Hey, this is Amy.
I feel that the US is in a sense reusing the "White man's burden" in a way, especially in Iraq. If we had to be involved with Iraq at all, there is a certain extent to which we should have been involved. We took out Hussein, and afterwards we tried to establish a democracy in Iraq, actually we are still trying, and our efforts are leading to chaos in the Middle East. What gives us the right to impose our government beliefs on the people of Iraq? Who declared democracy to be the optimal form of government? I've heard many times that the people of Iraq don't even want a democracy. So why are we pushing it on them?
The US is taking an unneccessarily active role in the formation of the Iraqui Constitution, actually determining clauses, limits, ideas, and policies that we feel need to be included, even against the popular opinion of Iraq. It's almost like we feel that it is our duty as a world power to influence those governments that are "less developed" than our own, to enforce democracy on an unwilling nation to "modernize" or "civilize" them, make them fit in to the modern world. These societies to us are just like the "savage" Africans to the Europeans, and we feel responsible for determining their futures, even though the issues commenced off of false causes and assumptions. We shouldn't even be in Iraq, yet we stay in because we feel that it is our duty as the United States to protect the world from inadequate governments.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Hey, it's Erin.
I definitely agree with Amy. In the "white man's burden" there's a sense that we are superior and know the right way of doing things and others want to be like us. That idea, whether intended to be arrogant or not, can be seen today as we try to establish democracy in Iraq. Maybe the Iraqis don't want democracy or maybe it doesn't work for them. Also brought up in class today was that imperialism was not caused by the altruistic motives mentioned in the poem, but for economic gain and material wealth. Again the connection can be made as to why we are in Iraq (which can still be argued about - oil or taking out Saddam and creating a democracy).
The sense of cultural elitism is deeply seeded within America. Obviously the Iraq War raises many objections, but even outside of that context, I have witnessed a lot of condescension and negativity towards citizens of other ethnic / racial backgrounds. Just this past week, as I was on the road with my family touring colleges, we drove past a car with a bumper sticker that read, "this is America! Speak English!". I couldn't believe that a person would be so arrogant and brazen as to advertise their feelings on a bumper sticker! But there are arguments for both sides. America does not have a national language. English remains the most widely spoken, although if Mexican immigrants continue to enter the country at the current rate (currently the largest immigrant demographic), it is expected that in the next few decades, Spanish will be the most popular language. It may seem like an issue of little concern, but it actually costs the government a lot of money to print signs in multiple languages. If Spanish does become the most widely spoken language, should road signs / medical information etc. be printed in Spanish, English, or both? Should the government preserve "American" culture, and is this their "burden"?
Post a Comment