|
Post by What Hat on Jan 27, 2015 21:29:54 GMT -5
You've been or lived in Turkey, I think? Do young women worry about going out on the street in the same way they do here? Are they harassed as they can be on our streets? Turkey is mixed. Some are covered, some are western style. A lot of woman cover their heads. Yes woman would be harassed the same if not more on the streets as they are here. Why not? A woman who does not have her head covered in many Muslim countries are considered harlots and fair game. No way would I go anywhere in Jordan with my head not covered even though some do not cover their heads in the capital city. Every where I went in Egypt I was harassed by men exposing their penis' when I walked down isles in shops. And along the water front in Alexander 2 men converged on me - one from the front, one from back so I crossed the road and went into a big international hotel until it was safe to continue. A woman is not safe on her own in these countries. They are fair game. men banging on my hotel door wanting to come in. Those countries are unsafe for women without a male with them. I was harassed once in Turkey so never went out alone again in Turkey and made sure I always had a man with me. A threatening and intimidating man when I would not hope in the car with him. He asked did I think he would do something to me. Yes, but of course I did not say anything. I feel far safer in a western country than a Muslim country unless I had a male with me. Most Muslim countries I would not go out without a scarf but that is also due to women's responses too. That is positively horrible. Thanks for the insight, though.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Jan 27, 2015 21:39:12 GMT -5
I am likely the one to blame. I think it my comment that started all this about the west and it's contribution to society. I was referring to the book 'Confessions of an Economic Hitman' by John Perkins. Anyone who has read this book would understand where I was coming from when I talk about how the west has messed with third world countries economically. As far as culture, individual contributions etc, of course the west has contributed. Sometimes for the better sometimes not. I in no way meant to address the whole gamut of contributions just how we have really done some pretty horrendous things too some countries. Putting in political puppets making them rich and the country poorer in the end are all topics in that book. We do know this has happened and since he was once hired to do this kind of thing, it was quite enlightening. So I don't really see what is wrong with reflecting on what has been done in that area and hoping that by our reflection that wrongs have been done that we can prevent them from happening again. We must first be aware of our mistakes before we can ever hope to correct them in the future. I gave a link to his pdf book if anyone is interested in reading it. It truly makes you think. Now if I have offended anyone I apologize. Ohhh. So it was you that started this. Thanks for getting us back on track as that was where this began. I thought the point that American business were heavy hitters who tended to shaft everyone, especially resource rich Third World countries, was almost universally understood. Certainly is among all my Canadian and European acquaintances. Again, I recommend Shock Doctrine by Naomi Klein, a Canadian writer, and the documentary, The Corporation originally produced by TV Ontario, I believe. This was in the paper today - www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/rob-commentary/everybody-loses-with-a-bad-neighbour-policy/article22639044/and we get a pretty steady diet of this kind of thing. This doesn't mean we dislike America or Americans. As I said before: it's just how it is. Canada has been characterized as a mouse sleeping in a bed beside an elephant. As long as the elephant doesn't roll over we do fine.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Jan 27, 2015 21:46:24 GMT -5
As a non-American who has travelled to the US a couple of times, and done business with Americans spanning more than three decades, I can say that I have the highest respect for the American people. Sure, I think there's a lot about their country they could improve but the world would be very much the poorer without the US of A. Young people like getting around with American memorabilia, listening to American music and watching American movies. I think it's nonsense to assume that Americans are disliked around the world - apart from in basket case countries where our secular freedoms are despised. In the analysis I think we have to separate American people from the economic effects of America, the economic and military powerhouse. As far as the people, they're pretty much like people anywhere. Most are pretty nice, and a few bad apples. I'm just not sure what that has to do with how America conducts business and conducts its foreign affairs. As far as American being liked around the world ... um, let's say they are stereotyped in similar ways around the world.
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Jan 27, 2015 22:02:41 GMT -5
In the analysis I think we have to separate American people from the economic effects of America, the economic and military powerhouse. As far as the people, they're pretty much like people anywhere. Most are pretty nice, and a few bad apples. I'm just not sure what that has to do with how America conducts business and conducts its foreign affairs. Frankly I think your opinion is skewed by the media you've consumed. China feared exploitation when it opened it's economy to Western developed nations 30 years ago, but China benefitted immensely from that decision. Even Cuba has realised that engagement with the USA can benefit their country. It's looking like China will soon be the biggest economic power with India coming up fast. Time will tell whether the world will be a better place as a result.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Jan 27, 2015 22:24:21 GMT -5
In the analysis I think we have to separate American people from the economic effects of America, the economic and military powerhouse. As far as the people, they're pretty much like people anywhere. Most are pretty nice, and a few bad apples. I'm just not sure what that has to do with how America conducts business and conducts its foreign affairs. Frankly I think your opinion is skewed by the media you've consumed. China feared exploitation when it opened it's economy to Western developed nations 30 years ago, but China benefitted immensely from that decision. But we know that trade has had some bad effects in China as well. If the country has benefitted as a whole should we do nothing about the large number of suicides in the Apple/ FoxConn factories, for example? Should we do nothing about the resulting air pollution and traffic jams? This is what I read about in the skewed media I read, mostly the Economist magazine, actually. You mean because America will stop kicking them in the gonads? You do realise that any company caught trading with Cuba may not trade with the USA? The Cuban people can't get soap! Would it be meaningful to compare A. the 1 percenters in the USA consuming most of the world's resources versus B. China or India consuming them? How would you propose making the evaluation as to which scenario is the better one.
