|
| Thread: 9/11 Victims = Nazis? |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 3 4 5 · «PREV / NEXT» |
|
Peacemaker
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Peacemaker = double entendre
|
posted February 18, 2005 06:18 PM |
|
|
OMG this is spinning out of control
The following (below)was posted on the Colorado AIM blogsite last night.
I just first want to explain something out about this -- the "spy files" referred to in the first officer's suspected taking down of license plates, was compiled in the Denver Police Department databanks over several years. After a recent successful lawsuit compelled disclosure of this list, the names of the people on it were revealed.
We all had the opportunity, as ordered in the suit, to go down to DPD and get a copy of our listing. The day I went to DPD and checked in to request a check for my name, the Sergeant who came down to get me and bring me upstairs recognized me from my local work in the law. I recognized him as well.
"You're on this list!?!?!" He remarked.
"Yup, word has it." I said.
"Well hell, if you're on there maybe I should check and see if I'm on there too!!!"
We both laughed. His embarrassment over the whole list thing was apparent.
***********
Many of us, including me, found that we had been listed as "criminal extremists," despite that I have never been convicted, or even arrested or tried, for any crime throughout my lifetime.
But wait, it gets better. The incident listed in the report under my name, which presumably justified my listing as a "criminal extremist," was described as a protest at a nuclear missile silo someplace on the Eastern Plains of Colorado, where I have never been, and most certainly not at any such missile silo protest. I'm real sure I would have remembered that.
http://www.aclu-co.org/spyfiles/criminalextremist.htm
http://www.unknownnews.net/0118-1.html
************
Anyone who thinks the cops involved in the following incident didn't have Ward (Co-Director of CO AIM) in their heads as the likely flashpoint for the whole episode is deluding themselves. Who knows? To me it seems likely that the first cop was reconstituting an AIM list in some relation to the Ward episode. But then I'm just speculating...
Quote:
Thursday, February 17, 2005
Denver Cops provoke a confrontation with CO AIM
Last night,(Feb 16) Denver cops provoked a confrontation with CO AIM members when they harrassed and then assaulted 2 members of the CO AIM youth council as a CO AIM meeting concluded.
A CO AIM member was leaving the meeting early and noticed a cop outside with a clipboard writing down information. Suspecting he was writing down the car tag numbers, the CO AIM member walked up to the cop and asked him what he was doing. The cop responded by telling him to mind his own business and drove off.
A little while later, the meeting was concluding a little after 9 p.m. 2 members of the CO AIM youth council (ages 14 and 15) took their 1 year old niece outside and got into the vehicle of the mother of the 15 year old. They sat in the car listening to the radio, visiting and playing with their niece.
A cop car drove by slowly and shined a spotlight into the vehicle. The cop then went to the end of the block, made a u-turn and returned, stopping at the car in which the 2 youth members and their niece were sitting. The cop asked them if they had broken into the car. The 15 year old explained that it was his mother's car, he had the key and that he was keeping an eye on his 1 year old niece. The cop responded by asking him to get out of the car, which he did.
The cop then told him to place his hands against the car so that he could be searched. At this point, the 15 year old told the 14 year old to go into the CO AIM meeting and let people know what was happening. As the 14 year old crossed the street, another cop car pulled up and a cop jumped out and grabbed the 14 year old before he could reach the building. The 15 year old began yelling out that they were being arrested which got the attention of the other AIM members in the building.
CO AIM members rushed out of the building and towards the cops. The cops had both of the youth members in choke holds but released them when they saw the group running towards them and yelling for them to release the youth members.
Within a few minutes an addional number of other cop cars arrived. One AIM member counted at least 14 cop cars that were there within 5 minutes after the 15 year old began yelling they were being arrested. Several of the cop cars had 3 to 4 members and the gang unit was in the mix as well.
The youth members were taken away by some AIM security members and escorted back into the building. The rest of the CO AIM members remained in the street getting into heated exchanges with the cops about their harrassment of the youth members. It took around 15 minutes for all of the cops to leave and for CO AIM members to return to the building.
In an amazing instance of coincidence (or maybe not) we recognized one of the cops who had choked one of the youth members because he had testified in the suppression hearings of the Columbus Day trials. It has not yet been determined whether or not this was the same cop who was earlier spotted outside the building, writing info on his clipboard.
CO AIM had over 1,000 pages released to them that the Denver Police Department had compiled in their spy files. One of the tactics that the DPD had used was to record all of the license plate numbers of cars who were
parked near the vicinity of an AIM meeting. Several people unaffiliated with AIM, such as neighbors, were included in the spy files simply because they happened to park near a CO AIM meeting.
