This is topic Arundhati Roy's "Imperial Democracy" in forum Books, Films, Food and Culture at Hatrack River Forum.


To visit this topic, use this URL:
http://www.hatrack.com/ubb/main/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=2;t=026509

---

Posted by Annie (Member # 295) on :
 
My NPR station just played a broadcast of this address, given this May in New York at a function for the Center for Economic and Social Rights, and apparently the broadcast was by Alternative Radio. I found a transcript of the speech here. (scroll down) It's long, but worth reading.

As I was listening to the speech, my Mom stopped in to the Gallery and said "Oh - are you listening to this? Isn't it sad?"

I'm trying to figure out why she would have called it sad. I really liked Roy's perspective, and she made some good points, though her presentation was definitively slanted. (Perhaps this is why Mom found it sad - because she referred to GWB as "Bush the Lesser.)

I thought I'd see if any of you have read/heard this speech or are familiar with Roy's writings and get your opinion on her ideas.
 

---

Posted by Annie (Member # 295) on :
 
The hardest part for me is that I really agree with a lot of the Arundhati Roys and Noam Chomskys out there, but I find little in common with many of the social liberal philosophies that most groups saying anything against the current administration adhere to.

I'm not going to lambast Republicans for being religious idiots, because I myself am a religious idiot. But that's my predicament - I find a lot of my recent political beliefs and my utter abhorrence of the war in Iraq to be rooted in my religious convictions. Most of my recent research in school has been on social issues in Europe, and I'm really convinced of a lot of the doctrines espoused by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (a declaration that the United States failed to ratify). For me, my Christianity is what convinces me of the wrongness of so many things in the Bush administration's policies, but it's the Christian majority that I'm arguing against and my allies on one front are my enemies on another.

It's all quite frustrating, and I'm having a really hard time deciding where I can turn to do the best work. I appreciate sources that are saying the kinds of things that Roy is saying without all of the inflammatory rhetoric that comes up in politics.

On that note, today I had to drop off some art at the local Catholic mission. On the doors of the church and its offices, they had a sign printed that said "Absolutely no politics are to be discussed on this premisis." Recently in my own church services, a letter was read from the President and Quorum of the 12 Apostles, the heads of the Church worldwide, re-stating the Church's official policy of political neutrality. It stated quite pointedly that church facilities and directories were not to be used for any political purposes, nor any affiliations with the church proclaimed. I was so relieved to hear this read. When I was young, I was aware of the church's policy, but assumed it was just polite lipservice to cover the church's obvious Republican affiliation. The more I think about this, the more I realize that I got that impression from a very small number of my parents' associates who would talk politics and talk church as if it were the same. Never can I recall having heard those types of things preached in any official church function.

I may not know who I stand for politically, but I do know that at least my religion allows me to make that choice and I've lost the guilty burden of listening to liberal media that was entirely a figment of my familial philosophy.
 

---

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
"I'm trying to figure out why she would have called it sad."

Well, you DID say earlier that she was dying of being a Republican (or something to that effect *grin*), so I'd imagine that any criticism of the administration's effort in Iraq -- which is, for many Republicans, as much a religion as any belief they might have about God -- strikes her as not only sacriligious but, from the mouth of an Iraqi, deluded and ungrateful.

(Edit: and, of course, it's passionate and paranoid rhetoric, basically inciting the American people and citizens of countries abroad to topple our institutions in a Marxist blow for freedom. I'm not exactly a conservative, but she's waaaay left of me.)

[ August 09, 2004, 06:48 PM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
 

---

Posted by Annie (Member # 295) on :
 
She's Indian
 

---

Posted by Snowden (Member # 1660) on :
 
From TomD:

quote:

---

You know, I would LOVE for you to manage to come up with a single thread in which I've been provably wrong.

---

[ August 09, 2004, 07:27 PM: Message edited by: Snowden ]
 

---

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
Yeah, yeah. Pick on the guy who only skimmed the ridiculously long speech, why don'cha? Of course, I should probably have read the intro more closely. *grin*
 

---

Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
 
Annie, Your words tear at my heart strings. I've been teaching the Book of Mormon this year and in every single lesson their are strong statements about caring for the poor, peace, and humility. I teach these lessons that my IWW friends would be proud of and all the LDS people nodded their heads Amen.

Then they go out and put BUSH signs on their lawns and bumper stickers on their cars. I simply can't understand my own people anymore.

Are you still in Bozeman? We need to meet up next time I'm there. I had hoped to come up this weekend but now it looks like we won't make it up until October (moan).
 

---

Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
 
I find Roy's speech very sad as well.

I find her message sad because I once believed that my country stood for liberty and justice for all peoples, because I believed we lived by a higher standard, because I believed we gave more than lip service to human rights. I have known for years that we had not always lived up to those ideal so elequently articulated by Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, Elenor Roosevelt and others, but until this past 4 years, I thought we were at least trying.

