Ciao!

Very good commentary, though I have a different opinion on the viability of any sort of egalitarian law in an honor-shame culture.

Honor-shame cultures, by their very nature, stifle all forms of public criticism and discussion. To lose honor is a death sentence, and to be told you are wrong is to lose honor. Thus, people react to any suggestion of incorrectness as if their life were under immediate threat, and respond either by attempting to destroy the person pointing out the flaw; or by fleeing the criticism, often literally having to pack up and head to another city to start their life again. In either case, little is learned.

Such an environment is not conducive to any of the forms of criticism, research, or indeed any of the philosophical or social advances that Western civilization has made since the days of the Renaissance. Indeed, even the reasoned critique of SDB's article you posted would not be possible in an honor/shame society. You would have been better off simply calling SDB "an idiot swine," as SDB and his henchmen would react to your commentary just as if you had done so, and your only real hope for avoiding his hit-squads would be to rally your own set of supporters to fight them off, which could only be done by providing equally colorful ad hominems about him.

We had to shatter the samurai code of Japan to democratize it. We will have to do the same to the Arabs, if we are to have any hope of democratizing them too.

Good points, to be sure. I might point out, however, that Japan is/was also considered an "honor-shame" culture and it has managed to develop a decent democracy and the rule of law. So, it is possible. Then again, Japan (like Germany) is also an example of a country we A) defeated militarily, B) occupied for many years, and C) micromanaged politically during its first decade. I wish more people would remember that when arguing (incorrectly) that Iraq has no precedent.

Of course, one can find anything on the net. I had tried to find stuff on Arabic Culture. Some of the things I found were pretty shocking.

There is this Movement for Islamic Reform in Arabia, for example.

At first I thought: pretty nice, so there are reform movements. Well, then I read their article: MIRA’s Response to “What we’re Fighting For”
What a shock. Unfortunately I can not tell how influencial such a movement is but this article on their website... it can really let you lose hope for a democratic Arab world. Let me quote them:
"The truth remains that Islam, as you may know, really calls on its followers to overcome opponents and reach the whole world with its universal message. Muslims believe that Islam is not a list of suggestions put forward by intellectuals but a religion based on scriptures emanated from God. Muslims belief in God means that their texts provide superior values to those you adhere to. They believe that they are your superiors in interpreting and understanding life, man, the universe and history. If you happen to be well enabled politically, militarily, economically and technically at this point in time, then that does not prohibit their religion from propelling them to challenge all your abilities and overcome them. As long as you remain convinced of the superiority of your values and Muslims maintain their immovable belief in what they have is divine, you have no alternative but to admit that you and Muslims are on a collision course. No one who aims at turning this confrontation into a peaceful dialogue shall succeed."

The same article calls Muslims who think otherwise flatterers using half quotes and misrepresented dictums in order to present a false image of islam which, however, suits the West.

Ok, personally I believe that a democratic arab world is possible and desireable. But articles like that, dayly attacks on US soldiers and certain aspects of the honor-shame scheme discussed above warn us that this is a very delicate issue.
Until now, US reform attempts kind of ignored this problem.
I think it is wiser for the US to use its power more tactfully to encourage democratic reform.

Deepak Chopra?

That was a joke, right?

Please tell me that it was a joke.

Yes, I also believe that democracy is possible in the Arab world. And, unlike many naysayers, I don't believe the Arab stereotype: that they're all raving fanatics. Sure, the Taliban types are out there. But I believe that Arabs -- like all people everywhere! -- are, for the most part, rational people. So, unlike the radical activist left, I tend to trust the people.

Nevertheless, in the face of naked aggression, the best response is equally resolute aggression. To paraphrase Camus: The spirit is not mightier than the sword. But the spirit and the sword together can defeat the sword alone any day.

I'm not sure they are rational people, Miguel. The Arabs I've spoken to find no logical inconsistency in statements like, "The Holocaust never happened, and Hitler should not have stopped until he killed all the Jews." This seems to pervade the culture as a whole, as was seen by Al-Jazeera's recent announcement that "showing the dead bodies of Uday and Qusay is barbaric and un-Islamic," while constantly showing the dead bodies of Palestinians, Israelis and Americans.

It's really not so much irrationality as it is a complete lack of concern for rationality. They do not believe in logic, and expect everyone to simply accept anything they say, no matter how ridiculous, hypocritical, or self-contradictory. This may be related to the fact that the penalty for accusing someone of lying (usually death) is much more harsh than the penalty for actually lying (paying a fine, or having your tongue cut out if you cannot pay).

Actually, on reflection, Arab society reminds me, more than anything else, of the society in George Orwell's book "1984." "Two plus two equals five, because I say so. When you are talking to me, you will act as if two plus two equals five, no matter what it may actually equal. This is called sensitivity, and it is what we teach in our Joy Camps."

I actually do have a number of very rational, intelligent Muslim and Arab friends. Thankyouverymuch. Just because you've only spoken to a small sample of "bad" Arabs doesn't make all Arabs "bad."

The local Iraqi-American owned coffee & falafel shop hosted an amazing celebration for the liberation of Iraq -- which was promoted for weeks w/ an "ask us about the war in Iraq" banner (they openly supported the war and told their hippie patrons so). So, please, reconsider stereotypes and bigotry.

Very interesting. I can see your point on cultural relativism. If we go one step further, it would be necessary to define a set of standards we all agree on and which we can use to judge all cultures in the world. Standards like "slavery is bad", "oppression of a minority is bad", that kind of thing. In facts such standards already exists: the international bill of human rights of the United Nations. That would make a fine standard to judge other cultures by as it condemns slavery, oppression and other human rights infringements.
So lets start with the American culture then. What do we see?

- a culture that allows for systematic oppression of homosexuals (e.g. openly homosexuals are not allowed to join the military).
- a culture that allows for the death penalty for minors
- a culture that elected a regime that has in its possesion massive amounts of WMD's and actively seeks to create more
- a culture in which there are no fair and open elections (a president is installed in spite of the fact that his opponent got more votes nation-wide AND a system in which people cannot vote for the president directly, but only indirectly through electors).

Wow: a stockpile of WMD's, systematic oppression of a minority, no free election and a legal system that allows for the killing of minors. Sounds like a backwards middle eastern culture to me. I think we should put massive pressure on that regime to enforce a regime change and have them living up to our standards.

Oh, yes, of course. The USA is clearly a much worse human rights record than, say, Iran and Saudi Arabia. Or North Korea and the Congo. Or Burma (Myanmar) and Cuba. Or Zaire and Syria. Or ... should I even bother to continue?

But you're right. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights is such a standard. So let's start w/ that standard and follow your example, shall we?

Which countries hold a death penalty for homosexuality? Or a death sentence to unfaithful wives? Or a death sentence to female victims of rape?

Which countries use children as soldiers? Or dismemberment as a punishment for petty theft? Or rape girls in front of their parents to extract confessions?

Which countries are pursuing nuclear weapons in the midst of a ten-year famine? Or engaged in civil wars that have killed more than three million people? Or jailing over 4,000 pro-democracy students?

Which countries have elections where only one candidate is allowed to run? Or governed by ruling monarchies? Or self-appointed religious messiahs?

Hold on everyone. This discussion heated up a little too much.

To Miguel: Please don't judge so early. Maybe he had a typing error in his email address. For example there is one more "r" in his mail address than in his name.

To Jan:

Comparing the shortcomings of the US and of certain Arabic countries when it comes to human rights is pointless. Honestly, Jan, this is not the same ballpark.

In my opinion there are better democratic electoral systems than in the US, but at least there is one.
Elections are free.

Abt death penalty to minors: I don't like it either. But if a majority in the US wants to abolish it it will be. That is more than you can say of many middle eastern countries.

Abt WMD: That really concerns me. I think that while we are punishing other countries for their goals to build WMD we shouldn't do so ourselves. Generally, the more weapons you build the more you are a threat to others who in turn will build weapons. Tightly controlled Non-proliferation and systematic destruction of WMD around the world may be a key issue for letting mankind prevail.

Abt oppressing a minority: Name one country with absolutely no oppression of minorites. The important thing is, whether the situation is improving or getting worse.

Do I *really* want to get into this? Guess so. Let's look at Jan's list...

- a culture that allows for systematic oppression of homosexuals (e.g. openly homosexuals are not allowed to join the military).

As opposed to a culture that has an open death penalty for homosexuals.

- a culture that allows for the death penalty for minors

As opposed to a culture that allows for the death penalty for non-capital crimes, such as the homosexuality and adultery (especially if you're a woman).

- a culture that elected a regime that has in its possesion massive amounts of WMD's and actively seeks to create more

Does this not apply to EVERY U.S. administration since the invention of chemical (and then, later, nuclear) weapons? In fact, does it not apply to a great many nations around the world? By your standards, the CARTER administration was full of violent, WMD-owning monsters. As for the "actively seeking to create more" bit, read this: http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2001/11/13/163108.shtml

- a culture in which there are no fair and open elections (a president is installed in spite of the fact that his opponent got more votes nation-wide AND a system in which people cannot vote for the president directly, but only indirectly through electors).

Cry me a river. If you don't like this system, please feel free to pressure your legislators to change the Constitution, because that's where the system originates.

