So called because of the book that inspired this little rant.
This will probably rank as the shortest rant I've ever done. Actually, it probably doubles up as a test for whether or not you're suffering from compassion fatigue. Read the statistic below (courtesy of a book called Dead Air by a superb writer named Iain Banks), and see if it makes you feel angry. Or guilty. Or nothing at all. I'd like to think we'd all feel something of the first two but I have a feeling that, in order to ensure that we can satisfy ourselves that today is much the same as yesterday and that we're living a blameless life, we'll probably slip into that 3rd category with barely a whisper of complaint from our conscience.
Are you ready? Ok, here goes...
Remember how horrified you were when you saw the Twin Towers collapsing? And how the idea of those people throwing themselves out of the upper floors to their death gave you an empty feeling in the pit of your stomach? Maybe you even felt a few pangs of unwelcome empathy with the hundreds of people trapped there who knew that death was upon them. Well, let us just put it into perspective:
Every 24 hours, approximately 34 thousand children die in the world from the effects of poverty (chiefly from malnutrition and disease). So that's 34 thousand children (I'm not including the adults here, just the children) dead each day across the world. As I'm sure you're sick of hearing from those well-meaning lefty types (whom none of us really like because they're such doomsayers, and they maybe occasionally remind us of how idealistic we perhaps once were) those deaths are needless. I've been writing this on and off for 2 hours by the way, so that's about 2800 dead since I wrote the first word. And they are dying in a world that could feed and clothe and treat them all, with a workably different allocation of resources, but who'd prefer to allocate resources to more important things. Such as ensuring that enough beef gets to McDonalds, or that our employers can keep their profits nice and large. I may sound smug and self-righteous in saying that, but I'm no better; what do I do to make a difference other than spewing endless words that might make you think but won't make you change anything about the way you live.
Meanwhile the latest estimate is about 2800 people died in the Twin Towers, so it’s like that ghastly, grey-billowing, double barreled fall, repeated twelve times every single day; twenty four towers, one per hour, throughout each day and night. Full of children. But it's okay! We don't need to worry about it! It almost all happens in the 3rd world, South America, and Asia. As such, there is almost no danger of seeing it on our TV screens, so that’s almost the same as it not being real! And it's just as well too; after all, George Bush was so upset by the carnage and loss of innocent life at Ground Zero that he felt the need to declare Police Action on Afghanistan and war on Iraq. If he knew about this daily death toll...well, the armies of the US and UK would never sleep! They'd be invading the countries that allow this to happen (because allowing death on that scale in the name of lining the pockets of a particular government is at least as evil as killing thousands in a tower block, right?) and toppling their governments at the rate of 1 a week!
Except of course, they don't. We have the luxury of not worrying about people dying of Malnutrition. Then we invade countries where that is a very real danger, we chastise them for...well, no one is really sure what we're chastising them for (if it was about weapons of mass destruction, then how come North Korea is getting millions of dollars of aid from America, and not invaded? If it was about flouting UN resolutions then Israel would be equally in the shit), and we add to the death toll whilst making sure that they stay poor and stay hungry. All in the name of a few more millions being added to a company’s profit margin.
And then we wonder why they hate us. Sometimes, despite my best attempts at optimism, I can't help noticing just how fucking stupid we all are.
Friday 31 January 2003
Monday 20 January 2003
Anyone for Iraq
I got this one TOTALLY wrong. A right war for the wrong reasons. And don't get me started on the lack of a plan for after the invasion...
So then, this Iraq business: what's going on? (hey, it's a miserable Monday morning; what do you expect to be on my mind?!)
Well, firstly of course we should look at the good news. Firstly, there are now UN weapons inspectors in Iraq. They are doing their job rather well (despite attempts by Dubya's cronies to smear the reputation of Hans Blix, the chief inspector. So desperate are they for the oil...erm, I mean for the war, that they leaked numerous stories to the press questioning his ability, his impartiality and, as we're talking about the Republican right here, probably his sexuality) and should have conducted numerous inspections at hundreds of sites by the time January 27th, the deadline for the inspectors' first report, rolls around.
