From the periphery
Archimedes said, ‘Give me a lever and I will move the world.’
Better to say ‘Give me a perspective so I can see the world’. A perspective gives us a viewline, and everything is seen through that viewline. Those in the centre see differently from those on the periphery. In Australia, our geography places us on the periphery of all world centres. In public discourse, our worldview has two main blind spots, Africa and South America, but we keep a good eye on what goes on in Europe, Asia and North America.
Europeans and Asians tend to keep an eye on each other. But the US seems to be largely preoccupied with its own concerns, becoming interested in others only to the extent that their actions impact on US prosperity. The elephant
need not heed the horses, goats and mice. But the mouse has to pay attention to all the bigger animals.
A prime example of the blindness of the elephant is the case of football. You, my mostly US audience, think you know what I mean by football, but you don’t even know the beginning of it.
Here in Sydney, Australia, we are a sports-mad culture and we have four codes of football all of which have national professional competitions featured on prime time television. We have two forms of rugby, as well as an Australian football called AFL that is incredibly athletic, and the fourth code is a growing soccer league. These four codes all support a healthy swag of professional players, but a list of the ten highest earning Australian sportsmen includes four Aussies playing soccer in European teams. Does this suggest that even our weakest football code has more than a fair share of world class players?
To an Australian, gridiron is a joke not a sport. Big men dress up in fancy costumes and posture at each other. Then they stop. They posture a bit more, then they stop. There’s more stopping than posturing and not much indication
of athletic abilities. In gridiron I see nothing of the ball skills of soccer player Harry Kewell as he dives through the air and heads the ball to the goal. And where is the endurance of Eddie Betts as he runs non-stop through an AFL game?
Sydney is a stunningly beautiful city that still takes pride in hosting the ‘best ever’ Olympics, and takes immense pride in an intrinsic love of sport that goes beyond winners and losers, though we love to win. At the 2000 Olympics here in Sydney, the last marathon runners came into the stadium a couple of hours after the leaders. As they came onto the track, they were amazed to find the stands still full, and even more amazed to be greeted by a standing ovation. Interviewed afterwards, they were holding back tears as they said this had never happened to them before - the fate of stragglers in the marathon at international events is the lonely experience of entering a nearly-empty stadium.
Here on the periphery, we know what it means to take our sport seriously. It means you are literate in four codes of football, and it means you admire athleticism and determination, especially when it is being shown by those
who are coming last at the world’s best celebration of human sporting endeavour.
We will know that the US is beginning to notice that it is not alone in the world when it recognises that gridion is just a local variant of one of the world’s great games. Worldwide in 2005 there were four professional football leagues with an average attendance above thirty thousand - one was the German soccer league, one was the British soccer league, one was Australian AFL, and another was the US variant, gridion.
February 28th, 2007 12:46
Gillian,
American football used to be a sport, until it decided to become an entertainment event. I am not a fan of true soccer any more than I am a fan of hockey…just because. Rugby looks like a great game, but I don’t follow it, either.
That being said, the people that play those sports are true athletes. You don’t have to be a physical anomaly to succeed in them, as you would for American football and basketball.
I don’t know what it will take for soccer to become consistently popular in the U.S., as it is on its 3rd or 4th rebirth here. Don’t know if Beckham joing a U.S. league will help or not.
As we all know, money talks….
March 1st, 2007 01:04
The challenge, as I see it, is to make the massive effort to try to see the world from alternate points of view. From alternate views, ‘football’ means different things. Football (soccer) is ‘the beautiful game’ for many countries.
When I read your comment, I have to remember to translate ‘hockey’ to ‘ice hockey’ which just doesn’t exist here. Our (field) hockey doesn’t get prime media coverage, but our teams are world champions.
What does the elephant need to do to be ABLE to see other views? I think travel is vital. In a perfect world, I would have all young people spending 3 months in a very foreign country, before the age of 21.
Rotary does good work in supporting meaningful exchanges like this. And the Peace Corp is fantastic. I wonder what else can be done to encourage more US citizens to get passports and go exploring other cultures and perspectives?
March 1st, 2007 08:28
So…is it the point that “America” is myopic and selfish because when you say “football” to an American, he thinks of the sport that is local and historical to him?
Pardon me, but I disagree. The traditions of a people, and their familiarity to those people, does not make the people self-centered ignoramuses. It makes them steeped in and familiar with their “culture.”
I hate pro sports, by the way.
March 1st, 2007 12:21
Gillian, I’m not sure I understand your point. I don’t see many Muslims - including mainstream Muslims - agreeing with you. They have a worldview, per se, and damn it, they’re going to push it. Otherwise, concern over Sharia law wouldn’t be a problem. (BTW…haven’t heard anything recently about the bikini march. Are the local Muslim groups still up in arms over it?)