|
|
|
Post by snow on Jan 27, 2015 22:48:35 GMT -5
I am likely the one to blame. I think it my comment that started all this about the west and it's contribution to society. I was referring to the book 'Confessions of an Economic Hitman' by John Perkins. Anyone who has read this book would understand where I was coming from when I talk about how the west has messed with third world countries economically. As far as culture, individual contributions etc, of course the west has contributed. Sometimes for the better sometimes not. I in no way meant to address the whole gamut of contributions just how we have really done some pretty horrendous things too some countries. Putting in political puppets making them rich and the country poorer in the end are all topics in that book. We do know this has happened and since he was once hired to do this kind of thing, it was quite enlightening. So I don't really see what is wrong with reflecting on what has been done in that area and hoping that by our reflection that wrongs have been done that we can prevent them from happening again. We must first be aware of our mistakes before we can ever hope to correct them in the future. I gave a link to his pdf book if anyone is interested in reading it. It truly makes you think. Now if I have offended anyone I apologize. Ohhh. So it was you that started this. Thanks for getting us back on track as that was where this began. I thought the point that American business were heavy hitters who tended to shaft everyone, especially resource rich Third World countries, was almost universally understood. Certainly is among all my Canadian and European acquaintances. Again, I recommend Shock Doctrine by Naomi Klein, a Canadian writer, and the documentary, The Corporation originally produced by TV Ontario, I believe. This was in the paper today - www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/rob-commentary/everybody-loses-with-a-bad-neighbour-policy/article22639044/and we get a pretty steady diet of this kind of thing. This doesn't mean we dislike America or Americans. As I said before: it's just how it is. Canada has been characterized as a mouse sleeping in a bed beside an elephant. As long as the elephant doesn't roll over we do fine. I think there are some things that don't get broadcast inside the states that does make in news outside. That may be part of it. When I made that post though, the first one, I was talking about the 'West', all of it, not just the US. Unfortunately, the conversation quickly became about the US and the need to defend it's merits. I like the States. I have spent a good deal of time in it and have traveled extensively in it and met so many great people, so I want to make sure no one thinks I don't like the States. It's simply not what I'm talking about. In response to living in Canada with the US as a neighbor has it's good points and it's not so good. But I would think that could be said about any countries bordering each other. I have been told in some conversations that the States should just take Canada over and make it part of the States. I don't think that would go over well, but whatever. Anyway, I'm headed to sleep and I think I'll go back to reading this thread and hopefully no one thinks I don't like the states or am ungrateful for their contributions to the world.
|
|
|
Post by Lee on Jan 27, 2015 22:52:45 GMT -5
Come on whathat. Please review all of my verbiage on this thread or on this board and select a comment, sentence and or phrase that supports your assertion: "The problem I detect in your thinking, and moreso in that of fixit's, is that you have trouble accepting that there is any problem with Western culture; or with the products or influences of Western culture." I reserve the right to correct, modify and or delete any entry that you present in support of your contention. I will state categorical that your impression is the sole consequence of my inability to express my opinions with adequate clarity such that all viewers (independent of perspective) can derive an accurate understanding of my "thinking". I am unaware of any difficulty with my thinking "in accepting that there is any problem with Western culture." Should my protestations to the contrary be inadequate to unequivocally convince you to the contrary, I will invest the necessary labor to crawl back through my verbiage to produce what I hope will be adequate evidence to the contrary for an objective observer. Please advise. Thanks I'm not sure going back through your verbiage will do anything to dissuade Whathat of his assessment. I was raised and lived for 40 years in the society where Whathat lives, and by the age of 16 I clearly understood how it is that Americans cannot even appreciate the fundamental differences between Canadian and American society. To Americans, it is not really the West and the East -- it is the US and the rest of the world. Their sense of their uniqueness as the "indispensable" model for the rest of the world, in all things, is what insolates them from the ability to see anything evil in their own society. I make this statement because I know that one of the principles of the American education system has been to promote this sense of uniqueness in children -- they are uniquely endowed people simply because they are Americans. Can a society whose intransigence on such simple matters as measuring their highways the way the rest of the world does ... empathize with people who have a broader sense of their normal-ness with the rest of the world? I say this at the risk of having it sound personal, but I don't know that you're such an unusual American that you recognize what I'm talking about. I'm 67 and I still arrive at a brick wall when trying to make this point with the vast majority of Americans. My experience with people from other countries is that they understand perfectly what I'm talking about. I think it might take about 150 years more for Americans to understand this. FWIW If you're the most powerful nation on earth, you're special by virtue of that fact alone. With power comes responsibility, or should, and the sense of this responsibility should be taught. But imagine instead if American educators indulged all of their time telling students how ordinary their nation was and by assailing it with one cynical attack after another. I had teachers like this in high school and from I've heard its worse in college. This is a profound disservice not only to students but to the rest of the world. Far too many American teachers are trying to atone for a vague sense of collective guilt in their classrooms while being deluded with Utopian schemes of some world-wide ideological and economic communism. Nope. We need to celebrate cultures and ideas that actually show promise for the future of Man. Re: Capitalism It is imperfect, certainly no less imperfect than the people it serves but by far, Capitalism has been the vehicle by which culture and ideas are now open to the marketplace for review.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Jan 27, 2015 22:57:14 GMT -5