Secondly, Iraq actually bothered themselves to produce what they say is a full and complete list of all weapons in the country. As both Europe and America could check the veracity of this document by simply having a look at the receipts for the millions of pounds worth of weapons that we sold to Iraq in the 80's, one would hope that Iraq would have provided a full and complete list.
Finally, the nations of the Gulf are quietly starting to make it clear that they will comply with any fresh UN resolution authorising the use of force against Iraq should they fail to comply with the program of inspections. The prospect of a Middle-Eastern conflagration of pant-shitting proportions has thus receded somewhat, though one should always remember that the will of the Middle Eastern governments does not always (or in some cases, ever) represent the will of the Middle Eastern people.
Okay, so that's the good news. Well...good if you're anti-war in Iraq anyway. However, as is always the case, there is ample bad news to balance it out. And that bad news has led to my amending my rather fervent belief that we should not be joining Dubya in his quest to get more oil by means of force. But I'll get to that presently; for now, on with the bad news from the Gulf:
First of all, the weapons inspectors are not getting what they call "genuine co-operation". In other words, it looks like that nice Mr. Hussein is going to stall and procrastinate just like he did last time. That will mean that America will have all the reasons they need to attack. With luck, they'll bother themselves to get a fresh UN resolution to authorise such a course of action, but don't hold your breath expecting them to do so.
If that were not enough, despite this lack of co-operation the weapons inspectors have still been able to find some weapons that were not declared by Iraq. They only amounted to a few empty chemical warheads, but that would seem to be an indicator that Iraq does indeed have or is developing weapons of mass destruction. Again, this alone is pretty much all America needs to attack. Maybe it's not strictly speaking the "smoking gun" that Dubya is itching for, but it's close enough.
Finally, and probably most convincingly, the build up of American (sorry, Allied) forces in the Gulf is now so large that it would be economic suicide not to use them. The reason being, once you've spent so much money getting an Army to the other side of the world, feeding them, and equipping them, it would be disastrous for that money to effectively be poured down the drain by not using them. In other words, no matter what is said in the UN, no matter what else the inspectors find (or don't find) in the coming weeks, and no matter what Dubya's speechwriter tells him to say, it would seem 99% certain that there is going to be a war. If we take it as read that there is going to be a war, there would seem to be only one pertinent question.
What the hell are we going to do? By 'we' I mean the UK. At the moment, our Glorious Leader Blair is taking a lot of criticism from both domestic and overseas critics. As the leader of a supposedly left wing political party, many of his own supporters are uneasy to say the least about our taking part in a war of questionable motivation. And as America's only ally, he is being accused of lending legitimacy to the actions of a...well, I don't have enough time to list the derogatory terms that have been applied to Dubya, but I'm sure you get the idea. This would appear to be a lose-lose situation for Blair and the Labour party in general.
However, this is not necessarily the case. At the moment, various dignitaries of sundry other nations are pontificating at length about what SHOULD be done to Iraq. Deposing Saddam and replacing it with a regime that will treat the Iraqi people with the respect and dignity due to them as human beings comes (rightly) top of this list. All of these nations seem to have the rather sweet and naive belief that, once America has done the business and deposed of Saddam (assuming that they do; a recent US military war game exercise that was essentially a dry-run for the war ended in embarrassment when the Iraqi side inflicted massive losses on the American team), they will listen to these mainly European anti-war advocates when it comes to drawing up the plans for a postwar government in Iraq. This view is about as far removed from reality as the idea that Dubya is a statesmanlike leader who wants peace.
Can you explain to me just why America's leadership will be inclined to share responsibility for the running of this oil-rich country? The American people will be almost as one in supporting their government’s rejection of any outside interference. After all, it will have been their country who did the fighting (though if we're brutally honest, it won't be their country that provides most of the corpses...), and as Americans are by and large a patriotic bunch, it will take barely any rabble-rousing and demagoguery to shift public opinion to the "Fuck you, we're going to do what we want!" mindset of the Dubya and his merry men.
