[lit-ideas] Re: WSJ -- Ode to Oil -- thoughts?
- From: Omar Kusturica <omarkusto@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Wed, 3 Dec 2008 13:31:33 -0800 (PST)
Eric quotes someone:
(b) The Left has allowed its core values to be trumped by multiculturalism. For
example, a core value of the Left is the universal rights of all women to be
treated with equality and dignity. However, when it comes to discussing the
treatment of women in Arab states or in Pakistan, the Left seems unusually
quiet. "The West cannot impose its values on these cultures" is the usual
academic response, Levy maintains, and argues that this privileging of
multiculturalism over the core Leftist value of equality is a betrayal and a
bankruptcy.
O.K.: Let's compare: those who advocate gun holding rights in the US say
nothing when the Fins are denied the right to carry weapons. Or, those who
advocate lowering the taxes in the U.S. are strangely silent about the high
taxes in the Netherlands. Does this invite charges of betrayal and bankruptcy ?
It seems to me that one might reasonably refrain from advocating the same
opinions or values one does in one's own country when it comes to other
countries. This may be due to all kinds of reasonable reasons, such as:
- One is more interested in what is happening in one's own country than in
other countries
- One is unsure of one's competence to know and/or understand what is going on
in other countries
- One doubts one's ability to influence what happens in other countries
- One is weary of critizing other countries for fear of giving its warlike
government pre-texts for new conflicts
I don't think that any of this could reasonable invite charges such as the
above. If one actively advocated opposite values in other countries from those
one upholds in one's own country, this could perhaps justify charges of
hypocrisy. (For example, when the U.S. Gov. advocates free markets across the
globe, but applies 'bailout' for big companies at home.)
O.K.
Other related posts:
