TheDivide
Stephen Lewis wrote:
>> The Divide >> >> One of the less appealing catchphrases I hear all >> too often is of this or that event which does or will >> "change history forever". Maybe to some people it >> sounds very important, even portentious, but to me it >> just sounds a bit lame. If history is ever changed by >> anything, it HAS to be changed "forever". That's how >> history works. It's not at all like painting a house >> one color, and a few years later deciding to repaint >> it some other color. >> Aside from that, there are degrees of change. >> Some are so small as to be almost indistinguishable >> from very similar things which might not be changes. >> There could also be some argument over whether or not >> a given event is really a change at all, or merely >> some odd ripple or eddy in the greater flow of >> history. >> Then there is what I would call a Divide. In >> geology, a divide is a line. On one side of that line, >> all the watercourses flow generally in one particular >> direction, or to one particular place. Take one step >> across the divide, and all of the water on that other >> side is going someplace else entirely. >> There are such things as historical Divides. Up >> to a point, one can determine that historical events >> flowed in a particular direction, or towards a >> particular goal. Beyond that point, the flow is very >> different. A geological divide can be outlined with >> some precision. An historical divide is usually >> designated as a particular act or event, but this >> often overlooks all of the smaller acts and events >> which led up to the identifiable BIG one. >> 9/11 was a Divide. The world looked much >> different after terrorists flew those planes full of >> men, women and children into other buildings full of >> men, women and children. All over the world, there >> were also people who publicly decried the acts, but >> privately seemed to hope that things had not changed, >> and they could go on believing what they had believed >> before. >> What we are approaching, I think, is another >> Divide. Many things, many people, many things have led >> up to this Divide. 9/11 is one of those things. This >> particular Divide will occur when US-led forces attack >> Iraq with the goal of removing Saddam Hussein and his >> apparatus of oppression and terror. I think that this >> will happen soon. The world, after the first shots >> have been fired will look very different from the >> world that immediately preceded them. >> Some time ago, in another post, I said that the >> world might be a less dangerous place if the US were >> quicker to take action than it has been in the past. >> An attack on Iraq would be something that the US has >> not done before: A pre-emptive military strike at a >> perceived threat. This is being undertaken because >> things changed after 9/11. Yet it will be a Divide >> itself because afterwards, things will be seen to have >> changed again, dramatically. >> When George W. Bush went to the UN to press for >> yet another resolution on the disarmament of Iraq, I >> doubt that the UN delegates expected to be repeatedly >> slapped across the face with the dead wet fish of all >> their previous resolutions which Saddam had flouted. >> So they voted another resolution. It would seem that >> whether or not the UN is willing to enforce its >> resolutions, George W. is perfectly willing to do so. >> If the UN cannot stomach a US-led coalition doing >> something it was unwilling to do itself, it is indeed >> in danger of going the way of the League of Nations. >> France and Germany have already been referred to >> as "old Europe". France was one of the countries at >> the UN which voted for yet another "last chance" for >> Saddam to disarm, and yet they now object to any kind >> of force being used to compel such disarming, long >> after it has become apparent that words will never do >> the job. France has contracts with Iraq, and stands to >> lose a great deal of euros if Saddam is ousted. German >> firms may have been doing a lucrative business with >> Iraq in contravention of the sanctions, and may be >> uneasy about such news being made public. France and >> Germany are both loudly decrying US "unilateralism". >> Unilateralism, however, seems to be perfectly >> agreeable to France when it involves French troops in >> former French African colonies. Anyway, the US is not >> acting unilaterally. Great Britain is on board, as are >> Austrailia, the Czech Republic, and, to lesser >> degrees, Turkey, Spain, New Zealand and others. I do >> not see why anything less than a unanimous vote from >> the UN (which includes such paragons of international >> virtue as Libya, China, and, yes, France) means that >> the US is acting "unilaterally". If France and Germany >> continue to try to obstruct any action in Iraq, >> whatever their reasons, they run the risk of following >> the League of Nations themselves. >> We are still approaching the particular Divide I >> speak of. I have only notions as to what the world >> will look like on the other side of that Divide. Does >> anyone here in the collective have any thoughts on the >> matter?
