Spiderman -- he·ge·mo·ny: preponderant influence or authority over others : DOMINATION
Firstly, I never claimed that cultural hegemony is neccessarily a reason to kill people *on its own*, but listed it with a number of other factors that I think I have explored enough. Hegemonistic imposition of culture merely exacerbates tensions between the USA and other cultures, for example, France, where the erosion of French culture and way of life has prompted umpteen protests and a backlash against American consumerism. I'm sure everyone remembers the French farmers who made a practice of dumping tons of fresh manure in front of MacDonalds outlets, and the gastronomic protesters who offered traditional delicacies free of charge instead having people buy from these outlets.
However, these are minor frictions between cultures that are both essentially Western ideaologies. We can well imagine that the culture seepage into more 'exotic' cultures such as the Middle East has more violent effects. And when one tries to physically impose ideas and ideals on another culture, then we start to have real problems. Example : the "overhaul" of the Iraqi education system. Great wads of pages from textbooks are being ripped out, and re-written under Coalition (read US) "guidance", printed on their presses, ready to begin the brainwashing of a new generation of young Iraqis next year. *This* is cultural imposition.
These methods only work to convince the most stupid, however.
Let me refer you to other instances of cultural imposition that have backfired:
Myself, for example. In school I was basically forced to learn Afrikaans, a Germanic language that has little in relation to the other two languages I speak, English and Italian. This was accompanied by the strict calvanistic outlook that is typical of most Afrikaners. I resented this difficult language, and as a result resented Afrikaners *as a people*.
When the cultures are more different, imposition of extraneous values (and languages) becomes a lot more dangerous. The 1976 Soweto riots in South Africa were sparked by this same cultural imposition, and resulted in a low key civil war claiming thousands of lives. So, some people *do* think that cultural hegemony is worth killing about.
Another example: I know a Croatian fitter / machine maintenance expert who served in the Yugoslav army at the time when the country was united. At that time the Serbs were dominant, and forced everyone else to learn "Serbo-Croat" essentially, a rehash of Serbian. Anyone who rejected both the linguistic and cultural ideas had a hard time. Result : "No Serbian will set foot in my house", he tells me.
This has an analogy in the American "reconstruction" effort. It is not enough to be anti - Saddam; no , rather, one must be both anti Saddam *and* pro - American to get work from the Coalition in any meaningful capacity. This is why the US commanders were so furious with the Arabic TV stations - because they dared criticise the "remoulding" of Iraq into a US client state among other things.
Again, I *personally* do not think that cultural change is worth killing for, merely perhaps ranting about. But I was brought up in what is essentially a conservative Western culture, and so American culture is not such an alien phenomenon to me. I don't like it, but I won't kill someone because of it.
But there are others that find American, consumerist, nationalist ideas abhorrent, and will certainly fight to preserve their way of life. You have admitted it yourself:
Spiderman:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bin laden and his organization. Why did he do it? For some half-arsed claims about the US "contaminating" Saudi Arabia ...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Right or wrong, he is somebody that feels that his culture and people is worth dying for. So do many others in the Mid East, burning cinemas peddling Western pornography and stores selling alchohol. Right or wrong, it is a reaction to culture creep.
Also, I would like to point out that Bin Laden *has* rejected the Al - Saud dynasty as well. Check it up.
As for the Iraq-Iran story, I base my statement upon the evidence of what has happened: Iraq gained a US "friend", Hussein, and as soon as Iran lost its US "friend",Mossadeq, Iraq invaded Iran. (Remember, this also followed the 400 + day hostage drama in Iran, where Iranian students kept US embassy staff hostage.) Huge support was given to Iraq, placing it deep into debt, oil reserves notwithstanding. The USA sold a fortune in weaponry to Iraq.
It is true that Iran / Iraq have always been enemies. However :
(Robert Parry, Consortium.com)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Missing chapters from 1980 to the present would be crucial in judging Bush’s //my note - the current Bush// case for war.
But Americans don’t have those facts because Bush and his predecessors in the White House have kept this history hidden from the American people. When parts of the story have emerged, administrations of both parties have taken steps to suppress or discredit the disclosures. So instead of knowing the truth, Americans have been fed a steady diet of distortions, simplifications and outright lies.
....there is the historical question of whether Presidents Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush actually encouraged Saddam’s aggressions for geopolitical reasons or out of diplomatic incompetence.
Carter's 'Green Light'?
This intersection of Saddam’s wars and U.S. foreign policy dates back at least to 1980 when Iran’s radical Islamic government held 52 Americans hostage in Tehran and the sheiks of the oil-rich Persian Gulf feared that Ruhollah Khomeini's radical breed of Islam might sweep them from power just as it had the Shah of Iran a year earlier.
....On Aug. 5, 1980, as tensions mounted on the Iran-Iraq border, Saudi rulers welcomed Saddam to Riyadh for the first state visit ever by an Iraqi president to Saudi Arabia.
...Saudi leaders also say they urged Saddam to take the fight to Iran’s fundamentalist regime, advice that they say included a “green light” for the invasion from President Carter.