I’m really having a hard time with the Supreme Court forsaking it’s responsibility to the Constitution by bringing in EU opinions for consideration. By doing so, we consider “worldview” that is out of scope of the U.S. charter (i.e. Consitution). Do I need to see the worldview? Um, maybe. Do I need to understand it or agree with it in order to preserve the nation? No.
March 1st, 2007 12:51
Rick,
Do you need to see the world view? Yes. Do you need to understand the world view? As much as we possibly can. Do we have to agree with it? No.
Part of the issue as I see it is that we don’t understand the view of other cultures. We look at Muslim countries, for example, and say “their goal is to impose Sharia law over the world”, and it isn’t that simple. If we are going to succeed with other countries, we need to better understand their perspective, and what motivates them.
March 1st, 2007 14:12
Scott, I am saying that Americans are more myopic than most OECD (i.e. wealthy and educated) nations because they are less able to see that other perspectives exist at all. I am saying that this is not because they are stupid but because their position of power in the world gives them a ‘king of the castle’ perspective that makes it harder to see that other views exist, and harder to respect them when they do see them.
Power is one of the factors that makes nations insular — Middle Kingdom China was insular.
It is not your familiarity with your own traditions that makes you myopic, it is your lack of familiarity with the traditions and circumstances of others that blinds you. I chose football as an easy example, but the effects of US trade subsidies and tariffs on poor countries is a more damaging example of American myopia or lack of care for other nations — the elephant and the mice.
Rick — are you saying that Muslims are acting wrongly, so you should too? US actions under Bush look a lot like he holds that view — some extremists kill 2,000 people, mostly Americans, so he goes on an international rampage that results in the deaths of thousands of unrelated civilians. He is either vicious, stupid or a victim of myopia. Could be all three, of course.
Bikini march? Well we now have female Muslim lifesavers on Sydney beaches - they wear a coverall swimsuit like those sun-protecting suits that little kids wear. This is part of an move to build bridges with Muslim communities in Sydney after racial riots at Cronulla Beach. Dialogue and bridge-building were chosen to help the communities see each others viewpoints.
Brian, yes that’s how I see it. We especially need to see the moderate voices in Muslim countries. Queen Rania of Jordan is very vocal with her moderate views. I blog about it here. http://schoolstjude.blogspot.com/2007/02/two-women-working-for-change.html
March 1st, 2007 17:45
Brian,
First off, thanks for fixing the comment formatting. It looks much better.
Gillian,
I’m not saying murdering citizens in retailiation for your citizens being murdered is necessarily appropriate, but I think you discount extreme Muslim leadership’s willingness to use their own people to bilk sympathy from the western countries. Would an American ever use another poorer, unarmed American as a shield against an enemy? I think not.
I think you also misunderstood my question about the bikini march. It’s nice that one Muslim lifeguard covered up; has the community started requiring the Aussies to also cover up? If so, then your concept of worldview is turned on its head; Aussie lifestyle - culture, as Scott referred to it - is bowing to an irreconcilable worldview.
Brian and Gillian,
Let’s say I took a comprehensive survey of your state, province (whatever the principality is called). I learned that only 10% of your population were rapists and child molestors. I also learned that only another 35-40% of the population believed that rape and child molestation were either acceptable in certain situations or were always justifiable, even though those 35-40% didn’t practice what they believed. Would that be an acceptable worldview to you? Would it made a difference if you understood their perspective, or would there be a line you wouldn’t cross?
March 1st, 2007 18:41
Rick,
Two points. First, understanding a world view is not equivalent to accepting it. One can understand fundamentalism and be opposed to it, just as one can understand military tactics and be a pacifist.
Second, you seem to imply that a person’s world view is something we can find acceptable or unacceptable. We can’t. We can only agree or disagree with them. What we can find acceptable or unacceptable are their actions.
March 1st, 2007 20:13
Rick,
Muslim extremism… From the periphery, it seems that the US administration shows very low interest in understanding the causes of Muslim extremism and Arabic hatred for the US. Their ignorance in this area is one reason that recent policy and actions have been misguided. There’s an excellent analysis US govt policy by Noam Chomsky, “Why Bush Does Diplomacy Mafia-Style” here –
http://www.alternet.org/waroniraq/48494/
Bikini march — No, most Aussies aren’t covering up on the beaches. In fact, topless sunbathing is allowed on Sydney beaches as long as the person isn’t moving around! Women have to cover up (bikini top will do) if they want to go get an ice-cream. The new garb (burqini!) is worn only by those who choose to wear it. It adds to the cultural mix, it doesn’t replace what most people continue to do/wear. Here’s what it looks like –
http://www.smh.com.au/news/fashion/from-bikini-to-burqini/2007/01/16/1168709713446.html
Your third point …
The limits of acceptability (of views or actions) is a prominent issue here in Oz just now. We are hearing a lot about the need to support Australian values and talk about getting new citizens and (*rolling my eyes*) tourists to sign documents about Aust values.
