As Toby Keith so eloquently put it...
'Cause we'll put a boot in your ass
It's the American way
Is that really the America Way? Well, sadly it seems that is the way those who consider themselves patriotic, like to think. America believes in freedom (or at least what gets peddled to the servants of her markets as freedom) and seeks to impose this on the world, by force if necessary.
I bring this up because of an opinion piece posted in the Washington Times today, which has been touted by a person of my acquaintance online as a great piece.
Before I share my opinion on the opinion piece...
I voted for Mr. Obama, because I had high hopes that he could achieve some form of change in our government. I think he has achieved some, but the crucial deep changes needed in Washington haven't happened and I suspect they won't ever happen until our entire economy collapses and those who manage our government through lobbying and campaign donations are left impotent and ineffective.
Anyway, so while I admitted at the time that I felt he was a little overly optimistic about the changes he hoped to introduce, I'm now forced to accept the reality that he was being way overly optimistic. But I'm hoping he can still be a force for good. That's not to say I think Mr. McCain would have done any better - I'm of the opinion that things would be much the same had McCain and Pallin gotten the vote, with the exception that I think we would have seen an increase in US conflict overseas.
Which brings me back to the piece. You can read it here.
It's entitled Obama Bows, The Nation Cringes
Basically what happened is that the President is currently on a trip to Asia. When meeting the Emperor of Japan, rather than a handshake, the President bowed, which is a common way of greeting another person in Japanese culture.
Let me take a side journey here...
I was a Mormon missionary in Africa over a decade ago. Most of my time was spent in areas populated predominantly with those of the Zulu nation. Most Zulu people speak fluent English and are used to White men speaking down to them and treating them like second class citizens. When entering one of their homes, I could have taken the dominant role, and shared the prescribed lesson with them, filling my role as the dominant white man, and they would likely have listened respectfully and offered me food and drink before sending me on my way.
I tried a different approach though. When entering their home, I would greet them in their native language with a hushed tone and while bowing my head, extending my right arm for a hand shake. While doing this I would touch my left hand to my right elbow, and then engage them in a traditional zulu hand shake which consists of a series of grips. The handshake, particularly with the left hand positioned at my right elbow was a sign of tremendous respect for the people who had welcomed me into their home. It conveyed to them that I respected them, that I was willing to learn their cultural traditions and honor them as best I could. In many ways it's the Zulu equivalent of a very deep and long bow in Japan.
Perhaps it could be said that I subordinated myself to these people, but it never turned out that way. In showing my respect it didn't dimish me as a person at all, nor even as an emissary for God. Rather it showed that I respected them as fellow humans, worthy of great respect in their own right. Many I developed very deep and meaningful relationships with. While many chose to not accept the lesson I shared, any rejection was done with the utmost respect and good feeling.
Lets return to the offensive bow. The president of the United States chose to learn a foreign countries culture and perform an act of respect when greeting a cultural leader in a foreign land. If Japanese youth were now flowing into the streets chanting about recognition of their supreme leader, I think the writer of this article might have a point, but I have yet to hear any reports of this. I suspect the Emporer truly appreciated both the gesture and the intent behind the bow. I see it as a sign of respect which would lead into very honest and open discussion between these two world leaders.
I think there are two ways which Americans can view the world.
First, is that we're all part of the same human family. We have different cultures, languages and beliefs, all of which are worthy of respect. We don't have to disagree, but we can work together to achieve the great good.
The other way is the way of Toby Keith, George Bush and obviously Mr. Pruden.
F*ck you world!! We're the U S of f*cking A!! We rule the world, and you had better respect us and do what we say, or else... Take it away Toby!
In the grand scheme of things, is there really a difference between those types of people and Islamic extremists who would like to see the world as an Islamic state?
I guess it all depends if your god is Allah or the God the Father.
I'm with you on most of it... I was touched by the photo of Obama bowing, and I don't think a show of humility in any way dampens his strength, leadership, or confidence.