Wonderfully articulated Steven, thank you.
After a divide ultimately is a unification, one we pray in this latest divide is a world without war.
Irac is one of the oldest surviving civilizations, where lives have changed little since the time of Genghis Khan. To go in with tanks and rockets is an inconscionable act on one side of the divide, a necessary evil one the other. If the end be peace the means are justified, but if the divide becomes a chasm that pits africa and china, etc., against us, then we have failed badly.
I am feeling more hopeful these days that cowboy Bush is reasonably under control and we won't be stupid enough to turn the world against us too far.
Free trade and communications, not to mention miagration, is creating an international world. Unless we treasure our ancient cultures, they will be gone. Unifomity is deadly to evolutionary systems. --JimScarver
James Long wrote:
> Off your main point, but still seemingly relevant to the premise: > history is not always changed forever. Firstly, because history is an > observation. Change the observers and you will undoubtedly change the > history. Secondly, because it is information which, without observers, > is lost. > In addition, Stephen, I think you are assuming that there is a fixed > number of people who want to hurt the US. I believe, however, that the > number of enemies we have is directly related to the amount of > ass-kicking (both militarily and economically) we do. This is a similar > concept to something you may have heard before, the expression goes, if > you kill your enemy and he has two sons, you now have two enemies > instead of one. I don't remember the exact wording, but you get the > idea. Another thing to consider, is that we aren't really talking about > whether its right to oust Saddam Hussein, we are talking about whether > it is a good trade to have some hundreds or possibly thousands of our > troops killed, in exchange for the over-throw of a dictator in another > country. I think that is something that is often forgotten. In fact, > there is a very good chance that more Americans may die in Iraq than did > on Sept 11th. So I don't see the logic there. Terrorism is fought more > easily by disproving Islamist's premises rather than proving that we > really are a threat to their way of life. Let's make the extremists look > ridiculous. Nobody takes white supremicists very seriously anymore, and > there isnt much in the way of an effective movement in that sense, > because instead of getting every black guy we can muster to go fight > them, we just show everyone how ignorant and illogical they really are. > I'd like to go on and on on this subject, but I gotta get back to work. > Let us know what you think.
Stephen Lewis wrote:
I would suggest that a successful war waged by America and its allies in Iraq would be a more sure guarantee of peace than any other course of action. To leave Hussein in power would give great encouragement to tyrants and would-be tyrants the world over. To have him simply flee the country for some safe haven somewhere...well, it does not really give the same amount of closure, but I'll take it if it happens. But I don't think it's going to happen. I think Saddam will try to make a fight of it, and when it becomes apparent he's going to lose, (which should be a couple of hours after the shooting starts, at the most) he will try to do as much damage to everybody within his reach as he can. I recall his troops setting fire to the Kuwaiti oilfields and looting Kuwait as they tried to run. Picture the same thing attempted, but in Iraq, with the addition of more scuds launched in all directions, some of them possibly carrying chemical or biological warheads. Aside from the final butcher's bill, if the US and its allies go to war with Saddam Hussein, the outcome is not in doubt. What I am more curious about is the views of members of the collective as to what Iraq and the world could or should look like afterwards. What will things look like on the other side of the Divide?
DavidSiegel wrote:
What should the world look like on the other side of the Divide?
Foundational assertions:
- It is in the best interest of all members of this planet that each member be actively employed in the creation of value for the individual and for the community.
- When a community believes that it will benefit from the value it creates, that community will naturally develop a civilization that reflects the nature of the community.
Possible outcomes of adopting assertions one and two.