At this point, we're not sure why so many cops were conveniently in the area so that they could take down a 15, 14 and a 1 year old. 14 cars, 3 and 4 cops deep, would seem to be a little excessive in dealing with 2 teens and a baby minding their own business...
|
|
Asmodean
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Heroine at the weekend.
|
|
posted February 18, 2005 06:23 PM |
|
|
Well one of the phrases I've heard Bush use is 'terrorist nations'.
So surely if one of those countries assassinated him it would be terrorism right?
So what's the difference between Syria doing it, or for example - Australia?
Is it because Syria is a terrorist nation or is it because assassination is terrorism?
____________
To err is human, to arr is pirate.
|
|
Consis
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Of Ruby
|
posted February 18, 2005 06:41 PM |
|
Edited By: Consis on 18 Feb 2005
|
Two Kinds Of Terrorism
1. Terrorism by definition.
2. And Bush's definition of terrorism.
It's a rather large hypocrasy. The Israelis are faced with terrorism daily. But Bush continues to advise against and actually repremand the Israeli government for invasion of Palestinian territory while he decides to lead the way for places such as Iraq and Afghanistan. And on top of that he continues to openly declare other nations on his list that he might invade. When ever someone comes aboard his staff with any significant amount of diplomatic talent(such as Powell) he simply fires them and hires someone else(such as Rice).
My argument is that terrorism is not a mandate for war while assassination is.
____________
Roses Are Red And So Am I
|
|
Svarog
Honorable
Supreme Hero
statue-loving necrophiliac
|
|
posted February 20, 2005 12:10 AM |
|
|
LOL, PM. "criminal extremist"! I always knew there's something about u. I just couldnt decide which one of the two u are. But even in my boldest guesses I never imagined you are both. 
Quote:
Absolutely incorrect interpertation of my
interpretation. The point is that a single event can
be used to escalate into a greater conflict.
No, the point is that that single event has an entire background of reasons, which will lead to escalation. Actually in many cases the reasons for the isolated event are different from the actual reasons for the escalated conflict (they can be but same, but not necessarily). For example, the bloody war in Bosnia started after an incident on a wedding (murder), but we cant say that that caused the war. It’s be nonesense.
Quote:
Philosophically speaking, I believe the assassination of a country's leader is more political than terrorism. This is not to say the assassination itself is not terrifying.
ha ha.. Terrifying doesn’t define terrorism, Consis. There’s a legal definition for the term. Its any act of unauthorized violence aimed to achieve a political goal through intimidation or coercion, as simply put as possible.
Here’s an academical definition:
"Terrorism is an anxiety-inspiring method of repeated violent action, employed by (semi-) clandestine individual, group or state actors, for idiosyncratic, criminal or political reasons, whereby – in contrast to assassination - the direct targets of violence are not the main targets. The immediate human victims of violence are generally chosen randomly (targets of opportunity) or selectively (representative or symbolic targets) from a target population, and serve as message generators. Threat- and violence-based communication processes between terrorist (organization), (imperilled) victims, and main targets are used to manipulate the main target (audience(s)), turning it into a target of terror, a target of demands, or a target of attention, depending on whether intimidation, coercion, or propaganda is primarily sought" (Schmid, 1988).
As you see, assasination isnt terrorism, unless it’s made in a sensationist manner to strike fear in the general public. It’s a broad and elastic definition nonetheless.
But in any case, the goal of terrorism isnt to “devide and conquer”. It doesn’t have such power. It doesn’t seek to cause war either of course. War with who? You cant lead a war against a ghost enemy such as terrorists. There are however states that support terrorist organizations, but even the US was one in history (possibly still), according to the merit of the definition.
As for the term “terrorist nation” there’s hardly such thing. Most of the time, nations don’t admit to openly supporting terrorist organizations, even though they might do it secretly. And the official institutions don’t engage in terrorist actions; secret services could invlove in foreign nations affairs, but hardly ever in terrorism.
____________
The meek shall inherit the earth, but NOT its mineral rights.
|
|
Shiva
Promising
Famous Hero
|
|
posted February 20, 2005 08:24 PM |
|
|
Svarog, I suppose we could split hairs on what exactly
is terrorism. I can also define it in this way: Any
act by a terrorist group to meet their ends. In other
words, a terrorist does terroristic things trying
to terrify people into feeling terrible  ...LOL
Peacemaker, that episode you described is horrific, but
not unexpected
____________
|
|
terje_the_ma...
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Disciple of Herodotus
|
|
posted February 22, 2005 01:58 AM |
bonus applied. |
|
Well, I'd spend the last two hours replying to this thread, when suddenly some form of mal-ware took control of the browser, and shut the thing down (intelligent as I am, I don't write these things in Word – at least not until today…).
I don’t have the patience nor the mood to recreate the entire post atm, but I will try to re-write at least the most important things I wrote.
