Letters to the Editor
shaunnarine
Published Letters: 108 Editor's Choice: 20
-
question of betrayal
[Read the article: An international affair]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Dear Editor,
It strikes me that the author misses a major reason why adultery may be considered a problem for many people - isn't it, by definition (at least in most cultures) a betrayal of trust? Obviously, adultery can be motivated by many different factors, and the extent of the trust being betrayed may (as the author suggests) vary by culture and be influenced by gender relations within cultures. But, for many people (especially in the West) adultery seems to be a comment on the level of respect and consideration that the person doing the cheating has for the person being cheated upon.
In most of the cases of adultery with which I am familiar, the people involved often were very immature or were genuinely uncaring of how their actions might affect others. There was, in truth, a profound lack of respect and consideration for the other parties involved. Since a concern for truth and empathy for/consideration of the feelings of others are at the foundation of most moral systems, these are not irrelevant concerns on which to question the sustainability of an important relationship.
The author also makes an interesting comment on Latin America. She states that she found married Latin American men hitting on her to be "repugnant" but now is more tolerant of it. I agree that this quality may reflect cultural values. It may be that in LA, the culture allows men to have affairs and men are trained to believe that betraying a wife/girlfriend is a small matter. But note that LA is also a region (particularly Brazil) known for such things as "honor killings". Perhaps it's a stretch, but maybe the relaxed attitude towards adultery on the part of men is symptomatic of a deeper cultural lack of respect for women.
Sincerely,
Shaun Narine
-
america is responsible for the mess
[Read the article: Goodbye, Baghdad]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Dear Editor,
Surely it is obvious that the current mess in Iraq is directly and irrevocably the responsibility of the United States. The US launched a war of aggression and choice, based on lies and doctored intelligence, and was motivated (best guess) by the desire to assert American authority in a post-Cold War era. The neocons have been up-front in their desire to create a permanent American hegemony/empire over the rest of the world and Iraq was supposed to be the first step along that path. It is certainly true that the current mess in Iraq is being fuelled by sectarian violence between Iraqis themselves, but that was an entirely predictable and, indeed, likely outcome of the invasion. Given the US's own bloody history of internal violence, the fact that a society can fall apart under political and economic pressures should hardly be surprising.
What I find most interesting about these kind of discussions is the number of people who seem to feel that there is something unique in what is happening in Iraq. Contrary to what a previous poster seems to believe, the US has a long and execrable history in supporting fascism and authoritarianism in many parts of the world. American history in Latin America stands as an example of constant American interference in the region and support for what were, often, genocidal regimes. This history predates the Cold War by more than a century, so the old excuse that the US was simply fighting communism really does not work that well. Invading and exploiting other people and then deluding themselves about what their country is really about seems to be as much a part of the American national character as "American exceptionalism".
Maybe what is a bit different about the current adventure in Iraq is that it is the first time in about 40 years that the US has - fairly openly - done a lot of the things that it has usually encouraged secretly. So this is the first time that the US has made torture a fairly explicit part of state policy, for example, but it's hardly the first time that the US has used torture. The other thing that is "new" about Iraq is that it is a dismal failure of American policy. If the invasion and occupation had been "successful" we would not be hearing anything about this, but American policies of domination and exploitation - or, at least, the effort to do both - would not be any different.
As a final point: it may well be that the US is no worse, and possibly even a bit "better", than many other imperialist states in how it behaves. Maybe any really powerful state that wants to maintain its dominant position in the world system would need to take advantage of other states and peoples. Even if this is true, it changes nothing. The US remains responsible for its actions and their consequences.
What Riverbend and her family and her country are going through should not have happened. It was extremely predictable that it would happen. And the American people and government are directly responsible.
Sincerely,
Shaun Narine