I remember the forth of July for years ago. After the fireworks at Sugarhouse park, they flew a huge American flag waving horizontal to the ground and lit by spot lights. It brought tears to my eyes and a stood in gratitude for my country. Now thanks to Bush, I feel only anger and betrayal when I see the American flag, and I find that heart renching. They have stolen my country, my home from me.

I doubt that your mother find's Roy's words sad for the same reasons. Perhaps she finds it sad that others believe these words even if she does not.
 

---

Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
 
Dr. Rabbit

I read this, and I thought about how you said wind power was a worthwhile exploration.
 

---

Posted by Annie (Member # 295) on :
 
Rabbit, good to hear from you I'm still disgustingly jealous of your Tour de France. I'm home for the summer now, but will be back in Bozeman when school starts.

And I have had so many enlightening moments in Gospel Doctrine too this year! I was teaching in my student ward before I came home for the summer. So many times I wondered why there was so much on war included - why was that so important in a spiritual record? But it's all there for us, today, and it's never been more evident to me than now.

quote:

---

Behold, can you suppose that the Lord will spare you and come out in judgment against the Lamanites, when it is the tradition of their fathers that has caused their hatred, yea, and it has been redoubled by those who have dissented from us, while your iniquity is for the cause of your love of glory and the vain things of the world? (Alma 60:32)

---

quote:

---

In some areas we've hit the ball out of the park, but in others, we're still in the dugout (chewing tobaccy and scratching our collective crotch).

---

CT.... can I be you when I grow up?
 

---

Posted by rubble (Member # 6454) on :
 
Annie,

I think that the reason your mother thought the speech was “sad” was that she couldn’t get past the invective and rhetoric. I think you can probably relate, based on the reaction that Hatrack has to trolls who show up and use the most inflammatory language possible just to make everyone angry.

For example:

quote:

---

All of it is based on insinuation, auto-suggestion, and outright lies circulated by the U.S. corporate media, otherwise known as the "Free Press," that hollow pillar on which contemporary American democracy rests.

---

quote:

---

U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft recently declared that U.S. freedoms are "not the grant of any government or document, but….our endowment from God." (Why bother with the United Nations when God himself is on hand?)

---

quote:

---

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

---

quote:

---

just not as if he did not also speak for and uphold the good citizens which are not religious.

---

(almost too many negatives for me to figure it out )

Back to the rhetoric argument, though. All sorts of people use all sorts of jargon that can be take the wrong way--Roy's speech notwithstanding. The trick is to be civilized about trying to understand them, and perhaps be a little forgiving of their idiosyncracies. (I take your point about making official statements and that less lattitude should be allowed.)

I do not have a stash of burgers.

rubble, rubble, rubble

[ August 10, 2004, 08:46 AM: Message edited by: rubble ]
 

---

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
"I think that when you live in a society that includes a lot of religious discussion you have to be careful not to be put off by people that use 'religious jargon' in a setting where it was appropriate...."

Either the jargon is sincere, in which case it's downright threatening, or it's insincere pandering. Which is better?
 

---

Posted by rubble (Member # 6454) on :
 
TD,

I don't agree with your dichotomy.

quote:

---

Either the jargon is sincere, in which case it's downright threatening, or it's insincere pandering. Which is better?

---

There are times when someone using religious terms can say exactly the same thing as someone using non-religious terms. Remember ak's thread about wanting to go to Iraq? One of the comments was something like "why not stay at home and provide your labor to your closer community" and an answer was "follow your own counsel, there are many things that motivate and only you know what you want to do"?

Then it turned into "Each to his or her own calling".

(lots of poetic license for paraphrasing).

So I think that "follow your calling" is sincere, but not threatening. Do you disagree?
 

---

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
"So I think that 'follow your calling' is sincere, but not threatening. Do you disagree?"

Not at all. Ashcroft's words, however, are threatening if sincere and smarmy if they aren't.
 

---

Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
 
Rabbit-- do you think that those students of yours have a scriptural basis for their support of the war in Iraq?
 

---

Posted by rubble (Member # 6454) on :
 
I don't know how I got into the business of defending John Ashcroft. My intent was to defend a generic person using jargon that could be offensive by its mere use.

That said, with the following definitions:

Smarmy: Hypocritically, complacently, or effusively earnest; unctuous

Unctuous: Characterized by affected, exaggerated, or insincere earnestness.

I'll give you complacently or effusively earnest; and exaggerated (but not necessarily insincere) earnestness.

I still think that in this case, the point that is being made is that as a nation, regardless of religions, "We hold these truths to be selfevident"

p.s. Why aren't you attacking the conpiracy of the "free press"!
 

---

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
"I'll give you complacently or effusively earnest; and exaggerated (but not necessarily insincere) earnestness."

Which is why I said it was smarmy IF insincere.
 

---

Posted by rubble (Member # 6454) on :
 
Get off of this train, mister boy. This is my train!

