|
Dave's ESL Cafe's Student Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Students and Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Should the West intervene to protect human rights in the third world? |
| Yes |
|
83% |
[ 5 ] |
| No |
|
16% |
[ 1 ] |
|
| Total Votes : 6 |
|
| Author |
Message |
Diana
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Posts: 494
Location: Guam, USA
|
 Posted: Wed Feb 19, 2003 12:03 pm Post subject: Re: how to solve conflicts? |
 |
|
| ecc wrote: |
politics involves conflicts. different people or group has different interest ,and the resources are scarce in comparison with the needs of people,so people often fight each other for the best share.war arises.
today ,people have outgrown the era of killing-each-other-for-survival ,and politics has been an art of reaching compromise.the conflicting sides should go to court instead of war to solve their disputs . |
I agree. The conflicting sides should settle their disputes through negiotations or some kind of world court instead of going to war. After all, the two sides are fighting over land. Fighting over land is an age-old conflict. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Diana
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Posts: 494
Location: Guam, USA
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 20, 2003 2:22 am Post subject: Universal Morality. |
|
|
| Thom wrote: |
Obelix clearly doesnt like my example (or for some reason, the way I spell my name) so I'll try to clear things up a little.
With the example of the cannibal island, I was not making a direct comparison to the Iraq situation. With that and with the example of Sharia law, I was attempting to show that our definition of morality (including human rights), far from being universal is in fact just an expression of our cultural values.
Ecc said that despite not being a fish, a huamn can know that the fish does not liked being dropped in a pot of boiling water. The point being that through study (ie finding out that a fish has a nervous system and is sensative to heat), we can undertsand something we have no direct experience of. Despite not being Muslims, Arabs or Iraqis, we can gain understanding of their culture.
That is fine in the Iraq situation. I'm no expert on the Koran but I suspect it has a few things to say about murder and torture. But this debate isnt limited to Iraq. What about Sharia law in the muslim world. Forced abortions and sterilisations in China freedom of speech in Zimbabwae or racial equality in Hong Kong. When Western nations step in with their size 10's and issue condemnations, sanctions and the suchlike, that is a case of them finding something repugnent in another country's culture and assuming the universal nature of their own moral code.
The Chinese mighht well ask "What's wrong with the racial definition of a state?" or "Why should people have the right to choose how many children they have?" The Zimbabwaeans (spelling anyone???) could eqaully ask "Why should people have freedom of speech?" One of these days, someone might even have the balls to ask "Why should we hold life sacred?"
In fact, I challenge anyone who believes that morality is universal to justify the sanctity of Human Life without using western concepts of morality as a foundation. If we cant prove the sanctity of life itself, then what hope do we have with the rest of our canon of universal human rights?
Incidently: Obelix, if you want my opinion on the war then look in the thread on the peach marches. Pug, for colonies doing better since liberation, try the four you mentioned plus Tanzania, India, Pakistan, Hong Kong, Singapore, the Republic of Ireland, Jordan, Eygpt, Kuwait, Barbados and Calais to name but a few. And that's just former British colonies. |
I think that the majority of the world's culture and religion agrees that dishonesty, stealing, and intolerance is wrong. The problem is that every culture has a different definition of what constitutes dishonesty, stealing, and intolerance. For example, the Chamorros clearly understand that stealing is wrong. However, to us taking things from your friend's or relative's home without permission is not considered stealing. This is not our definition of stealing. We consider it stealing if you take things from a shopping mall, place of business, or from a complete stranger.
I think that every culture realizes that stealing is wrong. How we define stealing may be the problem and how we strongly feel toward it may also decide on how we penalize thieves. In Sharia law, anyone caught stealing will get their hand cut off. Although westerners may not agree with this penalty, it probably helped reduced the number of thieves in those countries. Wouldn't you say? I know with Singapore and their strict laws have a much lower crime rate than the US.
I think that the majority of the world's culture and religions also agree that war is bad. Just look at all the anti-war protests from every corner of the globe. Therefore, it seems that our cultural values are the same. It's just a matter of defining those values.
Why would Obelix dislike your name?????  I don't see anything wrong with your name. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
obelix
Joined: 09 Feb 2003
Posts: 304
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 20, 2003 1:59 pm Post subject: pompous asses |
|
|
Tom are you really as pompous an ass as you sound?
Is it a limey thing?
You seem to think that it's OK to call anyone by any name you choose and then get bent out of shape because I spell Tom properly and you choose to spell it some affected dopy way.
May you live in interesting times. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
wing
Joined: 15 Jan 2003
Posts: 193
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 21, 2003 3:59 am Post subject: Re: pompous asses |
|
|
| LOL� Is the above supposed to be what a lovely guy says? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
obelix
Joined: 09 Feb 2003
Posts: 304
|
| Posted: Sat Feb 22, 2003 4:20 am Post subject: History |
|
|
Tom wrote,
"Incidently: Obelix, if you want my opinion on the war then look in the thread on the peach marches. Pug, for colonies doing better since liberation, try the four you mentioned plus Tanzania, India, Pakistan, Hong Kong, Singapore, the Republic of Ireland, Jordan, Eygpt, Kuwait, Barbados and Calais to name but a few. And that's just former British colonies."
I think peaches are well worth marching for.
But you were obviously admiring your reflection when you should have been doing history.
The Republic of Ireland has never been a British colony.
Hong Kong is not doing better now than it was under the British.
Tanzania, formerly Tanganyika (part of British East Africa) is a mess.
