Originally posted by Orion27:
The United States is responsible for despoiling the habitat of Inuit people, a direct outgrowth of unbridled capitalism in the United States. The United States is guilty of using
unequal resources to resolve conflicts. The United States is guilty of cultural oppression,
not a uniquely Canadian charge, though it's French origins are noted both in Canada
and France.
Is that accurate?
My apologies if I lacked in accuracy.
But the answer is No. I do not blame the U.S..
Again, I could have been clearer in the beginning regarding the strategies and weapons etc. I listed these as a way to illustrate my position in general about how to resolve conflicts and the means used usually. It was my way to say I totally disapprove the use of any violence for any reason by whomever.
The canadian government has its responsibilities for what is going on in the North, more so than the U.S. Army. But Goose Bay was a U.S. Army base, like Fort Chimo, like Thul� was in Groenland (unless I misunderstood the whole thing). Let's say the foot print is obvious{i][Edit: in terms of environmental impact}[/i]. But that does not make the canadian government innocent of the way the Inuit were treated then. There was even a book on that topic of relocalization of the Inuit to ensure integrity of our frontiers which had an incredible human cost. Some talk of genocide.
Capitalism IS NOT a wholly owned province of the U.S. I totally agree with you on this. Actually, my understanding is that capitalism is practised everywhere on this planet. I also think I am right to say that the more the financial power is concentrated, the bigger are the consequences, positive or negative, wherever that financial power is projected.
In terms of cultural oppression through uncontrolled capitalism, well, there are some protectionist measures that some intitutions in the U.S. have in place. You do not see them because 1) it is your culture and 2) it is your money. My understanding is that when a group of people asks for money, they go where the money is available. The U.S. has a lot of money. The oppression starts when the financial backers put conditions that limit the expression of the borrower. Of course, you can always go elesewhere, but if "elsewhere" does not have that much money, your cultural production will be limited.
The economical success of the U.S. is certainly very impressive and to be envied by many. No doubt! But when that success interferes with others, what you could call the disappointment of sore losers, is actually an argumentation for rebellion.
The United States is not responsible of cultural oppression. But the corporations involved in financing at first or second or tertiary level cultural products are. An example is those company's owning the right of distribution of european movies in North America. To get financial backing of bigger movie production in Europe, they agreed to have distribution of all movies done in the old continent to Canada by the U.S. corporation in charge. The result is that the Canadian market is controlled by the whims of that U.S. corporation (I wish I'd remember the name).
Another example of cultural oppression is that it costs $10 000 to have the song "Happy Birthday" sang in a movie, Hallmark having the rights of that song... Not the U.S., but Hallmark. I can't wait to see our names copyrighted!
Regarding Arabic terrorism I do not believe the United States created it either. My understanding is that the issue started with the discovery of oil in those countries, and that the major players then were Great-Britain, France and Germany. The whole area was divided to satisfy some economical interest of those industrialized countries rather than the satisfaction of the populations. But it was probably a challenge to manage as well at other levels...
No, the U.S. is not to be blamed for all the troubles that happened since then. But entertaining pure business relations with totalitarian States (Saoudi Arabia, Iraq, Iran, etc.) like the other industrialized countries did (France, Great Britain, the USSR, Switzerland, Canada, and the many others), we have created a situation of cold carelessness for the local populations.
Where I think the situation gets worse is when the superpowers decide to intervene to protect their "interests" in other countries, for which the populations were never consulted since they were under totalitarian regimes. The military interventions were always done in cooperations before and although peace was a good reason for it, maintaining the assets of corporations supporting elected officials was also very important. One wants its iinvestments protected, that goes without saying.
And of course, the populations of the industrialized world (From Canada to the U.S.) are all to be blamed for this. Our need for comfort is totally detached from the means used to achieve this comfort. If we were to save and spare our resources, we would probably not have the same relationships with the other countries where terrorism seems to florish. And as a consequence, terrorism would probably not florish so well, or would not target any of the industrialized countries.
Lately, it went overboard because the U.S. government does not require so much of a coalition with the usual partners (although it tried) because those partners are not so strong anymore, and since the USSR is moribund as a superpower, there is not the same need to use the European countries in partnerships of that kind, especially if they are to become competitors.
In the meantime, the populations of these countries are thirsty for that freedom and justice they long for (I believe we all share many ideals that are professed in the American constitution), but often, the political regime with which the corporations are exploiting the resources of the said countries, IMHO, believe that these values apply only to the rich who have a claim and a control of said resources.
One paradox I see, and I may be completly wrong, is that the values of freedom fairness and liberty that the U.S. (and other industrialized countries like Canada, France, Great Britain, Germany) projects fall short when corporations do business with other countries. "But business is business, and it is nothing personal" they say. I wish it were more personal. Maybe we would be more caring and would not have created the mess we all are in.
Reading back what I wrote, I understand that if I were an American and were to read those lines, I could be offended. I guess, that when one expresses his/her opinion, political or else, will always show a lot of prejudice. I apologize for mine. But I am expressing an opinion that reflect a few years of reflection, based on what I read and observe, which does not make me right; just opinionated. I do have a lot of respect for people in general, whatever the country they are from. I also understand that being a politician requires a special attitude and special skills, and that the pressure must be great to respond to demand and perform. I also understand that my own sense of comfort may require the production of items which could be harmful for the environment, other people and ultimately, myself. And I understand that others make a lot of money to make sure I get comfortable in any way possible, even ways I have not dreamed of yet, and that sometimes, any means to achieve that will be beneficial, regardless of the consequences.
Finally, I understand I must be tiring a lot of people with such long posts. (sigh!)
Top