As a brief interjection, lest you still doubt that this war is about oil and not, as the rhetoric would have it, improving the lives of innocent Iraqi's and removing an unelected and brutal dictator, I would point to the fact that the US today offered amnesty to all of the "evil and brutal" Iraqi leadership if they give up without a fight. Not exactly the actions of a nation who wish to bring an evil man to justice (though Operation Paperclip and similar initiatives, which saw Nazi scientists being granted amnesty by the Allies in exchange for their knowledge, shows that justice has never been high on the agenda in international relations...). And should we believe that a US sponsored Iraqi leadership would be any better? Why not ask the people of Uzbekistan, who's current paranoid despot, Karimov, is one of the world leaders in human rights abuses...but who, thanks to his decision to allow US troops to be stationed in his country, enjoys the full support of the US government. Maybe these two facts don't add up to a dim future for Iraq no matter who wins, but history would tend to suggest that they do. Unless....
Well, unless Tony Blair actually has does possess the morals and conscience that he has rammed down our throats at every opportunity. If we are the only other nation involved in an attack on Iraq, then we're the only other nation with the authority to have any say in a postwar Iraqi government. And that might actually mean that Dubya doesn't get things entirely his own way as he did in, for example, Afghanistan (where you can now barely get moved for American Oil men who are involved in setting up the new government).
And lest we forget, getting rid of Hussein would be a very good thing. That is the one thing that both pro and anti war pundits are in total agreement about. It's just that I have a nasty suspicion that if the US was left to this war on it's own, it is extremely likely that the misery of the Iraqi people will continue. As I've said, America doesn't have a good record for installing benevolent puppets in it's client countries (check out http://www.rimbaud.freeserve.co.uk/dictators.html if you want confirmation of this), and I don't imagine that anyone in the White House will give a crippled crap about their further suffering in Iraq just so long as the oil is flowing.
For that matter, no one nation has a good record on that sort of thing. It's only when more than one country gets involved that anything is done to address human rights abuses (the Nuremburg trials after WW2 and the current trials of the assorted nefarious Balkan Bastards would seem to be proof of that), and even then I'm not so foolish as to believe that the UK alone would make much difference. Yet if more nations bit the bullet and committed themselves to this inevitable war, we could perhaps ensure that the criminals of Iraq get punished, that the people get some sort of relief from tyranny, and that the criminals in America who pushed this just war for selfish and unjust reasons onto us all don't get the money out of it that they're hoping. All of these reasons are good ones, and that's why I for one am no longer opposed to war. Have fun making your own mind up.
So then, this Iraq business: what's going on? (hey, it's a miserable Monday morning; what do you expect to be on my mind?!)
Well, firstly of course we should look at the good news. Firstly, there are now UN weapons inspectors in Iraq. They are doing their job rather well (despite attempts by Dubya's cronies to smear the reputation of Hans Blix, the chief inspector. So desperate are they for the oil...erm, I mean for the war, that they leaked numerous stories to the press questioning his ability, his impartiality and, as we're talking about the Republican right here, probably his sexuality) and should have conducted numerous inspections at hundreds of sites by the time January 27th, the deadline for the inspectors' first report, rolls around.
Secondly, Iraq actually bothered themselves to produce what they say is a full and complete list of all weapons in the country. As both Europe and America could check the veracity of this document by simply having a look at the receipts for the millions of pounds worth of weapons that we sold to Iraq in the 80's, one would hope that Iraq would have provided a full and complete list.
Finally, the nations of the Gulf are quietly starting to make it clear that they will comply with any fresh UN resolution authorising the use of force against Iraq should they fail to comply with the program of inspections. The prospect of a Middle-Eastern conflagration of pant-shitting proportions has thus receded somewhat, though one should always remember that the will of the Middle Eastern governments does not always (or in some cases, ever) represent the will of the Middle Eastern people.
Okay, so that's the good news. Well...good if you're anti-war in Iraq anyway. However, as is always the case, there is ample bad news to balance it out. And that bad news has led to my amending my rather fervent belief that we should not be joining Dubya in his quest to get more oil by means of force. But I'll get to that presently; for now, on with the bad news from the Gulf:
First of all, the weapons inspectors are not getting what they call "genuine co-operation". In other words, it looks like that nice Mr. Hussein is going to stall and procrastinate just like he did last time. That will mean that America will have all the reasons they need to attack. With luck, they'll bother themselves to get a fresh UN resolution to authorise such a course of action, but don't hold your breath expecting them to do so.
