HTTP://WWW.STOPNATO.ORG.UK ---------------------------
Richard Knox wrote: > HTTP://WWW.STOPNATO.ORG.UK > --------------------------- > > David > > Isn't there also an issue of freedom that goes thus. They draft someones > son to right a wrong somewhere -and he gets killed. Was his life less > valuable than the lives he was sent to improve?>>> I totally agree. It just wasn't the issue I was addressing. <<< Second: I suspect that in some situations you can not help someone without > harming them indirectly.>>> I think that in general imposing "western values" on indigenous populations will have this effect. One of my biggets beefs with capitalism is that it does exactly that: forces ALL people to live a certain way, resulting in the destruction of centuries-old cultures. As with Capitalism, I think it's a chauvinist's view to believe that socialism is fit for everyone, in particular, the non-western people of the world. This stems from my tendensy to approach issues from the angle of being "socially constructed". Finally - I don't think that the USSR sent military to Afghnanistan > primarily to impose socialist values. >>> You are probably right, and I wasn't arguing that they were. Perhaps, not clear enough, I was being hypothetical. In any effect, I don't know enough about the Soviet "invasion" of Afghanistan to comment. I read a book about three or four years ago (I believe by Fisk), but do not remember much about it, other than the fact the US via Pakistan were supplying the most fanatical elements of the Muhajadeen during the war, that the Afghanistan is an multi-ethnic country, and that throughout Afghanistan's history various attempts have made my imperialist powers to occupy it. Though, I have no reason not to believe your description that the Muhajadeen excursions into Soviety territory influenced the Soviet's decision to "invade" Afghanistan David O Q As you know the religous fanatics > funded by the US were making raids into Soviet territory and then retreating > to Afghanistan. The military was sent to create a stable situation and > eliminate the instability on its border - but its by product was a modern > socialist life for the citizens of Afghanistan. > > Richard > > > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: 12 January, 2002 4:18 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: Richard: On Latvia ( or: Why I hate Gorby) > [WWW.STOPNATO.ORG.UK] > > > > > Heather: > > > > I wasn't very clear. But � yes -- if a country imposes western values for > the sake of imposing western values (as opposed to righting some injustice), > this is imperialism, and is no better than imposing capitalism on the rest > of the world. If, on the other hand, a country is intervening to overturn an > �oppressive system� -- not always easy to determine by outsiders -- than > this, to me, is a just act. > > In the case of Afghanistan, because a group of people -- in this case, > women -- were living under extremely oppressive conditions, the intervention > could be said to have been just. If, however, the Russians had intervened > just for the sake of imposing socialist values on the rest of the > population, than this would, indeed, be no different than European > colonialists carrying out the "white man's burden". > > Both material equality or individual rights are not universal concepts. In > many cultures, a translation for "equality", let alone �individual rights�, > does not exist. Yet, to some matriarchal African cultures, the most > seemingly egalitarian western households would be considered oppressive. > Should then these African cultures intervene to overturn our backwards ways? > > I�m not extreme cultural relativist, but, I realize that it is difficult, > in many cases, to determine whether a form of oppression is actually taking > place, as any good anthropologist would tell you (and I�m not an > anthropologist either). The perception �of righting a wrong� is very much > determined by the eye of the beholder as opposed some objective criterion, > and may in fact have the opposite effect. > > Just like today with imperialist �interventions�, colonists viewed > colonialism as an altruistic endeavour. Indigenous cultures were assumed to > be backward, barbarian, primitive, and so forth, and transformed to suit the > needs of the colonialist, with devastating consequences for the people > effected. Yet, imposing socialism instead of capitalism on these cultures > would have had similar consequences. What caused the destruction of > indigenous cultures was less to do with imposition of capitalist values and > more to do with the disruption these changes caused. Therefore, westerners > concerned about maintaining the continuity of indigenous ways of life should > be worry of the effect so- called �modern values� (including modern > medicine, western schooling and the like) have on others. > > David O Q > > > > 12 Jan 02, at 11:48, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > HTTP://WWW.STOPNATO.ORG.UK > > --------------------------- > > > > The Marxist were imposing western values on the people of Afghanistan? > > Medical care, food distribution, education and female equality are > western > > values? > > > > I'm not a cultural relativist, either. > > > > Silly me. I think addressing the economic and social problems which > plagued > > one of the most impoverished nations on earth was a good idea. Go > figure. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ==^================================================================ This email was sent to: [email protected] EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?a84x2u.a9WB2D Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register ==^================================================================
