Diff’rent strokes
Each of us has his or her particular chauvinism with which they like to define themselves, be it their nationality, ethnicity, gender, etc., even though in the majority of cases these are determined by the arbitrariness of birth. The most fiercely religious adherents to a given sect tend to have been born and raised in that sect, while the most ardent patriots tend to be those who were born in their country. Notwithstanding the sheer illogic of these self-categorisations, they, like all forms of bigotry, are actually dangerous.
Trotsky, everyone’s favourite internationalist, wrote eloquently and lucidly on the detrimental effects of dividing the human race into arbitrary groups within arbitrary borders. Earlier, Thomas Paine remarked, somewhat throat-lump-inducingly, that he was a “citizen of the world”. And yet today’s so-called ‘liberalism’ seems to pride itself in its so-called ‘multi-culturalism’, which comes down to tolerating all different ways of life.
In it’s furthest extrapolation, this philosophy has led to condoning the atrocities perpetrated, for example, by the fundamentalist Muslim community, both in the West and in Islamic countries. Because these would-be lefties differentiate between themselves and their fellow human beings, they dismiss the stoning, hanging, rape, oppression and murder with a simple “they do it their way, we do it ours”.
No! Whatever happened to that wonderful self-evident truth, that all men were created equal? Why is an Iraqi’s life worth less than an American’s? Why did we in Britain raise such a furore when that moronic (but British) woman Gillian Gibbons was about to get forty lashes, when that is a punishment to which dozens of women, if not more, are subjected to across the Islamic world every single day? Since when did universal human rights cease to be the foremost priority of the liberal left?
It may not be true to say that the USA declared war on the Confederacy, or Britain on Poland, or the Coalition on Iraq, out of a duty to ensure that the human rights of slaves, Jews and gays, or Kurds (to name but a few) were fulfilled, but in my view the ends in these cases justify the means. It may not have been his primary objective, but Lincoln’s actions led to the emancipation of four million human beings. Similarly, had not other countries interceded in the Second World War, who knows how many more would have been slaughtered?
We in the West are very lucky to live in a liberal, free society, for which thousands gave their lives over the generations at every gradation on the long path to freedom. Anyone who imputes that an Iraqi, or a Korean, or an Iranian, does not deserve to live in such a society is, quite simply, racist. Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness should be guaranteed for all human beings, and to say that fellow human beings living under oppressive regimes on the other side of the world is not our problem is both reprehensible and hypocritical.
Why is Gillian Gibbons moronic? She went to Sudan to teach English; she asked the kids to name the bear; the kids named the bear Mohammed; she didn’t mind. The moronic bit was the response in Sudan.
Unless you think her decision to go to Sudan to teach was moronic. I’m not sure that’s a valid argument.
But I agree with you on the wider point: she should not be the only one who needs defending. Hundreds, if not thousands, of people, not just women, get lashings as a punishment in many of these countries, and the rational, liberal, human-rights-friendly response is to defend all of them, not only Gibbons. I remember this well from our time in Singapore: when an American kid was to be caned, there was a furor; but Singapore canes thousands of others, all of darker hues, and there’s never a protest….
During the entire ordeal, there was no more ardent supporter of Mrs. Gibbons that yours truly; it was when she came back and delivered her idiotic comments that I changed my mind. Why on earth did she “apologise”? She was saying sorry to people who wanted her “killed, killed by firing range”!
In a sense, she illustrated the point of this post. Anyone who purported to be offended (I can scarcely imagine that any of those demonstators was genuinely offended) is not worth thinking about, let alone apologising to.
She made a mockery of those thousands of others who are wrongfully imprisoned, for whatever reason, and do not have the combined forces of the British Foreign Office, House of Lords, worldwide news coverage etc. working in their favour.
You seem to conflate pluralism with multiculturalism. The former being liberal, individualist and only intolerant of intolerance itself; the latter being socialist, communitarian and tolerant of intolerance. To suggest that liberalism is what underpins the cultural relativism that says ‘let Afghanistan and Iraq alone, we have no right to intervene’ is to ignore the history of liberal thought, a significant tenet of which is the international relations doctrine of ‘liberal interventionism’. I.e., intervening in countries for humanitarian reasons.
While a liberal would oppose the invasion of Iraq on the grounds that the invasion was illegal under international law, did not have a UN mandate and suchlike, i very much doubt they would take the cultural relativist view of asking what right we have to tell the Iraqis what system of government they should live under.
To the contrary, my dear namesake. My point is that the liberals themselves, among whom I tentatively count myself, have lost sight of their values in light of the all-precious multiculturalism that you mentioned (though I wouldn’t call it socialist). Therefore you get so-called liberals marching with Hezbollah, and so on.
Moreover, on the question of the UN - any organisation where China and Russia have a permanent veto is quite frankly risible. The whole point of my post is that we shouldn’t have to pander to countries like that.