I was touching on some issues mentioned earlier in the thread, which I don’t believe were treated with enough time:
First, Shiva’s reply to a post by bort:
Quote:
Quote:
Although a literal comparison with the German National Socialist regime is over-reaching and somewhat trite, speaking personally and as an American, I have quite a bit of trouble referring to Guantanamo Bay in anything but terminology that bears a striking resemblance to the language used to describe the actions of Stalinist Russia or, yes, Hitler's Germany. The difference seems to be one of scale rather than kind. I, for one, find it impossible to reconcile such a place with the idea of the US as a tireless defender of human rights.
When they start actively exterminating the Guantanamo
imates, you can make that comparison. Until then, its
only pushing the limits of international law to the
point where, well, there is no international law.
I think you fail to see the difference between the two kinds of German WWII camps: The Konzentrationsläger, or concentration camp, and the Vernightungsläger, or deathcamp.
While the latter were the places where Jews, Gypsies, and other “unwanted elements” were put to death, while the former where were enemies of the State were imprisoned without any legal precedence and treated in inhumane ways. It’s these latter camps it would be relevant to compare the Guantanamo Bay camp with, not the Vernichtungsläger…
Then, to Consis, who I spend the most time replying to:
Quote:
What exactly is an "American"?
This is a very good question. But an even better one is what an “American” is perceived as being by those who hate them; only by answering this question can we hope to understand the haters, and thus getting one step closer to dealing with them.
Since I’m not fortunate enough to have insight into the minds of militaristic Islamists, I will use the mind of a milder form of anti-American person as an example: The mind of the Norwegian teenager.
When I was 15-16 years old, I hated the US. I hated the government, I hated the people, I hated the culture, and everything else American (this didn’t stop me from liking much American music, food, art, and other cultural products, of course. After all, I was such a little hypocrite ). This hatred of mine was rooted mainly in ignorance, but also in small random news stories I had picked up. American foreign policy consisted of overthrowing democratically elected presidents in Latin America, putting sanctions on a harmless Middle Eastern dictatorship for no special reason, supporting the Israeli oppression of the Palestinian people, and other general forms of hypocrisy.
Now, I am “proud” to have shed myself of these ridiculous prejudices (the “”s because hey should never have been there in the first place…). This process of shedding prejudices has taken place partly through HC, partly through reading the books of one M. Moore, but mostly through the reading of the Norwegian book “The Fear Of America. An European History” which dealt with European prejudices towards Americans from 1492 till today.
Hrm. Anyway. I will get back to this theme later, but then I will focus on the effects American cultural (and economic, these two go hand in hand) imperialism may have on people who suffer from it in different ways (I’ll get back to this as well).
Quote:
In order to label my country imperialistic; wouldn't there need to be some things that the people of said imperialism must have in common? Wouldn't an imperialistic nation, by definition, need to be characterized as forcibly injecting something of itself upon other countries? What is it, exactly, that makes an American = American?
I will deal with this section question by question.
1. No, you don’t necessarily need to have anything in common in order to be perceived as imperialistic. At least you don’t need anything in common beyond sharing a state administration with each other. Again, the most important thing is how you are perceived by the anti-Americans.
But how do anti-Americans perceive you? And how did they come to perceive you like this? Of course, I have no real answer to these questions, but I will nonetheless try to answer them.
American imperialism is a cultural one. American culture is the global mainstream culture, and most sub-pop-cultures are also originated in the US.
But before I turn my attention fully to this matter, I will try to outline a definition of ‘imperialism’. I will base my definition mainly on what little I know of Lenin’s theories on imperialism’, since this is the only one I can remember off of the top of my head, but also because I think it’s a good analysis.
Lenin claimed that imperialism is a state (or phase) of Capitalism, where the Capitalists produce so much that its domestic and close foreign market is unable to absorb the entire production. New markets are needed! So they go and make themselves empires, enslaving or at least oppressing the people whose lands they annex.
Now, how do we apply this to the idea of a cultural imperialist? We simply adapt it slightly, by looking more at the economic driving forces behind the cultural imperialism than at the cultural ones.
Imagine that you own a TV-production company. You’ve produced a TV-series that’s become a huge success, but now every major channel in every major Western (not geographically speaking, but culturally) country has aired it, and interest drops like a ton of bricks. You are unable to sell your product; your market has been saturated. What do you do?
You look for new, alternative markets, of course! You begin with the semi-industrialized Eastern European and Middle Eastern countries, but here you face the first problems: The message your TV-show transmits collides pretty heavily with the culture of the country you’ve begun airing it in. In other words, a so-called culture collision occurs.
But here we abandon our enterprising capitalist, since we already knows what he’s gonna do (at least most of it). Instead, we shift out focus to an young, conservative Muslim in one of the countries you have just begun airing your TV-show in. This young man sees how young women in his society begin to act like “Western snows”, dressing like snows and behaving like men! He is appalled by the development, and decides to take action against the abomination. He would have tried to change this through democratic means, but he lives I a “rich” Middle Eastern oil state, with a corrupt rule of despots, who are supported by the US of A.
