Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Closed Thread
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
11-05-2009, 03:16 PM   #1
Veteran Member
Gooshin's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Toronto, the one in Canada.
Posts: 5,611
The American Rome: On the Theory of the Virtuous Empire

Alright people, lo- and behold this article somehow ended up on my lap, must be the work of god! (nods to god.. )

I would like to ask you first to actually READ this thing, it is quite long and requires some attention (i'll be sure to read it a couple of times more)

This was Published in Harper's Magazine on August of 2001, just a month before the 9-11 attacks (making its contents rather intresting)

According to Wiki:

Harper's Magazine (also Harper's) is a monthly, general-interest magazine of literature, politics, culture, finance, and the arts. It is the second-oldest, continuously-published monthly magazinein the U.S.


I would ask everyone that feels like helping me, to first establish what this article is talking about, what is the point that the author tries to make before going off tangent on whether he is wrong or not.

thank you..

====================================



Innocence is like a dumb leper who has lost his bell, wandering the world, meaning no harm.
--Graham Greene




When the United States in early May lost its seat on the United Nations' Human Rights Commission in Geneva, the immediate response in New York and Washington was one of genuine astonishment. Important people looked questioningly at their cell phones and didn't know whether they'd heard a false rumor or a foolish joke. How could such things be, and where had reason fled? Surely it was well known that America had invented human rights, forever coming to the rescue of lost children and failed democracies. Never before in the fifty-four years of the commission's existence had the United States been excluded from the committee rooms of conscience; never in living memory had the "world's only superpower" suffered so undeserved a mockery at the hands of its ungrateful dependents.

The offending gesture, an organizational vote within the U.N. Economic and Social Council, took place on a Thursday in Switzerland, and by nightfall on the nearer shore of the Atlantic a hastily assembled quorum of gold-plated American opinion (prominent journalists, responsible politicians, dependable historians) was hurrying into print or a television studio with the offers of an explanation. For the most part they resembled late-Victorian British admirals on loan from an operetta by Gilbert and Sullivan. Thirty seconds into the broadcast or two paragraphs down the page the initial expressions of disbelief swelled into an uproar of heavy sarcasms, dark frowns, indignant manifestations of injured vanity, wounded virtue, baffled omnipotence. Was there no limit to the world's effrontery and gall? Were these people imbeciles or merely impertinent? Had they forgotten that they owed their freedom to sit around talking nonsense in overpriced restaurants to America's benevolence, America's money, America's air force?

The admirals were accustomed to insults from the Algerians and Fidel Castro, but what they found incomprehensible was the treachery of the European plenipotentiaries who were supposed to be our friends. The commission every year realigns its membership in such a way that the bloc of Western democracies receives three of the open seats, one of them customarily reserved to the United States if the United States comes up for reelection. But this year something went wrong with the divine right of kings, and when the secret ballot was counted the United States had received only twenty-nine of fifty-three possible votes, as opposed to fifty-two for France, forty-one for Austria, thirty-two for Sweden. Prior to the voting no fewer than forty-three countries had provided Secretary of State Colin Powell with written assurances of their support. The result reduced fourteen of the letters to worthless scraps of paper, which was preposterous, unspeakable, not to be borne. I didn't watch all the Washington talk shows or read all the newspaper commentaries, but those that I did see didn't offer much variation in tone and theme:

"TYRANTS TAKE OVER"--headline in the Wall Street Journal over an editorial
making the point that the United States had been expelled from a commission
that welcomed among its members representatives from Libya, Sudan, and
Syria--i.e., countries not known to cherish a concern for human rights.


"Thugs' club ... a sewer of brutality and repression"--characterization of
the Human Rights Commission in a New York Post editorial suggesting that
the U.N. be voted off the island of Manhattan.


"Sneak diplomatic attack"--William Safire in the New York Times explaining
the U.N. vote as a plot "led by Communist China and Communist Cuba, and
with the connivance of French diplomats currying favor with African and
Arab dictators"; the purpose of the plot revealed as an attempt by a
backstabbing "pack of hypocrites" to punish the United States for taking
the side of Israel in "the war started by order of Yasir Arafat."


"New period of official anti-Americanism"--Michael Kelly in the Washington
Post attributing America's loss of its seat on the commission to the envy
and resentment of the European members, "because Europe's ruling classes
will never forgive us for constructing a world in which they no longer rule
over anything except artisan cheeses."


Amidst the hectic waving of flags a few bystanders (some journalists, not many politicians) observed that the rebuff in Geneva wasn't entirely unwarranted. The United States over the last several years has been slow to pay its U.N. dues (the account currently $1.3 billion in arrears), and it stands opposed to a long list of policy initiatives put forward in the name of human rights, among them the Kyoto Protocol limiting emissions of carbon dioxide into the earth's atmosphere and the treaty establishing an international criminal court. Nor has the newly enskyed Republican oligarchy in Washington shown much respect for what its drum majors in Congress and the Pentagon disparage as "weak-kneed multilateralism." President Bush prefers the more manly acts of "unabashed unilateralism," and during his first few months in office the American government bombed Baghdad, bullied the Russians, announced its intention to nullify the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, guaranteed the prospect of war in Asia if China fools around with the sovereignty of Taiwan. Yes, it was possible that some countries (the poorer countries certainly, even some European countries clinging to the memories of their former grandeur) might have their reasons for objecting to the shows of American resolve, and one could almost see (if one looked very closely and imagined oneself as feckless as Italy or as obstinate as Germany) how it might be possible to misperceive America's fundamental goodness of heart.


As cautious as they were faint, the voices not raised in righteous anger didn't rate much space in the papers, and they were easily shouted down by the operatic chorus deploring the affront in early May in a tone consistent with Charles Krauthammer's trumpet solo in Time magazine in early March:

America is no mere international citizen. It is the dominant power in the
world, more dominant than any since Rome. Accordingly, America is in a
position to re-shape norms, alter expectations and create new realities.
How? By unapologetic and implacable demonstrations of will.


Although heartily endorsed by the Republican members of Congress, also by the kind of people who think the phrase "world's only superpower" is a Homeric epithet like "rosy-fingered dawn" or "wine-dark sea," the Time Inc. theory of the American Rome doesn't travel well. The topic was often in the conversation during a week in April when I was in Paris to talk to a French publisher, but the feeling of resentment was less apparent than a sense of disappointment. An author of enigmatic novels cited a recent poll of French public opinion that asked for "images that come to mind when you think of America." Presented with a short list of words applicable to the United States, a majority of the respondents chose synonyms for barbarism: "violence" (67 percent), "power" (66 percent), "inequality" (49 percent), and "racism" (42 percent); only 20 percent mentioned "freedom," and 4 percent "generosity."



Not the same people who had come ashore on Omaha Beach in June of 1944, and even a columnist from Le Monde wanted to know what had become of the freedom-loving Americans of song and story--woefully uncultured, of course, also vulgar and naive, but generous to a fault and true to their faith in their fellow man? The wits at the dinner tables on both banks of the Seine didn't omit the customary hors d'oeuvres of scorn (President Bush described as "a ventriloquist's dummy," also as "the Forrest Gump of American politics"), but where was the once-upon-a-time democratic republic, and why were they inclined to think of the United States as a department store or a stomach, not as the embodiment of a courageous principle or an ennobling idea? Somewhere in the endgame of the Cold War the old citizen army apparently had gotten lost, replaced by a generation of would-be hegemons toying with the dream of empire. The rulers of artisan cheeses didn't question the American wish to strike handsome Roman poses in the togas of "the world's only superpower," but they perceived a problem in logic. How did the inheritors of a stupendous military and economic fortune mean to balance the harsh imperatives of power against the softer claims of conscience? Unlike the Americans, the ancient Romans didn't confuse the conquering of distant provinces with the distribution of global happiness, and where did the executives of Coca-Cola bottling companies propose to find the moral and intellectual sangfroid to manage civil unrest in Judea, famine in Egypt, rebellion in Parthia and Leptis Minor? Vice President Dick Cheney might be a tough-minded businessman, but who could imagine even Dick Cheney proscribing the crucifixion of 2,000 unruly Goths?

