Add a Comment
Email This
Statistics
RE: Ideal Perspective...
Now I agree that in an ideal world that such a stature ought to work in principle. But it also assumes the your counter-party is operating from the same social-serving perspective as opposed to a self-serving perspective.
On that, I agree completely, and on that score people will always need to be able to defend themselves. But they also need to be able to meet even the worst enemies with understanding--we can never lose sight of the humanity of the enemy. If we demonize them, there's no way to make peace.
I think on the whole, human beings are reasonable if given half a chance; and that the only time most people are unreasonable is when they feel cornered in some way; whether culturally, economically, or militarily.
I think in terms of social behavior, the more successful approach is to be #2. And what I mean by that is to allow some other guy to be perceived as the world hegemon...
But that's assuming that dominance hierarchies are the only way to organize nations and international relations. I think radical commitment to peace includes overcoming the dominance hierarchy as the primary form of social organization. This has occurred in a small number of societies, so it's definitely possible, even if it is rare.
In my own well-traveled opinion, I think much of the hatred against America is actually spite and subconscious jealousy.
I have to disagree there. It can't just be jealousy and "hatred of freedom" and that sort of thing. While it's possible to resent someone simply because they seem better off than you, I think more often resentment arises from legitimate concerns. I've lived my whole life in North America, I'm as white bread as they come, and I find a lot that's distasteful about American and North American policies and culture. That wouldn't normally be a problem--I prefer to "live and let live," but there are times when certain aspects of American culture are (or seem to be) forced on people. If I've felt that way, then I have no doubt at all that people in other countries have felt that way too. American style economic & trade policies, for example--something that leaders of other countries may adopt for one reason or another, but which many of it's citizens might find destructive or imperialistic.
While I still don't think such a solution is truly viable (who wants to strive to be #2 anyway) ... it would be more doable than becoming the great nation of communicable altruism.
That may be true, but one of the first steps to becoming the great nation of communicable altruism would be overcoming the need to be #1 all the time. I dunno--something to think about.
RSS
RE: Ideal Perspective...
Now I agree that in an ideal world that such a stature ought to work in principle. But it also assumes the your counter-party is operating from the same social-serving perspective as opposed to a self-serving perspective. But modern Africa alone shows how self-serving will reign supreme unless a social-serving entity with guns is willing to be temporarily self-serving.
But I digress. I think in terms of social behavior, the more successful approach is to be #2. And what I mean by that is to allow some other guy to be perceived as the world hegemon and attract the eye of greed, scorn and distaste. In my own well-traveled opinion, I think much of the hatred against America is actually spite and subconscious jealousy.
It's basically playing the Canada card. You're big, you're successful, but nobody cares about you because you're not the big man. So you build upon the "statistical improbability of attack" by layering yourself in the social obscurity of the "every-country".
While I still don't think such a solution is truly viable (who wants to strive to be #2 anyway) ... it would be more doable than becoming the great nation of communicable altruism.
View Full Discussion