Wilma de Soto wrote:
Such leaps have been made-- and frankly, Wilma, your comments about other cultures, and their relationship to democracy, strike me as among the more reactionary and right-wing I've ever encountered. That's really what I have trouble with.Don't you think you are carrying this a bit too far and attributing your argument to things I have not said.
The United States system of Democracy was adapted from the English system of Government. Instead of King, we elect a President. The Bi-Cameral House Structure was adapted from Parliament: The House of Commons-House of Representatives/ House of Lords-The Senate.
In a society where there is a religious social structure that enforces such
differences in access and freedom of movement between men and women it seems
quite a leap to embrace the concept that "every citizen has his say" as you
have expressed.
It's one thing to say that democratizing Iraq, or Afghanistan, will be a difficult task. That's certainly true, and it's perfectly OK to criticize the Bush administration for not recognizing this. (If they did, they'd have planned things better.) But your posts seem to dismiss the goal entirely, with this vaguely contemptuous estimation of the capabilities of people in Third World nations. Either they do not want democracy, as you claim, or they are culturally unable to adapt to it. I'm sorry, Wilma, but your post struck me as a rationale not so much against the U.S.'s recent actions, but as a rationale against democracy. And to offer this under the pose of cultural awareness is, I think, pretty revolting. It's a bit like an anthropologist claiming that, because third-world peoples are ruled by kings, they're better off living under dictators because any other system'd be too upsetting for their way of life.
Okay, then. Let's say that the people of Iraq just don't have the right recent history that would enable them to handle democracy. Let's say that, culturally speaking, they're used to strongman rulers, dictatorships, and theocratic hive-states, and such a system is more likely to meet with acceptance. Fine. Is that not a reason for the U.S. to install, not a flawed democracy, but another ruler like Saddam Hussein? Yes, there may be dissidents, there may be trade-unionists, there may be activists who wanted to be rid of dictatorships and torture and government-sponsored terror... but tough luck. Your people just couldn't handle democracy.
If you want to criticize the Bush administration, fine-- there's lots of good reasons. But this ain't one of them.
---- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to the list named "UnivCity." To unsubscribe or for archive information, see <http://www.purple.com/list.html>.