The same questions were asked on four successive evenings, and gradually it occurred to me that the French didn't fully appreciate the doctrine of American innocence, what the first Puritans in the Massachusetts wilderness understood as their special appointment from Providence. Because God had chosen America as the construction site of the earthly Paradise, America's cause was always just and nothing was ever America's fault. Subsequent generations of American prophets and politicians have expressed the belief in different words--America, "The Last, Best Hope of Mankind"; America "the Ark of Safety, the Anointed Civilizer"--but none of the witnesses ever fails to understand that whereas corrupt foreigners commit crimes against humanity, Americans cleanse the world of its impurities. We do so because we have a natural aptitude for the work and because without our humanitarian interventions (over Dresden and Hiroshima as well as at Chateau-Thierry and Iwo Jima) the whole scheme of creation might come loose in the wind and vanish in the night.



If every now and then an American commits a monstrous crime--Lee Harvey Oswald, Lt. William Calley, Timothy McVeigh--the action is declared un-American, senseless, unthinkable, so contrary to the laws of nature and the will of God that it can be intelligibly discussed only by senior churchmen and high-priced psychiatrists.(1) Never intrinsic to the American landscape or the American character, evil is a deadly and unlicensed import, an outlandish disease smuggled through customs in a shipment of German philosophy or Asian rice. Innocent by definition, America invariably finds itself betrayed (at Pearl Harbor, the Little Big Horn, Havana Bay), and because we have been betrayed we always can justify the use of brutal or un-Christian means to defend the Ark of Safety against the world's treachery.



Which is why America never needs to appoint truth commissions similar to those established by South Africa, Chile, Burundi, and any other country seeking to come to terms with its inevitably tragic past. The American past isn't tragic. We are the children of revelation, not history, and together with the twice-born President Bush we can assume that because we possess a natural instinct for the good, we need not concern ourselves with law. Laws are for people unlucky enough to have been born without the DNA of virtue. Maybe Dick Cheney lacks the Emperor Nero's readiness to light a garden party with torches made from the still living remnants of 2,000 Christian slaves, but American B-52s can stack dead civilians like cordwood in the rubble of Hanoi, the pilots safe in the knowledge that they are doing what is right, their bombing runs bringing the good news that salvation is near at hand.



No matter how often I explained the American rule of engagement that allowed for its blameless passage through the labyrinth of twentieth-century atrocity, I failed to persuade the French of the necessary distinction between ethnic and moral cleansing. When the other people at the table didn't scoff at the weakness of the reasoning, they charged me with cynicism or suspected an elaborate absurdity in imitation of Beckett or Celine.
A week later I returned to New York to find most of the eminent journalists in the city sprinkling incense on the news that Bob Kerrey--former senator from Nebraska, recipient of the Congressional Medal of Honor, voice of democratic conscience, president of The New School University in New York City--conceivably deserved to be reconfigured as a war criminal. The allegation took the form of a report published in The New York Times Magazine during the same week that the United Nations expelled the United States from the Human Rights Commission in Geneva, and the two events coming so close together in time coordinated the media's efforts to illuminate the doctrine of American grace.

The charge against Kerrey was backdated to the war in Vietnam. As a twenty-five-year-old lieutenant commanding a six-man team of Navy SEALs, Kerrey, in the Mekong Delta in February 1969, had led a raid on the hamlet of Thanh Phong that resulted in the killing of thirteen unarmed women and children. The after-action report didn't identify the dead as noncombatants, and Kerrey received a Bronze Star for an exploit deemed heroic. There the matter rested for nearly thirty years, until a Newsweek reporter, Gregory Vistica, came across some old military records, talked to the other members of the SEAL team, and approached Kerrey with the request for a clarification. When the story eventually appeared in print it was told in the voice of a consoling therapist rather than that of a reproving journalist. It wasn't that Vistica failed to state the facts--no enemy soldiers in the village, the peasants shot down like rabbits--but he weighted the sentiment in favor of Kerrey's torment, Kerrey's anguish, Kerrey tempted by the thought of suicide. Both in the magazine article and in the flurry of press interviews subsequent to its publication, the interest centered on the quality of Kerrey's remorse, the dead Vietnamese reduced to stage props backing up the soliloquies on the theme of innocence regained:

"Now I can talk about it. It feels better already." "I have chosen to talk
about it because it helps me to heal." "It's the shame. You can never ...
get away from it. It darkens your day."


