Still not afraid…
…but getting bloody irritated. I was going to go into London yesterday around midday, switched on the TV to check travel details, and thought it was Groundhog Day.
As I couldn’t go yesterday, I was planning to go today (right now!), switched on the TV again, and find a suspected bomber has been shot dead at Stockwell (where coincidentally I used to live). Inevitably, several Tube lines are shut down.
Well, sod it, I’m going anyway. Must return some library books.
I was already vaguely thinking about posting something on the London bombings, but my thoughts at the moment are unprintable.
Meanwhile, there was an interesting report in today’s London Times about the discovery of a caterpillar species in Hawaii that eats snails. Evidently a gourmet! I won’t provide a link – if you’re interested, search Google News for ‘caterpillar’, ‘snails’ and ‘Hawaii’ and you’ll find several reports.
Update: the Victoria line is running again.
Seems as if Londoners are getting to use that stiff upper lip quite a bit this July… :/
at this rate blair will have to send consultants to israel to figure out how to get on in this way….
David B, Is there evidence of an impending Muslim backlash in the UK? It’s hard to tell by following the MSM. From the handful of blogs I’ve visited, it seems at least some want some sort of backlash a la the Netherlands, especially against people like that Bakri guy who publically supports OBL!
Imagine you are an Iraqi living in Iraq. Thats your daily life. Everyday more bombings. More killings. More uncertainty. Such media crocodile tears for one time in London. So few tears shed by the media for the same but vastly magnified suffering in Iraq.
Thats not to say our suffering isnt real. It is scary. Its there.
Such media crocodile tears for one time in London. So few tears shed by the media for the same but vastly magnified suffering in Iraq.
iraqis aren’t our people. we can’t imagine their lives. not only is the culture i identify with genetically descended from british culture, i have relatives in the UK.
certainly iraqis aren’t shedding tears for people dying in some two-bit war in katanga province in the congo. arabs don’t seem to give only but the most perfunctory consideration towards the tragedy in the vale of kashmir.* people care about those near and dear. the western media uses the language of universalism to express particular concerns, but there is no need to fixate on them in particular as that is the rhetoric that you hear from many groups when expressing a particular concern. unless of course you hold westerners to a higher standard, which i am open to….
* i grant that the pandits of kashmir have been through a lot, but the muslims of kashmir have also suffered at the hands of the militants who have crossed over the border from pakistan and further.
I tend to agree with Razib.
300,000 people butchered in Sudan and I am not losing any sleep over it. If 300,000 were butchered in Pa or WV I would probably lose my freaking mind.
I am not sure how much it has to do with cultural ties though.
I think a lot has to do with visual familiarity at the end of the day. Americans are way more comfortable seeing bloated dead bodies from an Indonesian tsunami or a Bangladeshi flood than seeing dead bodies floating around in Western Europe because at the end of the day they can see themselves being in the position of a Briton while its harder for an American to see himself in the position of a Malay or Tamil.
I think a more interesting question would be whether a person in the position of Razib or any other second generation brown person feel more empathy for a Bangladeshi or (fill some other brown nation) when compared to people in Britain.
I cant pretend to speak for everyone, but I think atleast I would feel more empathy for the Britons than for someone from my parents country even though the victims in our parents country might look more like me.
Britain looks more like the US and self preservation would overpower all other emotions for me.
“Still not afraid…..”
kscommuters_050722155241
I am getting a little tired of the British self aggrandizing talk of ‘stiff upper lip’ and ‘not afraid’.
First the Londoners are mighty afraid.
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/afp/20050722/wl_uk_afp/britainattac
http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/world/3276374
Second, after the 7-7 bombing, the next day the subway commuters were 45% less than the average commuters for that day.
This is not being defiant. Defiance would mean more Londoners riding the subway the next day. The London defiance was limited to the blog world though.
In Israel when there were on average 2 bombings a week on Jaffa street, the next day more Israelis would show up at the street, more Israelis would frequent the bombed establishment and more Israelis would ride the public transportation. That was defiance.
Not taking the subway (however reasonable) is not defiance.
there are 140 million bangladeshis walking around. the country could spare to shed a few pounds ;)
though seriously, i’ve been to bangladesh two times in twenty+ years, and those people are far more alien to my worldview than a european is. like the brown muslims above, for me common feeling trumps common blood.
