The State of the Union speech and Orwell

by Seeker 10 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  Seeker

  From an article about tonight's State of the Union speech by Bush:

  He proposed a new homeland security corps of emergency respondents to disasters and an expansion of the Peace Corps to more than double its size -- to 15,000 volunteers. One goal will be to encourage development and education in the Islamic world. Aides said the United States did not want to impose its culture on the Islamic world, simply help make them modern societies.

  (Boldface mine)

  The sentence boldfaced is Orwellian. How is left as an exercise for the reader.
• 

  ashitaka

  LOL....agreed. It's something how people buy into the version of freedom they've been led to expect......we're all lambs to the slaughter.

  No one to trust. I just thank the light that I'm alive and able to love my wife in freedom. Who I have to thank for that, is a matter of unimportance.
• 

  rekless

  be a lamb here or a skined lame there

  where is the hot tub....?
• 

  Amazing

  Seeker: Is it possible maybe too much is being read into Bush's intent. What does it mean to make a society modern? To me, that does not mean changing their culture. Rather, it means working with them so that they can shed ignorance and bigotry against us as they expect us to shed ignorance and bigotry toward them. It means meeting basic human needs. Most importantly, developing relationships with them so that they won't breed terrorists who want to kill us.
• 

  RedhorseWoman

  Afghanistan has been split by tribal warfare for years. The Afghan people, especially women, have been denied education and knowledge about anything other than the Islamic religion.

  They have been extremely vulnerable to radical extremists because of this.

  Helping a society to educate its people is good, not only for the people themselves, but also for the rest of society.
• 

  safe4kids

  I'm concerned about the possible implications of that statement, too, Seeker. I really don't think that American culture is 'the way' but at the same time, I'm also for anything that helps alleviate some of the trials and burdens women and children, especially, experience. My question is what is the track record of the Peace Corps? I've always thought that they were more about helping than turning other societies into little Americas. Am I naive in this? Does anyone know? I could do some research on it I suppose, but it's easier to ask you all

  Dana
• 

  Pathofthorns

  Probably i'm too ideal, but I am disappointed.

  The way I see it, the world could be a more peaceful place either as a global community coming together with each country retaining their culture but thinking more globally. Or it comes about through a world suppressed by American dominance, with the well-being of countries decided by whether they cater to every whim of America.

  I think the first scenario is too nieve, but the second is hardly good for the elevating of mankind, considering America fails to live by it's own ideals and is quick to sell out whatever is necessary to save face or achieve what it wants to. Maybe the answer is somewhere in the middle.

  I think education is good. But what sort of education will these people be receiving? Who will be providing this education? Will it be education or will it be propaganda?

  For all of the American aid and education and whatever given to these troubled countries, I think one can only be suspicious of what these countries will be required to give in return. At the same time, you have to hand it to America for it's long range selfish outlook as they guard their power and wealth. They aren't exactly stupid.

  Path
• 

  Julie

  Hi Seeker,

  You know what I noticed about this speech? Several things but one so old it isn't even funny.

  Here's a little story that will help me to demonstrate my point and yes, *groan* it is a history lesson:

  When King Richard was departing for the Crusades (kind of appropriate eh?) there were two main guys left in charge in England. One very shrewd and low-born the other, gentle and courtly. The shrewd low-born one (William DeLongchamps) made the quick crossing to France before his royal master headed off to lands beyond easy access and filled his ears *first* with all sorts of fabulous ideas of how he, the lowly servant of the king, could gather boatloads of money for Richard's warchest. Then, while Richard's head was filled with images of gold and glory, he planted the seed that perhaps he (the lowly servant) could best serve his master if he were also appointed papal legate and other various positions of great power (which would make him supreme master in the king's abscence). Of course with Richard happily dreaming of his visions of greatness he readily agreed to the rest of Longchamp's proposals.

  You see, the parallel here is that Bush first and foremost made it very clear how very vigilant we must be against the enemy. We have made great strides in conquering our enemies and have much more to do (like to the tune of about $48 billion) and we will protect ourselves at any cost!!

  Then, when we have an enraged, yet still a bit frightened nation focusing on our powerful, unassailable military force and it's future glory, we slip in a few details of how things at home are going awry making it clear the bi-partisanship is just a war thing as some are not filled with daydreams of glory to the point of happily and readily agreeing to the rest of these proposals.

  Always notice what a speech is opened with, see what it is they want you occupied with while they then bring out the less pleasant or more controversial. It is a timeless tactic.

  Gotta love the tried and true methods,
  Julie, who knows war-talk when she hears it and she heard it last night
• 

  Seeker

  Amazing,

  Seeker: Is it possible maybe too much is being read into Bush's intent. What does it mean to make a society modern? To me, that does not mean changing their culture. Rather, it means working with them so that they can shed ignorance and bigotry against us as they expect us to shed ignorance and bigotry toward them. It means meeting basic human needs. Most importantly, developing relationships with them so that they won't breed terrorists who want to kill us

  High-minded ideals, to be sure. It would be nice if this were the intent, but the past history of American dealings with other countries doesn't give us much room for hope that this is what they mean. Some of the bigotry against America is out of ignorance and propaganda. Some of it is due to the way America has selfishly meddled in the affairs of other countries. I'm sure people in Central America heard that part of the speech last night and shuddered, for they have suffered at the hands of America as America has imposed its will on who gets to lead those countries.

  There is also the question of cultural bias. Who is to say the modern way is always the best way? Yes, advances in science are good, and the like, but is the industrial revolution always an improvement over an agrarian society? Is an urban-centralized life an improvement over rural living? If the definition of "modern" is hosting Nike factories where children can be exploited with 14-hour days and few bathroom breaks, some countries may choose to opt out.

  If a country comes to us and says, 'Please help us modernize,' then America should do so.

  If a country says, 'We're fine the way we are, thanks,' then America should respect that too.

  I've noticed a number of comments about Afghanistan in this thread. Bush wasn't talking just about Afghanistan in that part of the speech. Economic good times requires ever-increasing markets, and the only way that globalization works is if everyone comes to the party. Not every nation will want to come to the party if America gets to set all the rules.
• 

  Seeker

  Julie,

  Good historical allusion. Bush is running his next campaign on the war, thinking that his new-found popularity will carry the day. His dad thought the same thing...

  This "war" on terrorism will turn out to be just like the "war" on drugs, something that began with high ideals and over the years will degenerate into a source of funding for law officials, an excuse to crack down on the rights of citizens, and a chance to increase the prison population will all sort of collateral, non-dangerous "criminals" who the government doesn't like. Oh yeah, it will never end, either.

  Twenty years from now, as President uh Nash takes office and gives her first State of the Union speech, one of the things she will say is how important our "war on terrorism" is. Never mind the domestic problems, we have a war to fight!