From: Technotranscendence (neptune@mars.superlink.net)
Date: Fri Aug 23 2002 - 23:07:55 MDT
On Friday, August 23, 2002 9:25 PM Lee Corbin lcorbin@tsoft.com wrote:
>> First, who is this "we"? Are you a member of the US
>> Federal government? Do you make policy for it?
>
> Brian Williamson loves his country, and says
> "we" in just the tone of voice that people do
> who identify with their family, or their company,
> or their country. As I explained in an email a
> few weeks ago, love of country---so prominent
> in the writings of late 18th century Americans
> and so strange and bizarre to most Extropians,
> causes one to see the actions of one's country
> through rose-colored glasses (some of the
> time at least), much in the way that a man
> who loves his wife perceives what she does
> and says in the best possible light.
Ah, you make a mistake here too. One can love one's country but not
love its government. To confuse the two is one of the biggest mistakes
of your average patriot. (Note: I'm not saying patriotism is wrong
here, just that one shouldn't confuse love of country with love of the
government of said country.)
But seriously, I don't think Brian used "we" simply out of love of
country here. I reckon he used just as the people who are virulently
and self-consciously anti-American use it: because people are so used to
thinking in collectivist terms that it comes natural. They don't even
think about it. Look on a family level, as you use further down. Do
you really tell your neighbors, "We Corbin's graduated college today"
when one of your family graduates? Probably not. If you do, your
neighbors probably think you're weird.:) However, people are prone to
saying, "We bombed Afghanistan..." whether they complete that with "and
it's a good thing we did" or "and it's a shame."
> You
> probably simply can't understand how
> a person thinks and acts who loves his
> country. (See below)
Careful. I've in no way revealed what feelings I have to you or the
list -- save for the fact that I'm against the US government's foreign
policies.
>> Fourth, since the statement was directed at
>> me: I was born, raised, and continue to live
>> in America. Technically, I'm a US citizen. I
>> don't equate being critical of US government
>> policy with being non-American or un-American.
>
> Like you, "technically" I'm a US citizen. But
> citizenship in no way, of course, makes us
> similar at all to those who love their countries.
Nor does being a quisling. Those who support -- and should know
better -- the policies that have animated US foreign policy for the last
100 years or so support a basically alien government -- one not in tune
with America as a culture or an idea.
> Try to keep in mind the analogy of
> a loved family member. As a realist,
> for example, you may admit to yourself
> that, yes, your son does have a drinking
> problem, and yes, sometimes he loses
> his temper. But he's still your son, you
> love him very much, and you cannot
> bear to have people running him
> down. (And all this is on the
> assumption that your son really *does*
> have problems---but what if it's just a
> tough world, and the truth is that your
> son has had to take care of himself,
> sometimes not in the gentlest fashion?
> The truth is one thing, and must always
> be searched for---but your love is
> another, and is not qualified.)
Again, I've separated -- that's why I use "US government" above and in
previous posts as opposed to saying "American" (I try to be consistent
in this; I've also tried to do it as much as possible when talking about
foreign governments; I don't think everyone in country X agrees with the
government of X, even patriotic Xs) -- between country and government.
The thing is years of being drilled that democracies -- or repulics,
whichever, it doesn't matter -- are really governments by, for, and of
the people hoodwink people into thinking government = society -- or
here, you that nation/country = government.
Also, it's strange too how people can extend their loyalties up this
way. Someone once told me that he believed the way people get others to
sacrifice for big causes like wars and the like is by tapping into the
small hunter-gatherer loyalty that all humans share. By projecting the
government or corporation or church as a sort of big family or clan or
band, one is able to get people to do things even against their own
family, clan, or band. (Think of the US Civil War, where brother fought
against brother -- or so we're told.)
It's funny you should use this analogy since you ask me to "suppose
(just suppose) that your son is guilty of breaking the law, and suppose
(just suppose) that you seek to shelter him from the law and do other
things that are wrong to aid and abet your son." I can understand what
you're getting at. The US government isn't always good, but dammit!
it's our government, right or wrong. But it's also funny how being
loyal to your son in this example makes one disloyal to... your
government. A strange turnabout in analogies... Isn't that wild?:)
>> In fact, regarding the US government's
>> imperial policy, I think those who
>> support it are truly anti-American.
>
> That's simply ridiculous. That's a flagrant, though entirely
> typical, misuse of language.
Perhaps you and I have a different meaning for the word "imperial." I
would define this as a government that tries to rule outside its
country -- outside its borders. I.e., one that starts to extend its
borders into other countries, subsuming the peoples of those countries
under its control. This control usually does not necessarily involve
supplanting the other cultures, though in the long run this does happen.
This seems to fit empires from Ancient Persia to Modern Europe quite
well. (Does it go overboard? Perhaps...)
I believe the US has clearly done this now for well over a century,
though the greatest period of imperial expansion for the US in that time
was after World War Two. The proximate external cause was the Red
Menace. The internal causes seems to be manifold. Governments tend to
grow period -- one reason to always be suspicious of them, whether
they're manned by your countrymen or foreigners. In the US, the
positive feedback loop between the expanded government of the New Deal,
the military, and the defense-related industries seems to have also
given a big push. Add to this, certain American businesses have used
the Red Menace as a pretext for bringing in the troops, such as Pacific
Fruit in Central America. (This is no different than British merchants
and missionaries begging the Foreign Office for help in Nigeria during
the 19th century. See Michael W. Doyle's _Empires_ -- a work I highly
recommend. These patterns repeat themselves.)
What do you mean by the term and how does the US government, now stark
raving mad with power and an excellent -- from a public relations
perspective -- justification for getting more, differ from it?
Cheers!
Dan
http://uweb.superlink.net/neptune/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:16:23 MST