ReplyDeleteAs far as hope for government and politics go... well, you're more optimistic than I'll ever be. Sadly, I have a lot of experience in that arena, and I do not hold more than a kernel of hope that ANY event will precipitate massive change in any good direction for our government. Remember "Power corrupts" etc.? Totally true in American politics, from the bottom to the top. I liked Obama mostly because I figured he was new enough that he didn't owe anyone yet, and smart and strong enough to get a few things done... before he either leaves 'em or joins 'em. So I have no illusions the pace of change will increase, or even last.
Sorry for the cynicism... I have higher hopes for religion than for politics!
clink
Well... I don't agree, quite. Pruden's analysis is silly (as well as borderline racist with its talk of the "natural instinct" and "blood impulse" of Real Americans), but as someone who's spent a lot of years involved with Japanese culture, I think Obama's bow looked weird. It was much too deep. The President's diplomatic protocol people should have taught him the proper way to bow. They let him down.
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure if I'd consider my view on politics and the government optimistic... I have this idea that perhaps one day a big enough calamity will happen that the government suddenly appears as helpless and ineffectual to the population as they are in reality. I suspect religion may face the same predicament as well. Of course with that said, it would probably take more than that to impact peoples thinking enough to allow that to happen.
ReplyDeletePerhaps we share the same cynicism!
Kuri, your analysis and understanding of bowing etiquette is probably better than mine. The extent of my understanding related to the custom of bowing in Japan came from Wikipedia.
ReplyDeleteAll I've actually seen of the bow, was a photo on the AP.
Do you think perhaps his height had something to do with the depth of it? I mean the photo had both of their heads at the same level, but in order to read that level, Mr. Obama probably had to bend a full foot more.
I'm also going only by the photo. I don't know, but the height thing seems like a plausible explanation. But this is about what he should have gone for if he wanted to bow.
ReplyDeleteYou know what, I just took a quick glance at Google, and it seems that most Japanese media are taking the depth of his bow as a sign of respect and expressing a wish to improve relations with Japan. So your analysis is actually probably better than mine. Certainly Obama's instincts are better than mine, because I'm pretty sure that's exactly what he was aiming for.
ReplyDeleteIt's just a sad reflection on our society when a sign of respect is seen as a sign weakness.
ReplyDeleteOf course on the other hand, if Mr. Obama's critics have to criticize something as trivial as this, he must be doing a pretty decent job!
It's interesting that you mention Toby Keith. When the song you reference came out, Keith was lionized as a right-wing hero- something he apparently didn't expect to happen.
ReplyDeleteSince then he's backpedalled like crazy. Oh he'll write a song every now and again about soldiers, but he avoids taking one side or the other like a plague. I've read and watched interviews where it seems like he's purposely advocating liberal viewpoints in order to shed the typecast.
Keith's song seemed to capture the essence of the attitude I was trying to target.
ReplyDeleteBut that said, from what I understand, he's a democrat and generally leans towards the liberal side of things.
And I think his song, American Soldier is excellent.
I shouldn't have lumped him in with the likes of Bush and Cheney, but when you write and perform a song like that, you have to expect the warmongers to latch onto it.
As for the all the bowing and the approach Obama has taken to foreign policy, I would encourage you to read the following blog post at the National Review:
ReplyDeletehttp://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=OWZmOWRiYTdjNzNmNDU1Nzc0OTZiYjc1ODI3YjBiOGI=
It doesn't necessarily criticize "the bow," but it does demonstrate how Obama's conciliatory tone may be a double-edged sword.
As far as the actual bowing goes- bowing to the Japanese emperor? Fine, whatever. Bowing to the Saudi king? Inexcusable.
One other thing (and I apologize for the multiple comments):
ReplyDeleteI didn't watch the video (was there a video?), but I wonder if Emperor Akihito returned the bow. Do you know? He's hunched, kinda, but that may simply be his aged posture. I don't know a thing about Japanese culture, but it seems like the answer to this question might be key in both gauging Akihito's reaaction to Obama and determining his stance on our relationship.
