Originally written by John Bunch on October 30, 2009 9:25 PM The U.S. is by no means perfect, but - ideally - can have positive effects around the world

(QUOTE)  Yes it can. Ideally. But does it, with the wars it is waging?

One is so fashionably enlightened to criticize everything American. Does Europe have "penis envy?" America grew up during World War II and recognized, "To whom much is given, much is to be expected."

America carries the lion's share in keeping the world stabilized against less tolerant, assertive powers, i.e. Russia, China, Iran, North Korea, etc., yet America is the big, stupid, blundering, initiator of "dirty wars". It would be much easier to disengage from the world scene and mute the international bitch-fest.

Does Europe have such a collective guilt of its centuries of imperialism and ruinous wars that they believe nothing is worth fighting for?

Which wars America that engaged in were the "dirty ones?" Would Eastern Europe like to go back to the good old days with the Warsaw Pact? Would South Korean like to be ssimilated with the dark North? Should we have allowed Soviet Communism to flow freely across SE Asia in the 60's?

Should Kuwait be recognized as the "19th province of Iraq?" Is running the noble Taliban out of Afghanistan one of the "diry wars?" Do you pine for the golden days when Sadam was still in charge? The vast majority of Iraquis are deluded they are better off now than under Sadam (70% in 2008, probably higher now). How has America enriched itself or added to her empire in these "dirty wars?"

President W over-played the "weapons of mass destruction" card, and had faulty data. But we went in with high ideals. Iraq is bearing fruit and America has sacrificed substantial lives and treasure in planting the seeds of democracy in a violent region.

Our resolve also sends a powerful message: attack our homeland, and reap the whirlwind.

I think I have properly vented now... very cathartic.

Originally written by Ron Finney on October 31, 2009 7:04 PM One is so fashionably enlightened to criticize everything American. Does Europe have "penis envy?"

In my case, the 'right', as it were, to criticize comes from having lived most of my life in North America. You can never know which of the many Europeans posting hold dual citizenships...

Nanna

Originally written by Nanna Mercer on October 31, 2009 8:46 AM Maxi, My original reference to Karen Armstrong's books is based on my own reading. I have read and own several of her books. I am glad you could use the links. Nanna

I guess what I need to do is read those books myself. There's one new person that I'm aware of now.  I always wonder whether articles about authors adequately represent what they are saying.

Maxi

Originally written by Nanna Mercer on October 31, 2009 1:26 PM Originally written by Ron Finney on October 31, 2009 7:04 PM One is so fashionably enlightened to criticize everything American. Does Europe have "penis envy?" In my case, the 'right', as it were, to criticize comes from having lived most of my life in North America. You can never know which of the many Europeans posting hold dual citizenships... Nanna

Nanna,

You have a right to say whatever you believe, as long as it does not incited violence, etc. etc.

Many of the "criticize America first" crowd are Americans themselves. We all need to examine ourselves on a national as well as individual basis, tempered with humilty and open mindedness. The european view is interesting and insightful, but should be balanced with recognition of what is right also. I am happy to play the advocate role.

I am a passionate advocate of our country. I tear up when the national anthem is played, etc. because we are a nation of passionate ideals.

"Whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable--if anything is excellent or praiseworthy--think about such things."

Originally written by Maxi Schwarz-Bastami on October 31, 2009 5:26 PM When Constantinople was regained, Western Europe avidly studied the texts written by Greeks and I supposed continued by those in Constantinople.  However, many of the scholars they retained to  understand the Greek material were the Arabs.  So this isn't even the direct Arab contribution, but the Greek and Eastern contribution.

You mentioned that what people are taught nowadays is inadequate, Maxi, but then you deleted that post, I believe, so I cannot comment on it. Anyway, to continue with the topic you brought up, here is a review of

Samar Attar. The Vital Roots of European Enlightenment: Ibn Tufayl's Influence on Modern Western Thought. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield Publishers, inc., 2007, 174 pages. Hardcover $65.00.
http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Samar+Attar.+The+Vital+Roots+of+European+Enlightenment:+Ibn+Tufayl's...-a0185487493

Another interesting book for those interested in expanding their horizons and looking to connecting points rather than furiously cultivating old divides and waging new wars: http://www.amazon.com/Averroes-Enlightenment-Murad-Wahbah/dp/1573920843

Sorry Jacek, I was too quick and now I can't find where I tucked it.  How was history education where you grew up?  We looped into the discovery of America until high school.  Then we found out how many wives Henry VIII had.  I hated history.  Had no idea how fascinating it is.

Those books look promising - glad you found them for all of us.

Maxi

Originally written by Maxi Schwarz-Bastami on November 1, 2009 2:32 AM How was history education where you grew up?

Generally, the education model in the 1960s-1970s emphasized erudition, i.e., tons of facts from all over the place and time, names, titles, dates. Full-time memorizing. An excellent training for your memory, very good for future interpreters. Too bad there was no formal way of becoming one.

History specifically? Maxi, those were the years of communism. Need I be more specific about what kids were taught about the years 1917 (and earlier) on? Your more balanced view entirely depended on traditions of independence cultivated at your home, on your access to independent underground publications or dissident thinkers. Yes, everybody knew that the public life was one big lie, yet it's exactly like with the conditioning today. Many theoretically "know," for example, what advertising or other Nigerian scams are about, yet they will faithfully follow them up to the financial abyss if requested to do so.  

Originally written by Jacek K. on November 1, 2009 2:28 AM Originally written by Maxi Schwarz-Bastami on November 1, 2009 2:32 AM How was history education where you grew up?   Generally, the education model in the 1960s-1970s emphasized erudition, i.e., tons of facts from all over the place and time, names, titles, dates. Full-time memorizing. An excellent training for your memory, very good for future interpreters. Too bad there was no formal way of becoming one. History specifically? Maxi, those were the years of communism. Need I be more specific about what kids were taught about the years 1917 (and earlier) on? Your more balanced view entirely depended on traditions of independence cultivated at your home, on your access to independent underground publications or dissident thinkers. Yes, everybody knew that the public life was one big lie, yet it's exactly like with the conditioning today. Many theoretically "know," for example, what advertising or other Nigerian scams are about, yet they will faithfully follow them up to the financial abyss if requested to do so.

I personally think education during communist times was excellent, except for history and literature, but it also depended on the teacher. The fact that some books were forbidden or not published rather, not accessible on the market made them even more attractive.