Hostage Crisis: ‘Soul’ Searching in USA and UK
Apr 6th, 2007 | 22 responses
“Robert Clive of India.”
There has been a wonderful response to Michael van der Galien’s post Britain’s Lost Soul.
I must say here that President George W. Bush and his team have done an excellent job of brainwashing people that “evil” nations of Iraq and Iran would swallow the Western nations. And this fear has paralysed public discourse in the USA.
(I am surprised that in the comments that followed Michael’s post, Afghanistan and Bin Laden do not figure at all! Another Bush victory in brainwashing and diversionary tactics!)
This is also revealed in good measure in the comments which argue whether Britain should have sacrificed its service personnel in Iran or let the episode end without bloodshed (whatever the perceived humiliation).
In some comments (in Michael’s post) attempt has been made to recall the imperial majesty of this old colonial power to say ‘what a let down’ in this war of nerves with Iran! And because of this episode ‘Britain has lost its soul’, so goes the argument!
There is an old saying: Whatever goes up must come down! So it’s a cyclical order…the empires rise and die.
Why are we reprimanding Britain for not living up to its past reputation of using its imperial muscle to dominate the world?
Britain is a part of the modern world and trying its best to make amends and seek a dialogue on the basis of equality with other countries, including its former colonies.
In good faith Britain tried to assist the US administration in its ‘war on terror’. Except for Tony Blair and very few in his team, others have now realised that the real intent of this ‘war’ is anything but ending terrorism.
British hostage issue and its resolution has given a first clear indication of the beginning of the parting of the ways between the hawkish Bush administration and the British government (despite whatever friendly noises Tony Blair makes towards his pal in the White House).
Britain has lost its reputation (but not its soul) by openly aligning with the questionable decisions of the Bush administration.
As compared with other European colonists, the British fared much better as far the governance of their colonies. The French and the Dutch come nowhere near them.
Despite the usual aberrations and highhandedness associated with colonial powers, the British set up institutions and traditions that are still continuing in colonies that later became free, including India.
“Fair play, justice and democracy,” are the abiding legacy left behind by the British colonists. And don’t forget the railways that have become the life-line in the former colonies now.
It is not just the British but the entire Western nations are witnessing a decline. It is cyclical order you know.
Once upon a time there was Mesopotamia, the region now occupied by modern Iraq, eastern Syria, southeastern Turkey, and Southwest Iran…
“The geographical area watered by two rivers – the Euphrates and the Tigris – is often referred to as the ‘Cradle of Civilization’, since it was here that the first literate societies developed in the late 4th millennium BC, using a highly sophisticated writing system in the context of the emergence of the first cities and complex state bureaucracies.”
And the West at that time lived in dark ages…
“Mesopotamia housed some of the world’s most ancient states with highly developed social complexity. The region was one of the famous four riverine civilizations (where writing was first invented), along with the Nile valley in Egypt, the Indus Valley in the Indian Subcontinent and Yellow River valley in China.”
And now the West calls Iraq and Iran barbaric? It is the cyclic order of things you know!
If you wish to read further please click here…
And here…
The reason why Britain became a successful and powerful coloniser was it did its homework well before invading the countries, and even while they ruled the colonies.
Britain is unlikely to lose its soul. Let us not judge Britain by its present political leaders, but the level of public/political discourse in that country.
Once I had asked Arthur Ashe, when he won the tennis championship at Wimbledon, which city he would like to settle in old age. He replied: “London…I believe that England is the most civilised place on earth and London is most cosmopolitan…”
And I don’t think much has changed since to declare that Britain has lost its soul…
22 Responses to “Hostage Crisis: ‘Soul’ Searching in USA and UK”
I think intentionally slaughtering dozens of innocent civilians each day, rather than confront your enemies, qualifies as barbaric, I don’t give a damn how old the crockery is. Having the “oldest civilization” don’t mean much when you are still wiping your arse with your fingers.
In the name of religious fundamentalism much of the Arab world has turned its back on what was once a truly wonderful civilization. Until this choice is abandoned and a people who think that governments that have laws against blasphemy and apostasy are illegitimate they stand no chance of having a cycle that favors them. Unfortunately there are those in this country who would have us follow their path, just in the name of a different religion.
Jim Satterfield- Not really.
[...] Hostage Crisis: ‘Soul’ Seraching in USA and UK… [...]
Swaraaj, it is a good, interesting post, we obviously disagree but it is good to have a dialogue about this.
As to the above quote: to me, Britain has already lost it.
“Fair play, justice and democracy,� are the abiding legacy left behind by the British colonists. And don’t forget the railways that have become the life-line in the former colonies now.
