|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Scaggs
Joined: 19 Sep 2006
|
 Posted: Sat Oct 07, 2006 1:16 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| Gopher wrote: |
| BJWD wrote: |
| It was directed at 'adverturerer', who actually believes in Chavez the poverty fighting crime dog. Then, it became more of a rant than anything else, directed, in my mind to fatbird and a post a few months back where she overtly supported the clown. |
Whether Scraggs knew that or not, BJWD, his claims that he has not praised Chavez are rather disengenuous.
You cannot come onto this thread, Scraggs, defend Chavez by shifting attn to W. Bush in the usual style of the anti-Bush mob, and then assert that you never praised Chavez.
Whether you admit to it or not, you have been, at the very least, defending his case against the U.S. and doing what he does in attempting to center the debate on U.S. foreign policy and W. Bush. I strongly suspect that there is simply no neutral ground on this and related issues... |
First, you are welcome to continue referring to me as Scraggs, though my moniker is Scaggs if it is a mistake you care to fix. If you look at my initial post, I feel that it reflects an effort to look at things objectively.
| Quote: |
Sounds like a lot of very general statements being made against Chavez. If you want to criticise something criticise the brutal removal of his political opponents.
As for his claims about America's behavior, I'll stay out of current actions in the Middle East and Central Asia and the general disregard for international treaties, but if you look at the history, even more conservative accounts than Chomsky, The United States has an insane track record in Latin America. Regular US foreign policy called for removal democratically chosen leaders and popular leftist-movements and replacement with capitalist-friendly dictators.
Examples include Pinochet and Allende in Chile, Somoza and the Sandanistas in Nicaragua, and Operation Condor in Argentina. |
I made two points:
1. A good place to criticize Chavez would be on his brutal dealings with political dissent. (I don't see how my word choice of brutal is particularly praising or defensive)
2. The US is not blameless in accusations of wrong doing in Mr. Chavez's part of the world. (again, no praise for Chavez here, simply adding my thoughts, and perhaps some agreement on some of the points he raises. You changed my word of praise to your word defense. And it may be a defense, but it is a defense of an argument not a man).
I provided examples regarding my second point, none having to do with Bush or coming under his administration, so again, I don't know what Bush bashing you are referring to.
There is a difference between neutrality and objectivity. A person or a government can do and say both right and wrong, truth and lies. Considering different issues on their own is being objective. Coming to different conclusions on different issues involving the same person isn't neutral. Neutrality would consist of not coming to any conclusions and staying out of it.
A disregard of nuance is a dangerous thing. Tends to lead to extremism. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 07, 2006 1:27 am Post subject: |
|
|
Frankly, I have already stated my position as well as I can. Anything further would merely be a restatement.
You have simply not engaged my views, you have only ridiculed them with your "apples" reference. With your reference to the U.S.'s "insane track record" in Latin America and the Caribbean and your innuendo on Washington's "general disregard of international treaties," you went far beyond merely asserting that "the U.S. is not blameless," which is something I have never disagreed with here or anywhere else for that matter. And your very passing reference to "Condor," as if it were exclusively or even mainly or even just less than half a U.S.-created phenomenon was a particularly nice touch, and might carry much weight with those here who know no better.
Also, and in any case, I agree that a disregard of nuance leads to extremism, and if that is your way of acknowledging the points I have raised, then I guess that is as close as we are going to get as far as actual conversation in this context.
Last edited by Gopher on Sat Oct 07, 2006 1:40 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Scaggs
Joined: 19 Sep 2006
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 07, 2006 1:38 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Gopher wrote: |
| Scaggs wrote: |
| Broadly, the socialist movements in Latin America were popular movements with national political agendas, not antiquated Marxist internationalism. |
Also, you allege I am caught up in "antiquated" ideas about "Marxist internationalism," but as I have pointed out here before, you and the other U.S.-centric critics are the ones trapped in an antiquated "revisionist" worldview of the Cold War.
Anyway, I do not expect someone who focuses only on Chomsky's assertions on the U.S. role in world affairs to know anything at all about these findings or any of the other findings George Washington Univ.'s Cold War Study Group is publishing either, for that matter. I list them here only for your reference and to let you know that I still remain unconvinced that you know anything at all about world affairs, from a balanced perspective, and, more importantly, the relative U.S. role in bringing about the outcomes most of us are familiar with.
You, like Chomsky (who is neither a political scientist nor an historian by training) and Chavez, and indeed many who post on this board, simply and simplistically look around, see many things you dislike, and blame the U.S. for making them happen. |
My reference to antiquated Marxism was about the Marxist/socialist movements I referred to in my initial post, that the Sandinistas and Allende (and Vietnam if we go outside of Latin America) were much more about internal national movements than part of a Communist Internationale. So I wasn't alleging you were caught up them. I wasn't saying anyone was caught up in them. I was saying that the Latin American socialists I was talking about (not you) were not driven by the international worker's plight, but by their own nationalist agendas. You can blame me for lack of clarity, though it certainly feels like you weren't making much of an effort if you misconstrued it as far as you did.
Again, like with the Bush bashing you are suggesting I am on Chomsky's nuts when I haven't cited him except acknowledging more concervative perspectives than his would be of more use in the discussion.
I am not blaming the US accountable for all that I see wrong with the world, but I do see faults in certain foreign policy decisions, and I think it is valuable to America to reflect on those.
I would try not to force you into an absolute stereotype as you continue to try to do to me, but it seems as though you fall into a group of people who refuse to reflect on US foreign policy with any degree of criticism. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 07, 2006 1:47 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Scaggs wrote: |
| ...it seems as though you fall into a group of people who refuse to reflect on US foreign policy with any degree of criticism. |
Then you have not read my posts and are at least as guilty of deliberately misconstruing and indeed traducing my views as you allege that I have done to yours.