More Londoners riding the subway the day after 7/7 wouldn’t have been defiance, it would have been a bloody miracle, as half the system still wasn’t working. Al Mujahid is talking out of his arse.
Americans are way more comfortable seeing bloated dead bodies from an Indonesian tsunami or a Bangladeshi flood than seeing dead bodies floating around in Western Europe because at the end of the day they can see themselves being in the position of a Briton while its harder for an American to see himself in the position of a Malay or Tamil.
Is that why Americans gave an incredible amount of money to charities and organizations to help those flood victims? Is that why the Western media did nothing but discuss it for weeks upon weeks?
I don’t buy this idea that the West is apathetic because we can’t imagine ourselves in such a position.
Clarification :
I do understand that its important to send the terrorists a message that the people are not going to give in to their senseless demands. The reason I am peeved at all the talk of ‘stiff upper lip’ and ‘not afraid’ is because theres an insinuation here that because of the ‘stoic’ English culture and tragic WW2 bombings, the Londoners are somehow superior in their response to terrorist murderers than people in New York, Madrid, Baghdad or Israel. I am yet to see any quantifiable evidence which would substantiate this claim.
” More Londoners riding the subway the day after 7/7 wouldn’t have been defiance, it would have been a bloody miracle, as half the system still wasn’t working “
David,
You might be correct because I thought of the same thing after I posted the above message.
However it would be interesting to see if theres any difference in the number of Britons who took the subway once it was back to capacity and compare that to Madrid.
“I don’t buy this idea that the West is apathetic because we can’t imagine ourselves in such a position”
I am not suggesting that the West is apathetic. The West obviously cares more for issues across the world than 3rd world countries as there is a complete lack of liberal civil society in the 3rd world.
I am just wondering whether there would be a difference in the response, if the victims were say in Ireland and not Indonesia.
I am just wondering whether there would be a difference in the response, if the victims were say in Ireland and not Indonesia.
there are tens of millions of american irish descent, and many of those still exhibt a strong self-awareness as such, so of course we would care more (especially since there are only millions of irish in ireland as opposed to hundreds of millions of indonesians!). i don’t see the point of mooting this question, since it is transparently obvious that the time or money spent is not deterministically proportional to the number of deaths. we all have common human feeling. we also have particular feelings, of many kinds. the problem is that there is a verbal disconnect between the importance of the two, as we have been programmed to couch all distress at the plight of others in in the rhetoric of common universal humanity, even though the extent and priority of distress is dictated by particular concerns. the concerns can derive from a variety of factors (ie; nationality, race, religion, ethnicity, language, history, etc. etc.).
to give readers here a novel and perhaps peculiar example, note this headline: RATIONALIST PROFESSOR RECEIVES DEATH SENTENCE IN PAKISTAN. the secular activist community in the USA has been keeping track of rationalist/secularist dissidents in muslim countries for many years. of course, in these countries there is a lot of malnutrition and deprivation, but man does not live on bread and water alone ;) freethought uber alles!
I wouldn’t deny that people pay more attention to atrocities closer to home, or which involve their fellow-countrymen, than things which happen in a far-off country. How could it be otherwise?
In the case of the tsunami, it attracted a great deal of attention, especially in Europe, partly because so many tourists were involved.
There is also the problem of ‘compassion fatigue’. It is difficult to work up much feeling about people being blown up in Iraq, because it is happening all the time, so that only exceptionally bad cases are even reported in the media.
Coming back to my original point, I don’t detect any great sense of fear in London at the moment, but a certain common-sense nervousness about fellow-passengers, especially brown ones with beards. No offence intended, but if a mass-murderer was on the loose, and the only thing known about him was that he had a big nose and red hair, then anyone with a big nose and red hair would expect to get some funny looks.
but a certain common-sense nervousness about fellow-passengers, especially brown ones with beards.
hey, if i see a brown dude with a beard on a plane, i get nervous too ;) it’s human.
I’m not Brown, but 6 months after 9/11 was in France and was about to board an Air France plane to fly to New York, and had a heavy beard at the time. Because of this, I suspect, I was stopped, frisked and had my baggage checked 4 times before being allowed to board, including 2 shoe checks, the last one when I was a few steps away from entering the plane. The security guards kept watching me and conferring with each other??
