|
Post by What Hat on Feb 19, 2015 10:20:52 GMT -5
That article is pretty bad, racist, IMO.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Feb 19, 2015 10:39:59 GMT -5
"If ISIS is Islam then the KKK are Christianity" read this quote this morning. Kareem Abdul Jabber. That's a rather disingenuous statement I think. I think you are underestimating the influence the KKK had in the 1920s. They had millions of members, and were also popular in western Canada. They were certainly Christian. They believe in white supremacy and enforced their beliefs violently. They killed thousands and injured many times more. There's many parallels to ISIS. In any case, Jabbar was not saying that KKK is the same as ISIS. Obviously there are differences. His point is that the vast majority of Muslims are not ISIS, just as the vast majority of Christians are not KKK. Just why is it that you take ISIS and Jihadism as representative of Islam, but you don't do that with the KKK. The Pew Research poll indicates to me that American evangelicals see themselves as lily white while seeing Muslims as evil. Atheists tend to see both Christians and Muslims as susceptible to religion's ill effects. This is how I view the poll results. This difference in viewpoint I attribute mainly to psychology and issues of identity and 'otherness'. I don't have time to really elaborate right now.
|
|
|
Post by slowtosee on Feb 19, 2015 10:56:49 GMT -5
Thanks snow, whathat,fixit for replies. I can understand the legitimate concerns. We want to be protected and still retain freedoms, is a balancing act that can go too far both ways. Depending on the issue being discussed, but I presume the same law abiding person arguing for the right and freedom to have and use powerful firearms, would argue against losing any freedom of that right, but many would argue against that person's freedom and request government rules to curtail it. Thinking nra Alvin
|
|
|
Post by snow on Feb 19, 2015 12:49:18 GMT -5
"If ISIS is Islam then the KKK are Christianity" read this quote this morning. Kareem Abdul Jabber. That's a rather disingenuous statement I think. The KKK can look to the Bible and get justification for everything they do. Slavery is justified. Christians did what ISIS is now doing and more not that very long ago. They don't anymore, but the Bible is now something most Christians have to read, pick and choose what they can morally support and a lot of it just can't be lived that way anymore or you'd be seen the same way ISIS is being seen at the moment. The Quran and the Bible both advocate the things we saw during the Crusades, the Inquisition, the witch hunts and yes, recently and ongoing, the KKK. So it's important to not look at all of Islam as it is 'today' to be like ISIS, just like it's important to not look at Christianity as it is 'today' to be like the KKK. It certainly has sacred books for both religions that would support all types of horrific things, but most people in both religions have moved beyond that, become more morally evolved etc.
|
|
|
Post by snow on Feb 19, 2015 12:55:00 GMT -5
Yes, I agree, Bill C-51 is not needed here. I am not happy that the guy who most likely has the best chance of ousting Harper agrees with the bill! I was thinking liberal this time around, but not anymore. I see NDP and Green are against it. I just can't agree that giving up our freedoms and allowing for more government power is the answer. This bill would cover something as innocent as a protest against something the government wants. When Justin was in our city he was saying he would support the bill but wanted a few changes to it. Who knows. All terrorists seem to do is give governments more power in the guise of protection. None of it will protect us and if they take more freedoms away, the terrorists have won anyway imo. So the Globe published a poll this morning that 82% favour the bill. Yet those commenting on the Globe site are 75% or more against the bill. What does that tell you? Yes, a lot of people pay no attention to the implications of a bill like this, and as long as the beheadings continue they'll back whatever the government recommends. At least I've softened my view on Justin's stance. He has obviously seen the numbers and realizes he's not going to be able to ride his opposition to any success. Congratulations to Mulcair for sticking to principle. Yes, that is what frustrates me more than anything about a good number of people. They let themselves make decisions driven by fear and pretty much plead to have their freedoms taken away from the by governments thinking that these people and their new 'bills' will somehow do something to protect them. They don't look at the implications of what this bill can do to ordinary, law abiding citizens that might happen to disagree with what the government wants. It can be a non violent protest and protesters will have the chance of becoming labelled as 'against the government' and therefore legally they can do what they want once that has been determined.