How do you like me now, CT?
 

---

Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
 
Mister boy,

The love of distinction is old. I think it started with the first foot race, and now we've formed it into an very good economic system. The Olympics this month are built on this love of distinction from our peers, even in democracy, someone comes out ahead. I only see a problem when the love of distinction stops being between peers. That's why steroids, tyranny, monopolies, or party machines destroy the relationship.
_____________________
It's manifest in the 100 bests lists that come out every year, and the queerest thing about it is that it's almost egalitarian because you get your distinction coming from the assumption that everyone began equal.

Americans may take this love of distinction too far, becoming evangalistic because we want more people to be in the league, thereby making our distinction even more manifest.

The difference between this love of distinction, which is old and not at all bad, and a healthy exceptionalism is clear I think. Distinction occurs under the law, exceptionalism is not bound. Distinction is mastery of a craft while exceptionalism is a bully. Distinction happens within a brethen, exceptionalism is singular. Virtuous distinction happens within a construct, legal or moral, exceptionalism opens itself up to violence. In Of Mice and Men, Lenny was exceptional. Billy Budd was exceptional. Ghandi and Mother Teresa are distinct. Achilles is exceptional, Hector is distinct.

This was going somewhere...

[ August 10, 2004, 10:36 AM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]
 

---

Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
 
The what?
 

---

Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
 
America is exceptional, both in its situation and its character. That's a large part of our problem.

Our natural endowments are enormous. Because of this and because of our geographical isolation, our development as a nation was less constrained by other countries than possibly any other country in the world. Once we kicked out the English and more or less wiped out the Indians, we were left with vast stretches of open, resource rich land that was ours to do with as we liked. In most places, a frontier was a border between Us and Them, a place to fear and protect. In developing America, the frontier was something you crossed looking for freedom, opportunity, and new things.

Our intellectual heritage and the make up of our settlers made us almost uniquely suited to this frontier. Individualism is perhaps the central trait of the American character. We are so far to one side of the individualism/collectivism axis that we almost define the extreme. The Greeks, our intellectual forebearers, invented a description of nature as being the world with humans removed. Americans could be said to have defined the world as everything that is with the individual self taken out.

If we view being an individual versus being a part of a group as being opposing situations, Americans (especially historically) were those who practically fled the established groups for being an individual. We were settled by immigrants and criminals, by people who passionately believed in new philosophies and religions, by those who didn't fit into the old order. Ours was the first country were the idea of individudal rights really got expressed.

To rely on the self, to be an individual, we invested our ideal of the self with certain qualities. The self must first of all be powerful, able to effect changes on the outside world. As part of this, the self must be, as I said, separate from this outside world. It must be central to a person's existence and it must be the stable point.

Armed with this philosophy of the individual, America's tackled the New World with a pragmatism, fervor, and, above all, optimism that reshaped not just this land, but the world in general. The American was not just willing to go it alone, they were almost eager to do so. You can see great contrast between this attitude and the character of the Canadian expansion, which was largely a matter of sound, conservative decisions by central bodies to send out exploratory expeditions which were then followed by judicious settlements. In contrast, America's treatment of the frontier comes about as close to sustained anarchy as just about anything in history.

Individualism gives amazing benefits and opportunites, but it carries some pretty big weaknesses too. The same focus on the self that makes so much new things possible also cuts a person off from others. When one's own wishes and ways of thinking are paramount, the entire outside world takes on the character of the border between not Us and Them, but rather Me and Them. Relationships take on a immediate focus as opposed to a more long-term contextual one. Others come to be seen as objects, to be used and manipulated for your own ends much like any other part of the outside world.

The stability and strength that comes from relying on others, on connectedness to the current social world and to the well of history becomes something that a person can't accept, at least consciously. As power and stability are the hallmarks of a "good" self, it beomces important not to admit weakness or a need to change. Situations that suggests this are met with primarily with aggressiveness, of the established pattern of the self exercising power over the outside world, rather than changing and growing to accomodate the outside world. Also, because of this need for feelings of power and stablity, a great importance is put on comfort of the self.

Consider one of the major advances Americans contributed to industry: assembly line mass production. Henry Ford, fueled by his extreme paranoia and disconnect from thoer people, worked out a system to turn people into interchangable, replaceable objexts. Motivation in this system was seen stricly in the simplistic reward/punishment structures that, not coincidentaly, were the central tenets of the Behaviorist school, America's main contribution to the field of psychology.

Taking it from another direction, optimism is a very strong determiner of success. When people try to do something, believing that they are going to successful is very important. Going into something fully committed to doing it, without anxiety, has proven its worth countless time. However, there's a big difference betweem optimism while acting and optimism in contemplation. If you're try to do something and are committed to doing it, unreservedly giving your all is your best chance of success. But, when you're considering options of things to do and ways to go about it, it's important to consider the ways something can go wrong. While optimism still plays an important role, throwing yourself unreservedly into believing in a course of action is a good recipe for disaster. Likewise, while believing that how much effort you put out is the determiner of success when engaged in doing something is very important, when looking back, it's important to acknowledge the role that beneficial situational factors played.

