-
Members of the previous forum can retrieve their temporary password here, (login and check your PM).
anti-americanism
- Thread starter polytrip
- Start date
I don't see yet how a peaceful world could come to be. I see the world as a dynamic system which is governed by various forces which are - in one way or another - antagonistic to each other. I see several types of liquids mixed together in a bowl, which don't want to mix with each other (globalisation) because they fear that they'd lose their own identity and become part of a bland, colorless, tasteless mix which is devoid of any spiritual value.
Yet, these various liquids also have something in common. On a deep level, they are all one. And they have a chance to recognize this. But when they come back from the unitive state (must they?, well currently yes), they continue living in the world of separation. How can they reconcile these two aspects of their existence? If they give in to unity and dissolve the particular, the world surely stops working! (or does it?)
I try to refer to the primal fear here which is behind all nationalism on the spiritual level. Is it justified? Can we understand and empathise with people who have this fear? How can we resolve this fear? What is the solution? Can we have the cake and eat it too?
Is it possible to have a world in which the uniqueness of the nations is preserved in a 100% way (each nation is 100% realizing its own inherent qualities), while they are living with/besides each other in peace? I feel the key to this is getting rid of the fear that fills us when we meet the "other". Like: can we justify the existence of insects? Spiders? Animals eating their offspring? Aliens as they sprang forth from H. R. Giger's mind? What are these symbols standing for? What does it mean to be "evil"?
And what is love anyway? Would it be this cheesy "everyone loves everyone and everything" situation? Ideal hippie freedom world? I don't think so. The ideal world - if it became a reality - would inevitably cause the rise of an adversary which would strive for its destruction. For me, love is associated with the mystery of it all, the hidden force that drives the whole of my world dialectically along the evolutionary pathway. The good/bad sides are like indispensable elements in a chemical reaction, cooked up in the alchemical kitchen of God.
Regarding the validity of nations: I feel I've seen and experienced the spiritual roots of my own nation, the source of our folk tales and the words of our language. I believe that we Hungarians are unique and our nation is not just an idea, a mental construct (or perhaps it is, with all the seriousness this implies). I see the branch of the world tree which is us, and hope that one day we can consciously take up the responsibility for that part of the world which was destined for us. And I feel the same for all other nations which have similar roots.
Americans are interesting from this perspective, because they don't seem to have such roots. I tend to think that the American pride and nationalism is built upon a big nothing. They have felt the lack, so they built a substitute (all that stuff with the flag, defensive fundamentalist Christianity and the protestant ethic). I also feel that the Americans were created to be the dreamers. That's why Hollywood is in America. Who could dream of the stars if not a nation who is devoid of the roots (which also bind)?
The attempts at globalisation may be like actions of a wounded child who is jealous of the perceived roots of others. A child who cannot yet see the worth of him- or herself, the all-important role he/she was destined to play.
Yet, these various liquids also have something in common. On a deep level, they are all one. And they have a chance to recognize this. But when they come back from the unitive state (must they?, well currently yes), they continue living in the world of separation. How can they reconcile these two aspects of their existence? If they give in to unity and dissolve the particular, the world surely stops working! (or does it?)
I try to refer to the primal fear here which is behind all nationalism on the spiritual level. Is it justified? Can we understand and empathise with people who have this fear? How can we resolve this fear? What is the solution? Can we have the cake and eat it too?
Is it possible to have a world in which the uniqueness of the nations is preserved in a 100% way (each nation is 100% realizing its own inherent qualities), while they are living with/besides each other in peace? I feel the key to this is getting rid of the fear that fills us when we meet the "other". Like: can we justify the existence of insects? Spiders? Animals eating their offspring? Aliens as they sprang forth from H. R. Giger's mind? What are these symbols standing for? What does it mean to be "evil"?
And what is love anyway? Would it be this cheesy "everyone loves everyone and everything" situation? Ideal hippie freedom world? I don't think so. The ideal world - if it became a reality - would inevitably cause the rise of an adversary which would strive for its destruction. For me, love is associated with the mystery of it all, the hidden force that drives the whole of my world dialectically along the evolutionary pathway. The good/bad sides are like indispensable elements in a chemical reaction, cooked up in the alchemical kitchen of God.