Miguel, nice post.

It has been somewhat depressing to follow the links at the bottom of Den Beste's post to read what his adversaries have to say. Most of the commentaries and follow-on comments serve to reinforce his point.

There just aren't that many people with the "anti-war" and "progressive" opinions who want to carefully, logically, and respectfully make their cases to the mainstream reader.

So, while I probably disagree more than agree with your point of view, hats off to you and all but one of your commenters for a reasoned, intelligent discussion.

"a culture in which there are no fair and open elections"

The bureaucrats of the European Union are trying to get there, give them time.

I believe Arabs are capable of democracy. Because plenty of 'em practice it here! I've known a fair number of Arab-Americans over the years, at every walk of life, and while there may be the odd Mohammaed Atta somewhere in that community, I believe they are every bit as willing and able to grab the opportunities of American society as my Pope-fearing ignorant Irish ancestors were a century ago when they were fresh off the boat from the potato famine. The description of modern Arab culture as a non-contributing cesspool of fetid hatreds is a description of CULTURES, not of PEOPLE, and is not racist unless any description of any culture is racist. In which case, stop talking in that racist way about America.

By the way, although the most-acclaimed Arab film of recent years, A Taste of Cherry, is to my mind one of the most boring things ever made (and its message is, at best, no deeper than that of American Beauty, life is worth living for the little things-- sounds like a John Denver song or something), I highly recommend a recent Iranian film by Mohsen Makhmalbaf, Kandahar. Somewhat woodenly acted in English in spots, but it doesn't matter because the picture it gives you of how mindnumbingly dreadful life under the Taliban was will settle any of these arguments about cultural relativism and the objective, manifest awfulness of that culture.

The main feeling I get from the responses to my comments are that you guys do not deny the many 'cultural flaws' of the USA but simply state that other countries are even worse. I must admit that this is amongst the weakest lines of argumentation I have ever encountered in a discussion. It reminds me of child who stole candy from a store, gets caught and is confronted by his father, and then answers: "It's o.k. to steal candy from store, 'cause other people steal cars and that is much worse'.

Of course there are other countries in the world where things are worse than in the USA. But that is no excuse for ignoring things that are wrong in your own culture. Straighten those things out first before you go out lecturing the rest of the world about how they should behave. Like Jezus said: "He who is without sin, throweth the first stone".

As for saying that execution of minors will stop when the majority wants it to stop: that's not the way it works with inalienable rights, such as the bill of human rights proposes. It means that people have certain rights that nobody can take away, not even a majority in a democratic country. Otherwise, theoretically, everything is possible. One could conceive of a culture where the majority deems rape of women to be normal. Then according to this line of reasoning that would be o.k. as long as a democratic majority agrees. But isn't that EXACTLY what Miguel opposes in his original post? Hmm...

>But that is no excuse for ignoring things that are
>wrong in your own culture. Straighten those things
>out first before you go out lecturing the rest of >the world about how they should behave. Like Jezus
>said: "He who is without sin, throweth the first
>stone".

Most of the 19th century abolitionists were male chauvinists. Should they have kept their mouth shut about slavery?

@floydMcWilliams:

Of course the abolitionists shouldn't have kept their mouths shut. But the fact that they opposed slavery doesn't make male chauvenism right. So should we just ignore that then? Should we wait with addressing the problems in the USA itself until there are no other places in the world left where things are worce?

If we follow that line of reasoning, the civil rights movement should not have fought to end rasism in the '60's but instead have focussed all their attention on the situation in other countries where things were worse.

You go tell that to the African Americans living in the southern states...

Also, it's somewhat disingenuous to suggest the US is perfectly satisfied with its policies and actions. There is considerable debate in the US about the morality and efficacy of capital punishment, for example.

Contrast this with the Arab sphere, where it's a big deal whenever one of the most liberal media outlets makes the tiniest suggestion that maybe it's time to join the modern world. The total amount of self-criticism that I have seen quoted from Arab newspapers would pale in comparison to one day's worth of the local San Jose paper beating its breast about what a mess California makes of its politics.

Well, I hear a whole lot of variations on the "Arab world sucks" tune, but very little self-critisism when it comes to Human Rights in the USA (and that's a hell of lot different then some financial crisis in California). And even if the Human Rights situation is worse in some other countries, the USA is the absolute king in WMD's. Why is it o.k. for the USA, a country with a flawed Human Rights record, to have massive stockpiles of WMD's that threathen all other countries in the world, but not o.k. for any other country to the point where the USA will actively intervene if another country as much as tries to build WMD's, be it a democracy or not.

If a given amount of activism were to have equal effectiveness wherever applied, then of course the civil rights movement should have looked elsewhere. There were many people worse off than American blacks in 1960.

In real life, efforts to do good work much better when they are local and personal. The civil rights movement could not have had the same effect by caring deeply about, say, oppressed people in China.

The Arab world became a local problem for Americans on September 11th. Black Africa is more screwed up than the Middle East, but I do not support intervention in that area, because sub-Saharan Africa is not a danger to America.

- a culture that allows for systematic oppression of homosexuals (e.g. openly homosexuals are not allowed to join the military).

First, not allowing openly gay persons from serving in the military is not "oppression." A little perspective is in order, I think.

Second, the US military is not an equal opportunity employer (are the disabled "oppressed" because they cannot serve?). It's purpose is to win wars, period. That it does so in a way that offends some people's delicate sensibilities worries me not in the least.

Why is it o.k. for the USA, a country with a flawed Human Rights record, to have massive stockpiles of WMD's that threathen all other countries in the world?

Flawed human rights record? Well, inasmuch as no one is perfect, perhaps, but the US is the world's leading champion of human rights.

Why is it ok for us to have WMD? (Here, I think you mean nuclear weapons, because we no longer maintain any biological or chemical weapons.) Answer: Because it is a deterrent against anyone who might use them against us.

And we do not threaten "all other countries in the world." Saddam? Of course. North Korea and China? I sure as hell hope they see us a threat, should they ever entertain thoughts about Tawain or South Korea. That's the whole point.

I guess it comes down to whether or not you see the US as a force of good in the world, which judging from what you've written here I would say you obviously do not.

I think Jan is trolling. Only a troll could possibly suggest there is no debate or self-criticism in the US regarding our 'sins'. I cut my political teeth in the 80's opposing Reagan's nuclear arms buildup. Turns out that now, we are REDUCING our nukes. Hard to complain about us shutting down other countries' nuclear programs when we are working to shut down our own. Let's not forget that we are helping pay for Russia and Ukraine to dispose of their nukes, and we helped South Africa verifiably destroy its own nukes. We are voluntarily destroying (destroyed?) our stockpiles of chem and bio weapons. We are figuring out ways to reduce our military deployment of landmines.

In short - the US is willingly holding itself to a higher standard than other countries - and it is performing well. The Hate America First crowd has to ignore all of this in order to sustain their venom. The HAF's want America to weaken itself in order that it would fall - a hope taken straight from the political strategies of 20th century Fascists and Communists.

The various HAF factions (including a lot of the media and academic lefties) out there are gnashing their teeth because they want the people of the US to replay our vietnam-era history, and we have taken a pass on the offer. Alas for the HAFs, the US and its people have learned a lot since Vietnam, and our current position in the world has a lot to do with those lessons we took to heart.

Perhaps my sample is rather limited, as it comes from encounters at a particularly multiculturalist academic environment (specifically the college I used to attend). However, one of the sources for my opinion is one of my former professors, an Iranian ex-patriate. He was quick to point out that he was not an Arab, but he had many experiences with Arabs in Iran, and told me that the anti-rational mindset there was not at all uncommon.

I'm not sure just where the charge of racism is coming from, as I never said that the Arabs are genetically incapable of reason. They are, however, trapped within a social construct, a society that shuns reason and rational debate, labelling it "haram thought." I think perhaps your own sample may be limited to Arabs who have escaped or fled Arabian society. Removed from the strictures of Arab society, most Arabs are quite capable of adapting to, and even embracing, the rational tradition of the West.

Actually, looking back on the comment I made, it is rather generalized and looks like I'm condemning the Arabs as a race.

I apologize for that.

To those who complain about American WMD, a couple of points:

1) The US no longer has biological WMD; these were ordered destroyed by Richard Nixon (!!)

2) The US is in the process of destroying all chemical WMD; there is a facility at Johnston Island in the Pacific that is actively doing this. The destruction of these weapons is to be complete before 2007.

3) The US has worked with Russia to decrease the number of nuclear WMD (SALT, START, etc), and has done so. The US proposes to decrease the number further in future treaties. The US also has paid Russia and Ukraine to dismantle their nuclear WMD.

I would suggest that those who blithely use the phrase "American WMD" might want to reflect on the fact that we're dismantling most of ours.

Since we are currently using the International Bill of Human Rights as the basis.

The International Bill of Human Rights makes no mention of WMD's.

The US process for electing a President qualifies under Article 21.

The Bill of Human Rights does not specify any restrictions on punishments if the individual has been fairly tried in a court of law. Scary but true.

From prevention from military service violates Article 2. Prevention of disabled from military service also violates article 2.

