  |
|
| Author |
Topic |
Javelin
Ambassador
 |
 Tue Jul 25, 2006 10:37 am   |
Hang on a minute, you started a topic entitled "Might makes Right" and didn´t consider that non-Americans might have a different viewpoint on it than Americans? Sounds like there´s no room for debate in your mind - to you the answer is yes, quite obviously. After all, if you´re not going to consider that anyone else could think differently, and you´re coming from the militarily strongest nation on Earth, then how can you think otherwise?
_________________
Order of the Iron Wazoo
"The Admiralty demanded six Dreadnoughts, the Economists offered four. In the end we compromised on eight."
- Sir Winston Churchill |
|
| posts: 1258 | location: London, UK | joined: 01 Oct 2001 | medals: 5 |
Danivon
Ambassador
|
Tue Jul 25, 2006 11:53 am |
| Pigmalia wrote: |
| Danivon wrote: |
| Who is 'we'? Us non Americans don't really know the answer. |
Wow! This should be its own topic. Frankly it didn't cross my mind to consider non-Americans. How would Canadians fit into a 'Might Makes Right" discussion?
A new topic has been inspired. I am off to post under political discussion "American Hegemony." |
Alert! Alert! non-Americans have access to the Internet!
Some of us come from a bit further away than Canada too...
_________________
World Cup 2010 -       
P 16(3) W 0 D 3 S 6(1) L 7(2) NMR 5
History |
|
| posts: 8531 | location: Rugby, Warwicksire, UK: Home of the oddly-shaped ball | joined: 15 Apr 2004 |
GMChad
Administrator
|
Tue Jul 25, 2006 12:17 pm |
As to the second supposition that the winners write the history books, I firmly believe in that theory as relatively accurate up to the point of modern times. The ability to dispense with governmental sanction and resources as a result of globalization and a counter-culture of anti-"business as usual" grass roots politics is heralding a surge of literature aspiring to dispel the myth and winner-centric accounts of events.
Howard Zinn's "A People's History of the United States" and "The Twentieth Century", Parshall and Tully's book "Shattered Sword" (a re-examination of the Battle of Midway), and Samantha Power's "A Problem from Hell: America and the Age of Genocide" are solid examples of history as viewed from the losing side. In media, we have the documentaries of Michael Moore, and the "edu"-tainment shows "The Daily Show" and "The Colbert Report" to challenge the reports of American news. Of course, being an American, I am exposed to more compatriot writers seeking to debunk American-centric history.
The most famous debunking of winner-centric European history I can think of are "The Communist Manifesto" and Cesaire's "Discourse on Colonialism". While these works were written in the 1800s and 1950s respectively, I am relatively confident that there must be a growing demand and awareness for more honest re-examinations of events like these on the European continent as well (where I will moving to in September!).
|
|
| posts: 3480 | location: Austin: The "San Francisco" of Texas | joined: 31 Jan 2001 |
Danivon
Ambassador
|
Tue Jul 25, 2006 1:47 pm |
In fact, Chad, it's coming full circle - we are starting to get 'revisionist' historians like Niall Ferguson who promote the idea that the British Empire was quite good really.
|
|
| posts: 8531 | location: Rugby, Warwicksire, UK: Home of the oddly-shaped ball | joined: 15 Apr 2004 |
GMChad
Administrator
|
Tue Jul 25, 2006 2:02 pm |
| Danivon wrote: |
| In fact, Chad, it's coming full circle - we are starting to get 'revisionist' historians like Niall Ferguson who promote the idea that the British Empire was quite good really. |
"Full circle" may or may not be correct; I'm just speculating. The assertation that the British Empire was "quite good" *should* have to take into account the colonized perspective at the very least. Does Freguson "whitewash" over this (and yes, pun intended)?
|
|
| posts: 3480 | location: Austin: The "San Francisco" of Texas | joined: 31 Jan 2001 |
Javelin
Ambassador
|
Wed Jul 26, 2006 2:57 am |
Where in Europe are you moving to?