Kerrey's serial acts of contrition evoked nods of warm and welcoming bathos almost everywhere in the media. Except for a few churlish remarks in The Nation and The New Republic (remarks to the effect that a war crime by any other name was still a war crime), the preservers of a nation's conscience were quick to recognize Kerrey as a victim of circumstance. A clean-limbed American youth sent on a terrorist errand in the dead of night and the fog of war. What else was a fellow to do? His commanding officer insisted on body counts and the collection of yellow ears. Surely Kerrey had suffered enough. Three weeks after the incident at Thanh Phong he had lost part of his right leg in the action at Cam Ranh Bay for which he received the Medal of Honor. Because a war hero cannot become a war criminal, the moral authorities on both the old left and the new right voted for acquittal, and the court of public opinion needed no more than a few days to find that the fault was in the war, not the warrior.


"That he felt remorse, that he sacrificed even more for his country ... is
enough for his salvation, and a harder task than most can imagine. That's a
war hero, folks, a sinner redeemed by his sacrifice for a cause greater
than his self-interest. That's Bob Kerrey, my friend and hero."--The
judgment of Senator John McCain, handed down in an editorial for the
Arizona Republic.

"It was dark, very dark."--David Halberstam, defending Kerrey's honor
before an audience of New York intellectuals in Greenwich Village.

"It is hard for most of us to imagine the horrors of war. War is Hell.
Traumatic events take place and their terrible effects may last a lifetime.
We should all recognize the agony that Bob is going through and continues
to deal with."--Statement from the Trustees of The New School University.


"For our country to blame the warrior instead of the war is among the worst
and, regrettably, most frequent mistakes we, as a country, can
make."--Joint press release issued by Senators Max Cleland (D., Ga.), Chuck
Hagel (R., Nebr.), and John Kerry (D., Mass.), all of them veterans of the
Vietnam War.


"To know or not to know? That is the political question."--Jim Hoagland,
columnist in the Washington Post.


Hoagland didn't volunteer an answer, probably because his question was also a moral one, and when engaged in the ritual purification of the American soul it is always better to know as little as possible. The soft focus of blurred emotion is preferable to the unflattering clarities of thought or a distracting clutter of facts. George Bush Sr. reduced the operative principle to its simplest formulation when he was campaigning for the presidency in the summer of 1988. The U.S.S. Vincennes, an Aegis missile cruiser stationed in the Persian Gulf, shot down an Iranian airliner on July 3, under the mistaken impression that it was firing at a warplane. The error in judgment killed 290 civilian passengers en route to Dubai. Asked for a comment at a campaign stop in Washington, the candidate said, "I will never apologize for the United States. I don't care what the facts are."(2)


Most of the exonerations of Kerrey also insisted on the point that he couldn't be fairly judged by anybody who hadn't done time in the free-fire zones of the Vietnamese hell. If you hadn't been there, you didn't know, and if you didn't know, you couldn't pass judgment. The syllogism offered the further advantage of reaffirming America's lack of responsibility for the whole of the Vietnam War. Some people had been there with Kerrey in the Mekong Delta; other people had been there with the generals in the Pentagon or with Presidents Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon in the White House, but nobody except God had been everywhere, and so, when you really got around to thinking about it, the war was God's fault. The bombing of Cambodia was a natural disaster, which was too bad for the Cambodians, but one of those things, like an African genocide or an earthquake in Honduras, that couldn't be helped.