All of these negative tendencies were, for most of American history, ameliorated by the intense challenges presented by the world people lived in. To be a true individual with all the weakness I suggested was to commit a sort of suicide. The external harshness of things drove people together, presented them with situations where the best way to maintain stability was to admit that they needed to change and where people realized that valuing comfort today meant tons of pain come tommorow. Relying on blind optimism without planning would leave you like the Donner party, stuck on some mountain analog without the resources you needed.

The important thing to realize about this is that, in general, people were driven to these anti-individualistic things by the realities of external world imposing on them. Many times, people through experience came to see them as valuable in their own right, but always there was still this ideological opposition.

Remove these external restraints and the American character becomes much more free to express its underlying weaknesses along with its strengths. I maintain, however, that Americans are, in general, not imperial. We aren't generally all that interested in power over other people, per se. We're individualists; we care about ourselves. What we really want is to be undisturbed. We want to have a completely comfortable life and be able to view ourselves as the best and the strongest people in the world. Americans don't support hurting other people because we can. This always has to be justified as being defending ourselves. We don't revel in our empire. We deny that it exists, or justify it as the best that people can hope for. We're not evil, we're just apathetic. We just want to be left alone in our dream of American exceptionalism where we get to do whatever we want without restriction. If we could do that without hurting the rest of the world, we totally would.

[ August 10, 2004, 02:14 PM: Message edited by: MrSquicky ]
 

---

Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
 
Mr. Squicky: Honestly, I'd read your posts if you could just put a little TO SUM UP section at the end.


 

---

Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
 
Scott,
How about this, TO SUM UP: Americans aren't imperialists. We're people who have built an empire because it serves our other purposes. These purposes, the empire we've built to serve them, and the way we built and now maintain that empire are an expression of our underyling philosophy, one of the major pieces of which is our extreme individualism. There's a lot to be said about this extreme individualism, especially in challenge rich environments, but there's also many bad things about it. In the past, external constaints limited the expression bad things and emphasized the benefits of the strengths, but in the relatively unconstrained situation America finds itself in, the weaknesses are increasingly being brought to the fore.
 

---

Posted by Annie (Member # 295) on :
 
I don't have the time I really want to invest in this discussion, but I really wanted to respond to the first point Tom made that I really think is important, and that is how politicians talk to religious audiences.

It seems in the Bush administration there are two presentations - the general secular face and the religious (read: protesant Christian) face.

When Ashcroft spoke to the church group, to me it smacked of artificial chumminess. It was as if he said "well, of course we can't say this to everyone, but since you all are so enlightened, we'll base this on Biblical arguments."

Oh - I'm so glad you let us in on the real story since we've got the proper theological background.

Except it's not about that at all - we're being pandered to and our faith being exploited. That's what makes me the angriest. The fact that the Bush campaign requested church directories for campaigning would have been enough for me to erase my name from the Republican rolls. Don't pretend that this is a religious issue. This is a secular country and you have no right to be appealing to Christianity to back up your political stances.

I say nothing of personal convictions; I think it's important that our leaders rely on personal convictions as a moral guide. The sincerity of their religious affiliations (and this applies to both Bush and Kerry), though I'm far from qualified to comment on it, seems to me to be something affected as a political tool.

Once I got a call from some sort of survey asking me to sign a petition on decency in Hollywood. The saleslady (because that's exactly what she acted like) explained to me how this would be a statement from the Christians of the nation who felt that decency standards were contrary to Biblical beliefs, etc. etc. She then asked me for 10 phone numbers of friends that I'd like to refer to sign the petition as well. She said "just get out your church directory, I only need 10 names." It was at this point that I got angry. I told her that the mainstream Christian groups I'd had experience with often told me that I wasn't Christian because LDS doctrine was different than mainstream protestant. I told her that to ask me for phone numbers so a Christian organization could exploit LDS people who they didn't even consider part of their religion was arrogant and rude. I also told her that our church had a strict policy of political neutrality that I would not violate.

This is how I feel now. Any politician who tries to appeal to me based on religion is not only arrogant and patronizing, but if he's truly religious himself, quite sacrilegious and prideful.
 

---

Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
 
I wasn't trying to attribute rugged individualism solely to America. I was more trying to show ohw America largely developed an ideology of solely individualism, in large part in response to situational factors. The community-oriented individualism of Canada gives a good contrast to the American model. So to does the non-stick up the ass style of the Australians strongly contrast the positivistic, power-oriented aspects of the Americans.

Seymour Lipset, who I took most of my stuff on frontiers, explored this issue a bunch. Here's an interview he gave about it.