Regarding the validity of nations: I feel I've seen and experienced the spiritual roots of my own nation, the source of our folk tales and the words of our language. I believe that we Hungarians are unique and our nation is not just an idea, a mental construct (or perhaps it is, with all the seriousness this implies). I see the branch of the world tree which is us, and hope that one day we can consciously take up the responsibility for that part of the world which was destined for us. And I feel the same for all other nations which have similar roots.
Americans are interesting from this perspective, because they don't seem to have such roots. I tend to think that the American pride and nationalism is built upon a big nothing. They have felt the lack, so they built a substitute (all that stuff with the flag, defensive fundamentalist Christianity and the protestant ethic). I also feel that the Americans were created to be the dreamers. That's why Hollywood is in America. Who could dream of the stars if not a nation who is devoid of the roots (which also bind)?
The attempts at globalisation may be like actions of a wounded child who is jealous of the perceived roots of others. A child who cannot yet see the worth of him- or herself, the all-important role he/she was destined to play.
Ice House said:
Again, you are just talking about donating. How about we start calculating the destruction caused by USA army everywhere around the world (dont even know how to begin calculating that, not only in terms of damage to structures, disruption of local life and economy, short and long term issues, but also how much are worth those lives destroyed?)
Also did you read the link where the graphs come from? For example it says:
Plus as I said, it matters not that USA donates "a lot" in raw numbers, if behind it all, even more money is being taken away in forms of debt collection, unfair trading, corporation sucking out resources from poor countries and absurd profits going to USA/western countries/tax havens, etc etc etc.. Btw from the same link you used:
Causes of the Debt Crisis
This page looks at the geopolitical, political and economic context in which the current third world debt crisis came about.
www.globalissues.org
Structural Adjustment—a Major Cause of Poverty
This part of the globalissues.org web site looks into the effectiveness of the IMF-imposed Structural Adjustment Policies and how this has exacerbated poverty.
www.globalissues.org
Myth: More US aid will help the hungry
This part of the globalissues.org web site reposts chapter 10 from the highly acclaimed book World Hunger: 12 Myths. This chapter is titled: Myth 10: More U.S. Aid Will Help the Hungry
www.globalissues.org
Arms Trade—a major cause of suffering
The arms trade in its current form around the world is very irresponsible with western nations and military industry looking to make profits not caring who they sell arms to. Often this is accompanied with political agendas and propaganda even in the western nations to convince all of us on the...
www.globalissues.org
Military Aid
An overview of military aid, which can be used to help allies or poor countries, but has also been used for geopolitical aims of the donor
www.globalissues.org
Tax Avoidance and Tax Havens; Undermining Democracy
The loss to society by tax evasion and corporate crime by some of the wealthiest multinational companies and individuals is enormous. This page explores issues such as tax avoidance, tax shelters, transfer pricing, corporate welfare, and more.
www.globalissues.org
The WTO and Free Trade
This part of the globalissues.org web site looks at the World Trade Organization and its impact on the poor and developing countries.
www.globalissues.org
The Scale of the Debt Crisis
The scale of the third world debt crisis involves large sums of money for developing countries. Yet it is a fraction of what the world spends on military, global trade, or even first world farm subsidies. Unfair debt can therefore technically be written off quite easily but is not.
www.globalissues.org
Military Expansion Serving Economic Objectives
The purpose of the military has typically been to aid economic objectives. In the modern era, this would imply the current form of globalization, which many perceive around the world to be unequal. Whether the Imperial Roman in the past, or America today, many Empires seem to exhibit similar...
www.globalissues.org
Youre painting a picture of an altruistic USA, far from the truth. Again, I dont think USA is the devil, all major western countries and the members of UN security council are at fault here, but since you were claiming USA to be so nice like no other, and this isnt true, I felt like I had to respond about it.
Also, you talk as if donations are all coming from the federal government, which is not the case. Neither is all (most?) aid for altruistic purposes, and neither is the money necessarily being well used, in fact often it only serves to reinforce the long term dependency and problems, as links above (and many other we could find) comment on.