I think a more interesting question would be whether a person in the position of Razib or any other second generation brown person feel more empathy for a Bangladeshi or (fill some other brown nation) when compared to people in Britain.
Even though I was in Manhattan on September 11th, my reaction to the 2002 Bali bombing was stronger and more visceral despite my lack of familial ties, for a number of possible reasons.
* September 11th provoked reactions that ranged from hysteria to emotional shutdown. I tend to respond in the latter fashion to most emotional shocks.
* The Hindu Balinese could not reasonably expect justice when they had less influence with Indonesia’s Javanese Muslim political elite than fundamentalists sympathetic to their attackers. Nor did the Hindu Balinese have at their disposal a military machine comparable to the US armed forces.
“but a certain common-sense nervousness about fellow-passengers, especially brown ones with beards”
Hmm fear of bearded brown people would be unwarranted because none of the 7-7 attackers or the attackers yesterday had Islamic beards.
In fact the bearded ones might be safe because the attackers will probably not want to attract attention to themselves.
So far as Briton Islamist attackers go heres the break down :
Richard Reid – shoe bomber (biracial black/white)
7-7 attackers – 3 Pakistanis 1 Black
Suspects from yesterday – 2 looked South Asian and I thought two looked black, though one of them might be South Asian. They havnt yet disclosed the nation of origin for the South Asians yet.
So I guess it would be reasonable to fear the clean shaven browns and to a smaller extent the clean shaven blacks.
Jeet,
Thats interesting. How many of the victims were Balinese though ? As I understand the club which was blown up had mostly Westerners as very few locals frequented those clubs.
I remember seeing the list of victims and most of them had European names.
It was of course a devastating blow to the local economy controlled by the Balinese Hindus. So in the end the economic impact on the Balinese Hindus was pretty severe.
As I understand, the tourists have now started flocking back to Bali which is a good sign.
“How many of the victims were Balinese though ? As I understand the club which was blown up had mostly Westerners as very few locals frequented those clubs.
I remember seeing the list of victims and most of them had European names.”
Most of them were young Australians.
There were 12 Indonesians killed, most of whom were probably Balinese Hindu food vendors and people walking outside on the street.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,834047,00.html
Hmm fear of bearded brown people would be unwarranted because none of the 7-7 attackers or the attackers yesterday had Islamic beards.
exactly, but people aren’t always “rational actors.” the initial reaction seems to be a triggering of prewritten “cognitive templates.” over time these templates can be overwritten if the pattern persists….
Wikipedia says 38 Indonesians “the majority Balinese” out of a total of 202 dead.
Anon wrote:
“Imagine you are an Iraqi living in Iraq. “
I think Razib put it best. But, to add my two cents, I could care less about Iraq. You care about what you know. I am somewhat impressed and somewhat shocked at the same time at people who have this ‘global empathy’ that they sincerely care about everything- even those who don’t deserve it.
The tsunami got the world’s attention because of the incredible scope of the disaster. Some local disaster that killed some tourists would have gotten some play on the news, but a natural disaster that kills over a hundred thousand people spread out over thousands of miles is unambiguously news.
I think the most important issue about how much people react to a disaster is how well it is conveyed to them by the media. Big massacres that happen places far from news cameras get less responses than small ones in places full of journalists and cameras.
–John
Jeet,
Wikipedia is wrong.
Here is list of all the dead at http://www.indo.com/bali121002/inmemoriam.html
Anyway, your point is well taken about Balinese not having any recourse. It doesnt matter if the dead were 38 or 12.
I think Razib put it best. But, to add my two cents, I could care less about Iraq. You care about what you know.
I think caring about what you know (particularly American politics–but also world politics, British politics, Australian politics, terrorism) leads to Iraq, and the slightest bit of intellectual curiosity and a dollop of emotional empathy leads to a surface level care for Iraq. The more you get enmeshed in it, the more you might care (although I agree there’s a limit, and would further add that “surface level” caring for use of people’s lives as rhetorical tools is often, if not always, more dangerous than an honest admission that one simply does not care–e.g. a lot of 1st world consumer driven anti-globalization politics or the use of women’s rights in muslim countries by western imperialists). If you actually go there and/or subject yourself to emotional immersion of some kind, then you might end up actually caring because it becomes a part of what you know.