I am talking in broad sweeps here, no doubt. Also, something that maybe I didn't make clear was that I;m taling about guiding ideologies and not necessarily reality. I don't necessarily agree with more tribalism in America, either in the increased amount over other places or that it's an Us vs. Them mentality rather than a Me vs. Them one, but Americans definitely show a large amount of sado-masochistic celebrity worship, in defiance of their supposed individualism. Or, to put it another way, try to prevent an American from voting and he'll fight you to death, but offer to, for a nominal fee, relieve him of the burden of having to vote, and people would line up into the street.

I'm not saying that Americans are necessarily genuinely individualistic (or rather more genuinely individualistic than other places) but that the guiding myths we use and goals we strive towards are more strongly individualistic. This striving is correlated with actual individualism, but there's not a one-to-one correspondence.

In fact, I'd argue that things like the disputed tribalism and the celebrity worship are consequences of American individualism in that it discourages secure reliance on social interconnectedness, thus depriving people of a useful method of coping with threat and leading towards less mature methods. The anti-individualistic components of American society are of a neccessity unconscious, or at the very least marginalized.

As I said, I think that when people accuse Americans of being imperialistic, they are misreading the American character. They are accusing Americans of having an active desire to subjgate other people. My contention is that this push for empire is a second order motivation in service of the more central drive to extreme individualism. Most Americans find no basis in the charge of imperialism because its not a part of their active conscious. The average American feels what could be called imperial impulses only in response to perceived threats, not as an end in themselves. Instead, I'd say that, if anything, most Americans feel consciously that they are against empires.

A more effective criticism would be towards the reality of the American empire and not the supposed desire towards it. The motivational claim is easily dismissed, but if each time an American went to buy a pair of Nike's, they had a mental image of 6 year olds in a sweatshop, there's be significant change in America's behavior. Right now, we work very hard so that we don't have to think about the consequences (like the child-labor sweatshops) of our lifestyle. I think that breaking this willful blindness (along with realigning America's guiding mythologies) is the best chance people have towards reigning in American imperialism.

[ August 10, 2004, 04:19 PM: Message edited by: MrSquicky ]
 

---

Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
 
:mutters:

I knew it. The Canadians are a bunch of godless, commie-heathens.

:mutters:
 

---

Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
 
Despite your good sense. . . I think MY post added more to the discussion.

I mean, I called them 'commie-heathens.' It's been YEARS since that kind of wit was on display.

Behold the wonderfullness of me!


 

---

Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
 
I do share a name with our host, after all.
 

---

Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
 
It ain't civilized when you call zee zed, buddy.

It just AIN'T.
 

---

Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
 
Would you say that 'zed' is like a lumberjack?

Striding through the forests of British Columbia with his best girl by his side, and they'd sing. . . sing. . . sing!
 

---

Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
 
Or the Lumberjack Song. . .


 

---

Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
 
Mister Boy (Do you prefer that, or David? I ask since we've heard the name so often ),

quote:

---

In any case, my suspicion is that these traits of "rugged individualism" so often attributed solely to the American character are really just a construction of US popular culture and mythology.

---

quote:

---

Americans love a great story, especially one about themselves (where else could Hollywood have arisen with its fantasies like the classic 'western').

---

quote:

---

For example, I find Americans to distinctly more tribal than other Euro-based societies, especially when confronted with threatening situations.

---

quote:

---

Crises seem to elicit an immediate emotional public ritual of declaring us-them oppositions in terms of good and evil, and the moral need to take vengence on individuals challenging or straying from the flock.

---

quote:

---

Rather, their acceptance of the exceptionalism mythology leaves them rather uncritical keepers of the American system of influence over other nations.

---

quote:

---

Sure lots of people come to America. But that doesn’t make America particular special

---

• High Standard of Living for the country's citizens. This would include such factors as literacy, access to education, adequate nutrition, access to healthcare, freedom of expression and religion, and general happiness, althogh that last one would be pretty difficult to quantify.
• The Extension of Professed Values to Interactions With the World Community I don't think I expressed that one very clearly, but what I'm talking about here is essentially treating the world's citizens with dignity--if you wouldn't hold your own citizens without legal representation or trial, don't do it to other country's citizens--that sort of thing.
• The Encouragement of a vigorous program ofscientific research and technological innovation in all fields
• The Embracing of Ecological Responsibility, recognizing that an acceptable standard of living is impossible without a healthy ecosystem in which to experience it.
• The Possession of a Vibrant Program of Space Exploration

I'll think of others later, and maybe refine these--as I said, that's just my first stab at articulating all of this.

[ August 13, 2004, 12:51 PM: Message edited by: Noemon ]
 

---

Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
 
The naturalization process is an important one-- I've known too many folks who immigrated to Italy with the expectation of easy naturalization, only to find out that Italy's naturalization laws are practically impossible to navigate.

Without being naturalized (in Italy, for example) you can't hold a job as anything other than a laborer.

Or a hooker.
 

---

Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
 
Good point Scott. Definitely one to add to the list.
 

