Re: META: Greg Burch's request

From: MaxPlumm@aol.com
Date: Mon Mar 31 2003 - 23:12:07 MST

  • Next message: Damien Broderick: "sluggish emails; what thu--?"

      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