The same cloud of incense and unknowing that descended on Kerrey's Bronze Star blots out the hope of public debate about what kind of country we think we have become. The media don't grant much of a hearing to bystanders who question the triumph of the Pax Americana, and on most days of any week it's hard to open a newspaper or read a policy journal without submitting to a siege of imperial rhetoric. Thus, in the summer issue of The National Interest, none other than Henry Kissinger, filling in the basso continuo to Krauthammer's trumpet tune: "So long as the post-Cold War generation of national leaders is embarrassed to elaborate an unapologetic concept of enlightened national interest, it will achieve progressive paralysis, not moral elevation." Or again, in the same issue of The National Interest, Francis Fukuyama, former State Department official and author of The End of History: "A country that makes human rights a significant element of its foreign policy tends toward ineffectual moralizing at best, and unconstrained violence in pursuit of moral aims at worst."(3)


Transposed into the exchange of snappy sound bites on the Washington talk-show circuit, the theory of American empire becomes a complacent certainty. The pundits in residence compare notes with the visiting experts and find themselves in fond agreement on the great fact of America's colossal preeminence in the world--the size of its economy and the richness of its markets, the speed of its computers, the wonder of its weapons, the strength of its armies. Add to the sum of the superlatives the vast reach and sway of America's "soft power" (the T-shirts and the action movies, the cheeseburgers and the popular songs) and what we are talking about--as George just said, and as even Sam and Cokie will admit--is an empire on which--we might as well be blunt about it--the sun never sets. All present nod and chuckle, and the conversation proceeds to the good news about the blessings that America bestows on the less fortunate nations of the earth. We guarantee the freedom of the seas, send poll-watchers to apprentice democracies arranging their first elections, provide the cornucopia of goods (public and private) that sets the global standard for the label "decent standard of living." Why shouldn't we do as we please? Yes, we consume 26 percent of the world's energy supply and contribute 25 percent of the poisons to the world's atmosphere. So what? We're doing the world a favor, for crying out loud; don't make us sorry.


On mornings when news is scarce Caesar's heirs take up the old Roman questions about administering provinces and dispensing justice--how ought we to employ our ascendancy ("unrivaled by even the greatest empires of the past") to quiet the crowd noise in the world's dingier and more dangerous streets. The program always ends before anybody comes up with a coherent idea, and as the credits roll across the pictures of the guests congratulating one another on the subtlety of their analysis, I sometimes wonder about their grasp of history and their knowledge of geography. In what time and place do they imagine themselves temporarily on leave from Virgil's Rome? How and where do they intend to recruit the troops, and what do they think would become of America's peace and prosperity if we were to replace the story of our God-given innocence with the cynical apologetics of forthright empire?


Unlike their overlords in Washington, the American people never have been infected with the virus of imperial ambition; nor have we acquired an exalted theory of the state that might allow us to govern subject peoples with a firm hand and an easy conscience. The military academy at West Point was established in 1802 as an engineering school because the army was expected to build roads and bridges rather than to fight foreign wars. The conquest of the trans-Mississippi West was accomplished not by the march of legions but by nomadic bands crossing a succession of frontiers in the loose formation of civilian settlement. The pioneers killed anything and everything that stood in the path of progress--bears and passenger pigeons as well as Indians and buffaloes--but they seldom did so as a matter of public policy.


The imperial pretensions briefly attendant upon the Spanish-American War consisted mostly of loud speeches. At the Treaty of Versailles in 1919, Woodrow Wilson gave nobody the impression that the United States wished to rule the world. The Allied victories in the Second World War presented the United States with the semblance of an empire in a world largely reduced to ruins. If in 1941 the American presence outside the Western Hemisphere consisted of only a few islands in the Pacific, by 1945 it circled the earth, and hastily mustered regiment of American proconsuls inherited the British oil concessions in Persia and found themselves supplying arms to Greece and grain to India, posting garrisons on the Danube and the Rhine.