And yes, we may be coming full circle: after centuries of considering the British Empire to be wonderful, public opinion went strongly against it as it was being disbanded. We started thinking of it as a dark stain on our history best forgotten - not quite akin to Nazism in Germany, but in the same league. We´d rather remember times like 1940/1 as being "our finest hour". Now, however, people are starting to say that perhaps it wasn´t all bad. So perhaps, having gone from one extreme to the other, an honest discussion about the British Empire might be possible in the coming decades...
|
|
| posts: 1258 | location: London, UK | joined: 01 Oct 2001 | medals: 5 |
Ozymandias
Emissary
|
Wed Aug 02, 2006 12:01 pm |
As a rule, I would have to agree that Might makes Right. Caesar over the Helvetii, dozens of other cases throughout history prove this. Obviously right and wrong are blurred, even given a totally objective standpoint, because there are motivations, misunderstandings, and reactions from each side in a given conflict that can and will introduce varying shades of gray into any issue. However, I would argue the exact opposite has become true today: might makes wrong (doesn't sound as good). In America at least, I look around and see the people in power stricken with winner's guilt. Think of all the benefits given to people who might be considered on the "losing" end of our society. Native Americans are given parcels of land, GIVEN (after we took them from them, and therefore have a viable and healthy claim of ownership), and allowed almost no regulating influence on those lands as compared to other areas. Affirmative action? What is that but a bone thrown to those who have "lost" in the social or economic game in this country. Protected job status for women and minorities. A personal hatred of mine (though its not as relevant) is the ease with which its possible for a woman to claim she's been raped by a man. With one word, an entire person's life can be destroyed, conviction or not. Case in point, that guy at Brown. Anyways thats off topic. The point is in our society, and least in ultra-litigious America, the people who have "lost" throughout our history are now becoming winners, merely because they were slighted in the past. Thats the opposite of how it usually works! And to clarify... I'm not necessarily against these things... I just see them as a case where losers become winners solely because they lost, not because of any special skill or resource they possess.
_________________
I will show you fear in a handful of dust. |
|
| posts: 788 | joined: 07 Jan 2005 | medals: 1 |
Magister Equitum
Ambassador
|
Sat Feb 27, 2010 7:56 pm |
| Quote: |
| How would Canadians fit into a 'Might Makes Right" discussion? |
When it comes to taking sides, Canada will be on the winning side.  Because the victors will need our trees for paper to write on. (Fighting is pretty tiring too, so they'll need our water.)
| Quote: |
| an honest discussion about the British Empire might be possible in the coming decades |
By the way, is Britain obligated in any way to come to the defence of a Commonwealth nation in the event of foreign aggression?
_________________
Game History
 Sazerac
 SIIN
 |
|
| posts: 1929 | location: Canada | joined: 22 Mar 2007 |
Magister Equitum
Ambassador
|
Sat Feb 27, 2010 8:21 pm |
If we are to adopt Thrasymachus’ perspective that might makes right–or as it is phrased in the Republic, justice is the advantage of the stronger – then why do we sometimes have moral qualms about the use of force? Espousing the notion that might makes right does not, I think, adequately address the signification questions which we often ask regarding the morality of our actions outside the context of superior force or even the proportionality of our responses to the threat of an enemy.
Sure, it may be argued that international relations are interactions not predicated on moral precepts. Certainly, if this were the case, as it well may be, then the question of whether might makes right would not be relevant insofar as we would not be concerned at all with questions of right and wrong.
So, my opinion is that might does not make right. By this I do not mean to say that powerful countries should refrain from pursuing their self-interest to the exercise of their superior power, merely that in so doing they are not necessarily acting on the side of right (or, for that matter, wrong). Might is an instrument for our benefit, not an compass for our conscience.
Of course, the powerful can make endless cases to justify their actions and the weak can do the same to malign the same actions. The question of morality then becomes a debate, but a debate which is not settled, merely silenced, by the force of arms.
|
|
| posts: 1929 | location: Canada | joined: 22 Mar 2007 |
Danivon
Ambassador
|
Sun Feb 28, 2010 4:47 am |
| Magister Equitum wrote: |
| By the way, is Britain obligated in any way to come to the defence of a Commonwealth nation in the event of foreign aggression? |
We didn't in Grenada's case, did we?
|
|
| posts: 8531 | location: Rugby, Warwicksire, UK: Home of the oddly-shaped ball | joined: 15 Apr 2004 |
Magister Equitum
Ambassador
|
Sun Feb 28, 2010 8:50 am |
| Danivon wrote: |
| Magister Equitum wrote: |
| By the way, is Britain obligated in any way to come to the defence of a Commonwealth nation in the event of foreign aggression? |
We didn't in Grenada's case, did we? |
True. Interesting. Well then I guess Canada will have to soldier on alone.
|
|
| posts: 1929 | location: Canada | joined: 22 Mar 2007 |
Snake IV
Emissary
|
Mon Mar 01, 2010 9:42 am   |
| Danivon wrote: |
Revisionism is all very well, and can bring up interesting perspectives. But there is a limit to how far you can revise history.
