 |
Can Americans be Terrorist?
Category: News and Politics
The War on Terror: Can Americans be Terrorists?
Nationalistic pride coupled with the brainwashing of the United States government has and continues to cloud what actually happens between this super power and the world. Although America has chalked up its charity list, spread some of its wealth, and lent support sometimes to those in need, it is still, above all, a nation of human beings. As common knowledge goes, humans make errors. Therefore, we cannot assume that the United States' actions are completely free of greed or intentional violence. In fact, contrary to popular beliefs, there are acts of terrorism in the past and present committed by America. This includes, but not limited to, genocide, attempts of monopolization of world trade, and forceful implements of democracy. The meat of the solution for American inflicted terrorism is education. To begin the repair of its international reputation and malicious actions, The United States must realign its focus and priorities to secondary education of not only homeland history, but also world education, including geography, history, and foreign language. And integrate non-secular meditation time in the classroom. This would produce a well rounded world citizen and it would strengthen democracy here in the States by empowering citizens with knowledge and awareness that would spur increased political involvement.
Terrorism has many definitions, but they all highlight some of the same ideas. A couple of key terms and ideas that fall under the umbrella of terrorism are a fear based approach, intentional attempts to injure or kill, usually with heightened violence and intimidation, and to influence a particular government. Noam Chomsky illustrates that, "use of these definitions elicits great anger, and for good reasons. If we use them, it follows at once that the United States has been a leading agent of terror, dramatically so in the Reagan years, but later too. And that is an unacceptable conclusion" (Chomsky). With that being said, it is still difficult for some people to believe that America's hands are painted red. There is a large amount of hypocrisy with the definition of a terrorist. Why is it that the same terms the States use to detail the meaning of a terrorist become ambiguous when looking in the mirror? A prominent example that Chomsky points out is about Serbian crimes and U.S. involvement in Kosovo:
Great outrage… [and] passionate laments about toleration of such crimes near
the borders of NATO [were consistent]. There was, however, virtual silence
about crimes right within NATO, in southeastern Turkey, that were greater in
scale-obviously so before the NATO bombing, which, as anticipated, sharply
intensified Serbian crimes. The differential reaction is natural. The United
States was providing the bulk of the arms for Turkey's violent repression of
Kurds, joined by other NATO powers. The radical imbalance in concern and
coverage follows the normal pattern. [Also], in early 1999, Indonesian crimes
in East Timor were again escalating. The scale was well above Kosovo at the
time, reaching a cataclysmic level in August-always with firm U.S. support, as in
earlier years, when the slaughter would have surely been called 'genocidal' if an
enemy were responsible, not ourselves. Concern and reporting were slight.
The more people know about these involvements and direct actions, the less likely it is that more detrimental behaviors will occur. The reason behind this idea is that knowledge creates a connection between people. Moreover, when people feel connected to someone or something they are more committed to being consciously involved. In this case, their involvement is clarifying the definition of terrorism by rightfully calling out the truth and demanding a change. This is how democracy is strengthened. And by strengthening democracy in America, the system of democracy looks more appealing to other countries.
However, that is not to say that every country needs or wants a democratic government. There lies a misconception of an American belief. Americans believe that their way is the best way; therefore, everyone around the world should be the same. Not only do Americans believe that everyone should adopt their governmental system, they also attempt to instill it by forced democracy. In 2005, President Bush explained what he thought was a connection between a lack of democracy and terrorism:
Our strategy to keep the peace in the longer term is to help change the
conditions that give rise to extremism and terror, especially in the broader
Middle East. Parts of that region have been caught for generations in the cycle
of tyranny and despair and radicalism. When a dictatorship controls the political
life of a country, responsible opposition cannot develop and dissent is driven
underground and toward the extreme. And to draw attention away from their
social and economic failures, dictators place blame on other countries and other
races and stir the hatred that leads to violence. This status quo of despotism
and anger cannot be ignored or appeased, kept in a box or bought off" (qtd. In
Wilson)
But, what Mr. Bush is forgetting to add to the equation is the fact that people will not change unless they want to. A nation's beliefs, values, and culture greatly impact their body of government. Furthermore, forcing anything, especially democracy, creates a feeling of invasion rather than support and help. Currently the results of attempting to instill democracy in the Middle East have been war and genocide. This is a direct form of terrorism committed by the United States.
Interestingly, countries that practice democracy as their foremost form of government but are not part of the wealthy westerners experience terrorism thrust from ambitious America. One outstanding example is that of India in which Sivaramakrishnan declares that, "India's agricultural condition poses fundamental challenges to its credibility as a democracy," (Sivaramakrishnan). And this has to do largely with the U.S.'s attempt to monopolize international trade, thus terrorizing people's livelihood. Sivaramakrishnan strengthens this by pointing out that, "Two-thirds of India's population depend[s] on agriculture," (Sivaramakrishnan). Therefore, it would need to be sustainable but, unfortunately that is not the case: "Agricultural holdings declined steadily in size in the four decades before 2003 but from 1991 to 2001, the number of agricultural labourers increased from 86 million to 106 million," (Sivaramakrishnan). Not only is it imperative to have an abundance of agriculture for nutrition, but also for the economy: "The concentration of land ownership is intensifying, and rural opportunities in non-agricultural work are severely limited" (Sivaramakrishnan). And to top it off, "Indian farming… has been damaged by the importation of subsidized United States cotton," (Sivaramakrishnan).
Not only India, but the spectrums of countries around the world have been faced with the super power's influence of subsidies, which greatly affect world trade. For instance, "We deny government aid and our markets to African peanut farmers but give billions of dollars in subsidies to American peanut farmers and ensure they can sell their products all over the globe," (Sardar 486). Furthermore, "We subsidize every cow in the European Union by $2.50 a day and force the vast majority of peasants in Africa and Asia off their land to live on less than $1 a day," (Sardar 486). Is this correctly demonstrating a nation built by the people for the people? And if it is built for the people, are not other human beings around the world also people?
Now is the time to make changes that would not only lift up the United States, but also the world at large. An important proposal to begin positive progression is an emphasis on education. By strengthening education in America, knowledge could spread across the globe. To do this would require extensive financial funding. Pulling out of war would decrease military expenses, thus providing an ample amount of funds to be put towards strengthening education. Once the financial backing is in place, America can focus on homeland history and international education, including world history, geography, and foreign languages. In doing so, it would produce multi-cultured minded Americans that could be more equipped to understand other ways of life. And it would strengthen democracy here in the States by empowering citizens with knowledge and awareness that would spur increased political involvement.
There have been multiple attempts, some achieving more success than others, to fortify the educational system including, but not limited to, the No Child Left Behind program and the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. These are great implementations; however, if the U.S. is to truly change for the better there needs to be more support. The foundation of learning is built from the teacher. Teachers should be compensated fairly and supported with ample amounts of supplies. This is not impossible but it is imperative to the future. Though in today's society, a teacher is not adequately compensated and the classrooms beg for teaching tools.
Moreover, there needs to be a heightened focus of American history, world history, geography, and foreign languages if the United States consciously wants to develop an intellectual foreign policy that can correspond and act in conjunction with other countries. American history needs to be a focus because, unfortunately, many Americans know less about their nation's past than other countries know about the States. Also, as a democracy, people need to know their history in order to make new progressive decisions for the present and future. World history, geography, and foreign language knowledge would provide a greater understanding of other cultures. Many kids around the world can look at a map and point to the United States. American kids, however, have trouble identifying where some of the states are located, let alone countries. Plus, in many countries, children are taught to read, write, and speak at least three languages. In the U.S. young students can slide by with only learning the bare basic words, usually in Spanish. This results in other nations feeling a lack of respect from America. For example, a tourist from another country comes to the States. That person is expected to know English. But, if an American travels outside their boarders, they anticipate being able to speak English. This ignorance affects the States' reputation, which by means of default, affects its foreign policy encounters.
Merging meditation time into the class time would produce a more focused, peaceful, and grounded individual. This could be added at the beginning of the day or at the beginning of each class. Just ten to fifteen minutes have proven in multiple studies to drastically change a person's nervous system. In doing so, a person is less likely to be violent. Studies have also shown that meditation not only aides in relaxation, but also lifts self worth and confidence by relating one's self back to their core. Just as mentioned above about people having a sense of connection with other people begins with being connected with one's self.
Furthermore, genocide would decrease if not cease, world trade would be handled on a foundation built on fairness, and understanding of another countries values, beliefs, and culture would give rise to the idea that democracy may not be for everyone, especially forced democracy. This could all happen with an emphasis on secondary education. But, it will take an enormous amount of time, energy, and money. However, it can be done and the results by far outweigh the struggle.
1:08 PM
-
1 Comments - 2 Kudos
- Add Comment
|
blessed
contemplative
excited
content
annoyed
full
hopeful
drunk