So what does the young man do, when he has been barred from “better” his society through peaceful means? He seeks out some veteran of the Afghan war of the ‘80’s, and asks the veteran to put him in touch with some militant Islamists. And we’re rolling.
This example could just as well have been centred about a trader whose goods are no longer demanded now when the American goods are flooding the markets. Or it could be disgruntled citizens of a country that was promised democracy and freedom from a tyrant during some war in the early ‘90’s, but who was betrayed.
Hmm, it appears I have answered all the questions in my first part, excepting the one of lesser importance; the one about what it means to be American.
Quote:
1. Is it our religious preference?
2. Is it our distinct government?
3. Is it a shared economic belief/practice?
Hmm. I think I’ve given my POVs on this as well in the above part. I just don’t see it as very relevant in light of what I’m discussing here.
Quote:
I would argue none of the above. My reason being the country's we have allegedly imperialized(LoL) don't reflect our own religious preferences, distinct government, or shared economic beliefs/practices. Many have not turned to capitalism. Others have not become majority christian protestants. And still more haven't even set up a congress or legislative branch. How, then, has America been perceived as even remotely imperialistic?
It’s not that America has behaved like a 19th century imperialist, but rather that it has behaved like there’s no tomorrow, and like the lives of millions of civilian foreigners doesn’t matter, while the deaths of a “few thousand” (please excuse this rather cynical way of expression) American citizens make America go on a killing spree, killing even more foreign civilians without seeming to care one bit about it.
I addition to this, the US government has set up and supported fascist regimes all over the world (though predominantly in Latin America), assassinating democratically elected foreign leaders, and generally behaving like some Machiavellian nightmare. All of this to protect your economic interests.
I will supply you with one of the most known examples of such a practice: The “original 9-11”.
In 1973, the social democrat Salvador Allende won the election in Chile. During his campaign, he’d promised his people that he’d nationalize the Chilean copper mines, thus raising salaries and working conditions for the workers. Allende’s only major problem was that the American corporations Pepsi and AT&T (I think it was AT&T; it was at least one of the biggest telephone companies in the US) used Chilean copper for their products; Pepsi used it for bottle caps, while the telephone company used it in telephone cables. Now, these corporations weren’t exactly happy to see their source of cheap copper disappear just like that, so they contacted Henry Kissinger. (One of the greatest crimes of my country was giving this monster the Nobel Peace Prize. I mean, it would be like giving the Peace Prize to John Negroponte, or Ernst Röhm!) Kissinger in turn got in touch with the Chilean rightwing-orientated general Augusto Pinochet. On September 11th 1973, Pinochet and the army committed a coup d’etat, and Allende was assassinated. This was the beginning of almost 20 years of US-backed terror rule in Chile. And all because Pepsi and AT&T wanted cheap copper, and because the US was terrified of potential Soviet influence in their “back yard”.
 http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB8/nsaebb8i.htm
Another example could be “Operation Condor”, which in my mind is just as bad as the actions of the German SA during the 1930’s.
So you see, Consis, that the US is perceived as imperialist because of the extreme measures your governments have taken to protect your corporations, and how little regard you have to the civil and political rights of non-American citizens.
Quote:
I would argue that our social advances such as the right to peacefully protest, equal opportunity for women, and religious tolerance is not exclusive to the American citizen. I would also argue that our belief in democracy as having come from an innate human need to be free to pursue each our own happiness. We are all human beings. Two people are not equal if only one can vote while the other is prevented. Giving a person the right to vote is my country's most powerful message. If this is the imperialism of America then I too am an imperialist.
Umm, I think Peacemaker commented this to a satisfying degree. I will however add that imo, this is not the imperialism of America (as if you haven’t understood that already ).
Quote:
My whole point is that I'm having a difficult time pinpointing what an American actually is according to Ward. I want to know how he can call any American citizens "little Eichmans" when our government is clearly not a Fascist-Nazi regime. He almost seems like one of those people who were comparing Bush to Hitler during the 04 election. I couldn't help but laugh when I heard people say such things.
As for this one, I think it was properly answered by Ward’s own clarifying article that PM posted at page 2, and article that btw only made me agree more with the man.
Phew. Two hours after my first reply to this thread was lost to me, I have finished it for the second time tonight. I think it is a little more cohesive this time, but I think I lost some important thoughts. But the overall looks good, at least…
Oh, and I’m sorry if this doesn’t connect very well with what you’ve been discussing for the last two pages, but I felt I had to comment on it…
____________
"Sometimes I think everyone's just pretending to be brave, and none of us really are. Maybe pretending to be brave is how you get brave, I don't know."
- Grenn, A Storm of Swords.
|
|
Peacemaker
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Peacemaker = double entendre
|
|
posted February 22, 2005 07:01 PM |
|
|
Bravo, Terje.