Which leads to my other point: there is a role for free will here. If you think that universalism (or at least, exposing yourself to other people form different places) is an important idea, that will drive you to engage in things that will actually promote connections with more people from different parts of the world (changing, in other words, what you know). If, on the other hand, you dismiss the importance of it, then you stay cloistered. And that’s a matter of choice. And the more you surround yourself with others who like to remain cloistered as well, the more it feels like the norm. I think that’s how you get situations as in the United States where half the population of a given state hasn’t ever left that state.
I think that’s how you get situations as in the United States where half the population of a given state hasn’t ever left that state.
well, i was under the impression that americans move more often than people in other countries? 4 times more likely in a year than japanese (this doesn’t specify the distance of a move, though there is a limit to how far you can move in japan).
also, universalism and particularism aren’t binary choices. no one is an ideal altruist or egoist, and our weighting of particular concerns varies by personal value systems. mostly, individuals tend to believe their own weighted system of worth-of-life is the Golden Mean and discount the biases of others (in my experience). example, my attachment to my fellow americans has two main elements:
1) common cultural feeling.
2) the implicit social contract due to the explicit legally binding state of citizenship.
of course, fellow human feeling remains, but, to be cliche, in terms of empathy and sympathy the world is not flat (even vegetarians privilege the kingdom animalia!).
People who are quick to castigate others by announcing their own immense compassion for distant strangers are always deceitful and often dangerous. The milk of human kindness is a finite resource. Those who spread it widely, spread it thinly. The Brotherhood of Man is a brittle thing.
Regarding sympathy, Malcolm Gladwell reports some potentially relevant findings in his book, _The Tipping Point_. Evidently the average respondent reports about a dozen names when asked to list the people who would leave them devastated if they should die. Dunbar numbers may also describe the limits of an other, lower level of compassion. Beyond that, it’s safe to say that compassion is fairly abstract and often symbolic.
Beyond that, it’s safe to say that compassion is fairly abstract and often symbolic.
and yet, the exceptions to the rule often have changed the world a great deal. or at least, the attempts to create exceptions (the world religions, marxism, humanitarian liberalism). i would simply assert that it is not within normal expectations that we live in a state of perpetual revolution exporting compassion far and wide….
In reading the various comments I am struck that there seems little in the way of disgreement between the views expressed–merely discussion of different aspects of a shared recognition that empathy and compassion extend on a direct and declining basis to those we perceive as sharing one or more possible affinities.
If I were to attempt to formulate some “law” governing degree and extent of such “universality” sentiments, however, it would focus on the extent to which individuals (of a given group or resident in a particular place) tend toward recognition of others as all cooperators in the attainment of individual but mutual goals. Essentially, the emergingly-ascendant recognition (but by no means universal) view that “life is not a zero-sum game” is at the root and probably underlies (rather than being a product of) overtly religious or moral recommendations.
It is not surprising that such recognition has arisen and grown in precisely those places among those peoples who have, themselves, benefitted most bountifully from behavior most closely attuned to such recognition.
That the concept is primarily economic (and first enunciated with some clarity in “Wealth of Nations,”–Adam Smith, 1776– detracts not an iota from its essential humanitarian and spiritual overtone. And it is, therefore, predictable that those specific societies in which the greatest economic success has been attained through specialization, capitalist organization of industry, innovation, and trade, have themselves emerged as also most concerned with the well-being of others at even greater distance in ordinary affinity. (The most generous “entity” in existence–exceeding all others in charitable wealth tranfers including the “second-best” US government–is the US private sector; recent comparison $22 vs
$16 bn).
I am optimistic that, though slow, the “monkey see, monkey do” aspect of human behavior will extend the process. It is not inevitable, a law of nature, as Marx proclaimed the advent of universal socialism to be; significant numbers are at all times intent on reversing the process, most even unwittingly. Jesus said “Peace on Earth to men of good will.” He might well have added “and prosperity,” to what is, properly understood, a prescription rather than a wish or benediction. Mankind can take it to the bank.
Isn’t anyone interested in the caterpillars?
That news really brightened my day, because it’s such a magnificent example of evolution in action.
