On Wed, Mar 10, 1999 at 04:22:03AM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Wow, looks like I hit on an American patriot. I didn't realise any respect
for the nation state system would be found in an ecofeminist mailing list.
It is meaningless to try and make out that I was criticizing "your"
country, and implying that "mine" is better when I don't even agree
with the idea of dividing the world up into little teams that then fight
for domination. It is also inaccurate to suggest that I proclaimed
America to be _the_ source of the world's evils. I merely noted that it
plays a major role, and wondered about the historical circumstances
which lead to its position today, ie (as it sees it) the most "influential"
force in world events. Organisations presuming to represent Australia
(e.g. our government, the military, the australian catholic church, etc)
have done and still do perpetrate grave abuses on human rights and the
environment. For example, the Australian military has recently been involved
in training troops responsible for human rights abuses on the behalf of
some south east asian governments. However, I was specifically interested
in the idea of domination on a world scale and active manipulation of
global political and financial systems to the detriment (usually) of
non-developed nations. In this regard American forces stand out in my
mind (possibly erroneously) as the main players.
In what follows I will respond to some of your comments -- please
note that these aren't intended to be arguing that I am better than you
or that all American citizens are somehow inherently bad! Also please note
that I came here to learn from people, and its easier for all of us to
learn if we don't shout at eachother, no matter how stupid some of
us (ie me) may seem. I won't allow this to degenerate into one of those
ridiculous flame fests the archive seems to be full of.
> Is America the only male, christian dominated country in the world? The only
> country that encouraged it? What history lesson taught that?
[No. No. None.]
[Stuff about Australian aborigines all true.]
> (and still fight) against for survival. I find it ironic that an Australian
> broadcaster would highlight another country as the subjugator of people -
> ironic but typical to not want to focus on the spot in its own eye.
Actually as I said, the report was on the american PBS NewsHour, and it
was not presented in the light of American subjugation of the third world,
I merely interpreted the comments of one of the participants as supporting
my view that American forces are responsible for a great deal of
exploitation of the rest of the world. The statements of that senator
passed uncommented on the program, presumably because the need to
preserve world domination by force of violence is largely accepted by the
American audience. Being from Australia, I am less used to this kind of
thing and it stood out and prompted my message.
[More about aboriginal rights. Again I agree, "our" present Prime Minister
is as bad or worse than all others of recent times. Aboriginal rights
in this country are considered to be a joke and an inconvenience in this
by the Government, police, the military, farmers, in short all right wing
male dominated power structures, although they think we buy all the crap
they spin about wanting "reconciliation".]
> I have never heard aborigines complaining about America destroying their
> people and their culture.
What about the American aboriginals? By the way, Australian aboriginals
are complaining about American destroying their culture, because all the
kids are abandoning tradition and adopting the western culture, which
means american basketball singlets, baseball caps etc. However, the blame
for this is western society as a whole (especially mainstream Australia),
not specifically America.
> It was hand and hand with the colonization goals of Europe - America is simply
> a child of that agenda. A child that is continuing that mentality, while the
> "parents" of that mentality have grown weaker - and now complain about the
> loss of power to do as such.
Thank you, this is touching on the kind of analysis I had hoped for.
> Were all those Atlantic Slave Trade ships and slave ship captains, American?
> That was a massive subjugation of people for hundreds of years, the effects of
> which are tangible still, did America initiate that operation? Did America
> import enslaved people into Brasil, Cuba?
No but how many South/Central American governments have been overthrown
over the years by the CIA et al? Does america still routinely spray
carcinogenic herbicides on central american forest, as part of the
War on [competitors beating the CIA in the world market for] Drugs?
> Was it America who committed the slaughter of the belgian congo? Was it
No but didn't Bill Clinton send missiles there recently after being
caught with his pants down?
> Did America conduct nuclear tests in the pacific?
Probably. They also have several secret bases in outback Australia on
land that ought to belong to its Traditional Owners. One wonders what
technology they could be testing there...
> "bermudez"? Was it Americans who inflicted apartheid on south africa? Was it
No, although recently Sri Lankan friends of mine commented on the segregation
STILL taking place in the south of America, during their holiday in the states.
This is getting off-topic, though.
> the Americans that the Rwandans and the UN revealed to be complicit in the
> Rwandan Genocide?
Well, by the sound of the story of
> - were the Americans latin? Did America build and run the death camps where
> masses of jews were exterminated? Was it upon America's empire the sun never
No, although the UN, in which the united states government surely wields
a LOT of power, withdrew from safe haven camps that were previously
protecting tutsis in Rwanda, causing the deaths of thousands. The lives
of hundreds of thousands could have been saved by a simple co-ordination
of a moderately-sized military campaign in Rwanda, according to
And of course, one wonders where
[Many more true statements which were summarized by the following]
> agreements like the multilateral agreement on investments? The only country
> that is exploiting the resources, polluting the environment, and oppressing
> people?
No. I never wished to suggest this.
> America isn't even the leader at it, but it is a bold decoy for other nations
> to try to hide the blood on their own hands. It is, however, only nation that
> threatens the continued dominance of exploitation of these traditional
> exploiters. It is simply the traditional bullies angry that a new bully is
> muscling in on its victims - the ones it expected to continue to provide its
> wants.
> How does history, even the present, get obscured to say anything else?
This is interesting. Do you think that even today the majority of
opression, degradation, exploitation etc today (other than attributed to
multinational corporations) is still being perpetrated by traditional
colonial occupiers?
love,
Russell