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Feb 19, 2015 14:18:09 GMT -5
This assessment of my attitude towards Muslims is a concern What Hat. I don't hate Muslims at all - I only hate the way they behave. Not all of them. The couple who run our local corner dairy seem nice enough. Basically you said, "The more Westerners are persecuted the more they will hate Muslims." My answer is a hypothetical. Perhaps you don't hate Muslims, but you certainly don't like them very much. But the point remains, the situation of Muslims and their hate for the West, where it is found, is entirely different than that of Westerners. I have some empathy for their hate and their situation, but none for those who hate them. It's not as "tit for tat" as your statement makes out. It's time you got some empathy for people who see their society being destroyed by Islamic nut-jobs. Would it help if one of your loved ones was destroyed in one of their senseless attacks?
|
|
|
Post by snow on Feb 19, 2015 15:06:34 GMT -5
Basically you said, "The more Westerners are persecuted the more they will hate Muslims." My answer is a hypothetical. Perhaps you don't hate Muslims, but you certainly don't like them very much. But the point remains, the situation of Muslims and their hate for the West, where it is found, is entirely different than that of Westerners. I have some empathy for their hate and their situation, but none for those who hate them. It's not as "tit for tat" as your statement makes out. It's time you got some empathy for people who see their society being destroyed by Islamic nut-jobs. Would it help if one of your loved ones was destroyed in one of their senseless attacks? I really don't think I would hate Muslims even if something happened to a loved one by ISIS. It would make no sense for me to hate Christians if one killed my loved one so why would we hate Muslims for the same reason? I think living in fear of what might happen and punishing a bunch of innocent people for the actions of a few is over reacting. If and when it comes to our shores then we obviously must deal with them. When it happens in their own countries it's not something we have much control over. I do have empathy for those who live in fear. I have empathy for the Shiites and Christians that live in that part of the world and live in fear. It's not about not caring, it's about not over reacting and making things worse. At least that's how it is for me. I can't speak for What hat and I do realize you asked him not me.
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Feb 19, 2015 15:23:25 GMT -5
It has reached your own continent already Snow.
I'm not sure that refusing to say it how it is will help.
There's a problem within Islam.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Feb 19, 2015 15:53:00 GMT -5
Basically you said, "The more Westerners are persecuted the more they will hate Muslims." My answer is a hypothetical. Perhaps you don't hate Muslims, but you certainly don't like them very much. But the point remains, the situation of Muslims and their hate for the West, where it is found, is entirely different than that of Westerners. I have some empathy for their hate and their situation, but none for those who hate them. It's not as "tit for tat" as your statement makes out. It's time you got some empathy for people who see their society being destroyed by Islamic nut-jobs. Would it help if one of your loved ones was destroyed in one of their senseless attacks? If one of my loved ones was destroyed in a terrorist attack it would not make me more empathetic for people who make the problem worse, no.
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Feb 19, 2015 15:58:30 GMT -5
WH, they hate us for the freedoms we stand for - not for anything we've done to them.
For a start, they hate religious freedom.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Feb 19, 2015 16:00:50 GMT -5
WH, they hate us for the freedoms we stand for - not for anything we've done to them. For a start, they hate religious freedom. What a dark and depressing world you live in.
|
|
|
Post by Mary on Feb 19, 2015 16:19:23 GMT -5
Someone who is anti terrorism lives in a dark and depressing world?
A agree with Obama though, that we do not call it the Islamic State. That is the name that IS wants us to call it. By calling it that we are declaring that part of the world is an Islamic state. A lot of Muslims are against the killings and are as horrified as we are and see it as the end times. I am not sure if they thought that the enemy would rise up amongst themselves. But a lot of the Quran declares killing Christians and Jews who will not covert.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Feb 19, 2015 16:32:09 GMT -5
Basically you said, "The more Westerners are persecuted the more they will hate Muslims." My answer is a hypothetical. Perhaps you don't hate Muslims, but you certainly don't like them very much. But the point remains, the situation of Muslims and their hate for the West, where it is found, is entirely different than that of Westerners. I have some empathy for their hate and their situation, but none for those who hate them. It's not as "tit for tat" as your statement makes out. It's time you got some empathy for people who see their society being destroyed by Islamic nut-jobs. Would it help if one of your loved ones was destroyed in one of their senseless attacks? Perhaps, it is time for some people to step back and realize our society isn't being destroyed by Islam.