If that were not enough, despite this lack of co-operation the weapons inspectors have still been able to find some weapons that were not declared by Iraq. They only amounted to a few empty chemical warheads, but that would seem to be an indicator that Iraq does indeed have or is developing weapons of mass destruction. Again, this alone is pretty much all America needs to attack. Maybe it's not strictly speaking the "smoking gun" that Dubya is itching for, but it's close enough.
Finally, and probably most convincingly, the build up of American (sorry, Allied) forces in the Gulf is now so large that it would be economic suicide not to use them. The reason being, once you've spent so much money getting an Army to the other side of the world, feeding them, and equipping them, it would be disastrous for that money to effectively be poured down the drain by not using them. In other words, no matter what is said in the UN, no matter what else the inspectors find (or don't find) in the coming weeks, and no matter what Dubya's speechwriter tells him to say, it would seem 99% certain that there is going to be a war. If we take it as read that there is going to be a war, there would seem to be only one pertinent question.
What the hell are we going to do? By 'we' I mean the UK. At the moment, our Glorious Leader Blair is taking a lot of criticism from both domestic and overseas critics. As the leader of a supposedly left wing political party, many of his own supporters are uneasy to say the least about our taking part in a war of questionable motivation. And as America's only ally, he is being accused of lending legitimacy to the actions of a...well, I don't have enough time to list the derogatory terms that have been applied to Dubya, but I'm sure you get the idea. This would appear to be a lose-lose situation for Blair and the Labour party in general.
However, this is not necessarily the case. At the moment, various dignitaries of sundry other nations are pontificating at length about what SHOULD be done to Iraq. Deposing Saddam and replacing it with a regime that will treat the Iraqi people with the respect and dignity due to them as human beings comes (rightly) top of this list. All of these nations seem to have the rather sweet and naive belief that, once America has done the business and deposed of Saddam (assuming that they do; a recent US military war game exercise that was essentially a dry-run for the war ended in embarrassment when the Iraqi side inflicted massive losses on the American team), they will listen to these mainly European anti-war advocates when it comes to drawing up the plans for a postwar government in Iraq. This view is about as far removed from reality as the idea that Dubya is a statesmanlike leader who wants peace.
Can you explain to me just why America's leadership will be inclined to share responsibility for the running of this oil-rich country? The American people will be almost as one in supporting their government’s rejection of any outside interference. After all, it will have been their country who did the fighting (though if we're brutally honest, it won't be their country that provides most of the corpses...), and as Americans are by and large a patriotic bunch, it will take barely any rabble-rousing and demagoguery to shift public opinion to the "Fuck you, we're going to do what we want!" mindset of the Dubya and his merry men.
As a brief interjection, lest you still doubt that this war is about oil and not, as the rhetoric would have it, improving the lives of innocent Iraqi's and removing an unelected and brutal dictator, I would point to the fact that the US today offered amnesty to all of the "evil and brutal" Iraqi leadership if they give up without a fight. Not exactly the actions of a nation who wish to bring an evil man to justice (though Operation Paperclip and similar initiatives, which saw Nazi scientists being granted amnesty by the Allies in exchange for their knowledge, shows that justice has never been high on the agenda in international relations...). And should we believe that a US sponsored Iraqi leadership would be any better? Why not ask the people of Uzbekistan, who's current paranoid despot, Karimov, is one of the world leaders in human rights abuses...but who, thanks to his decision to allow US troops to be stationed in his country, enjoys the full support of the US government. Maybe these two facts don't add up to a dim future for Iraq no matter who wins, but history would tend to suggest that they do. Unless....
Well, unless Tony Blair actually has does possess the morals and conscience that he has rammed down our throats at every opportunity. If we are the only other nation involved in an attack on Iraq, then we're the only other nation with the authority to have any say in a postwar Iraqi government. And that might actually mean that Dubya doesn't get things entirely his own way as he did in, for example, Afghanistan (where you can now barely get moved for American Oil men who are involved in setting up the new government).
