| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front |
| A Theory of Everything |
| 2003-06-01 |
| Not bad for a Tom Friedman editorial. EFL During the 1990's, America became exponentially more powerful — economically, militarily and technologically — than any other country in the world, if not in history. Broadly speaking, this was because the collapse of the Soviet empire, and the alternative to free-market capitalism, coincided with the Internet-technology revolution in America. The net effect was that U.S. power, culture and economic ideas about how society should be organized became so dominant (a dominance magnified through globalization) that America began to touch people's lives around the planet — "more than their own governments," as a Pakistani diplomat once said to me. Yes, we began to touch people's lives — directly or indirectly — more than their own governments. As Joe Stalin once said, "Historical analogies limp." However, I believe that the last time that such a situation existed was during the Roman Empire. I've been doing a lot of reading of Josephus lately, especially the Jewish War. There are a lot of good "lessons learned" there for any student of the current conflict. As people realized this, they began to organize against it in a very inchoate manner. The first manifestation of that was the 1999 Seattle protest, which triggered a global movement. Seattle had its idiot side, but what the serious protesters there were saying was: "You, America, are now touching my life more than my own government. You are touching it by how your culture seeps into mine, by how your technologies are speeding up change in all aspects of my life, and by how your economic rules have been `imposed' on me. I want to have a vote on how your power is exercised, because it's a force now shaping my life." I'm less charitable than Friedman. I think that it has less to do with "votes" than with power. America's culture and values undermine the Islamists' power over his women and kinfolk. Nothing scares the French elites more than the sheep of the French underclass one day waking up and asking why their society has so little choice and upward mobility. Indian bramins and Latino criollos tremble at the thought of mestizos and dalits sitting next to them at the bargaining table. America is the greatest fear of every tyrant, petty or otherwise. Why didn't nations organize militarily against the U.S.? ...because the world basically understands that America is a benign hegemon, the ganging up does not take the shape of warfare. Instead, it is an effort to Gulliverize America, an attempt to tie it down, using the rules of the World Trade Organization or U.N. — and in so doing demanding a vote on how American power is used." I'm even less charitable here. Europe has lost the will to fight. Hell, they've lost the will to reproduce (birthrates at about 1.3 non-Muslim births per woman -- well below the replacement rate). The Arabs have been fighting us through terror-proxies since 1967. The Chinese are just biding their time. "Where we are now," says Nayan Chanda, publications director at the Yale Center for the Study of Globalization (whose Web site yaleglobal .yale.edu is full of valuable nuggets), "is that you have this sullen anger out in the world at America. Because people realize they are not going to get a vote over American power, they cannot do anything about it, but they will be affected by it." Supposedly, some Nazi once said, "When I hear the word 'culture,' I reach for my pistol." Likewise, I start reaching for mine when I hear a member of any third world power elite start talking about votes or democracy. Finding a stable way to manage this situation will be critical to managing America's relations with the rest of the globe. Any ideas? Let's hear 'em: thfrie@nytimes.com. I was tempted to send Tom the link to Rantburg. |
| Posted by:11A5S |
| #8 I agree a bit with Dave D. I find Friedman frustrating in that he sounds reasonable but then veers into left wing or liberal dogma/answers. Classic example - he was on Charlie Rose the other night and while he rightly blamed much of the Middle East mess on Saudia Arabia, Egypt, etc. he then blamed Bush for not signing Kyoto which (Friedman said) would greatly reduce the U.S." "far out of proportion" energy consumption and help resolve the Middle East crises. |
| Posted by: AWW 2003-06-01 22:52:23 |
| #7 A couple of things, here. Yes, it's just pure hatred on the part of the Mohammedans... we're infidels, and we must all die. They won't rest until the West has been destroyed. (Remember, Islam is an evil religion, and Muslims in America are a Fifth Column.) As for the Chinese, we will be at war with them within 24 years. They also despise us as "Western Devils". Isn't it great we're allowing Muslims and Chinese to pour into America? |
| Posted by: dickweed 2003-06-01 21:48:40 |
| #6 Brian is quite correct. While China would wish it otherwise, female infantacide is STILL quite strong in the rural countryside, practiced by families desperate to have male sons to carry on the family name. In China, when a family has only daughters, the name is lost due to the practice of a married woman leaving her family and becoming part of her husband's family. (IE., Miss Jones becomes Mrs. Smith, and the Jones family is left without an heir to the family NAME, which is held to be as important, if not more than, the real property.) The end result of families killing girl children at birth is a massive underpopulation of females to create the next generation. The desperation to preserve their family names has, unfortunately, blinded the rural Chinese to one brutal fact of nature.. that when you want 100 babies, you MUST have 100 women. But only ONE man. So China's in a hole they're not able to climb out of on their own. Certain friends of mine in the international intellegence community have told me (off the record) that it's so serious, some members of the ruling elite have actually suggested going to war with India just to (a) kill off the excess number of young men who will never have brides of their own and (b) if possible, indulge in bridal-kidnapping on a mass scale. China PROBABLY won't do this, it's too damn risky and there are other, far more practical, solutions. But the fact that the idea was even brought up in serious discussion shows just how bad off the situation is. Ed Becerra |
| Posted by: Ed Becerra 2003-06-01 21:26:43 |
| #5 The Chinese are just biding their time. Look at the population for the PRC and the male:female birth rate. Their distribution curves are seriously distorted and their population will top out in a few years, to start shrinking. From their economy to their military made in the Cultural Revolution times, the PRC isn't a threat to the United States. |
| Posted by: Brian 2003-06-01 16:49:23 |
| #4 I have little patience for Friedman's brand of narcissistic navel-gazing and subtle America-blaming, or for those who keep telling us we need to "understand why they hate us so much." It's really a lot simpler than people like Friedman want to acknowledge: they hate us because their culture, and particularly their religion, fill them with hate. They are hateful, and there's nothing more to it than that. The French arch-jackass Rousseau put forth the proposition that these people are "noble savages." He was wrong. They're not noble savages; they're just savages. |
| Posted by: Dave D. 2003-06-01 16:40:31 |
| #3 One thing I have never been able to understand is why people in these s***holes in the third world when exposed to what conditions are like in the US, Canada, Europe,and Japan don't rise up in protest against the governments that keep them poor and oppressed. A classic example is Africa, Blessed with abundant natural resources the politicians there have only seemed to be interested in Swiss Bank accounts and formenting tribal conflicts. |
| Posted by: Someone who did NOT vote for William Proxmire 2003-06-01 16:32:25 |
| #2 Thanks, Ed. I remembered that the quote was often misattributed to Goering or some other Nazi, but did not know that it was from a play. I disagree with the translation. The Browning that was fetishized by European revolutionaries of the right and left during that era was an automatic pistol, not a revolver. It was as much part of the revolutionary image of that era as the AK-47 is now. If OBL had lived in the pre-WWII era, he would have carried a Browning. |
| Posted by: 11A5S 2003-06-01 16:24:06 |
| #1 "When I hear the word "culture", I reach for my revolver." The full quotation is: "Wenn ich Kultur höre ... entsichere ich meinen Browning." It comes from Hanns Johst's most famous play, Schlageter (first performed in April 1933, for Hitler's birthday) and occurs in Act 1, Scene 1. The character who says the line is called Thiemann. This is usually translated as "Whenever I hear the word culture... I release the safety-catch of my Browning!" From the Oxford Dictionary of Quotations entry for Johst, Hanns (1890 - 1978) German playwright. Hope that helps. ^_^ You can find the reference here. http://www.thinkinginenglish.com/notes.htm |
| Posted by: Ed Becerra 2003-06-01 14:41:02 |