Letters to the Editor
Sean SIberio
Published Letters: 155 Editor's Choice: 32
-
Partially correct....
[Read the article: Feminist hypocrisy on the hijab?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I think Jeebery is partially correct, though in the same way a broken clock is right twice a day. There's a fear of being racially or politically insensitive when discussing other cultures, and that one wants to be the friend of your enemy's enemy. These two things combined make people who would otherwise jump up in outrage more subdued, partially about being politically incorrect, but also afraid aping the sham rhetoric of those who advocate military intervention (The we bomb to liberate women credo being espoused by this administration). As indicated by many NGO's in Iraq and Afghanistan. as well as others in Lebanon and elsewhere, the "liberators" are not doing anything to liberate anyone.
I heard a similar argument from a fellow Westerner when I was living in Japan; that Japan's attitudes towards sex, rape, and female empowerment were justified because, after all, it was "their" culture to decide. When I finished wiping my drink from mouth after almost gagging on it, I retorted that this is bumpkis; I was quickly accused of being elitist and being a snobbish Westerner, wanting to enforce my "Values" on Japanese patriarchal men. I shot back that if anyones doing the enforcing it was Japan's society, upon its women, a clear example of a majority foisting itself, quite unwanted, upon an individual. There was no reply. Once things are boiled down to an individual level, and argued out from there, any trace of it being "snobbishness" or attempting to "enforce" values falls by the wayside.If the individual is paramount, the "values" of a culture, whatever they are, dissolve into nothing.
-
Anonymous original poster still wrong...
[Read the article: Feminist hypocrisy on the hijab?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]The thing is, the original anonymous poster is still wrong, and the kind of sleight of hand he/she attempts to do to cover it up is ridiculous.
What the local feminist organizations and the local "Women rights" public office (a part of the public administration) do with regard to these cases? Nothing. Zip. Nada. They see in the other direction.
Is this true? We have no idea. Like many of the instances of NGO's "looking the other way" we have scant to no real evidence that this is the case, as no one either seems willing to post using a real name, or identifying where, whom, and what organization was it that failed. But then again, it doesn't matter. One women's rights NGO failing its duty is blown up to be a condemnation of all "Western feminism" (sic).
The rest of anonymous' letter goes on in a similar vein, again citing examples with no real evidence, despite the fact that I doubt anyones going to get in a trouble for posting in a comments thread of a Western liberal website.
Are there problems of cultural snobbishness in the West? Yes. Do certain segments of otherwise progressive organizations, pedal back because of fears of elitism? Yes. Does that mean the whole thing is a farce? No, and the audacity of some people to blow it up that way is incredibly convenient.
-
Can't stand still on a moving train...
[Read the article: America's trinity of terrorism]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]So, Slackie Onassis, you're living in a time warp. Snap out of it. Look around. Times have changed. The U.S. is not a terrorist bully quick to slap down any world leader who dares to step out of line.
We don't rig elections because most of the people we support today aren't in vaguely electable positions (Saudi Arabia, many of the former Soviet satellites, the small Arab states we use for bases), or have so much control over the country that it might as well not be fair (Pakistan). The fact that America doesn't rig things has less to do with America's own restraint, and more to do (as you yourself pointed out) with people in said countries kicking dictators out. I don't see how that is somehow a net gain for us on our record.
They say "the U.S." installed and propped up brutal dictators like Pinochet, the Shah, Marcos and Somoza. But you could just as easily say "the U.S." brought down those dictatorships.
No you can't. The fact that American foreign policy bureaucrats made a cost-benefit analysis late in the decline of many of these individuals, does not mean they were in anyway shape or form active in booting them.
You point out that every once in awhile Congressional oversight kicks in and demands accountability. But this is exceedingly rare, and for the most part foreign policy continues apace in generally the same character, under any President inside the White House, and under every Congress, regardless of which party is in control.
I'll agree that using the word America (as I have above) is simplistic when referring to a complicated and multifaceted society. But, not surprisingly, the foreign policy apparatus of America (and arguably the federal government in general) are an exceedingly poor marker of that very diversity. This lack of diversity may be one of the reasons why foreign policy of the United States government has been generally the same since the end of WWII, and why talking about American foreign policy is monolithic terms is not as wrong as one would presume.