---

Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
 

 

---

Posted by rubble (Member # 6454) on :
 
What makes nations great?:

1. The rule of law and equal protections of all citizens under that law.
2. Property rights under that law
3. Security of citizens from domestic and international violence
4. National cultural identity
5. Ability to generate new knowledge

(The last couple are "lifted" slightly from John Gray, "Al Queda and What it Means to be Modern"
 

---

Posted by rubble (Member # 6454) on :
 
There is an excellent article on the building of American empire in the July/August 04 "Foreign Affairs": "History and the Hyperpower", Eliot Cohen.

I think you can link directly to the article, but the hotel computer I'm using is a bit neanderthal and I can't provide it as yet beyond:

www.foreignaffairs.org

[ August 13, 2004, 03:51 PM: Message edited by: rubble ]
 

---

Posted by rubble (Member # 6454) on :
 
mb,

I'll have to get back to you a bit later. Essentially, I think each item in my list is requried in order to be considered a nation, let alone a great nation. I would then rate a nation's greatness based on is ability to provide in those categories. I think that national identity is required for a nation to find its place in the international community of nations.
 

---

Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
 
Hi Mr. Boy!

quote:

---

I assume this criterion for greatness on the world stage would in turn require a prerequisite criteria that (a) the nation had humanistic professed values and (b) these values were lived by as a rule within the nation in question. No?

---

quote:

---

Also, just to be clear, this 'extending' criterion you propose does not include converting other nations to your professed values? Or should a great nation be messianic?

---

quote:

---

My understanding is that there are other countries with a proportionally greater immgrant population than the US, at least in their large cities. Could you please substantiate your claim above? (I've heard it before, so I know that it is bandied about fairly regularly, but I've never seen it substantiated.) Thanks!

---

A fair question CT. I could not find specific data to back up my claim, but here are some interesting bits of information.

-United States is the top choice for immigration for Filipinos ( Manila Times ) and Latinos ( Harvard's Inter Faculty Committee on Latino Studies).

-Michigan has the largest Arab community outside of the Middle East ( NPR); Los Angeles has the largest Korean community outside of Korea ( Encarta Online); Orange County has the largest Vietnamnese community outside of Vietnam ( Northwest Asian Weekly ); and San Francisco has the largest Chinese community outside of Asia ( Tiscali Reference)

-"Miami has the largest foreign-born population of any city in the world -- 59 percent -- followed by Toronto, Los Angeles, Vancouver and New York, according to a U.N.
report on Thursday." ( Reuters Article in PDF )

quote:

---

What would you accept as a valid answer to your question? Would you accept data that substantiates greater interclass mobility for immigrants in different country? That is, what are your criteria for defining "The Land of Opportunity" (whichever one it may be), since -- of course -- we intend this to not merely be an empty rhetorical term, but one with some substantial meaning.

---

My criteria for land of opportunity would be:

1. Interclass mobility for all citizens
2. High standards of living
3. Acceptance of immigrant cultures
4. A strong public education system
5. Guarantee of basic human rights to all, regardless of citizenship

By the way, everything I've said about immigrants applies to Canada, although to a lesser degree.
 

---

Posted by Beren One Hand (Member # 3403) on :
 
What? You Canadians should be grateful to be compared to the US.
 

---

Posted by Beren One Hand (Member # 3403) on :
 

quote:

---

I even married up--to an American!

---

I think you already took enough from us, thank you very much.

I didn't mean to sound condescending (well, not THAT condescending anyway).

Among Asians, the United States and Canada are our top immigration choices. Canada was a close second choice for my family.

So when I compared Canada to the US, I'm just trying to say that many of the things immigrants admire about the United States also apply to Canada.
 

---

Posted by Beren One Hand (Member # 3403) on :
 
If you do, that just might tip the balance in favor of your country.
 

---

Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
 
Fiendishly clever, mister boy.
 

---

Posted by rubble (Member # 6454) on :
 
mister boy,

Sorry to take so long to get back to your point, but yesterday was quite busy.

Looking back I'm not surprised that you chose to investigate "national identity" as a criterion for national greatness. I think that I didn't answer the original question directly with any of my criteria, but perhaps this criteria is most clouded by the way I did answer.

For clarity I'll restate your question:

quote:

---

What qualities in the present make a country great

---

quote:

---

The rule of law and the equal protection of all its citizens under that law.

---

quote:

---

an image of a community or a gruop of people who ahare a common sense of identity

---

quote:

---

Property rights under that law.

---

quote:

---

Security of citizes from domestic and international violence.

---

quote:

---

National cultural identity

---

quote:

---

Ability to generate new knowledge.

---

This is not a necessity for "nationhood" but is my value judgement of if a nation is properly executing its mandate.