The British Occupied these nations. Gave them Democracy. Eventually left and that makes them Good and honorable according to the OP.
America tries this with Iraq and we are worthless, filthy scum. Or as the OP puts it.
Except for Tony Blair and very few in his team, others have now realised that the real intent of this ‘war’ is anything but ending terrorism.
I am not sure what he is suggesting that the real aim is. I guess all antiwar everywhere can inject their own conspiracy theory at this juncture as they keep reading.
To JimSatterfield. We know what your hidden conspiracy theory is.
Absolutely!
It is not about that and if you think that people like me are calling on Britain to become an empire once again, well, you’re flat out wrong. We are referring to, not so much being an empire, as being proud of one’s own country and refusing to give in to the demands of some thugs ruling some 3rd world country.
That you don’t understand that Shaun is one of major problems of the West right now. Even in the comment section of my post yesterday, people downright wrote that they believe that British history is, simply, bad. Not good, no, bad.
This is not about dominating the world, this is about not letting some extremists in Iran dominate you / the world / politics / the mideast more specifically.
Michael:
Take a deep breath.
Thank you.
Do not insinuate that I am with the crowd that honors, er . . . honours Britain’s colonial past. I am not, and there is no more appropriate reminder in Iraq today of past British follies than how the U.S. has failed to heed the lessons of its myriad failures there in the 1920s. The same can be said of colonial Afghanistan in the 19th century.
Do not insinuate that I do not believe that Britain has lost its soul. I think that is substantially true, although the Brits are a hardy people with a phenomenal history and much of what Britain was remains vibrant today. (I cannot join in an argument about how Britain can get its soul back because I frankly have given that very little thought.)
Do not insinuate that I do not believe Iran to be a threat. It is, although the insistance of the White House in substituting schoolyard bully bellicosity for good old-fashioned diplomacy has only made matters worse because it has inevitably played into Tehran’s hands.
My overall objection to your essay yesterday revolves around your unshakable belief that those 15 Brits should have been sacrificed — tortured, brainwashed, executed, whatever — to save Britain’s honour, and that not being “humiliated” on the Arab street was paramount at this time and place in the 21st century.
You take a long view of history, but not long enough for me. Try to understand that the seizure of the British sailors and marines was a pimple on the ass of history, not a defining act like Pearl Harbor or 9/11 that demanded a powerful response.
In this particular instance, I simply value life more than bloodshed. In any number of other instances, lives might have to be sacrificed because bloodshed is an appropriate response. A good example was the catastrophic Desert One operation to rescue the hostages from the U.S. embassy in Tehran in April 1980. It was right thing to do, although everything went wrong.
I don’t know anyone, Left, Right or Center, who is not longing to deal decisively with Iran.
But wishing doesn’t make it so.
A military confrontation at this time would have so many adverse reperdussions, the list is too long to enter here.
The primary one to consider is the likely unity of all Muslims in opposition. It would erase the opposition to Ahmedinejan within Iran and erase the Shia-Sunni split in the ME, as all Muslims rally against the attackers.
Unless we are ready to take on the whole region, we had better be careful about how we go about fulfilling our wishes.
Ask an Arab about what he is most proud of in his history and the one period that will stand out is the great imperial and expansionist empires of Muhammad, the Rashidun, the Ummayyads, the Abbassids, to name a few. Ask the Turks, and you’ll get the Seljurks, the Ottomans and of course, Kemal Attaturk. Ask the Persians, and you can start with the imperial Achaemanids and pick out at least maybe 2 or 3 other great Persian-oriented empires. Ask the Mongols, and you’ll get Genghis Khan. Ask the Russians, and you’ll get Rus, Ivan the Great and any number of Romanov Czars. I dare any pompous, self-righteous self-flagellating, self-loathing Westerner to demand a historical apology from these cultures for having enslaved and/or murdered millions upon millions of human beings, stolen vast amounts of land, property and possessions, treated entire peoples as second class citizens in their own homelands, annihilated and/or absorbed any number of other “inferior” cultures or peoples, stolen millions of children from their parents and forced them to abandon and even turn against their own heritage and cultures. Just a few of the more common and widespread “sins” I can think of off the top of my head. They will laugh of course laugh in your face, even as they condemn your present country and/or civilization for being an “occupier” and/or “imperialist”, after which they will promptly tell you to go f*ck yourself and shove your apologies up your ass. Can you imagine asking a Turk to apologize for the conquering of Constantinople and speaking ill of Mehmed Fatih (the Conqueror) or of Suleiman the Great, Suleiman the Magnificent? Can you imagine an Iranian apologizing for Cyrus the Great or any number of other great Persian imperialists and conquerors. How about the countless millions upon millions that the Arabs enslaved during their imperial greatness or the vast amounts of lands they stole and colonized for the glory of Islam? What frigging planet do some of us live in? Seriously. What post-modern utopian nonsense that we have come to believe.