And lest we forget, getting rid of Hussein would be a very good thing. That is the one thing that both pro and anti war pundits are in total agreement about. It's just that I have a nasty suspicion that if the US was left to this war on it's own, it is extremely likely that the misery of the Iraqi people will continue. As I've said, America doesn't have a good record for installing benevolent puppets in it's client countries (check out http://www.rimbaud.freeserve.co.uk/dictators.html if you want confirmation of this), and I don't imagine that anyone in the White House will give a crippled crap about their further suffering in Iraq just so long as the oil is flowing.
For that matter, no one nation has a good record on that sort of thing. It's only when more than one country gets involved that anything is done to address human rights abuses (the Nuremburg trials after WW2 and the current trials of the assorted nefarious Balkan Bastards would seem to be proof of that), and even then I'm not so foolish as to believe that the UK alone would make much difference. Yet if more nations bit the bullet and committed themselves to this inevitable war, we could perhaps ensure that the criminals of Iraq get punished, that the people get some sort of relief from tyranny, and that the criminals in America who pushed this just war for selfish and unjust reasons onto us all don't get the money out of it that they're hoping. All of these reasons are good ones, and that's why I for one am no longer opposed to war. Have fun making your own mind up.
Thursday 2 January 2003
Anti-Americanism
My opinions on this haven't really changed; I abhor those who unthinkingly condemn anything, regardless of whom or what it is. I don't think in these supposedly enlightened times, I'm asking too much to expect people to be able to articulate their hatred. Am I?
I don't know how to say this without shocking you so I'll just come right out and say it; anti-Americanism really gets on my nerves. I really cannot stand the blinkered and unconditional hatred of all things American that spews endlessly and mindlessly from the mouths of people who couldn't actually tell you what it is that they would like done instead, but know that if America wants it then they will oppose it. Even after September 11th (which, when mentioned now, seems like the most ancient of history don't you think?), there were warranted reminders that America's policy in the Middle East had done much to provide the breeding grounds for this seemingly new species of terrorist. They soon degenerated into justifications for why America SHOULD be destroyed. I'm sure you've heard the sort of thing; well meaning types who nod in agreement at how awful the atrocity was only to launch into a learned-by-rote "If you think that's bad, look at what America has done...." spiel.
Which, in itself, isn't so bad; America's various governments are indeed responsible for some horrendous acts across the world. But to listen to some of these people, you'd think that the destruction of the WTC was an act of youthful high spirits ("Cor, what about those terrorists eh? Cheeky little blighters..."), whilst every act of oppression or destruction committed by the US was planned by Satan and executed by the direct descendants of Hitler. I'm not blind to the countless tortures, murders, acts of brutality, and curtailing of freedoms that can be directly or indirectly attributed to America. But neither am I willing to gloss over the degenerate and hate fuelled ideals of Al-Quaida.
Now there's a name you probably won't have read or heard about in a while: Al-Quaida. Remember them? What with all the fuss about Iraq, you may have forgotten that they ever existed, or assumed that they no longer do. Well, sad to say that they are alive and bombing. They are an organisation that has anti-Semitism and totalitarianism at the heart of its beliefs. One only has to look at the effects of Taliban rule in Afghanistan to get a taste of what life would be like with them as the world’s foremost power. They are to Islam what the Nazi's were to patriotism; a good idea twisted to suit the needs of evil men.
You may yet hear some of those rabid anti-Americans mention them, but only to say that the US don't want to mention them as it will distract you from hating Iraq with all of your sheep-like soul. Those same anti-Americans will then forget all about Al-Quaida, and proceed to tell you why you should hate the US. In other words, they will treat you with all the contempt that they accuse the US of treating you with, and try to get you bleating a refrain more to their liking.
To put it another way, I dislike anti-Americanism because many of those who fall into this bracket are exactly what they accuse the US as a whole of being; selfish little fools who disguise their simplistic hatred by dressing it up in high minded motives that fall apart under close inspection. To put it another way, I also dislike them because they allow people to dismiss all criticism of America, be it justified or not. And whilst I am generally pro-American, I have found myself growing more and more disillusioned with the land of the free.
