Kakki, My comments were not aimed specifically at you, but I'm glad to discuss your responses. On 20 Sep 2001, at 17:13, Kakki wrote: > > Maybe because I'm older than a lot of the crowd here I have a different > perspective. I cannot recall a time ever in my life or historically since > WWII when America was isolationist. I'm not trying to argue with you but I > just can't see it. We've been involved in numerous wars or actions in other > countries almost constantly since that time. Being involved in wars and actions does not mean that our motivations do not stem from an isolationist viewpoint. In fact, there was isolationist leaning rhetoric in the presidential debates. Check out the Atlantic article that I referenced in my other email for a view on how most Americans have largely ignored foreign policy. We are no doubt also the most > diplomatic country on earth. By whose standard? I think that we have been weak on foreign policy for years. The last administration with a true understanding was probably Nixon. (And before I get flamed, no I am not condoning all of Nixon's foreign policy moves.) We've been the biggest supporter of the UN > since its inception. > We walked out on the Conference against Racism. The state of our payment of UN dues is questionable - some argue we owe more than $1 billion in unpaid dues. We lost our seat on the Human Rights Commission in May and then Congress voted to continue withholding dues until the seat was restored. There's a great essay in August issue of Harper's titled "The American Rome" which discusses this very issue. I implore you to read the following critique of our Human Rights policy which discusses our history generally (beginning with the signing of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1948) and the Clinton administration in particular: http://fpif.org/briefs/vol4/v4n08hrts.html Here's another piece from 1996 on US-UN Relations which merits some attention, particularly our continued threat of withholding dues as a tactic to achieve reform: http://fpif.org/briefs/vol1/usun.html > In my view of reality, all we have done is tried to understand other people > in the world. I certainly won't claim we have done a good job of it, > however. > Can you elaborate on HOW we have tried to understand other people in the world? Our media hardly covers international news; most Americans would fail a basic world geography test, let alone a quiz of who various leaders are and the types of governments they run; and despite all of the pleas to the contrary, we've had more than 70 incidents of hate crime related to the terrorist attacks in Southern California alone. I think we haven't done a good job of it because we haven't really tried. I would bet that people in other nations know more about us than we do about them simply because of our dominance. > > And therein lies the supreme irony. Most hold disdain for us precisely > because of our involvement in their country or other countries. It's a > total Catch 22 - we are damned if we do and damned if we don't. I don't think it is simply an issue of BEING involved as it is HOW and WHY we are involved. We have gone into alot of situations and left a fairly large footprint, sometimes by choice and sometimes not. But can > anyone really chastise anyone for feeling a little weary sometimes about the > abuse that other countries so freely throw on us, especially at a time when > we are down? Am I suppose to apologize for being upset about that? I am a > human being, not some programmed robot with no feelings. Neither I, nor > most of my fellow Americans, nor the people who died in WTC are personally > responsible for the things other countries blame us for. Have we been abused? Criticized yes, but abused? I for one think we should openly criticize ourselves to seek how we can do better. I certainly don't discount anyone's right to feel upset by the criticism. BTW - I think blame is too simplistic a concept for the situation. > > >The response seemed to uniformly be that > > the terrorists hate us. I hope that there are more >sophisticated > discussions happening in schools. I think >alot of kids could understand > it, if it is explained to >them. > > What would you suggest we tell them as to the reasons why the terrorists > hate us? I agree that children should not be left with uninformed and > simplistic reasons, but practically how do you download to them in a way > they can understand, complicated socio-political events of the past 50 or so > years? It's hard for me to specifically comment on this because I don't know what textbooks today contain - which is why I would love to hear from any teachers on the list. However, I do not think it is complicated to explain the history of our relationships in the Middle East and the position of Afghanistan relative to Cold War politics. We should explain why we once funded Bin Laden and our role in the Taleban's ascension to control. It will certainly be complicated to explain why we've done some of the things we've done, but don't you think we must endeavour to do so in the context of world geography and history education? Particularly for the coming generation that will see it's members be sent off to fight? Personally, I think we need to make a cultural choice to be better educated as a nation. I've heard more than one adult say that we should bomb "them" -- illustrating their own ignorance with respect to even some of the most basic aspects of the matter. It's not as simple as bombing "them." Don't get me wrong; I am not a fed-hating curmudgeon. I am indeed grateful for our freedoms, particularly the one which allows me to criticize our government, in the interest of hoping that we can continue to do better. Brenda n.p.: Larry King Live