Red star well-earned.
If you don't want to do it I will further develop the Operation Condor episode later. And let's not forget the Contras.
One question: I was unaware they were actually airing Western programs in Saudi Arabia and most of the other regimes in the Middle East? Still, your illustration is close enough that it essentially represents hundreds of culture-clash episodes which do bring about the revolt, not to mention army bases in Saudi Arabia, support of the fascist regimes, neglect of the Israeli-Palestinian problem, continued perceived favoritism toward Israel, failed sanctions leading to hundreds of thousands of dead Iraqi children, foreign policy moves in the Middle East that are poorly planned and executed, etc. etc. etc.
____________
I have menopause and a handgun. Any questions?
|
|
privatehudson
Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
|
|
posted February 22, 2005 09:16 PM |
|
|
Quote:
While the latter were the places where Jews, Gypsies, and other “unwanted elements” were put to death, while the former where were enemies of the State were imprisoned without any legal precedence and treated in inhumane ways. It’s these latter camps it would be relevant to compare the Guantanamo Bay camp with, not the Vernichtungsläger…
It would be my opinion that it's only possible to compare the Konzentrationsläger to Guantanamo in terms of the reasons behind internment rather than the conditions inside the camps or the ways in which prisoners were mistreated. Concentration Camps like Bergen Belsen for example make Guantanamo look like Disneyworld in comparisons of treatment.
To expand the point a little, people often remark that the British "invented" the concentration camps, which by itself is true. Attempting to compare Treblinka or even Belsen to what happened in South Africa just over a century ago though are pretty fruitless. In a similar way someone comparing Guantanamo to Concentration camps would to most people conjure up images of the death camps rather than the other types of camps to most people who do not really appreciate the difference. Which is not to say that either Guantanamo or the camps the British created were in any way pleasant, but I do believe that saying "the British invented concentration camps" or linking Guantanamo to the Holocaust is all too often an extreme attempt to undermine Guantanamo that actually undermines genuine ones. Such comparisons work against the really worthwile efforts to stop the abuses at Guantanamo by making it easy to reject such outlandish claims and the authors as extremists.
Basically speaking I believe people making such basic links between the Holocaust camps of both types and Guantanamo are sticking a big bullseye on their forehead for the supporters of Guantanamo. I dislike the idea of what they're doing there as much as most, but I believe comparisons should be better thought out.
____________
We're on an express elevator to Hell, goin' down!
|
|
terje_the_ma...
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Disciple of Herodotus
|
|
posted February 22, 2005 09:43 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
While the latter were the places where Jews, Gypsies, and other “unwanted elements” were put to death, while the former where were enemies of the State were imprisoned without any legal precedence and treated in inhumane ways. It’s these latter camps it would be relevant to compare the Guantanamo Bay camp with, not the Vernichtungsläger…
It would be my opinion that it's only possible to compare the Konzentrationsläger to Guantanamo in terms of the reasons behind internment rather than the conditions inside the camps or the ways in which prisoners were mistreated. Concentration Camps like Bergen Belsen for example make Guantanamo look like Disneyworld in comparisons of treatment.
Yeah, I agree that the comparision was rather untimely (it's actually been bothering me all day), since I do remember from my visit in a KZ just outside of Berlin (where amongst others Norwegian communists were held) that they had crematoriums at that camp, something they thankfully don't have at Guantanamo.
And the punishments were both harder, more cruel, more randomly, and more likely to be lethal in the KZs than in Guantanamo, but the comparision is, like you said, better when applied to the idea behind the camps: locking people perceived as enemies of the state up so that they can't wield their supposedly harmful influence in society.
Luckily, it's not a very large market in the States for lamp screens made of the skin of people with nice tattoos.
As for the previous debate of comparing the US to different fascist regimes (be they rightwing or leftwing), I think they're pretty out of proportions. However, I wouldn’t refrain from pointing to the fact that the US has several fascistoid traits. Although each and every state I can think of has some fascistoid traits, not all states see themselves as the most freedom loving nation on the face of the earth, and think it’s their holy task to spread their form of free market economic system and democracy to the rest of the world…
EDIT: I just remembered the name of the KZ I have visited, it was Sachsenhause, just outside of Berlin. Map Here
____________
"Sometimes I think everyone's just pretending to be brave, and none of us really are. Maybe pretending to be brave is how you get brave, I don't know."
- Grenn, A Storm of Swords.
|
|
privatehudson
Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
|
|
posted February 22, 2005 10:46 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Yeah, I agree that the comparision was rather untimely (it's actually been bothering me all day), since I do remember from my visit in a KZ just outside of Berlin (where amongst others Norwegian communists were held) that they had crematoriums at that camp, something they thankfully don't have at Guantanamo.
