Infantilizing the Other

[RedSkunk]

"If you submit to us now, we will train you to be free tomorrow."

This has been the foreign policy of the U.S. since virtually its inception. It's the white man's burden, and it's alive and thriving today. I don't want to talk about today's quagmires, however.

My question is this - when is it ethical to deny a group of people their humanity and deem them unfit for the liberties that we all enjoy and call "self-evident"?

[TheMason]

At 11/23/07 10:57 PM, RedSkunk wrote: This has been the foreign policy of the U.S. since virtually its inception. It's the white man's burden, and it's alive and thriving today. I don't want to talk about today's quagmires, however.

Egpyt
China
Rome
Athens
Macedonia
England
France
On
and On
and On...

This isn't about just the US or even Western Civ. All Empires (and yes the US is an Empire...sorry to upset both Libs and Cons), behave in this way. I know its an unsatisfying answer, however the cycle of history is something hard to shrug off.

[RedSkunk]

No, the U.S. is not unique in the least bit. I just thought it might be helpful to limit the discussion to contemporary western society since we all know a bit about it.

[Draconias]

At 11/23/07 11:27 PM, RedSkunk wrote: No, the U.S. is not unique in the least bit. I just thought it might be helpful to limit the discussion to contemporary western society since we all know a bit about it.

The basis for the Superiority stance is fairly obvious: "I'm more powerful than you, therefore I must be doing something better." In the case of America, the drive for a Free Capitalist, Democratic society has been the defining struggle for our society. It was the source of the Revolution, a primary factor of the Civil War, an important part of the World Wars, especially with Imperial Japan in the Pacific theater and the ensuing Cold War with Communist Russia in the European theater.

Virtually every major war in our history can be tied back to supporting these two central ideas... so how is our continued desire to support them at all surprising? We are a nation defined by our support for Free Capitalism and Democracy; it would be a very disturbing sign if we did not try to promote it over other systems.

[Draconias]

At 11/23/07 10:57 PM, RedSkunk wrote: My question is this - when is it ethical to deny a group of people their humanity and deem them unfit for the liberties that we all enjoy and call "self-evident"?

Sorry, I forgot to deal with this in my original post. According to the philosophy of the United States, it is never ethically right to deny a group their humanity. Rather, the driving force of most American actions is to enforce those freedoms--even if it means invading a country and overthrowing the repressive government. It's a fairly direct issue.

[Tancrisism]

At 11/24/07 02:15 AM, Draconias wrote: Rather, the driving force of most American actions is to enforce those freedoms--even if it means invading a country and overthrowing the repressive government. It's a fairly direct issue.

Or, conversely, funding dictators and/or terrorists who follow our way of thinking.

[Sajberhippien]

At 11/24/07 02:15 AM, Draconias wrote:

At 11/23/07 10:57 PM, RedSkunk wrote: My question is this - when is it ethical to deny a group of people their humanity and deem them unfit for the liberties that we all enjoy and call "self-evident"?

Sorry, I forgot to deal with this in my original post. According to the philosophy of the United States, it is never ethically right to deny a group their humanity. Rather, the driving force of most American actions is to enforce those freedoms--even if it means invading a country and overthrowing the repressive government. It's a fairly direct issue.

You DO deny people their human rights as stated by the declaration you yourselves helped write, and as stated in conventions you have signed (that against torture and other degrading and inhuman treatment, for example). That way you DO deny them their humanity.

[RedSkunk]

At 11/24/07 02:15 AM, Draconias wrote: Sorry, I forgot to deal with this in my original post. According to the philosophy of the United States, it is never ethically right to deny a group their humanity. Rather, the driving force of most American actions is to enforce those freedoms--even if it means invading a country and overthrowing the repressive government. It's a fairly direct issue.

We'd better lay down some things quickly. What does it mean to you to deny a group their humanity? Self-government or consent of rule is not included? "Freedoms" are subjective and relative to a society. The U.S. does not consider healthcare an essential freedom. Other countries do. Some do not consider direct elections an essential freedom. Who decides?

[TheMason]

At 11/23/07 11:27 PM, RedSkunk wrote: No, the U.S. is not unique in the least bit. I just thought it might be helpful to limit the discussion to contemporary western society since we all know a bit about it.

I agree, I just wanted to add the parameter that the US is not special or fundamentally worse than other countries that have been in this position.

I'm an abashed Imperialist. I do not want to crush other cultures...nor do I believe ours is unquestionably better than everyone else's. However, I do think that the US can be a force for good in spreading modern economy and government...just like the Romans did during their empire.