The Torture Report

[kenberg]

The above is a truly well thought out and successful portrayal of the United States as the absolute pit of humanity. What on Earth could I have been thinking for me to regard my life as happy and to think if myself as lucky to have been born here in this inner circle of hell? I am properly chastened, and I will make no further comments on any of this.

[mikeh]

The above is a truly well thought out and successful portrayal of the United States as the absolute pit of humanity. What on Earth could I have been thinking for me to regard my life as happy and to think if myself as lucky to have been born here in this inner circle of hell? I am properly chastised, and I will make no further comments on any of this.

I was simply trying to point out that the USA is no different from, no better and no worse, than any other superpower. Every superpower has its good points as well as the bad, whether we are speaking of Rome, the British Empire, the Ottoman Empire and so on

 

It is popular for a large segment of the American public to assert that the USA is exceptional in its goodness and innate sense of moral superiority. I grew up in a country dealing with the loss of empire, and the same attitude lingered on at that time. 45 years later, coupled with a lot of reading of history, persuades me that the British Empire had warts as we'll as virtues, and that the US is little different

 

That isn't remotely the same as saying that the US has been a 'pit of humanity'. It is merely saying that Americans, collectively, are not saints nor innately morally superior to the peoples of other nations, which proposition seems to hit a nerve with some Americans for some strange reason

 

The USA of the mid 19 th to late 20 the century enjoyed ready access to living room and resources, provided that one ignored or killed or imprisoned in reservations the aboriginal peoples who were there first. As such it was able to attract countless immigrants and to afford great opportunities, so long as one's skin was the right colour (which was the same around the world of course and not especially American! although racism was rarely institutionalized as thoroughly as it was in the USA)

 

For many millions, it really was a land of opportunity. The 'brain drain' was a real issue in the UK when I was growing up, reflective of the greater opportunities that existed there.

 

Things are rarely black or white (a perhaps unfortunate saying) and it would be unfair to suggest that I intended to knock the US. I was very careful to assert that no nation enjoys any moral superiority to the USA. It seems that many Americans, even those whose posts generally suggest that they are basically liberal in attitude, are offended by a suggestion that their nation isn't exceptional and that they are not therefore, merely by virtue of being born American a superior form of human. The very existence of that sense that being treated as equals rather than acknowledged as superior is an insult is symptomatic of the problem that seems to arise with every superpower.

[blackshoe]

I forget the name of the 19th century English stateman who said in relation to the Empire's foreign policy, and I paraphrase: England does not have friends...she has only interests

Lord Palmerston, Prime Minister in the mid-19th Century. Apparently DeGaulle later said the same thing about France.

[kenberg]

On another thread Cherdano got my number for saying I was going to shut up and then not doing so. Possibly I ever-reacted. but of course there is a but.

 

If my wife went through a list about me, comparable to the one you went through about the U.S. and then explained that all she meant was that I was not exceptional, really all she was saying was that I was just like all other men, I am not sure how soothing I would find it. Anyway, talking about how some Americans think of the U.S. as exceptional doesn't say all that much. Some Frenchmen think that the French are great lovers. Maybe they are, but it gets boring hearing about it.

 

I not only do not regard America as exceptional, I think of that view as a dangerous delusion that asks for trouble. When one of my daughters was around 3, a woman in a neighboring apartment explained to my then wife and me how lucky we were to have a normal child. Her own daughter was exceptionally brilliant and this made life oh so difficult. Uh huh. And just the other day a guy at the Y was telling me that he had an IQ of 160 and this made it difficult for him to find a job. Yes, no doubt. About the best a person can hope for when they go on about how exceptional they are is that they will be ignored.

 

Am I a liberal? Beats me. I find Stephen Colbert really boring. And I think police do a difficult and dangerous job. I believe in helping people but except in very exceptional cases I think that the help should be directed toward helping them need less help in the future. I get tired of hearing about how stupid and lazy Americans are, and I get tired of hearing, if I deviate from liberal orthodoxy, that the only possible explanation is that I have been watching Fox News.

 

About "interests" and "friends". I had heard this attributed to an Israeli. Probably some Athenian said it first..

[mikeh]

On another thread Cherdano got my number for saying I was going to shut up and then not doing so. Possibly I ever-reacted. but of course there is a but.

 

If my wife went through a list about me, comparable to the one you went through about the U.S. and then explained that all she meant was that I was not exceptional, really all she was saying was that I was just like all other men, I am not sure how soothing I would find it. Anyway, talking about how some Americans think of the U.S. as exceptional doesn't say all that much. Some Frenchmen think that the French are great lovers. Maybe they are, but it gets boring hearing about it.