But even during the years of supreme triumph the nearest that most Americans could come to an imperial habit of mind was the tone of voice in which they asked the question--of French waiters and German whores--"How much does that cost in real money?" An authentically civilian nation had acceded reluctantly to military power, and, as early as 1953, President Dwight Eisenhower, a general familiar with the stupidity and waste of war, was saying that the detonation of a single artillery shell took a year's bread out of the mouth of a starving child. The statement was both admirable and accurate but not one that would have occurred to Napoleon. The imperial adventure in Vietnam was conceived and directed by Washington bureaucrats as ignorant of war as Charles Krauthammer and Condoleezza Rice, readers of Rudyard Kipling and fans of Teddy Roosevelt who thought that an empire was as easily constructed as a movie set. The appalling failure of the production put an end to the chance of drumming up popular support for American reruns of the Pax Romana.


The absence of a citizen army prepared to fight for what it believes to be the glory of both its public and its private self obliges the Unites States to rely on increasingly expensive mercenaries. We prefer, in the old Roman phrase, "the shadow to the sun"--i.e., the luxury of sitting under silk canopies on the shaded side of the Colosseum to applaud the entertainment on the bright and sometimes painted sand. We sponsor poorer but more ferocious allies to fight proxy wars in Africa and the Middle East as well as in Asia and the Balkans, and the champions of democracy we buy at the depressed prices paid for child labor in Chinese textile mills and Mexican strawberry fields.


America hasn't fought a war in nearly thirty years, not since our chastened helicopters lifted off the roof of the embassy in Saigon in April 1975, and I don't know why anybody would think we possess either a liking or a talent for the enterprise.(4) It's true that we maintain an army of our own--none better dressed or more expensively equipped--but it is an army made for show, a Potemkin village of an army meant to astonish Belgian bankers and frighten Arab terrorists. Our military forces are in the communications business; they send messages, they don't wage wars. The staff officers at the Pentagon know how to stage fireworks displays over Belgrade and Baghdad, how to simulate combat (aerial, naval, and ground) on state-of-the-art computer screens, where to parade the tanks on national holidays, how to deploy aircraft carriers as visual aids in the sales promotions for "the world's only superpower." All essential projects, of course, and undoubtedly worth the expenditure of $310 billion a year, but not to be confused with the Normandy landings or any other expression of overt hostility in which American soldiers run the risk of being killed. The government is very clear on the point. We don't send our own troops into what the Pentagon judges to be "non-permissive environments." No sir, not in this man's army, not when a worried mother in Ohio might complain to her congressman, or when a wounded sergeant might tell a scary story to Dan Rather or Diane Sawyer.


It is the wish to remain blameless that forces up the price of the equipment. The heirs to a great military estate can afford to hire servants (some of them human, most of them electronic) to do the killing. Money in sufficient quantity washes out the stains of cruelty and greed, transports its proprietors to always higher altitudes of snow-white innocence. If the Air Force can drop bombs from 30,000 feet, preferably through a veil of fluffy white clouds, we can imagine ourselves making a war movie or playing a harmless video game. As previously noted, the work of ritual purification is best done when one knows as little as possible about who is doing what to whom. The procedure is better suited to the selling of Internet stocks and soft pornography than to the governing of empires.

.
.



Last edited by Gooshin; 11-05-2009 at 03:23 PM.
11-05-2009, 04:23 PM   #2
Veteran Member
Das Boot's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Sparkle City, South Cackalacky
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 689
It was a nicely written article, but I think there were some factors that were missed. At the end of WWII, yes the US was probably at its highest regard. In one deft move, the Pacific theater was shut down and the world was appreciative. Then, out of fear, the US went into Korea. With Germany still fresh in people's mind, there was a fear that the spread of communism was not unlike the secret building of the nazi army. Many wanted to head it off before another big conflict was inevitable. The defining moment, to me, and what seemed to become precedent for future wars/police actions was the dismissal of McArthur. He went into Korea to win, Washington didn't agree and dismissed him. From there, wars were faught long and slow with no real resolution... They had pretty much become money machines and the rest of the world took notice. I think this aspect could have been explored in the article as another factor.
11-05-2009, 04:24 PM   #3
Veteran Member
Gooshin's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Toronto, the one in Canada.
Posts: 5,611
Original Poster
so let me ask you again, since you missed it in bold..