We are much more apt to destroy our own society by failing prey to such irrational fears.
You are only helping the destruction by throwing fuel onto fire.
I would hope that if one of my loved ones were destroyed in one of their attacks that I would still be able to see the larger picture and basically do as you who are Christians claim to do.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Feb 19, 2015 16:36:37 GMT -5
WH, they hate us for the freedoms we stand for - not for anything we've done to them. For a start, they hate religious freedom. Fixit, you are sounding like W. Bush!
That is a load of crock!
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Feb 19, 2015 17:06:43 GMT -5
I always like to take a look at any article as to where it comes from & who wrote it in order to access how reliable it is.
Your article is from Whale Oil Beef Hooked blog by Cameron Slater, a controversial, right wing New Zealand-based blogger who is best known for publishing the most widely read blog in New Zealand, the Whale Oil Beef Hooked blog.
He was the editor of tabloid newspaper The New Zealand Truth from November 2012[2] until it ceased publication in in July 2013.
Slater is the son of former National Party President John Slater.[1]
|
|
|
Post by SharonArnold on Feb 19, 2015 17:09:34 GMT -5
Perhaps, it is time for some people to step back and realize our society isn't being destroyed by Islam.
We are much more apt to destroy our own society by failing prey to such irrational fears.
For the most part I agree with you. I resonate more deeply with Sufism than many of the other Wisdom traditions. My favorite poets are Rumi and Hafiz, no Western poets even come close. I also love Khalil Gibran, who, though born into a Catholic family, was reportedly very influenced by Sufism. I have Ismaili friends who are better human beings than I'll ever be. Still, I am in the middle of reading Phyllis Chesler's "An American Bride in Kabul". It is one of the milder accounts I have read of the repression and marginalization of women within predominantly Islamic countries. Even so, it is deeply disturbing. Not simple. None of it.
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Feb 19, 2015 17:28:01 GMT -5
WH, they hate us for the freedoms we stand for - not for anything we've done to them. For a start, they hate religious freedom. Fixit, you are sounding like W. Bush!
That is a load of crock!
I think you like the freedom to question the existence of Allah.... www.thereligionofpeace.com/Quran/012-apostasy.htm
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Feb 19, 2015 17:40:29 GMT -5
But that is NOT why they hate us, -"for the freedoms we stand for."
I remember when Bush made that very same ignorant statement.
When he said I thought, "Good grief! -and that nit wit is suppose to be our leader!"
You & he both need to hit the history books!
You are conveniently ignoring what the Western World has done to them.
The Western world has moved much of the whole area around like pieces on a chess board, for our own benefit.
You are also blaming the whole Muslim world for what a few are doing!
|
|
|
Post by placid-void on Feb 19, 2015 18:00:12 GMT -5
I know you addressed this question to Snow, but I believe that multi-culturalism still offers the only way forward in our country. And that simply means that each person has the right to live as they best see fit, according to their beliefs and background, as long as they do not harm any other. We have always been a multi-cultural country and the policies of multi-culturalism have not failed, but at times we have failed to be as tolerant and inclusive as we should be. Do you think that there is anything inherent in multi-cultural policies that should cause them to fail? I'm perfectly okay with the idea that some of my neighbours are Sudanese, Old Order Mennonites, German, Portuguese, Jamaican, West African, American or WASPs, and to some extent they all have their social enclaves. The only one that ever causes problems are the WASPs who sometimes think everyone should be like them. Not all of them, but some. What Hat, I am glad to see you express an interest in a way forward. I am not a student of Canadian governance or policies but I am interested in your experiences with multi-culturalism. As you know, the U.S. has traditionally followed a model of assimilation rather than discreet multiple cultures. I am aware of some of the critiques by the intellectual community of assimilation as a alternate form of subjugation so we don't need to rehearse those issues at the start. There are several aspects of multi-culturalism that interest me: 1) Globally, what locations offer a superior example of multi-culturalism effectively working in practice? 2) How is "rule of law" defined/redefined in a multi-cultural society where legal precedents may differ significantly? 3) As an operational social norm, does multi-culturalism emerge from the governed or is it imposed by those who govern? 4) How does multi-culturalism address questions of language and education? 5) Noting significant variation in birth-control attitudes and practices between cultures, how does a multi-cultural society anticipate equitable resource allocation over the long term (25, 50, 75 years)? 6) How does a multi-cultural society manage/balance group-centric issues vis-a-vis the welfare of the whole society? 7) Among the strong proponents of multi-culturalism are there any statistics on those who would be willing to participate in a Rawlsian contract arrangement and choose from behind a veil to become a member of any of the cultures for which they advocate? This would be a very interesting study if available. Have to run, I will be interested in the response of all.