 

I not only do not regard America as exceptional, I think of that view as a dangerous delusion that asks for trouble. When one of my daughters was around 3, a woman in a neighboring apartment explained to my then wife and me how lucky we were to have a normal child. Her own daughter was exceptionally brilliant and this made life oh so difficult. Uh huh. And just the other day a guy at the Y was telling me that he had an IQ of 160 and this made it difficult for him to find a job. Yes, no doubt. About the best a person can hope for when they go on about how exceptional they are is that they will be ignored.

 

Am I a liberal? Beats me. I find Stephen Colbert really boring. And I think police do a difficult and dangerous job. I believe in helping people but except in very exceptional cases I think that the help should be directed toward helping them need less help in the future. I get tired of hearing about how stupid and lazy Americans are, and I get tired of hearing, if I deviate from liberal orthodoxy, that the only possible explanation is that I have been watching Fox News.

 

About "interests" and "friends". I had heard this attributed to an Israeli. Probably some Athenian said it first..

 

Your analogy to your wife listing off your faults is inexact. I didn't start the subject. A better analogy would be where you had been boasting about your status in the world and your wonderful ideals and then your wife listed off a series of examples of your behaviour that demonstrated that in reality you frequently acted in pure self-interest and in a fashion utterly opposed to your professed ideals. Of course, it was not 'you' to whom I was responding in the first place. I have never seen you make the sort of claims about the US to which I was responding. And I will repeat my theme: in my view, all nations...all 'tribes' are guilty of elevating themselves, in their collective mind, above other tribes. When Canadians or New Zealanders, for example, do that, it has little impact on the world. When a superpower does it, the results can be ugly. See Vietnam. See Iraq. See how the US justified those wars, and how the US media pays 100 times as much attention to US casualties as it does to Vietnamese or Iraqi casualties, when if one were even-handed in the value one placed on human lives, the ratio could be reversed.

 

Repeated boasting about how wonderful the US is need occasional reminders that for much of its history, maybe for all of its history, it has been wonderful only for some. I doubt that it is wonderful for most young black males now or at any time in the history of your country, as an example. It isn't wonderful for low income families with chronic illness in the family and inadequate health insurance, and obamacare didn't fix that for everyone and may in any event be destroyed by the republicans in 2017.

 

In short, we tend to have a very selective collective image of who we, as a nation...no matter which nation...are. The US is no exception.

 

This is how the species appears to be. If we ever want to improve, we need to educate everyone to recognize the cost of tribalism

[kenberg]

Repeated boasting about superiority of one's own country or culture can indeed be tiring. I once listened as a visitor from Turkey explained to me what was wrong with American funeral services. They do it better in Turkey, I gather. I'm not a major traveler but I get here and there and it would never occur to me to explain to people in the country that I am visiting how they could improve their funeral services. In other matters, we sometimes notice differences. Flying out of Peru, we got on the plane and after a minimum of fuss it took off. No one explained that in an emergency we should fasten out own air mask before we helped others. My wife an I both appreciated this sensible approach on their part. In Canada I get my gas by the liter, or is that litre, and I watch my speed in km/hr. No problem. Some people, and by no means only Americans, have a great need to explain why they do it right and everyone else does it wrong. I like to think that I lack that gene, or at least it is recessive.

 

I was once amused by the following. A guy from the Netherlands, in the U.S. for a year, never lost an opportunity to explain to me what was wrong with the States. Tiresome. But then somehow the subject of France came up. Man! Apparently there is much more wrong with France than even with the United States.

 

I think that the best that we can hope for about tribalism is that we all realize that we are all susceptible. In the small, it's annoying. In the large is is extremely dangerous. Which, after a detour, gets us back to terrorism.

[ggwhiz]

 

I was once amused by the following. A guy from the Netherlands, in the U.S. for a year, never lost an opportunity to explain to me what was wrong with the States. Tiresome. But then somehow the subject of France came up. Man! Apparently there is much more wrong with France than even with the United States.

 

I was in South Africa in '98 when the US was in the news for something objectionable that I don't recall and my SA Bridge partner asked me what we Canadians thought about Americans.

 

I told him that you are our overbearing obnoxious cousins and we frequently want to slap you upside the head (he's all revved up for late night yankee bashing session) then I said but at the end of the day we're family and they feel the same way about us (especially Chretien and Trudeau).

 

Poof, he switched to talking about Zimbabwe.