Calais?? Your pal Jacques would be gobsmacked. The English might have occupied it when the Normans owned Britain but it was not a colony.
Egypt was not a colony.
Nor was Jordan.
Kuwait was not a colony. It was a province of Iraq until British petroleum decided it would be better under the control of one of their boys.
India and Pakistan are spending all their money on weapons and the people are destitute.
Singapore, I agree, is doing fine.
So, English boy, you flunk British Empire 101. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Thom
Joined: 12 Feb 2003
Posts: 29
Location: Sarajevo
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 23, 2003 8:57 pm Post subject: Re: History |
|
|
Fair cop on the peaches  . In emails home I blame all my typos on dodgy Chinese keyboards but I suspect that wouldnt cut it here.
Anyway, I think youre wrong about the countries I listed. For a start, Imperialism 101 is that it doesnt matter whether you call the states under youre control colonies, protectorates, overseas territories, vassal states or "New Europe". The name is secondary to the level of control you have in defining them as a part of the empire.
| obelix wrote: |
The Republic of Ireland has never been a British colony.
Hong Kong is not doing better now than it was under the British.
Tanzania, formerly Tanganyika (part of British East Africa) is a mess.
Calais?? Your pal Jacques would be gobsmacked. The English might have occupied it when the Normans owned Britain but it was not a colony.
Egypt was not a colony.
Nor was Jordan.
Kuwait was not a colony. It was a province of Iraq until British petroleum decided it would be better under the control of one of their boys.
India and Pakistan are spending all their money on weapons and the people are destitute.
Singapore, I agree, is doing fine.
So, English boy, you flunk British Empire 101. |
Ireland was ruled directly by London until 1921 (give or take a year). After that they were given a form of home rule ("The freedom to achieve freedom" -Michael Collins-) and this evolved into full independence over the following decades. Perhaps you deny that it was a part of the empire because it was defined as a part of the UK and not a colony. Mere semantics. The French tried the same trick in Algeria (calling it a department of France instead of a colony) but like the Irish, the Algerians fought a successful civil war to free themselves. Ireland was undoubtedly a part of the British Empire.
Youre probably right about Hong Kong, although to be fair, a lot of their problems are not of their making. I guess Wing is the person to ask about whether life has gotten better or worse since 1997.
Tanzania isnt doing so well lately but it isnt in as bad a state as a lot of African nations. I'd contend that its people are better off now than they were under the British. For decades after independence it was doing exceptionally well compared to the rest of the continent and its recent problems have come not from the failures of independence but from the new Economic Imperialism of the American led IMF and the corporate interests that they are beholden to.
I'm pretty sure that Egypt, Jordan and Iraq (including Kuwait) were all British protectorates. Some taken the normal way, others taken over from Germany post-Versailles. Dont be fooled by the term protectorate. Again, the distinction is only a semantic one. These countries were run by and for Britain (read the big business interests behind the government).
India and Pakistan may still be poor but their conditions have improved (particularly in India) since independence. I think we have to be careful not to make the assumption that life was great under British rule. The people had political stability but they lived in grinding poverty as slaves to be used as their British overlords saw fit. To point out that they are still poor is to miss the point, they were even more poor before independence. In the first half of the 20th century, the British only attempted to hold onto those territories that were economically or strategically useful. The British economy was failing and was no longer of any benefit to its empire. Quite the contrary, colonies were prevented from trading in hard currency (only able to use sterling) all of their trade credits were absorbed by the UK. The way it worked was that Britain established the "Sterling Zone" and in any hard currency trade with a country inside the zone, Britain took the hard currency and reimbursed the trading nation in Sterling. I'm no economist but as I recall, it was all to prop up the pound. Far from helping their economies by providing a market, Britain was a parasite that leeched off of their trade which was increasingly with other nations. Te empire kept it's subjects poor in order to keep it's founders rich. A lot like globalisation.
To defend Britrain's occupation of India and Pakistani on the grounds that they are so often at war is uterly ridiculous when you recall how the dispute started. Lord Mountbatten (last viceroy of India) decided that Britain was pulling out without any detailed preperation whatsoever. In the debacle that followed his *beep*-up attempt at partition, he awarded the muslim state of Kashmir to India. As a result of his mistakes, the two sides have been at war ever since.
Calais was a joke. I just stuck it in to have a shot at Chris. I cant be sure but I dont think we've occupied it since the 100 years war. By the way, youre talking crap about the Normans. The Norman invasion was the French occupying Britain (which had already been occupied by the Germans). Not the other way around.
So, with the possible exception of Hong Kong, I stand by my list. In my opinion, every one of those countries did better after independence. Perhaps if theres anyone from these countries using the board they could comment on that. As with wing and HK, I expect they know better than we do.
Pug started this saying asking me to name countries "other than Australia, New Zealand, Canada and the US". If were looking at post-independence economic success, why should these countries be exempt from any list? Are they exempt from the list because they're populations were white settlers? While the racial supremacists would have us believe that only countries run by the civilized whites succeeded, the truth is far more simple. Countries that were successful before independence were also successful after independence. Not difficult to understand. That's Ireland, Singapore, Australia, New Zealand, Hong Kong, Canada and the US. Hong Kong is 97% Chinese and I'm sure whites are a similar minority in Singapore. These nation states are proof (not that any was needed) that you dont need to be white to be a successful leader. To say that independence has failed in some countries because their populations are still poor is ridiculous. They were even poorer as colonies. I dont understand why people are surprised that rich countries have got richer whilst the poor countries have got poorer. This isnt the fault of the poor, it's just how capitalism works. |
|
| 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
