Conference turris::womannotes-v2

    We should support self determination of the people of that particular
    country. Most other things are their business. This is how/why we
    are the ugly americans. We try to promote/force/pollute our culture
    on different people. The shah is a good example. We 'westernized'
    their 'backward' state with our ways, prostitution, alcohol, etc.
    Watch "The Sword of Islam" on PBS, it is an eye opener. After seeing
    that I can understand why they hate us now.
	Would you tell an Indian (from India) that they have to eat
    meat. Of course not. This is a good example that is close to home.
    Ask an Indian what they would think if we tried to force them to
    live this way or teach their children that the parents were wrong
    because they didn't eat meat.
    
    Think about it
    Steve

    <--(.1)
    
    Nit:  Some Indians *do* eat meat.
    
    <--(.0)
    
    I heard on the news this morning that the last Soviet soldier has
    finally left Afghanistan; the rebels have won.  And I guess I'd heard
    too that if the rebels won then women would lose...which makes the
    departure of that General pretty ominous.
    
    Should we have more say?  Yah, I think so.  And perhaps the best way to
    start is to demand that our government support *moderate* regimes and
    oppose all extremists, with the metric of moderation being tolerance
    for all groups and the lack of rigid social stratification.  
    
    We've heard a number of arguments (in other topics) to the effect that
    we have an obligation to respect other cultures, but I'm not so sure
    about their validity.  It's not clear to me that any group has the
    right to perpetual dominance simply because they have been dominant for
    n hundred or thousand years.  Cultures don't feel pain, but individuals
    certainly do. 
    
    						=maggie 
                 

re .1    
>    We should support self determination of the people of that particular
>    country. Most other things are their business. 

    i agree totally, but how do you know what the determination of 'the
    people' are, if only half of them (the male population) are allowed
    to speak???  i think you agree with me on the fact that we shouldn't
    back the rebels, since we don't know what 'the people want'. 


>   We try to promote/force/pollute our culture
>    on different people. The shah is a good example. 

    should we stay out of world politics all together ??  do we have a 
    moral obligation to intervene when groups are rebelling against
    oppressive governments (i personally feel we could be doing A LOT
    more in south africa) ??

>	Would you tell an Indian (from India) that they have to eat
>    meat. Of course not. This is a good example that is close to home.

  being a vegetarian, i would never ask anyone to eat meat.  however,
  i would ask that they give women equal human rights... they are
  beaten, oppressed and murdered because of their sex.  i guess i'm
  not sure how to separate politics from morality.  how do we know 
  when 'the people's self determination' requires our intervention
  (that is not meant to sound 'flip', i think it's a real serious 
  problem) ??  how does anyone determine whether or not a culture
    should override human rights???  i think (my opinion only),
    that many moslem women may feel they are SUPPOSED to be oppressed,
    so it is OK to them.  does that make it OK ??? this is a hard
    issue for me, because i see both sides.  i don't want to go around
    'civilizing' african tribes, or tibetan monks.  i would however
    like to see all living creatures treated by humans with equal respect,
    dignity and rights.
    
    sarah 

  sarah

    
    Maggie:
    
    I heard on the radio this morning also that the Soviets had pulled
    out, but I didn't hear that the rebels had won, only that they were
    poised for a massive onslaught. Can you clarify?
    
    Thanks.
    
    Roberta
    

    I don't know, Roberta.  I guess I thought that it was only the presence
    of the Soviet troops that were keeping the current government in power
    (analogous to our presence in S.VietNam).  If that's true, then it's
    all over bar the screaming and butchery.           
    
    The last thing this world needs is another #%$@%$! Khoumeni giving
    orders to kill authors who write books he doesn't like!
    
    						=maggie

    >And perhaps the best way to
    >start is to demand that our government support *moderate* regimes and
    >oppose all extremists, with the metric of moderation being tolerance
    >for all groups and the lack of rigid social stratification. 

