MaxedOutMama
Wednesday, December 08, 2004
O Canada!!
We stand on guard for thee....
The Canadian national anthem can be found here. I would unhesitatingly support a war to defend Canada, regardless of whether half its inhabitants or so still believed that the US was evil. Why? Because Canada is sincere in its pacifism and humanitarian values in a way that most European societies are not. I have been thinking of Canada with great warmth as I've been staggering electronically through the sewer of western European politics.
I don't have a ton of Canadian links, but these two Canadian bloggers, Len Kutchma at Rite Turn Only and Darcy at dustmybroom, are well worth reading and can hook you up to other Canadians. I urge you to go - if you keep reading my European news you're likely to need a refreshing breath of pine-scented air to recuperate as the vastly unpleasant truth begins to sink in. And listen to their national anthem if you don't know it - I've always thought that it is one of the most beautiful anthems.
We may laugh or raise our eyebrows at Canada's plan to establish an alternate justice system for its Muslim population, but the point is that Canada does not automatically presume that all other peoples are inferior and incapable of self-government. There are not many countries who have sacrificed as much as uncomplainingly in the defense of freedom as Canada. Notice that the linked article refers to a Jewish court that has been successfully operating under the same premise for over a century. Canada is not afraid of different cultures and religions, and feels no need to impose some sort of "Canadian" version of various religions upon its citizens. I can't imagine any Canadian politician coming up with the idea that churches could only conduct services and sermons in French or English.
Canada is a good if skeptical neighbor. I would not like to have France or Germany on our border. Canadian skepticism will not hurt us - if anything, it can only help us. In contrast, the official world view of a France or Germany is cynical and profoundly undemocratic. For my part, I hope Canada remains glorious and free.
What inspired me to post the above was a shocking article I ran across at Vox Felisi. This is a superb blog - I spent hours reading when I found it - but it isn't comfortable reading. Felis' post skewering educated folly ought to make you squirm:
"In this ingenious display of his academic superiority, F. deLespinasse proves clearly that Iraq cannot be ruled by anything else but tyranny, because this is what the Iraqis are used to and they like it more than anything the West can offer.
“Given Iraq's history and ethnic and religious divisions, any leader who is less willing than Hussein to kill large numbers of people may not be able to govern at all. The one thing worse for the average person than a government like Hussein's is the total absence of government.”"
"Professor" deLespinasse teaches in Michigan at Adrian College. I'm sure his students are thrilled by his inspirational pedagogy, and I suspect that they've noticed that if you pronounce his name in the American fashion, it sounds a lot like "Let's be an ass". Maybe that subconscious influence explains the professor's opinion on Saddam Hussein. The article appears in Common Dreams, but you'll have to go to Vox Felisi to get the link. I refuse to link to this trash although I must defend his absolute right to publish it.
What truly angers me is that Prof. Let's Be An Ass takes an undeniable fact - that dictators must kill and oppress a lot of people to remain in power - and moves smoothly from that fact to the conclusion that Saddam Hussein was probably the best dictator he knew how to be. Maybe he thinks Hussein deserves a peace prize or something. The problem is, all the other dictators in the region would disagree. Saddam Hussein's body count is extremely impressive, even by 20th century standards. The estimates differ wildly, but here is a Shiite claim of 5 million dead, the Guardian questioning even lower numbers, and a recent estimate of 1.3 million missing by a group of US archeologists. This does not take into account those killed in the Iran-Iraq war or the Kuwaiti attack and the Gulf War. It also ignores claims of starvation and death by disease due to sanctions. We now know those claims were inflated, but 500,000 children was a figure being widely publicized in 2000.
But bypassing the question of Saddam Hussein's privileged position in the dictator's hall of fame for the moment, let's proceed on to the dialectical step that our esteemed professor avoids - the possibility of some other form of government than that of tyranny. The argument deLespinasse makes is only coherent (and we must give him the benefit of the doubt by assuming he believes his own argument) if one presumes that the Iraqi people can be governed in no other way than by a dictatorship and so their only alternative to no dictatorship is no government.
This has been a common argument among the Europeans, although even they are less willing to voice it after the elections in Afghanistan. I suppose the news of the Afghani election has not yet reached Michigan. It's also worth observing that a nice little regional democracy was sprouting in North Iraq during the period it was locked down as a no-fly zone, but I suppose that information is not worthy of notice in the rarefied air of Adrian College either.
How condescending. How cruel. How despicable. What a denial of human potential and rights! If this is the most humane perspective Professor deLespinasse can summon, one can only pity him, and thank God, fate, the onward march of civilization or whatever type of destiny in which one personally believes that the fate of the Iraqi people will not be determined by such thinking. And then one turns, and looks to Canada, and as a US citizen gives thanks that most of the land of the True North stands for something other than this crass dismissal of both the millions of deaths and millions living with hope in Iraq.
The Canadian national anthem can be found here. I would unhesitatingly support a war to defend Canada, regardless of whether half its inhabitants or so still believed that the US was evil. Why? Because Canada is sincere in its pacifism and humanitarian values in a way that most European societies are not. I have been thinking of Canada with great warmth as I've been staggering electronically through the sewer of western European politics.