Now, ask a Briton or any other European or even North American, and (if he is even aware of his/her own history in the first place, and that is after it has been filtered through the present post-modern PC/multiculturalist dogmas of today), and in his/her typical self-absorbed, self-centered, self-loathing, self-flagellating and ultimately supremely narcissistic way, he will feel the need to apologize for any and every single possible transgression, real or imagined, that his less “progressive”, less “cultured”, less “intellectual”, less “enlightened”, less “moral” barbarian ancestors committed or were perceived to have committed against the poor poor “Noble Savages”.
I’m not excusing or trying to minimize any of the more distasteful or more egregious parts of our (“Western”) past. And they are many. Far from it. Our ancestors did some god awful things to be sure, but…BUT.SO.HAS.EVERYBODY.ELSE.EVERYWHERE.ELSE. Why? Because we are ALL imperfect, selfish, self-absorbed human beings capable of great good and capable of great evil. The difference being that, at least as of 2007, the positive contributions of our cultures (those with their roots in the “West”) as a whole to the world, for instance in political, technological, economic, cultural, philosophical, legal terms among many others, far outweigh the negative ones. And what is lost on the supposedly more “nuanced”, more “intellectual” among us is that it is, unfortunately for their sensitive souls, a package deal. The negative comes with the positive. They are different sides of the same coin. You can’t separate one from the other. It’s human nature and no amount of social engineering will ever successfully change that. And history does not work in a vacuum, there is a context to everything that has happened, there is a perspective and it is often very complex and it is driven, again, ultimately not by events, but by very fallible, imperfect human beings.
And to get back to the main topic ie the Brits and their history, relatively and comparatively speaking (which is how all history should be judged in my opinion), judging British history not by the standards of 2007 but by the standards of their respective times and places, well, they pretty much come ahead of a good chunk of their contemporaries for the most part, for a good chunk of their history and for the enormous contributions that they have bequeathed all of us. And I say that as someone whose own country has been screwed quite a few times by British “imperialists”. The Brits of 2007 should take great pride in their history and their accomplishments, no question. It’s a shame that so many of them simply don’t, and are, like a good chunk of Europeans, simply lost, having tossed aside their anchors for the promise of yet another failed and failing European utopia, in this case, the Religion of Post-Modern PC Multiculturalism.
Swaraaj Chauhan made this condescending and insulting remark:
I must say here that President George W. Bush and his team have done an excellent job of brainwashing people that “evil� nations of Iraq and Iran would swallow the Western nations. And this fear has paralyzed public discourse in the USA.
I think the piece here has a fundamental flaw which renders it meaningless. Consult any psychiatrist and they will tell you it is not possible for George Bush to “brainwash” people. It is a weak way to dismiss the viewpoints which you don’t like rather than thinking critically and addressing the salient points made by each commenter . I could engage in exactly the same kinds of dismissive remarks when characterizing your stance.
Rather than being brainwashed these people simply agree with some of the points made by the administration. More than likely they are formulating opinions based on the words and actions coming from not only Muslim extremists but also from the what passes as mainstream. They might have formulated opinions which are contrary to your concerning the violence over freedom of speech issues surrounding the cartoon characterizations of Allah. Without revisiting each transgression in this thread suffice it to say that some of us simply arrive at a different conclusion about these events.
Perhaps rather than brainwashed some of us actually have studied and received degrees in History and Political Science. Some might even have Syrian and Lebanese relatives who have engaged them in discussions about the modern history and culture of these areas. Some may have taken the entire scope of study, knowledge, and observation to form their own opinions which just happens to coincide with some of the actions of this administration.
But perhaps not. Maybe we are all brainwashed INCLUDING YOU! We just need to look into who it is that has such control of your mind. But then again, maybe you and all others who arrive at your conclusion who are the only people capable of free thought. What do you think the chances are of that actually being the case? I would say slim and none, and slim just left the building.
Excellent and insightful post Phin.
Nobody -
Great illustration of the benefits to the world of the British empire. But – to play Devil’s Advocate – what exactly did the British get for all that?
Unending conflicts of occupation?
Imperial and domestic crisis for 100+ years?
Eventual exhaustion and decline in the post-1945 world to be replaced by another ascendant civilization (ours) while you sit on the sideline and become their lapdog?
