This week the House of Representatives debated a resolution that would have given official recognition to the attempted genocide of Armenians at the hands of Turks. Speaking through Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, the Obama administration said it “strongly opposes” the designation of the massacres as genocide. Obama’s strong opposition tells us a lot about truth claims and Obama’s lack of culturist sensibilities.
President Obama says he does not want to offend Turkey. The fact that he does not care if he offends Armenia lays implicit in this declaration. Thus President Obama is bending truth to accommodate raw power relations. As such he could be said to be making policy based on an objective analysis of the situation.
Unfortunately, the world is made of subjective interpretations. As the controversy suggests, everyone has a side in this debate and the outcomes have political implications. President Obama admitted as much when he went to Egypt and Turkey and apologized for alleged western crimes in the Islamic world.
Being generous, we could accept that President Obama’s hopes lie in mutual revelation of sins leading to forgiveness and international understanding; open dialogue from this view could lead to the end of nations taking sides. However, his unwillingness to discuss Islamic sins and eagerness to discuss western ones, shows an imbalance in this generous narrative. Unfortunately, it shows a willingness to completely buy into the Muslim narrative.
Whether you denounce the American bases in Iraq or Islamic attacks upon India, we can agree that the non-Islamic world and the Islamic world are in competition. When we take a “human rights” perspective and deny sides exist, we end up pouring money into enemy nations, such as Afghanistan, in the name of nation building and supporting Islamic nations, such as Kosovo, in the western sphere. We end up taking the Turk’s side as easily as we take the Armenian’s side.
In foreign policy we should side with our friends and understand that some folks are our foes. Armenia, as a Christian nation, falls within the sphere of western related powers. We should back them. In terms of narrative, it would run against our values to never admit wrong. However, to only admit to our faults and deny Islamic nations’ crimes, feeds into a narrative whereby attacking us is justified and adopting our values is corrupt.
A culturist approach assumes that sides and competition exist. It also recognizes narrative’s great impact on public and international opinion, and the geo-political implications such narratives have. As such a culturist approach would have us singing our virtues overseas and condemning the Armenian genocide in the strongest terms possible.
www.culturism.us
15 comments:
This week the House of Representatives debated a resolution that would have given official recognition to the attempted genocide of Armenians at the hands of Turks. ...a hundred years ago.
It seems to me that function of the American Congress is to run American affairs, such as dealing with an economic recession, protracted war on two fronts and rocketing public and private debt.
When countries become involved in the moral affairs of others, it typically only ends well for anyone if there is the possibility of immediately assisting a victim. Any number of examples are available of countries inserting themselves without the possibility of clear and rapid benefit and ending with disaster. The purported victims in this situation are dead. Long dead. Making proclamations about "who is to blame" (notice that they to, have been long dead) to me seems a symbolic issue.
I suggest leaving discernment of historic "truth" to historians. If Turks want to teach their children something you find uncomfortable, I say: Live with it.
America is the City on the Hill. As such we have a moral obligation to the world, that goes along with our blessedness.
America's fight in WWII was a moral cause.
Our refusal to buy Iranian oil for the past 31 years has been a moral cause. Our refusal to buy Iraqi oil from 1991-2003 was a moral cause.
We are a moral nation. Perhaps, the only one, with the possible exceptions of Denmark and England.
I, for one, am proud to live in such a country.
I would be interested to know what your real issue is, because, frankly, I do not think it is what you state.
CJ,
The above comment was directed at our Anonymous commenter.
You said: President Obama is bending truth to accommodate raw power relations. As such he could be said to be making policy based on an objective analysis of the situation. Unfortunately, the world is made of subjective interpretations.
I say: Accomodating "raw power relations" is known as Realpolitik." It is not objective, except insofar as it recognizes the reality of power. But, power is malleable, and when Cultures decide to change the balance of power, they can do so. Case in point, WWII.
If the Obama Administration decides to makes a decision based upon Realpolitik, they are making a subjective decision.
If they decide to declare the Armenian Genocide a genocide, then they have made an objective decision, because that's exactly what it was; a genocide.
: geno·cide
Pronunciation: \ˈje-nə-ˌsīd\
Function: noun
Date: 1944
: the deliberate and systematic destruction of a racial, political, or cultural group
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/genocide
"Armenia, as a Christian nation, falls within the sphere of western related powers."
This is absolutely true, but just try getting anyone from the foreign policy establishment to admit it. It directly contradicts their universalist pretentions.
A culturist, or civilizationist, foreign policy would consistently favour Christian nations over non-Christian ones, European nations over non-European ones, and English-speaking nations over non-English ones.
Of course such a policy would be denounced as racist, colonialist, Islamophobic, etc. But that shouldn't stop us from pushing for such logical, coherent and self-interested worldview.
I agree with the first commenter that the US Congress has a lot more important things to do than pass resolutions denouncing the Armenian genocide, particularly 90 years after the fact. But it does have the bonus effect of enraging the Turks!
Turkey, a back-stabbing "ally" if there ever was one, should be pushed out of NATO, thereby achieving the civilizationist goal of streamlining the Atlantic Alliance into an exclusively European Christian (i.e. Western) club. That this resolution, even inadvertently, works toward the endgoal of Turkey leaving NATO, I'm in favour of it.
