HTTP://WWW.STOPNATO.ORG.UK
---------------------------
Cossack - you
and I see it exactly the same.
I must admit
there is one area that is not completely clear and that has to do with
Europe.
As I'm sure
you know - the Soviet position was that they merely wanted to hold the countries
that formed a buffer between them and Germany/France who had in past invaded
Russia. In fact these countries became their empire - example - in Moscow
the good busses and elevators and other somewhat hi tech stuff came from those
countries - they were an important part of the Soviet economy. I really don't
know what
Stalin would
have done with regard to the rest of Europe if the US had not founded NATO. It
is a matter open to speculation since we can't ask him. It is easy for me to
imagine his taking the great bulk - including past hated enemy Germany and
France - since of the great megalomaniacs of the century - I think Stalin
might have exceeded little Bush.
HTTP://WWW.STOPNATO.ORG.UK
---------------------------
Richard,
Bravo sir! Seems we share approximately similar
views. In sum total, though the Soviet Union was involved in many
countries, it generally was in response to either direct security concerns
(such as Afghanistan) or in response to requests from forces fighting to
create some form of livable society for the majority. This stands in
stark difference from the US which involved itself in numerous countries'
internal affairs for the benefit of the tiny minority of ruling elites to the
deteriment of majority of the populace and always inclined to Uncle
Sugar.
Cossack
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Saturday, January 12, 2002
21:33
Subject: RE: Richard: On Latvia ( or:
Why I hate Gorby) [WWW.STOPNATO.ORG.UK]
HTTP://WWW.STOPNATO.ORG.UK
---------------------------
David
Isn't
there also an issue of freedom that goes thus. They draft
someones son to right a wrong somewhere -and he gets killed. Was his
life less valuable than the lives he was sent to improve?
Second: I
suspect that in some situations you can not help someone without harming
them indirectly.
Finally
- I don't think that the USSR sent military to Afghnanistan primarily
to impose socialist values. As you know the religous fanatics funded
by the US were making raids into Soviet territory and then retreating to
Afghanistan. The military was sent to create a
stable situation and eliminate the instability on its border - but its by
product was a modern socialist life for the citizens of Afghanistan.
Richard
Heather:
I
wasn't very clear. But – yes -- if a country imposes western values for
the sake of imposing western values (as opposed to righting some
injustice), this is imperialism, and is no better than imposing capitalism
on the rest of the world. If, on the other hand, a country is intervening
to overturn an “oppressive system” -- not always easy to determine by
outsiders -- than this, to me, is a just act.
In the case of
Afghanistan, because a group of people -- in this case, women -- were
living under extremely oppressive conditions, the intervention could be
said to have been just. If, however, the Russians had intervened just for
the sake of imposing socialist values on the rest of the population, than
this would, indeed, be no different than European colonialists carrying
out the "white man's burden".
Both material equality or individual
rights are not universal concepts. In many cultures, a translation for
"equality", let alone “individual rights”, does not exist. Yet, to some
matriarchal African cultures, the most seemingly egalitarian western
households would be considered oppressive. Should then these African
cultures intervene to overturn our backwards ways?
I’m not extreme
cultural relativist, but, I realize that it is difficult, in many cases,
to determine whether a form of oppression is actually taking place, as any
good anthropologist would tell you (and I’m not an anthropologist either).
The perception “of righting a wrong” is very much determined by the eye of
the beholder as opposed some objective criterion, and may in fact have the
opposite effect.
Just like today with imperialist “interventions”,
colonists viewed colonialism as an altruistic endeavour. Indigenous
cultures were assumed to be backward, barbarian, primitive, and so forth,
and transformed to suit the needs of the colonialist, with devastating
consequences for the people effected. Yet, imposing socialism instead of
capitalism on these cultures would have had similar consequences. What
caused the destruction of indigenous cultures was less to do with
imposition of capitalist values and more to do with the disruption these
changes caused. Therefore, westerners concerned about maintaining the
continuity of indigenous ways of life should be worry of the effect so-
called “modern values” (including modern medicine, western schooling and
the like) have on others.
David O Q
12 Jan 02, at
11:48, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
HTTP://WWW.STOPNATO.ORG.UK
> ---------------------------
>
> The Marxist were imposing western values on the people of
Afghanistan?
> Medical care, food distribution, education and
female equality are western
> values?
>
> I'm not a
cultural relativist, either.
>
> Silly me. I think addressing
the economic and social problems which plagued
> one of the most
impoverished nations on earth was a good idea. Go figure.
>
>
>
==^================================================================
This email was sent to: archive@jab.org
EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?a84x2u.a9WB2D
Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail!
http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register
==^================================================================
|
