So what does "preventing the strong from oppressing the weak mean"?
As I see it, what is meant is optionally the regulating of those in a position on power, as corruption within the government's own body; police, judges, ministers, etc... but mostly the weak as in "the helpless" Now I don't know if this applies to Canada, since a good example of weak and strong would be Rwanda. Ideally the government would seek to follow this policy in it's international agendas as well as it's national agenda, but (again, Rwanda) this is not often the case. One might conjecture that this is the case whenever it is profitable or advantageous to do so, but not when there is little payoff and great risk. (In other words, doing it for it's own sake is not good enough of a reason, which is arguable as a claim...Though if Canada had immediately declared war on Rwanda because of the Genocide, just the threat of a developed nation coming in to set things straight, possibly bringing in buddies, might have been enough to stop the entire charade. After all, they had knives, and we all know how good those are in a gunfight.) Come to think of it, why didn't we say something? Did the population know what was going on? I certainly didn't, I was 3 years old. But if there had been a negative public response, perhaps our governments, fearing bad press, would have done something in the two and some months from start to finish...
Two things have just come to mind. Is it out of Canada's league to spot a problem in the world and act on it? The states are not above this, but we are not the states. Would we be liable to trade sanctions? Don't know, but it would seem that trade sanctions are allowed if there is a credible reason, however there is no doubt that Rwanda In The Grips Of Civil War wouldn't give two flying s#its about a country imposing trade sanctions on them, nevermind that country being measly and insignificant Canada which let's be honest has nothing of note to sell except firewood. [Edit: That link brings you to a wiki article that quotes a british constitution paper that's 162 pages long that I decided not to skim through but basically sets a bunch of terms and says that using the threat of force by issuing a declaration of war is no longer applicable.]
Not to mention that in this case Canada would be doing exaclty what Monbiot said; that democracies, as the best or least-bad form of government, shouldn't use force to make people do things. Ogo. I've found something interesting.
The phrase Monbiot uses can be re-worded as "Democratic governments exists to ensure that the strong do not use force to subdue the weak."
That's a fine sentiment. An important one. Though in practice, is it true? In rhetoric, it's one of the #1 zingers. Feels like defiance, like the US "Declaration of Independence"--nevermind that those so declaring were white men of property and privilege, trying to make sure they could exercise their own economic muscle on "their own" (settler) turf. Hey King! Don't step on me! This wasn't a slave rebellion but the emergence of the new world white settler middle class. And the results were utterly unlike those in Haiti, where just a few years later (1804), Jean-Christophe and amis trying to make good on the fraternite et egalite part of the French Revolution, got stomped. And stomped again. And invaded. And denounced. And destroyed. And invaded again. And stomped. And interfered with. Etc. Repeat nearly ad infinitum....or at least ad +200 yrs.
ReplyDeleteSo. In practice (as opposed to only rhetorically speaking). What the zingers really mean: the strong will not subdue the weak so long as strong are willing to say, those guys are like us. If not--watch out!
Rwanda. Well, there's a relationship between the history of Haiti and what happened in Rwanda and it starts here: those in power don't really care much about either. It's surely partly racial, surely chauvenistic (there was a calculus--one of "our" soldiers is worth tens of thousands of "them"), surely related to poverty and proximity to power, surely related to the millions and billions of dollars to be made from the small arms trade. Until those in power start to look bad they don't really seem to care too much (thank Romeo Dallaire for making the UN and Clinton etc look pretty bad.) Worth reading his account of what happened in Rwanda.
A little thing comes to mind - though an agent of flawless morality wouldn't be caught dead outright saying "One of "ours" is worth tens of thousand of "them" isn't that a pretty widely accepted concept on the home front? Many american soldiers died in Iraq. A great tragedy. To mourn the suffering of the "other" makes no sense from a PR standpoint. "We knew these people, they were our friends, our neighbours, they fought for us, *the ever-present, ratings-boosting expression, typically a stunt/lie/gross exaggeration* they fought for our freedom." Aside: There's an interesting dynamic between protecting freedom and invading other nations which are presumed to be rich in natural resources. As I was saying :
ReplyDeleteA moving euology, but no victimized peasant gets this treatment. No slaugtered bhurka-wearing grandmothers or shell-shocked youngsters, no matter how many in number, will compare to the glorious beauty of the American Sacrifice. For Peace! (Or even better: For Liberty! For God! Amen!
How can anyone say this on national television? But such thinly veiled hypocrisy is the bread and butter of the trade.
You know the Art History teacher that year spent a whole 10 minutes discussing a painting of this black haitian man who went to france and had the newly formed republic emancipate the slaves at the end of the 18th century. Which lasted for about 5 minutes. She simply said that when the revolution crumbled so did hope for new life in the colonies. But in practice, I doubt much changed. Official papers are all well and good, but nothing comes of tacking without warning. I bet Haiti didn't feel much of this "newness" In fact I somehow doubt that work on plantations halted become some semi-legitimate black man went to france and had some paper signed. You'd need infrastructure and probably enforcement to make that sort of change, because really what's it if the slaves tell you they've been freed and some guy waives some paper? There would still be an uprising, because the property owners, naturally, would refuse, and use whatever means they had used thus far to control their slaves. Will isn't everything, and I'm sure slavery sapped those farmers of more than just will.
An interesting note. I used to not give much credence to the fates of blacks in North America. I feel I must be excused of this - I could have been more curious but never felt connected to this. Somehow it seemed like I wasn't a part of it - and yet while both of these statements are true it is diminishing the importance of the slave trade to an astonishing degree to say that no one in the West today has benefitted from what happened then. Whoa tangent.