America: An Open Hand, Or A Closed Fist?

[NATO AIR]

I like it when we as Americans are challenged... when the chips are down, we show what we are made of. Sadly, with the country split 50/50 at this point, there are two sets of challenges, two sets of chips, two vastly different answers at times from two sets of people divided. Darfur is a matter with which we can move beyond that 50/50 divide. Will Pres. Bush after his reelection move us beyond that divide by taking action in Darfur? I hear many who say liberals would complain, but liberals are only 10-15% of the population. I don't care anymore about them so much as I do about that 85% of the nation that isn't liberal and that wouldn't complain, but answer the president's call to action if he issued it. Until that moment, who are we?

for one, maybe a few of those pathetic liberals would support the president. here is one and she makes a powerful point.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6314389/site/newsweek/

An Open Hand, A Closed Fist

Are we inspired only by personal vengeance, not humanitarian succor? Are we willing to make war in Iraq but not peace in Sudan?By Anna Quindlen
NewsweekNov. 1 issue - A rare moment of unanimity in the presidential debates came when the candidates were asked about Darfur, the western region of Sudan. As the ruling government has pursued a ruthless policy of ethnic cleansing designed to destroy the village structure there, more than a million people have fled their homes. Women have been systematically raped, children have been kidnapped and turned into slaves and an estimated 70,000 people have died because of the conflict. Both President George W. Bush and Sen. John Kerry used the same word to describe the situation, a word that in semantic currency carries a heavy weight. "It is a genocide," the senator said. "I agree," said the president, "it's genocide."

Then they went on to tussle over Iraq.

Reasonable people can disagree about exactly what the United States ought to do as one group of Sudanese is being intentionally slaughtered by another. Kerry argued that more needed to be done but that the president had overcommitted American troops in Iraq; Bush countered with the $200 million in aid that he said had already been earmarked for humanitarian efforts.

But most notable was that afterward, there was very little public attention paid to the question, the answers or the issue. To hear Americans talk after visiting the Holocaust museum, reading Anne Frank's diary or even watching "Schindler's List," you would think they would be galvanized in the face of what politicians from opposite sides of the aisle agree is genocide, the planned extermination of an entire group of people.

It is not so.

Who are we, we Americans? The answer is murkier at this moment than at any point in our history. Election Day is probably an ideal time to stop and think about that, although it seems we rarely think about it at all.

As the former Soviet Union withered, we became the only real superpower on the face of the earth. What does that mean, apart from arrogance and dominance? The writer Samantha Power, whose book on genocide, "A Problem From Hell," won the Pulitzer Prize, recalled that when she went to Bosnia the people there welcomed the presence of reporters. They believed that if the people of the world, particularly the people of the United States, were told about the murders and the rapes and the brutality, something would be done. She stayed long enough to see the welcome decline into weary cynicism: no one was coming, no one cared. The phrase "never again" was an archival piece of outrage.

Is that who we are? Are we inspired only by personal vengeance, not human-itarian succor? Are we willing to make war in Iraq but not peace in Sudan? What moves us to action?

There have been watershed moments when the citizens of this nation have taken stock of their core beliefs: when the country was founded, when it splintered into warring halves, when it was drawn into world wars. Perhaps it is true that, as James Baldwin once wrote, "an identity is questioned only when it is menaced."

Institutions usually hammer out their core principles when they work on a mission statement. Corporations frequently do it in crisis. A management consultant once complained to me of the search for a CEO at one Fortune 500 firm, "They're doing it backward. They'll pick the guy, then try to get him to take them where they want to go. They ought to decide where they're heading, then pick the guy who is most likely to take them there."

By that definition presidential elections in the modern age are a little backward, too. There's too much about the guy and not enough about the goals. Part of that is because real debate and discussion get lost in election rhetoric that is a dissonant combination of homogenized and calcified, the lowest common denominator set in stone.

But in this, as in so many other aspects of our lives, Americans ought to shoulder the blame for their own shortcomings, something else we seem congenitally loath to do. When the media produce pap, it's because those are the covers that sell and the programs that spike in the Nielsens. When companies manufacture junk and junk food, it's because that's what we buy.

We complain that the political process is dominated by platitudes and PACs. That's because it can be, because the American people have too often been spectators, not participants. We ask a guy to lead without really telling him where we want him to take us. Too often elections are a short-term stopgap for long-term problems.

This is a moment when those questions must be asked again, now that the United States so towers over the other players on the world stage. Are we a country willing to match strength with strength of purpose? Are we a country prepared to model free speech for others, or one that will trade its birthright of dissent for national security? Are we a country that cares about the needy and the disenfranchised, or a country of individualists in which self-interest is the ruling ethos? Is our symbol the open hand or the closed fist? Who are we? What do we stand for?

© 2004 Newsweek, Inc.

 

[onedomino]

We can do no greater work than to help others in trouble. This is the calling of American strength: the helpless must be saved.