There wasn't a video, but in the picture posted by the AP, it appeared that it was a demonstration of mutual respect from both men.
ReplyDeleteHaving read that article, here's my question as it related to my original point...
How is trying to seek peaceful resolutions a sign of weakness?
The reasons given for 9/11 by Osama Bin Laden were that they were retaliation for our support of the State of Israel and meddling in foreign affairs in the Middle East, both are sadly true. It wasn't because we were an independent democracy which believed in freedom and not forcing our ideals on other countries.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't one of the founding fathers make a statement about us avoiding foreign entanglements?
If the United States is truly has a great system, we should "Let our light so shine". Instead it seems we take the arrogant approach of assuming we know better than every other country what is right for them, and if they don't like it, we'll force them into it through intimidation. Unless of course they don't have oil.
Actually this goes back to something I raised several years ago...
Your son needs to clean his room.
Option A. You threaten to beat him, remove privileges and all other manner of nasty consequences if he doesn't clean his room. Or the ultimate... I won't love you if you don't or God will be mad.
Option B. You sit down and talk with him about the realistic dangers of vermin, then problems associated with living in a mess, and perhaps even offer to help him out to get him started.
Either way the room will likely get clean. Result achieved. But at what cost.
The ends don't justify the means.
I also find it rather amusing that people seem to be upset that the president didn't assert his dominance on the Chinese. Don't they pretty much own us? It's like me going down to the bank and demanding concessions on my mortgage, because I'm the customer, but at the end of the day, I only have a house because they've loaned me the money.
"There wasn't a video, but in the picture posted by the AP, it appeared that it was a demonstration of mutual respect from both men."
ReplyDeleteSo he may or may not have returned the bow but he seemed like he was returning the respect? The more I think about this, the more I want to know about protocal and what it all means. From the little I've read so far, it seems not returning the bow would be a negative sign.
On the subject of hierarchy and the importance of stature (relational theory) in international politics, I'll just say that the world arena is not a macrocosm of your son's bedroom or a missionary discussion. Good or bad, the world is a very structured place. People interpret things differently than you or I do and for different reasons. You may see Obama's bows as polite gestures. Joe and Jane Iranian may see them quite differently.
We should not shove our "freedom" views down people's throats, but neither should we impose upon them our own cultural-political preconceptions
Agreed!
ReplyDeleteWhat if Joe and Jane Iranian, see the US President as someone who offers respect and is willing to discuss a peaceful solution? I think the average Arab is sick to death of living in fear for their lives, and in their minds we are the aggressor, a fact which I think the Iraqi war drove home.
We've been lobbing bombs over there for years, and it hasn't achieved anything positive - at least not that I can see.
What if they see the US, instead of a foreign regime, who backs up Isreal no-matter what, but as a partner in world affairs and as an entity that will regard their side of the argument as much as the other side.
Notice that I said Joe and Jane Iranian, not Joe and Jane Arabian or Joe and Jane Jihad (all three distinct types).
ReplyDeleteAccording to multiple and multi-sourced reports, the average Iranian
1) is a moderate muslim
2) is sick and tired of his government's oppression, and
3) see's the West, particularly the USA, as their only hope for change.
Obama's bowing to the Saudi king was not recieved well by the people of Iran. If the most peaceful and practical way to change things in Iran is via its people, we need prove we have their backs. Obama's bow (despite his ridiculous denial of it) sent the exact opposite message.
I think we should just all be grateful that our president didn't wander around holding hands with the Saudi King!
ReplyDeleteFrom german news org Der Spiegel comes an analysis that demonstrates the point I've attempted to make here:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,662822,00.html
So now I'm supposed to care what the Germans think?
ReplyDeleteForgive me if I'm wrong, but weren't all the conservatives pissed off that Obama cared what the world thought when he first took office?
And the article cites how Obama failed to get concessions from the Chinese on climate change prevention measures - shouldn't all the Glennbeckinites be up cheering about this?