There are a number of reasons for this and I won't presume to bore you with all of them. I think, however, that the crux of the matter lies in the fact that, like every other pro-American, I believed the hype about the American dream. Does anyone even remember that any more? Has the world grown so weary and cynical that we say the words with a sneer on our face? It was supposedly the birthright of every American to dream the impossible dream; that they may one day achieve whatever it is that they want, maybe even be President one day, so long as they are willing to work hard to get it.
Now it seems that the American dream is over. It has been dreamt by a select few, and it is THEIR dream, not yours. THEY will achieve whatever they want, and you will be expected to keep your head down and keep yourself busy with 3rd rate dreams; maybe it's that home entertainment system that you've been saving for. Perhaps a new car, or a better house. If that is what you want, you will die content. But don't expect to make a difference, or have any say in the way things are done. That dream is reserved is for the rich, the powerful, the established circle of a few hundred people who don't much care about anything beyond what they want.
When anti-Americans bray their mantra, it is these few to whom they should be addressing their bile. Instead they implicate the whole nation in the shortsighted stupidity of a few men, and so Americans are (understandably) bullish in defending themselves against what appears to be an unwarranted attack. Yet in defending their nation and its actions so unconditionally, they are defending those few men who are only patriotic Americans so long as America can be milked for all it is worth. To steal a literary reference, the American people are akin to Don Quixote. America's elite are the idle and worthless nobility who contribute nothing and take everything. If you really want to stretch the metaphor to breaking point, anti-Americans are the knight who demand Quixote abandon his dreams and return to drudge and normality.
So why should I, or anyone else in Europe, care about America and it's people? Well, partly because the alternatives to American world dominance is perpetual warfare with extremists who think nothing of butchering thousands of civilians in the name of a prophet who preached peace and brotherhood. Or dominance by a nation who, despite having a fifth of all the world within their borders, are not exactly renowned for their love of human rights. For all my desire to see a just and equal world, a tarnished American dream is better than no dream at all. However, it's mainly because the same thing is starting to happen right here.
How many people have given up having any say in the way the nation is run? How many people spend their lives worrying about their job and all of it's mind numbing day to day minutiae rather than sparing just a single thought about whether or not life is really getting better for them? How many people can say that they have ambition beyond getting their next house, or car, or whatever pretty gadget that will make their life easier? Speaking personally, I don't want to be free to do exactly what my increasingly corrupt and self-serving government tell me to do. I would like the freedom to be able to make a difference (and the freedom to not want to make a difference either; I'm realistic enough to accept that politics isn't exactly everyone's cup of tea!). It's not so remote a possibility that someday we will all be like Don Quixote; mocked and abused by rulers who don't care if we live or die. If we can turn anti-Americanism into pro-Freedom, that would be one step on the road to ensuring that such a thing never happens.
I don't know how to say this without shocking you so I'll just come right out and say it; anti-Americanism really gets on my nerves. I really cannot stand the blinkered and unconditional hatred of all things American that spews endlessly and mindlessly from the mouths of people who couldn't actually tell you what it is that they would like done instead, but know that if America wants it then they will oppose it. Even after September 11th (which, when mentioned now, seems like the most ancient of history don't you think?), there were warranted reminders that America's policy in the Middle East had done much to provide the breeding grounds for this seemingly new species of terrorist. They soon degenerated into justifications for why America SHOULD be destroyed. I'm sure you've heard the sort of thing; well meaning types who nod in agreement at how awful the atrocity was only to launch into a learned-by-rote "If you think that's bad, look at what America has done...." spiel.
Which, in itself, isn't so bad; America's various governments are indeed responsible for some horrendous acts across the world. But to listen to some of these people, you'd think that the destruction of the WTC was an act of youthful high spirits ("Cor, what about those terrorists eh? Cheeky little blighters..."), whilst every act of oppression or destruction committed by the US was planned by Satan and executed by the direct descendants of Hitler. I'm not blind to the countless tortures, murders, acts of brutality, and curtailing of freedoms that can be directly or indirectly attributed to America. But neither am I willing to gloss over the degenerate and hate fuelled ideals of Al-Quaida.
