In any event or observation
we bring to it the sum of our experience and knowledge. We interpret it according
to our values which may be totally inappropriate or outside of what we
experience. We like to think that we are objective. We abjure that we are not
subject to bias and prejudice.
Here is an example of
simultaneous misunderstanding:
When
the Pilgrims met the Native Americans they found their faces covered with gooey
colored muck. The found it frightening and primitive. Even their bodies would
be coated in some strange substance that, despite their superior hygiene (they
felt the natives were obsessed with bathing and were sure it was the root of
their weakness to disease) caused a not always pleasant aroma. Meanwhile they were
unsure why the mosquitos and flies didn’t bother these savages as they attacked
and ravaged the English. They were sure it was their superior English blood
that attracted the pests.
The
Native Americans looked on to the Pilgrims as a bunch of incredibly ignorant,
primitive people. They didn’t understand how to build a structure that would
stand up to basic weather. All of their buildings leaked. Worst of all when
they were congested they would take a clean white linen cloth from their
pockets, blow their noses into it and then return it to their pocket for
safekeeping. Ewww! They tried to teach the English to block one nostril and
eject the mucus into the bushes with a forcible exhale through the nose. The
Pilgrims found that revolting and just couldn’t do it.
In 2001 the United States
began “military operations” (another great euphemism) in Afghanistan. From our
perspective we are there to bring democracy to our brothers of the world. We
want to save them from the totalitarian fanatics that would wish to subjugate
them in religious subservience under the guise of an Islamic state. We
absolutely KNOW that these fanatics really don’t represent true Islamic values
and that we are justified, even praiseworthy in our goal to liberate them from
oppression and allow them to choose their own rulers. I sincerely believe that
many of us share this altruistic motive. I would like to.
The Afghans see a bunch of
people from thousands of miles away with superior technology killing members of
other Afghani tribes. Sometimes, that’s not so bad if it’s a tribe they would
be killing themselves if we weren’t there, but still, they would rather do
their fighting themselves. If we defeat their foe, they have no honor in it and
they are people with a highly developed sense of honor through battle. And they
are tenacious. Just ask every other group that has tried to “liberate” them. In
the end most of them wish we would just go home and mind our own business. They
can then return to the internecine warfare that is their history.
When the American Revolution
started there was NOT a consensus for separation from England. It wasn’t even close.
The Sons of Liberty had a real problem on their hands. Most of the country saw
a bunch of rich hotheads in Massachusetts that were profiting from smuggling
with the Indies and were upset that the King kept sending ships and soldiers to
stop it. This King even levied taxes on Americans to help pay off the debt of
fighting the French and Indian War to protect its colonists. Not many of us are
willing to risk our livelihoods and our lives for someone else to get richer or
avoid servicing a debt.
Then it happened. After being
pelted with ice clods, rocks and rocks encased in snowballs, viciously taunting
the British sentries, the soldiers fired into the crowd. Martyrs were made, but
it still wasn’t enough. As the English got wind of the colonists stockpiling
arms they decided to nip this one in the bud. They were successful in a couple
of instances up north, but Lexington and Concord brought “the shot heard ‘round
the world.” That was it! Once the British started killing the Kings subjects in
the colonies, they became “Americans” and, if the British would kill those
Americans, no Americans could stand idly by and wait their turn. It finally
became a battle between “us” the Americans and “them” the British from far away
across the seas who were meddling in OUR business with their superior
technology and wealth. When lives are
taken a brotherhood is extended and people who were “Them” (New Englanders)
become “Us” (Americans).
Immediately what had been a
mutually beneficial relationship of colonies and mother country became an
obvious case of exploitation of brethren by a foreign imperial power.