"Thank God the Chinese didn't listen to Obama!!"
"Woohoo!! More Carbon Emissions!! The enemy of my enemy is my friend!! I <3 China!!"
Right?
Here's my problem...
Obama bows to the Japanese Emporer as a sign of respect and all "The Patriots" freak out.
Bush sends thousands of soldiers to their deaths in the middle east, while murdering thousands of middle easteners in the process - and that doesn't include literally more than a hundred fold, if not more, from both sides who will bare the emotional and physical scars for the rest of their lives. But yet to critisize that is "Unpatriotic".
It's ridiculous!
And that was my point.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but your point appears to be that America should speak loudly and threaten to blow the hell out of any country who dares challenge our authority. And by thus conducting ourselves, we'll gain the respect of the international community.
In your answer please address why the regime in Iran (which I believe our prior meddling in the region helped setup), didn't immediately crumble when Bush categorized it as an axis of evil and why North Korea, the other axis is still pursuing a quest to be become a nuclear power.
It hasn't worked in the past, and I think it foolish to think it will work in the future.
It's time for something different. That's not to say that Mr. Obama's approach is perfect, but I think it deserves more of a chance than what we've done in the past, since, like I said, it's painfully obvious that it hasn't worked.
"Forgive me if I'm wrong, but weren't all the conservatives pissed off that Obama cared what the world thought when he first took office?"
ReplyDeleteYes. And we still are. I don't advocate catering to the world. The article makes a good argument that Obama's approach-- the one that you champion and that I don't care for-- isn't working like he though it would.
"And the article cites how Obama failed to get concessions from the Chinese on climate change prevention measures - shouldn't all the Glennbeckinites be up cheering about this?"
You're missing the point. Obama has goal A. Takes approach 1. Does not achieve goal A with approach 1. My stand on the issue is irrelevant to the point.
"Obama bows to the Japanese Emporer as a sign of respect and all "The Patriots" freak out."
My beef with the bows isn't that they're unpatriotic. It's that they ignore the hierarchical structure of international relations and the associated realpolitik, which can have ramifications that run deeper than his attempts to be polite.
"Correct me if I'm wrong, but your point appears to be that America should speak loudly and threaten to blow the hell out of any country who dares challenge our authority. And by thus conducting ourselves, we'll gain the respect of the international community."
ReplyDeleteYou're very wrong, and I don't appreciate the hyperbole or the oversimplification. I may have caught you at a bad time of day, so I'll overlook the mild hostility.
I believe we should assert ourselves as powerful yet compassionate, stalwart but not threatening, considering realpolitik. Please note that I'm not saying Bush did it this way. Reagan got closest, and he overthrew the Soviet Union thereby.
Iran didn't crumble because Bush just called them evil. He did nothing policy-wise to back that up. Oh, but we did send huge amounts of personnel and aid to Iran after their little earthquake. (incidentally, so did another organization you have little regard for). N. Korea just called our bluff.
ReplyDeleteI wouldn't be so quick to say that past diplomatic approaches haven't worked. I'm sure you'll argue it, but Reagan/Gorbechev is a case in point.
Also, keep in mind that what the world thinks of us must be understood on two levels: what the people of countries think of us and what their governments think of us. We deal with peoples idealogically. Relations with their governments is more like a chess game. It's one we can modify and play to our favor, but not one we can just duck out of without consequences.
"I believe we should assert ourselves as powerful yet compassionate, stalwart but not threatening, considering realpolitik."
ReplyDeleteAnd I maintain that we shouldn't even be asserting ourselves. Assert is just a nicer way of saying threaten. It's just arguing about degrees. Why do we need to assert ourselves anyway?
Don't you think North Korea calling our bluff did more damage than a simple and respectful bow to the Japanese Emperor?
And where did I say past diplomatic approaches hadn't worked? I'm advocating a diplomatic approach, just without the use of force.