So, overall I didn't attack the question the way I intended. I thought I was enumerating necessary qualities for nationhood, but was in reality answering the question based on my personal opinion of how a nation exercises its resonsibilities well, which is what you asked in the first place. Item 4 is out of place, because it is not a similar value judgement. In its place I would like to propose the following:

4. A great nation should use the identity that binds it in a functional way to further the goals of its citizens in the domestic and inernational arena.
 

---

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 

quote:

---

n some other democracies, more value is arguably given to personal freedoms (less efforts to impose morals flowing from religion beliefs, less restrictions on private behavior, less use of imprisonment, etc).

---

It's a mistake to lump these types of personal freedom together. For example, the US has stronger protections of free exercise of religion and free speech than most nations. Easy examples are anti-Nazi laws in Germany, the head-scarf ban in French schools, the guy imprisoned in Sweden for his anti-homosexual sermon (if that happened, still little proof in a language I can read), the teacher fired in Canada for a letter to the editor about homosexuality, etc. Libel laws are much stricter in most of Europe than America; they're weakening here was done on free speech grounds.

Dagonee
 

---

Posted by rubble (Member # 6454) on :
 
mister boy keyed in on my remarks about free market economies, but I'd like to state for the record that I'm not convinced that either a free market economy nor democracy are prerequisites for great nation status. Although those are he forms of government and economy that I'm most familiar with, as long as the other criteria I posed of rule of law, personal and property rights, and promotion of scientific learing are met I think that a nation has the potential to be great.

Now I can't give you a good example to illustrate that off the top of my head. However, the US desire to make all governments and economic systems in our own image may be the reason that the US is having as much trouble as it is in nation building in Iraq and many other nations that it are trying to help stabilize.

[edit to accomodate fallow's reasonable comment below]

[ August 14, 2004, 06:47 PM: Message edited by: rubble ]
 

---

Posted by fallow (Member # 6268) on :
 
rubble,

rather a discontentious use of the word "we" in the sentiments you expouse, no?

fallow
 

---

Posted by rubble (Member # 6454) on :
 
hmmm

I actually like the definition for now. Let me brainstorm with you.

What makes Slovakia a nation and not just a state? I would posit that it is the common cultural identity of the members of the state that make it a "nation state".

What was Chzechoslovakia (sp)? State? Nation? Empire? I think multi-ethnic nation state; however maybe based on recent history empire is more reasonable. The state was an autocratic central government as hegemon over various geographic regions with specific ethnicity and historical background.

What is it that makes the US a nation? It is also a state made of various geographical regions with specific cultural identities. Sometimes I think my uncle is a Texan first! And I think that joke answers the question. US citizens are very unlikely to rely on their regional (state) cultural identity at the expense of their US national cultural identity.

Now, are you pointing out that there is a broad international "community" that is participating in a new "political liberalization" that includes an international set of laws, international individual rights, and further knowledge? I agree but caveat that you still cannot ignore the reaslist's claim that any state can still act in its own self interest in the face of that community. The international community is not strong enough that "rogue" states can be brought into line just because of the laws and processes in place.

So I think I understand your point but am not convinced that the world looks like that just yet.

Where have I missed the mark?
 

---

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 

quote:

---

Point well taken. What about laws against(and level of punishment for) particular sexual behaviors between consenting adults, and other life style choices (substance use, etc)?

---

quote:

---

Of course, the same nations, being the contradictory things they are, might also be moving apart in other domains.

---

quote:

---

...provides for the common needs of its diverse regions such that those regions are willing to divest sovereignty to the nation.

---

quote:

---

...insofar as other nations voluntarily submit their sovereignty or portions theirof to the nation with the expectation that the empire nation-state will act in the best interest of all nation-states in his hegemony.

---

This is off the cuff so please help me narrow this down where it is unworkable.

[ August 17, 2004, 05:33 PM: Message edited by: rubble ]
 

---

Posted by rubble (Member # 6454) on :
 
This isn't really the right thread to post this but...

I'm currently in Las Vegas participating in an international large force live fly exercise at Nellis AFB. Tonight I flew in a mission with about 85 aircraft. The mission itself was about what you would expect of professional aviators from the approximately 15 nations represented. However getting to the mission proved to be spectacular as we couldn't seeand weren't warned about the top of a thunderstorm hat we flew into. I witnessed St. Elmos fire first hand in the cockpit for the first time in my life. It was like being on the inside of one of those Faraday globes that you can buy at a Spencer's novelty store! So CT, you'll have to forgive my lack of rigor beause I'm still just being thankful that it isn't rigor mortis.

mb, I have a hard time reading online from my hotel room because of the poor resolution of the TV internet, so I've not gotten very far with your references. The big reason that I find this discussion so intriguing, though, is because I believe that at this period in history the US truly believes in its greatness and its right to manufacture that same greatness for any nation that it sees as failing in its responsibilities of basic nationhood.

I, however, am not yet convinced of the purity of the US' mandate nor its intentions.

For example, I am not tragically disappointed with the US decision to war with Iraq. However, I am very disappointed with the US' seeming incapability to help Iraq in any way that does not form its new identity in the US image of liberal democracy and market economy.