Dear Jan,

"The main feeling I get from the responses to my comments are that you guys do not deny the many 'cultural flaws' of the USA but simply state that other countries are even worse... It reminds me of child who stole candy from a store, gets caught and is confronted by his father, and then answers: "It's o.k. to steal candy from store, 'cause other people steal cars and that is much worse'.

Um, I guess so.

If you think culture is analogous to theft, that is.

"Straighten those things out first before you go out lecturing the rest of the world about how they should behave."

Sorry, there's a little matter of other countries' behavior we have to correct first, which is, DON'T FUCKING FLY OUR PLANES INTO OUR SKYSCRAPERS!

"Should we wait with addressing the problems in the USA itself until there are no other places in the world left where things are worce?"

When I was growing up this was usually phrased "why are we sending people to the moon when there's poverty on earth?" It's a charmingly naive idea, this notion that we should focus the entire energy of the entire country on fixing ONE thing at a time-- and then, when it's done, it'll STAY fixed while you move to the next. The idea that a large and rich country can do multiple things at once which will work together in interesting and unpredictable ways is beyond such folks, I guess. (The possibility that the way you fix poverty is with a big government space program creating jobs, of course, never occurs to such folks either.)

"Why is it o.k. for the USA, a country with a flawed Human Rights record, to have massive stockpiles of WMD's that threathen all other countries in the world, but not o.k. for any other country"

Oh piffle. LOTS of other countries have WMDs.

What's not okay is for CRAZY countries to have WMDs.

Anyone after 9/11 who has a problem with that is simply not operating in reality, as far as I'm concerned. What they did with planes, they would happily have done with a nuke if they'd had one. Reason enough.

@Lawrence

Well, America is not the root of evil, that 's for sure, although radical moslems may have a different idea.

I don't think, however, that you can go as far as saying that the US are a source of good. While many good things have come from the US, a statement like that is too general, in my opinion. It suggests that America is infallible.

No government is.

Abt WMD:
Are you sure you need to threaten China with nukes? How does that go along with increasing trade relations. Hasn't Most Favorite Nation Status been granted to China a few years back? What is China? Friend or foe? Or is it undecided?

@ Jan:
I have a question for you since you came up with the comparison to theft of candy and cars:
In your reasoning one should not even try to hunt down the car thief until one got the candy thief?

Maybe the problem you were trying to get at is one of authority: Who gives America the authority to judge and sanction other countries while having its own skeletons in the closet?

Complicated question, has been discussed for months already in the Iraq context. Please, you all, excuse my pessimism but I doubt that we will hear a new twist to this anytime soon.

I think it is still necessary to threaten China with nukes. China is not nearly as reformed as the State Department would like to pretend, and I, for one, still remember that their current leaders also oversaw the Tienanmen Square massacres.

They maintain the guise of civility, but until they abandon their devotion to complete government control of all areas of life, I am not going to support any move to relax our defenses against them.

Reading Jan's comments, it suddenly occurred to me that he must think that many 3rd world people are absymally ignorant, hopelessly backward, and simple fools.

Why?

Because the US is really a bad, bad place that oppresses homosexuals and kills kids for no good reason at all and has all these right wing wackos running around pointing WMD's at everybody and. . .

THESE THIRD WORLD FOOLS WANT TO MOVE HERE!!!!

No more evidence is necessary, fools that they are.

While I agree that nuclear deterrence is important and perhaps even effective (even if in a horrible way), I think we have a much better weapon against China than nuclear weapons:

Coca-Cola.

Actually, all of American (and broader Western) capitalism. It's the most powerfull arsenal free people have. Everyone wants to live the "American dream" because people want the right to choose ... Levi jeans, Coca-Cola, and MTV did more to bring down the Berlin Wall than nuclear deterrence ever did.

Of course, capitalism and free trade is an effective tool for dealing w/ some countries (e.g. China, Vietnam, Cuba). W/ other groups -- that are much more openly hostile (e.g. al Qaeda) and don't want to trade (although they sure enjoy the "infidel" made AK-47s) -- we have to pursue other, um, options.

Jan,

If only he who is perfect can cast stones, then what gives the UN the right to cast them at the USA? Are you saying the UN is perfect? Or are you saying the UN doesn't point out human rights violations in the USA? And while we are on the subject of perfection, since YOU are casting stones, YOU must be perfect! If not, doesn't this mean YOU are a hypocrite? That must make you feel really bad, living the life of a hypocrite.

Jan, the problem with your view is that since there is nothing that is perfect, there is nothing that can make criticisms. Therefore, killing adulterous women is acceptable and criticizing it isn’t, unless you are perfect, which is impossible. And how are you supposed to become perfect if you sit around allowing people to kill rape victims?

Like Churchill’s comment on democracy: western culture is the lowest form of culture, except for all the rest.

One commenter in the thread has many people scratching their heads, "where does this guy get his attitude from?"

A Google search on "Mean Green Meme" brings up a bunch of articles, from different points on the political spectrum. Reading one of them may shed some light on this fairly common mindset.

The Chinese students at Tienanmen Square thought they had a more powerful weapon than the tanks and guns of the PRC: media attention.

They thought wrong.

The fact is that the pen is only mightier than the sword because nobody actually tries to take up the sword against the pen. Whenever someone does so, the writers always find out just how little power their pens truly hold.

The same goes for capitalism. I just don't see Coca-Cola, or capitalism, communism, Islamism, or any other ideology forming an effective defense against incoming nuclear warheads.

If someone decides to stomp all over your carefully written laws and beat the crap out of you, you'd better have some weapon to fight back with. Ours is the nuclear deterrent.

Obviously, in the literal sense, you are correct. But is it in China's interest to go to war w/ the US anymore? Or is a war between the US and Japan (a military war, not a "trade war") even imaginable any more? And not because we're such good chums and whatnot ... but because our economic destinies are becoming so deeply intertwined that an attack on by one on the other is an attack on markets and capital base. That is the power of global economics. It won't end war now. But it will eliminate war (or at least reduce its destructive power) in the future to come.

Unfortunately, Miguel, someone wrote a once-famous book devoted to that thesis... in 1910. How could the Kaiser go to war with Britain when they're both so dependent on trade?

Turnd out irrational behavior occasionally trumps economics, alas.

I think cultural relativism is hard to judge because a lot of things are based on issues of morality. Issues such as female genital mutilation, different rites of passage, etc. are in a sense moral issues. A lot of people in other countries don't like the Western World because we try to reinforce our ideas on them. Rather than saying an action is wrong based on that alone or for religious reasons, one should draw from other areas for a stronger case. FGM is bad for health related issues besides being brutal. One should also use logic rather than emotion to argue a lot of the relative issues (abortion, death penalty) in the U. S. as well.

The Arab world as a whole is kind of like China and Africa. At their height of power these areas were leaders in things like navigation, mathamatics, philosophy, invention, art, you name it. In fact Africa was far more advanced than Europe was in terms of science and medicine. But I think since colonization, a string of bad leaders, and being oppressed, they have taken steps back. Notice a lot of people from other parts of the world that immigrate here are successful, unlike they would have been in their homelands. Architect I. M. Pei and Amy Tan are two predominant people I can think of and from what I've read Silicon Valley is employs a lot of people of Indian heritage.

The U. N. Bill on Human Rights really has no teeth or else the peacekeepers would be in a hell of lot more countries than where they are stationed. Some of the countries that have signed the bill should really practice what they preach because they obviously forgot about the "human" part in the clauses of the bill. Plus, the U. N. has no real system of checks and balances, I mean look how much they were able to control Iraq. "Now you better tell us the truth this time Saddam or else we'll get very angry!"

While the U. S. has its problems too, we could be a hell of a lot worse. At least here Matthew Shephard's killers were brought to justice, in other parts of the world his killers would have been celebrated.

Mike, the argument about economics and war was, indeed, made in the early 1900s. But, like Marx's predictions about the role of capitalism, they were also (in my opinion) premature. International capital is even more intertwined in the 21st century than it ever was in the past. And don't forget the internet as a means of communication, capital integration, and technological transference. I think war between economic partners is less likely today than in any previous time in history. Of course, I could be wrong. But recent history has demonstrated that no two democratic (and hence free market economies) states have waged war against each other in the history of modern democracy.

To comment on all of the above:

1. Death Penalty for Children: all people are responsible for their actions. Children for the most part are allowed to defer that responsibility to their parents. However, in the case of Capital Punishment, how do we kill half each of two parents? What if the child is raised by grandparents? How do other caregivers fit into the equation? I say, kill the murderous little bastards--cut our losses before we have invested too much more in them.

2. Obviously, Arabs don't contribute to the world culture. They used up all their cultural credits long ago. Phonetics, writing, math, philosophy, religion, and law...they already made their contributions and now have the luxury of sitting on their laurels. Now they have free time to oppress themselves and have parades.

3. There is no cultural relativism. The trick is to look smartly at specifics. Clitoral circumcision is great example. No one gripes about penile circumcision (except the Greeks, who flogged Jews to death for desecrating the human/Adonis form). The reason? If it inhibits orgasmic pursuit, it is bad. If it makes your privates look bigger, it is good.