Whathat, I have now finished reading all of your responses. I agree with many of the points you make and, as you must expect, some of your perspectives I do not share. I am not sure there will be much value in pushing the conversation further into the weeds here on this thread but I do hope we can explore some of the ideas in greater depth at some other time, probably ought to be over coffee. One paragraph you wrote leaves me saddened: "As far as what would be a "better system". What would make a better system would be for Americans to stop clinging to the ideology that everything done in and by the USA is perfect, and nothing wrong with it. The system does not need to be changed, but there does need to be transparency and interest in foreign policy to limit or stop the damage, and create better relations." I know that many outside the USA view our country in the monochromatic fashion you describe and that this narrative is both fashionable and useful beyond our borders. What saddens me is that, in fact, the citizens of this country engage the many and varied ideologies of human experience as fervently as any society and more so than most and we engage these varied ideologies with unparalleled passion. For sure we make a hodge-podge mess of it and we don't have the nuanced sophistication of the more enlightened. But when the chips are down we care as much (if not more), we give as much (if not more) and we adapt as quickly (if not faster) to the compassionate needs of our fellow as the social evolution of our species permits. Perhaps as importantly, we acknowledge and work toward rectifying our mistakes as we go along. Though often lectured, few know our deficiencies better than we do.As long as the monochromatic trope persists it will be difficult to work toward common benefit. No society, rich or poor, can contribute constructively when viewed through lenses designed to minimize. Yknot, I had a skim back through your posts (there is a way to do that from the "Members" section if anyone is interested) to try and support my assertion that "The problem I detect in your thinking, and moreso in that of fixit's, is that you have trouble accepting that there is any problem with Western culture; or with the products or influences of Western culture." This was really an impression and I thought I would put it out there; I do think you think more of Western culture and Western ways than it rightfully deserves. There are aspects and components of Western culture that are meritorious, but much of the legacy of the West has been terrible and destructive, IMO. The other day, my history group was discussing the effects of eugenics, a notion that was widespread and very popular in the early part of the 20th Century in the West. I don't believe that eugenics was an anomaly but rather a product of our dualistic, ethnocentric thinking in the West. Sentences like the one I underlined above, in reference to the USA, display a large amount of the hubris characteristic of Americans. It would be impossible to assess whether the USA cares as much as other nations when the chips are down. American do care, and care a lot, for which we can be grateful, but they're also pretty boastful about how much they care. I don't think that they care more than the British, the Dutch, the French or the Italians. How would we know? At least in those countries there is far more awareness of what's happening in the world compared to the USA. On your second point, giving as much as the rest of the human species can be quantified and the USA is below the mean in the West. The USA actually ranks 20th among Western countries in development assistance as a percentage of national income. The rest of the claims strike me as spurious as well. I suppose the comment is a criticism, but I didn't mean it as a personal criticism. I meant it as a characterisation of how I see your viewpoint, and the viewpoint of many other Americans. I'm not sure if that helps, but I hope it does. I do very much appreciate your erudition, depth of knowledge and most of all, your ongoing effort to move the debate forward in interesting and positive directions.
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Jan 27, 2015 23:06:06 GMT -5
But we know that trade has had some bad effects in China as well. If the country has benefitted as a whole should we do nothing about the large number of suicides in the Apple/ FoxConn factories, for example? Should we do nothing about the resulting air pollution and traffic jams? This is what I read about in the skewed media I read, mostly the Economist magazine, actually. What do you expect WE to do about China's air pollution and traffic jams? Are they not China's responsibility? If we can't agree that China is a vastly better country for its citizens now than it was 30 years ago this discussion is going nowhere.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Jan 27, 2015 23:24:06 GMT -5
But we know that trade has had some bad effects in China as well. If the country has benefitted as a whole should we do nothing about the large number of suicides in the Apple/ FoxConn factories, for example? Should we do nothing about the resulting air pollution and traffic jams? This is what I read about in the skewed media I read, mostly the Economist magazine, actually. What do you expect WE to do about China's air pollution and traffic jams? Are they not China's responsibility? If we can't agree that China is a vastly better country for its citizens now than it was 30 years ago this discussion is going nowhere. I guess I'm trying to figure out in what way that matters, or matters to you. Trade is always a good thing. Do you credit the West for that though? Did the West invent "trade"? Perhaps China would be better off if it had focused its trade efforts on Asian countries. Who knows? Where would China be if it had focused its economic efforts on Asia and Europe? It might well be better off. Of course, air pollution is China's responsibility. But it is a downside effect of the massive increase in industrial production as a result of trade with the West. There are many problems around trade with China currently. Another serious problem is the perpetual trade imbalance as a result of China not having a market economy. That's a problem for the Chinese labourer and a problem for us. Then the lack of environmental standards, human rights and working conditions make it an unlevel playing field for manufacturing in the West. Personally, I believe we would be better off without Chinese trade as it currently stands. I do understand that the issue you are raising is whether it is better for China.
