From: poser@vxdsyc.desy.de (Till Poser)
Subject: Does "might" make "right"?
Reply-To: Poser@vxdsyc.desy.de
Organization: Deutsches Elektronen Synchrotron, Experiment ZEUS bei HERA
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1992 19:18:53 GMT

In article <1992Aug11.174559.3376@desire.wright.edu>, 
demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man) writes:

|>	At the outset I must say that Till's post is by far the best 
|>non-USAian since the advent of s.c.usa.  (Among those questioning the 
|>intent of the USA in general, and to a lesser degree I or other poster in 
|>particular, of course.)

Gnarfl! So You jump into the fray, fan a few flames, amuse Yourself with a
little bit of wordy aspersion to execise Your English and what do You get?
Endorsements! And quietly rational arguments! Oh the humanity of it!

So there is nothing to be done but to continue rationally. I'll only address
part of the original posting, and even that is quite long.

|>In article <1992Aug11.160435.2142@dscomsf.desy.de>, 
|>poser@vxdsyc.desy.de (Till Poser) writes:
|>I'd rather get back to real issues.
|>...
|>> |>	What mindset?  You keep posting "have you stopped beating your wife?"
|>> |>type articles and when people complain that those are red herrings you say
|>> |>"Yes, but let's get back to whether you have stopped beating your wife".
|>> 
|>> Very well, now have You? The point is that there is a discrepancy between
|>> the professed (spouted, really) moral high ground USAians very readily lay
|>> claim to and the swamp of political reality. It is interesting that Silva 
|>> didn't even contest the point that Jyrki very cautiously made. This 
|>> particular wrinkle in USAian psychology sees to have arisen within the
|>> Great Unwashed only during and after WWII and seems to have been carefully
|>> sustained thereafter.
|>
|>	Do people in the USA feel "USA #1!"?  For the large part, yes.

That in itself is not problematic at all. After all, the US do have an 
enormous amount of accomplishments on the credit side of the ledger.

|>	However, I've noticed the same tendency in other countries. 

Quite. To have a Frenchman go on about "la Grande Nation" is wondrous to 
behold, no offence intended. I suspect that pride in the focus of one's 
group identity is utterly human. The fact that until rather recently Germans 
had to resort to a rather vicarious "numerounism" (just to coin a phrase) by
way of sports and other things in lieu of the real thing speaks for itself. 

However, what does follow from that selfimage? To be precise, are there
"rights" or "duties" to be inferred from that, possibly necessary, piece 
of selfesteem? And if so, what (legal/moral/religious/political/sociological)
augmentation is needed to make that claim stick?

I think here lies the meat of the matter.

What most people will readily agree to, is that the US, on the whole, has 
been quite a success story for most of its existence. What most people(s),
outside the US, will contest is, that this gives the US the "right", even
the "duty", to be the political arbiter of the world all on its own, a la 
"White Man's Burden". What has most people, outside the US, foaming at the
mouth is, that the _de_ _facto_ leadership is being asserted and ex post 
facto rationalised on the grounds of _moral_ superiority.

So, where does that lead us? People do not like to have their own morality
bested and implicitly impungned. People would accept arbitration and indeed 
leadership much easier, if their own essential pride, which is about 
everything small and impoverished nations have , would be left intact in the
arbitration process. What people could do entirely without is the "Papa
Knows Best" attitude, that is very often the hallmark of western politics 
(note, this is not entirely an exclusive trademark of the US), right in the
face of evidence to the contrary. The US, I am afraid, has a horrible record 
as "honest broker", regardless of what the rationalisations inside the US 
are. But these rationalisations are what quite a few non-USAians read on the
net, sometimes carefully couched in words, to be sure. And bridle against. 

Fair enough?

|>Nationalism isn't unique to the US.  For the potential the US has had to 
|>abuse her power, we have done relatively little.  Far less that previous |>super/world-powers.

That depends on Your yardstick, of course. For one, the Cold War did limit
any outrageous ambitions of the US, as it did for the USSR. But the
handling of Middle and South America after WWII was on par with the best
of them, however You sugarcoat the bunglings of that period.

|>The USA was always quite restrained in colonial matters, preferring to
|>work the economic avenue.

Even if You focus on the historical period of the '30s/'40s, You can be
scarcely unaware of highly questionable colonial adventures of the US 
(well, as questionable as any colonial adventure from any nation, to be 
sure), specifically in the Americas and the South Sea at the turn of the
century. I am speaking specifically about the US-Spanish war and the de 
facto annexation of Cuba, about the Phillipines in 1898, about Panama in 
1903, the intervention in Nicaragua in 1911, Haiti in 1915 and the less 
than admirable "management" of South America in this century. I would call 
most of what went down during that period colonialism, and so would You.

The imperial ambitions of the US came rather late in the game. Until the 
repealing of the Homestead Act in 1891, any imperial ambitions were 
sublimated internally. It is true that US colonialism was accomplished with
monetary, rather than military might.

|>> Quite a lot of Your, for example, statements exude that quality of 
|>> selfcongratulatory smugness that seems to be wedded to the assumption of
|>> moral superiority. While it does rankle at times, I, for the nonce, do not
|>> begrudge You all the warm fuzzies You manage to wring from it, since I
|>> have the feeling You are but whistling in the dark. 
|>
|>	Sure I'm proud of some of the things the USA has done.  We could have
|>done a lot worse.  There's room for improvement.  But I believe the people 
|>here will get around to it sooner or later.

Commendable sentiment. However, one of the improvement that is really needed,
in my opinion, is a change of paradigms.

|>	Then again, I don't see a line forming to replace us, either.

This is exactly what the paragraphs above are about. Realise it, _here_ 
"You" take up the responsibility for the whole world all in "Your" own 
right, to be relinquished to a worthy successor, if any, or trudged along 
as a heavy burden. Nobody asked "You" (not totally true, but let it stand).
 And, hard as it might come to "You", nobody will really miss "You", if 
"You" are honest with "Yourself". "You" are not called to be the boss! At 
most "You" can be primus inter pares.

See what I mean?

|>Brett                                                      

       Till Poser         Internet: poser@vxdsyc.desy.de
-F35- ZEUS DESY/Freiburg  Bitnet:   POSER@DESYVAX
bldg.1b-235, Notkestr.85  Hepnet:   VXDESY::POSER (13313::Poser)
   D-2000 Hamburg 52      Tel.: -49-40-8998-2004