If the policy makers who influence international decisions act on this premise, they would use their influence to create pockets of stability around the world. In the northern no-fly-zone of Iraq, a thriving community has sprung up over the last decade. In just ten years roads were built, commercial areas were developed, and trade between neighbors has begun. Most important of all, individuals began creating value within their community. What made the difference? This once ravished community now thrives with only a thread of hope that somehow life tomorrow can be at least as good or better than life today. As I was chatting with a South African student, I began telling her how hopeful I am concerning the human condition and how each person has so much potential and life to give. When I realized she did not seem to share my enthusiasm I asked her about it. She replied by telling me that many in her community do not have hope for the future because of violence and war. Without hope they have little incentive to make a better life for themselves.
The United States, blessed by a confluence of several circumstances through history, became a world power. As a world power, the U.S. should use as much influence as it can afford to create similar circumstances throughout the developing world.
The U.S., insulated from the European wars, harbored the seeds of self-governance that grew into what we call a democracy. The U.S. should encourage pockets of stability and plant seeds of self-governance throughout the developing world. No community has the right to enforce its own form of self-governance on another. Each community should be allowed to develop its own form of government on its own terms.
The industrial revolution made it possible for individuals to create surplus value. Organizations developed that insured at least some of this surplus value was returned to the individual. This created incentives for the individual to continue creating more value. Part of the surplus value was directed at efforts to maintain stability. Part of the surplus value was directed at efforts to improve the effectiveness of the system as a whole, which in turn made individuals more productive, which in turn created more surplus value. The U.S. should look into it's history and learn from the mistakes of the industrial revolution. Then it should encourage smart industrial revolutions in developing countries. It should make encouraging and supporting autonomous, value generating communities a top priority. A certain portion of the surplus value of the U.S. economy should be redirected to this end. I do not necessarily advocate making the U.S. bureaucracy the primary agency responsible for this endeavor. I suspect a large body of influential investors could be recruited for this project.
Principles to guide this initiative.
- Outsiders should only encourage a fertile environment not dictate the form or function of the industry.
- Visionary natives of the community should be recruited to develop the form and function of the industry.
- Initial industry plans should be kept simple to encourage rapid adoption and reproduction.
- Methods that draw on resources and skills readily available within the community should be encouraged.
- Most of the value generated by initial industry should be returned directly to the community
If you believe PaxAmericana will be benign, I have a bridge I'd like to sell you.
- It does sound kind of ideal. I suppose it will fail if hate and ignorance prevail. Unfortunately for me, I am afflicted with GrandDelusions on a grand scale. I believe that I can make a difference, and that I, as an individual connected to many, can influence the world in great and dramatic ways. I believe there is reason to hope humanity will find a way to escape from the DogEatDog mentality that threatens to devour us. I believe ProsperityForAll or DestructionForAll are the only two possible outcomes for this grand experiment we call human kind. Could it be we stand on the cusp of that decision? Do we have the will to remove or combat stubborn ignorance at every possible turn? Or do we simply and blithely let it be said, "What will be will be." --DavidSiegel
(The author does not intend these remarks to be directly pointed at any individual participating in WikiWorld. They are directed at a general condition of humankind)
Oh, so the it's the -combination- of U.S. might (right) and the international investor (financier) community that's uniquely qualified to plan the future? How depressing. SamIzdat and Solidarity brought down the iron curtain. Authentic reform can only happen from the bottom up. Re-formatting the world in America's image assumes "this is as good as it gets". How depressing. It will fail if power (corruption) prevails. Nothing good ever resulted from a hegemony. Even if there were to be an exception to that rule (dubious, if you ask me), I wouldn't like who I'd have to thank, and I don't think I'm the only one. The sun has largely set on the British empire, and Britain is a more civilized country because of it (despite the subserviently (kizzazz) hawkish current government there. democracy will fix that problem eventually)
Power always corrupts.