[kenberg]

then I said but at the end of the day we're family and they feel the same way about us (especially Chretien and Trudeau).

 

 

I was going to make a joke about how we all loved Maggie but I decided to first look her up on the Wik to see how she has fared. I think in fact I would like her. A little crazy maybe, but who isn't.

[blackshoe]

About "interests" and "friends". I had heard this attributed to an Israeli. Probably some Athenian said it first..

Or it was Ugh the caveman. :D

[barmar]

Is America going to be nominated for sainthood? No. But we have ideals of democracy and human rights, and these are codified in our Constitution. We don't always live up to them, but they're goals we strive to. There are certainly better places to live -- we have a significant problem with violent crime and race relations.

 

But among the super-powers (US, Russia, and China), who would you want to use as the standard-bearer?

[mikeh]

Is America going to be nominated for sainthood? No. But we have ideals of democracy and human rights, and these are codified in our Constitution. We don't always live up to them, but they're goals we strive to. There are certainly better places to live -- we have a significant problem with violent crime and race relations.

 

But among the super-powers (US, Russia, and China), who would you want to use as the standard-bearer?

None

 

Give me Denmark first. Not that any nation is perfect but at least some of the Europeans have found a way to have democracies and real human rights. IMO the US obsession with its constitution is actually an obstacle to treating people fairly. Everyone in the US is so focused on defining and defending their 'rights' that they cannot adopt laws suitable for the 21st century. It is the constitution that prevents a rational gun policy, as maybe the prime example. It also plays into the American myth of the self-made man, with the result that it is almost impossible to have the state provide basic items such as water, power, health care.

 

The US is wonderful place to live if you have moderate wealth or more. It falls far down every measure of quality of life for those who don't, when compared to many other 1st world countries.

 

So, while I know that few Americans want to hear this, your 'Ideals', as represented by your constitution do not represent standards to which all others aspire.

[PhilKing]

But among the super-powers (US, Russia, and China), who would you want to use as the standard-bearer?

 

Yeah, the US are preferable to the other super-powers, but don't do yourself down, the US is also preferable to some totalitarian regimes outside of the premier league.

[blackshoe]

So, while I know that few Americans want to hear this, your 'Ideals', as represented by your constitution do not represent standards to which all others aspire.

To each his own. I'm sure there's things in the Canadian constitution about which one could say the same.

[mikeh]

To each his own. I'm sure there's things in the Canadian constitution about which one could say the same.

One of many differences is that we don't go around invading other countries while lecturing the world on the value of our 'freedoms' and the unique quality of our values

 

Actually, the differences are more fundamental. We don't regard collective responsibilities as innately unfair. We tend to recognize that we are a society, and that all members of that society owe obligations to the whole as well as having individual rights. Canada isn't perfect. First Nations people often live in terrible conditions, and that is probably our biggest collective failure.

[mike777]

Thus the debate having economic and political power put in the few same hands

 

It always comes down to this.

[Trinidad]

One problem in American culture is the "golden rule": If we want democracy and economic liberty, then that is what everybody wants and we should strive to get it to them. That reasoning is like "I really like my iPhone. I will hand out iPhones to the poor and explain them how to use one." What they really want is food and they don't have the means to maintain the iPhone.

 

So, look where the idea that the whole world wants democracy and freedom (because we think they are great, and they are) got us: When the Gaza strip got its democracy, the people voted for Hamas. Why? Because in the horrible times Gaza had had, Hamas had taken care of the people. (And not because the people wanted to elect a bunch of terrorists.) Now, we (the West) are unhappy and have considered options to give the people what they really want (=what we want).

 

Years after Gaza, a series of countries followed (Tunisia, Egypt, Lybia, Syria and Iraq) in the Arab Spring with various levels of involvement from the West. With the exception of the relative success in Tunesia, where the West did very little, all these countries are now a bigger mess than they were before.

 

The reason: We think that they have the same goals and desires in life as we have. Well, they don't. Freedom and democracy are not on the top of the Christmas lists of the people in those countries. What they want is safety, stability, and improvements in their standard of living.

 

The golden rule is just a shortcut: If you don't know what somebody else would think is nice or pleasant, then think what you would like yourself. That is very good to teach to kids and to use as a first approximation when you don't have anything else to guide you. But it is not good enough for a foreign policy. If you want to be seen as the good guy in the world (like Hamas is seen by the inhabitants of Gaza), provide them with the things that they want and need: Safety, stability and prosperity. Freedom and democracy are luxury items compared to basic needs.