I am not convinced of the right nor necessity of every nation, with its own cultural and ethnic identiry, being made in the US image. I would really like to have the time to examine the US declaration of independence and constitution line by line and decide which items are "reqired" of a nation and which items are desired. Ultimately, I'm trying to get to which rights are fundamental, and which are normative based on culture but not fundamental. With that understanding, I think that I would be much better able to judge a fledgling nation's desires for differences in government and economic model without being predjudiced to the systems that I am most familiar with.

/rant

Good night (morning for most). Got to be up again in the afternoon to attempt the same mission again, hopefully without the light show!

Rubble
 

---

Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
 
mister boy,
Oops, I thought I'd included a first name. I meant Erich Fromm. Some of the ways you've expressed yourself suggested to me that you may have.

Perahps I didn't get this right, but it seemed to me that you were painting the rest of the world's view of America and American goods as the equivilent to how people see Homer Simpson and that the main reason that people consume American cultural products is because of America's more favorable economic conditions. I was taking exception to both of these and the general idea that, unlike, the rest of the world, America acts very immaturely.

I'll grant you the immaturity in America, but I'm having major problems with the idea that the rest of the world doesn't suffer from the same problem. This manifests itself in different ways, but, as far as I can tell, there is no country mostly poplulated by people you could trust to, I don't know, watch your house for the weekend.

I'll admit it, I'm an elitist. I look down on a lot of American culture as crap lacking in quality. The thing is, I don't play the pseudo-intellectual game of pretending that most other people share my view. American cultural products (even, or maybe especially the crappy kind) flourish in the market of ideas in large part because they fit in well with what people want or into the ideas of "coolness" that a lot of people buy into. The people who buy this stuff, even those outside the US, don't view it as crap. They buy it because they want to buy it. In my elitist view, they buy it because they either can't recognize or don't value quality.

For me, I saw you proposing a cultural supremecy thing that the "civilized" parts of the world are people with people who only laugh at the products of American culture and are far too superior to want these sort of things. That's the idea that I was reacting strongly to. It's quite likely that I've read you wrong. I do that.

---

I got to tell you, I think that the quest to classify countries on a scale of greatness pretty much misses the point. For one thing, it's largely a values exercise. I value this and this country has it, so it is a "great" country. There are so many different value systems and structures out there that I think this exercise becomes somewhat pointless. If we use per capita income as a measure, how do we balance between socialist and capitalist countries. What's better, to be rich and unhappy or to be poor and happy? Personal freedom or social connectedness and responsibility? Econmoic and social mobility or a stable caste system? Enlightenment ideals or religious orthodoxy? I feel that each one of these, without a very rigorous analysis, comes down to deciding between values. Which is fine, but is a pretty poor basis for an objective determination.

Besides this, there is an air of ignoring the situational determinants in favor of the ideological ones. Sort of like how we attribute the pre-eminent place America has right now solely to the American character as opposed to acknowledging the incredibly reasource rich and geographically isolated situation America developed in. Compare Japan to America in terms of immigration and America comes out way ahead. Of course, while ideological factors play a part here, and big part of this is also that Japan doesn't have enough room to put the people they already have, let alone take in more (which in turn fuels ideological differences between the US and Japan).

All of that misses my main objection though, which is, it's lagely a mistake to rank countries comparatively. Both OSC and mister boy have recently talked about cultural stories, which, as a social dynamicist with a strong interest in mythology, I'm totally on board with. The problem I have is that people often use these terms (ie. cultural stories or mythology) dismissively. As in regarding myths as false ideas that poeple hold that are contradicted by the evidece. That's not how I approach them.

All people everywhere live by stories. Something happens, something else happens, and we make up a story to explain them. It's impossible to live by bottom-up perception alone. This is the conflict between Hume and Kant the precipitated the Critque of Pure Reason and resulting in the idea of a priori concepts. Any higher order organization that we see really comes down to it being a story that we accept.

Too often, we ignore these stories in favor of analyzable/quantifiable concepts and thus miss the gestalt (if I were in a spiritual mood, I'd say Tao) of things. Rather than ranking specific countries, I feel like we should be more interested in looking at the various stories they tell and the different ways the myths work themselves out based on both the environment they're expressed in and the other stories that a beleived alongside them. Like I said earlier, the individualism of America is different from the individualism of Canada which is different from the individualism of Australia. All three have strengths and all three have weaknesses. Trying to rank them ignores the fact that some of the strengths of one system would help to allieviate the weaknesses of another one.

People fall into the trap of better = good, where, in a very real sense, even the formulation of better is counterproductive. I'm much more interested in identifying weaknesses and examining other places to see why they don't have these weaknesses. Even if we could conclude that, say, America is better than every other country, that means nothing in terms of whether America could be better than itself, possibly by learning from some of those countries that it's "better" than.
 

---