POLL: Condi Rice is ...

Carrera

I came across a writer by the name of Adrian Goldsworthy who made 2 interesting observations. These particular points he makes led me to conclude that Condoleeza Rice is basically an educated spokeswoman for an old line of thinking that was abandoned by Europeans after the second world war.
This is fairly simple to understand.
Goldsworthy points out that (prior to the European world wars), there were many scholars or doctors such as Miss Rice who advocated imperialism and the spread of Christianity. Of course, Miss Rice also happens to be a bible scholar as well as a linguist. But here is what Goldsworthy says about this particular ideology:
"These scholars were produced by a society which believed that the rule of "civilized peoples" of the world over the "uncivilized" was beneficial .......the great empires were an improving force, spreading education, the rule of law and Christianity."
I put some of these terms in quotations as I question the whole idea that Iraq is basically "uncivilized" and the West "civilized".
Anyhow, this is basically what Condoleeza Rice and the neo-conservatives advocate, together with the idea that Christianity and imperialism go hand in hand.
Now here is what Goldsworthy has to say about post world war 2 European scholars:
"The rapid demise of the European empires following the second world war led to an almost equally rapid condemnation of all that they had stood for, an unquestioning assumption that empires were, by their very nature, wrong. These scholars emphasised the greed and brutality of the imperial powers."
I think most people can follow this argument O.K. It also sums up where the rift between Europe and the U.S. actually lies.
The Bush Administration has basically adopted the old European philosophy of imperialism and has likewise recruited biblical/theological scholars who are capable of making a solid intellectual argument for the specific idea of American Imperialism. With regard to the Middle East it involves invading Iraq, Iran and Syria and attempting to impose the ideas of Christianity and democracy on the native peoples. This is what Miss Rice advocates and why she is currently so popular.
However, Europe is no longer imperialistic so that European scholars reject the whole ideology they themselves advocated in the past (especially France and probably Britain). I think this is essentially where we're at, at this given moment. I didn't really see it that way till I started reading Goldworthy's take on the history of imperialism and his idea that scholars attempted to justify it. The whole idea of recruiting Condoleeza was to try and convince the world that this is the correct approach to the Middle East.

Carrera

I forgot to add that I think Condoleeza Rice is essentially wrong in her defence of this particular ideology although she is clearly intelligent and well-educated. I guess Margaret Thatcher came close to having similar views (the English speaking peoples should rule the world) but Mrs T didn't share the same religious outlook.

FredC

Goldsworthy wrote that in a completely different era. Mr.T and Reagan's concern was with Communism, and the threat of it. What happened inside the USA I know not, and I can only state that MrsT was hellbent on destroying the unions in this country because she felt, rightly or wrongly that they were a hotbed of communist subversion in the Nationalised Industries. She did destroy the unions, and she also destroyed the basic stability of whole communities at great socio-economic cost to the country. She wrecked the production of coal, steel, docks, all absolute essentials. Then she sold off the Rail system, and smashed that union. She sold off social housing at a knockdown price. When I worked in a very responsible boring job for the country, my pals and I invented a game, and it was based on the premise that who could keep their facilities/infrastructure intact in the case of war. The UK came last every time. Name of the gameplayers HM Customs & Excise ground staff. The game was good. Left the job thru boredom. Shame really.

Weisse Luft

"Punish France, ignore Germany and forget Russia." My kind of answer but alas, these are the words of Dr. Rice.

Ssushi

Punish the country who liberated you from those damn English and praise the country who you was liberated from... is that it? WOW she's shit hot this bird ain't she!

PS Carrera, great post - great to see more in depth analysis, thinking, contenplation etc...

Weisse - again , you are a prick!

Carrera

I agree with you, more or less. The stupidest thing Thatcher ever said was that there was no such thing as society e.t.c.
I'm no fan of hers at all, although I do think she had a certain level of respect for being fairly honest about her beliefs (even when she got it wrong). I mean, I've always said quite openly you could get a free education under Mrs T, whereas modern U.K. students under Labour have to pay for everything. Plus, myself I came from a perfectly humble working-class background but when I chose to study I got a state grant and all sorts of perks.
But to get back to the original thread, I think Thatcher did reflect this old imperialistic outlook that the English speaking peoples were destined to bring stability to the world, whereas the Europeans only produced wars and revolutions e.t.c. Thatcher forgot the Greeks invented democracy, the Romans/Italians introduced law and all western countries inherited their culture from Europe (or classical Europe if you prefer). I find that anti-European idea of hers pretty shallow and biased.
This book by Goldsworthy was about the fall of Carthage and somewhere he mentions this situation about imperialism that I thought was interesting.

Ssushi

Fred, can you post the title and isbn etc...?

Weisse Luft

AWESOME language skills, raw fish. Things change...I do rememeber WWI and WWII. How about the Falkland Islands?

limerickman

If this is Rices thinking (and I suspect that it is) - it flawed and it's flawed totally.

You cannot impose a set of beliefs on people.
This is back to the old "impose democracy" - self contradictory concept.
Throw in the Christianity alignment to democracy and it definitely will not be
adopted.

If Rice is as intelligent as people seem to think - she'd know that the invasion of Iraq was the wrong move.
Iraq - a fusion of three separate ethnic identities was held together (if that's the correct expression) by a totalitarian dictator.
How else could the a country made up of Sunni, Kurds and Shia operate - certainly not through freely working together.