There may also be another
perspective to the war in Afghanistan. We are on the cusp of new age where it
is exigent that we develop cleaner energy. We are doing very well in the
development of these energy sources from sun, wind, tides and currents. We
still face a massive problem of how to transport and store this energy which in
the end turns up to be electricity. The obvious use that is common to all of us
is transportation. Without transportation we can’t go to the hospital or the
grocery store. Even the groceries can’t go to the grocery store. Probably the
greatest limiting factor in Native American expansion was the lack of
transportation. When this problem was solved with the horse, their influence
took off. Our next horse is the electric vehicle.
Today when we need the energy
to go somewhere we pull up to a pump and fill up a tank with liquid energy. Our
greatest challenge in transportation is to use our cleaner energy (electrons
instead of hydrocarbons) in the same way. It’s easy to build a “bottle” to hold
liquid energy. The bottle for electrons is called a battery and our progress
for the last several decades has not been monumental. In my lifetime we’ve gone
from carbon “dry cells”, lead acid “wet cells”, through NiCads, NiMh and now
the miracles of lithium ion (LiON). We are pretty certain lithium will be
involved in making electron bottles. Where can we find lots of lithium? It just
happens that Afghanistan is rich in lithium; incredibly rich. And it is lithium
that is cheaper to process into electron bottles. Not only that, but they boast
vast reserves of gold and silver which make much better conductors than copper
and aluminum.
When Eisenhower left office
he gave the first Farewell Address. You can watch part of it here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S9_fyDV7Mnk.
In his speech he coins a new term as describing
a dire threat to our national security and wealth. He warned of the power of
something called “The Military/Industrial Complex”. You can be sure that the
huge supra-governments we call multi-national corporations are aware of the
reserves of minerals in Afghanistan. A further coincidence is that the same
companies who own and manage the energy technology requiring these minerals
make things like C-6 explosive, JLTVs and things that go “bang”. These same
people control the companies that process corn, wheat, steers and pigs into Cheerios,
hamburgers and MREs that feed people who make things go “bang”. This small
percentage of people are in a position to acquire even greater wealth as we struggle
to control the source of raw materials and then use that control to improve our
technology and power.
This is not some silly rant
warning of some silly conspiracy by people aiming to control the world. This is
not a conscious business plan that includes “dominate Afghanistan” as a project
milestone. These people already control the world and we are generally better
off because they do. There are just some
things that unleashed capitalism can accomplish with which no other system can
compete. These people did not lay out some plan of illuminati to subjugate our wallets. This is just how the system
works. It is good and it is evil. It must be fed. The food is energy and the
lowest cost for them get it, sadly, is the lives of the people who live where
that energy comes from and those who are sent to secure it for the system to
continue running.
I don’t think I really agree
with that last statement. History has demonstrated that the cost of war to
procure wealth ALWAYS exceeds the value of the wealth; at least the total cost
overall to society. In the limited attempts to incorporate the wealth in
benefitting the local inhabitants it has generally been less expensive to
develop the source and easier to coopt the permission and assistance of the
people already there. A couple of cases that come to mind are the Alaska
Pipeline and some of the attempts of Charles Goodyear to bring benefits of
health and education to the natives who could help him develop rubber trees.
Examples of the prior logic might be the empires of Greece, Rome and Spain. I
wouldn’t want the balance sheet of any of those countries.
The other problem with war as
a means of acquisition is that it generally backfires at some point and the
aggressor finds himself in the cross-hairs of the world. Imperialism tends to
have a limited half-life. Once the citizens discover there is more benefit
OUTSIDE the empire than INSIDE, Berlin walls fall, Hadrian’s walls are toppled
and Chinese walls become tourist attractions.
America must have a secure
energy supply to maintain her economic growth and technological progress. It
remains to be seen whether we will pursue that with universal benefits or continuing
a zero-sum game.
By the way, when we look at
something it seems that every perspective is correct to some degree according
to some value system. I pray that we will work to acquire the value system that
provides joy to all parties.
We all see things from our own perspective. A great movie that demonstrates this and keeps you riveted at the same time is "Vantage Point". Give it a watch.