Ice House said:
What do you mean to imply?
Its very easy to say that palestine is getting many donations, but truth is USA vetoed (alone against a consensus between all others) the UN council to condemn israel's violations through settlements, invasion of land and the attacks in Palestine and is obviously the main supporter of Israel's attrocities. Oh lets donate money to Palestine and show how good we are but at the same time lets actually keep them like this by preventing any international condemnation, lobbying against them being declared a sovereign state, plus lets invest billions in military aid to Israel, which, surprise surprise, is actually being used to kill palestinians and hold them in their absurd condition
Somewhere halfway in this thread i pictured how a roadmap that would lead us away from the us&them thinking, and shortsighted nationalism would look: A more or less federal EU-like model. A worldwide zone of nations wherein there would be the total freedom to move around and live wherever you want, do busines with whoever you want, etc. A zone with no boundaries within it, where nationstates more and more become a form of cultural heritage, rather than something that defines people and divides them.
My point is that such a 'free-zone' is the only way to move from the current state of affairs to the next level and that it is realistic. It can be achieved within a century.
But it would not start with all nations on earth. It would like the EU begin with a view nations and gradually incorporate more and more of them. Not in an imperialistic way, because all nations within the zone would be considered equal.
If there would ever be such a zone, america would be one of the nations it starts with. I don't see it happening without america.
And america will change within the next few decades, when it's power fades.
It is realistic. That such a unity couldn't be achieved is exactly what people said before the EU was founded.
But if even people within the western world cannot get along and regress into anti-americanism and anti-europeanism, it WILL NEVER HAPPEN, and we will stay at this level forever, until the end of humanity.
My point is that such a 'free-zone' is the only way to move from the current state of affairs to the next level and that it is realistic. It can be achieved within a century.
But it would not start with all nations on earth. It would like the EU begin with a view nations and gradually incorporate more and more of them. Not in an imperialistic way, because all nations within the zone would be considered equal.
If there would ever be such a zone, america would be one of the nations it starts with. I don't see it happening without america.
And america will change within the next few decades, when it's power fades.
It is realistic. That such a unity couldn't be achieved is exactly what people said before the EU was founded.
But if even people within the western world cannot get along and regress into anti-americanism and anti-europeanism, it WILL NEVER HAPPEN, and we will stay at this level forever, until the end of humanity.
polytrip said:
Its not realistic (to solve world problems on long term) unless you tell me that all these countries will not suck resources out of other countries. Are europeans gonna be unsustainably fishing in african waters, collecting debt and resources through unfair institution/corporation practices, sell guns to corrupt regimes (and then complaining about pirates hijacking their boats) ? Will any resource be sucked from those countries? Will big corporations use cheap workers in poor countries and bypass the safety/humanitarian/health/environmental/social regulations that the countries inside that zone are supposed to follow in their own territory ?
If not, then you will not be solving, you will just be creating more division, more anger in the outside countries and more instability.
One of the rules of this club would ofcourse be that each memberstate has equal rights and can veto things, etc. That should be a guarantee for respectfull behaviour towards clubmembers.endlessness said:
I agree that it is dificult to enforce respectfull behaviour towards people who're considered aliens, one of the limitations of the human mind.
The only solution i have for this is a trade-off: if you democratically reform and join our club, you can veto unwanted actions like mentioned.
Only people effect real change. Abstractions, such as "countries," can't do anything but destroy (apparently), because it requires nothing special just to destroy.
And people change things EASILY and ORGANICALLY; and the only thing that is necessary is for masses of people to come to KNOW things (thus it's not necessary or useful to FORCE or MANIPULATE people, it's only necessary to EDUCATE people). Once a person truly KNOWS something, he finds he MUST act in accordance with it. When a MASS of people of a sufficient size all KNOW the same thing, others are attracted to that mass, too--and that is what changes the direction humanity takes.
