Considering the fact that I've never even heard of Francis Fukayama, I'm just gonna stand back and give it up for a far more knowledgeable debater.

Hostile wrote:Considering the fact that I've never even heard of Francis Fukayama, I'm just gonna stand back and give it up for a far more knowledgeable debater.

He's a Hawk who carries a bit of clout; he wrote 'The End of History', in 1989, which was a paper saying that democracy would sweep the world. He was totally wrong. If you want to read anything worth while then read 'The Clash of Civilizations' by Samuel Huntington; he was bang on the money. I think he almost predicted the whole Milosevic thing.

Fukuyama, as far as I am aware, never had that much influence on republican policy. Huntington certainly had more, hence why he was so much more 'on the money', it's far more logical to predict a clash ('perpetual war', essentially allowing the US government to continue it's Cold War actions, under a new guise) than to believe in an 'end of history'. Fukuyama has since back-tracked, basically since 9/11. Yes, there are far scarier people within the Bush administration. Wolfowitz particularly comes to mind.

Anyway, I agree that Bush does not hold sole, or even much responsiblity for what happened in New Orleans but he is the representative of his administration. The whole neo-con collective is extremely prejudiced, not so much because it hates black people but poor people. The New Orleans' situation could not have happened in an affluent (white) area of America and, if it had, Bush would have apologised and sorted out the situation as a matter of urgency. Instead, we have black people whose lives have been destroyed , being largely snubbed by their President and his 'friends'. If Bush is nothing else, he is a PR tool and the relations he has created with the poor of New Orleans is one of distance and indifference. Yet, I admit that on the whole, the New Orleans problem is far more a class issue than a race issue. If you want to look at racism in the Bush administration, the anti-black thing is largely horseplay. The racism come from Bush's (and his backers') attacks on the Middle East and its rampant Islamophobia.

STD_Caps wrote:Fukuyama, as far as I am aware, never had that much influence on republican policy. Huntington certainly had more, hence why he was so much more 'on the money', it's far more logical to predict a clash ('perpetual war', essentially allowing the US government to continue it's Cold War actions, under a new guise) than to believe in an 'end of history'. Fukuyama has since back-tracked, basically since 9/11. Yes, there are far scarier people within the Bush administration. Wolfowitz particularly comes to mind.

At the time of writing though, there was no way Fukuyama could not have known that the end of the Cold War would allow historical ethnic tensions resurface in Europe. It's pretty cool what Huntington did though, he just showed how the spread of European ethnic violence follows the historical borders of three empires in Europe.

I wouldn't say the US has continued its Cold War actions. I don't see how this can be considered to be the case anyway.

STD_Caps wrote:Anyway, I agree that Bush does not hold sole, or even much responsiblity for what happened in New Orleans but he is the representative of his administration. The whole neo-con collective is extremely prejudiced, not so much because it hates black people but poor people.

'Hate' is a bit of a strong word. The Republicans are a conservative party and that entails the moving away from comprehensive state provision.

STD_Caps wrote:The New Orleans' situation could not have happened in an affluent (white) area of America and, if it had, Bush would have apologised and sorted out the situation as a matter of urgency. Instead, we have black people whose lives have been destroyed , being largely snubbed by their President and his 'friends'.

Well, that's kind of stating the obvious because affluent people seldom choose to live below sea level.

I still don't see why Bush should apologise. The New Orleans thing was inevitable and it's not as if you can totally rebuild a city the size of New Orleans over night. Sure, a lot of people have been displaced there but what other alternative do they have to staying in public buildings?

STD_Caps wrote:If Bush is nothing else, he is a PR tool and the relations he has created with the poor of New Orleans is one of distance and indifference. Yet, I admit that on the whole, the New Orleans problem is far more a class issue than a race issue. If you want to look at racism in the Bush administration, the anti-black thing is largely horseplay. The racism come from Bush's (and his backers') attacks on the Middle East and its rampant Islamophobia.

I really don't agree with your whole racist undercurrent idea and I hate the term Islamophobia. The Bush administration is carrying out a campaign against the people it considers to be a threat to Western Liberal Democracy and it just so happens that these are largely Islamic.

In my experience, people use the term Islamophobia to cite instances of the indiscriminate targeting of Muslims as potential terror suspects. Yes, this happens a lot. However, if you're looking for a needle in a haystack your best bet is to start looking in a field where you have hay.

John Pilger on The COC:

'It (The Clash...) has been hailed as a 1990s equivalent to George F. Keenan's historic essay on 'containment', which rationalised American imperial supremacy following the Second World War. Huntington's argument is that Western culture must be preserved in splendid isolation from the rest of huanity in order to 'generate a third Euro-American phase of Western affluence'. 'The leaders of Western countries,' he wrote, 'have instituted patterns of trust and co-operation among themselves that, with rare exceptions, they not have with the leaders of other societies.' He described NATO as 'the security organisation of Western civilisation [whose] primary purpose is to defend and preserve that civilisation.' NATO membership should be closed to 'countries that have historically been primarily Muslim or Orthodox' or in any way non-Western 'in their religion and culture... Huntington's language relies upon racial stereotypes and a veiled social Darwinism that is the staple of fascism.'

I wouldn't say the US has continued its Cold War actions. I don't see how this can be considered to be the case anyway.

In the Cold War, the US' 'containment' project was merely a cover up for its efforts of imperialism. I do not mean in the traditional sense but the veiled imperialism that resulted in it controlling or influencing the political and economic structures of countries across the world. The current political climate is much the same, but instead of McCarthyism and 'communist' witchhunts, we have the Axis of Evil and hunts for terrorists and 'evildoers'. Kennan said in 1948 on the containment issue, 'We have 50% of the world's wealth but only 6.3% of its population. In this situation, our real job in the coming period... is to maintain this position of disparity. ' Little has changed.

'Hate' is a bit of a strong word. The Republicans are a conservative party and that entails the moving away from comprehensive state provision.

I do not consider hate a strong enough term. Their policies essentially based on thinking the poor are nothing but parasitic scum. Looking at past Republican policy and the logic behind it, their can be little doubt that they have NO compassion for the poor.

I still don't see why Bush should apologise. The New Orleans thing was inevitable and it's not as if you can totally rebuild a city the size of New Orleans over night. Sure, a lot of people have been displaced there but what other alternative do they have to staying in public buildings?

The N. Orleans thing was inevitable because of poor preparation that was intentionally not rectified. Therefore, Bush should apologise for ignoring warnings, for giving a contract to an incompetent company and, most importantly, for reacting so slowly and so indifferently to the matter. Again, I'd say his actions show contempt for the poor that have suffered. This is why Bush and his administration have not apologised, they think theyve done nothing wrong. Not because they don't think that they did all they could but because the people matter so little.

Reverting back to an earlier theme, just as earlier Cold War administrations were anti-communist, this administration is anti-Muslim.

I apologise for rambling. I also say sorry for the typos. I won't post again on this issue but I look forward to any responses.