I don't have a ton of Canadian links, but these two Canadian bloggers, Len Kutchma at Rite Turn Only and Darcy at dustmybroom, are well worth reading and can hook you up to other Canadians. I urge you to go - if you keep reading my European news you're likely to need a refreshing breath of pine-scented air to recuperate as the vastly unpleasant truth begins to sink in. And listen to their national anthem if you don't know it - I've always thought that it is one of the most beautiful anthems.
We may laugh or raise our eyebrows at Canada's plan to establish an alternate justice system for its Muslim population, but the point is that Canada does not automatically presume that all other peoples are inferior and incapable of self-government. There are not many countries who have sacrificed as much as uncomplainingly in the defense of freedom as Canada. Notice that the linked article refers to a Jewish court that has been successfully operating under the same premise for over a century. Canada is not afraid of different cultures and religions, and feels no need to impose some sort of "Canadian" version of various religions upon its citizens. I can't imagine any Canadian politician coming up with the idea that churches could only conduct services and sermons in French or English.
Canada is a good if skeptical neighbor. I would not like to have France or Germany on our border. Canadian skepticism will not hurt us - if anything, it can only help us. In contrast, the official world view of a France or Germany is cynical and profoundly undemocratic. For my part, I hope Canada remains glorious and free.
What inspired me to post the above was a shocking article I ran across at Vox Felisi. This is a superb blog - I spent hours reading when I found it - but it isn't comfortable reading. Felis' post skewering educated folly ought to make you squirm:
"In this ingenious display of his academic superiority, F. deLespinasse proves clearly that Iraq cannot be ruled by anything else but tyranny, because this is what the Iraqis are used to and they like it more than anything the West can offer.
“Given Iraq's history and ethnic and religious divisions, any leader who is less willing than Hussein to kill large numbers of people may not be able to govern at all. The one thing worse for the average person than a government like Hussein's is the total absence of government.”"
"Professor" deLespinasse teaches in Michigan at Adrian College. I'm sure his students are thrilled by his inspirational pedagogy, and I suspect that they've noticed that if you pronounce his name in the American fashion, it sounds a lot like "Let's be an ass". Maybe that subconscious influence explains the professor's opinion on Saddam Hussein. The article appears in Common Dreams, but you'll have to go to Vox Felisi to get the link. I refuse to link to this trash although I must defend his absolute right to publish it.
What truly angers me is that Prof. Let's Be An Ass takes an undeniable fact - that dictators must kill and oppress a lot of people to remain in power - and moves smoothly from that fact to the conclusion that Saddam Hussein was probably the best dictator he knew how to be. Maybe he thinks Hussein deserves a peace prize or something. The problem is, all the other dictators in the region would disagree. Saddam Hussein's body count is extremely impressive, even by 20th century standards. The estimates differ wildly, but here is a Shiite claim of 5 million dead, the Guardian questioning even lower numbers, and a recent estimate of 1.3 million missing by a group of US archeologists. This does not take into account those killed in the Iran-Iraq war or the Kuwaiti attack and the Gulf War. It also ignores claims of starvation and death by disease due to sanctions. We now know those claims were inflated, but 500,000 children was a figure being widely publicized in 2000.
But bypassing the question of Saddam Hussein's privileged position in the dictator's hall of fame for the moment, let's proceed on to the dialectical step that our esteemed professor avoids - the possibility of some other form of government than that of tyranny. The argument deLespinasse makes is only coherent (and we must give him the benefit of the doubt by assuming he believes his own argument) if one presumes that the Iraqi people can be governed in no other way than by a dictatorship and so their only alternative to no dictatorship is no government.
This has been a common argument among the Europeans, although even they are less willing to voice it after the elections in Afghanistan. I suppose the news of the Afghani election has not yet reached Michigan. It's also worth observing that a nice little regional democracy was sprouting in North Iraq during the period it was locked down as a no-fly zone, but I suppose that information is not worthy of notice in the rarefied air of Adrian College either.
How condescending. How cruel. How despicable. What a denial of human potential and rights! If this is the most humane perspective Professor deLespinasse can summon, one can only pity him, and thank God, fate, the onward march of civilization or whatever type of destiny in which one personally believes that the fate of the Iraqi people will not be determined by such thinking. And then one turns, and looks to Canada, and as a US citizen gives thanks that most of the land of the True North stands for something other than this crass dismissal of both the millions of deaths and millions living with hope in Iraq.
Comments:
<< Home
I take back all those mean things I say about mercans!
Just kidding! -> I have read similar opinions on how Saddam was able to keep his country "together" and how it would be worthwhile to maybe use some of his methods for enforcing "togetherness". Creepy, especially coming from free cultures.
One thing I see in Canadian multi-culturalism, is that it does slash away at overall nationalism. In America, your an American because you pledge allegiance - instant nationalism (maybe wrong here but oh well) and in Canada - we don't have that. Best regards!
Post a Comment
Just kidding! -> I have read similar opinions on how Saddam was able to keep his country "together" and how it would be worthwhile to maybe use some of his methods for enforcing "togetherness". Creepy, especially coming from free cultures.
One thing I see in Canadian multi-culturalism, is that it does slash away at overall nationalism. In America, your an American because you pledge allegiance - instant nationalism (maybe wrong here but oh well) and in Canada - we don't have that. Best regards!
<< Home