Interesting, my personal experience rests more on Belsen camp because my Grandfather was sent to deliver supplies there just after it's liberation. Some 18,000 Russian POWs were starved or worked to death before it became a Jewish camp whereupon it was one of the "nicer" camps for some years as jews held there were intended for use in trading for German nationals via neutral countries. By 1944 though conditions were truly awful with Typhoid rife throughout the camp and food and water in extremely short supply. By 1945 the evacuated from camps like Auschwitz were brought to Belsen and when it was turned over to the British there were thousands of dead bodies just lying around. Within a few short months thousands more of the 40,000 in the camp when it was liberated had died from various problems.
As disgusting as some of the abuses are at Guantanamo, little short of the Russian gulags or similar can compare to the sheer inhumanity of even the non-death camps. Oh and the Wermacht (who denied any knowledge whatsoever of events in the camp) had a hard time explaining themselves as one of their own Panzer training schools sat right next to the camp throughout the war, and they had bakeries enough to feed the people in the camp easily.
I take the point on the whole reasons behind the internment and feel that this is at the heart of the problem. Although the internment under the Nazi regime was more widespread due to it's policies, the lack of evidence or proper proceedure used at Guantanamo is deeply disturbing. I would strongly suggest that a better comparison though may be found in the internment of Japanese citizens during WWII in the states than in Nazi Germany's policies.
____________
We're on an express elevator to Hell, goin' down!
|
|
Consis
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Of Ruby
|
posted February 23, 2005 05:43 AM |
|
Edited By: Consis on 22 Feb 2005
|
The Perception
I would love to write out a fully researched paper on what makes me an American. A lot of people probably wouldn't even read it as this is not the best place to write such an epiphany.
So I'll put it very simple. I am an American. I am not an imperialist. I am not a prisoner torturer. I am not a homophobic christian, islamic fundamentalist, or abortion clinic bomber. I am not an Enron executive who only cares about two things; money and power. Neither am I a Farrakhan or Fallwell. I am not descended from any memorable noble or royal heritage. I have no interest in occupying Iraq much less the world at large. I don't want to spread democracy to all the corners of the earth. I don't want to spread my religious beliefs to anyone outside of my own family. I will not make war to achieve my goals.
But there is one thing I do want. I want to be free and I want others to have the freedom I have. I will simply say what I think. Others may agree and others may not. I will not attack any person who disagrees with me. I will defend my wife, my kids, and my country. I believe in the principles my country was founded upon. I also believe they are a good thing for anyone wishing to become American citizens. I know that it is not my place to force my ways on other people. I cannot change where I was born. I accept my heritage and respect my elders. I am a law abiding citizen and I support those who protect my way of life. To be an American citizen is both an honor and a priviledge to me.
I really don't understand the perception many foreign countries have of America. I don't understand how they can see a few bad apples and immediately judge my country as a whole. I don't judge all Iraqi people by Saddam Hussein. My country is home not only to one or two but many skilled artisans of many great and wonderous crafts. We have masterful painters, composers, engineers, scientists, doctors, poets, thesbians, sculptors, singers, athletes, and much more. This is my home. I don't understand why so many in the world wish terrible things for my country. I'm sure their country's have equally copius amounts of the best in humanity.
A good friend of mine once told me something that really caught my attention. He said that "it is our inconsistencies and differences that make us beautiful". He was talking about humans living on the same planet. I have always agreed with his sentiment even before he made it clear to me with his words. I think it's a good way to approach the world.
____________
Roses Are RedAnd So Am I
|
|
terje_the_ma...
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Disciple of Herodotus
|
|
posted February 23, 2005 05:50 PM |
|
|
It's impossible to disagree with that post, Consis. I suppose most Americans, and people of other nationalities for that matter, feel that way too. 
If only all had done so... 
Quote:
I really don't understand the perception many foreign countries have of America. I don't understand how they can see a few bad apples and immediately judge my country as a whole.
Well, you know, when the rotten apples plummet noisily to the ground (the "falling" part of the picture is in no way a metaphor or allegory, only a picture), while all the good ones just hang on their branches, looking kinda boring, it's not hard to guess which apples will get all the attention...
____________
"Sometimes I think everyone's just pretending to be brave, and none of us really are. Maybe pretending to be brave is how you get brave, I don't know."
- Grenn, A Storm of Swords.
|
|
privatehudson
Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
|
|
posted February 23, 2005 07:24 PM |
|
|
Quote:
I really don't understand the perception many foreign countries have of America. I don't understand how they can see a few bad apples and immediately judge my country as a whole.
Hmm well, I'll add the thoughts of my favourite US comedian Lewis Black on this (roughly of course). If you had a person in your workplace who came in every day and began the day by saying "I'm the greatest f***er here and you're all nothing compared to me" he wouldn't be exactly popular would he? Black compares this worker to those Americans who are always banging on about how America is "god's chosen country" or how America is the greatest nation on this earth.
As to your question specifically, I'd say that like anything, some people prefer ignorance to the truth. However, if you consistently seem to elect these bad apples, we're going to have a hard time believing they're in the minority
____________
We're on an express elevator to Hell, goin' down!
|
|
Consis
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Of Ruby
|
posted February 23, 2005 07:26 PM |
|
|
I'm So Opposed To Ward
It isn't right what he's doing. I can't get over his methods of message. So many people in history havetaken the zealous route and I have never agreed with it. It simply isn't right. Who did more for the civil rights movement: The violent Black Panthers or the one man Dr. Martin Luther King jr.? This is the best proof to me that words must be as peaceful as the message for the best outcome. I am one of those who has always thought of John Brown as a man who sought violence through religious fanaticism. It sickens me to hear such talk as Ward's.
____________
Roses Are RedAnd So Am I
|
|
Peacemaker
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Peacemaker = double entendre
|
|
posted February 23, 2005 07:52 PM |
|
|
Quote:
I really don't understand the perception many foreign countries have of America. I don't understand how they can see a few bad apples and immediately judge my country as a whole.
Consis, I think this goes back to Terje's point earlier about having an extremely negative perception of all individual Americans based on the actions of their government, until interacting with a few of those individuals. I think most people frequently initially base their judgments of people from other countries based on the actions of the governments. Here's an experience I had that would illustrate this.
I went to the Soviet Union during the Cold War, when I was in my mid-twenties, with a small group of other students. Almost upon our arrival at the Cosmos Hotel in Moscow, we found ourselves in an elevator with a small group of Russians.
Now apparently Americans can be spotted on site, or could back then. Dunno if it's our manner of dress -- or maybe it was because one of us said something to another in English. But anyway, the following short discussion ensued.
"Are you Americans?" One of them asked, in English.
"Da, mui Amerikanskii," One of us answereed, in Russian.
The conversation then continued, part in Russian, part in English. I can't remember who asked first, but one of the groups asked the other,
"Why do you people want war with us?"
And the other group answered, "We do not want war. It is our government that takes the actions that make you think this. We as individuals do not want war and do not agree with everything our government does."
"Really?" Answered the other side. "This is true for us too!!!"
Whereupon, we ended up going for coffee or some such thing, and sat talking for a long time. One of the questions to our group was: "If you do not want war, then why do you vote for a President who represents you, who appears to want war?"
Ahhhh... Now we're to the heart of the perception about why people from other countries preceive the actions of our government as reflecting on individual Americans. Because, as we so self-righteously and loudly proclaim to the rest of the world, we live in a Democracy, where our government carries out our wishes, or at least the wishes of the "majority."
Really you guys, it's much more complicated than that. First, the reasons for voting for a given candidate vary widely from person to person, and from candidate to candidate. Take the recent election of Bush, for example. Sure there were multitudes who just love the guy and crow loudly about it. They agree with his "this country is the greatest on Earth and therefore we need to spread our value system across the Globe as an anathema to Terrorism because once we all think like Americans we will all be safe" kind of line.
But the evidence is becoming clearer and clearer; those people who buy the Bush rhetoric hook line and sinker are not ANYWHERE NEAR the "51%" of the voting populace, and that Bush has any kind of a mandate to just carry one like he has for the last four years. In fact, if you read the statistics in the book, "Culture Wars?" you will realize that the vast majority of people in this country are moderates, and the distribution along the spectrum between the hard left and the hard right gets much thinner toward either end, not thicker. What creates the impression to the contrary is that the party gurus continue casting extremist candidates into the ring, then spin their little heads off whipping up popular support largely by manufacturing polarized hatred against what the other party presumably stands for, where little or no such hatred existed.
Now why do they do this? One might ask. It's simple. It's more expedient to win an election based on hatred and disgust against the other party than it is to forward a campaign in which a moderate has to work to appeal to the more moderate people in both parties. Hatred and disgust are much more motivating to people who work twelve hours a day. They are too tired to think and so they fall back on the simple answers handed to them at 7 o'clock at night when they tune in the the News Broadcast of their choice and hear whatever they want to hear because there's a channel which is designed to make them feel good about their preconceived notions, whatever they may be.
Being a Moderate, on the other hand, is hard work. Moderate is boring and unsexy. I'm here to tell you. It's time-consuming, especially when you spend most of your time trying to untangle the propaganda in the press and twist free of your own preconceived notions that were so carefully nurtured by culture of mass media. It takes hours of research on practically every issue, sub-issue, morsel, and scrap of the crap that you read and hear.
This is not to say that my goal is being a Moderate. My goal is making up my own mind based on the most sound information I can find, improving the ever-growing matrix of my own understanding and deciding on my own conclusions. Being a Moderate is simply the result of that process.