Well, I do not presume that the USoA is the very best that can be. I like it, and think it is better then many other countries out there, or in the past. But I am not familiar with all countries that are or ever were, so I will not intellectually presume the USoA is the pentultimate. Although emotionally, I will of course.
When our country was first started, our peers thought it would fail, and fail quickly. That was due to all significantly sized democracries having failed throughout history. Why is that? Is it the fact that all countries eventually fail? Well, most likely. :D No human organization is forever, after all. But at the time, most scholars believed it was due to CollectiveStupidity (you know, the down side of CollectiveIntelligence). CollectiveStupidity... MobRule. Significantly through things such as: Citizens ruining their economy because they figured out they controlled it. So they just voted to give themselves more money. With a little digging, people can find many more examples, dating back to the first Histories of recorded/remembered government. An small, elite group was though to be able to overcome MobRule through education and self interest (greed) and CollectiveIntelligence. Did our fore fathers know things others making and running Democracies didn't? Well, yes. They had the advantage of all those failures before the USoA. A larger CollectiveIntelligence at work, you could say. :-D
Anyways... with our experience, even we (note: not the big WE) should be able to see that we cannot stamp the rest of the world to be a copy of the USoA. We (USoA) ourselves are a cultural collective formed by our members. Each time a new immigrant enters our country, our collective itself changes. We need to recognize that this is true for all other countries as well, regardless of their form of government.
The only way we can change them into a copy of us is for us to replace all their people with our own. That would just be silly, as we have no intention of doing that.
Even if we went around the world, though, and replaced all of their governments to be just like ours, that would not solve the differences that arise because our cultural collective and their cultural collective disagree. And so there would still be problems, disagreements, and even hatred in the world, country versus country. As most isn't a governmental conflict, it is a cultural one.
It takes two to get along. It only takes one to cause strife, pain, violence, and hate. It is always more difficult to build and create then to damage or destroy.
The long term strategy that has worked for us is to ignore those that would fight with us. Let their people see that our people do not mean them harm, that we respect them and their culture just as much as we respect our own, and that it is better for everyone's children to have peace, so that all the children may grow up in a peaceful world. That tends to coax out cooperation and tolerance on both sides of the Cultural Divides, which in turn leads to respect and understanding.
Or so I see things. :)
Well, returning from RantSpace... I just find it funny that we chose the worst possible way of organizing to be our government. We choose... CollectiveStupidity. That is what it is. However, we feel most comfortable with this because... it gives each individual the chance to feel as if they have some small power, some small control, over what is done. Sometimes, this is even true (and they do). This form of governing is a CollectiveIntelligence compromise... LowestCommonDenominator. And we know how good that is... (Look at TeleVision for a good example of LowestCommonDenominator. AmericanPublicSchools are another).
---StarPilot
- While I appreciate your perceptive comments I think you may have missed the point. I do not believe we should stamp USoA all over the rest of the developing world. My basic premise is simply this, stability in the developing world directly benefits the developed world. A productive Africa benefits the entire world. As a community of developed nations we should apply a significant portion of our surplus wealth toward encouraging stability in the developing nations. With stability and the proper incentives, the developing nations will decide for themselves how they should be governed. I don't personally care if they choose communism, socialism, capitalism, or communalism. The main thing is stability and the ones who create the value should benefit by it. *I used USoA as an example to demonstrate some of the conditions that made it possible for us to develop and flourish mainly because I am most familiar with it's history. There were many conditions, most of which were accidental, that made it possible for us to experiment with a capitalist democracy. If we understand these conditions, we may be able to either create or promote them in other areas so that these areas can experiment with their own forms of government. Who knows, we may even see a novel form of government spring up someday. --DavidSiegel
David, I was actually aiming for LorraineLee with my comments, in response to hers. As an example that I'm not out to homogenis the world based on the cultural collective of the USoA. Not that you aren't welcome to make of them what you will. It's all fun here, at WikiWorld. ;-) ---StarPilot