|
|
|
Post by placid-void on Feb 19, 2015 19:49:18 GMT -5
Many years ago I read Samantha Powers book: "A Problem From Hell: America and the Age of Genocide". It was a compelling treatise on the indifference of those in power to the suffering of ethnic minorities. Samantha Powers in now the U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations. Can anyone help me understand the transition from the ardent human-rights interventionism of her book to her current nuanced articulation of Administration policy at the United Nations?
Is a conversation about expediency vs. conviction a worthy topic for this thread?
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Feb 19, 2015 20:20:32 GMT -5
I know you addressed this question to Snow, but I believe that multi-culturalism still offers the only way forward in our country. And that simply means that each person has the right to live as they best see fit, according to their beliefs and background, as long as they do not harm any other. We have always been a multi-cultural country and the policies of multi-culturalism have not failed, but at times we have failed to be as tolerant and inclusive as we should be. Do you think that there is anything inherent in multi-cultural policies that should cause them to fail? I'm perfectly okay with the idea that some of my neighbours are Sudanese, Old Order Mennonites, German, Portuguese, Jamaican, West African, American or WASPs, and to some extent they all have their social enclaves. The only one that ever causes problems are the WASPs who sometimes think everyone should be like them. Not all of them, but some. What Hat, I am glad to see you express an interest in a way forward. I am not a student of Canadian governance or policies but I am interested in your experiences with multi-culturalism. As you know, the U.S. has traditionally followed a model of assimilation rather than discreet multiple cultures. I am aware of some of the critiques by the intellectual community of assimilation as a alternate form of subjugation so we don't need to rehearse those issues at the start. There are several aspects of multi-culturalism that interest me: 1) Globally, what locations offer a superior example of multi-culturalism effectively working in practice? I'm familiar with multi-cultural practices in Canada, and to a lesser extent, the Netherlands. I couldn't really comment on the the experience of any other country along this line. Perhaps Yugoslavia? It wasn't too good was it? There are good wiki articles on 'multiculturalism', 'multiculturalism in the Netherlands', and 'multiculturalism in Canada'. In Canada, not at all. This was never an issue, until some Muslims sought to assert sharia law in terms of family law, not criminal law. This must have been a decade or more ago, and the government of the day entertained the proposal. The public reaction was swift and clear, and against the proposal, and even though the proposal was not unreasonable, it died a quick death. Personally I feel strongly that we should have a single system of law, and turning down the proposal was the right thing to do. This is why I'm not concerned about Muslims who seek to institute sharia law here. It's not going to happen. Multi-cultural practice in Ontario is defined, I feel, not through government policy, but through an innate sense of what works through tests over the course of a couple of centuries. The main tests have been the tried and failed assimilation of indigneous peoples at one end of the scale, and the Muslim enclave as an example of the breakdown of some multi-cultural policies relating to immigration, both here and moreso in the Netherlands. Both, but no one is going to do anything in favour of either assimilation or multi-culturalism without a significant level of public support. There are always those who are anti-immigration, for example. But we've been accepting about 300,000 or more new Canadians every year for decades. Immigration policies have toughened in recent years, and become less kind and less reasonable. Some basic concepts of human justice have been dropped. Immigrants are becoming a separate, lower class of people in our country with special laws that apply to them. For example, if you are an immigrant refugee and shop-lift you may be deported to the war-torn country from which you fled, as a punishment. This may happen without trial and without an opportunity to appeal the decision. Multi-culturalism to me is nothing more than the result of the application of universal human rights and justice. In Ontario, Canada, taxes support two school systems - a public system and a Catholic school system, called the separate school system. Any other private or religious school obtains zero tax support. I was raised in a family who strongly believed in Christian schools apart from the public school system, and two of my brothers attended such