But what MANY people don't clearly grasp (and why the worldwide process of coming to know things is so slow) is that the MAIN impediment to knowing new and useful things is their POOR THINKING HABITS and their personal DELUSIONS, which they can't acquire the perspective to see about themselves and understand. Human beings are the only entities we know of that can CREATE delusion, and LIVE in a lie.
And so people just continue on their same paths of merely reacting and not thinking, and not perceiving new things but instead hanging on to their delusions.
One major delusion that people have is that they must divide themselves into groups and then interact through the groups (like countries), just in order to live and go about their business. When people clear away that delusion the problem of peace and war will be solved.
And people change things EASILY and ORGANICALLY; and the only thing that is necessary is for masses of people to come to KNOW things (thus it's not necessary or useful to FORCE or MANIPULATE people, it's only necessary to EDUCATE people). Once a person truly KNOWS something, he finds he MUST act in accordance with it. When a MASS of people of a sufficient size all KNOW the same thing, others are attracted to that mass, too--and that is what changes the direction humanity takes.
But what MANY people don't clearly grasp (and why the worldwide process of coming to know things is so slow) is that the MAIN impediment to knowing new and useful things is their POOR THINKING HABITS and their personal DELUSIONS, which they can't acquire the perspective to see about themselves and understand. Human beings are the only entities we know of that can CREATE delusion, and LIVE in a lie.
And so people just continue on their same paths of merely reacting and not thinking, and not perceiving new things but instead hanging on to their delusions.
One major delusion that people have is that they must divide themselves into groups and then interact through the groups (like countries), just in order to live and go about their business. When people clear away that delusion the problem of peace and war will be solved.
Nice talk.SWIMfriend said:
Now....how do you suppose we're gonna let that happen? How are you gonna let governmental organisations disappear in thin air?
Force the world population to smoke DMT?
OK...and you´re still wondering how the republican party can get away with representing users of psychedelics as dangerous people that need to be put away behind bars?
polytrip said:
You're not actually reading what I write. I specified exactly how it will happen--and the ONLY way it will happen--people will come to KNOW it. It will NOT happen until they do, and it will happen virtually IMMEDIATELY when they do.
Ignorance is ALWAYS the key problem, knowledge is ALWAYS the key solution.
Ice House said:
Oh yeah I know there are good things in USA appart from the federal government's foreign policy. You and other nexians, for starters. A lot of good thinkers, beautiful nature, etc. I dont directly associate and generalize all americans with the american government and foregin policy
I also think a lot of other countries are responsible for the problems of the world, I take no sides and dont make claims of which country is better or worse because its an interwinned network of actions, one pulling the tail of another. What I do care for is denouncing the problems, whichever side they may be in.
Considering the discussion started with talk of bin laden's death (and defending it or not), and then leading into anti-americanism discussion, I thought it was appropriate to make the comments regarding the unfair practices which generate more damage instead of fixing the problems. But you can be sure if there was a thread about how USA was invaded by extremists that kidnapped and tortured citizens to find out bush's location and kill him, I would be also arguing that this is not the right way to go about things if we want to reach some more or less stable or just world.
I still find that many people here aply a double standard against the west, just like western governments have a double standard in favor of israel.
Let me first say what i think is the cause of this.
The western civilisation is the one of the few civilisations on earth that to some extent allows freedom of speech and press, that allows for openly admitting guild and that allows for open criticism.
For this reason we all know all the wrongs of the west. You never get to see the pictures of all the russian abu-graib's or guantanamo's. Or all of the chinese concentration camps. You never get to see the picture's of what the indian and pakistani army's are doing in kashmir, or what the indonesian army and militia's are doing.
If you start a discussion about the armenian genocide commited by turkey, you'll get shot by a patriottic turk.
All the slaves that where send to america by western nations where enslaved not by europeans but by africans. You never hear anybody mention that in discussions about slavery. The arabic nations used slaves from africa as well, but you never hear anybody mention that either.
Western civilisation openly allows criticism and investigative journalism.
Many more muslims are suffering from what the pakistani, indonesian, indian or russian government are doing than from what the west is doing. But a russian will get mad at you if you mention it.
