're not impressed.
// They've seen what our culture has to offer, and they're not impressed. // I'm not impressed with some aspects of it.
I don't know, Jon, I haven't seen a worthwhile sitcom that didn't originate in Britain :) Well, maybe Seinfeld.
And as I mentioned earlier, I think the draconian measures are just plain stupid, too. As the man said on the news this morning, "thank god Richard Reid didn't put the bomb in his pants".
I think they're working to install automated sniffers, maybe that would help a bit.
;) I retract my earlier statement based on firm evidence provided by the honourable gentleman.
What is the unemployment situation in Britain? Is there a sense in which muslims are not integrated? In my last visit to London, it seemed an incredibly cosmopolitan city -- more so than even New York.
sp: populace.
If I were Moslem then I would probably take issue with the following "high" points of Western culture. {These are all relatively recent cultural phenomena}:
1. Reality Television, especially Big Brother, Batchelor and similar shows
2. The Haute Couture industry and its blatant, stylistically sexualised portrayal of young teenaged girls as some sort of societal norm or aspiration.
3. The aggressively hyped hedonism of youth and Gen-X cultural iconography and standards.
There are a number of other things but those will suffice as exemplars. If I was in a position of responsibility for the maintenance of a traditional culture then I would probably see the onslaught of those sort of things as grounds for concern and justification for a backlash. Add to that the longstanding record of patronising and exploitative treatment by the cultures that tolerate and encourage these things and I could likely feel quite justified in adopting almost any means to halt or divert their encroachment into my societal structure and ethno-cultural group.
This problem we face is old. We have seen the same outcome, with varying degrees of vehemence, in the rejection of European colonialism, in a number of South American countries, the US, India, many African countries, the Boxer Rebellion in China, etc.
The arrogant presumption that an increasingly sentient Middle Eastern/Islamic population of over 1 billion will naturally kowtow to the Western culture we are determinedly exporting is being challanged and we are too self-absorbed to recognise that there are legitimate reasons to reject much of it. We react with outrage when the French reject Anglicisation of their language and culture. We regard it as quaint when the Japanese seek to maintain their rich cultural heritage. We treat remnant tribal cultural practices as a curio or tourist attraction.
I fear we have ourselves to blame for a large part of what we perceive to be a problem. Perhaps we are the problem?
i agree with you - we are partly the problem.
It's sometimes difficult to view this issue from an independent, dispassionate standpoint. It would be beneficial if we could all do that, I think.
It's crucial to be able to do that, but at least as crucial to actually survive.
There is much in modern Western culture which has questionable value, to be sure. And colonial history bears much of the blame for the current state of the world. And I have no issue with cultures maintaining their heritage -- otherwise I, a committed atheist, wouldn't put a Menora in the window for Hanukkah.
However, at the very least our culture preaches tolerance -- even if it doesn't always accomplish it. Though we all may practice it to some extent, we view as shameful the branding of a given people. We possess sufficient empathy so that in the States and in Israel, there are anti war demonstrations and we don't dance when our enemies are killed. We posses sufficient restraint, so that though we can wipe our enemies off the face of the Earth, we instead meekly agree to check our shampoo and our toothpaste at the counter.
Perhaps these are all luxuries available to the powerful. But I believe there are inherent values in our culture (not limited to the listed above) that we ought to be proud of.
Are we without fault? Of course not. But are we trying to make the world a better place? Not in some abstract sense. Not better for Wall Mart -- but better for Johny and Nasheed and Joshua and everyone else -- I believe we absolutely are. Are we clumsy about it? Do we sometimes do more harm than good? Maybe sometimes, maybe often. But truly, unlike ever in the history of mankind, we are trying.
Be proud of them yes. Unilaterally impose them on others? NO!
I'm sure it's not ALL of the citizens of Gaza or Qum, or Islamabad, who take to the streets.
Our media are very good at finding and sensationalising the things that will draw our attention, polarise our opinions and present greater and greater marketing opportunities for those companies that manufacture and sell us those very same shampoos and toothpastes. The same shampoos and toothpastes that are likely produced by low cost labour sourced from the very countries they are denigrating in their opportunistic news stories.
We live in a global community, where the physical differences between us are nothing more than nuances. The only real differences are culture and perspective. That we, all of us, elect or follow populist leaders who promise to sharpen and emphasise those cultural divides, on our collective behalf, is a sad indictment on the human condition.