4. People who post with pseudonyms are cowards and should have to eat ketchup donuts.

5. Coca-cola is the anti-China.

6. Bush was (contrary to popular Democrat belief) actually elected to his office. Popular vote is not the same as representative vote. Deal with it. You might get someone elected next time.

7. Miguel is leaving for Bolivia. To quote a great movie, "Butch, next time I say, 'let's go to someplace like Bolivia,'...let's go to someplace like Bolivia!" --Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid. Dissertation writing deserter. I hope you have fun. Also, to quote Randy Newman:

Asia's crowded,
Europe's too old,
Africa is too hot,
and Canada's too cold.
South America,
Stole our name,
let's drop the big one,
there'll be no one else to blame!

---"Political Science" by Randy Newman

Love,
Micah

I am currently overseas so due to the time difference I am unable to respond 'real-time'.

When I consider the comments above, I think I have to concede a point: it is of course true nobody is absolutely perfect and by my reasoning that would indeed mean that nobody would be allowed to critizise anybody else. That is a bit too rigid and would indeed make me a hypocrit for critizising others. My appologies.

When I carefully reconsider, I think that for a large part I agree with Marco. It is a question of authority, and why the USA should have the authority to judge other countries (not only obvious dictatorial regimes, but also other western countries). With the UN at least there is some attempt at getting a majority of the worlds countries represented (although the security council of course is far from representative too).

It is clear from some of the comments in this thread that many believe the USA has a right to judge other countries because they are far better than any other country in the world. Take for instance comments by Ferdinand and Lawrence:

"In short - the US is willingly holding itself to a higher standard than other countries - and it is performing well. "

"I guess it comes down to whether or not you see the US as a force of good in the world..." and

"...perhaps, but the US is the world's leading champion of human rights."

I don't share these points of view. To start with the last point: some European countries like Sweden, Norway or the Netherlands have better human rights records than the USA if you compare it to the bill of human rights. (e.g. no death penalty for minors). So by your line of reasoning these countries have every right to judge other countries (including the USA) and even have the right to use military force to force changes in other countries (including the USA). I get the feeling that none of you would agree to that, still when it is the USA critizing and forcing changes in other countries, suddenly it is o.k.

But, another point I must concede: it is of course true that there is self-critisism in the USA. This is obvious even from the responses in this thread.

I think the disagreement is primarily due to a small, but significant difference in European and American (or even Anglophone) political culture. Continental Europeans trust institutions and international law. After all, the post-war experience has been mostly insular and based on interactions between European nations. Since these are all free, democratic states (I speak here of Western Europe and the EU), there was little problem there. Europeans really do trust the UN and international bodies and really do believe in consensus as a high value (sometimes as a higher value to others).

Americans, especially, don't share this view. For us, politics is a rough and tumble world and sometimes you have to use force. Chirac used the term "cowboy" to insult Bush. For most Americans, the cowboy is John Wayne or Clint Eastwood, the figure who acts in the interest of civilized law & order -- even when the "institutions" of law are corrupt and ineffective. This is a heroic character for Americans. Witness also our comic book heroes (our modern mythology) where vigilantes (Batman, Daredevil, the Xmen) operate outside the law (but for good) because the law sometimes fails. Americans, fundamentally, believe that the world has both good and evil, that evil must be resisted, and that sometimes it must be resisted w/ force (I've posted about this before.

Americans don't trust the UN. While it does represent many countries (their regimes), it doesn't always represent what's "right". The head of the UN Human Rights commission is Lybia. The head of the UN Disarmament Committee was Iraq. Countries routinely violate UN resolutions. Countries that signed on to Human Rights treaties, are human rights violators. So ... how do you trust the UN? The cry from many (in the left and the right) for the US to quit the UN has only grown in recent years.

We don't trust institutions for the sake of the institutions; we only care if they're effective. Americans love results; Europeans seem to love process.

Miguel is the Sun Tzu of our little debate club.

Let me add this: Individualism is not an American ideal (of course, it is NOW. But, the French (shiver) are really the folks that formulated its tenets. Damned post-enlightenment fuckers). However, we did perfect it. People can tout off about the superiority of Canada or Sweden as their human rights policies go. However, we came up with all the groundbreaking work on the subjects.

It's like trying to say that Creepshow is an inferior horror film than The Ring. The Ring may be scarier in the context of the present, but Creepshow opened doors of the idea of horror that made that movie possible. If Creepshow hadn't exposed the world to the style of horror in EC comics, The Ring could not have had an outlet that would have understood its message at all. It would have been meaningless and arthouse. This the problem with comparing Sweden with the USA.

These other more progressive countries have modeled their constitutions off of ours. They have found ways (evasive) of avoiding our verbage and some of their policies are inherently fairer than ours. However, they are not burdened with the historical context that our original documents had. Slavery was not widespread, for example, when they wrote their constitutions. We had to (to some extent) adulterate our Constitution with amendments to modernize it. I am sure as time goes by, Canada will find passages that are no longer applicable that will need ratification or amendment as well.

I guess my point is this: Americans are very fond of acknowledging our predecessors--Magna Carta, Rome, Socrates, et al. We do it all the time with our music heros: Elvis stole from the blacks, Bob Dyllan stole from the blacks, Green Day stole from Bad Religion, etc. We do it with our comic books: Superman is Hercules, Daredevil is Batman, Shatterstar is Longshot. We accept our predecessors at face value.

Other countrie's nationalists don't seem to do this as much. Canadians never cite the US as inspiration. Swedes, Finlandians, Japanites never site the US ideology as a source of their own self definition. The only country that consistently seems to give this kind of acknowledgement is Israel. And they have obvious motives for that.

Enough. I am off again to do howework.

Love,
Micah

@Micah: "However, we did perfect it. People can tout off about the superiority of Canada or Sweden as their human rights policies go. However, we came up with all the groundbreaking work on the subjects."

Where do you base this on? I don't see where the USA did groundbreaking work on human rights when Canada and Sweden did not. In fact if you consider the seggregation in the Southern US during the 60's and early 70's I actually get the feeling the USA was (and in some points still is) trailing behind other countries where human rights are concerned.

Your comments about how your constitution served as a model for others are inaccuratewhere the constitution of most western European nations are concerned. In fact many aspects from your constitution as well as most European constitutions to my knowledge were modeled after French concepts developed during the French revolution. As for slavery: you seem to forget that it were the European countries that invented the whole concept and it certainly was wide spread and well accepted in all former colonial powers such as the UK, Spain, Portugal and the Netherlands.

About acknowledging predecessors, there is of course a historical reason for this: the USA was colonized from Europe so historically Europe is the USA's predecessor and not the other way around. And if we look at modern history I do not recall much acknowledgement from the USA aimed at Europe, but I do recall massive gratitude from Europe to the USA when it comes to liberating them from the nazi's and rebuilding Europe through the Marshall aid program.

@miguel: As a European who lived in the USA for a couple of years, I think your description of the difference between the European and American political attitude is quite accurate. We do tend to have more faith in institutions and international law. This is also caused by the fact that in the EU we are many countries trying to work together and we need consensus based politics to do that. Whenever in ancient or recent history one European country stood up and started considering itself to be superior to other European countries, this inevitably led to armed conflicts. Perhaps this is another reason why Europeans seem to be so 'allergic' for any country (including the USA) declaring itself superior.

And the French Revolution was modeled after the US Constitution. The US Declaration of Independence was the first major modern political declaration of individual rights and the premise that government relies on the legitimate consent of the governed.

So, yeah, the US was the first liberal democracy. And that's a historical fact that can't be denied. Ever. We clearly modeled ourselves after many ideas (Rome, Athens, the Scottish and French Enlightenments), but we were the first. The US Constitution and its Bill of Rights were later incorporated into the French Declaration of the Rights of Man.

Was it perfect? Clearly, not. Britain didn't have universal suffrage until the 20th century. Most European countries were monarchies until the turn of the century. The French Revolution decayed into The Terror and then Napoleon. Sure, we had slavery. On our own soil. But we also fought a war to end it. On our own soil (the bloodiest war in American history).

The bloodiest part comes from the musketree. Musket holes are the bloodiest of all bullet holes. Contrast this with the Revolutionary war when the French kept chopping up people with sabres. Much less bloody. Civil War. The Bloodiest War.

As a side note (feel free to post on my blog or in a seperate entry in your own) I am curious to hear your comments on the Civil War, Miguel. Particularly, your PoliSci outlook on the continuing attitudes of Northerners and Southerners, the contrasts of the terms "Civil War" and "War of Northern Agression", how natives played in the mix, etc. To be honest, I have only a textbookish knowledge of this war.

Can't wait to hear what you have!

Love,
Micah

@miguel:

I always thought the French revolution and the American declaration of independence were roughly at the same time and that the US constition was modelled after the french one. However, you clearly have more knowledge on this subject than I do, so if you say the French constitution was based on the American one you are right in stating that most European constitutions are modelled after it. My apologies for questioning this.

By the way, interesting to note is that the Pilgrim Fathers first lived in the Netherlands for a while before moving to America because at that time the Netherlands were the only European country with freedom of religion.

On the other hand, the Netherlands did not get a constitution before the late 1800's. Before that time it was an absolute monarchy.

