From: demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.usa
Subject: Re: Does "might" make "right"?
Summary: followups to talk.politics.misc
Date: 13 Aug 92 20:29:57 GMT
 <1992Aug11.174559.3376@desire.wright.edu> <1992Aug12.191853.13704@dscomsf.desy.de>
Followup-To: talk.politics.misc
Organization: Demonic Possesions, Inc.

In article <1992Aug12.191853.13704@dscomsf.desy.de>, poser@vxdsyc.desy.de (Till Poser) writes:
> 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!

	Old age does that to ya :).
> 
> 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.
> 
...
> |>	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.

	I think it goes all the way back to the revolution.  What the French
achieved in an orgy of revolution and war until 1815 we quietly let simmer
until two World Wars convinced "us" that it was our duty to lead the world into
a better way of life.

> 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.

	Sure, the *moral* avenue makes me foam at the mouth also.  But I don't
let it stop me from supporting actions I think are ok, which is where I usually
get embroiled in lengthy discussions.  And I usually have to post in every one
of them that I don't think Bush is a good president. :)

> 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. 

	I, for one, want to see the US take a less proactive role in the UN, to
let other countries show what they've got in terms of global leadership.  The
US tends to see itself as a teacher--but the good teacher also listens to what
the students have to say.

> Fair enough?

	Sure.  It happens within the US too, as one side of an issue tries to
take the moral high ground.
        The problem is, what happens when a historically un-evenhanded group
does try to do what's right?  Or when they do what's right for the wrong
reasons?  You get supporters of the group who have always been supporters
arguing with long-time opponents arguing with middle-ground people arguing with
news supporters and new opponents... :)

> |>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.

        (You meaning the "official history"?)

        After the Monroe Doctrine, the 'white man's burden' set in, and US
businesses flooded the region.  It was a repeat of euro colonialism, only with
the dollar instead of the rifle.
        That wasn't my area of specialty in history, so I've only touched on it
periphally.  In any event, the US was served it's lunch by unhappy locals on
more than one occasion.  Why that hasn't convinced the old guard the wisdom of
equal trade (as opposed to Unit. Fruit Co. style trade), others seem to have
learned the lesson.

        While NAFTA looks very pro-US, Mexico and Canada will gain more from
selling to us than we will from selling to them.  Twenty years from now I
expect to hear people complaining about how Mexico's superior products are only
because their workers have it better there :).

> |>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.

        Sure.  The Pacific expansion proceeded only because the US navy need
coaling stations.  The Philippines were even seen as a liability, and not an
asset, until someone noticed that US ships needed a station closer to China,
and in the path of Japanese expansion south.

        The Americas are indeed the area most aboused by us.  Pretty silly
given the evidence that free nations make better trading partners, and until we
abused their trust most American nations were willing to stand behind us in
international matters.

> 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.

        What I meant was, that even if we did relinquish our claim to world
leadership, there isn't anyone waiting to assume the role of world leader.
        Wether it be the UN or some other body, I think we do need a force to
give the people of the Earth a common direction.  While individuals should be
free to do what they want, when they cooperate, they multiply their
effectiveness.  Things that people agree need doing (ending hunger, improving
living standards, cleaner environment, etc) can be best achieved by harnessing
everyone into common effort.
        Of course that leaves the little problem of deciding what needs to be
done....

> See what I mean?

        Yes, I should have phrased it better.

Brett                                                      
_______________________________________________________________________________
Proconsul Computer Consulting                                        CHA-CHING!
Better, Cheaper, Faster					       (Pick any two :)
Disclaimer:								   NOT!