 That sounds good. One problem with that is there are many countries that have
only extremists- especially in the middle east. In many of the countries, the
factions are very clearly and sharply divided. In cases such  as these, where
do the moderates come from? Are we supposed to put in place a government that
conforms to the ideals we seek? It kind of sounds like we are supposed to play
policeman- a role which we have played before and taken alot of crap for.

 If we do not respect other cultures, the world at large suffers from the loss
of diverse culture. If we do respect oppressive cultures, individuals suffer
abuses. Where  do we draw the line? Dunno. But I suspect that we try to change
cultures slowly through economic and political means rather than creating an
upheaval and making ourselves look bad to the world, as well as becoming "the
great satan" for yet another country.

 The Doctah

    re .4
    
    The situation in Afghanistan currently is far from clear.  The 'rebels'
    are not a unified group, but instead a loose collection of at least
    5 groups, each with a different agenda and plan for the country.
     The Soviet-backed government was left in control of the major cities
    and roadways.  The prospect is for *years* of additional fighting
    as the coalitions collapse and reform.  The various groups include
    a couple of what I characterize as 'extremist Islamic' backed by
    Iran, a couple of 'moderate Islamic' backed by Pakistan and other
    Arab nations, the pro-Communist forces now left on their own and
    some whose alignment is not currently clear.  Aghans are a tribal
    people, and in spite of the fact that the West has perceived the
    area as a single government, it has in fact very seldom acted that
    way.  
    
    Alison
    

My feeling is that we need to be very cautious in imposing our standards on
other cultures. It has a tendency to backfire, as it did in Iran. (I lived there
from 1961-1965, and saw women get the vote. But the pace of cultural change
was faster than the culture could accommodate - at least this is one
explanation - with the results we see today.)

There's no question that in South Africa, the majority culture would support
the overthrow of apartheid, which makes it much easier for me to support
sanctions against that oppresive government. It's far less clear that a country
like (for example) Saudi Arabia would support a major change in its gender 
roles, and I think it would be a bad idea for us to impose significant pressure
for cultural change there.

As for Afghanistan - if the current government cannot stand without being 
propped up by the Soviet presence, then it's not a government acceptable to
the overall population. There are a lot of diverse factions in Afghanistan,
both Sunni and Shi'ite. It's going to be "an interesting time" there for
quite a while, I'd guess, and would be a mistake to view it strictly as a
struggle between "pro-women's-rights" and "anti-women's-rights" factions.

re .8
> As for Afghanistan - if the current government cannot stand without being 
> propped up by the Soviet presence, then it's not a government acceptable to
> the overall population. 

 i disagree on this (not only for afghanistan, but for any country).  if the
only governments that could survive were ones 'acceptable to the overall
population', the current south african gov't would not exist... there
would have been a different argentina of the 60's and 70's, the koumer
rouge (sp??)  could not have taken control.  too many times power comes
solely to those would have physical strength.

what i am wondering, is what people think our own gov't policies should be.
should there be legislation outlining our intervention policies??  (is there
any that i am unaware of??).  if i wrote my congresswoman on this issue,
would it make a difference (i usually get a nicely worded reply, but the
rain forests are still being destroyed, and they still test makeup on
animals)??  how do people get their opinions heard (enough to make a 
difference) ??  would anyone else write their polititions on this??

there have been a lot of 'i don't knows' on this topic (mine is certainly the 
loudest).  could this possibly be a major problem in the way our 
government functions?  if 'we the people' don't know, how are these decisions
made?? do i let my elected officials do as they please ??  my career is not
in politics, and i have little free time (sound familiar??)... how can
i make a difference ??? maybe i should skip my congresswoman, and just
drop george a note :<)

    ( i seem to have digressed from my own base topic to 'how do i get
    involved in gov't policy-making.  is this a rat-hole???  should
    there be a base note on this??? do i ask too many questions??? :*)
    
sarah

re: should I let my elected representatives do as they please

Well, they must have _some_ skill set besides looking good and making money.
And if they don't have intelligent and compassionate opinions, then what the
heck are they doing there? (Don't tell me, I know...)

