posted
I have recently been reading a lot of Mark Twain. While reading To The Person Sitting In Darkness I was continually reminded about arguments, both pro and con, about the present war in Iraq.
I believe it is a great stepping off point for everyone interested in the debate, to begin.
I am not saying that the US is repeating the questionable tactics of 1901-Phillipines in 2004 Iraq.
But there are "People Sitting In Darkness" as they were called then, who fear that is what we are doing.
In 1901 under the cover of evangalism a lot of dirty deeds were done and a lot of bad money was made in Asia. Few in the US complained because bringing the World of Jesus was, of course, the right thing to do to these poor unfortunate souls.
In 2004 under the cover of democracie a lot of questionable deeds are being done and a lot of questionable money is being made. Few in the US complain because bringing Democracy was, of course, the right thing to do to these poor unfortunate souls.
I suggest reading Twain.
If you oppose the war, you will find precedents for that opposition.
If you support the war, you will understand what some the fears are of the Iraqi's and the rest of the world in regards to what we are doing in Iraq. You will understand why, possibly, they did not come running out to embrace their liberators as overwhelmingly as expected. And you will possibly understand what needs to be done to prove to them how 2004 is not 1901, and how placing Democracy in their hands is better than forcing Christianity on their souls by gun point.
The biggest point that Twain was trying to make was that there is a Global test of our foreign policy. It is not a test that determines whether we defend ourselves, but a test of what the United States represents. Was it the enemy of tyrannies as we were in Cuba, or the enslaver of nations as we became in the Philipines. Is it today the ender of tyrranies, or is it the self-centered bully whe demands "Our way, or else."
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think I will try and get a copy tomorrow...I love Twain, and am always struck at how well his essays have stood up in this day and age.
His books too, although it may not seem that way at first glance. Some people, not realizing that they are satires against racism, take the statments at face value and condem them as racist.
But I love them because they were among the first popular voice or an American speaking aginst racism.....using sarcasm and wit to make their points.
quote:In 2004 under the cover of democracie a lot of questionable deeds are being done and a lot of questionable money is being made. Few in the US complain because bringing Democracy was, of course, the right thing to do to these poor unfortunate souls.
Few in the US complain? Then it must be a staggeringly loud-mouthed few, because I've heard a thundering lot of complaint and damn little support for the invasion and subsequent occupation.
posted
The missile crisis had nothing to do with averting tyranny in Cuba. Tyranny was there before and after the crisis. The crisis was about US national security. (And its handling was thoroughly botched, but that's another issue.)
As far as the embargo, without getting into the effectiveness or appropriateness of it (mostly because I am not decided myself), that by itself hardly represents a shining example of the US as the enemy of tyranny. I mean, it's a policy that has lasted forty years without ousting the tyranny in question. Is it really upon this that you want to hang your white hat?
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm not sure to what extent your answer was in jest. My apologies if I took you more seriously than you intended.
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hmmm...this essay can be found somewhere...online? Because, you know...being in Brazil, it gets "a little" difficult to acquire certain books, sometimes.
Posts: 1785 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
1) I have a link to the essay in the first post, or at least to most of the essay.
2) I was referencing the essay when it talks about Cuba in 1901, not freeing it of tyranny recently. During the Spanish American war the US kicked Spain out of both Cuba and the Phillipines. In Cuba we walked away, allowing a democracy to be born, which within 20 years was totally corrupt and a haven for 1920's gangsters. (See the Musical "Guys & Dolls")
In the Phillipines we completely took over, killing many of those who had supported us during the war.
It was this military conquest of the Phillipines which explains General McCarthur's presence there, and his need to escape, during WWII. We was there to crush any Phillipine independence movement.
Sorry I didn't make that clearer.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote: I was referencing the essay when it talks about Cuba in 1901, not freeing it of tyranny recently. During the Spanish American war the US kicked Spain out of both Cuba and the Phillipines.
Actually, that's what I thought you were talking about. When the US allegedly faked a reason to get involved in a war the Cubans were already well on their way to winning, essentially took over Cuba themselves in an act of imperialism which was then typical of US Latin American policy, and forced Cuba to include the Platt Ammendment in their constitution, giving rise to the mentality that Cuba was a protectorate of the United States--short circuiting democracy in Cuba and making it all the easier for Castro to take power six decades later. Nope, sorry. The US's history with regard to Cuba at the beginning of the twentieth century is not one to be especially proud of.
EDIT . . . funny how one little letter can obscure so much meaning . . .
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
