Politics and the Crowd

For many years now there have been movements against the sort of forgeign policy that America employs and the type of rhetoric that is employed to create change. Interesting people with a history of speaking out against US foriegn policy seem to have far more prominance recently. Noam Chomsky seems to be sold in every major bookstore, films like The Corporation, Fahrenheit 9/11 are in mainstream cinema--- rather than reserved for the art house and Pinter wins the nobel prize.

Pinter, appart from being a playwrite, has been a consistent critic of american policies over the years. Indeed he used his Nobel Lecture to openly critise how America has shaped global politics since the second world war. He suggests that the movement against this power is growing. Pinter though reminds me of some way's of Chomsky though--- both are highly literate and well educated. You could say they are both linguistic geniouses; Chomsky single handedly revolutionised the study of language and Pinter... well... won a more than one prise for literature. The point that they make and also they miss to a certain degree is not everyone is as clever as them--- although it is true to say that america goes to extremes--- some of their policies are blunt and too the point so there is no mistaking. Sometimes rhetoric and deplomacy don't work because the other side, not america, is not engaging in diplomatic channels.

It is true, when diplomacy fails--- or when it's deliberatly sabataged, then America has gone off the rails. This would appear to be most true when it's in their own back yard. There are only so many tools available that allow the opinion of masses of people too be changed--- unfortunately war is one of them.
What America seems to attempt to do is engineer more moderate cultures but by it's own standards. In the long run this probably does represent an improvement to the world. It's down to the old question: does the end justify the means? Also considering that large groups of people have their own ideas and crowds don't nessecarily react rationally anyway. You can't justify murdering thousands of people over an idea, but what happens to the world if some of these things aren't done.

In the 1980's Argentina, from the British perspective, invaded the Falkland islands. Anyone with a map handy will note that the Falkland Islands are nowhere near Britain. They are, in fact, just off Argentina. Argentina decided to take back what, they thought, was rightfully theirs. Margret Thather, at that time, dispatched troups to sail half way round the world. They took back the island, much to the joy of the inhabitance; who prefered to consider themselves British. The reason; if Britain did nothing then people would think that Britain does not protect their interests. Who would be next to try to take back an island. Britain felt it had to protect it's position, rather than open a floodgate of suiters wanting to muscle in on her interests. Argentina in the end paid dearly for the decision.


Add new comment

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
This question is used to make sure you are a human visitor and to prevent spam submissions.