And the Netherlands was the last (!) European country to abolish slavery. So is my country perfect? Absolutely not.

The pilgrims are a funny anomolie of Americana. In our elementary schools, the Pilgrims are glorified (I assume you missed a lot of this being from somewhere in Europe) and their actions are glossed over. It is interesting to me in a specific way: how we treat the instruction of history. We do it in stages of awareness, and the Pilgrim story is one and the best example of this.

1. In early elementary school we teach the signifigance of Thanksgiving. The children learn that the Pilgrims landed on Plymouth Rock and befrended the natives. We learn that they didn't know about how to get food so the natives came and showed and shared with them. Yay! America born.

2. In later middle school we learn rehashes of the same, but there is a focus on the reasons why Pilgrims came to America in the first place. Religious freedom et al.

3. In middle school we become very date sensitive for some reason and the recitation of names and dates becomes criterial to the story of the pilgrims. However, this is usually when we learn that the pilgrims killed the natives.

4. In high school we learn about how the pilgrims exploited the natives and used strange means of bartering to gain dominance. The story that sticks out is the buying of Manhattan Island for a pile of beads...this being possible because Indians didn't have a value of ownership of property. They thought the pilgrims where being played.

5. In college, we learn that the Pilgrims were mutineers. They were not blown off course and stranded on Plymouth--they mutineed and forced the ship north because of legends of abundant gold in Plymouth. When they got there, the natives by and large had already been wiped out by plague that moved north from florida and other southern states. They landed and wrote an apology in the form of the Mayflower Compact (a precursor to the Constitution) and went about trying to find gold. Why did they not find food? Luckily, the former inhabitants of Plymouth had fled leaving fields of crops and housing abundant. When the natives in the area saw that the pilgrims were going to starve anyway, they came in with food for the first Thanksgiving in an act of treaty. Later, the Pilgrims slaughtered the natives as heathens and then..with most the natives already dead..bartered for Manhattan. The natives did know ownership of land, but conceded apparently because of lost hope. They knew more Europeans would be there soon and they took the best offer they thought they would get before moving west.

This approach (tacit, discoverational) is how we teach our students. My historical accuracy on these points is only as accurate as my own American education has provided me. I do think it is interesting how we shape truth for the age group.

Anyone have any to add to the 'real' story? Foreign bloggers, do other countries do this too, or do you begin with the honest approach and let the kids deal with the atrocity/absurdity of history at face value?

Love,
Micah

All I know about the history of Manhattan is that we (The Dutch) owned it for a while but then traded it for Suriname (a country in the northern part of South America, close to Venezuela) with the British. The names "wall street", "brooklyn" and "Harlem" are reminders of this era since they are derived from the Dutch "wallen straat", "breukelen" and "haarlem". Suriname remained a Dutch colony until 1975 after which it became an independent country.

As for history in Dutch schools. In elementary school we learn mostly about ancient Dutch and European history (from the Romans to say the 1700's). In middle school the focus is very much on the second world war, and why we celebrate our liberation day on May 5th and who we commemorate on May 4th. In high school we focus on modern history (after WWII) and in my time in high school much attention was placed on the cold war.

An interesting thing similar to what you described is that first we learn that we were just a country that was invaded by the Nazi's in Europe and the Japanese in Indonesia (at that time a Dutch colony). It is not until high school that we learn that shortly after WWII, Indonesia wanted to become independent, but we sent an army to brutally slay down the rebels that were fighting for their right to govern their own country. Only after massive political pressure of the UN did we finally 'give up' this profitable colony.

I wonder if we wouldn't be better off teaching kids more realistically from the start. (I remember some teacher blathering in 4th grade about how Saint Lincoln was so magnanimous that he gave jobs in his administration to Seward and Chase, his main rivals, and even then I knew why you appoint your rivals to your administration, especially if you barely squeaked by and they had a lot of support.) It's probably responsible for the state of shocked outrage tender-minded collegians walk around in when they finally read Chomsky or Michael Moore and learn the whole shocking truth.

I think history has to do with how it's worded/slanted.

Jan: Indonesia proclaimed itself a republic a few days after Japanese surrendered in 1945. But the Dutch wanted to re-take it and didn't recognise its sovereignty. The "police actions" you were referring to lasted till end of 1949, when the Dutch under pressure from world opinion FINALLY relinquished. Well, after 350 years of having your minerals sucked away!

Micah: In Singapore, History is a subject that is taught only from the 2nd year of high school/ secondary school. The Political Science (we call it Social Studies here) curriculum is just in its 2nd year. So students here have about 2-3 years of learning abt history and political systems, and they are taken as an elective. Meaning that if there's a concentration in Science subjects, a student can opt not to take history after one year.

We've always had some kind of a "Moral Education" class in which we learn abt different religions. But last I heard, that was cancelled.

So i grew up taking only 1 year of History and zilch knowledge abt political system (until college). If that makes up an apathetic bunch of society, well, believe it. BTW, from the Social Studies textbook, Singapore looks to Switzerland for inspiration.

Jan,

Just want to say I'm humbled and refreshed by your attitude - I assumed I was dealing with another knee-jerk hater of the USA. (If I'd realised you were Dutch I would have been less likely to think that :-).

In a perfect world I don't think the USA has a 'right' to judge other countries but at the moment they are the target of the aggression and nobody seems to be doing anything (effective) about it. The UN is seen as useless, mainly for the the very good points by Miquel. Why should the USA or the Netherlands or Australia submit itself to Human Rights inspectors from Syria, Cuba or Lybia?? We've been diong that for the last fifty years and in the end the planes were flown into the WTC buildings, not the UN building...

Jan,

I just got here. Sorry I'm late.

I too am glad you identified yourself as Dutch, because I was really getting fed up on one point.

You have twice refered to the American South as though you believe that Uncle Tom still lives in a cabin here, we lynch blacks for fun (or did in the 60's and 70's), and we banish blacks to the ghetto. You really should visit if you get a chance. It might tell you something about the sources you put so much trust in. (For your information: the most segregated city in the U.S. is Boston - hands down.)Blacks and whites in the South, while not homogeneous, live in closer proximity and accept each other better than any part of the country I've been, which is everywhere. Our numbers are more equal in numbers here. We grew up together, went to school together (70's), live in the same neighborhoods and work together. Outsiders are constantly telling me how we're not like they were told.

DUH !!

I know nothing first hand about the Netherlands, so I won't assume you are all drugged out pot smoking heroin shooting hippie throwbacks with the largest whore house districts outside of Asia like I've been told until I see it for myself. OK?

@Farnham: Every time I spoke about segregation in the southern USA I clearly indicated that I talked about the 60's and early 70's. Are you denying that there were separate facilities for blacks and whites in public places, much like the south african apartheid system back then? Do you deny that blacks were denied entrance to 'all-white' schools? Do you deny that it was made virtually impossible for blacks to register to vote? A system like that is called segregation, and it was this that I was referring to. And about lynching black people, unfortunately that took place as well although I am willing to believe those may have been incidents.

Oh, and I'll reveal the source of all this information: the Civil Rights Museum in Memphis Tennessee, which I visited in March of this year, when I also visited Vicksburg and Natchez in Mississippi.

By the way: not once did I say that the southern USA is still segregated. So I really don't understand what you're so upset about.

About the Netherlands, assuming that you did not visit the National Historical Museum in Amsterdam in March this year, a few facts:

- Possession of pot is legal in the Netherlands in amounts up to 5 grams. It is legally sold in hash bars that are euphemistically called 'coffee shops'. If you are the proprietor of such a hash bar, you are allowed to stock a limited amount of pot to be sold in your hash bar. Strangely, there is no legal way that the proprietor of a hash bar can by the pot to stock his hash bar, unless he were to buy it in 5 gram amounts.

- you are allowed to smoke pot in a hash bar, at your private home or anywhere else outdoors (e.g. in a park) as long as you don't bother anybody else. Smoking, including smoking pot, is prohibited in all public buildings. Smoking pot is also prohibited in regular bars.

- all other narcotics, including cocaine, heroine, XTC or LSD are illegal in the Netherlands and if you're found with any of these in your possession you will get arrested (which sometimes happens to American tourists who think anything goes in the Netherlands).

- prostitution is legal in the Netherlands, as long as it takes place between consenting adults, in certain designated area's (e.g. certified brothels or the red light district in Amsterdam).

- All these rules apply to the entire country of the Netherlands and not just to Amsterdam like some people think. But, individual counties can decide whether they want to allow coffee shops or brothels within their county limits.

But, all of this does not make us drugged out, pot smoking hippie throwbacks. Just like the fact that while alcohol, cigarettes and the possesion of guns are legal in the USA does not make all of you whiskey drinking, cigarette smoking, trigger happy idiots.

Jan,

Yes. Those things did happen, and I know that you are not all drug crazed hippie throwbacks. I also am aware that you are not a colonial empire (but you once were), that you do not abide legalized slavery (but you once did), and you do not turn your Jews over to the Nazis anymore (in fairness, many NEVER did, and risked their own lives to save them.)

"In fact if you consider the seggregation in the Southern US during the 60's and early 70's I actually get the feeling the USA was (and in some points still is) trailing behind other countries where human rights are concerned."