schools. Over the years, the idea of providing government support for these and other schools has been floated by various politicians and met with strong opposition. In fact, one Conservative politician recently lost an election mainly on the basis of floating such a proposal. Christian schools and other charter schools in Alberta, Canada do receive public funds to cover some of their costs. Personally, I am strongly against the idea of such support. I want to see diversity within our schools, not diverse schools. Certainly, people do have the freedom to run their own schools, but on their own dime. One of the main reasons Ontarions are against charter schools is because of the poor public school system in the US, and they do not want that here. Language. Canada has two official languages, as you know. Here in Ontario, there is a very small French speaking population. Yet many schools offer French immersion programs. English speaking parents want to get their kids in to these programs. Fluent bilingualism is a great asset for many jobs in public service, and large corporations. Plus, French is seen as tres cool. There is some anti-French bigotry which seems to be decreasing with the younger set. Trudeau instituted official bilingualism to much opposition in the 1960s. It saved the country. Immigrants are encouraged to learn one of the two official languages. I'm discouraged that the govt of the day has cut back support for new immigrants' language classes. Both my parents attended English language lessons when we came to Canada decades ago. 5) Noting significant variation in birth-control attitudes and practices between cultures, how does a multi-cultural society anticipate equitable resource allocation over the long term (25, 50, 75 years)? I have no idea what this question means. You mean that some cultures have more children than others? Okay. Clearly in today's world a large family is not generally a good thing. We have a local problem in our region with very large Mennonite families. To be continued ... 6) How does a multi-cultural society manage/balance group-centric issues vis-a-vis the welfare of the whole society? 7) Among the strong proponents of multi-culturalism are there any statistics on those who would be willing to participate in a Rawlsian contract arrangement and choose from behind a veil to become a member of any of the cultures for which they advocate? This would be a very interesting study if available. Have to run, I will be interested in the response of all. [/quote]
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Feb 19, 2015 20:22:37 GMT -5
Many years ago I read Samantha Powers book: "A Problem From Hell: America and the Age of Genocide". It was a compelling treatise on the indifference of those in power to the suffering of ethnic minorities. Samantha Powers in now the U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations. Can anyone help me understand the transition from the ardent human-rights interventionism of her book to her current nuanced articulation of Administration policy at the United Nations? Is a conversation about expediency vs. conviction a worthy topic for this thread? The US probably has done more than any other nation to help avoid genocide, but "peaceniks" oppose foreign intervention. Samantha Powers is an ambassador more than a policy maker, so there's little she can do to influence intervention.
|
|
|
Post by snow on Feb 19, 2015 20:31:11 GMT -5
Many years ago I read Samantha Powers book: "A Problem From Hell: America and the Age of Genocide". It was a compelling treatise on the indifference of those in power to the suffering of ethnic minorities. Samantha Powers in now the U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations. Can anyone help me understand the transition from the ardent human-rights interventionism of her book to her current nuanced articulation of Administration policy at the United Nations? Is a conversation about expediency vs. conviction a worthy topic for this thread? The US probably has done more than any other nation to help avoid genocide, but "peaceniks" oppose foreign intervention. Samantha Powers is an ambassador more than a policy maker, so there's little she can do to influence intervention. Is 'peace' a dirty word? Are people who want to try all the alternatives they can do take care of problem peacefully, wrong and therefore held in disdain and called 'peaceniks' like it is also a dirty word? I am not ashamed of wanting to try and find peaceful solutions to problems. What good are we and what kind of role model would we be if we just responded in the same fashion as the ones we are trying to deal with and find a solution to their behavior with? Resorting to their level of response is sometimes necessary as a last resort, but all other more peaceful ways should be explored first imo. We gain nothing by making martyrs out of them.
