Ahmadinejad at Durban II. Racism and the Old World Order (Long)

Originally posted by backdoorman
I'm not sure whether this was addressed at me or not but I'll answer to it as if it was all the same.

not really. The initial posts seemed a little apologetic, and I wanted to point out that I didn't think Iran was the good guy.

Originally posted by backdoorman
I understood your point, and I agreed with it. The US (along with all of its little minions) is indeed being small-minded and incredibly unfair. My point was simply that given some of the arguments Ahmadinejad used in his speech against Western and Israeli imperialism (I use the word liberally, though perhaps not so liberally when it comes to Israel), it seemed kind of ironic and on the brink of hypocrisy given his government's ambivalent responses to the treatment of people of the Baha'i faith.

totally. As mature members of an international community dedicated to the eradication of racism, we should have sat there and forced the issue with him. Were Israel not racist, we should sit there and contest their claims with real evidence. The actions of our leaders insinuate that we are supposed to be without question and that the international order should naturally follow whatever the American whim is.

We should be encouraging the open questioning of everything and everyone. HA, didn't jesus say something about glass houses? (I actually don't know the line, this isn't a rhetorical question)

Originally posted by inimalist
We should be encouraging the open questioning of everything and everyone. HA, didn't jesus say something about glass houses? (I actually don't know the line, this isn't a rhetorical question)

"People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones."

I doubt Jesus said that. Maybe you're confusing it with "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone." which has the same implication.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
"People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones."

I doubt Jesus said that. Maybe you're confusing it with "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone." which has the same implication.

lol, very true... unless they had fine crystal homes around the turn of the millennium...

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
inimalist 👆

I would go little further and say that maybe not everyone wants Western practices. Has it occurred to anyone that there are communities and nations that do not want democracy (or whatever it is we call democracy these days)?

preaching at the choir.

Especially when we remember that it is American democracy, essentially corporate governance due to lobbying and other things we are told are "essential" to our way of life.

I remember talking to my Arabic prof about this. He was originally from Morocco and was part of student pro-democracy movements there. During my first year of it, there was an election in Morocco, where only like 30% of the population showed up. I asked him why turn out would be so low.

Basically, the Arab world has been lied to in order for the West to maintain its power and appearance of "benevolent intervention". We promised that nations who embrace democracy will be allies and be supported by the west, so many Arab nations elected western leaning leaders (Palestine with Abbas, Egypt, Morocco, etc). However, these leaders either ended up being oppressive to their own people (Egypt) or being totally ignored by the West (palestine). Because of this, the people on the ground saw no real change in their standard of living, and essentially turned their back on democracy. This explains the election of Hamas in Gaza, as the "other" option (almost reminiscent of the American "Anybody but Bush" sentiment), as Palestinians had totally lost faith in Western style leadership as a vehicle to their freedom. The same can be said of Morocco, and largely the Arab world.

Not only are they not interested in a Western democratic system, Western intervention and insistence on democracy is only further alienating people from the principle of political participation in general.

The bright side might be seen in Gaza, where people who elected Hamas are now bothered by the fact that they used the election victory to escalate the conflict with Israel and Fatah rather than increase the standard of living of the Palestinian people.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
Fundamental changes in culture/politics of any nation, in order to be legitimate and lasting need to come from the INSIDE and the people of those countries. Not from external sources. Imposing any kind of system of government or morality on anyone is imperialistic.

Our ancestors all once lived in Autocratic and in a lot of cases excessively oppressive states but overcame and changed as years went on.
No external forces imposed democratic systems nor morality on Western countries to be the way they are now.

Who would have thought 600 years ago that one day autocracy and feudalism would not be overwhelming system of a country, that everyone would be considered equal and that it will no longer be any rulers chosen by God but by people.

I think we forget this all the time.

America was responsible for installing the Shah into Iran. During the revolution, American freedom was associated with the Shah's rule specifically because of this. The socialist revolution, aimed at ending the Shah's corruption and perceived decadency then was associated with anti-democratic ideas specifically because of America's external intervention.

People will rise up against corrupt power systems. If America supports those, they will rise against whatever it is that America is thought to represent. By "exporting democracy" in the way America is attempting to, they only hurt real democratic movements in the region, because the American style "democracy" becomes associated with autocratic leaders (supported with American funds and weapons).

American "democracy" is the best friend of extreme Islam.

Originally posted by inimalist
lol, let me just clarify one point. I'm not trying to defend Iran's president, any of the racial/religious practices of Iran, or even point out Israeli violations at the expense of recognizing those of Iran.

All nations have problems with race or "outgrouping" of their own citizens, all nations have problems with treating some ethnicities as second class citizens, Canada included.

My point is, rather, that the West insists that the world conform to every one of its views, including explicit rules against criticizing Israel, before it will even come to the table to discuss things. Essentially, they must be assured to get their way before they will start negotiating, and the only way to interpret this, is, that America and its western allies feel they have a justified right to control and own the planet.

My second point, as a corollary to the first, is that we actually appear immature and completely insecure with our own beliefs (which we are told, defacto, are better than those of Iran. So much better in fact that we need not even listen to Iran). We are unwilling to face accusations from other people, and thus, we essentially justify the criticism. By not debating with Ahmadinejad, we essentially prove him correct.

...on the other hand: I think most of us have had, perhaps, just one or two KMC discussions with someone whom, at some point, we realize is just never gonna get it, so why waste more time. That Iran's president pulled a fast one with modified speech content should remind the West not just how clever he is, but also of our obligation to our high-sounding values.