Since this is suppossed to be a scientific site;I just like to point out that a 1000 odd people die each year in Britain due to road accidents,800 are murdered (usually by some one they know etc),5000 due to prescribed drugs ,50 odd in police custardy etc.We free thinking people should not play the political game,be it Christian or Islamic nationalism.The real threat is if some General hands over nuclear weapons to these groups,assuming that is technically possible.
I stand corrected.
well, i was under the impression that americans move more often than people in other countries? 4 times more likely in a year than japanese (this doesn’t specify the distance of a move, though there is a limit to how far you can move in japan).
Sorry, I was a little unclear. I meant that in particular states, people don’t leave the state. I can’t source it right now or remember which states, but it was Alabama or Mississippi I believe.
also, universalism and particularism aren’t binary choices. no one is an ideal altruist or egoist, and our weighting of particular concerns varies by personal value systems. mostly, individuals tend to believe their own weighted system of worth-of-life is the Golden Mean and discount the biases of others (in my experience).
My first point was not necessarily engaging that debate as much as pointing to examples of how even if you only take interest in regions and issues which are of concern rather than an abstract universalism, if you’re an American, that extends far beyond the borders of the United States. Whatever your politics, it’s quite clear that American policies in other places can lead you to start learning or caring about those other places.
My second point was that there is that beyond the immediate perspectives that universalism or any other perspective would give you, there are practical effects they have on your life–so that some values would tend to extend your sense of empathy and lead you–in an organic way–to start empathizing with other places.
1) common cultural feeling.
2) the implicit social contract due to the explicit legally binding state of citizenship.
Given the divergent cultural trends in the United States, it would be helpful if you could specify a bit more what makes up that “common cultural feeling.” I think your second point is just ideological (the ideology of nationalism/the nation-state system).
it would be helpful if you could specify a bit more what makes up that common cultural feeling.”
an attachment to liberty over equality. a common base of low and middle-brown literature, television and film (which serve as common points of reference in conversation). a feeling that one is privileged to live in the most powerful nation in the history of the world. historical motifs that serve as the backdrop for an american identity (i went to elementary school in an area where there was a lot of revolutionary war activity, so this is relevant for me). not having a queen (like the canadians).
i freely acknowledge cultural diversity in this country, but within bounds i think it always existed (we have regionalism today, but we did in the 1850s as well). i don’t know if the republican system is tenable on the scale of 300 million people, but i guess we’ll see.
an attachment to liberty over equality. a common base of low and middle-brown literature, television and film (which serve as common points of reference in conversation). a feeling that one is privileged to live in the most powerful nation in the history of the world. historical motifs that serve as the backdrop for an american identity (i went to elementary school in an area where there was a lot of revolutionary war activity, so this is relevant for me). not having a queen (like the canadians).
Thanks. So these things trump, for you, a feeling of wanting to be around people who share your individual values (transnationally)? It seems odd to me given that you likely (?) wouldn’t be able to carry on an enjoyable conversation with a large number of people in the country around many of your interests (yes, that’s true of many countries–part of the point–and yes, i don’t even e-know you that well :). A sizable percentage would reject the premise of this blog and many would take issue with the standards that you try to set up for it.
i freely acknowledge cultural diversity in this country, but within bounds i think it always existed (we have regionalism today, but we did in the 1850s as well).
No doubt. I take issue with claims of the “historic” nature of polarization in the country given that a) this country had a Civil War and even prior to that and after that has always had sectional differences and b) there’s more of a consensus of mccain-b. clinton-reid style policies than shows yet in election results b/c of ongoing realignment and the eccentricities of the electoral system.
All that said, though, there is a disturbing increase in insularity over the past few years–foreign policy ideas like unilateralism, close-mindedness, not just politically but in terms of ideas, religiosity, xenophobia, and a general divergence from other wealthy industrialized euro-descended societies in its values. I think the overmilitarization and lack of a true Left in this country is taking a toll on its culture–and to very different extents in different places. I would find it hard to argue with the notion that many Northeasterners probably have as much in common with prevailing Canadian sentiments as they do with heartland sentiments on a substantial number of issues.
So these things trump, for you, a feeling of wanting to be around people who share your individual values (transnationally)?
i don’t think my values are that common transnationally. my argument in favor in a skills biased immigration selection system is partly due to my bias. but i accept that a nation of cosmopolitan and overly intellectualized atomized narcissists probably isn’t doable. i certainly would favor the spread of liberal values abroad, but my first principle is “do no harm” at home.
