Originally posted by fable:
<STRONG>@Lazarus, with respect, you are judging entire nations as good or bad in one breath, then speaking of objectivity in the next. We are all members of a given culture and series of subcultures, whatever those may be, and there's no way to achieve objectivity, as a result.
</STRONG>
I disagree. I very much believe that objectivity IS achieveable. If not, all of our discussions are quite useless, aren't they? If neither you nor I can relate our arguments to REALITY (and thus achieve objectivity), then we are indeed doomed to neverending misunderstanding and confusion. However, you make full use of historical FACTS in your arguments, and I will do the same, and as long as we do not close our eyes to the truth or falsity of these facts, we should be able to rationally and objectively discuss these matters.
<STRONG>
Consider: you speak of the US social system as "free" and "fair." Yet until the 20th century, it was demonstrably unfree and unfair to all but white males over the age of 21. Women had no vote, and no rights. Until the 1960s, it was again unfree to blacks, who had the system rigged against them to permit no vote, and regular discrimination in housing, education, etc.
</STRONG>
It is interesting that your arguments against the fairness of the US system are all based on the PAST. Indeed, no nation on Earth has a spotless history, but we live in the present. One must look at current circumstances, and judge accordingly. Also, I do not think that my post described the US system as "fair," as you indicate (though I believe that it is). It is an interesting Freudian slip on your part. Even more interesting, however, is the fact that you use the term "demonstrably" to describe the unfair US system. Are you saying that YOU can use facts and be objective about this issue, but that any facts and ideas that I have are simply unobjective and biased?
<STRONG>
So was it always free and fair? Why, yes, to those who could partake freely of it: of minority until recently.
Today, there are still many who would say the US still has a very unequal social system, in which people are subject to spot strip searches, car searches, and ID checks because they visibly belong to minorities or are poor. The shutting down of national legal services for the poor all over the US during the Reagan administration was demonstrably not a gesture of fairness, either.
</STRONG>
Oh that big, bad Reagan! You take him as an indication of unfairness (again, my post never brought up the issue of "fair"); and, you again use the term "demonstrably." So can facts be viewed objectively or not? Frankly, my memory does not reach back into the Reagan era, so I won't comment on the specific. I will say that you are missing the essentials of US government and of my post. The US Constitution and Bill of Rights are, DEMONSTRABLY, the most sophisticated and enduring political documents ever written. What I am saying in my post is that we must look to the kinds of governments that people are creating, and judge those governments accordingly. China has a bad government; the Taliban is a bad government. I, unlike (maybe) this 99 guy, am NOT saying that these governments are inevitably bound up with the people that create them. The place a person is born, and the color of their skin are superficial nothings BECAUSE they cannot be altered by human volition; however, a government CAN be changed. If you want to relate people to government, this is how I would do it: to the extent a person supports a GOOD government, they are doing the right thing; to the extent that they support an EVIL government, they are doing an evil thing. (Need I bring up the tired old argument of the Nazis?)
<STRONG>
Many would justifiably point to the US' past, built (as were the UK's, France's, the Soviet's, etc) on the back of other nations' economies, which were essentially broken for raw materials to feed American families and finished goods productions.
</STRONG>
That is worth another discussion entirely. I am a big ol' fan of free trade.
<STRONG>
No, I'm not arguing that the US is unfair or unfree--but I do think that it can be shown there are different ways of looking at this record. It's not one that can be viewed objectively, because there are too many aspects, and because the viewer is always subjective.
</STRONG>
Uh, you certainly SEEM to be arguing that the US is unfree and unfair! And what are we doing but objectively arguing?
<STRONG>
As far as Afghanistan goes, until the 1970s it was a relatively peaceful place of urban areas and desert nomads. Given the extreme aridity of much of the soil, the terrible climate, the mixture of very different societies and the absence of foreign investment, I would say that what they'd achieved amounted almost to a miracle, under the circumstances.
</STRONG>
Again, I'm not talking about the past here, and Afghanistan's past may be very noble and worthy. I am talking about the Taliban. They are DEMONSTRABLY, OBJECTIVELY, evil.
My main point is simply this: don't let people tell you that it is racism to discuss governments and, yes, even societies (one could call Nazi Germany a society, couldn't one?). We MUST discuss these issues - rationally and obectively if we ever wish to see an improvement for all peoples around the world.
Also, fable, you missed my response to your post back on page three of this thread. I commented on your bit about governments, but you seemed more interested in tearing 99 a new one. Let me know your thoughts.
Lastly, I am trying this multiple quote break-out thing for the first time. I hope it works!
Gott go. Sorry. I'll check in tomorrow around this time for further discussion. OH! Also, I can't help but say: @Weasel: My point exactly! Look at all those PEOPLE (individuals) who said to themselves: "well, I may have been born in India, and I may think India is a great place, but I can make good money in a nice, free, capitalistic nationa like the US. I'm outta here!" The US gives people freedom and opportunity, and that is a beautiful thing.