Museums are a fine thing. Some remind us of the triumphs of the past (Independence Hall, Smithsonian Air and Space). Some, the terrible price of liberty (Gettysburg, USS Arizona). Some others, of the terrible shames of our history, so that we may remember and not repeat (Civil Rights Museum, Memphis, TN. and Westerbork, Drente, Netherlands)http://history1900s.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?site=http%3A%2F%2Fusers.skynet.be%2Fsky35373%2Fwesterbe.htm.

But museums show a slice of life that WAS (well, sometimes), not what IS.

America has it's problems, but it is confronting them every day. (to my knowledge, no other nation on earth has a constitutionalized guarantee of free speech, not to mention the rest of the Bill of Rights). Many of us really do see our country as "a shinning city on a hill".

We take in more immigrants, and contrary to what our friends to the North believe, grant more asylum, than all other countries on earth put together. Every year. For over a century. We have more orthodox Jews than Israel - in Brooklyn alone. We have a larger Arab population than many Arab countries. We have seen for ourselves that people, exposed to the idea of self rule, prefer it over any other, and are universally capable of it when given the opportunity.

We provide more economic assistance to other countries (Yes, sometimes stolen by despots) and more food aid to the starving than any country on earth.

Do we make mistakes? Sure. We have made many and will make many more. The only way not to make mistakes is to do nothing. (Sweden comes to mind here. Ok, that was a cheap shot.) To get the true idea of what America is about, you must look at the whole picture. Being 5% wrong does not make us wrong. Being 40% wrong does not make us wrong, just less than perfect.

The UN, which Europeans seem to have great confidence in, was an American idea, to which America gives more funding, food aid and military support than any other nation. It is populated by more despots than democracies. It has turned a blind eye to suffering and genocide (ever hear of Sebrinica?)and has proven itself corrupt and impotent in the face of crisis.

If you want to promote human rights, make the first one on your list liberty, the right of self determination. You can side with us, you can side with the dictators and despots and terrorists, or you can sit on the sidelines and snipe about how you'd do it if you were in charge.

I'd like to close with some statements I have seen that particularly struck me. They illustrate what I believe my country is really about. Some are from memory, but the idea is acurate.

"Americans have gone forth from these shores to defend liberty for over a hundred years, and the only thing we have asked in return is enough ground to bury our dead" - Colin Powell

America has conquered the world. Twice. And we gave it back both times.

"I am a "Conservative" because I am a liberal" - Steve Den Beste http://denbeste.nu/cd_log_entries/2003/02/LiberalConservatism.shtml

I truly do look forward to hearing from you.

@ Farnham,

Well spoken. And just for the record I want to summarize my feelings about the USA:

I absolutely believe that the USA has done great things in the past and will do great things in the future. I also know from my own experience that the USA is a decent place to live in. I don't believe the USA is infallable. I know it has made some serious mistakes in the past and most likely will make serious mistakes in the future. But, and this may not have been clear from my earlier posts, I still believe the good things outweigh the bad by miles.

As for my own country: I love my country and I am proud of it. I know we did great things in the past and I believe that we will do great things in the future: alone and together with the other European countries. Also I know we made serious mistakes in the past and will make them again in the future. But again I feel the good outweighs the bad by miles.

Do I like my own country better than the USA? Yes of course. And that's not surprising if you consider that I was born and raised here. There are certainly cultural differences between the Netherlands and the USA and I DO believe my opinion is colored by the culture I grew up in. But if we look at a scale from 1 to 10, I would probably give my own country a 9 (there is always room for improvement) and the USA a 7 or 8. Dictatorships like Iraq under Saddam Hussein I would give a 2. So saying I like my own country better than the USA doesn't mean I put the USA on the same level as dictatorships. Far from it.

I realize that in my first post in this thread I may have come across as one of those arrogant American-bashing Europeans. On the one hand, this was to provoke some reactions, but more importantly it was because I came to this blog through a link on an hard-core American libertarian blog and was still in the "fight arrogance with arrogance" mood.

I must say that I was very pleasantly surprised to see the mature way most people here responded to my comments and are willing to keep an open mind. I hope I have shown that I am willing to do the same. I like debates and discussions and I'll be sure to critize the USA again on this blog. Just like I welcome critisism of Europe in general and the Netherlands in particular. But I'll do my best to fight arguments with arguments instead of just throwing mud and calling names.

One statement that particularly struck me:

"The fact that we disagree does not mean we have to be disagreable" - George W. Bush after speaking to Jacques Chiraq.

Jan,

Also well spoken.

I believe that you raised the ire of some on this site, and admitedly myself, not because we thought you were an American hating European, but because we thought you were the lowest of the low - an American hating American. (Your command of English had most of us completely fooled.)

I believe that loving your country is a good thing, especially if you are pragmatic enough to also recognize it's faults. I will proudly accept a 7 or 8 from someone whose first loyalty is, rightly, to another.

Out of time for now. It has been a pleasure corresponding so far, and I hope we can continue it. The email link is real if you should find occasion to use it.

Best Regards,

Haughty condemnations of America as having 'Cultural flaws' fails the test of proportionality... eg. to debate the finer points while Iraq fills mass graves. Fine, compare America to Norway in excruciating detail... but America to Iraq? That’s delusional.

So here's a really good test. America, where we can have this little chat, might be just a little better then a 7 or 8 if compared to a nation where this little chat would lead to arrest and having electrodes attached to my testicles which will be the last 'treat' I enjoy before my body gets tossed in the ditch... even if I'm a child, even if I'm gay, even if I voted for Bush... while my torturers congratulate themselves for their lofty rating of '2'.

The problem with the multi-culturalist 'call to inaction' that we should 'cleanse our own house' implies we should reach some impossibly high undefined standard before we do anything about real problems... like defending ourselves... or stopping a tyrant bathing in the blood of hundreds of thousands of innocents.

So g-d help us all that in America we have morality crimes. Let's all smoke a bowl and ponder ad infinitum... oh what was the question? Yeah, morality crimes yeah... bad thing, OK... so let's do something about those and get back to the topic...

Can the Arab culture support Democracy? I know nobody would actually so condescend as to imply the Arabs 'by nature' aren't up to it? The really ugly and emotionally charged question is can 'Islamic' culture support Democracy?

Anybody wanna’ tackle that one or should we just continue debating how much America sucks compared to the lofty ideals achieved in Europe. Except for that Colonialism thing, and those World Wars, and that pesky slip back into genocide... all of which America, the '7 or 8' opposed with treasure and blood...

Yeah we really suck.

It will not surprise you that danegrus.com was the weblog through which I first came here. I rest my case...

I have been working on cultural relativism as I am required to write a paper on it - I`m presently in the midst of a 5 years course on law. I chanced upon this site when I was surfing the net for articles on cultural relativism.

I have been fascinated by the discussion that has been generated here. As a Muslim (I`m an Indian not an Arab living in India), I find it necessary to respond to some of the comments that have been posted here.

Clearly, most people here subscribe to univerrsalism which translates into a belief in the superiority of liberal values. Although, I have little or no problems with the belief that it is perfectly alright to have a belief in the superiority of a set of values, I find it hard to accept that ALL liberal values are indeed superior to values existent around the world.

Liberal principles translate into an acceptance of homosexuality, pre-marital sex, alcohol, prostitution etc. I really have to jump ship now. I'll tell you why. Firstly, let's take homosexuality: homosexuality is justified on the ground that the act takes place between two (I suppose it could be more as well) consenting people in private. It is therefore argued that the State has no right to interfere since to interfere would be to violate the right to privacy of the individuals concerned. Here's my response to this argument - (I prefer to use the words of Abdul Hakim Murad, a noted Islamic scholar - the argument that follows gives both the Islamic as well the secular reasons why homosexuality is unacceptable - so don't be disappointed at the reasons given in the first half of the passage. I hope you will take the time out to read his articles "Fall of the Family", Part I and Part II available at the wonderful website www.masud.co.uk).
"As with feminism, the theological case against homosexuality is related to our understanding of the "dyadic" nature of creation. Human sexuality is an incarnation of the divinely-willed polarity of the cosmos. Male and female are complementary principles, and sexuality is their sacramental and fecund reconciliation. Sexual activity between members of the same sex is therefore the most extreme of all possible violations of the natural order. Its biological sterility is the sign of its metaphysical failure to honour the basic duality which God has used as the warp and woof of the world.

It is true, nonetheless, that the homosexual drive remains poorly understood. It appears as the definitive argument against Darwinism's hypothesis of the systematic elimination over time of anti-reproductive traits. In some cultures it is extremely rare: Wilfred Thesiger records that in the course of his long wanderings with the Arabian bedouins he never encountered the slightest indication of the practice. In other societies, particularly modern urban cultures, it is very widespread. Theories abound as to why this should be so: some researchers speculate that in overpopulated communities the tendency represents Nature's own technique of population control. Laboratory rats, we are told, will remain resolutely heterosexual until disturbed by bright lights, loud noises, and extreme overcrowding. Other scientists have speculated about the effects of "hormone pollution" from the thousands of tonnes of estrogen released into the water supply by users of contraceptive pills. Again, this remains without proof.