Is that really what you want for America? “The White Man’s Burden II: America Sacrifices It’s Civilization for the World”?
I’m just saying – if you’re post is correct (which I largely agree with) than we must also be aware of where this will all end up eventually.
When you purchase a global empire it doesn’t come with an extended warrenty (caveat emptor)!
Phin:
An insightful post indeed.
MichaelF:
What that yours also was. Seizing on the literality of an American president brainwashing his people — which of course is ridiculous — to try undercut a view that does not jive with your political calculus is a discussion killer.
I do not presume to speak for Swaraaj. He does quite well on his own.
But there is no question that Bush and his handlers have worked hard to portray first Iraq and then Iran as evil incarnate by piling on non-Christian stereotyping in their holy crusade to bring American-style democracy to the region.
They have not bothered themselves with the details; in Iraq, for example, to understand the differences between Shiites and Sunnis and their historic enmities, let alone grasp that to the people of Iraq and Iran their resistance to colonialist subjugation is a proud party of their history — and by golly here come the Americans to do the same thing to them all over again.
The sum total of efforts to bypass despotic leaders and reach out to the Arab Street in Iraq, Iran and elsewhere in the region can be summed up in Karen Hughes’ patronizing sitdowns with women’s groups and kindergarten classes. That is simply pathetic and something that someone with your world view should be able to understand.
MvdG it seems like sometimes you do what MichaelF is doing in the other thread. You rightly point out domestic recessions and then say we have to stand up against “them” and conflate that with military action.
Not teaching the Holocaust is wrong (period and insane to do it in the name of “tolerance.”) Letting de facto Sharia law like some countries do (maybe not explicitly, but the police are afraid to go in and act on rumors) is wrong. Not standing up against bullying is wrong. Being fixated on transgressions of the past and having that paralyze the future is wrong. Etc. All these things are very dangerous and I don’t care who is doing them…it can kill a liberal democracy.
These things should be vigorously fought but conflating geopolitics with a domestic struggle is inept and dangerous.
Eural has a good point. Everyone always hates #1. If the superpower is very active then it is “imperialistic,” if it is hands off then it’s letting people suffer. If it doesn’t act with force it is weak, when it does it is murderous.
I think Phin is completely wrong (having heard from the people he proposes to ask personally). Sure these empires were worse in some ways than the Western ones. Also there is some pride from the dominant class that was in the empire, but on the whole most of an empire is ruling over people. Ask an Iraqi how they feel about the Persian/Turkish/Mongolian/Assyrian/too-man-to-name empires that have ruled over them. Ask the Armenians what they think about the Turks and Persians……or the Kurds how they feel. Or the Palestinians about the other Arab groups. Or for that matter, the Shi’a in the Sunni empires and the Sunni in the Shi’a empires.
The Estonians/Ukranians/”istanians” about the Russians. The Chinese about the Japanese and Mongols. The Africans about everybody.
The entire premise of the founding of the US was that empires slowly kill everyone. Sure the good outweighs the bad in almost all cases (even the Mongols eventually settled down and made some of their territory highly advanced) but having real self determination is what leads to long term peace and prosperity. And people that feel they don’t have real self determination will fight and slowly bleed the Powers until they collapse on themselves. That’s why the Founding Fathers (especially the Jefferson branch) wanted the US to stay relatively small and isolated. Washington’s advice to avoid alliances, although ostensibly to avoid stupid wars, also meant that we couldn’t become a global power.
In my mind it really comes to this. We can either try to impose some sense of order and progress on the whole world and be hated for it or we can pull back and interface with those that want to cooperate and bunker down against those that don’t. We may or may not be successful in reforming the East, but even if we are I think it’d be a self sacrifice. I personally think that with the current technology it makes more sense to vigorously defend and advance the regions that want to band together and ignore the ones that don’t. It will cause some instability sure, but I don’t think it’ll cause a threat that is anywhere close to as large as if we try to impose our will.
Not sure, but I think Phin wants us to apologize because the native Americans were not smart enough to sail across the Atlantic and conquer Europe first. Not going to happen.
Excellent post Phin.
treated entire peoples as second class citizens in their own homelands, annihilated and/or absorbed any number of other “inferior� cultures or peoples
Sorta like Western Europe today. Huh?
I’m just saying – if you’re post is correct (which I largely agree with) than we must also be aware of where this will all end up eventually.
America as a power is already on the decline. We will end up on the scrap heap of history along with the rest. However America always sticks up for what is good and just in this world and this is a war that is good and just. It must be fought.
No matter the cost.