The irony is, despite the attempts by the press to spin us all, when you simply poll the people on the basic issues, without any kind of spin or connection with a party, a candidate or a particular news story, they tend to fall someplace near the middle too. In other words, based on the stats, "Moderate" would probably be the result for most people as well, if they had the time to wrent themselves free of the mass-media hypnosis of which I speak.
So how, you may ask, could this sea of Moderates elect Bush by a majority? Take people like my husband and brother, for example. Both disliked Bush, rather intensely after I had gotten done with them. But in the end they both voted for him -- only because of the perils of switching to a Massacheussetts Liberal in the middle of a war, which was already in progress and could not be un-warred no matter how one felt about it in the beginning.... Both told me numerous times that if the Democratic Party had offered them anything but an extremist on the other end of the spectrum, they probably would have voted otherwise. So they didn't vote for Bush, they voted against Kerry. My brother went so far as to take the book "The Future of Freedom" into the voting booth with him, where he stood sweating, frantically flipping through the last few pages of analysis desperately trying to decide what to do until the moment he finally flipped the switch.
So there's your mandate guys. Anyways. I have gotten somewhat off-topic here. The bottom line is, our government's representation of our wishes is a much more complicated issue than even we Americans realize. If the few loudmouths who go about crowing so loudly that WE'RE THE BEST -- like this was some kind of football game instead of serious international business -- would just shut up and let the rest of the world hear the rest of us, then maybe the rest of the world would not think them so typical of what an "American" really is.
____________
I have menopause and a handgun. Any questions?
|
|
bort
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Discarded foreskin of morality
|
|
posted February 23, 2005 08:02 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Both told me numerous times that if the Democratic Party had offered them anything but an extremist on the other end of the spectrum, they probably would have voted otherwise.
The idea that Kerry is an extremist is beyond comical.
____________
Drive by posting.
|
|
Peacemaker
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Peacemaker = double entendre
|
|
posted February 23, 2005 08:56 PM |
|
|
Geeze bort, let me at least exhale before jumping in here!! Surely you must have noticed by now I go back and edit these damn things about a hundred times to clarify them!! (LOL!)
Quote:
The idea that Kerry is an extremist is beyond comical.
Well maybe not to you, but that's how he was (successfully) spun to people succumbing to the giant sucking sound of the right wing. I mean this just underscores my point, does it not?
I will acknowledge that I should have put the word "extremist" in quotations, probably both times I used it, but you must admit Kerry's not terribly moderate either. If you were to place him in the matrix he'd be more socially and fiscally liberal than a whole slew of others I can think of. And the fact that you conclude (as many of us would) that he's not an "extremist" does not undo a political career built largely on an anti-war platform, where the current election involves an incumbent who started one already, turned it into a mess, and who many want to hold him accountable for.
It was this irritating mantra I kept hearing: "It's a bad idea to switch presidents in the middle of a war" -- that just about drove me crazy. Why did Kerry keep changing around on the war issue? Well I'll tell you what I think. I think Kerry thinks carefully about things and tends to change his stance based on new and incoming information. But once again, people don't want to think, they want someone who will tell them clearly and in no uncertain terms what the thing is to do, and why. Unfortunately Kerry opened himself to the right-wing charge (SPIN) of "flip flopping" by sliding around in his position on the war.
So now we're back to the tactic of win-by-whipping-up-hate-and-disgust." People were afraid to vote for Kerry because they didn't know what he was going to do about this war situation once he got in. But basing their predictions on his political record, the projections were not very stable.
Extremist? Maybe not. But Predictable? Let's see...
(A stupified look washes across my face...)
____________
I have menopause and a handgun. Any questions?
|
|
Consis
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Of Ruby
|
posted February 23, 2005 09:35 PM |
|
|
**looking confused**
Uh, how did this turn into a Bush/Kerry debate? Don't we already have a thread for that? How does all that tie into Ward?
____________
Roses Are RedAnd So Am I
|
|
Peacemaker
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Peacemaker = double entendre
|
|
posted February 23, 2005 10:04 PM |
|
|
Sorry Consis. I knew we were veering off on a tangent when I was writing my posts.
But actually, it started with a quote in your post titled "The Perception:"Quote:
I really don't understand the perception many foreign countries have of America. I don't understand how they can see a few bad apples and immediately judge my country as a whole.
|
|
Svarog
Honorable
Supreme Hero
statue-loving necrophiliac
|
|
posted February 24, 2005 11:55 AM |
|
Edited By: Svarog on 24 Feb 2005
|
Quote:
And the fact that you conclude (as many of us would) that he's not an "extremist" does not undo a political career built largely on an anti-war platform
offtopic comment: I never believed I'd encounter the words "extremist" and "anti-war" in relative opposition to one another, even be it in quotations.
____________
The meek shall inherit the earth, but NOT its mineral rights.
|
| |
|
|