I would find it hard to argue with the notion that many Northeasterners probably have as much in common with prevailing Canadian sentiments as they do with heartland sentiments on a substantial number of issues.
on the sum, perhaps, but look at specific elements. after all, canadians often say that they “respect freedom of speech, they don’t worship it.” i think for most (though not all anymore) on the american Left that would be very disturbing. or what about the acceptance of a monarch? i don’t gather that (unlike australia) canada has a very strong republican movement? i think there are a lot implicit of background differences that would surface all of a sudden in the event of a posited union between the blue states and canada. the snow is always whiter on the other side of the border.
americans move more often than people in other countries? 4 times more likely in a year than japanese
I believe Americans travel to foreign countries far less than citizens of other first-world nations.
For what it’s worth, the Japanese are also quite insular.
A good balanced report on the current mood in London in the Financial Times here: http://news.ft.com/cms/s/a84b46e6-fadb-11d9-a0f6-00000e2511c8,dwp_uuid=46d6f5a8-d260-11d8-b661-00000e2511c8.html
The Evening Standard had a great picture of the street party referred to in the report – it looked like New Year’s Eve! Unfortunately I can’t find a link to the photo.
Meanwhile, the police say the man shot dead at Stockwell was not connected to the bombings after all. So there is an important lesson to be learned: if you are NOT a terrorist, do NOT run away from armed police officers, do NOT run into a Tube station past uniformed police officers, do NOT jump over the turnstiles, do NOT run hell-for-leather down a long staircase with armed police in hot pursuit, and do NOT attempt to jump onto a Tube train before the doors close. If you do any of these things, there is a possibility that your wholly innocent and harmless intentions will be misinterpreted.
i don’t think my values are that common transnationally.
Right, which is why you should reject nationalist as a whole and just find people that you like.
i accept that a nation of cosmopolitan and overly intellectualized atomized narcissists probably isn’t doable.
I’m shocked, as a fellow bangali, that you would say this. What if your mother were to hear? :)
i certainly would favor the spread of liberal values abroad, but my first principle is “do no harm” at home.
I think the spread of democratic values (which we may have a different understanding of but for the purposes of this conversation it doesn’t matter) abroad by Americans or the American state is dependent on strengthened democracy in the United States (and thereby the political culture). To simplify it: in the long run, we will get better foreign policy when we produce better (and smarter) elites sucking up to better popular values.
i think there are a lot implicit of background differences that would surface all of a sudden in the event of a posited union between the blue states and canada.
Sure, particularly on the kinds of differences that emerge from poltical traditions and the quirks of history that you cited. But I’m not advocating a political union here–just pointing out that if you went down a list of contemporary political issues that are more relevant to people’s day to day lives than the monarchy: women’s rights, sexuality, health care, labor rights, etc.–I think you would see that the blue people in the blue states are closer to Canada (and parts of Western Europe) in their values than to the red people in the red states.
I believe Americans travel to foreign countries far less than citizens of other first-world nations.
well, this is surely true, but is it really fair to compare to someone living in new york to someone living in amsterdam? by the very structure of geopolitics a netherlander will probably travel to other countries to vacation (italy, spain), while a new yorker might go florida (the same country).
think you would see that the blue people in the blue states are closer to Canada (and parts of Western Europe) in their values than to the red people in the red states.
perhaps. that’s a big topic. but one issue that i have is that i also think that the left has narrow-focus perceptions of other countries sometimes, especially europe. most americans don’t know that many european nations have stricter laws about abortion than we do for example (this was a big problem after german unification, as west germany had many hoops you had to jump to get an abortion while east germany was on-demand).
most americans don’t know that many european nations have stricter laws about abortion than we do for example (this was a big problem after german unification, as west germany had many hoops you had to jump to get an abortion while east germany was on-demand).
I didn’t know that, and you are right that a lot of projected desires of people like me (I wouldn’t call us left really–just kind and wishful) get placed onto a Western Europe of our imagination. And divorce laws in Ireland, religious expression in France, etc. all indicate differences from some values that blue and further left people would hold on to. Still, the sense I get is that the United States’s religiosity right now and longstanding militarism and power leave it with a different look to it (at least among those that are hardcore or soft supporters of those two trends).
