From: William (williamweb@hotmail.com)
Date: Thu Nov 28 2002 - 11:19:46 MST
> Date: Thu, 28 Nov 2002 11:41:34 +1100
> From: "Brett Paatsch" <paatschb@ocean.com.au>
> Subject: Re: Cultural and media stereotypes (was Re: botched diplomacy)
<--cut-->
> > The UN might be a fine thing for helping struggling nations
> > get economic help and feeding refugees and negotiating treaties
> > among them, but to pretend that it is actually a /governing/
> > body with any authority over real countries is something few
> > Americans have patience for.
>
> I think, and it may be easier to see this from
> outside the US, that the appeal of the UN as a
> symbol (rather than as a somewhat less than close
> proximation to the ideal it is in reality), is that no individuals,
> no people want to feel small and insignificant.
Americans generally call this "jealously" and increasingly not
just a few of us in the US realize that we are envied and hated.
So called "ordinary Americans" who just watch the 5 pm news
most likely realize that our enemies are "all over the place".
> American's don't generally have to worry much about this
> they can derive a sort of pride from the success of their
> culture. By their citizenry (at least) they are part of the
> biggest club.
>
> I think the UN for most of the rest of the world, offers some
> chance to also be "in the big club" as opposed to as they
> must often feel being "under the big club".
I completely agree that this is how Third Worlders feel.
> This is my perception only now, but as a citizen of
> a democracy that is a first world country it seems
> to me that there are only two real alternatives on
> offer for people to look to as symbolic models
> on offer as to what the next step forward for
> civilization would be. Will the US lead? Or will the
> UN?
>
> If the US (in my view partly because it is seeped in
> the traditions of Europe and the Enlightenment, partly
> because it is an economic and military power and
> largely because I have a lot of respect for its system
> of government, its constitution and its Bill of Rights),
> is to be the seed crystal for the next step in civilization
> I wonder how well US citizens would take to the
> notion (hypothetically) of other soverign nations
> (lets say New Zealand to keep the passions down)
> wanting to Federate with the US and become another
> couple of States (the North and South Islands of New
> Zealand say). Apologies to any incensed Kiwis reading
> this. They are already nervous that some see sense
> in Federating NZ with Oz).
>
> My question is would the US citizenry take well to
> extending the rights of the US constitution and the
> Bill of Rights to a new couple of states such as
> (hypothetically) New Zealand? Does your confidence
> in your way of life and generosity (if these are the right
> ways to think of it extend that far of would even
> a modern democratic country with educated citizens
> like the Kiwis constitute looking to join you of their
> own accord concern the existing US citizenry because
> of some distillation of existing rights?
>
Personally, I do think that the United States would take
the notion of new States quite seriously. It has admitted
both Hawaii and Alaska in fairly recent history. Any
new State would be judged for admission on criteria like:
1) Is this a stable culture, economy and government?
2a) Are these people culturally compatible i.e. similar
enough in values, traditions, etc.
2b) From a practical point of view, I think that the
English language as the primary tongue would be a
requirement. Americans are NOT willing to learn any
other language. We have not even converted to the
metric system fully except in the sciences. See
http://www.us-english.org/ to get a better idea of this
issue.
3) Will this potential State be outrageously difficult to
defend due to where it is?
Mexico's southern border would be a concern for
example. Mexico is making tremendous strides
lately in democratic and economic reform. The
lack of English is still an issue.
Israel as a State or Turkey or Egypt - any place in
the Middle East would likely be out of the question
based on geography as well as lots of stuff cited above.
That's about it but yes these commonsense criteria does
exclude most of the world. Any English speaking First
World democracy is an excellent candidate. Almost any
commonwealth country, for example. - Bill.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jan 15 2003 - 17:58:28 MST