I mean, can _we_ ask _them_ to say what _they_ believe, and can we believe it?
	Mez

       I don't suppose I have any more of a "correct" answer than anyone
       else here but I sure do have an opinion. I find it sickening that
       our government routinely backs brutal dictators against peasants
       who are just trying to survive. It's not an issue of woman's
       rights but of human rights. We don't take a stance of supporting
       the least evil, we support anybody who says they hate communism.

       If I was a peasant in South America I'd probably support
       communism because it is the unknown, maybe they would make my
       life better. I'd know for sure the current government was not out
       to do me any favors. These people are just trying to survive and
       keep their families alive. I doubt they have deep discussions
       about the rightness of various forms of government rule. They
       have to worry about staying alive till tomorrow. You don't worry
       about shelter till you have food and it's hard to discuss the
       philosophy of democratic government while you are dodging
       bullets.

       According to Amnesty International the Ayatolla has now surpassed
       even the Shah in suppression of human rights. Because we forced
       the Shah on Iran they turned to the Ayatolla. I'd guess no one is
       paying a higher price than the Iranians themselves. liesl

    
    That's it exactly.  We support the side that is anti-Communist, but
    in the long run we end up damaging the cause we're supposed to be
    helping, Democracy, because these people end up hating us for
    supporting their oppressors. 
    
    The Ugly American is a book that was written about 30 years ago.
    Everyone should read it. It is entertaining, but also still relevant
    and informative. Many people use the phrase "the Ugly American",
    but have obviously not read the book, since the guy in the book who
    is referred to as the Ugly American is actually a good guy  who
    just happens to be ugly!
                             
    Roberta
    

re: .13:
    The Ugly American is a book that was written about 30 years ago.
    Everyone should read it. It is entertaining, but also still relevant
    and informative. Many people use the phrase "the Ugly American",
    but have obviously not read the book, since the guy in the book who
    is referred to as the Ugly American is actually a good guy  who
    just happens to be ugly!

If you read "The Ugly American," you should also read Grahm Greene's
"The Quiet American."  Both books are fictionalized histories about
the same person, Col. Landsdale, who was one of the CIA people who,
more or less, created our recent foreign policy (most definitely
including Vietnam and Central America).  Think of Col. Landsdale
as an Ollie North who got away with his crimes.  Sorry, but I would
not think of Col. Landsdale as "a good guy."

Martin.

    
    The book "The Ugly American" is a series of related stories. 
    The particular story _called_ "The Ugly American" is about a guy who
    invents a method of irrigation in a third-world country and develops 
    the machinery with the _help_ of the natives, instead of just doing it 
    _for_ them. The purpose of doing it this way is to avoid having the 
    natives feel patronized, in which case they wouldn't accept what
    he is offering.
    
    Sorry, but I would read the book, Martin.
    
    
    Roberta
    

    
    
    Amazing.
    
    What kind of "rights" do you suppose the invading Soviets were
    "protecting" in Afghanistan?
    
    In occupied countries, there are no rights, "womens" or otherwise.
    
    

  There are at least two books, one written prior to the Soviet invasion and
one during the very early stages which give an interesting view into life
in Afghanistan (and other Islamic countries).  James Michener's "Caravans"
is the first and Ken Follet's "Lie Down with Lions" (or something similar) is
the other.

  The key point made in both these books, and others, is that for women life
under the Soviets could be perceived as improved ... at least by Western
standards.  One has to keep in mind that the people who have actively fought
against the Soviet-backed regime in Kabul are the roughly the same people who
want to put an Islamic government in place, not unlike that in Teheran.  I
say roughly because there are many different factions involved.

  As they say, between a rock and a hard place.