Russians fight terrorism in an entirely different way than the west: they simply bomb entire city's if they believe a few terrorists hide there, they rape and plunder to intimidate muslimfighters. But you never get to see picture's of thát. Why? because any newspaper editor that allows such pictures to be printed will 'dissapear' or have a 'car accident' the next day, thát's why.
Compared the russian, pakistani, indonesian and indian government, the american government is almost angelic, and i dare to say that all of you KNOW this.
Why else would we find what we've learned to call 'rendition' so utterly disgusting?
We SEE the wrongs of the west, and we can talk about it. And westerners all KNOW and will openly admit, that these things are wrong.
A russian will either say that the rapings don't take place, or that the victims deserved what happened to them, and don't dare to criticise it or say he's wrong, for you will be an enemy of russia.
The west claims it believes in human rights. China just says human rights are a western perversion, invented to undermine the state.
Thát's why we so many of us have a double standard towards the west.
So i say it one more time: if you all of a sudden make a big human rights case out of the death of bin-laden, you're blowing it hugely out of proportion.
And if you think that any nation should have let 9/11 pass, you're out of touch with reality.
But that's the point is it? If the russian government executes someone, we all just shrug don't we? Never heard anybody here make such a big drama out of the hundreds of syrians being butchered by the military at this very moment as they're making out of osama's death.
Before denying it..please ask yourself: could i have a double standard maybe?
Because making a big tragedy of the killing of osama IS hypocritical, and you'd have to be BLIND not to see that it is.
EDIT: and for god's sake don't start calling ME biased because i defend the west here: i started a thread about the wrongness of patriotism and about how i fear that western hypocrisy and double standards in human rights issues will lead to the downfall of the western civilisation. I'm not for the west, i'm for human rights. It just happens to be so that the west is one of the few places on earth where human rights are at least a bit respected.
Let me first say what i think is the cause of this.
The western civilisation is the one of the few civilisations on earth that to some extent allows freedom of speech and press, that allows for openly admitting guild and that allows for open criticism.
For this reason we all know all the wrongs of the west. You never get to see the pictures of all the russian abu-graib's or guantanamo's. Or all of the chinese concentration camps. You never get to see the picture's of what the indian and pakistani army's are doing in kashmir, or what the indonesian army and militia's are doing.
If you start a discussion about the armenian genocide commited by turkey, you'll get shot by a patriottic turk.
All the slaves that where send to america by western nations where enslaved not by europeans but by africans. You never hear anybody mention that in discussions about slavery. The arabic nations used slaves from africa as well, but you never hear anybody mention that either.
Western civilisation openly allows criticism and investigative journalism.
Many more muslims are suffering from what the pakistani, indonesian, indian or russian government are doing than from what the west is doing. But a russian will get mad at you if you mention it.
Russians fight terrorism in an entirely different way than the west: they simply bomb entire city's if they believe a few terrorists hide there, they rape and plunder to intimidate muslimfighters. But you never get to see picture's of thát. Why? because any newspaper editor that allows such pictures to be printed will 'dissapear' or have a 'car accident' the next day, thát's why.
Compared the russian, pakistani, indonesian and indian government, the american government is almost angelic, and i dare to say that all of you KNOW this.
Why else would we find what we've learned to call 'rendition' so utterly disgusting?
We SEE the wrongs of the west, and we can talk about it. And westerners all KNOW and will openly admit, that these things are wrong.
A russian will either say that the rapings don't take place, or that the victims deserved what happened to them, and don't dare to criticise it or say he's wrong, for you will be an enemy of russia.
The west claims it believes in human rights. China just says human rights are a western perversion, invented to undermine the state.
Thát's why we so many of us have a double standard towards the west.
So i say it one more time: if you all of a sudden make a big human rights case out of the death of bin-laden, you're blowing it hugely out of proportion.
And if you think that any nation should have let 9/11 pass, you're out of touch with reality.
But that's the point is it? If the russian government executes someone, we all just shrug don't we? Never heard anybody here make such a big drama out of the hundreds of syrians being butchered by the military at this very moment as they're making out of osama's death.
Before denying it..please ask yourself: could i have a double standard maybe?
