There was some discussion earlier about Tom Friedman on this list. I'm
including this article because I think it is about as "American" as you can
get.
I think his discussion about Nixon hating Jews is off the mark. I read the
same materials and what I got was that he often dealt in cultural image
conventions but so does the rest of the world in practically everything.
When it is so rigid that individuals cannot escape it then it becomes
bigotry but such profiling is what we call "styles" in the arts and
conventional when it is mundane.
I find it strange to be defending a man who I thought was a beast and a
crook but my defense is of what I believe to be the actual truth of the
matter and not of the man's many sides. Other than that, I think
Friedman's op-ed is a wonderful article. I would love it if some of the
exceptional Arab writers around would do the same. I'm sure that Professor
Said (sp) could also take his stand as an American and help inject more
sanity into this media event that insults the memory of those lost.
I'm afraid that it happening is about as likely as Senator Jesse Helms
writing an article defining artistic ideals and the way that America could
develop a serious economic program for the funding of the arts. In spite
of what the supply and demand folks say about such funding, the current free
market has been an unmitigated failure in such things, indeed in funding
anything that derives its motivation from inner quality and exceptional
exploration or innovation.
Instead we get Land, Labor, Capital and Wealth. And "Man seeks to satisfy
his desires with the least exertion." I think Parkinson's Law makes more
sense economically and when tied to the Peter Principle more represents
Democratic humanity than anything written thus far. PL ("Work expands to
fit the time allotted to it." & "People tend to rise to the level of
their incompetence." )
The LLCW formula is just another version of the cyclic four directional
process that indigenous people have always used as an analytic tool. It is
a multi-tasking process that Harry, Keith and I suspect Henry George as well
mis-understood and "trapped" in a linear metaphor. It occurs to me that
this could have been the root of Senator Henry Dawes claim that the
Cherokees were "Georgists" and had to be rescued from such "foolishness"
before we could advance (1883 Dawes Report to Congress).
I've always wondered what he was talking about. Harry, Keith and Ed's
discussion has supplied a missing piece to that puzzle. Thanks!
Indigenous people tie to a reality where everything is based upon context.
i.e. standing in the West means that you are standing in the East to someone
else's West. Maybe Henry George was learning something from those
Indian people in California while everyone else was collecting bounties on
them. 5 dollars a human head or fifty cents a scalp for any man women or
child. The Federal government reimbursed California one million dollars
for such things in 1850. Unfortunately the learning stopped before they
got to the "relativity" and "quantum" parts. Their teachers were worth
more as bounty to the locals.
As a teacher, that for me is the evil of war and provincial chauvinism.
The loss of the greatness inherent in the soul and body of every single
human on the planet. Mis-understanding the four directional process that
goes Beginning, Development, Maturation and Decline keeps us from letting go
of things that should have been respectfully put to rest long ago. Art is
the process that teaches such things. Art doesn't go away or finish
because like eating it is a primal process but all types, styles and
cultures begin, develop, mature and decline as we evolve. There is a
statement that economics is also one of those primal processes like eating.
I suspect that is true but I do not believe that Western economics is
"Economics" but only one version of it based upon the time/space limited
subconscious metaphors of its thinkers.
Ray Evans Harrell, artistic director
The Magic Circle Opera Repertory Ensemble, Inc.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
October 9, 2001
It's Freedom, Stupid
By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN
happened to be reading Richard Reeves's compelling new biography of Richard
Nixon last week, when a paragraph about Israel caught my eye. It was a memo
that Nixon wrote to Henry Kissinger in 1969, describing his, and America's,
feelings about Israel: "[The Israelis] must recognize that our interests are
basically pro-freedom and not just pro- Israel because of the Jewish vote. .
. . [Golda] Meir . . . must trust [Nixon] completely. He will see to it that
Israel always has `an edge.' This is going to be the policy of this country.
Unless [Israelis] understand it, and act as if they understood it right now,
they are down the tubes."
I find this quote so revealing because Nixon didn't like Jews, but he
understood Americans - you don't get elected president without that. And
what he understood was that the animating vision of America in the world is
the promotion and protection of freedom - freedom of speech, freedom of
religion, freedom of markets and freedom of politics. And that while America
might align itself with all sorts of countries for economic or strategic
reasons, in the end it was those who were "basically pro-freedom" whom
America would never abandon and with whom America would always share a
special bond.
I am not sure all our coalition partners in the war against Osama bin Laden
understand that. The truth is, our real coalition partners can be counted on
a few fingers: the British, France, Canada, Germany, Australia, Japan. The
Saudis, Egyptians and Syrians are not, and will not be, members of this
coalition in any equal sense - not because they don't have military power to
contribute, but because deep down these Arab regimes do not share the values
that we're trying to defend.
These Arab regimes are whispering members of the coalition - they whisper
their support in our ear - but they cannot be full-throated members, they
cannot openly tell their people they are on our side. Because our side is
out for the defense of freedom, and their goal is not the preservation of
freedom - for their own societies or for others. Their goal is
self-preservation.
"Regimes such as Egypt, Saudi Arabia or the Palestinian Authority have a
legitimate fear of democracy - they fear that free elections would be
exploited by Islamist extremists who are basically undemocratic," said the
Mideast specialist Stephen P. Cohen. "But these Arab leaders have to
understand that if we root out these extremists - who've been produced by
their own bad governance - we are not doing it so these regimes can keep
their countries free of democracy for everyone else. We want to make the
world safe for democracy, and they want to make the Arab world safe from
democracy."
The other guy who doesn't get it is Prime Minister Ariel Sharon of Israel.
His suggestion that America was in danger of acting like those who appeased
Hitler on the eve of World War II - because Mr. Bush reiterated U.S. support
for a Palestinian state - was stupid and offensive.
Yes, Mr. Bush should have elaborated, by saying that "We favor a Palestinian
state, but after the last year we don't know whether we have a serious
Palestinian leader ready to live in peace with Israel in such a state."
Still, it's outrageous to suggest that after all the military, diplomatic
and economic support America has given Israel over decades that America is
now going to sell Israel out.
Attention, Mr. Sharon: America is now fighting for its freedom - the same
battle we have aided Israel in all these years - and when we are fighting
for our freedom there is only one thing for Israel to say: How can we help?
Period.
There's one more thing Mr. Sharon needs to understand: Americans want to
destroy this terrorist menace so that we and all other free nations,
including Israel, can really enjoy our freedom. That's what it's all about.
But we are not out to destroy this extremist menace so that Israel will be
free to build more settlements or to eat up more Palestinian land. Today the
Palestinians are literally at war with each other over whether to make peace
with Israel. But if and when the Palestinians ever get their peace act
together, Mr. Sharon needs to realize that we are out to make the world safe
for Israel to be free, not safe for Israel to occupy the West Bank according
to his biblical map - and saying that is not appeasement, it's American.
Copyright 2001 The New York Times Company | Privacy Information