Pastorius wrote: "America is the City on the Hill" and "we have a moral obligation to the world".
Ugh. It's this kind of neocon/liberal moral posturing that's led America to be more reviled worldwide than ever before, and brought it to the brink of bankruptcy.
In fact it's just this type of Wilsonian, messianic interventionism and inclination toward foreign entanglements that George Washington specifically warned against in his farewell address. John Quincy Adams also warned against a self-righteous America going abroad to slay monsters, but these wise men have been overruled by the new, globalist elite who see the United States as the permanent enforcer of universal liberalism rather than a distinct nation in its own right.
BTW why are only England and Denmark included with the US on a list of moral nations? Is, say, Paraguay not moral? What about Botswana? Or Thailand? Is there some quantifiable way we could compare the morality of different nations? If you took a poll of Canadians, I would estimate that 95% of them would say that Canada is a more moral nation than the US. Not that they would neccesarily be right, just that they have a different perspective on the relative morality of nations.
To say that America is a "city on a hill" and a uniquely moral nation is a conceit shared by only a small subset of Americans and almost no non-Americans. Because it just isn't true.
Culturist John,
I personally don't see any good reason to deny history, in order to appease anyone's sensibilities, regardless of weather they are westerners or not. If the current Japaneses prime minister were to demand that we stop talking the Rape of Nanking and remove it from our history text books and no longer official recognize that it happened, would you not be upset, if we gave into his demands? Why should we change what we write about the past, to appease the sensitives of any group or any foreign power? What happened, happened regardless, of what anyone thinks of it.
Jeppo,
So what if most people outside the U.S don't think it is a uniquely moral nation? Part of the Reason, I still live here, is because I think it is. Most people who live in other societies and are citizens of those societies, think their society is better than any other. Its an aberration for someone to think that the society they choose to live in, is not better, in some significant way, compared to other societies.
Anonymous,
You wrote,
-----------------------------------
This week the House of Representatives debated a resolution that would have given official recognition to the attempted genocide of Armenians at the hands of Turks. ...a hundred years ago.
It seems to me that function of the American Congress is to run American affairs, such as dealing with an economic recession, protracted war on two fronts and rocketing public and private debt.
When countries become involved in the moral affairs of others, it typically only ends well for anyone if there is the possibility of immediately assisting a victim. Any number of examples are available of countries inserting themselves without the possibility of clear and rapid benefit and ending with disaster. The purported victims in this situation are dead. Long dead. Making proclamations about "who is to blame" (notice that they to, have been long dead) to me seems a symbolic issue.
I suggest leaving discernment of historic "truth" to historians. If Turks want to teach their children something you find uncomfortable, I say: Live with it.
-----------------------------------
So basically we should deny history because we are not inherently any better than them, and the Turkish people don't want to accept what happened? Is that what you are saying?
Anonymous,
Second of all, what good historian denies they Armenian Holocaust? It happened. What the Turks think, or want us to think is irrelevant, regardless, even if they were the most moral society on Earth right now.
It would still be irrelevant.
Quoting Raphael Lemkin, who coined the term "genocide" in 1943, "...it happened so many times... First to the Armenians, then after the Armenians, Hitler took action." Since Turkey suppressed this event, no one noticed WHEN Hitler repeated it on an even larger scale. "Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it" - George Santayana
Paul D Garber,
That is great wisdom from Mr. Santayana
When recognizing objective reality becomes something worth noting the world is screwed
It's screwed
Anonymous and Jeppo,
I agree that our Congress has more important things to do. In addition, I completely agree with Jeppo's denunciation of universalist expansionist thinking. Again, because cultures are different, I consider attempts to turn Islamic nations into progressive democracies Quixiotic and destructive of the idea of sovereignty.
However, while I do not condone intervention, I find nothing wrong with asserting that our way of life is a good and moral one. This makes our population proud, and could lead others to question the necessity of living under a tyrannic government. And, it costs us nothing.
Damien, I do not think that we need to hide from or curtail history to make us look good ever. And, I would never ask that we do so. I think, especially from our perspective, the facts and the narrative we spin out of it are coherent. And, especially from our perspective, they put us in a pretty good light.
Epaminondas,
Yes, but it were ever so. Every country that has ever gone to war has had right on their side. Isn't that so? And so, we must reaffirm
PS JEPPO !!!
You equate the terms "culturist" and "civilizationalist." From what I can intuit, using these terms interchangeably is accurate!
I would only suggest that few folks will pick up the term "civilizationalist." But where ever you see a multiculturalist calling those who point out the reality of diversity calling you racist, the term culturist has a chance to flower!!
If you would just use the word culturist, it would help safeguard western civilization and make an old man very, very happy!! : )
Thanks for the comments all!! John
Jeppo said: It's this kind of neocon/liberal moral posturing that's led America to be more reviled worldwide than ever before, and brought it to the brink of bankruptcy.
I say: No, that's not what has brought us to where we are. Lack of confidence (inspired by people like you who live within the U.S.) has brought us where we are.
Losing brought us here, and attitude is what made us losers.
So, congrats to the people like you who live in the U.S.
By the way, perhaps Canada ought to be mentioned as among the moral nations.
But, why Thailand? Maybe because of all the child sex slavery? Is that the morality you are thinking of?
Post a Comment