 

Rik

[helene_t]

Maybe off-sopic, but there is something I don't understand about Guatanamo. There are about 100 people there who have been "cleared" but cannot be send home because their home country is unsafe. Uruguay has taken a few of them. Does nobody in the USA feel an obligation to let them live a normal life in the USA, at least temporarily until they can be sent home?

[kenberg]

One problem in American culture is the "golden rule": If we want democracy and economic liberty, then that is what everybody wants and we should strive to get it to them. That reasoning is like "I really like my iPhone. I will hand out iPhones to the poor and explain them how to use one." What they really want is food and they don't have the means to maintain the iPhone.

 

So, look where the idea that the whole world wants democracy and freedom (because we think they are great, and they are) got us: When the Gaza strip got its democracy, the people voted for Hamas. Why? Because in the horrible times Gaza had had, Hamas had taken care of the people. (And not because the people wanted to elect a bunch of terrorists.) Now, we (the West) are unhappy and have considered options to give the people what they really want (=what we want).

 

Years after Gaza, a series of countries followed (Tunisia, Egypt, Lybia, Syria and Iraq) in the Arab Spring with various levels of involvement from the West. With the exception of the relative success in Tunesia, where the West did very little, all these countries are now a bigger mess than they were before.

 

The reason: We think that they have the same goals and desires in life as we have. Well, they don't. Freedom and democracy are not on the top of the Christmas lists of the people in those countries. What they want is safety, stability, and improvements in their standard of living.

 

The golden rule is just a shortcut: If you don't know what somebody else would think is nice or pleasant, then think what you would like yourself. That is very good to teach to kids and to use as a first approximation when you don't have anything else to guide you. But it is not good enough for a foreign policy. If you want to be seen as the good guy in the world (like Hamas is seen by the inhabitants of Gaza), provide them with the things that they want and need: Safety, stability and prosperity. Freedom and democracy are luxury items compared to basic needs.

 

Rik

 

This might surprise you but I agree. I have long thought that if we went up to a typical person in Afghanistan and said "We are here to help you become just like us"" the response would be "Thank you but no thank you, please go home". I have often seen well-intentioned people come up with a plan to help others and they forget to ask the intended helpee "Would you like to go that way?".

 

I grew up in Minnesota where I deeply absorbed the view that the only reason God did not put "Thou shalt mind thine own business" in the Ten Commandments was that He thought that it was too obvious to need stating.

[barmar]

One of the arguments for "spreading democracy" is that if these third-world societies had democracy, freedom, and universal education, their basic needs (e.g. food) would come along naturally. Education and access to information is necessary for a society to improve itself. What's holding them back in many cases is totalitarian regimes that deprive the masses of health care, obsolete traditions that deny education to girls (not to mention condoning molestation and mutilation), etc.

 

Democracy is not just "what we believe is best", there is strong evidence that it's a big part of how America made so much progress in the 200 years since it was founded.

 

Yes, when given the opportunity for free elections, some of these countries vote back in the old regimes. The conversion to a free society comes with enormous growing pains. On the other hand, "Mussolini made the trains run on time" (not actually true, but widely believed: Snopes.com).

[Trinidad]

This might surprise you but I agree.

I am not at all surprised. From your posts, you come across as a wise person with balanced views. Given that my views are always wise and balanced (cough... cough), it is only natural that we agree. ;)

 

Rik

 

P.S. I realize that some of my posts might be interpreted as me thinking that Americans are a bunch of bad guys. That is certainly not the case. I think the USA is trying hard to do the right thing. They just fail to realize that what is right for them, might not be right for others. And I think that is easier to observe from outside the USA than from within.

[Trinidad]

Democracy is not just "what we believe is best", there is strong evidence that it's a big part of how America made so much progress in the 200 years since it was founded.

That is debatable. If you look at the numbers on people's happiness (which is what we intend to pursue, right?) you cannot claim that the USA is successful, compared to the other developed countries. So, one would conclude that from the developed countries, the American model would be one of the worst. (And when you compare the developed world with the rest of the world, it might be a good idea to remember where a large part of the wealth in the developed world came from: centuries of stealing from the rest of the world.)

 

I think there is much more reason to believe that social-democracy is best.

 

If you consider the relation between happiness and wealth, you will see that, initially, happiness increases with wealth. But when people have enough wealth to lead a stable, secure life, modest but without financial worries, the happiness "saturates": more wealth does not lead to a significant increase in happiness. (In fact, one of the best ways wealthy people can improve their happiness is by sharing their wealth!)