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Jan 27, 2015 23:59:43 GMT -5
What do you expect WE to do about China's air pollution and traffic jams? Are they not China's responsibility? If we can't agree that China is a vastly better country for its citizens now than it was 30 years ago this discussion is going nowhere. I guess I'm trying to figure out in what way that matters, or matters to you. Trade is always a good thing. Do you credit the West for that though? Did the West invent "trade"? Perhaps China would be better off if it had focused its trade efforts on Asian countries. Who knows? Where would China be if it had focused its economic efforts on Asia and Europe? It might well be better off. Of course, air pollution is China's responsibility. But it is a downside effect of the massive increase in industrial production as a result of trade with the West. There are many problems around trade with China currently. Another serious problem is the perpetual trade imbalance as a result of China not having a market economy. That's a problem for the Chinese labourer and a problem for us. Then the lack of environmental standards, human rights and working conditions make it an unlevel playing field for manufacturing in the West. Personally, I believe we would be better off without Chinese trade as it currently stands. I do understand that the issue you are raising is whether it is better for China. So are you saying: 1. Trade is always a good thing. 2. We would be better off without Chinese trade. 3. Perhaps China would be better off if it had focused its trade efforts on Asian countries. The reason I mentioned China is because the country opened up its markets and benefitted greatly as a result. It's you who has issues with Western "exploitation" of other countries. There are ten countries with a higher GDP per capita than the USA in this list: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_%28PPP%29_per_capitaFour of them are in Europe and six are former British colonies or protectorates. How can that be, seeing that the West is the exploiter you claim it to be?
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Jan 28, 2015 0:27:14 GMT -5
I guess I'm trying to figure out in what way that matters, or matters to you. Trade is always a good thing. Do you credit the West for that though? Did the West invent "trade"? Perhaps China would be better off if it had focused its trade efforts on Asian countries. Who knows? Where would China be if it had focused its economic efforts on Asia and Europe? It might well be better off. Of course, air pollution is China's responsibility. But it is a downside effect of the massive increase in industrial production as a result of trade with the West. There are many problems around trade with China currently. Another serious problem is the perpetual trade imbalance as a result of China not having a market economy. That's a problem for the Chinese labourer and a problem for us. Then the lack of environmental standards, human rights and working conditions make it an unlevel playing field for manufacturing in the West. Personally, I believe we would be better off without Chinese trade as it currently stands. I do understand that the issue you are raising is whether it is better for China. So are you saying: 1. Trade is always a good thing. Generally speaking trade between equal partners is a good thing. Yes, I think we were better off without Chinese trade. I avoid buying anything made in China, but it is very difficult. Perhaps and perhaps not. What I'm trying to get from you is what significance you see in your assertion that China is better off as a result of trade. Is it merely a reflection on the importance of international trade to our well-being; that's a trivial assertion. I have a feeling that you mean something else. I got that, but why are you mentioning it. What does that fact prove? Yes I do. Is exploitation okay by you, then? Surely we all dislike it. I would think that exploiters would be at the top of that list, and the exploited at the bottom. No?
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Jan 28, 2015 0:45:23 GMT -5
Why do you consider some former colonies "exploiters" and some "exploited"?
How do you think Japan and Germany got to be higher than the UK in the GDP list? Surely as an occupier the UK should be better off than occupied Germany and Japan?
I don't know what reasoning you use to determine who is an exploiter.
Some would say that you are an exploiter yourself, being an employer.
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Jan 28, 2015 0:51:49 GMT -5
Most countries that you consider "exploited" WH, are countries that are full of corruption and bad governance.
Their problems have very little to do with "exploitation".
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Jan 28, 2015 1:33:24 GMT -5
I guess I'm trying to figure out in what way that matters, or matters to you. Trade is always a good thing. Do you credit the West for that though? Did the West invent "trade"? Perhaps China would be better off if it had focused its trade efforts on Asian countries. Who knows? Where would China be if it had focused its economic efforts on Asia and Europe? It might well be better off. Of course, air pollution is China's responsibility. But it is a downside effect of the massive increase in industrial production as a result of trade with the West. There are many problems around trade with China currently. Another serious problem is the perpetual trade imbalance as a result of China not having a market economy. That's a problem for the Chinese labourer and a problem for us. Then the lack of environmental standards, human rights and working conditions make it an unlevel playing field for manufacturing in the West. Personally, I believe we would be better off without Chinese trade as it currently stands. I do understand that the issue you are raising is whether it is better for China. So are you saying: 1. Trade is always a good thing. 2. We would be better off without Chinese trade. 3. Perhaps China would be better off if it had focused its trade efforts on Asian countries. The reason I mentioned China is because the country opened up its markets and benefitted greatly as a result. It's you who has issues with Western "exploitation" of other countries. There are ten countries with a higher GDP per capita than the USA in this list: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_%28PPP%29_per_capitaFour of them are in Europe and six are former British colonies or protectorates. How can that be, seeing that the West is the exploiter you claim it to be? According to the map on the link that you gave your conclusion isn't correct.