Shaun Mullen Says:
April 7th, 2007 at 7:38 am
What that yours also was. Seizing on the literality of an American president brainwashing his people — which of course is ridiculous — to try undercut a view that does not jive with your political calculus is a discussion killer.
Not at all. It forces the person to enunciate his position clearly without dismissing opinions he can’t refute. As I said, I could engage in exactly the same rhetoric. Liberals are self-hating cowards would be just one example. I think it is these that are discussion killers.
Shaun Mullen Says:
April 7th, 2007 at 7:38 am
But there is no question that Bush and his handlers have worked hard to portray first Iraq and then Iran as evil incarnate by piling on non-Christian stereotyping in their holy crusade to bring American-style democracy to the region.
In other words there is no brainwashing involved but rather the normal process of selling a concept to the public. Others attempt to portray the opposite while using talking points and stereotypes of their own. In other words Swaraaj Chauhan is guilty of doing the exact same thing in his post.
A discussion killer? I think not. In fact, it didn’t stop you from responding. As a matter of fact it illicited a response. But aside from the factual basis of your post would you prefer that these discussions devolve into each side dismissing the other with some sort of erroneous quip?
Michael F:
Discussion killer as in jumping on a commentator because his use of a term (in this case brainwashing) does not meet a certain definition. In other words, he has failed your literality test.
Example: “The Eagles murdered the Giants in overtime and emerged victorious.”
To which you would respond: You are wrong, Shaun. The Eagles did not violate Pennsylvania Criminal Code Section 19.14 by committing homicide to take the lives of their opponents.
How is it inept and dangerous when the source of the conflict which gives rise to those “domestic struggles” happens to be the same type of ideology, ie radical and political Islam, which is helping to fuel much larger and lethal external conflicts or struggles. It is not the only factor by far. Internally, there is also the inability of many countries to properly absorb their immigrant populations among one of many factors, for instance. And externally, of course, many conflicts do involve genuine “liberation” struggles. But one would have to be blind to not notice the great big elephant in the room and that is the substantial role that radical and political Islam plays in fueling these fires and spreading them. Just because it’s uncomfortable for some (to the point of banning “jihad”, “Islamic terrorits”, and GWOT from the vocabulary as if it would somehow make everything better) doesn’t make it any less true.
How am I wrong? Ask an Arab what he feels about the Rashidun, the Umayyads and the Abbasids period when it was the Arabs who were the imperial masters with the Caliphate stretching from Spain to the borders of India. I didn’t say ask a Copt. The overwhelming majority of the populations in those “occupied” territories for centuries were non-Arab and even non-Muslim, which is how the ruling imperial class, the tribes that came out of Arabia, the Arabs, preferred it because non-Muslims and non-Arabs paid much higher taxes and had far less legal protections than Muslims and especially Arab Muslims. I didn’t say, ask an Arab about how he felt about his eventual Persian or Ottoman Turkish overlords. And even there, at the time, the Ottomans were Sunni Muslims as were the overwhelming majority of Arabs. Furthermore, the far more important identity remained religious, so again, at the time, it didn’t matter so much that the ruling class was Turkish. What mattered was that they were Sunni Muslims.
The same point can be said about Russia and her history. Again, I didn’t say ask a Ukrainian or a Pole or a Kazakh what he thought about Czarist Russia. I said ask a Russian. Ask a Persian, not an Arab, not a Kurd, not a Turk or an Armenian, a Persian about his feelings towards any number of Persian dominated empires, be it the Achaemenid, the Parthian, the Sassanid or the Safavid Empires.
Again, the overwhelming majority of people, regardless of race, ethnicity, language, culture, don’t mind so much when theirs is the dominant culture and they can therefore afford to be “magnanimous” “generous”, etc to the less dominant cultures or peoples. So that Arabs, Persians, Greeks, Chinese, Turks, whatever the case, can point to their imperial pasts with pride. But when the shoe is on the other foot, then suddenly they become “oppressed”, “colonized” and a great “injustice” was done to them even while still simultaneously looking back on their own imperial pasts with pride. Go figure. Curiously, the less dominant on the other hand almost always “misinterpret” the “generosity” and “magnanimity” of their imperial overlords. It’s not their fault per say (especially not the millions who were/are at the whims of the few) that they are the weaker party and therefore fall prey to larger predators. Those were/are the breaks of history. But as the tired cliche goes, that’s life and it sucks sometime. Sucks big. It’s nice to be an American, European or Canadian today, it may not be so nice 200 years from now and it might completely suck 400 years from now. Who the hell knows.
I pretty much agree with the rest of what you said though.
cool site!!! A ++++. Really nice valuable information and fine layout:))))