03-25-2003, 06:17 PM
Hi,
I don't think that you can blame the existence of an "evil" regime on the population of the country
By phrasing it that way, you make it sound like I claim the people of those countries are illiterate and poor by their own choice. That is your misinterpretation of what I said. But, as you yourself point out, they *are* illiterate. They are compliant. And if "democracy" is forced on them, they will vote for some strong man (the only form of government they really know) because they are illiterate and they are complacent. And the situation will not have changed.
Go read a decent history of the world. Look at how democracies came about. The sequence was almost invariably the rise of a middle class, the education of that class, then the demands for representation, and eventually a democratic government. Attempts to bypass the process by outside forces have either failed outright or resulted in sham "democracies" where the rule by force continues in spite of the democratic mechanisms being observed (for example, the recent vote in Iraq, and the many "elections" in the old USSR).
I agree with you that the people have to do something about it, but you make it sound as if they "chose" their current political system, which the starving North Koreans most certainly did not.
They did indeed "choose" their system. It might have been the only choice open to them because of their lack of opportunities in terms of education and financial betterment. They didn't have a national referendum and say "we want to be oppressed". But neither did they develop an educational system (I'm not talking universities here, just a log with a student at one end and a teacher at the other). Neither did they develop some form of collective bargaining unit, some form of collaborative business arrangement. Perhaps the situation was not such that they could have done so, but those same lacks that make them a candidate for the present rule are exactly the elements that make them a candidate to return to that type of rule.
You seem to think in terms of a few years, of the present generation. You fail completely to consider that a national character is the result of many generations and that it takes at least a few generations to significantly change that character. Again, a cure for such shortsightedness is to read, really read, history. Look at where and why democracy developed in Europe. Trace its development over a thousand year period. And look at what choices made in that history led to the present. Now, do the same for other parts of the world. Look at the choices made there. Yes, indeed the people of a nation choose their form of government, Not in any one generation, but in their history, in their national character as developed and passed on one generation to the next.
And the idea that a (forced) change for a couple of years will overcome the attitudes and prejudices of generations is very naive, very shortsighted, and very much contrary to experience.
--Pete
I don't think that you can blame the existence of an "evil" regime on the population of the country
By phrasing it that way, you make it sound like I claim the people of those countries are illiterate and poor by their own choice. That is your misinterpretation of what I said. But, as you yourself point out, they *are* illiterate. They are compliant. And if "democracy" is forced on them, they will vote for some strong man (the only form of government they really know) because they are illiterate and they are complacent. And the situation will not have changed.
Go read a decent history of the world. Look at how democracies came about. The sequence was almost invariably the rise of a middle class, the education of that class, then the demands for representation, and eventually a democratic government. Attempts to bypass the process by outside forces have either failed outright or resulted in sham "democracies" where the rule by force continues in spite of the democratic mechanisms being observed (for example, the recent vote in Iraq, and the many "elections" in the old USSR).
I agree with you that the people have to do something about it, but you make it sound as if they "chose" their current political system, which the starving North Koreans most certainly did not.
They did indeed "choose" their system. It might have been the only choice open to them because of their lack of opportunities in terms of education and financial betterment. They didn't have a national referendum and say "we want to be oppressed". But neither did they develop an educational system (I'm not talking universities here, just a log with a student at one end and a teacher at the other). Neither did they develop some form of collective bargaining unit, some form of collaborative business arrangement. Perhaps the situation was not such that they could have done so, but those same lacks that make them a candidate for the present rule are exactly the elements that make them a candidate to return to that type of rule.
You seem to think in terms of a few years, of the present generation. You fail completely to consider that a national character is the result of many generations and that it takes at least a few generations to significantly change that character. Again, a cure for such shortsightedness is to read, really read, history. Look at where and why democracy developed in Europe. Trace its development over a thousand year period. And look at what choices made in that history led to the present. Now, do the same for other parts of the world. Look at the choices made there. Yes, indeed the people of a nation choose their form of government, Not in any one generation, but in their history, in their national character as developed and passed on one generation to the next.
And the idea that a (forced) change for a couple of years will overcome the attitudes and prejudices of generations is very naive, very shortsighted, and very much contrary to experience.
--Pete
How big was the aquarium in Noah's ark?