But what is increasingly suggested by recent research is that homosexual tendencies are not always acquired, and that some individuals are born with them as an identifiable irregularity in the chromosomes. The implications of this for moral theology are clear: given the Quran's insistence that human beings are responsible only for actions they have voluntarily acquired, homosexuality as an innate disposition cannot be a sin.

It does not follow from this, of course, that acting in accordance with such a tendency is justifiable. Similar research has indicated that many human tendencies, including forms of criminal behaviour, are also on occasion traceable to genetic disorders; and yet nobody would conclude that the behaviour was therefore legitimate. Instead, we are learning that just as God has given people differing physical and intellectual gifts, He tests some of us by implanting moral tendencies which we must struggle to overcome as part of our self-reform and discipline. A mental patient with an obsessive desire to set fire to houses has been given a particular hurdle to overcome. A man or woman with strong homosexual urges faces the same challenge.

To the religious believer, it is unarguable that homosexual acts are a metaphysical as well as a moral crime. Heterosexuality, with its association with conception, is the astonishing union which leads to new life, to children, grandchildren, and an endless progeny: it is a door to infinity. Sodomy, by absolute contrast, leads nowhere. As always, the most extreme vice comes about when a virtue is inverted.

None of this is of interest to the secular mind, of course, which detects no meaning in existence and hence cannot imagine why maximum pleasure and gratification should not be the goal of human life. The notion that we are here on earth in order to purify our souls and experience the incomparable bliss of the divine presence is utterly alien to most of our compatriots. And yet there is a purely secular argument against homophilia which we can attempt to deploy.

Homosexualism represents a radical challenge to the institution of marriage. Its propagandists will not concede the fact, but it attacks the most vital norm of our species, which is the union of male and female for which we are manifestly designed and which is the natural context for the raising of children. In times such as ours, when nature is no longer regarded as authoritative, and lifestyles are in all other respects an abnormal departure from the way in which human beings have lived for countless millennia, society cannot afford to believe that male-female unions are of only relative worth. The more the alternatives proliferate, the less the norm will be seen as sacred. Every victory for the homosexualist lobby is thus a blow struck against that normality without which society cannot survive"
I`m sorry I am unable to write anything on some of the other principles of liberalism which I don't subscribe to, due to paucity of time. But I really do hope that this post of mine generates a serious discussion without me being labelled a fanatic, an extremist etc. I hope you would agree with me that if we really want to improve the conditions of this world that we live in, we can ill afford to rubbish people's opinions.

I thank you for your (lengthy) comment. One brief note in reponse, however. Your counter-argument is puresly religious/theological. Although I myself belive in God (I'm a Catholic), I believe in rational liberalism. Thus, I can only accept individual rights, not arguments based principally on some "exterior" religious moral code.

In its defense (of liberalism), since you focused exclusively on homosexuality ... I'd have to say this: the superiority of liberalism is precisely in that it allows all individuals (even ones we might personally despise for various reasons) to act in their own interests so long as they don't directly hurt the interests of other individuals. Liberalism gives not just homosexuals, but women, children, political dissidents, religious minorities, and every other group rights -- as INDIVIDUALS -- regardless of our personal opinions on their behavior/beliefs/choices.

A politica/social system that only grants rights to some individuals, but not to all (for religious or any other reason) is not a free society. And I do believe fervently that FREE societies are superior to non-free societies. Witness the history of the world: societies that are more free in comparison to other societies tend to have better standards of living, health, etc.

So you may condemn liberalism because it extends its values UNIVERSALLY to all groups/individuals. And my liberalism forces me to listen to you and respect your right to have that opinion. I can't force my opinion on you or force you to alter your behavior/opinions/beliefs. The social/political system you endorse would limit the opinions/beliefs/behavior of individuals based on a ethical system they may not even agree w/. And while you may defend it on the basis of the unpopularity of such groups/individuals, it sets the precedent that the rights of groups/individuals can be sacrificed/restricted by the whim of any individual or majority.

Wow, awesome. you helped me with my ethics class. im a freshman at FSU in MD and am in somewhat over my head in "Contemporary Ethical Problems" but you cleared it up.

Nice work.

I read your short and succinct reply. I am unable to reply properly to your post due to paucity of time but here is a short summary of my answers

It is no doubt true that liberalism allows a greater diversity of opinion to subsist within its framework but one can argue quite confidently that in some cases it comes at the cost of the society - For instance, take alcohol - I don't know the statistics but I am confident that at least 2 among 10 who drink turn out to be alcoholics; and among these 2 at least 1 in 20 turn out to be wife-beaters, and another 1 in 20 turn out to be rash drivers etc. Clearly, the liberal principle of allowing people to act as they want unless they impinge directly on the rights of others is in the case of alchol causing greater harm than good. I want you to understand that my argument is not as simplistic as it may sound - all I am trying to point out that there are so many narratives on offer - utilitarianism (which is what I have used to criticise the allowance for alchol in a liberal society), liberalism, socialism etc. - that it really isn't as easy as you may think it is to know "truth" from "falsehood". Today, we may have opted for liberalism but that hardly proves anything - The post-modernist rejection of any claim to "truth" clearly has some force to it.

Yet, I am not a post-modernist. I realise that in a secular conception of the world, post-modernist thinking is but natural. The secular world detects no meaning in existence; it therefore becomes impossible to attach value to any action. Although, liberalism and human rights condemn torture, death penalty (I know U.S still has it though) and so on and so forth,liberalism can give no reason as to why it should be; simply put there's no way of knowing what is right and what is wrong. Liberalism searches for some philosophic grounding but can only find natural law. A reading of the Preambles to the UDHR, the ICCPR and the ICESCR prove my assertion. And what does natural law claim? - That there exists certain principles which are inviolable, universal and inherent. How are we to know these principles? I don't need to criticise natural law further - a reading of any of the positivists (Hart, Bentham etc.)would clarify what I am saying.

In the face of the existence of a multiplicity of narratives and in the face of post-modernism which problematises any "truth" claims, it is evident that a secular world can have no real meaning. The problematic situation that we find ourselves in can only be remedied if we can find a scripture - A scripture which is supposed to be from God (For once we bring in God, we have detected a meaning in existence). Here again, we are confronted with the problem of finding out the scripture which actually is from God. For a number of reasons, which I do not have the time to go into, I have chosen Islam from the other religions. I have therefore, I believe (by God's Grace) managed to nullify the claims of post-modernism (which I believe is of great relevance to the secular world while having no relevance to the world of religion).
I want you to note that I'm no Osama Bin Laden - I reject his philosophy outright - He's a terrorist fullstop- but i`m no liberal either. I am a Muslim and by definition I care for the well-being of others. I respect your opinion but I urge you to read about Islam and for your perusal. For starters you may read the following description of Muhammad (remember, Muslims do not only believe in the prophethood of Muhammad but also on the prophethood of Jesus, Abraham, Isaac, etc. - They were all to be followed by their people; Muhammad is to be followed by those who came after him) by the 8th Century scholar and saint Ghazali - " The Messenger of God (s) was the mildest of men, but also the bravest and most just of men. He was the most restrained of people; never touching the hand of a woman over whom he did not have rights, or who was not his mahram. He was the most generous of men, so that never did a gold or silver coin spend the night in his house. If something remained at the end of the day, because he had not found someone to give it to, and night descended, he would go out, and not return home until he had given it to someone in need. From what Allah gave him [...] he would take only the simplest and easiest foods: dates and barley, giving anything else away in the path of Allah. Never did he refuse a gift for which he was asked. He used to mend his own sandals, and patch his own clothes, and serve his family, and help them to cut meat. He was the shyest of men, so that his gaze would never remain long in the face of anyone else. He would accept the invitation of a freeman or a slave, and accept a gift, even if it were no more than a gulp of milk, or the thigh of a rabbit, and offer something in return. He never consumed anything given in sadaqa (charity). He was not too proud to reply to a slave-girl, or a pauper in rags. He would become angered for his Lord, never for himself; he would cause truth and justice to prevail even if this led to discomfort to himself or to his companions.

‘He used to bind a stone around his waist out of hunger. He would eat what was brought, and would not refuse any permissible food. If there was dates without bread, he would eat, if there was roast meat, he would eat; if there was rough barley bread, he would eat it; if there was honey or something sweet, he would eat it; if there was only yogurt without even bread, he would be quite satisfied with that.

‘He was not sated, even with barley-bread, for three consecutive days, until the day he met his Lord, not because of poverty, or avarice, but because he always preferred others over himself.

‘He would attend weddings, and visit the sick, and attend funerals, and would often walk among his enemies without a guard. He was the most humble of men, and the most serene, without arrogance. He was the most eloquent of men, without ever speaking for too long. He was the most cheerful of men. He was afraid of nothing in the dunya (this world). He would wear a rough Yemeni cloak, or a woolen tunic; whatever was lawful and was to hand, that he would wear. He would ride whatever was to hand: sometimes a horse, sometimes a camel, sometimes a mule, sometimes a donkey. And at times he would walk barefoot, without an upper garment or a turban or a cap. He would visit the sick even if they were in the furthest part of Madina. He loved perfumes, and disliked foul smells.

