Prologue

one of my favorite topics is Globalization and Global Culture, and its conflict with reactionary forms of nationalism; and a lot of my posts here will focus on this.

What I am currently working on is a thesis on the failure of the French Integration policy; which (on the surface at least) has always seemed to me to be the right thing to do with regards to minimizing the possibility of cultural conflict. (I’ll get back to this by the end of this set of ideas which could take weeks at this rate)

Now, the first question that comes to mind indeed, is the ethics of imposed uniformity.

Benjamin Franklin once said something to the effect that any society that is willing to give up a little freedom for more security deserves neither freedom nor security. That has always struck a chord with me and is I feel especially relevant considering the way the world has gone since the resurgence of radical extremism since 9/11.

Sure, the argument that in such times, security is important holds a lot of weight with a lot of people; but how far will you go to curb another’s rights so that you can live? I do not say I know the way out of this cycle, but I believe it is vicious in scope, and that there must be another way.

Open societies are what extremists fear–they are what destroy the need for extremists–the need to react. Are we then truly hindering extremism or aiding it in the grand scheme of things? Is present foreign policy ultimately going to prove shortsighted (I’ll give you great odds that it is -_-)

I think that the most complex of problems have the simplest of solutions…

Question: What is it that rankles extremists?
Answer: Clashes of values, moralities, inequities of power and money, development, threats of different ideas that perhaps upset the status quo.

Question: What is it that rankles regular people?
Answer: Clashes of values, moralities, inequities of power and money, development, threats of different ideas that perhaps upset the status quo.

Do you see where I’m going with this? I believe that you can simplify everything to a matter of degrees–the threshholds at which people are willing to go to the next level.

Do you deal with moderation then, or do you deal with force? Are you thinking of a momentary resolution of the conflict or a long-standing one?

Compromise by violence is by its nature short-lived; and lives on in memory long after wounds of the flesh have disappeared. At this point in time, any resolution that we do achieve via dialogue and that is found equitable by both parties will still remain uneasy until we can agree to co-exist and integrate.

Advertisements

About this entry