Please look at the map again.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_%28PPP%29_per_capita
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Jan 28, 2015 3:18:25 GMT -5
As a non-American who has travelled to the US a couple of times, and done business with Americans spanning more than three decades, I can say that I have the highest respect for the American people. Sure, I think there's a lot about their country they could improve but the world would be very much the poorer without the US of A. Young people like getting around with American memorabilia, listening to American music and watching American movies. I think it's nonsense to assume that Americans are disliked around the world - apart from in basket case countries where our secular freedoms are despised. Who said anything about disliking Americans? I have an American wife, two American children, 5 American grand and step grandchildren, and my great grandmother is buried in California. And I am a descendant of two political refugees FROM the United States. Of all people who can claim WASP American heritage, I am certainly one. My first Williston ancestor to arrive in what is now New York arrived in the mid 1600s, and 13 states have towns named for him. Ironically most Americans who now have his Williston name are of primarily African American DNA. And American businessmen dearly love it when the rest of the world thinks that they are making the rest of the world rich. They even love the Tea Party for thinking so. That's why a lot of Christian Americans actually think Jesus was the first American. (By the way, that's not a joke, that's what some Americans actually believe.) You should meet some of them. Unfortunately a lot of the rest of we Americans think they're totally batsh--! Are you for real? The top 85 most wealthy people in the world have more personal wealth among them than the bottom 50 percent of the world's population combined, and the 50 percent portion of the population is growing rapidly. Oh well, I have a secure pension from Canada.
|
|
|
Post by Mary on Jan 28, 2015 4:07:18 GMT -5
You guys are having a mature coversation on a touchy subject. You are doing well. Congratulations I knew you could do it.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Jan 28, 2015 9:01:37 GMT -5
Why do you consider some former colonies "exploiters" and some "exploited"? How do you think Japan and Germany got to be higher than the UK in the GDP list? Surely as an occupier the UK should be better off than occupied Germany and Japan? I don't know what reasoning you use to determine who is an exploiter. Some would say that you are an exploiter yourself, being an employer. Would you mind showing me where I began characterising entire countries as exploiters? I can elaborate or clarify or correct any post I've made, but it's difficult to respond to what you think I said. For one thing I am struggling with your optics. To that end I would really like you to answer my question about the relevance of your statement about China being better off than 30 years ago. What does this prove? Why did you bring it up? I'm not trying to put you on the defensive but understand better the evaluative criteria which loom as most significant in your mind. I suspect mine are quite different.
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Jan 28, 2015 12:59:59 GMT -5
Why do you consider some former colonies "exploiters" and some "exploited"? How do you think Japan and Germany got to be higher than the UK in the GDP list? Surely as an occupier the UK should be better off than occupied Germany and Japan? I don't know what reasoning you use to determine who is an exploiter. Some would say that you are an exploiter yourself, being an employer. Would you mind showing me where I began characterising entire countries as exploiters? I can elaborate or clarify or correct any post I've made, but it's difficult to respond to what you think I said. For one thing I am struggling with your optics. To that end I would really like you to answer my question about the relevance of your statement about China being better off than 30 years ago. What does this prove? Why did you bring it up? I'm not trying to put you on the defensive but understand better the evaluative criteria which loom as most significant in your mind. I suspect mine are quite different. OK, I'll paste one of your posts below and I'll underline the parts that refer to countries and groups of countries, just so we can agree that countries and groups of countries (particularly Western) and the attitudes of their people are being discussed. Yknot, I had a skim back through your posts (there is a way to do that from the "Members" section if anyone is interested) to try and support my assertion that "The problem I detect in your thinking, and moreso in that of fixit's, is that you have trouble accepting that there is any problem with Western culture; or with the products or influences of Western culture." This was really an impression and I thought I would put it out there; I do think you think more of Western culture and Western ways than it rightfully deserves. There are aspects and components of Western culture that are meritorious, but much of the legacy of the West has been terrible and destructive, IMO. The other day, my history group was discussing the effects of eugenics, a notion that was widespread and very popular in the early part of the 20th Century in the West. I don't believe that eugenics was an anomaly but rather a product of our dualistic, ethnocentric thinking in the West. Sentences like the one I underlined above, in reference to the USA, display a large amount of the hubris characteristic of Americans. It would be impossible to assess whether the USA cares as much as other nations when the chips are down. American do care, and care a lot, for which we can be grateful, but they're also pretty boastful about how much they care. I don't think that they care more than the British, the Dutch, the French or the Italians. How would we know? At least in those countries there is far more awareness of what's happening in the world compared to the USA. On your second point, giving as much as the rest of the human species can be quantified and the USA is below the mean in the West. The USA actually ranks 20th among Western countries in development assistance as a percentage of national income. The rest of the claims strike me as spurious as well. I suppose the comment is a criticism, but I didn't mean it as a personal criticism. I meant it as a characterisation of how I see your viewpoint, and the viewpoint of many other Americans. I'm not sure if that helps, but I hope it does. I do very much appreciate your erudition, depth of knowledge and most of all, your ongoing effort to move the debate forward in interesting and positive directions.