There are lines of acceptability that I don’t cross. Your example of rape is like my view on female circumcision (genital mutilation). It’s not legal in Aust, and never should be. I disagree with it happening anywhere in the world. New migrants coming to Aust have to accept that this is one cultural practice that they have to leave behind. But, even so, I try to understand the background to the practice and to express my resistance to it firmly but respectfully.
So, I think that the US needs to do more to recognise other world views. In fact, all affluent countries need to do more to see themselves through the eyes of poor countries. From other perspectives, Western consumerism can seem as bizarre and dangerous as genital mutilation.
March 1st, 2007 21:52
Brian,
I agree that understanding and acceptance are not the same thing. I disagree that I cannot find another’s practices unacceptable, though. There are moral lines that I won’t cross, and it is acceptable for me to identify things on the other side of that line to be unacceptable. Like porn. (Oops, I’m commenting on the wrong post.
) I again come back to the Muslim extremist position, and say that they find Western values unacceptable (but only until they can use those values to their advantage in the US, in France, in Spain, in the UK…).
If both sides aren’t willing to come to the table, it doesn’t matter if one side is willing. Does the US hurt itself because of the relations it maintains with the Saudis, et al? Absolutely.
Gillian,
Yes, poverty is bad. Unjustified murder is bad. Using humans as living shields is bad. Hiding used missile-launchers in Dodge Caravans in a suburban neighborhood is bad. Teaching your women to believe that it is their fault when they are raped is bad.
I have no dispute that there should be some baseline for proper behavior and standard of living. However, cults of personality abound in most countries, and sometimes the best diplomatic policy will not be good enough. (I don’t believe the US should be the global police organization, either.)
Good to hear that the Aussies are not succumbing to dhimmitude. Some in the US are willing to go back to segregated bathrooms, etc. to accommodate Muslims. It’s very frustrating that the country works for sex and race equality, then throws it down the toilet for a religion that holds none of the western values that made the US as prosperous as it is.
Choamsky’s “polls” are not in line with what I read. Polls in the US are made to say what someone wants them to say, and I am wary of that from all political parties. I toss any arguments where his supporting points are polls right out the window. There is a lot of hype here, and most of his issues are not just with the current administration, even though that is how he cloaks his supporting points.
I would recommend that you read some of Walter Williams’ and Thomas Sowell’s articles to get a different perspective. They are not left/right-wing emotion baiters. They are as academically capable as Choamsky is, but just not “internationalist”. Some of their articles might be eye openers.
In closing (as if this will be our last commentary…I know I’m kidding myself), I believe the US does look at the world’s perspective, and makes its decisions accordingly. Will it make mistakes? Always. Does it do foolish things, like give nuclear secrets to the Chinese? Yes. Does it protect its own self-interests, as we would expect any country to do? Yes. Does it do some things behind the scenes diplomatically? Likely. Does that mean we have to agree with all of it, or even any of it? Thankfully, no.
March 2nd, 2007 01:02
Hi Rick,
“It’s very frustrating that the country works for sex and race equality, then throws it down the toilet for a religion that holds none of the western values that made the US as prosperous as it is.” — Yep, that’s a key dilemma in the culture clash between Islam and Western democracies. I wouldn’t trade our freedoms and tolerances for their restrictive practices, whereas I do think their criticisms of Western consumerism are valid.
Regarding polls, I’m a professional social researcher, so I know how biased polls can be. I also know that surveys can be highly accurate. So, I wouldn’t dismiss all of them. The Chomsky interview doesn’t say WHO did the polling, still, “Seventy five percent of the population here favours improving relations with Iran, instead of threats” seems like a likely figure.
The Center for Justice and Peacebuilding at Eastern Mennonite University (hmmm, where would you place them on the political spectrum?) notes that the Bush Administration’s 2006 National Security Strategy names 3 “pillars” of security: Defense (Military), Development, Diplomacy.
Then they note —
*53% of Federal Budget goes to Defense Department
*3-4% goes to State Department for diplomatic programs
*.5% goes to USAID for development assistance
This looks like an imbalance of funding in terms of its own policy statements - regardless of what polls say the people think or want.
I thought Chomsky’s comments that public opinion is fairly irrelevant even in democracies seemed to ring true. What did you think?
March 2nd, 2007 11:24
Gillian,
I often struggle with the how much public opinion should be considered by any elected official.
On one hand, officials were elected based on their platform, weren’t they? Doesn’t that mean that, by electing them, we gave them the approval to move forward with that platform?
On the other hand, while the public can be overly fickle and emotional, they do elect the officials.
I don’t have a good response, because the American public often frustrates me with its lack of knowledge and rational thought. The media doesn’t help, but we hope to address that here at BraveHumans.