Perhaps I’ll look for a paper or something that addresses the bigger picture in terms of political/cultural opinions.
well saurav, as a brown person, i think it is far better in the USA. i mean, the term for non-whites in sweden translates to “black skulls” for godsake.
“most americans don’t know that many european nations have stricter laws about abortion than we do for example”
Most Americans are not aware of such laws because except for Poland, Malta and Ireland almost all EU Nations have less restrictions on right to abortion than the US.
I didn’t know that, and you are right that a lot of projected desires of people like me (I wouldn’t call us left really–just kind and wishful) get placed onto a Western Europe of our imagination
May I recommend that you actually visit Western Europe and read their newspapers? When I went to Berlin with some of my liberal friends, they were *shocked* *shocked* that it wasn’t some leftist vegetarian utopia with no unemployment, no graffiti, and no bums.
Al Mujahid,
Uh, wrong… check out Germany’s abortion laws. Except in cases of rape or if the pregnancy cannot be completed without endangering the woman’s health, it is illegal past the first trimester. In order to get an abortion during the first trimester, you must undergo mandatory counseling. This is as of 1995. Prior to that, it was banned in West Germany and on-demand in East Germany. An individual can buy a day-after pill, though, but I’m not sure if that counts as abortion.
In France, abortion is on-demand up to the 12th week, however mandatory counseling is required by law before a person can get an abortion. After the 12th week, abortion is only legal if two doctors certify that an abortion must take place because the child is handicapped or the mother’s health is endangered by the pregnancy.
There’s laws like this for the other Western European countries, too. Just look it up.
Arcane,
You are right.
Matla, Ireland (atleast till 2004) and Poland do not allow for abortion.
The rest of the EU Nations do allow for abortion, but when it comes to restrictions short of outright ban like parental notification without judicial bypass, compulsory wait, counselling etc. some of the EU Nations probably have more restrictions than the US.
some of the EU Nations probably have more restrictions than the US.
the ACLU would throw a fit. btw, don’t spain and portugal count as western europe? check them out, there are hoops there too, pretty high ones actually from what i recall. anyway, you should know me well enough now that i wouldn’t say something specific like that about west and east germany if i hadn’t researched and read about it ;)
The US has more leftist abortion policies than pretty much any EU country. The “partial birth abortion” bill that banned third trimester abortion in the US now means that our abortion laws are about the same as the UK’s, which allows abortion up to 22 weeks into the pregnancy. However, it is more liberal than, say, Germany or France.
Again, as I said in another thread, Western Europe isn’t that leftist utopia that so many liberals think it is.
BTW, don’t take my comments as meaning that I’m a pro-lifer… I’m not… just stating the facts.
“you should know me well enough now that i wouldn’t say something specific like that about west and east germany if i hadn’t researched and read about it”
That is usually true.
I confused abortion restrictions with an outright ban on abortion.
May I recommend that you actually visit Western Europe and read their newspapers?
I did (Britain), during the leadup to the war in Iraq. I didn’t catch the newspapers, but the disparity in coverage between what was in the media in the U.S. when I left and came back and what i saw on TV in London was not merely shocking, but truly shattering. Even now, I watch BBC World News, then American network news, and then BBC again sometimes within the span of an hour and a half. Try it sometime.
btw, I think, in discussing abortion and other things, you’re mixing up “left” and “libertarian”–hence the problem with using terms like “left.” One of my most prized values of American political culture pre-2001 was that it was a bulwark of individual rights (both well and poorly construed). It still is, in a lot of ways, but not to the same extent.
Abortion as an issue should be properly understood as an extension of women’s rights and sexuality (and class, when you consider it on a real-world level). I’m not sure where that would leave us in this discussion comparing American politics to Western European b/c I don’t know enough, but I think it should really be framed that way.
Even now, I watch BBC World News, then American network news, and then BBC again sometimes within the span of an hour and a half. Try it sometime.
Do it all the time. I watch DW World a lot, too, along with CBC.
I don’t want this to continue on about abortion, but this one thing bugged me…
I think, in discussing abortion and other things, you’re mixing up “left” and “libertarian”–hence the problem with using terms like “left.”
The vast majority of people who are pro-choice are on the left and are NOT libertarians, and don’t even try to say that they are.
I might also note that 40% of libertarians in the Libertarian Party are pro-life.