We may preach tolerance, but we are also locked into practices that confer economic status and superiority, sometimes at the expense of decency and humanity. Christianity has ridden roughshod over cultural sensitivities for centuries, with the tacit and often overt support of Western governments. Now we're finding out just how uncomfortable the shoe can be, when we're forced to put it on the other foot, from what I see.
We need to align preaching and practising, on both sides, inextricably.
Totally agreed with the last message, Hector. Or as totally as is possible :)
One down, 5,999,999,998 to go. ;^)
Oh now, let's not pretend we're in the business of changing minds ;)
You're quite right, Hector, I entirely agree. There's a lot of hypocrisy inherent in the capitalist system which we simply don't see, but is obvious in other parts of the world - I'm talking about sweatshops, basically. In recent years, I find myself more and more often seeing things on sale in shops for absurdly low prices and wondering whether buying it would be condoning miserable working conditions for some child in Bangladesh. I suspect the truth is pretty horrible; all I can do is hope it's not too horrible, and not buy things if I suspect they've been made by slave labour. But I don't delude myself that I'm in a majority.
We have to remember that our system has this ugliness to it, which we don't see every day.
And of course, yes, the meedja report the extremes. Wouldn't it be fun if you could create a local newspaper for the global village, choosing all those stories that only crop up in local papers? "Man loses dog; dog found under sofa after brief search" sort of thing? Except it would become "Man loses dog in Indian village; dog found under sofa".
I bet someone's already done it.
I agree re: sweatshops. I am no union supporter, as you might surmise, but people have to work in human conditions.
However, the standard of living can and does climb in countries that do business with the West, and that is crucial.
The longer term implications of automation are such that it's not sweatshops, it's the expedibility of human labor that will be the challenge.
In the end, factories will be automated. As I say to friends that are terrified by the impact of software outsourcing to India and elsewhere: don't worry about outsourcing software. Worry about the time that cabs can drive themselves.
Strangely enough, the people in an economic system will always have opportunities to pursue paid work, if they are willing to do so.
In the last 150 years most of the world's economies have morphed from basic agricultural models to tertiary economic models (service-based). There is nothing wrong with that. Australia's is an economy heavily dependent upon mining, we are told repeatedly. The bare truth of the matter is that mineral and resource extraction contributes around 8% of the economic transaction of the Australian state most dependent upon mining.
I don't believe economic collapse is likely because of any realignment of industrial activity. I do believe it will occur in a number of Western economies that fail to adopt immigration or procreation policies that lead to internal populations with a reasonably steady average age of its citizens.
The current situation, where the populations of India, Pakistan, Brazil, Indonesia, China and the Middle East are preponderously tilted in favour of youth, will see those economies dominate the world economic stage, at the expense of Europe and the US. The caveat is that these countries need to pursue economic policies and standards that are concomitant with long term growth.
"Good" governments utilise the resources at their disposal, effectively and efficiently. If you have ever felt you are being exploited by your government there is a simple reason for that. In broad terms, the average citizen in an OECD economy is worth around USD$5M over his/her lifetime, in economic transaction. Building a stronger economy is a matter of improving that figure (Average nett value per citizen), on an ongoing basis.
Sweatshops are merely a plateau stage in the development of a strong manufacturing base... a development stage in the transition to a solid, mixed economy. Sweatshops were common in the early days of the Industrial Revolution, in those countries that are now "enlightened". Eventually (after a generation or so) the system becomes sufficiently productive to allow implementation of the reforms that will see it through to the development of a tertiary economy, one based on service and information flow. (Service industries constitute between 60% and 80% of the transacting of a tertiary economy).
Unfortunately, in the meantime, a cynical leader of a developed country can give his/her economy a quick boost by implementing policy that puts a substantial portion of an economy on a war footing. It's a risky policy, as it carries substantial physical and political risk, if it goes awry. If it goes right then the country has used up a large chunk of money/resources that would otherwise have not passed through and strengthened its economy.
These issues are inextricably intertwined in the current situation that sees Western democracies eschewing wholesale immigratory policy, largely due to populist xenophobic pressure, in favour of expansionary aggressive foreign policy.
Post a Comment