From: MaxPlumm@aol.com
Date: Mon Mar 31 2003 - 23:12:07 MST
I have been considering Greg Burch's comment asking Samantha not to reply
to Ron H's post, since he apparently considers Ron's question regarding the
positive impact on the US abroad as "American nationalism". I agree to an
extent that some discussions on various threads have been dominated by heated
rhetoric lately, but in this instance, I must strongly disagree. Ron's
question to Samantha was a valid point in a civilized debate.
Ron, mine, the Mikes, and many other posters determination to fully have
the record of the United States analyzed and the positive (and negative)
accomplishments recognized and understood cannot be dismissed out of hand
because we happen to be Americans. To not acknowledge the positive affects
actions have had on society simply because of the National source of those
actions IS nationalism (and tribalistic). Not acknowledging that doctor's
washing hands saves lives, or that some molds breed agents that kill
bacteria, or that certain actions by certain countries have made the entire
world a better place to live because it is a particular country is archaic,
anti-extropian, and severely
regressive. Not acknowledging what has been done in the world to free
people from oppression, tyranny, and intolerance because of arbitrary deeply
ingrained disdain based on what some might consider half truths and
misconceptions is unacceptable.
If we do not follow from lessons learned that proved positive, we can have
no chance of progressing into the future and end up stumbling blindly into
the future.
That some people have absolutely nothing positive to say of the United
States is deplorable. The freedoms that each and every human enjoys on this
planet (those fortunate enough to enjoy some) can all be attributed to some
degree to the United States. Yet some insist that merely because the US (or
any other country) is powerful and in a dominant world position, than it is
bad, or "might makes wrong", in huMania's words. This position too is not
acceptable in any form to many on this list, and the record of the United
States as compared to other major world powers, most notably the Soviet Union
or Nazi Germany, is a necessary part of illustrating why the position of
"might makes wrong" is not appropriate in all cases.
I will say again that I feel in some cases Greg's objections are legitimate,
since I do not consider (and have repeatedly said on this forum) that all
foreign policy decisions made by the United States have been the correct
ones. But regarding the question repeatedly posed to Samantha and others,
his objections are totally off the mark. The most important reason for this
is that Samantha has never adequately answered that question in the many
times Matus, Ron, I or anyone else have asked it.
Illustrating that the United States helped foster and make possible
democracy in Taiwan, Greece, South Korea, Japan, etc. is not "holding up a
slogan", nor blind 'americanism' it is illustrating facts that cannot be
seriously debated, in addition to pointing out that the United States foreign
policy is not the empty and bankrupt vessel some claim it is, ESPECIALLY when
it is compared to other major world powers.
Samantha's positions are totally predicated on a belief that the US has
consistently supported dictators at the expense of democracy abroad. She has
never satisfactorily explained where all these democracies would have come
from, or why hosts of democratic experiments failed in the third world of the
'50s, '60s, and 70s, without the slightest hint of Cold War geopolitical
influence, and why not one Soviet proxy became a democracy while it was
dominated by the USSR, while a great many proxies of the United States did
indeed develop lasting and stable democracies. It is completely legitimate
for Ron to ask that she back up what many would consider a flawed position
with more than "the history is out there."
Democracy and freedom are quite extropic, and thus the United States has
done more to spread EXTROPIAN ideals than any other nation in the world. This
is not nationalism or blind patriotism, it is a statement of fact, an
observation based in reality. To assert otherwise is intellectually dishonest.
"Iraq" talk in no way prevents people from posting on (in their view) more
"Extropic" topics.
Regards,
Max Plumm
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Mar 31 2003 - 23:19:30 MST