One of the assumptions I have found absolutely mystifying in many of the post 9/11 threads is the idea that violence and hatred are necessarily embraced only by a tiny minority of a given ethnic group, and that the majority wish only peace and harmony. It seems to me that in that last decade we have seen ample evidence to the contrary - Serbs vs. Croats, Hutu vs. Tutsi, Israelis vs. Arabs. I'm quite tired of the insistence that this battle with the Taliban and al Queda is one of good vs. evil. Certainly I recognized early on that the Taliban must go and that the works of Al Queda were horrible. But I think setting up a situation in which the U.S. represents "good" and the "true god" is on our side is quite over the top. (Some interesting information, about 3/4 of the way down, dated September 17, about flip-flopping regarding the true representatives of evil.) Humans have a tendency to behave in this manner with regard to any "monstrous" activity. Rather than recognizing monstrous acts as part of human nature and treating them as such, we label the perpetrators monsters, thus separating them from the rest of us...the humans. Outside the realm of politics, we see evidence of human depravity - rape, murder, child molestation, large-scale corporate fraud. We have seen the human damage from the Catholic Church shielding pedophiles and allowing them to harm children unchecked. Understanding why these things happen and how to stop them can only be accomplished by recognizing this. In some cases, the only difference between "us and them" is that they acted on their impulses and we held ours in check. Figuring out why some human beings cross that line would go much farther toward solving the problem than simply labeling them monsters. So, why do you trust people? Peace.
Trust ... I was watching 60 Minutes II the other night and I saw some follow-up program to <i>Promises</i>, which was a documentary of relationships between young Israelis and Palestinians some four years ago. In their pre-teen years, the kids appeared to be pretty much open-minded, although there were a few that felt the others were a scourge and should be exterminated. In this follow-up program, however, it seemed not one of the children (now in their teens) were willing to budge an inch over the Palestinian-Israeli conflicts raging over their shared homeland. One gal, the most hopeful four years ago about bridging the gap between Israelis and Palestinians, wished to become a suicide-bomber and destroy Israelis. One Israeli boy continued to think of the Palestinians as sub-human; an infestation that needed to be fumigated as soon as possible. A few months back I was talking with one of my old friends about Hiroshima (btw, excellent thread <b>goofyfish</b> on that topic). I said that the US didn't need to drop a bomb on an entire city of civilians to end the war. He responded that that was the only way to end it. When I was religious, I went to Japan for two years and he went to Russia. I told him what people in Japan had told me: namely, that a large concentration of Catholic people resided in Hiroshima at the time of the bombing. Naturally, the US painted the Japanese (basically all Asians) as sub-human, and worthy of destruction. Hitler's SS were notorious for painting the Jews as villainous creatures, whose only purpose was to serve the German elite. Jews were used in every way that an animal was--to labor, to provide food, and even for soap. The German populace learned to look the other way when obscenities were perpetrated against the Jewish people precisely because the ruling authority made it so easy for everyone to look at the Jews as sub-humans. Some religious extremists find it exceedingly easy to classify non-believers (or other-believers) as sub-human. They're going to hell anyway, so why should they have compassion for them is the line of reasoning. Obviously God won't look good on them, so it's wasting my time to even try. A terrible way of thinking. But it's a great way of learning from history. There seems to be a misnomer that people that do not learn from history will have to repeat their mistakes. I tend to think sometimes that people look to history to find easy ways of labeling people. And to find ways to convince others to do the same. So, who do I trust? I tend to put my trust on personal interaction with myself and those close to me. So, if someone is a jerk to me or someone close to me (even a waiter for that matter) I tend to trust them less. If they're consistently cool with me, then I trust them more and more. But it's a narrow view, I concede. Ted Bundy was very congenial and cordial to his circle of friends (and they supported him until the evidence became slightly overwhelming), but ruthless to dark-haired younger women. Perhaps it's easier (unfortunately) to decide who I don't trust. Those that go out of their way to undermine me or make me feel like shiz earn their place on this list. But it takes a lot of planning and proactive situations for that scenario to come about. Seems I've slipped off into the backwaters of rambling ... Thanks! prag
Goffyfish B\W That link was to an artical about David Copperfield (don't know if thats what it was surpost to be) we ALWAYS portray the enermy as sub-human. That way its ok to exterminate them
Noooooo... you did not finish reading the sentence that contained the link. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Peace.