Less than two months after Saddam’s trip, with Carter still frustrated by his inability to win release of the 52 Americans imprisoned in Iran, Saddam invaded Iran on Sept. 22, 1980. The war would rage for eight years and kill an estimated one million people.
The claim of Carter’s “green light” for the invasion was made by senior Arab leaders, including King Fahd of Saudi Arabia, to President Reagan’s first secretary of state, Alexander Haig, when Haig traveled to the Middle East in April 1981, according to “top secret” talking points that Haig prepared for a post-trip briefing of Reagan.
...
...
Senior Bush's Advice
Beyond those “dual-use” supplies //my note : chemical, bacteriological weapons//, other unanswered questions relate to whether then-Vice President George H.W. Bush urged Saddam to use greater ferocity in waging his war with Iran, advice that led the Iraqi air force to bomb civilian centers in Tehran and other Iranian cities in 1986.
A lengthy article by Murray Waas and Craig Unger in the New Yorker in 1992 described the senior Bush passing on advice to Saddam, through Arab intermediaries, for this more aggressive bombing campaign. Yet the historical question has never been settled. The senior Bush has never been subjected to a careful questioning, though it is true that Saddam did intensify his air campaign after Bush’s trip.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
So it seems to me that the USA stood only to gain by an Iran/Iraq war, and helped to stoke the flames with glee. I think that the gun shop can indeed be held accountable for the murder down the street if the client *tells* the owner of the gun shop that he intends to kill someone shortly with the gun he has just bought.
And my reaction to this:
Spiderman:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sure the US under the Bush administration seems to run over the world (which was all caused by 9/11 since beforehand Bush seemed be on an isolationist trend)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
I suggest that you go back and re-read that article by M Meacher that I linked to (in this same thread), if you didn't read it in the first place. I suspect that there is, shall we say, a very large gap in the reality of what Bush plans, what he TELLS you, and what in the end he DOES.
I think you've been lied to, if that is what you believe.
Ferret -- True, the Marshall Plan propped Western Europe back onto its feet. (But again, this was not entirely disinterested, rather, a reaction to the growing Soviet threat, and the fact that the USSR was not really dismantling its post war army. The US had to ensure containment of the powerful Communists and Stalin. Also, as DUke will doubtless point out, who would the US sell to if Europe was Soviet Bloc?)
Nevertheless, let me not bash what was essentially a good deed, or bring up yet again all the "interventions" that the US has embarked upon since *without* reconstructing as in Europe.
Rather, let me point you to Iraq today, and Iraq in ten years, and you shall judge for yourself the new face of America. I predict repression of minorities, executions in the name of stability, corruption and a new process of shaking off the latest tyrant installed by the States. Let us hope that you are right and I am wrong.
DUke -- Spiderman and yourself are both partly true when discussing yourself. At first glance what you write seems incomprehensible gibberish. But there is energy here, a sign that there is a person here that desperately believes in something very strongly; hence it merits a re-read. And a careful interpretation reveals many meanings and layers of thought, some immediately decipherable, others only apparent with the context of other posts.
So - yes, I want to make sense of your ideas. And yes, I want to make sense of this instability, that is why I said I wanted to "pin you down". I want to know what it is you are searching for. Is it caused by an excess of something or a lack thereof? Will I understand what you are ultimately saying - or, is there no ultimate thought yet, still only searching....and *if* I can understand the core of your belief, will I reject it out of hand....?
What you say is true - facts are indeed lazy. They exclude thought and are sometimes false or hidden. (Un?) fortunately I happen to have a deep memory for things that interest me, and hence do a lot of argueing from the angle of the memorisable and provable.
My problem is that I am a searcher for knowledge. I see parallels between me and da Vinci - not that I am a genius - but that so many things interest me that I finish nothing. And I like to argue *because* it makes me think, and because I too, am ultimately searching for some sort of truth, I suppose.
Yes, I have also realised it - I can bury someone with facts, and they will not necessarily change their minds. However, what Spiderman says is also true - there are some people that are open minded or intelligent enough to modify their thought - and if I happen to wake someone up from their lethargy and get them to think about the "facts" that they unquestioningly accept, and increase their awareness of how they affect the world, so much the better.
However, it is for myself that I strive to know, to grow stronger for myself. Is that a good reason to argue?
I must still finish my reaction to your last "philosophical" style post, but my time is becoming very limited. Between job, studies (exams approaching!) there is not really the time to sit down and have a good think.
-- Astranbrulth --
PS: can anyone tell me how to post jpg's? There's a comical satire of American hegemony that I wanted to post.
PPS Nevermind, I think I got it...
). However, I cannot escape the impression that you are giving that your philosophy is the "correct" one and people must be coming to you as they are "attracted" by the instability (I would venture to guess they're more attracted to trying to make some sense of it, not the instability of it). Unless that is what philosophy is: make your own and thus disregard all others. In that case: another reason why I do not get too in depth with you. I cannot hope to change you and since I disagree with yours, you cannot hope to change me. Thus, it's largely futile.