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Jan 28, 2015 13:38:39 GMT -5
Why do you consider some former colonies "exploiters" and some "exploited"? How do you think Japan and Germany got to be higher than the UK in the GDP list? Surely as an occupier the UK should be better off than occupied Germany and Japan? I don't know what reasoning you use to determine who is an exploiter. Some would say that you are an exploiter yourself, being an employer. Would you mind showing me where I began characterising entire countries as exploiters? I can elaborate or clarify or correct any post I've made, but it's difficult to respond to what you think I said. For one thing I am struggling with your optics. To that end I would really like you to answer my question about the relevance of your statement about China being better off than 30 years ago. What does this prove? Why did you bring it up? I'm not trying to put you on the defensive but understand better the evaluative criteria which loom as most significant in your mind. I suspect mine are quite different. You seemed to have a problem with Western investment in developing countries hurting the people of those countries, so I mentioned that the Chinese people have benefitted enormously from opening their country to investment by the developed world 30 years ago. I mentioned China for the same reason you mentioned Nigeria. Why do you think China and many other countries have done so much better than Nigeria? Here's the perspective of a Nigerian:
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Jan 28, 2015 13:51:36 GMT -5
Would you mind showing me where I began characterising entire countries as exploiters? I can elaborate or clarify or correct any post I've made, but it's difficult to respond to what you think I said. For one thing I am struggling with your optics. To that end I would really like you to answer my question about the relevance of your statement about China being better off than 30 years ago. What does this prove? Why did you bring it up? I'm not trying to put you on the defensive but understand better the evaluative criteria which loom as most significant in your mind. I suspect mine are quite different. You seemed to have a problem with Western investment in developing countries hurting the people of those countries, so I mentioned that the Chinese people have benefitted enormously from opening their country to investment by the developed world 30 years ago. I mentioned China for the same reason you mentioned Nigeria. Why do you think China and many other countries have done so much better than Nigeria? It's because the Chinese are better educated and more financially savvy that Americans. More simply put: China is doing so well because it produces everything Americans want to buy, and doesn't need anything that Americans have to sell. The Americans are now scrambling to deal with their loss of control of the balance of trade, the loss of American jobs, and the reportedly inordinate investment of Chinese interests in US businesses and property. The Chinese get things done, and Americans can't even replace their crumbling infrastructure. The Chinese learned long ago how to keep foreigners from ripping them off. Have you heard of the Opium Wars? ??
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Jan 28, 2015 14:11:09 GMT -5
Yes, the Opium Wars were before the heinous savagery the Japanese inflicted on us Westerners.
Are we wallowing in self pity?
No, we have all moved on and have a good relationship with Japan.
My lot were invaded by the Normans in 1066, but I realise how stupid it would be to put anyone on a guilt trip over that.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Jan 28, 2015 15:05:12 GMT -5
Would you mind showing me where I began characterising entire countries as exploiters? I can elaborate or clarify or correct any post I've made, but it's difficult to respond to what you think I said. For one thing I am struggling with your optics. To that end I would really like you to answer my question about the relevance of your statement about China being better off than 30 years ago. What does this prove? Why did you bring it up? I'm not trying to put you on the defensive but understand better the evaluative criteria which loom as most significant in your mind. I suspect mine are quite different. You seemed to have a problem with Western investment in developing countries hurting the people of those countries, so I mentioned that the Chinese people have benefitted enormously from opening their country to investment by the developed world 30 years ago. I mentioned China for the same reason you mentioned Nigeria. Why do you think China and many other countries have done so much better than Nigeria? Here's the perspective of a Nigerian: Nigeria is quite vulnerable compared to China. Their economy is quite dependent on Shell Oil and it is run by a military regime. Here's an overview of the problems - www.essentialaction.org/shell/issues.html#GovernmentChina is also a very corrupt country. Their stock market cannot be trusted, for example. Several smaller Chinese companies listed on the TSE have been caught out on major fraud issues. However, they've exercised tight control over their internal economic development since transitioning from Communism. That's why they have done relatively well; the country is run to enhance their own prosperity instead of someone else's. Or I should say, enhance the prosperity of the elite running that country; their workers, much less so. FDI (Foreign Direct Investment) inward stock in China is 9.9% of GDP, whereas in Nigeria it is 27.2% of GDP. It was over 50% in the 1990s.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Jan 28, 2015 15:27:18 GMT -5
