Keith Hudson: > I'm a little taken aback by the strength of your feelings concerning > American culture. > > With respect, I think you've got it backwards. I think it's precisely > because most of the rest of the world want to live like the Americans that > anti-Americanism is stirred up so powerfully.
Keith, also with respect, I believe you're confusing things here. I agree that most of non-Western world would like to live at a higher standard and enjoy more of the comforts of life, but on their own social and culturual terms, not those of Americans. > The stirring-up has two ingredients. In the case of Islam and the current > riots that are now going on, one of the ingredients is the considerable > number of young, jobless men who are so frustrated with lack of economic > progress that they can easily be manipulated by demagogues. The other > ingredient, the demagogues themselves, comprise the existing power > structure that feels itself in danger -- in the case of Pakistan, > Indonesia, Turkey, Iran and several other Islamic countries, the mullahs -- > who present the case as an American attack on their religion. If lack of economic progress - a material thing - was the only consideration, many of these young men would move to Europe or the US and take jobs there. Indeed, many of them have. Several of the September 11th terrorists were well educated and could have found a place in western society. Some of them did for a time, but, as is now obvious, they found something missing. I would agree they were influenced by demagogues, but demagoguery can be based on something more than simply wanting to preserve a power structure. It can be driven by cultural values and religious beliefs, and the notion that what is happening in the world is in violation of those beliefs. I don't think we are going to resolve the mess the world is in if we simply see the mullahs as protective of their position. If we are ever to come to terms with them, we have to concede that they are genuinely fed up with the Americanization of the world and the erosion of everything they believe in. > Osama ben Laden, as a rich Saudi Arabian with previous close connections > with the Saudi royal family, is an example of a member of the elite who > could sense a loss of power if American culture continued to invade his > country and overturn what is, in effect, a medieval kingdom where people > can have their hands or feet cut off for petty crime or where women who've > offended against their husband can be buried up to their armpits in sand > and then stoned to death. I can't speculate on bin Laden's motives, but I would point out that even rich people can become disgusted with what they see around them and react with fanaticism. We've made saints and martyrs out of the fanatics of history who denied their wealth for a cause - St. Francis of Assissi, for example. I would not put Osama bin Laden in the same category except that he is at least equally convinced of his cause. I believe there is more to it than simply wanting to preserve a medieval kingdom. > Similar frustration has caused the troubles in Northern Ireland for the > past 30 or 40 years. The Protestants had all the best jobs (and still > comprise 95% of the police force), and the nationalist Catholics couldn't > get a look in. It's presented (by the Protestants) as a religious issue. > But that's just to disguise their fear that they sense that their power is > now seeping away. I don't disagree here, though I would point out that the problem is ancient, going back to, I believe, Elizabethan times when the Protestants were 'planted' in northern Ireland to pacify the region. The tragic history of Ireland is one in which little children, from the moment they could think, were taught to hate the other even when there was, in the case of ruling Protestants, no danger of being displaced. This suggests to me that fear of displacement is underlain by something deeper and more visceral and therefore very difficult to eradicate. > Similar anti-Americanism has been occurring in France for some years by the > elite 'enarques' whoi've been writing, speaking and legislating against too > many Hollywood films being shown on TV and English being increasingly used > as the official EEC language. Similarly snetiments are expressed in Germany. Perhaps they want to preserve their distinctiveness, which they feel is under threat. We have much the same problem in Canada, where Quebec feels its distinctiveness under threat and goes through cycles of wanting to be part of Canada and wanting to separate. Right now it seems to want to be part of us, even though it has a separatist government. However, that will probably swing back the other way in a few years. We also have Indians and Inuit in Canada who are trying, against great odds, to preseve their distinctiveness. Many have lost their language, all wear the same clothes as we do, and many have abandoned their land-based way of life and live in cities. Nevertheless, they don't really want to mix with us and continute to distrust us. The roots of this are ancient but enduring. > None of this is a simple 'My culture(or religion) versus your Culture (or > religion)'. It is resistance by existing power structures who fear loss of > control in a freer, less authoritarian society. With respect, Keith, I strongly disagree with this. In this resistance, the power structures have mass support, and that is what makes the situation so dangerous. > Now you, Ed, might have an intellectual or philosophical case against > American culture. And so might I -- there are many features of America that > I don't like. But I don't think we should project such feelings into the > minds of the majority of the poorer (or even fairly well-off) populations > of the world who want nothing else but to live in the same style as modern > Americans (or at least the ones mostly shown on TV). For reasons already stated, I simply don't agree here. I would remind you too that, perhaps a little less now but certainly in the 1960s and 1970s, many young Americans dropped out of the mainstream and tried to find alternative, often communal, ways of living. Their motives varied, but invariabley included a rejection of the crass materialism which is characteristic of the 'American way of life'. > Tens of millions of poor people from central Europe, Asia and South America > are migrating legally and illegally into America and Europe every year. They have to live. They are migrating from places that can't sustain them to places where there is at least a possibility of earning a living wage. I met many people like that in my sojourn in the slums of Sao Paulo a few years ago. Moving from the poor countryside to Sao Paulo did not mean that they had bought into anything except a better chance of keeping their families alive. > So all this is why I believe that Fukuyama is not only on the right track, > but also why the rest of the world will inevitably get to an American way > of life -- or perish in the attempt. I've already given my reasons why I believe Fukuyama is very wrong. That America or the American way of life somehow represents 'the end of history' is complete nonsense. Best regards, Ed Weick