Because making a big tragedy of the killing of osama IS hypocritical, and you'd have to be BLIND not to see that it is.
EDIT: and for god's sake don't start calling ME biased because i defend the west here: i started a thread about the wrongness of patriotism and about how i fear that western hypocrisy and double standards in human rights issues will lead to the downfall of the western civilisation. I'm not for the west, i'm for human rights. It just happens to be so that the west is one of the few places on earth where human rights are at least a bit respected.
...need...moar...leakz...
Divide and conquer? As a species we need to increase the peace and overall awareness of our situation.
National pride and patriotism is a source of power that can be manipulated just as all forms of self actualizing power are manipulated.
It is happening but it is down to the individual to manifest the evolution as legitimately as possible.
I think its time to evolve. Post modern society cannot be run on antiquated systems.
My position is one of Kali... ill leave it to the kids to choose how the seedlings will rise from the ashes.
Psychedelics are at the forefront of human evolution... you know what you need to do.
Come together.
National pride and patriotism is a source of power that can be manipulated just as all forms of self actualizing power are manipulated.
It is happening but it is down to the individual to manifest the evolution as legitimately as possible.
I think its time to evolve. Post modern society cannot be run on antiquated systems.
My position is one of Kali... ill leave it to the kids to choose how the seedlings will rise from the ashes.
Psychedelics are at the forefront of human evolution... you know what you need to do.
Come together.
polytrip said:
I think your points are very valid, polytrip.
As I said in my last post though, this discussion started in a thread about bin laden and america, so its only logical that in the discussion this was the main issue being denounced, right?
Also, you must consider that if there is someone blowing this out of proportion, then the media is the one, putting this story in all front pages with about 5 articles at a time about how they have 'cut the head of al qaeda' and legitimizing the actions. Its only logical that people feeling the absurd of this particular issue that is the "hot topic of the moment" decide to discuss it here.
I like to avoid starting threads on the evils of the world because I'd rather focus on the small things we can do to try to make it better. If we were to start a thread on every single of those abuses you mentioned, this forum would be politics-nexus instead
But since this was already here and I strongly disagreed with some Nexian points of view, I felt it was worth commenting on.Also polytrip, again I have the same issue with your last post as with your other posts: You keep considering that the characteristics, effects and advantages (and problems) of a country as if it only stays inside its borders, which is a fundamental flaw in the argument imo. I mean, you say for example people can denounce the evils of the west while they cant of other countries, but then the western countries take advantage of this by moving corporations/factories/what-not exactly to those poor countries so that they dont have to respect the same laws as in the west and can commit the abuses that will increase their profit/power, as well as turning a blind eye on all the abuses that directly or indirectly benefit the west's position. So a lot of the abuses commited in other places are also at least partially a problem of the west's actions (which of course doesnt take out the responsibility of those other countries and their power-hungry bastard leaders).
In any case your points were good, so if you feel like there is an important issue regarding the abuses of other countries that should be discussed, feel free starting a thread about it I will be glad to participate if I have anything to contribute
This is how i often feel about western civilisation
I respond maybe a bit fiercely sometimes because i recognize these feelings of others in myself and i don't like this dark side of myself that much. Hate just eats. And it clouds the mind and the senses.
I respond maybe a bit fiercely sometimes because i recognize these feelings of others in myself and i don't like this dark side of myself that much. Hate just eats. And it clouds the mind and the senses.
I sincerely doubt that we know about even a majority of our government's actions.
I'm worried about this becoming not so much the case as time passes.
So if someone is Turkish and patriotic, they are unable to partipiate in rational conversation and instead shoot anyone who says anything that's contrary to their views? Why do you feel that people in non-Western countries are so hostile? Maybe the governments of those countries are hostile to westerners but I think that the majority of people all over the world probably have a pretty neutral opinion about most other people in the world.
Russia makes me sad.
This is an interesting idea that the west's contribution to the world is morality but I think that most people probably also believe that this kind of thing is wrong. Maybe oppressive laws make it difficult to express opinions that the government is doing terrible things. It's hard to imagine though that only the west can feel empathy enough to be bothered by this
There are lots of examples of how governments have been replaced after countries like the US get involved. It doesn't seem too crazy to be suspicious if another country is telling you to change your laws and when they have done this in other countries before, the existing government gets replaced. It's unfortunate that the US has this image and that it makes it difficult when the government tries to do genuinely good things.
