What do you think?

by Adam 6 Replies latest social current

• 

  Adam

  I've heard several comments on this site about how oppressive dictatorship and lopping heads of women, while repugnant to us, is simply part and parcel of the culture in the Middle East. About how we should not be trying to force freedom on the people of Iraq because the freedom and happiness known by the average Joe in Western culture is directly at odds with the culture of the Middle East. About how even thought many hate Saddam they will fight on his side against the US and Brittan because they see it as our culture VS their culture instead of as a liberation from opression and forced poverty. About how, when taken in the context with, and with an understanding of, Middle Eastern culture, the suicide killings of innocent women and children is not so incoprehensable as a way of forwarding one's cause. My question is this:

  Is there a point where one widely practiced culture becomes so overwhelmingly more progessive and benificial than another, when viewed thru the scope the history of humankind, that it becomes moraly acceptable (or even moraly required) for the higher culture to make an effort to phase out the lower one for the sake of the future of the people stuck in that culture and for humankind in general?
• 

  joannadandy

  I think this is a bunch of racist crap. It implies that all Arabs are backward people who don't value human life as much as we do. That is obviously ridiculous!!

  The real issue is that some Iraqi people believe this is an invasion. Much as if Canada started bombing the hell out of the United States, Americans who were living in other parts of the world would fly home to defend their homeland. I am not saying these Iraqi's are right in fighting, but it is happening.

  You spoke about a higher culture, and a lower culture. Who decides this? The United States is by no means a Utopia, to suggest that we need to go in there and fix these heathens to save them from themselves because they obviously LIKE Saddam Hussien is insane.
• 

  Adam

  Obviously your answer is no.

  To clarify, I am not saying I think that the answer is yes, I was just asking a question to see what people thought. I should also point out that I'm not talking about a power grab by the US or even specificly about the current war. I'm talking about the free and open culture that exists in nearly all of Europe and North America, as well as in places like Japan and South Korea and how it is obviously more progressive and contributes more toward the future of humankind as opposed to the culture, prevalent in the Middle East but in existance elsewhere, where a severe minority accumulates all the wealth at the cost of placing the rest of the socity in abject poverty and keeps all the power, using it to brutalize and quell the populace thru fear. Also, even if the answer is yes, I don't believe we've yet reached that "point" that I speak of in my original post.
• 

  joannadandy

  Adam, my original post wasn't meant to pick on you...I hope you don't think I was...I just don't agree with the viewpoints you brought out (which you stated came from a consensus you gathered from reading posts here).

  where a severe minority accumulates all the wealth at the cost of placing the rest of the socity in abject poverty and keeps all the power, using it to brutalize and quell the populace thru fear.

  Actually you just described the united states. 1% of the population holds 50% of the wealth in country. 23% of our population here is living in abject poverty. Social reform programs, and social aid are being cut everyday meanwhile Bush still wants to push through his tax bill, and then talks out the side of his mouth about weapons of mass destruction. If that's not everything you described in that paragraph I dunno what is...

  Again, not trying to pick on you...I just don't agree with what you're saying, but I do see the point you're trying to make.

  In my mind "socially progressive society" is a slippery term.
• 

  Francois

  Au contraire. People decide all the time what kind of behavior is acceptable, or higher, than another. It's called the justice system. We throw some of them in jail and others we let go free.

  And on top of that, we have the U.N. whose mission is, in part, to reward "higher" behavior, and punish "lower" behavior. What the hell do you think the entire world did to South Africa until it got rid of apartheid? Bosnia? North Korea? You're just not thinking.

  Look at Islam. This religion, this cult of Mohammed, has its devotees locked in the ninth century. And look what it does to its women and children.

  If we can bring sanctions against South Africa for Apartheid, then we damn sure ought to be able to bring death to Saddam for his "practice" of Islam and his plans for Jihad on America.

  Like I said, joanna, you're not thinking very deeply about this.

  francois
• 

  joannadandy

  Perhaps the scripture from our favorite dusty book will shed light on my point, "before you can pull the straw from my eye you must first extract the rafter from your own".

  You didn't address at all the issues I brought about the climate of the United States, we can't even agree ourselves as to what constitutes "moral decency".

  Look at Islam. This religion, this cult of Mohammed, has its devotees locked in the ninth century. And look what it does to its women and children.

  Perphas you are not thinking too deeply. Iraq before 1990 was set to be an immergant first world country. Under Saddam there was universal health care (no not for the Kurds but dictators have whims) and high education rates, progressive rights for women. Saddam represented everything against Fundamentalist Islam, and there is a BIG difference between run-of the mill muslims and harcore fundamentalist muslims, much the same as there is a difference between methodists and hardcore catholics. (That's why Osma Bin Laden wanted to oust Saddam and was willing to handle it himself if 1990 their views on the Koran, and religion are wildly different).

  Framcois, you and I are obviously of a different opinion. You believe the values and ethics of the West are far superior to those of East, and that's fine, that's your opinion. But in my opinion is that the very heart of democratic thought is that people should be able to decide for themselves what is moral, what beliefs and values are important, and who should govern them and how.
• 

  Adam

  "1% of the population holds 50% of the wealth in country. 23% of our population here is living in abject poverty. "

  Joann, you know what I'm talking about. Comparing the quality of life, mis-distribution of wealth, and poverty between America and Iraq is like comparing the creek in my back yard to the Nile River. There is no comparison everyone knows it.

  "the very heart of democratic thought is that people should be able to decide for themselves what is moral, what beliefs and values are important, and who should govern them and how"

  Good point against encouraging the demise of non-progressive cultures.

  Playing the part of devil's advocate, I put this forward:

  It seems evident that what we are calling the "higher" culture for the purposes of this discussion is attempting to push the horizons of human exploration (international space station, Mars exploration), is continuing to push forward the science of medicine (looking for cures to AIDS and cancer), is trying to encourage tollerance and equality (the Political Correctness movement, afirmative action, women's sufferage), and cares about the welfare of humankind as a whole (billions of aid from the US and Europe to people less fortunate). Now I ask you to look at the culture prevalant in the Middle East, and answer this question: Does that culture encourage or hinder the progression of humankind?