I would ask everyone that feels like helping me, to first establish what this article is talking about, what is the point that the author tries to make before going off tangent on whether he is wrong or not.
QuoteOriginally posted by Das Boot Quote
It was a nicely written article, but I think there were some factors that were missed. At the end of WWII, yes the US was probably at its highest regard. In one deft move, the Pacific theater was shut down and the world was appreciative. Then, out of fear, the US went into Korea. With Germany still fresh in people's mind, there was a fear that the spread of communism was not unlike the secret building of the nazi army. Many wanted to head it off before another big conflict was inevitable. The defining moment, to me, and what seemed to become precedent for future wars/police actions was the dismissal of McArthur. He went into Korea to win, Washington didn't agree and dismissed him. From there, wars were faught long and slow with no real resolution... They had pretty much become money machines and the rest of the world took notice. I think this aspect could have been explored in the article as another factor.
11-05-2009, 04:49 PM   #4
Veteran Member
gokenin's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: lowell,ma
Posts: 1,892
I dont know what you are asking in regards to help with the article but my take on it is that the author is saying that America should not have been suprised that it was removed from the council on human rights because it had turned its back on what once made America worthy of being a champion of Human Rights.
The article to me seems to imply that America until the end of the Second World War could claim to be the champion of human rights because it went about its actions without the intent of empire building. The end of the second world war saw a shift from this mentality to one of we are a superpower and we have the right to dictate policy by the power of our military. The result being over 60 years of the world watching America strut around saying you have to do what we want because we are right and you are wrong because we have the might to back it up.
Thats what I take from the article I dont agree with it completely but I can understand how people would perceive it that way if infact that was the intent of the article

11-05-2009, 04:50 PM   #5
Damn Brit
Guest




The obvious parallels to Rome are vanity and also the idea that America (like Rome) had become so big that it could do no wrong (or, it could do what it liked) in it's own eyes.


The impression I'm getting from it (based on the article opening with the UN vote) is that the rest of the world recognised this and had decided to take action.

The overall impression I got from the article was that it was describing a separation of people and state, that the government was no longer listening to the people and was acting for it's own ends. That to me is directly related to the power that corporations now have as a result of bankrolling the politicians. I know none of that was directly mentioned in the article but sometimes, what's left unsaid speaks volumes.
11-05-2009, 05:00 PM   #6
Veteran Member
Das Boot's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Sparkle City, South Cackalacky
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 689
QuoteQuote:
I would ask everyone that feels like helping me, to first establish what this article is talking about, what is the point that the author tries to make before going off tangent on whether he is wrong or not.
Sorry, I was looking forward to reading the article and overlooked what you asked. I believe by his title and subject matter he is inferring that the US was like Rome. The vote of UN is the same as the initial breakup of the outer fringes of the Roman Empire. The ideal had gotten too big for its own well being and countries that were once considered part of the US ideal had found that their own ideals better suited for them. His own disagreement with the policies and the breaking of the "hive mind" in the US are foreshadowing what is to come as shown in history with Rome.
11-05-2009, 05:21 PM   #7
Veteran Member
Gooshin's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Toronto, the one in Canada.
Posts: 5,611
Original Poster
thats exactly the sort of input i was looking for! Thank you (to Gary and Das Boot as well)

I have found, through my lectures, that we read so many things that oftentimes forget what it is that we are talking about, and before certain ideas get settled in our minds we are quick to move on to some small part of an argument, having disregarded the intention (and effort) of the author to present to us a wholesome case.