Would you mind showing me where I began characterising entire countries as exploiters? I can elaborate or clarify or correct any post I've made, but it's difficult to respond to what you think I said. For one thing I am struggling with your optics. To that end I would really like you to answer my question about the relevance of your statement about China being better off than 30 years ago. What does this prove? Why did you bring it up? I'm not trying to put you on the defensive but understand better the evaluative criteria which loom as most significant in your mind. I suspect mine are quite different. OK, I'll paste one of your posts below and I'll underline the parts that refer to countries and groups of countries, just so we can agree that countries and groups of countries (particularly Western) and the attitudes of their people are being discussed. Yknot, I had a skim back through your posts (there is a way to do that from the "Members" section if anyone is interested) to try and support my assertion that "The problem I detect in your thinking, and moreso in that of fixit's, is that you have trouble accepting that there is any problem with Western culture; or with the products or influences of Western culture." This was really an impression and I thought I would put it out there; I do think you think more of Western culture and Western ways than it rightfully deserves. There are aspects and components of Western culture that are meritorious, but much of the legacy of the West has been terrible and destructive, IMO. The other day, my history group was discussing the effects of eugenics, a notion that was widespread and very popular in the early part of the 20th Century in the West. I don't believe that eugenics was an anomaly but rather a product of our dualistic, ethnocentric thinking in the West. Sentences like the one I underlined above, in reference to the USA, display a large amount of the hubris characteristic of Americans. It would be impossible to assess whether the USA cares as much as other nations when the chips are down. American do care, and care a lot, for which we can be grateful, but they're also pretty boastful about how much they care. I don't think that they care more than the British, the Dutch, the French or the Italians. How would we know? At least in those countries there is far more awareness of what's happening in the world compared to the USA. On your second point, giving as much as the rest of the human species can be quantified and the USA is below the mean in the West. The USA actually ranks 20th among Western countries in development assistance as a percentage of national income. The rest of the claims strike me as spurious as well. I do very much appreciate your erudition, depth of knowledge and most of all, your ongoing effort to move the debate forward in interesting and positive directions. These comments do accurately reflect my viewpoint and knowledge, even in reading them a second time. I don't refer here to Americans or any group of countries as "exploiters". There is a way I might use the word but it would be in a specific context. For example, I would call those Americans running the Bechtel Corporation who triggered the Bolivian water crisis, "exploiters". Nor do I agree with this documentarian, although it shows where peoples' heads are at these days. It does corroborate yknot's dictum that Americans are their own harshest critics.
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Jan 28, 2015 15:47:01 GMT -5
Nigeria is quite vulnerable compared to China. Their economy is quite dependent on Shell Oil and it is run by a military regime. Here's an overview of the problems - www.essentialaction.org/shell/issues.html#GovernmentChina is also a very corrupt country. Their stock market cannot be trusted, for example. Several smaller Chinese companies listed on the TSE have been caught out on major fraud issues. However, they've exercised tight control over their internal economic development since transitioning from Communism. That's why they have done relatively well; the country is run to enhance their own prosperity instead of someone else's. Or I should say, enhance the prosperity of the elite running that country; their workers, much less so. FDI (Foreign Direct Investment) inward stock in China is 9.9% of GDP, whereas in Nigeria it is 27.2% of GDP. It was over 50% in the 1990s. I think we both share a hatred of oppression and an empathy for the underdog, but our views on the cause and the solution vary widely. Do you personally boycott all of the petrol companies?
|
|
|
Post by SharonArnold on Jan 28, 2015 17:50:38 GMT -5
I just came across this clip in researching Bill Maher after his comment about Chris Kyle (American Sniper) being a “psychopathic patriot”. Interesting discussion, with lots of (for the time being) unanswerable questions. But, I agree. This is a Muslim problem – how are they going to step up to the plate? (I had previously posted links to the Ismailis on this board, that was summarily dismissed as “Not Real Muslims”. I disagree. This is a group of people who are more evolved any Christian (or any other persuasion) group that I know. I know individuals who are more evolved, but no groups. I had peripherally been aware of Bill Mayer before, but never paid much attention to him. After his Chris Kyle comment, I was shocked to find the number of issues that I probably agree with him on. I still think he is out to lunch on “American Sniper”. As other critics have expressed it is “Not a black and white film; it is an honest film.” I also became acquainted with the term " apatheist", which I had never come across before.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Jan 28, 2015 18:23:52 GMT -5
Nigeria is quite vulnerable compared to China. Their economy is quite dependent on Shell Oil and it is run by a military regime. Here's an overview of the problems - www.essentialaction.org/shell/issues.html#GovernmentChina is also a very corrupt country. Their stock market cannot be trusted, for example. Several smaller Chinese companies listed on the TSE have been caught out on major fraud issues. However, they've exercised tight control over their internal economic development since transitioning from Communism. That's why they have done relatively well; the country is run to enhance their own prosperity instead of someone else's. Or I should say, enhance the prosperity of the elite running that country; their workers, much less so. FDI (Foreign Direct Investment) inward stock in China is 9.9% of GDP, whereas in Nigeria it is 27.2% of GDP. It was over 50% in the 1990s. I think we both share a hatred of oppression and an empathy for the underdog, but our views on the cause and the solution vary widely. Do you personally boycott all of the petrol companie I'm concerned about carbon dioxide emissions in general. However, the issue of buying products is a double-edged sword. If I boycotted a company