At the moment, the resistance only comprises of Sunni's.
Imagine if the Shia decide to join in ?
Ayotallah Sistani (head man in the Shia movement) has managed to keep the Shia on side, for now.
If they decide that it is time to resist attempts to "impose democracy" - all
hell will break lose.

Rice ought to know this (if she is as smart as some think she is).

FredC

Sorry about that, no doubt it has disappointed many readers that I can actually scribble a few words. Who cares, I don't I get paid for some of the tripe, Who cares, I've earnt enough lately to keep me in scripts and prospective propositions. What about my pal? Cliff Richard brings out a perfume named Miss Unites. My pal lives on his royalties, he's dancing around like a dog with two dicks. Back to the saltmines for you lot.

Carrera

Thanks. However, I guess the analysis was something I more or less lifted from another source (or book) but it does seem to fit in.
All in all, this is how I would summarise this present situation and I also have something to add to this idea of France and Russia e.t.c:
What we are faced with is a Bush Administration made up of a whole bunch of neo-conservatives or neo-conservative sympathisers. They are currently promoting the kind of political agenda that has squeezed the moderates out of the political spectrum and, therefore, Condoleeza has been chosen as the Party Intellectual. Her view revolves around an idea that the British promoted decades ago and still persists to the present day - i.e. that the only way to attain global stability is through the dominance of the so-called English-speaking peoples, military intervention in less advanced countries, colonisation, the enforced promotion of Christianity and Puppet-Democracy and the age-old imperialistic policy.
This policy is clearly dangerous and let's not forget the same ideal inspired Stalin and Hitler. Hitler believed that the only means of attaining global stability was via the domination of the Arian race (he had scholars and scientists who would write dissertations on such a philosophy).
Stalin believed in the domination of the working-class, elimination (liquidation) of the bourgeoisie and enforced imposition of communism throughout Europe.
The Bush Administration isn't really so different. Clearly there are plans to invade Iran, overthrow the mullahs, occupy the oil fields and impose this ideal of puppet-democracy and Christianity. So, I think Europe still underestimates the threat. Moreover, if they (the neos) attempt an invasion of North Korea, the consequences could be fatal.
I think what may happen is that Europe will possibly pull out of NATO and form a different kind of global security alliance. The potential to try and negotiate Russia's entry into the E.U. is also a possibility so I think that would give the European Union a military as well as economic punch. In return, Russia would want billions of Euros to aid their struggling economy and that would hopefully bring them up to par with France and Germany. As I see it, if Russia joined the E.U. then Europe would easily have the same military capacity as the U.S. and would actually be a touch more powerful overall (even more so that the USSR was). Europe could then send troops into areas of instability when required. If Russia never joins, Europe has to invest in its military to be taken more seriously by China and America in the future.
One difficulty is that Russia is torn between Europe and the U.S. and doesn't know which way to go. I have Russian friends who tell me they like Americans more while others say they would like to be in Europe. Russians identify more with the U.S. over terrorism but the fact Putin signed the non-pollution treaty (Kyoto or whatever they call it) shows he's also ready to consider European attitudes more.
One things's for sure, there was a meeting at my old uni conference centre a week ago and many people expressed the idea that the Bush Administration is clearly dangerous. They have an American Studies department based there so some genuine Republicans were invited, as well as Democrats. The question that is being asked is whether it's the U.S. that now poses the main threat to global stability now that Russia seems to have become reasonably stable (even if democracy still needs more of a push). Whichever way you look at it, the Administration (with Condoleeza Rice's blessing) clearly endorses a policy of invasion of sovereign states, the installation of "acceptable governments" and the philosophy of unilateralism and imperialism. The Brits clearly got away with all of this it in the past (when imperialism was more acceptable throughout the world) but whether the rest of the globe will ever endorse such a policy again remains to be seen. Personally I very much doubt it.

Carrera

Good point, Limerickman. Imagine the boot was on the other foot and Saddam Hussein was the superpower while the U.S. only had a few skud missiles and kalshnikovs. Despite that, would the Americans stomach an invasion of their territory, the removal of their government and imposition of an American style Islamic ruler (seen photographed with Saddam smiling on national TV). Sure. it sounds kind of comic but the comparison is surely worth making. How would they feel about the evangelical churches in the bible-belt-states being bombed e.t.c. while troops prayed over the koran in the battlefields?
Somehow I think there would be an insurgency in such a case.
You're right. You can't just graft one culture and religion onto a land that developed in a totally different way over hundreds of years. If the U.S. can put a man on the moon, why can't they grasp such an obvious fact?

Weisse Luft

False analogy. For you analogy to be correct, the US would have had to been waging war against Mexico for 10 years, using nerve gas and blister agents. After that stalemate, an invasion of Canada for nationalization of thier oil and mineral wealth would have followed. After defeat of this fictious Imperial United States, there would be 10 years of imposed but ill enforced economic sanctions and a push for offensive disarmament.

Add in insurrection by Wyoming, Montana and Idaho and by Texas, Louisana and New Mexico where federal forces were called in to squash these dissenters.

FredC

No wonder the shofah blower never made it as a rider, who the fuck wants to room with him?