And you went much further than discussing "faults in certain foreign policy decisions," which any of us here would agree with, incidentally, in your original posts. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Scaggs
Joined: 19 Sep 2006
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 07, 2006 1:52 am Post subject: |
|
|
Gopher,
You are correct that I did not read every link you threw up (I only glanced at a couple). I am indeed not familiar with many (I think any) of the academians you cited. I have read all of your points that you yourself made, and questioned them where I saw fit. I have defended my comments where I feel you made errors in attacking them, or misrepresented what I was saying.
I appreciate the back and forth. I do think your points are better made with suscinct explanation rather than trying to bolster yourself by pointing to your library shelf -- especially in a lively internet forum discussion. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ChuckECheese
Joined: 20 Jul 2006
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 07, 2006 1:56 am Post subject: |
|
|
Now, we have a winner!!!!!!!  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 07, 2006 1:59 am Post subject: |
|
|
Scaggs: I appreciate the back and forth as well.
Please check your pm inbox. You will find my apology there for mispelling your moniker; it was unintentional. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Scaggs
Joined: 19 Sep 2006
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 07, 2006 2:01 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Gopher wrote: |
| Scaggs wrote: |
| ...it seems as though you fall into a group of people who refuse to reflect on US foreign policy with any degree of criticism. |
Then you have not read my posts and are at least as guilty of deliberately misconstruing and indeed traducing my views as you allege that I have done to yours.
And you went much further than discussing "faults in certain foreign policy decisions," which any of us here would agree with, incidentally, in your original posts. |
lol ... taking two bits, and both out of context.
I didn't say that all I did was discuss these faults, I did go further. I was correcting your assertion that I blamed everything on the US, saying that I had not blamed everything on the US, but instead had said that I think we did serious wrong on multiple occasions in Latin America. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 07, 2006 2:21 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Scaggs wrote: |
| ...I think we did serious wrong on multiple occasions in Latin America. |
I do not disagree with such as assertion. Indeed, I agree with you here. But I do not agree at all with the way Chomsky and Chavez and many others have tended to take this ball and run with it, either.
One other would, of course, be bin Laden, who has also blamed us for what the Russians did in Chechnya, if you were paying attention.
I also witnessed Chilean students protesting the cost of higher education in their country, just a few years ago. I saw them burn and then stomp on an American flag at Valparaiso. I asked a Chilean friend why these students directly associated the United States govt with the fees Chilean universities were charging them, and he answered, defiantly, too, that it was because everyone knew that CIA was doing this on purpose, to keep the Chilean students down and out.
But I find this kind of "criticism" palpable nonsense, hysteria-driven, even.
You mentioned the Sandinistas earlier, for example. A whole collection of Reagan officials and Democratic lawmakers attempted to talk and negotiate with them in the very early 1980s and they got nowhere. The Sandinistas, Ollie North reported, were simply intractible in their U.S.-centrism, antiAmericanism, and indeed, what we who study the region sometimes call "yanquiphobia."
Now, if I were a Nicaraguan, I might have good reason to mistrust Washington and question its motives. But the Ortegas and the others simply went way too far. Their criticism, like so many others, so far exceeded the bounds of reason that it was impossible to discuss any issue with them...
| Oliver North wrote: |
| Our meetings with the Sandinistas were a complete waste of time. They would expound for hours on their grievances against us...Miguel d'Escoto, Nicaragua's foreign minister...harangued us at lenght about the many heinous crimes the United States had committed against Nicaragua and the rest of the Third World... |
If you look at Arturo Cruz, Jr.'s memoirs (he and his internationally-respected father were former Sandinistas turned Contras), you will see that much of the "insanity" came from Nicaraguans themselves, and their incessant petty bickering and a million other self-destructive issues that they themselves created, recreated, and perpetuated every day throughout the 1980s.
And as far as "citing my library," I think that if we have reached the point where people are flying 747s into our major cities to kill us or, relatively speaking, "just" denouncing us as evil and Satanic at the UN, we should all probably take a moment, and being as specific as possible with regards to the evidence and the historical record goes, be sure that everyone really has their facts straight on a host of allegations and issues.
And, again, I am not sure at all that people do have their facts straight, especially on the U.S. in Latin America.
So that, then, is why I bring in all of the data and other accounts. People should be sure they have their facts straight when discussing such things as this. It is not meant to imply expertise and to claim "to defeat" your points by merely citing my expertise. It may look like that, but I would like to clarify that that is not my intent.
And one final thing that bothers me: on your casual mention of Washington's "general disregard of international treaties": are you aware of the role the United States has played and continues to play in bringing together all of the nation-states that live in the Western hemisphere, getting them to sit down and negotiate with each other over all sorts of issues and problems, as well as involving them in and coordinating various low-profile peacekeeping operations in places like the Peruvian-Ecuadorian border a few years back?
Because it sounds to me that you have read only Chomsky-like accounts of U.S.-Latin American relations. How about you check out Harold Eugene Davis, et al., Latin American Diplomatic History, a very professionally-written and one of the more dispassionate and objective looks at the problem that there is?
Last edited by Gopher on Sat Oct 07, 2006 2:43 am; edited 2 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Scaggs
Joined: 19 Sep 2006
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 07, 2006 2:40 am Post subject: |
|
|
| I sent you a couple PMs, Gopher. I gotta crash. It's almost 4 AM in these parts! Have a good one. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