"This is my simple religion. There is no need for temples; no need for complicated philosophy. Our own brain, our own heart is our temple; the philosophy is kindness." -Dalai Lama

 

[musicman]

onedomino:

That's a great sig. An old, uncredited proverb I once heard went something like:

"Kindness is more important than wisdom. Realizing this is the first step on the road to wisdom."

 

[White knight]

So what is being done? I don’t see or hear much about this issue in the news.

I was reading one of the religious posts; someone was saying something about “you will be judged on how you treated the least among you”.

If these people were Jews or light skinned and the attackers were dark skinned, something would have been done already. Americans can’t place them selves in their shoes, or identify with the people being killed.

From what history has shown us so far, people are continuing to act in their own self-interest.
Most Americans were not willing to act against the Nazis, even though they knew genocide was taking place. It wasn’t until their own soil came under attack, were they willing to support the president’s decision to go to war.

What people don’t realize is that all these conflicts affect us directly or indirectly. Like Bad Karma it will find its way back to you. Productive lives are lost, resources are wasted, new ruthless breeds of killers are born, and new destructive techniques are refined or developed. Evil minds are watching this conflict and learning from it, learning how much you can get away with before the world notices.

 

[nosarcasm]

the biggest tragegy imo is that America has not united after
the attack. The partisan bickering for power has clouded
the reality that the enemy makes no distinction about
the north or south , the liberals or conservatives.

America was divided by the civil war and did not suffer
the losses the European suffered in WW2.

In the postwar consensus the European democratic countries
realized to optimize their strength they have to unite the populace.

It led for some time to the rise of socialism. THe victory of
industrial capitalism led by the Us is slowly changing the EU.

the US now under attack by the islamist extremist should
put the bickering aside to crush the enemy and unite

Well one can dream.

 

[sagegirl]

Sometimes I think the big political scene is just a diversion. Oftentimes when one story is in the spotlight, another goes nearly unmentioned. Darfur, because of the magnitude of the tragedy, will have our attention one day. We will act shocked and wonder how could we have let this happen.

 

[dilloduck]

the biggest tragegy imo is that America has not united after
the attack. The partisan bickering for power has clouded
the reality that the enemy makes no distinction about
the north or south , the liberals or conservatives.

America was divided by the civil war and did not suffer
the losses the European suffered in WW2.

In the postwar consensus the European democratic countries
realized to optimize their strength they have to unite the populace.

It led for some time to the rise of socialism. THe victory of
industrial capitalism led by the Us is slowly changing the EU.

the US now under attack by the islamist extremist should
put the bickering aside to crush the enemy and unite

Well one can dream.

Agreed-----the US cannot even heal itself much less another nation or people.

 

[manu1959]

Agreed-----the US cannot even heal itself much less another nation or people.

i seem to recall the nation was together and quite united for quite some time....bushies ratings were through the roof...after a respefctful morning period the media lit in to him and split the country

this just in: busshie up by 2 in PA

 

[tim_duncan2000]

All I know is that it's not possible to intervene in every situation around the world. Not even the US has enough resources to do that. But just because it's not possible to intervene in all situations doesn't mean that nothing should be done in any situation. The US should intervene when it can.

I also think it's strange how the same people who are critical of US actions in one case are the same ones who are critical of US inaction in other cases. Then, you have people like Michael Moore who imply that it's all about oil or some other ulterior motive (he even said this about Afghanistan, which is much more ridiculous than saying the same about Iraq, which is also ridiculous). That's also what he would say about the Sudan situation, so you just can't win either way.

Why does it always have to be the US anyway? Why doesn't the US-hating UN do something? Where are the other countries? Maybe instead of sitting around hating and blaming the US, they could get off their collective asses and do something.

 

[wolvie20m]

Well other countries frankly don't have the military presence we have. The UN is what I would call a pretend army. Thier there but action of the UN is almost unheard of. Thier more for rescue missions when someone whos there and shouldn't be. Hopefully after this we'll once again be a reunited nation and not let this election tear us apart.

 

[NATO AIR]

and more people will die needlessly in darfur, women will continue to be raped, children will have to choose between starving or attempting to get food at risk of dying at the hands of sudanese militia, and the world stands by and watches hand-wringing.

sometimes you have to just do the damn thing, because its so horrible you can't fathom watching the slaughter go on any longer. when news correspondents finally find their humanity and consciences, when our children tearfully ask us why we do nothing for kids who are being killed, when our teenage daughters break protocol at the dinner table and ask why the hell america isn't doing something about women being gang raped, when our religious leaders talk about it every sunday (or other holy day), when we're together with our families in happy times and for the slightest moment, we remember what's happening

that is when america will act. let us hope it happens a lot sooner than it did for bosnia, but all these things started happening to americans of all creeds, colors and classes during bosnia. then the outpouring of public rage with inaction and hand-wringing started to rise up feverishly, and our nation's moral and political leaders started destroying and discrediting clinton's agenda, that's when we acted.

can we act sooner for darfur? can we accept the harsh reality that the US is the only power that cares? can we assume our destiny to be the world's greatest nation not just in words but in action? can we stand up for justice and peace again?