I think there are a lot of reasons why there is a double standard. The west has for the most part a pretty common history and often westerners speak multiple western languages so communication is easy. There was interaction with the rest of the world but for a while it was mostly trade. I think because we are culturally closer we have different expectations. Also like you said about knowing more about things the west has done wrong, we have more things to point at to criticize ourselves. And then just day to day we interact more with other westerners so we feel closer and like our opinions and efforts will matter more. We can criticize China all we want but our efforts would probably do more if we directed it at fixing the problems created by people we elected and who we can vote for again or can replace. Being aware of problems in China is still important but we have more power to create change here. That leads to disproportionate time/attention and that can look like a double standard. There is probably also some racism involved with viewing people who we categorize as 'Other' as barbaric.
I think to understand why certain cultures or groups are in some way, why some may be hostile or why of certain defense patterns, we have to look at the relationship between different groups instead of considering all the cultural characteristics as inherent and original to them. This is specially the case if we are talking about the relationship between minorities and the hegemonic groups.
There is an anthropologist called John Ogbu, who has some very interesting ideas about what he called primary and secondary cultural characteristics. The secondary characteristics would be a response to the relationship the culture has with the other established cultural group/s. His research began with why certain minorities tended to have bad academic achievement in USA, and he talked about how it had to do with this cultural defensive response. Having success in a school for a black person was like "acting white", and therefore avoided. This is often the case in Europe with gypsies and school, and their active separation from the non-gypsies. Also this is often seen in language, how people use language specially to distinguish themselves from other groups, inventing new slangs and emphasizing the differences. Or when immigrants move to a new country, and they start stressing more their own cultural traits even if in their own countries they didnt before.
Now I say this to connect with the idea sometimes expressed that muslims are naturaly violent, or the view of certain cultures in general. How did this start in the first place, and how the ways we act can reinforce or not certain cultural traits and behaviors elsewhere in the world? I think this stresses the idea that all cultures and countries are co-responsible to some or other degree on the state of the world, and like corpus callosum mentioned in the other bin laden thread, I think its important if we want change to have a 'bottoms-up' approach, to instead of only blaming others, to look at ourselves, being citizens of some or other group/culture standard/nation, to see what is it that we can do to improve not only whats inside our arbitrary borders but everywhere in the world in a long term strategic thinking.
There is an anthropologist called John Ogbu, who has some very interesting ideas about what he called primary and secondary cultural characteristics. The secondary characteristics would be a response to the relationship the culture has with the other established cultural group/s. His research began with why certain minorities tended to have bad academic achievement in USA, and he talked about how it had to do with this cultural defensive response. Having success in a school for a black person was like "acting white", and therefore avoided. This is often the case in Europe with gypsies and school, and their active separation from the non-gypsies. Also this is often seen in language, how people use language specially to distinguish themselves from other groups, inventing new slangs and emphasizing the differences. Or when immigrants move to a new country, and they start stressing more their own cultural traits even if in their own countries they didnt before.
Now I say this to connect with the idea sometimes expressed that muslims are naturaly violent, or the view of certain cultures in general. How did this start in the first place, and how the ways we act can reinforce or not certain cultural traits and behaviors elsewhere in the world? I think this stresses the idea that all cultures and countries are co-responsible to some or other degree on the state of the world, and like corpus callosum mentioned in the other bin laden thread, I think its important if we want change to have a 'bottoms-up' approach, to instead of only blaming others, to look at ourselves, being citizens of some or other group/culture standard/nation, to see what is it that we can do to improve not only whats inside our arbitrary borders but everywhere in the world in a long term strategic thinking.
Im done with politics. I know the state of the world well enough to know that i do not like it. Also dissapointed by activism and what it does to groups of people. I just need to live consciously my own. This is hard enough. I won't waste time trying to force change from the outside.
Especially not because it would be hypocritical.