What brings peace is a lack of fear, the fulfillment of basic needs, and self respect.
Okay, I have not heard that before, but you being you, I'll take your word for it.
Your suggestion that peace would come to Africa if they could afford computers and stereos is, at best, naïve and condescending. Given your "thesis" that trade==peace, the United States should be one of the most "peaceful" places on the planet.
The definition of peace, for me, is generally the absence of war. Crime is a civil matter. Am I in err?
Considering the amount of poverty, crime, and general stress and unhappiness, I think you might want to reconsider your math.
I was never any good at math, anyway, but I was not speaking as that trade was a"solution" to Africa's problems, but more as how interest is generated in Africa, outside of nature shows.
I will also point out that "trade" and "exploitation" by white settlers certainly didn't bring peace to North America, during its "tribal" period...
Actually I think the policy ranged from neglect to outright genocide and land grabbing (see: Andrew Jackson), There were times when the Whites and the Indians weren't at each other's throats, in the north east, but generally it was "Manifest Destiny and all that it implied back then.
I agree completely with you on this. ...but... isn't the height of human endeavor to struggle against the general unfairness of it all? Don't we celebrate as heroes those people who refuse to accept injustice and actually do something about situations they find intolerable? If we accept your argument that justice is an artificial concept, and life isn't fair, shouldn't "heroes" actually be considered dangerous lunatics and not role-models?
Some do: http://www.canada.com/national/story.html?id=9d58e7ae-a2bb-4445-b4d2-b4b34f7fde7f
But yes, those are the role models and heroes. Sometimes even mine.
Your statements also might imply mistreatment by and of others should simply be accepted as an expected outcome of life's unfairness. Wouldn't this make it acceptable (perhaps even laudable) to treat every encounter as an opportunity to simply take as much as possible from those weaker than yourself? This doesn't seem to jibe with your "[belief] in the inherent good of Western Civilization."
No it is not acceptable, nor laudable to act in such a way, but it is common, and should be kept in mind, so as not to become a victim, as it occurs at all levels. Sometimes it criminal, and the force of the law should be brought against it. Sometimes it's someone being an asshole, and that isn't criminal, just unfortunate.
Re: Promote Western Civilization! Go forth and plunder! (2)
Okay, I have not heard that before, but you being you, I'll take your word for it.
Your suggestion that peace would come to Africa if they could afford computers and stereos is, at best, naïve and condescending.
Given your "thesis" that trade==peace, the United States should be one of the most "peaceful" places on the planet.
The definition of peace, for me, is generally the absence of war. Crime is a civil matter. Am I in err?
Considering the amount of poverty, crime, and general stress and unhappiness, I think you might want to reconsider your math.
I was never any good at math, anyway, but I was not speaking as that trade was a"solution" to Africa's problems, but more as how interest is generated in Africa, outside of nature shows.
I will also point out that "trade" and "exploitation" by white settlers certainly didn't bring peace to North America, during its "tribal" period...
Actually I think the policy ranged from neglect to outright genocide and land grabbing (see: Andrew Jackson), There were times when the Whites and the Indians weren't at each other's throats, in the north east, but generally it was "Manifest Destiny and all that it implied back then.
I agree completely with you on this. ...but... isn't the height of human endeavor to struggle against the general unfairness of it all? Don't we celebrate as heroes those people who refuse to accept injustice and actually do something about situations they find intolerable? If we accept your argument that justice is an artificial concept, and life isn't fair, shouldn't "heroes" actually be considered dangerous lunatics and not role-models?
Some do:
http://www.canada.com/national/story.html?id=9d58e7ae-a2bb-4445-b4d2-b4b34f7fde7f
But yes, those are the role models and heroes. Sometimes even mine.
Your statements also might imply mistreatment by and of others should simply be accepted as an expected outcome of life's unfairness. Wouldn't this make it acceptable (perhaps even laudable) to treat every encounter as an opportunity to simply take as much as possible from those weaker than yourself? This doesn't seem to jibe with your "[belief] in the inherent good of Western Civilization."
No it is not acceptable, nor laudable to act in such a way, but it is common, and should be kept in mind, so as not to become a victim, as it occurs at all levels. Sometimes it criminal, and the force of the law should be brought against it. Sometimes it's someone being an asshole, and that isn't criminal, just unfortunate.
Scott