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Feb 19, 2015 20:43:46 GMT -5
The US probably has done more than any other nation to help avoid genocide, but "peaceniks" oppose foreign intervention. Samantha Powers is an ambassador more than a policy maker, so there's little she can do to influence intervention. Is 'peace' a dirty word? Are people who want to try all the alternatives they can do take care of problem peacefully, wrong and therefore held in disdain and called 'peaceniks' like it is also a dirty word? I am not ashamed of wanting to try and find peaceful solutions to problems. What good are we and what kind of role model would we be if we just responded in the same fashion as the ones we are trying to deal with and find a solution to their behavior with? Resorting to their level of response is sometimes necessary as a last resort, but all other more peaceful ways should be explored first imo. We gain nothing by making martyrs out of them. When bad people become militarily strong the only diplomacy they understand is force and the threat of force. Bad people today are getting mixed messages from Western powers rather than a message of strength and resolve and the result is an increasingly unstable world. Through the 1930s 'peaceniks' sought diplomacy and peace with Hitler and it only served to postpone the inevitable and allow him to become stronger. Hitler was finally confronted 'as a last resort' and 48 million people died in WW2. Powers in her book suggested that more should have been done to stop 20th century genocide:
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Feb 19, 2015 20:50:32 GMT -5
I know you addressed this question to Snow, but I believe that multi-culturalism still offers the only way forward in our country. And that simply means that each person has the right to live as they best see fit, according to their beliefs and background, as long as they do not harm any other. We have always been a multi-cultural country and the policies of multi-culturalism have not failed, but at times we have failed to be as tolerant and inclusive as we should be. Do you think that there is anything inherent in multi-cultural policies that should cause them to fail? I'm perfectly okay with the idea that some of my neighbours are Sudanese, Old Order Mennonites, German, Portuguese, Jamaican, West African, American or WASPs, and to some extent they all have their social enclaves. The only one that ever causes problems are the WASPs who sometimes think everyone should be like them. Not all of them, but some. What Hat, I am glad to see you express an interest in a way forward. I am not a student of Canadian governance or policies but I am interested in your experiences with multi-culturalism. As you know, the U.S. has traditionally followed a model of assimilation rather than discreet multiple cultures. I am aware of some of the critiques by the intellectual community of assimilation as a alternate form of subjugation so we don't need to rehearse those issues at the start. There are several aspects of multi-culturalism that interest me: 5) Noting significant variation in birth-control attitudes and practices between cultures, how does a multi-cultural society anticipate equitable resource allocation over the long term (25, 50, 75 years)? So, the Mennonites live mainly on small farms and eschew automated farming, not to mention electricity, cars and so on. The problem is that, in spite of them buying large tracts of farmland in central southern Ontario, their population growth is outstripping the land they own. They are industrious and have built furniture shops, and small fabrication facilities (making skids, hockey sticks, even auto parts). But it's a problem, but mainly for them. They'll figure something out, they are resourceful and industrious. Those who escape the culture are often very successful in local business, even though they all leave school in grade eight. The more general answer to this issue is assimilation. Foreign cultures do assimilate in Canada, and Muslims as much as anyone. That's because the liberal, democratic values which constitute the background culture here are tremendously appealing to the children of immigrant families. Some countries assimilate better than others: India, China, Malaysia and European cultures assimilate quite well. Muslim and African cultures, not as well, in general. One concern is abhorrent controls by enclave cultures on their children, even adult children. This is an area where more needs to be done. There have even been a few cases of honour killings of Muslim children who adopted Western ways, by their fathers. One law, one school system, one set of rules for hockey. There is also the question of what you allow but don't like, or consider not beneficial for the welfare of the country. So, we don't like the full veil here, but certainly people should be free to wear it, and we should not prohibit wearing of the veil except in certain critical situations - border crossings, witnesses in court. Quebec tried to ban the burqa in amateur sports ... this was a burqa that covered the hair only, and presented no practical problem. That's not mono-culture, that's bigotry and a restriction on individual liberty. So .. "the welfare of the whole society" should not be managed by regulation, statute or law. The emphasis in law should be on individual liberty. But that doesn't mean that we shouldn't be concerned about the welfare of the whole society ... it should seek its own level though. I'm going to have to research what this means. In summary, multi-culturalism in Canada never has been a case of multiple integral ethnic enclaves co-existing. A critique of multi-culturalism on the basis of that view is mainly a false critique. There is a base set of values that are embodied in our Constitution and Bill of Rights. These values are supra-cultural and govern every person of every culture. We cannot import or allow cultural values that do not defer to those base values. But beyond those values, in the areas of language, food, music, but also personal moral choices, association and religion, people should be free to live as they see fit. Assimilation around a common set of preferred values will happen over time if left alone; that is there are majority values that take care of themselves, it's minority values that require protection.