that exploited garment workers in Bangla-Desh, say, I'd also be putting those workers out of work and they would starve. I don't shop at Wal-Mart except on very rare occasion because I dislike the entire supply-chain system they use. The reasons are slightly different in Wal-Mart's case. I don't like the idea of super cargo ships strung across the Pacific Ocean carrying mountains full of future landfill material manufactured under conditions which abuse labour and the environment while we put ourselves out of work and lose our ability to do much beside watch TV commercials and drive to Wal-Mart to buy more junk. So I don't shop there. But I don't really feel like I should boycott an oil company because of what Shell does in Nigeria, say. It's complex. First, I don't blame capitalism as a system anymore than I would blame democracy because Hitler was voted into power. When I blame "Western capitalism" I mean "capitalism and its Western practitioners" not a free market economy, trade or the mechanism of capital investment. They are just mechanisms. I also don't see "Western capitalism" or its purveyors as wholly good or wholly bad. I'm not looking for a sea change in the system. I see the actors within Western capitalism as doing some good things and some bad things. It's important to identify the bad things and try to correct them. As an example, we know monopolies are bad and we have anti-trust laws preventing them from forming. I don't believe that markets self-correct and purge bad actors. They might if markets were truly free but they are never free. But I also am not fond of over-regulation. Government bureaucracies tend to be lazy and reactive and the number one problem is enforcement; the rules are often already there. I think there are answers though, but I don't think there are any magic bullets that will solve all the problems. I am rather outraged at the concentration of wealth in the hands of a few, the widespread poverty and hunger in the world, the amount of military intervention that is unwarranted, and on and on. I don't blame anyone in particular for the situation of the world. There is no easy solution. Given that, I do bridle at views that take either one of the following form: 1) The people of a particular race | country | religion | neighbourhood are to blame for the hunger | poverty | destitution | homelessness that they face. 2) Our capitalist | democratic | American | European system or way of life is responsible for our success. If everyone acted in as virtuous | hard working | intelligent fashion as we did, they would have our high standard of living as well. Generally I believe views or notions of that form exist mainly to dismiss the plight of others in some respect and deflect us from looking at ourselves and our own systems. It's not that I think a particular country shouldn't take responsibility for what happens there. If Nigeria is ruled by a despot, why don't the people kick him out? But we often have a responsibility too. These rulers use brutal repression to stay in power, and who provides them with the arms? Why does Shell pay large sums to a few despots which they then use to keep themselves in power and brutalize their public? Why is there abject poverty in Nigeria and a small super-wealthy class as well? Don't get me wrong. We don't always do the wrong thing with countries like Nigeria. It looks like Obama and Kerry are trying to do the right thing as far as making sure the election takes place. But it's never hard to identify when the "right thing" is done. It's much harder to identify and convince people when wrong things are done. Right things are done in the light, and wrong things are done in the dark. This is why the Iraqi invasion of 2003 was such a low point in Western foreign relations. We all were lied to about the reason for going in. By "we" I mean me, my friends and neighbours and the heads of state of 40 foreign countries. Thank you, Jean Chretien for not believing the lies. And then we were BS'd and lied to right along during the whole operation. Now we have ISIS as a direct consequence of the mistakes that were made. And now, 11 or 12 years later the deeds that were done in darkness are coming to light. My view on the mistakes is that mistakes do happen and it was almost inevitable that what happened would happen. The warnings and analysis of what could happen were all there at the outset, but brushed aside, ignored, and replaced with false hopes and promises based on a false ideology that the Western system transplanted to Iraq would be a magic fix. We shouldn't have invaded in 2003. We should have continued to work at, and enforce the UN inspections at point of a gun, if necessary. We should let these Muslim countries solve their own problems even if it means that a dictator stays in power. At the same time we shouldn't offer aid and arms to dictators and despotic countries the way they do. There you go, what hat's foreign policy. Hind sight is always 20-20.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Jan 28, 2015 19:29:33 GMT -5
I just came across this clip in researching Bill Maher after his comment about Chris Kyle (American Sniper) being a “psychopathic patriot”. Interesting discussion, with lots of (for the time being) unanswerable questions. But, I agree. This is a Muslim problem – how are they going to step up to the plate? (I had previously posted links to the Ismailis on this board, that was summarily dismissed as “Not Real Muslims”. I disagree. This is a group of people who are more evolved any Christian (or any other persuasion) group that I know. I know individuals who are more evolved, but no groups. I had peripherally been aware of Bill Mayer before, but never paid much attention to him. After his Chris Kyle comment, I was shocked to find the number of issues that I probably agree with him on. I still think he is out to lunch on “American Sniper”. As other critics have expressed it is “Not a black and white film; it is an honest film.” I also became acquainted with the term " apatheist", which I had never come across before. The point I got from Bill Maher was that the movie, whether it had social value or not, glorified a specific individual who in real life claimed some pathologically high from knocking off people by ambush. Only in the military can one act out such a fantasy.
|
|