QuoteOriginally posted by gokenin Quote
I dont know what you are asking in regards to help with the article but my take on it is that the author is saying that America should not have been suprised that it was removed from the council on human rights because it had turned its back on what once made America worthy of being a champion of Human Rights.
The article to me seems to imply that America until the end of the Second World War could claim to be the champion of human rights because it went about its actions without the intent of empire building. The end of the second world war saw a shift from this mentality to one of we are a superpower and we have the right to dictate policy by the power of our military. The result being over 60 years of the world watching America strut around saying you have to do what we want because we are right and you are wrong because we have the might to back it up.
Thats what I take from the article I dont agree with it completely but I can understand how people would perceive it that way if infact that was the intent of the article
11-05-2009, 05:56 PM   #8
Moderator
Site Supporter
Blue's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Florida Hill Country
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 17,298
Harper is one of the major mag-rags from the Civil War era and has some interesting early photos.

However, one thing the article does is that it simplifies the East prior to WWII. The U.S.A. was involved in the world on a wider than many realize granted precariously. Case in point, in China the British were envolved, Chiang Chi Shek, various War Lords and the Bolsheviks. Things were very hairy in the mid to late 1920s. Then along came the Japanese and WWII. Following WWII the previously mentioned groups had increased in power with exception of the War Lords. The "Cold War" was a driving force on all of them as well. Shek ended up in Taiwan, and Communist's ended up in Peking.

Where is this mythical American Empire? The American Caesar has been dead for several decades.

11-05-2009, 06:16 PM   #9
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
monochrome's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Working From Home
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 26,241
A supposed Empire built on military might is probably incorrect. Where are our colonies, our India and Austrailia and Africa? We are not an Empire in the Roman or British sense.

What is more accurate is that we had become, by the late 70's, an economic hegemon, and through the following 40 years a more aggressive economic bad actor. In 1980 67% of the world's product was US GDP - yes, 2/3 of the world's economy was us. Today that number is about 24%.

If you agree with me that the spread of (equivalent) free-market capitalism to the rest of the world was Reagan's ultimate goal (it was; I knew him) - then in fact, we won.

What many in government today fail to realize and accept is that we must deal with that victory - we must change to a much more collaborative relationship with the rest of the world as they have become our economic partners and equals, rather than our vassals - AND WE SHOULD WANT SO TO DO!!

I believe the author is indirectly saying that, prior to the end of WWII, we would have.

As to the UN Human Rights Commission vote - that was a very direct slap at George Bush. Progressives globally believe to this day the 2000 election was stolen. Unfortunately they don't understand that while it wasn't finally stolen, it was a very near thing.

Last edited by monochrome; 11-06-2009 at 10:03 AM.
11-06-2009, 12:04 AM   #10
Veteran Member
Otis FanOtis FanOtis FanOtis FanOtis FanOtis Fan
Rupert's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Texas
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 25,123
It says that like Rome, we are an arrogant and greedy nation....one now in decline, like Rome. Don't think so? Seen the national debt, the lack of unity, the failure of our entire system to represent the people? Blame the right....blame the left.....it won't change the facts.
Regards
11-06-2009, 04:09 AM   #11
Veteran Member
Das Boot's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Sparkle City, South Cackalacky
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 689
Unlike history, the birth of a second Rome has already happened with China. Like in chess, they've been aligning their pieces/efforts waiting for the moment of opportunity - which probably won't be long now.
11-06-2009, 06:42 AM   #12
Veteran Member
Gooshin's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Toronto, the one in Canada.
Posts: 5,611
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by Rupert Quote
It says that like Rome, we are an arrogant and greedy nation....one now in decline, like Rome. Don't think so? Seen the national debt, the lack of unity, the failure of our entire system to represent the people? Blame the right....blame the left.....it won't change the facts.
Regards
dont forget this was written 8 years ago.
Closed Thread

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
america, american, army, empire, kerrey, people, percent, war, washington, world
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Hello from the Inland Empire (California) Wildspirit Welcomes and Introductions 1 10-13-2009 01:45 AM
Empire cosmetics and stop4digitall ??? tmacdon Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 1 05-09-2009 09:22 AM
Conspiricy Theory Billgscott Pentax News and Rumors 23 05-01-2009 10:21 AM
the evil empire NaClH2O Post Your Photos! 12 12-10-2007 11:54 AM
Conspiracy...Perhaps. Just a Theory benjikan General Talk 6 05-05-2007 07:39 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 02:29 PM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.com part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top