|
|
|
Post by placid-void on Feb 19, 2015 20:54:50 GMT -5
The US probably has done more than any other nation to help avoid genocide, but "peaceniks" oppose foreign intervention. Samantha Powers is an ambassador more than a policy maker, so there's little she can do to influence intervention. My impression has been somewhat different on both of these points, fixit. I can't really compare the U.S. response to other nations (and my personal opinion is that on topics such as the prevention of genocide each nation must stand accountable for it's own actions). In her book, however, Samantha Powers presents well-documented and authoritative citations detailing the inaction of state leaders during most of the genocides of the 20th century from the Armenians early in the century all the way up through Rwanda and the ethnic cleansing in the Balkans. Much posturing but little action. And this assessment accords well with my memory of Cambodia, Rwanda and the Balkans. As to her influence, I certainly have no direct knowledge but a recent long article in "The New Yorker" strongly suggests that she has direct and important access to the President. From the little direct observation I have had of her speeches at the UN, she is certainly more direct and confrontational on "human rights issues" than Susan Rice ever was. She is, in my opinion, much sharper than the former Ambassador but her message appears to me to be attenuated at a critical time when expressions of true convictions would be most useful.
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Feb 19, 2015 21:05:58 GMT -5
The US probably has done more than any other nation to help avoid genocide, but "peaceniks" oppose foreign intervention. Samantha Powers is an ambassador more than a policy maker, so there's little she can do to influence intervention. My impression has been somewhat different on both of these points, fixit. I can't really compare the U.S. response to other nations (and my personal opinion is that on topics such as the prevention of genocide each nation must stand accountable for it's own actions). In her book, however, Samantha Powers presents well-documented and authoritative citations detailing the inaction of state leaders during most of the genocides of the 20th century from the Armenians early in the century all the way up through Rwanda and the ethnic cleansing in the Balkans. Much posturing but little action. And this assessment accords well with my memory of Cambodia, Rwanda and the Balkans. As to her influence, I certainly have no direct knowledge but a recent long article in "The New Yorker" strongly suggests that she has direct and important access to the President. From the little direct observation I have had of her speeches at the UN, she is certainly more direct and confrontational on "human rights issues" than Susan Rice ever was. She is, in my opinion, much sharper than the former Ambassador but her message appears to me to be attenuated at a critical time when expressions of true convictions would be most useful. A lot of Americans don't want their military to intervene in foreign wars. Sure, Samantha Powers will have influence but she can't single-handedly direct foreign policy. Her role is to articulate the Administration's position.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Feb 19, 2015 21:06:18 GMT -5
The US probably has done more than any other nation to help avoid genocide, but "peaceniks" oppose foreign intervention. Samantha Powers is an ambassador more than a policy maker, so there's little she can do to influence intervention. Is 'peace' a dirty word? Are people who want to try all the alternatives they can do take care of problem peacefully, wrong and therefore held in disdain and called 'peaceniks' like it is also a dirty word? I am not ashamed of wanting to try and find peaceful solutions to problems. What good are we and what kind of role model would we be if we just responded in the same fashion as the ones we are trying to deal with and find a solution to their behavior with? Resorting to their level of response is sometimes necessary as a last resort, but all other more peaceful ways should be explored first imo. We gain nothing by making martyrs out of them. I'd rather be a peacenik than a warnik, Yes I would, if I only could, I surely would.
The Daily Beast
Nobel Peaceniks
With his win, Obama follows in the footsteps of Elie Wiesel, Kissinger, Martin Luther King, Carter—and Woodrow Wilson after WWI. View our gallery of other Americans who've won. View our gallery of Americans who've won the Nobel Peace Prize and read the full list of winners below.