Our meddling in Middle East politics obviously is not working, but feel free to disagree. In fact I would argue that it provoked the attack on 9/11 and that it is responsible for the government currently in power in Iran - and we were responsible for Saddam Hussein and we helped train Osama Bin Ladin. The US has screwed up royally in the Middle East... Therefore it's time for a new approach.
Oh wait... I misspoke. President Carter, who your little German friend seemed to think where Obama was headed towards emulating and indicated so in somewhat of a disparaging tone, did manage to bring about the Camp David Peace Accord, and since then Egypt has attack Israel on how many occasions?
You see it was a negotiation and an agreement to which both sides entered into willingly, and without the threat of force. I think it made the difference.
And what does my opinion regarding the LDS Church have to do with any of this? Huh?!
Well, I guess since you brought up religion and not me...
Actually the LDS Church, if it truly has the Gospel of Christ at it's heart, really should be trying to influence the world to become a more peaceful place as well, rather than wasting billions of dollars on a new mall, or trying to stop the evil gays from being married. Just my opinion though!
But how about we leave the LDS Church out of it, and go one step higher...
I actually think Jesus Christ would tend to agree more with the approach I'm advocating rather than yours. But like me, he probably doesn't understand global politics either, which would be why.
You might recall stories of a group of people who would rather lay down their weapons of war and suffer themselves to be killed, rather than raise up their weapons and spill the blood of their brethren. And I recall many a Sunday School lesson when they were held up as great examples of the lives we should be leading. I tend to agree with that!
Turning the other cheek and all of that - Wild crazy myth or the word of God telling us how to conduct our lives?
I tend to lean towards Word of God, but then again, I'm not a good Mormon and I criticize the Church, so what do I know... Right?
I didn't mean to touch such a nerve with the comment about the church. I just figured that since flippant comments disparaging the LDS Church appear regularly in your posts that I should be allowed to respond in kind once in a while. My arguments to that point had been detached from emotion and pretty cool headed. Yours have been emotionally charged. In that context, my little dig there should have been understandable and taken in stride.
ReplyDeleteOf course I probably would have been wise to leave it out, as it played a bigger role in your response than I had hoped.
I don't disagree with your points about turning the other cheek in principle. But if we're going to talk scriptures we should take all battles/force situations into consideration. Has Jesus always commanded his people to lay down and be slaughtered? Has that always been the course of action righteous peoples have taken?
I wouldn't say you hit a nerve. I just found it mildy amusing that you would want to even bring that up. I'm actually a little excited to see how you try and justify US agression based on the scriptures!
ReplyDeleteYou're taking my responses as emotional and hot headed, but have you perhaps considered that I might be approaching my responses emotional undetached and cool headed at least from my perspective and seeing you as the highly emotional one? It's all kind of relative to your point of view I guess.
If I may return to Iran briefly though... Trying to excuse the US's past actions by saying that we sent aid over there is like excusing a guy for beating his wife because he got her the very best surgeon to reconstruct her face. It's a nice gesture, but wouldn't be needed if he hadn't beaten her. I'm not saying that sending aid wasn't nice, and the earthquake wasn't caused by the conflict. But without us past screw up, it would just have been a nice gesture and the humane thing to do, not a reason for a discussion on how we're not the cause of problem in the region.
Also I've never critisized the LDS Churches relief efforts, in fact I think they are to be applauded.
Actually I think you raised a valid point in the last paragraph about battle considerations in the scriptures. Captain Moroni was perhaps a prime example and he wasn't commanded to lie down and take it. Of course in his case he was commanded to defend his nation, not become the agressor because he didn't like the Lamanites form of government, or because of the leaders they picked, or because they had a new method of pumping water.
I'm not sure you can claim the invasion of Iraq or Afganistan were defensive moves. Retaliation was the motive in Afganistan, which brings the whole other cheek thing into play. And Iraq... Well, now that was just pure agression!
Oh no wait... Dang it!!
I guess you had the Isrealites taking over Canaan...