Now there's a name you probably won't have read or heard about in a while: Al-Quaida. Remember them? What with all the fuss about Iraq, you may have forgotten that they ever existed, or assumed that they no longer do. Well, sad to say that they are alive and bombing. They are an organisation that has anti-Semitism and totalitarianism at the heart of its beliefs. One only has to look at the effects of Taliban rule in Afghanistan to get a taste of what life would be like with them as the world’s foremost power. They are to Islam what the Nazi's were to patriotism; a good idea twisted to suit the needs of evil men.
You may yet hear some of those rabid anti-Americans mention them, but only to say that the US don't want to mention them as it will distract you from hating Iraq with all of your sheep-like soul. Those same anti-Americans will then forget all about Al-Quaida, and proceed to tell you why you should hate the US. In other words, they will treat you with all the contempt that they accuse the US of treating you with, and try to get you bleating a refrain more to their liking.
To put it another way, I dislike anti-Americanism because many of those who fall into this bracket are exactly what they accuse the US as a whole of being; selfish little fools who disguise their simplistic hatred by dressing it up in high minded motives that fall apart under close inspection. To put it another way, I also dislike them because they allow people to dismiss all criticism of America, be it justified or not. And whilst I am generally pro-American, I have found myself growing more and more disillusioned with the land of the free.
There are a number of reasons for this and I won't presume to bore you with all of them. I think, however, that the crux of the matter lies in the fact that, like every other pro-American, I believed the hype about the American dream. Does anyone even remember that any more? Has the world grown so weary and cynical that we say the words with a sneer on our face? It was supposedly the birthright of every American to dream the impossible dream; that they may one day achieve whatever it is that they want, maybe even be President one day, so long as they are willing to work hard to get it.
Now it seems that the American dream is over. It has been dreamt by a select few, and it is THEIR dream, not yours. THEY will achieve whatever they want, and you will be expected to keep your head down and keep yourself busy with 3rd rate dreams; maybe it's that home entertainment system that you've been saving for. Perhaps a new car, or a better house. If that is what you want, you will die content. But don't expect to make a difference, or have any say in the way things are done. That dream is reserved is for the rich, the powerful, the established circle of a few hundred people who don't much care about anything beyond what they want.
When anti-Americans bray their mantra, it is these few to whom they should be addressing their bile. Instead they implicate the whole nation in the shortsighted stupidity of a few men, and so Americans are (understandably) bullish in defending themselves against what appears to be an unwarranted attack. Yet in defending their nation and its actions so unconditionally, they are defending those few men who are only patriotic Americans so long as America can be milked for all it is worth. To steal a literary reference, the American people are akin to Don Quixote. America's elite are the idle and worthless nobility who contribute nothing and take everything. If you really want to stretch the metaphor to breaking point, anti-Americans are the knight who demand Quixote abandon his dreams and return to drudge and normality.
So why should I, or anyone else in Europe, care about America and it's people? Well, partly because the alternatives to American world dominance is perpetual warfare with extremists who think nothing of butchering thousands of civilians in the name of a prophet who preached peace and brotherhood. Or dominance by a nation who, despite having a fifth of all the world within their borders, are not exactly renowned for their love of human rights. For all my desire to see a just and equal world, a tarnished American dream is better than no dream at all. However, it's mainly because the same thing is starting to happen right here.
How many people have given up having any say in the way the nation is run? How many people spend their lives worrying about their job and all of it's mind numbing day to day minutiae rather than sparing just a single thought about whether or not life is really getting better for them? How many people can say that they have ambition beyond getting their next house, or car, or whatever pretty gadget that will make their life easier? Speaking personally, I don't want to be free to do exactly what my increasingly corrupt and self-serving government tell me to do. I would like the freedom to be able to make a difference (and the freedom to not want to make a difference either; I'm realistic enough to accept that politics isn't exactly everyone's cup of tea!). It's not so remote a possibility that someday we will all be like Don Quixote; mocked and abused by rulers who don't care if we live or die. If we can turn anti-Americanism into pro-Freedom, that would be one step on the road to ensuring that such a thing never happens.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)