 

This means that a society will be happier overall when there is no poverty. That is not achieved by the traditional American way of Freedom and Democracy. But it is the basic principle behind social-democracies as can be found in Western Europe. There is a reason why MikeH mentioned Denmark (though he could have said Norway, Finland, Belgium, or just about any country there). It is a strong social-democracy. But when you mention the term "social-democracy" in the US, people think it's a euphemism for communism.

 

Now, I don't think that e.g. Iraq under Saddam or Lybia under Khadaffi were close to social-democracies. But, certainly compared to the current situation, there was relative safety and security and the wealth was somewhat spread. In addition, there was a decent education system, which I agree is very important. The West tried to bring Freedom and Democracy and now these countries are in complete chaos.

 

So when we decide to interfere, we need to help countries that are doing bad, not countries that are "not as good as we would want them to be". And the most important factors that we should bring are safety, security and basic social standards in terms of food, health and education. Only once they are put in place we could think about Freedom and Democracy, if that is what the local population wants.

 

But exporting Freedom and Democracy with the idea that they will bring safety, security, basic social standards and wealth is a really bad idea. It is based on the flawed assumption that they were responsible for the prosperity of the developed world. But colonialism was responsible for that. I do not have any reason for a moral apology for colonialism: I oppose it and I didn't do it, my ancestors did, not me. But helping the less developed parts of the world, starting by listening to what they want and need, and sharing the wealth that I have because of the misbehavior of my ancestors is certainly warranted. And Freedom and Democracy are not on top of their wish lists, no matter how much people in the West think it should be.

 

Rik

[akwoo]

Actually, the differences are more fundamental. We don't regard collective responsibilities as innately unfair. We tend to recognize that we are a society, and that all members of that society owe obligations to the whole as well as having individual rights. Canada isn't perfect. First Nations people often live in terrible conditions, and that is probably our biggest collective failure.

 

Here's something that most Western Europeans and a lot of Americans and Canadians out East don't really understand:

 

I live not very far(*) from many people who live 5km from their nearest neighbor, 25km from the nearest store, 60km from the nearest police station or doctor, and 100km from the nearest hospital. Keep in mind all these distances are over gravel roads where 60kmh is pretty much the top speed. When you and many people you know live so far from other people, your view of what your collective responsibilities are and your view of what responsibilities should or even can be made collective changes. Nationalized health care doesn't do much for you or anyone you know when the nearest doctor is 60km away. You can't rely on the police to protect you from crime when it takes them more than an hour to get to you.

 

You can rely on your neighbors, but this comes down to personal relationships, not transactions with a bureaucracy behaving according to rules and laws.

 

(*) You might dispute this considering I live within 1 km of multiple supermarkets, a police station, and a hospital. Notions of 'near' and 'far' are a little different in places like this.

[blackshoe]

I think there is much more reason to believe that social-democracy is best.

Social democracy is, at heart, socialism. I'm not sure what social-democracy is. But no form of socialism is best, IMO.

 

If I were making US Foreign Policy, the first rule would be "mind our own business".

[Trinidad]

@Akwoo

 

Sounds like Kansas to me...

 

But these people depend on other people to buy their products and to supply them with goods and infrastructure they need. In other words: a society.

 

Without society, farmers in Kansas would have much more corn than they could ever need and little else.

 

Rik

[PassedOut]

I think there is much more reason to believe that social-democracy is best.

 

If you consider the relation between happiness and wealth, you will see that, initially, happiness increases with wealth. But when people have enough wealth to lead a stable, secure life, modest but without financial worries, the happiness "saturates": more wealth does not lead to a significant increase in happiness. (In fact, one of the best ways wealthy people can improve their happiness is by sharing their wealth!)

 

This means that a society will be happier overall when there is no poverty. That is not achieved by the traditional American way of Freedom and Democracy. But it is the basic principle behind social-democracies as can be found in Western Europe. There is a reason why MikeH mentioned Denmark (though he could have said Norway, Finland, Belgium, or just about any country there). It is a strong social-democracy. But when you mention the term "social-democracy" in the US, people think it's a euphemism for communism.

Rik gave some reasons why he considers social-democracy to be best.

 

 

Social democracy is, at heart, socialism. I'm not sure what social-democracy is. But no form of socialism is best, IMO.

Your opinion is not a surprise, but it would be more understandable if you gave your reasons. Do you think Rik is wrong about the relative happiness of the people, or do you consider some other criterion to be more important for making such a judgment. If you do, how about explaining what that criterion is?