Gallery of American Winners of the Nobel Peace Prize
2009—Barack Obama 2008—Martti Ahtisaari 2007—Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Al Gore 2006—Muhammad Yunus, Grameen Bank 2005—International Atomic Energy Agency, Mohamed ElBaradei 2004—Wangari Maathai 2003—Shirin Ebadi 2002—Jimmy Carter 2001—United Nations, Kofi Annan 2000—Kim Dae-jung 1999—Médecins Sans Frontières 1998—John Hume, David Trimble 1997—International Campaign to Ban Landmines, Jody Williams 1996—Carlos Filipe Ximenes Belo, José Ramos-Horta 1995—Joseph Rotblat, Pugwash Conferences on Science and World Affairs 1994—Yasser Arafat, Shimon Peres, Yitzhak Rabin 1993—Nelson Mandela, F.W. de Klerk 1992—Rigoberta Menchú Tum 1991—Aung San Suu Kyi 1990—Mikhail Gorbachev 1989—The 14th Dalai Lama 1988—United Nations Peacekeeping Forces 1987—Oscar Arias Sánchez 1986—Elie Wiesel 1985—International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War 1984—Desmond Tutu 1983—Lech Walesa 1982—Alva Myrdal, Alfonso García Robles 1981—Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees 1980—Adolfo Pérez Esquivel 1979—Mother Teresa 1978—Anwar al-Sadat, Menachem Begin 1977—Amnesty International 1976—Betty Williams, Mairead Corrigan 1975—Andrei Sakharov 1974—Seán MacBride, Eisaku Sato 1973—Henry Kissinger, Le Duc Tho 1972—The prize money for 1972 was allocated to the Main Fund 1971—Willy Brandt 1970—Norman Borlaug 1969—International Labour Organization 1968—René Cassin 1967—The prize money was with 1/3 allocated to the Main Fund and with 2/3 to the Special Fund of this prize section 1966—The prize money was allocated to the Special Fund of this prize section 1965—United Nations Children's Fund 1964—Martin Luther King Jr. 1963—International Committee of the Red Cross, League of Red Cross Societies 1962—Linus Pauling 1961—Dag Hammarskjöld 1960—Albert Lutuli 1959—Philip Noel-Baker 1958—Georges Pire 1957—Lester Bowles Pearson 1956—The prize money was with 1/3 allocated to the Main Fund and with 2/3 to the Special Fund of this prize section 1955—The prize money was allocated to the Special Fund of this prize section 1954—Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees 1953—George C. Marshall 1952—Albert Schweitzer 1951—Léon Jouhaux 1950—Ralph Bunche 1949—Lord Boyd Orr 1948—The prize money was with 1/3 allocated to the Main Fund and with 2/3 to the Special Fund of this prize section 1947—Friends Service Council, American Friends Service Committee 1946—Emily Greene Balch, John R. Mott 1945—Cordell Hull 1944—International Committee of the Red Cross 1939-‘43—The prize money was with 1/3 allocated to the Main Fund and with 2/3 to the Special Fund of this prize section 1938—Nansen International Office for Refugees 1937—Robert Cecil 1936—Carlos Saavedra Lamas 1935—Carl von Ossietzky 1934—Arthur Henderson 1933—Sir Norman Angell 1932—The prize money was allocated to the Special Fund of this prize section 1931—Jane Addams, Nicholas Murray Butler 1930—Nathan Söderblom 1929—Frank B. Kellogg 1928—The prize money was allocated to the Special Fund of this prize section 1927—Ferdinand Buisson, Ludwig Quidde 1926—Aristide Briand, Gustav Stresemann 1925—Sir Austen Chamberlain, Charles G. Dawes 1923-‘24—The prize money was allocated to the Special Fund of this prize section 1922—Fridtjof Nansen 1921—Hjalmar Branting, Christian Lange 1920—Léon Bourgeois 1919—Woodrow Wilson 1918—The prize money was allocated to the Special Fund of this prize section 1917—International Committee of the Red Cross 1914-‘16—The prize money was allocated to the Special Fund of this prize section 1913—Henri La Fontaine 1912—Elihu Root 1911—Tobias Asser, Alfred Fried 1910—Permanent International Peace Bureau 1909—Auguste Beernaert, Paul Henri d'Estournelles de Constant 1908—Klas Pontus Arnoldson, Fredrik Bajer 1907—Ernesto Teodoro Moneta, Louis Renault 1906—Theodore Roosevelt 1905—Bertha von Suttner 1904—Institute of International Law 1903—Randal Cremer 1902—Élie Ducommun, Albert Gobat 1901—Henry Dunant, Frédéric Passy
|
|