All good points Judith. I wouldn't say that I am inherently anti-american. There is much that has come out of america that is amazing. An earlier point raised music. John Coltrane, a man, a Christian, a moslem, all at the same time (and I'll add, because I know someone will say it, an american). I just believe that the balance of power in this world is grotesquely one sided. This unbalance only benefits America. America can influence world politics like no other country and this is unfair and creates many injustices which I think the american people are by and large unaware of.
It's also unfair that coverage of the attack get such intense media coverage globally (which creates great sympathy), while many more people die each year all around the world from similar events (and no one blinks an eyelid). All of the world leaders are compelled to 'assist' and offer 'condolences' otherwise they risk their very economies and 'way of life'. Take what Colin Powell said in an press conference. He said that this has become the 'benchmark' for measuring another countries 'co-operation'. How is it fair that in the world one country can lose thousands of people from a terrorist attack and the world doesn't blink, but if it's america everyone (in the world) has to stand to attention, offer condonenses and offer support? And if a country chooses not to comment or offer support, they risk great economic and political isolation. Doesn't this imply to the world that america and it's citizens stand on a different platform from the rest of us? That in some way, they are more important than the rest of us? Sure, the media is also responsible, (for example, it was barely news that a car bomb that exploded in Kashmir killed 35 people the other day. If that happened in america it would be huge news). Horrible events happen to people all over the world all of the time. Benjamin ----- Original Message ----- From: "Judith Dinowitz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "CF-Community" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, October 04, 2001 5:16 PM Subject: Re: The Anti Terrorism Act.. > > evil debate. You know how many people GW pissed off when he used the word > > 'crusade' in his rhetoric? How offensive must that have been to people of > > the Islamic faith (given history). Maybe our so called advanced > civilisation > > really isn't that different from the dark ages of the crusades... > > A. Why should "crusade" be less offensive to Moslems than it is to Jews? We > were also victims of the crusades. You don't see us protesting the use of > that word. > > B. The Dark Ages and the Crusades were two different periods. The Dark Ages > were several hundred years earlier. > Ah, you meant that metaphorically. Not a great term to use here -- just > pointing that out. > > C. I don't, for the record, feel this argument is sound -- "crusade" is a > valid English word that has many meanings. There are other "objectionable" > words we could ban: Did you know that a point of thumb originated as a rule > by which a husband was allowed to beat his wife (i.e. how much was he > allowed to do so?) I use the term -- should I now eschew it? How far do you > take this argument? Must we be concerned because words may have alternate > meanings that are objectionable to other groups and we therefore shouldn't > use them? Boy, will the English language be bankrupt if we take this to its > logical conclusion. > > This is semantics really -- now for some more direct points: > > We don't > > read anymore, we are incapable of forming independent opinions, all we do > is > > consume (which is the measure of our worth) and we boil complex > > international politics down to simple binaries philosophies because we are > > incapable of seeing a more complex reality in which we aren't as innocent > as > > we make ourselves out to be. In short, we are reactionary and are > motivated > > by our emotions (fuelled by the media which feeds on our fear). I really > > think that the so called american 'way of life' is just a guise for > > maintaining western luxuries at the expense of the rest of the world. > > > > American culture has always been at war with other cultures. It is at war > with Jewish standards of morality and modesty. What's our response? We have > our own community institutions, we have our own schools. We basically teach > our children separately so that we can pass on our values and filter out the > American values we don't want our kids to absorb. But to be honest, the > assimilation rate in the U.S. in the Jewish community is high because yes, > Western culture is insidious. It surrounds us and we can't really escape it. > I'm wondering what the assimilation rate is in Islamic communities. > > But I think that there are many good things about America. I do not have > blinders on; I see the bad too. But this country has given Jews the kind of > freedoms to worship that few other countries do, from the time we came here. > It has done the same for Muslims. Yes, there is sometimes prejudice, yes, > there are sometimes inequalities. But the good far outweighs the bad. > > But yes, there is and always has been a "culture war" out there at odds with > the traditional religions -- Christianity as well. And I'm not talking > Fallwell here. I'm talking traditional Catholics and Protestants who don't > like the messages the mass media is blasting at their kids (or at > themselves.) That's why there is a whole subset of the religious Jewish > community that will not own a television set because there's too much stuff > that's impure coming from it. > > So in a way, I see Benjamin's point, although I don't agree with his > anti-Americanism. > > Judith > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Get the mailserver that powers this list at http://www.coolfusion.com Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/ Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists
