In the Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson took care to explain the reasons for the colonies’ separation from Great Britain out of “a decent respect to the opinions of mankind. …”
The founders understood that they would need the goodwill of other nations if the fledgling nation were to succeed.
If an e-mail I got the recently is representative, many Americans, perhaps a large number of Americans, no longer think the opinions of mankind matter.
The e-mail came from a friend who I assume sent it to a list of right thinkers in his address book and perhaps to a few like me who just don’t get it.
The e-mail began:
“While on Obama's trip to Europe, he stated that ‘we are an arrogant country.’”
It listed the number of American dead in a military cemetery in France
“We Apologize.” it continued with undisguised sarcasm.
It listed the number of American dead in a cemetery in Belgium.
“We are arrogant.”
It listed the American dead in another cemetery in France.
“Excuse us.”
It listed more American dead in cemeteries in England, France, Belgium, Luxembourg, The Netherlands and Italy.
“IF ADDED CORRECTLY THE COUNT IS 104,366.”
“Apologize to no one. Remind those of our sacrifice and don't confuse arrogance with leadership.
“As Americans, let's all look forward to the next elections - to find a President who doesn't think we need to be ashamed.
“May God have mercy on us until this presidential term is over!”
What has the writer is foaming at the mouth is President Obama’s trip to Europe where he did in fact apologize for some of the strains in relations between the United States and Europe in the recent past.
What eludes me is the connection that the author of the e-mail tries to make.
What do American deaths on European battlefields in World Wars I and II have to do with whether in recent years we have been arrogant and dismissive?
Certainly, American sacrifices tilted World War I in favor of Britain and France. And without the United States, Britain and much of the rest of the world may have fallen to the Germans and their allies.
But in both wars we weren’t solely altruistic. We were fighting to preserve freedom in our own country.
When President Woodrow Wilson went before a joint session of Congress on April 2, 1917, to request a declaration of war against Germany, he cited Germany's violation of its pledge to suspend unrestricted submarine warfare in the North Atlantic and the Mediterranean, and its attempts to entice Mexico into an alliance against the United States, as his reasons for declaring war.
In asking Congress to recognize that a state of war existed between the United States and Germany and between the United States and Italy, President Franklin D. Roosevelt wrote, “On the morning of Dec. 11 the Government of Germany, pursuing its course of world conquest, declared war against the United States. The long-known and the long-expected has thus taken place. The forces endeavoring to enslave the entire world now are moving toward this hemisphere. Never before has there been a greater challenge to life, liberty and civilization. Delay invites great danger. Rapid and united effort by all of the peoples of the world who are determined to remain free will insure a world victory of the forces of justice and of righteousness over the forces of savagery and of barbarism. Italy also has declared war against the United States.”
If, as the e-mail’s author suggests, we are exempt from criticism from Europe because of the sacrifices we made in two wars, then we have no right to criticize France, because without that country’s support, the colonies probably would have lost the War for Independence.
President Obama didn’t crawl to Europe on his knees. In its coverage of his speech in Strasbourg, France, The Telegraph of London said that he went further than any United States president in history in criticizing his own country’s action while standing on foreign soil.
“But,” The Telegraph said, “he sought to use the mea culpa as leverage to alter European views of America and secure more troops for the war in Afghanistan.
“He declared that there had to be a fundamental shift on both sides of the Atlantic. ‘America is changing but it cannot be America alone that changes,’ ” he said.
“Addressing a crowd of some 2,000 mainly students from France and Germany, Mr. Obama said: ‘In America, there is a failure to appreciate Europe's leading role in the world. Instead of celebrating your dynamic union and seeking to partner with you to meet common challenges, there have been times where America has shown arrogance and been dismissive, even derisive.’
“He then balanced this striking admission with a tough message to Europeans that blaming America was foolish.
“’But in Europe, there is an anti-Americanism that is at once casual, but can also be insidious. Instead of recognizing the good that America so often does in the world, there have been times where Europeans choose to blame America for much of what is bad.’
“On both sides of the Atlantic, these attitudes have become all too common. They are not wise. They do not represent the truth. They threaten to widen the divide across the Atlantic and leave us both more isolated. They fail to acknowledge the fundamental truth that America cannot confront the challenges of this century alone, but that Europe cannot confront them without America.’"
In his debate with Al Gore at Wake Forest University on Oct. 11, 2000, George W. Bush said he didn’t think other nations should look at the United States with envy. “It really depends upon how [our] nation conducts itself in foreign policy. If we’re an arrogant nation, they’ll resent us. If we’re a humble nation, but strong, they’ll welcome us. Our nation stands alone right now in the world in terms of power. And that’s why we’ve got to be humble and yet project strength in a way that promotes freedom. We’re a freedom-loving nation. If we’re an arrogant nation, they’ll view us that way, but if we’re humble nation, they’ll respect us.”
I think we have to cut the Bush Administration some slack in light of the events of Sept. 11, 2001.
But we also have to admit that his promise to treat foreign countries with humility quickly went by the boards. We divided nations into those that were for us or against us, ignoring the fact that other nations might have their own national interests and problems. We were dismissive and derisive of those who didn’t fall into lockstep. Remember “Freedom Fries?”
We were the most powerful nation on earth and that was what counted. We based our national strategy on our military dominance.
That has its drawbacks. In his 1987 book “The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers,” Paul Kennedy observed that “…the United States now runs the risk, so familiar to historians of the rise and fall of previous Great Powers, of what might roughly be called ‘imperial overstretch’: that is to say, decision makers in Washington must face the awkward and enduring fact that the sum total of the United States’ global interests and obligations is nowadays far larger than the country’s power to defend them all simultaneously.”
Time has validated Kennedy’s thesis.
For the moment at least (watch the Chinese), we are the greatest military power on earth. But like Gulliver among the Lilliputs, we have found that a giant can be hamstrung by midgets.
We cannot go it alone. President Obama ought to be cut a little slack in trying to regain the respect and cooperation of the Europeans, especially since we did a lot to alienate them.
“…don't confuse arrogance with leadership.” Right. Leaders have followers. People follow out of respect, not fear.
“Apologize to no one. …”
That strikes me as, well, arrogant.
Contract the writer at billatthelake@gmail.com
Friday, May 29, 2009
Thursday, May 21, 2009
There's No Right not to be Offended
Heaven help us if the desire not to be offended is ever enshrined as a right. There seems to be no end of people who think they have some inherent right to be sheltered from anything that offends them, and some pursue it, even to the point of violence.
"Angels & Demons," the latest Ron Howard/Tom Hanks/Dan Brown religious blockbuster, received mixed faith-based reviews. Hanks plays a Harvard professor on the trail of a sinister religious society plotting to install their candidate as Pope and blow up the Vatican.
The Catholic Bishops Conference of India would like to have the movie banned, but will settle for a disclaimer that states the movie is a work of fiction. "It deliberately denigrates the Catholic Church and is intended to offend the faithful," said Father Babu Joseph.
Here in the U.S., the Catholic League and the Universal Society of Hinduism asked the film's producers to add a disclaimer wherever the movie is shown.
You may recall that the earlier Howard/Hanks/Brown film of “The Da Vinci Code” was condemned by the Vatican as “an offense against God.” The condemnation didn’t seem to affect the film’s box office, and the Vatican’s reaction to the new film is low key.
Some years ago, Muslims took offense to Salman Rushdie’s novel, “The Satanic Verses,” and to the works of a Danish editorial cartoonist. They were so offended that they sanctioned the killing of the offenders.
Of course, it is not just religious matters that raise hackles.
Closer to home, an Auburn, Ala., city councilman was so offended by the small Confederate battle flags on the graves of Civil War soldiers at a city cemetery that he removed some of them.
They had been placed by members of the United Daughters of the Confederacy to commemorate Confederate Memorial Day.
The councilman, who is black, said the flags were “offensive to me.”
“It’s intimidating to black folks, and it’s intimidating to me as a civil rights leader,” he said.
One can understand the councilman being offended, but it’s difficult to imagine him being intimidated by much of anything.
It is equally difficult to imagine the United Daughters of the Confederacy setting out to intimidate anyone.
It’s not just symbols that offend, of course. Words do, too.
Take the word niggardly, which means stingy. It dates back to the 1300s in Middle English and has no racial origin, unlike the Romance language root of the infamous N word.
Niggardly has caused a world of commotion over the years, mostly from people presuming to know what it means without bothering to look it up.
Several years ago, a white aide to the black mayor of Washington, D.C., in a discussion with two city employees used the word to describe a budget appropriation. He was accused of using a racial slur. In the uproar, he offered his resignation and it was accepted, though eventually reason prevailed and he was rehired.
An English major at the University of Wisconsin complained to the Faculty Senate that a professor teaching Chaucer had used the word "niggardly" and continued using it after she told him that she was offended. "It's not up to the rest of the class to decide whether my feelings are valid," she said.
Someone is always getting outraged by a book in the pubic schools or in the public library and they want to make certain not only that they are not offended but that others don’t get to judge for themselves whether they are offended.
Almost any writer, philosopher, artist or composer whose work has endured has offended someone.
I am offended by many things. I am sure you could make your own list.
I am offended by the burning of the American flag, for example. But as much as I am offended, I would be much more offended by any action to punish those who burn the flag. Nearly any speech (and that includes symbolic speech) that is worth its first amendment protection is likely to offend someone.
When someone argues that the thing that offends him or her is somehow different, that it deserves to be suppressed, it is time to be particularly wary. We have already surrendered too many of our ideals. We must now surrender our support of the first amendment right of free speech and the other rights it guarantees.
As Benjamin Franklin observed, “…If all Printers were determin'd not to print any thing till they were sure it would offend no body, there would be very little printed.”
Write Bill Brown at billatthelake@gmail.com
"Angels & Demons," the latest Ron Howard/Tom Hanks/Dan Brown religious blockbuster, received mixed faith-based reviews. Hanks plays a Harvard professor on the trail of a sinister religious society plotting to install their candidate as Pope and blow up the Vatican.
The Catholic Bishops Conference of India would like to have the movie banned, but will settle for a disclaimer that states the movie is a work of fiction. "It deliberately denigrates the Catholic Church and is intended to offend the faithful," said Father Babu Joseph.
Here in the U.S., the Catholic League and the Universal Society of Hinduism asked the film's producers to add a disclaimer wherever the movie is shown.
You may recall that the earlier Howard/Hanks/Brown film of “The Da Vinci Code” was condemned by the Vatican as “an offense against God.” The condemnation didn’t seem to affect the film’s box office, and the Vatican’s reaction to the new film is low key.
Some years ago, Muslims took offense to Salman Rushdie’s novel, “The Satanic Verses,” and to the works of a Danish editorial cartoonist. They were so offended that they sanctioned the killing of the offenders.
Of course, it is not just religious matters that raise hackles.
Closer to home, an Auburn, Ala., city councilman was so offended by the small Confederate battle flags on the graves of Civil War soldiers at a city cemetery that he removed some of them.
They had been placed by members of the United Daughters of the Confederacy to commemorate Confederate Memorial Day.
The councilman, who is black, said the flags were “offensive to me.”
“It’s intimidating to black folks, and it’s intimidating to me as a civil rights leader,” he said.
One can understand the councilman being offended, but it’s difficult to imagine him being intimidated by much of anything.
It is equally difficult to imagine the United Daughters of the Confederacy setting out to intimidate anyone.
It’s not just symbols that offend, of course. Words do, too.
Take the word niggardly, which means stingy. It dates back to the 1300s in Middle English and has no racial origin, unlike the Romance language root of the infamous N word.
Niggardly has caused a world of commotion over the years, mostly from people presuming to know what it means without bothering to look it up.
Several years ago, a white aide to the black mayor of Washington, D.C., in a discussion with two city employees used the word to describe a budget appropriation. He was accused of using a racial slur. In the uproar, he offered his resignation and it was accepted, though eventually reason prevailed and he was rehired.
An English major at the University of Wisconsin complained to the Faculty Senate that a professor teaching Chaucer had used the word "niggardly" and continued using it after she told him that she was offended. "It's not up to the rest of the class to decide whether my feelings are valid," she said.
Someone is always getting outraged by a book in the pubic schools or in the public library and they want to make certain not only that they are not offended but that others don’t get to judge for themselves whether they are offended.
Almost any writer, philosopher, artist or composer whose work has endured has offended someone.
I am offended by many things. I am sure you could make your own list.
I am offended by the burning of the American flag, for example. But as much as I am offended, I would be much more offended by any action to punish those who burn the flag. Nearly any speech (and that includes symbolic speech) that is worth its first amendment protection is likely to offend someone.
When someone argues that the thing that offends him or her is somehow different, that it deserves to be suppressed, it is time to be particularly wary. We have already surrendered too many of our ideals. We must now surrender our support of the first amendment right of free speech and the other rights it guarantees.
As Benjamin Franklin observed, “…If all Printers were determin'd not to print any thing till they were sure it would offend no body, there would be very little printed.”
Write Bill Brown at billatthelake@gmail.com
Thursday, April 23, 2009
A Better Gardener Than I
Written on Earth Day, 2009
As you crest a hill on Old Susanna Road just before it drops down to our short side road, the horizon stretches before you. In the distance the hills march westward. Most prominent is Smith Mountain, with its abandoned fire tower still standing watch over the lake.
From this vantage point you see more shades of green than the vocabulary can name. It is worthwhile to pull to the side of the road and drink in the scene.
On our half hill spring is rampant. Last week, I prepared a two beds for some flowers that I had started from seed a couple of months ago. I was beginning to think that the plants would become root-bound before there was enough of a break in the cold, wind and rain for me to set them out.
At last, though, sun appeared, the soil dried and the thermometer climbed, and I carried the tray of fledgling flowers down to the beds by the seawall.
The planting went quickly. When I finished, I stood erect and stretched and let my eyes wander. The native azaleas are past their prime, and the winds have stripped the flowers from the dogwoods. But the oak leaf hydrangeas have fresh green leaves, and wildflowers abound.
Violets are still blooming, and the flowers that look like tiny asters – according to Joab Thomas’ excellent wildflower book wild asters should not be blooming, so perhaps they’re daisy fleabane – abound. Small yellow flowers – I think they are eared coreopsis – abound on the hillside and on the flat path along the seawall. One of these days I will have to run the string trimmer along the path, but not until the flowering is past.
The attention getters, though, are the wild irises. They are small, even delicate. It seems impossible that they would thrive on their own, but there they are. I am reminded of one of my favorite Kate Campbell songs: “He used to call her Wild Iris; if you said don’t, she would.” Which in turn reminds me of my own wild iris.
All of these wildflowers and more are around the beds into which I’ve prepared.
I confess that I am only a semi-skilled gardener, and I don’t know whether any of the seedlings I set out will survive, much less thrive. My success or failure in this particular venture doesn’t matter, though. In the riot of shapes and colors around me, I recognize that God is a lot better gardener than I am.
Perhaps my – our – greatest contribution to our beautiful planet would simply be to avoid messing it up.
Contact the writer at billatthelake@gmail.com
As you crest a hill on Old Susanna Road just before it drops down to our short side road, the horizon stretches before you. In the distance the hills march westward. Most prominent is Smith Mountain, with its abandoned fire tower still standing watch over the lake.
From this vantage point you see more shades of green than the vocabulary can name. It is worthwhile to pull to the side of the road and drink in the scene.
On our half hill spring is rampant. Last week, I prepared a two beds for some flowers that I had started from seed a couple of months ago. I was beginning to think that the plants would become root-bound before there was enough of a break in the cold, wind and rain for me to set them out.
At last, though, sun appeared, the soil dried and the thermometer climbed, and I carried the tray of fledgling flowers down to the beds by the seawall.
The planting went quickly. When I finished, I stood erect and stretched and let my eyes wander. The native azaleas are past their prime, and the winds have stripped the flowers from the dogwoods. But the oak leaf hydrangeas have fresh green leaves, and wildflowers abound.
Violets are still blooming, and the flowers that look like tiny asters – according to Joab Thomas’ excellent wildflower book wild asters should not be blooming, so perhaps they’re daisy fleabane – abound. Small yellow flowers – I think they are eared coreopsis – abound on the hillside and on the flat path along the seawall. One of these days I will have to run the string trimmer along the path, but not until the flowering is past.
The attention getters, though, are the wild irises. They are small, even delicate. It seems impossible that they would thrive on their own, but there they are. I am reminded of one of my favorite Kate Campbell songs: “He used to call her Wild Iris; if you said don’t, she would.” Which in turn reminds me of my own wild iris.
All of these wildflowers and more are around the beds into which I’ve prepared.
I confess that I am only a semi-skilled gardener, and I don’t know whether any of the seedlings I set out will survive, much less thrive. My success or failure in this particular venture doesn’t matter, though. In the riot of shapes and colors around me, I recognize that God is a lot better gardener than I am.
Perhaps my – our – greatest contribution to our beautiful planet would simply be to avoid messing it up.
Contact the writer at billatthelake@gmail.com
Friday, April 10, 2009
A Long Road to Simplicity
Use it up, wear it out, make it do or do without.
Yankee Proverb
The proverb came to mind not long ago as I read a newspaper article reporting that in this trying economy more people are having their clothing mended and shoes resoled, using the public library instead of buying on Amazon, and preparing more meals at home instead of eating out.
It came to mind again as I was wheeling the garbage can to the street. It was nearly full, despite the fact that only my wife and I live at home, and we recycle newspapers and magazines, aluminum and steel cans and cardboard. We save our plastic grocery bags for use by the food pantry.
What is it that we are throwing away? By far, the most substantial part of it is packaging. Everything seems to come in multiple layers of paper and plastic. Some of it is leftovers that got left over for too long. It is obvious that we are throwing out more than we’re wearing out.
Whether you call it frugality or conservation, it is unarguable that our footprint on this plant is much larger than that of the generations that went before us.
I’m sure that the generation my grandparents belonged to didn’t think of themselves as being eco-friendly, or as we say now, “green.” They thought they were simply being sensible.
Certainly industries used our air and our streams as convenient dumps and didn’t concern themselves with the consequences.
On a lesser level, not everything my grandparents did, such as burning household garbage in an empty oil drum and then burying what remained in an old borrow pit, was particularly earth friendly. But on the whole, they made far fewer demands on the planet’s resources than we do.
We buy paper towels by the case; my grandmother wiped the kitchen counter with a cloth from a 25-pound bag of flour.
Many in our generation and even more in the one following us buy bottled water. When my grandfather went to the field, he carried his drinking water in a gallon syrup jug, insulated with an empty 10-pound sugar sack.
Most of the food was grown in the garden and didn’t come shrink-wrapped in a Styrofoam tray. Meat purchased at the grocery store was wrapped in butcher paper instead of plastic. Far more items, from foodstuffs to hardware were sold unpackaged.
My grandfather’s old Studebaker pickup truck probably was not as efficient as the engines of today’s vehicles. But he drove fewer miles in a year than we do in a month.
The closets in my grandparents’ house were impossibly small, but the closets and a couple of chifforobes held everything they owned, and they did not feel compelled to buy new things before the old clothes wore out.
At our house, the clothes dryer runs a good deal of the time; I can’t remember the last house we lived in that had a clothesline. Although my grandmother eventually had an automatic washing machine, she never had a dryer and never felt the need for one.
I don’t hold those days up as the ideal. Times change and so do we. I’m pretty sure, though, that despite our consumption of a larger share of the planet’s bounty, we are not really any happier than they were.
Would we be more content if we owned less, if we used less? I don’t know. All that simplicity may be more attractive in the abstract.
Intellectually, I know we have all kinds of stuff that we don’t really need, but as long as we have a place to put it – even if we can’t remember where we put it, or sometimes even remember that we have it – simplifying will continue to be a challenge.
My efforts thus far have been limited. I’ve thinned my library of a fair number of books, taking them to the public library for use in one of the Friends of the Library’s periodic book sales. But I have to consider a book multiple times before I admit that I’m not going to read it again or use it for reference. I’ve gotten rid of bags of clothing that no longer fits, things that are too big instead of too small. I want to make it expensive to regain the weight I’ve lost.
It was easy enough for Thoreau to preach, “Simplify, simplify, simplify.”
And simplifying would make us greener.
It’s the doing that is difficult.
Contact the writer at billatthelake@gmail.com
Yankee Proverb
The proverb came to mind not long ago as I read a newspaper article reporting that in this trying economy more people are having their clothing mended and shoes resoled, using the public library instead of buying on Amazon, and preparing more meals at home instead of eating out.
It came to mind again as I was wheeling the garbage can to the street. It was nearly full, despite the fact that only my wife and I live at home, and we recycle newspapers and magazines, aluminum and steel cans and cardboard. We save our plastic grocery bags for use by the food pantry.
What is it that we are throwing away? By far, the most substantial part of it is packaging. Everything seems to come in multiple layers of paper and plastic. Some of it is leftovers that got left over for too long. It is obvious that we are throwing out more than we’re wearing out.
Whether you call it frugality or conservation, it is unarguable that our footprint on this plant is much larger than that of the generations that went before us.
I’m sure that the generation my grandparents belonged to didn’t think of themselves as being eco-friendly, or as we say now, “green.” They thought they were simply being sensible.
Certainly industries used our air and our streams as convenient dumps and didn’t concern themselves with the consequences.
On a lesser level, not everything my grandparents did, such as burning household garbage in an empty oil drum and then burying what remained in an old borrow pit, was particularly earth friendly. But on the whole, they made far fewer demands on the planet’s resources than we do.
We buy paper towels by the case; my grandmother wiped the kitchen counter with a cloth from a 25-pound bag of flour.
Many in our generation and even more in the one following us buy bottled water. When my grandfather went to the field, he carried his drinking water in a gallon syrup jug, insulated with an empty 10-pound sugar sack.
Most of the food was grown in the garden and didn’t come shrink-wrapped in a Styrofoam tray. Meat purchased at the grocery store was wrapped in butcher paper instead of plastic. Far more items, from foodstuffs to hardware were sold unpackaged.
My grandfather’s old Studebaker pickup truck probably was not as efficient as the engines of today’s vehicles. But he drove fewer miles in a year than we do in a month.
The closets in my grandparents’ house were impossibly small, but the closets and a couple of chifforobes held everything they owned, and they did not feel compelled to buy new things before the old clothes wore out.
At our house, the clothes dryer runs a good deal of the time; I can’t remember the last house we lived in that had a clothesline. Although my grandmother eventually had an automatic washing machine, she never had a dryer and never felt the need for one.
I don’t hold those days up as the ideal. Times change and so do we. I’m pretty sure, though, that despite our consumption of a larger share of the planet’s bounty, we are not really any happier than they were.
Would we be more content if we owned less, if we used less? I don’t know. All that simplicity may be more attractive in the abstract.
Intellectually, I know we have all kinds of stuff that we don’t really need, but as long as we have a place to put it – even if we can’t remember where we put it, or sometimes even remember that we have it – simplifying will continue to be a challenge.
My efforts thus far have been limited. I’ve thinned my library of a fair number of books, taking them to the public library for use in one of the Friends of the Library’s periodic book sales. But I have to consider a book multiple times before I admit that I’m not going to read it again or use it for reference. I’ve gotten rid of bags of clothing that no longer fits, things that are too big instead of too small. I want to make it expensive to regain the weight I’ve lost.
It was easy enough for Thoreau to preach, “Simplify, simplify, simplify.”
And simplifying would make us greener.
It’s the doing that is difficult.
Contact the writer at billatthelake@gmail.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)