‘He maintained affectionate and loyal ties with his relatives, but without preferring them to anyone who was superior to them. He never snubbed anyone. He accepted the excuse of anyone who made an excuse. He would joke, but would never say anything that was not true. He would laugh, but not uproarously. He would watch permissible games and sports, and would not criticise them. He ran races with his wives. Voices would be raised around him, and he would be patient. He kept a sheep, from which he would draw milk for his family. He would walk among the fields of his companions. He never despised any pauper for his poverty or illness; neither did he hold any king in awe simply because he was a king. He would call rich and poor to Allah, without distinction.

‘In him, Allah combined all noble traits of character; although he neither read nor wrote, having grown up in a land of ignorance and deserts in poverty, as a shepherd, and as an orphan with neither father nor mother. But Allah Himself taught him all the excellent qualities of character, and praiseworthy ways, and the stories of the early and the later prophets, and the way to salvation and triumph in the Akhira (Hereafter), and to joy and detachment in the dunya (this world), and how to hold fast to duty, and to avoid the unnecessary. May Allah give us success in obeying him, and in following his sunna".

I am sorry for the space I am taking but I find it necessary to clear some of what I believe to be misconceptions that were aired this website on Islam and Muslims in general. I have written this post in a hurry so forgive me for the inconsistencies as well as the flaws that may be there in the language (I am not a native speaker of the English language). I do hope that the inherent bias that most secular people seem to have against religion is at least partially cleared.

Your lengthy reply is actually just a verification of my argument. You'd rather decide based on your own religious principles what people can or cannot do. I never will. I prefer free will and free choice. Even if people make the wrong ones. That is their undeniable RIGHT.

Furthermore, a free society is the most VIRTUOUS society. Simply because those who are virtuous do so by CHOICE, not compulsion. Obedience to a moral code by threat of force is not morality, it's merely servitude to the whim of a human master.

I'm sorry I`ve got to respond again! Here is one thing I would like you to answer.

1. You've written "That (Choice)is their undeniable right" - Why should that be so? It's not that I have a problem with one's right to do as he feels like but my question is far more fundamental - Liberalism just presumes that a man must have choice, that a man must not be tortured,etc. but can it ever answer why? (It's not that I have a problem with torture or freedom of conscience, this is just to tell you the rather shaky grounding on which liberalism or any other secular narrative stands on) It can't - it's just presumed to be violative of a man's dignity . It's not that I`m the only questioning it - read the works of any post-modernist. I would like you to think of this - If you are claiming that torture is wrong because it simply is, aren't you sounding a bit like the "Religious fundamentalists" you criticise? How can something be right because it simply is?

You claim that the works of "any" post-modernist would argue against any inherent truths. I disagree, some do, some don't.

Next, you claim that any secular "narrative" is as inherently flawed as any religious one. First, not all religious narratives are irrational. Second, secular narratives are based on simple philosophical principles.

Of course, one could argue that any philosophical principle is nothing more than a narrative. If so, then the only arbiter of truth is force. Unfortunately for you, history demonstrates that Western societies (based on rational secular discourse) are more successful than others. If you really believe that Allah is w/ you, I dare you to try it. But Allah won't give you atomic weapons (Western science will).

The simplest and most direct defense of secular moral principles was advanced by Ayn Rand, though it's in keeping w/ the older Western, liberal tradition.

Finally, if you're so convinced that there are no truths, only narratives, then why the hell are you wasting your time trying to convince me that torture is OK because some twisted vision of your God says so? Leave me to my "narrative" and I'll leave you to yours. Of course, my "narrative" gives me the richest, most advanced society on the planet. What has yours given you? Enough said.

I don't know whether you have been reading my comments carefully; i feel that in your urge to prove me wrong, you have not read parts of my comments all that carefully. It's resulted in me repeating quite often some of my arguments (I am not forgetting the fact that part of the blame has to be shared by me - I have been incoherent at times).

Anyway, here is a summary of what is wish to say in this post of mine.

1. I don't support the use of torture.
2. I do not believe that there exists only a multiciplicity of narratives and no verifiable truth - If I did I couldn't be a Muslim who believes in Islam. What I do believe that SECULAR narratives can have no real meaning as they cannot tell us the very purpose of a narrative; Religious narratives (not only Islamic but also other narratives) on the other hand have a clear purpose - Meaninglessness is transposed to Meaningfulness - "We are here to obey,love and worship God".
3. There is no point in following a secular narrative as no secular narrative can have any real meaning. It is RATIONAL therefore to search for a MEANINGFUL narrative; I have searched for one (by reading up on the various MEANINGFUL NARRATIVES on offer- Hinduism, Christianity and Islam)and I believe (for various reasons which cannot be given here) that Islam gives the most rational narrative. Islam is therefore in my opinion, RATIONAL AND MEANINGFUL.
4. I don't know how you got the idea that I believe in forcing my opinion down other's throats - To quote the Qur'an - "There is no compulsion in religion" (I shall give you the citation in my next post if you want).
5. I wonder whether you have bothered to study in depth any religious narrative seriously - I don't know whether you have even bothered to read the description of Muhammad (SAS) given by the 8th Century scholar and saint Ghazali (which I had pasted in one of my previous posts); How can you be so confident of your narrative without ever bothering to read up on other narratives?
6. Are you so confident of liberalism simply because the West dominates the world? Remember Islam was once dominant too - in fact, as fast as liberalism has spread, Islam spread faster. A Muslim living in the 7th Century would have been justified (applying the logic you have given) to have been convinced of his religion just on the basis of the rate at which the numbers of his religion grew. History is not as stagnant as you are making it out to be. Today, like Francis Fukuyama, you may argue that liberal democracy has triumphed, but remember that history has proved men wrong time and again.
7. If you really want to know what Islam is all about, you could read John Esposito's books on Islam. Although, I would ideally recommend that you read books by Muslims, John Esposito (Karen Amstrong is also someone who I would recommend you read) is someone who has investigated Islam with a fair bent of mind. It's therefore free from most of the unhelpful rhetoric that you find in books by other non-Muslims. The following is a gist of what Islam is all about:
The Five Pillars of Islam:

Shahada: Statement of unity of Allah and the prophethood of Muhammad

Salat: Five Prayers a day

Zakat: 2 1/2% wealth Tax

Fasting: The month of Ramadan from dawn to sunset

The Hajj: Pilgrimage to Makka. Once in a lifetime if able to do so.

The Six Pillars of Belief consist of belief in:

Allah: Not Connected to Events; Existing Before and After Time, Self-Subsisting, One.

The Angels: Made of light, neither male nor female. They do not disobey God and do not require sustenance.

The Divine Books: Torah, Gospel, Psalms, Scrolls of Abraham, Qur'an, etc.

The Messengers of Allah: Adam, Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Ishmael, David, Moses, Jesus, Muhammad, etc.

The Last Day: When all the dead will be raised from their graves. The Day of Judgement when people will either be sent to the Garden or the Fire for all eternity.

The Decree of both good and evil: The destinies of all things are in God's hand and occur according to His decision. Nothing happens that He has not decreed.
--------------------------------------------

The Stages of the Self:

An-Nafs al-'Amara or the self bent on evil : the insinuating self which is wholly evil and totally under the control of passions and bent only on self- gratification. It is totally blind to any higher reality.

"The lower self of man commands to evil acts " ( 12:53)

An-Nafs al-Lawwama or the self-reproaching self: the reproachful self which is indecisive in choosing between good and evil and is constantly embroiled in an inner struggle. It is unable to overcome the impulses of the lower self while it nonetheless recognises the higher one.

"No, I swear by the self-reproaching self." (75:2)

An-Nafs al-Mulhama or the inspired self: the self which recognises its faults and strives to correct them.

"By the self and what proportioned it and inspired it with depravity or godliness!" (91:8)

An-Nafs al-Mutma'inna: Finally there is the self at peace which is illuminated and acts according to the good and is therefore liberated

"O self at peace, return to your Lord, well-pleased, well-pleasing. Enter among My servants. Enter My Garden." (89:27)

Abdus Salam:

Please stop posting such long comments. This is MY weblog. I also have the right to delete them. If you want to write longer tomes, use YOUR weblog/site.

My biggest argument against you is this: Islam IS a secular narrative. All narratives are equally secular. To believe that Islam (or any other religion) is "the truth", you must first approach it from you own secular, rational mind. You may choose to accept that religion as "true" opposed to other secular narratives. But that understand first comes from your own secular mind. Hence, Islam, like liberalism, is a secular doctrine. Unlike liberalism, however, Islam forgets this.

I'm fairly familiar w/ Islam. I don't want any more cathechisms or theology lectures from you. I'm not a Muslim. I never will be.

I don't apologize if I've offended your religious sensibilities. Nothing is sacred. But it seems you mainly want to convince me to become a Muslim, and I'm only arguing that no religion has a monopoly on truth — even if I agree w/ some (or many) of its (better) religious doctrins.

There is no solution to the conflicts between religions. There will always be groups of people who believe that their faith is the one true faith, and this belief is valid and valuable only to those who hold it. All humans want to feel that they are right, and set appart from others as superior in the eyes of their peers. This is human nature. In my eyes, this is the only "universal truth".