As for 'Might makes right', I don't get that at all.
After all, Ghenghis Khan was a pretty mighty ruler. Atilla the Hun had a mighty army. Stalin's Red Army won the Second World War in Europe. The US Cavalry were pretty good at killing and herding the indigenous Americans.
We could go on exploring examples where the mighty were not, perhaps, right. But it will get very boring very quickly.
As to Orange's counter, well I don't know. Sometimes the virtuous are cut down like blades of grass. |
The winner writing history and "might makes right" are two different things, in that respect that what is right in the quote is the contemporary moral judgement, and not the reputation of a prior nation or person. Morality exists within a community, and can differ in between, so to use Ghenghis Khan, Attila the Hun or Stalin you would have to look to those they had might over and their moral considerations. Did Mongol nobility consider Ghengis Khans immoral, did the countries in the Warsaw pact consider Stalin a tyrant? Quite likely they did so in much less extend than the average western Redscape member.
Not to comment on whether the statement would be correct or not, I'd say that if it is correct, it is more limited than it seems. I'm quite certain that moral considerations change slowly. Thus, if might establish right in one case, they would have a hard time justifying the actions in the next case if might brakes its previous rules. Few actions are nevertheless unjust by the view of actor.
_________________
Having an avatar with a vase as headware. |
|
| posts: 249 | location: On the handle of a dagger. | joined: 23 Jun 2007 |
goblin
Emissary
|
Fri Mar 05, 2010 8:39 am |
First we must define the terms.
"Right" as I see it is, a human invention made to build a society that values the well being of the inhabitants.
"Might" as I see it is the use of force.
The cause & effect are not alwayse direct, so the simple answer is "no". But there are ecceptions,,, using force to end "wrong" can make "right" if a moral hand guides "might" & the aftermath of the violence.
_________________
Shoplifting is a victomless crime; like punching someone in the dark.
Nelsen Muntz |
|
| posts: 404 | location: cowlumbus oh. | joined: 31 Jul 2006 |
Magister Equitum
Ambassador
|
Wed Mar 10, 2010 7:06 pm |
| Quote: |
| But there are ecceptions,,, using force to end "wrong" can make "right" if a moral hand guides "might" & the aftermath of the violence. |
To clarify, are you saying that intervention is justified if the intention is not imperialistic but on moral grounds?
While not rejecting such a prospect, the notion does expose itself to some potential criticisms.
Firstly, there is the risk of moral self-inflation where an actor assumes the role of arbitrator and a state assumes that it has the exclusive knowledge of what is right. Such situations have an inclination to hubris.
Secondly, there is the chance of moral over-simplification. Rarely are issues easily and properly categorized into right and wrong. The absence of this dichotomy makes the justice use of might as a transformative force somewhat tenuous.
Thirdly, there are significant questions surrounding the imposition of values on nations and culture—in a way violating their right to self-determination.
|
|
| posts: 1929 | location: Canada | joined: 22 Mar 2007 |
Snake IV
Emissary
|
Thu Mar 11, 2010 1:52 pm |
Nothing says right have to have any connection to the well being of people, it's a quite contemporary approach dominant where liberalism has hegemony (or, as one could interpret it, might).
|
|
| posts: 249 | location: On the handle of a dagger. | joined: 23 Jun 2007 |
You cannot post new topics
You cannot reply to topics
You cannot edit your posts
You cannot delete your posts
You cannot vote in polls
You cannot attach files in this forum
You cannot download files in this forum
|
|
|
- 0 Registered
- None
- 0 Hidden and 9 Guests
Site redesign in progress...
Please excuse the mess!
|