I guess you've got me - and I'm not being sarcastic here. I'll even leave my initial comments in, just so you can see the progression in my thoughts, but I'll fully admit I'm wrong.
But then that raises the question of...
How do you know your God is the right God, and that it's actually your leader getting revelation from God to invade other countries and not just him using his postion of power to further a personal agenda.
And thus we arrive at the problems I have with religion. In my opinion, it's all corrupt... Islam, Mormonism, Christian. Any time you have a leader who claims to speak for God I think you run into problems.
We may just have to agree to disagree on the whole nature of global politics if it comes down to who's got the mandate from God to annihilate another nation, which is kind of how I ended my post! Allah, God - doesn't it really make that much of a difference. When it comes down to it, you're just picking a side, and at the end of the day, I think they're both dead wrong!
I think if we could eradicate the scourge which is religion, the world would be a much more pleasant place to live.
I don't recall advocating a warring approach to anything in this thread or elsewhere in the bloggosphere. If you could cobble together my stance from comments here or elsewhere, you might see that it differs from typical neocon fare. I do not use scriptures to justfiy aggression. In fact I haven't justified aggression at all. My entire point is that when coming to the diplomatic table, consider relational politics. We might not want to play the chess game, but we must realize that everybody else is and will continue to do so.
ReplyDeleteOn the point of emotion, I'd love for you to show this thread to an outsider and see who they think has been the more cool-headed. Not that you're being uncivil at all-- you never are. But your approach to these topics is driven by primarily by emotion. That's why I don't blog myself, because then I'd be coming at things that way. Emotion bad, logic good.
I also don't blog myself because that would mean I'd have to come up with original arguments and take the time to express them. Commenting is my way of latching onto your train of thought without having to come up with one myself! Don't you feel used?:)
ReplyDeleteI read something a while back about being a successful blogger, and one of the tips was not to respond to commenters... The reason being that if people want to be dumb enough to provide free content to your blog you should let them!
ReplyDeleteI disagree with that, mostly because I'm providing free content anyway, and I do actually enjoy the back and forth in the comments. Helps me think and consider other options - like the freakin' Israelites - DOH!!! So I don't feel used!
Occasionally I'll post stuff with the side thought of knowing you'll comment - of course I'm usually wrong about half the time too!!
I get what you're saying about the chess game... That said though, shouldn't we be in a position to change that? I'm not denying it's there I just think there has to be a better way. I think our recent economic collapse and past wars aren't exactly helping us if we did want to change it though.
Which then raises the question... If you take away our military strength are we still a super power? Or is super power defined only by military strength?
I mean we have the economy, but it's kind of reliant on the Chinese and most other nations. It's like we're on top, but only because of the nations which support us, and it's kind of like the grasshoppers in a bug life... At some point, they're going to realize that if a couple of them worked together, they could bring the US to her knees.
"I get what you're saying about the chess game... That said though, shouldn't we be in a position to change that?"
ReplyDeleteI think we can play the lead in it, but I'm not sure we can change the game completely anytime soon. Despite our debt and economic mess, we're still considered to be the "big kid on the block." There always has and always will be a hegemon and those who leech off and contend with it-- it's just a question of which country plays which role at any given time. I think the best we can do for now is to mediate the chess game by succoring friendly nations and not caving to rogue nations. This approach endears us not to governments, but the governed-- and that's where change is sparked.
We don't need to be an imperial, warring nation. Nor do we need go completely pacifist. We just have to control the game and hope we can eventually evolve it to a more humanist system.
"If you take away our military strength are we still a super power? Or is super power defined only by military strength?"
Our hegemonic status has historically hinged on both economic and military power. Take away the economic power and we'd be just like the USSR during the Cold War- a faux power that will eventually implode. We're well along that path.
"I mean we have the economy, but it's kind of reliant on the Chinese and most other nations. It's like we're on top, but only because of the nations which support us, and it's kind of like the grasshoppers in a bug life... At some point, they're going to realize that if a couple of them worked together, they could bring the US to her knees."
Bingo.