Does power equal being narrowminded?

[Rob_Hugo@PortNW]

While traveling in Taiwan in the '80s, I ran into some who spoke Chinese, Taiwanese, Japanese, and English. In order to get ahead, they needed all of those languages. At that time, Japanese were learning English for business purposes. Americans spoke.... English. It seemed to me that the more powerful the country, the less need to know other languages. Comments?

[Anonymous]

A comment on ur statement "It seemed to me that the more powerful the country, the less need to know other languages. "
Hmmm, not always true. Note the lack of Arabic or Farsi speakers at the time of 9/11 which was/is a contributing factor in making a very powerful country quite vulnerable.
I suppose this is what u mean to suggest by the title of ur post: "Does power equal being narrowminded?"[Edit by="cforfar on May 10, 11:04:22 AM"][/Edit]

[Anonymous]

Does Power equal narrowminded?

In this case more like might makes right. Throughout U.S. history this country has eliminated or changed those that were different. We have consistently imposed not only our way of speaking or our way of thinking not only on minority groups within the United States but on weaker countries around the world. The examples, are too numerous to list. Call it a sense of nationalism or a great big superiority complex, but if it is not American then it is foriegn. Sadly to say that to a lot of Americans today foriegn means inferior.

Does power equal narrowminded?

In our case most definetly!

[Anonymous]

I wasn't really thinking of specific incidents of power being usurped (like the 9/11 incident), but more the situations where it is almost a "culture of arrogance" being practiced, whereby a country "steamrolls" others who get in its way with its language, culture, media, etc. While it is power in one sense, it creates a weak populace who is missing out on the richness of cultures around the globe.

[Anonymous]

as some have pointed out...the "McWorlding" of global life and culture.

In America there is another level of 'culture of arrogance'... a paradoxical reality, where we think as Americans, the super educated, dominant democracy, the supposed most fair citizens etc...that we should know better than to "create a weak populace who is missing out on the richness of cultures around the globe."

Yet like many other countries, there are large groups of people who simply are not interested "in the richness of another's culture"

I suppose this is in part why some of us are drawn to this course, to teaching, etc...so we can change a bit of these perceptions.

[Anonymous]

There's plenty of narrow mindedness, but I wonder if there aren't some mitigating factors such as:
1) previously, the British were an economic power in those areas, which could have caused education to be organized over time with English as part of the curriculum. This creates teachers and English speaking business networks in that area.
2)If educational culture is more rigorous in some Asian countries, does that include more of an expectation of multilingual educated people?? (as in Europe?) In New York public schools in the 70's (though the languages were European) there was a stronger expectation than I see here in California, and you were required to take one to graduate, and you could take 2 languages. I don't know if that has changed over time to be less rigorous as it is here.
3) When Japan was ascending economically, didn't that create at least some increased interest in learning Japanese? A student of mine told me his Dad told him that "When you are my age, your boss will be Chinese." This was before the International Learning Community was proposed. Perhaps the threat of not being the only economic supersuper power is what changes the perception of the need to learn as difficult a language? This same father enrolled his son in the International Learning Community middle school.
4) I very stongly agree that lack of interaction with other cultures overseas and in the U.S. creates an impoverished state of mind. I think both language and cultural exposure need to start at a much earlier age.
The sad thing is parents may now be more reluctant to go overseas with their kids since 9/11 etc.. or send their kids overseas for a semester, so the isolation may increase.

[Anonymous]

There's an essay by Kurt Vonnegut called "Cold Turkey" published 5/12/04 InTheseTimes and linked through the commondreams.org website as the most forwarded article of the day. It starts..."Many years ago, I was so innocent I still considered it possible that we could become the humane and reasonable America so many members of my generation used to dream of. We dreamed of such an America during the Great Depression, when there were no jobs. And then we fought and often died for that dream during the Second World War, when there was no peace." He goes onward through a stream of thoughts from his perspective as an 81-year-old. It's a hard-hitting indictment of the present use of American power on the world stage. I expect his response to your question would be a short, "yes."[Edit by="lsutton on May 20, 10:06:14 PM"][/Edit]
[Edit by="lsutton on May 31, 11:03:48 PM"][/Edit]

[Anonymous]

Thanks for mentioning Vonnegut article. will seek it out. Reminds me of my mother's viewpoints on America and vocalizes a bit of why she feels so shell shocked these days.

[Anonymous]

Ok, so I save old newspapers and actually found one that especially applies to this forum.
This one, by Christoper Layne at the Cato Institute, describes how the collapse of the Soviet Union created a US hegemony embraced by the Bush I, Clinton, and Bush II admins. He compares it to monopolistic corporations who act to prevent the emergence of rivals using as his example Bush II's strategy to prevent other states from building up military capabilities (as in, China, Russia, Japan, or W. Europe). Bush's "Department of Pre-Crime" acts "preemptively to cut down future rivals before they become actual ones."
As a grand stategy, however, hegemony has not worked because "when one state becomes too powerful...the imbalance of power in its favor is a menace to the security of all other states." The formation of alliances by other states results to oppose the hegemon. History tells this story with the Hapsburg Empire, France (Louis XIV and Napoleon), Victorian Britain, Germany under Hitler. The question is asked if the US may somehow be exempt from the lessons of history since the US allegely has attractive political values and culture. Basic point is that too much power inevitably has switched from peace to violence easily and that anyone who thinks otherwise is myopic.
Conclusion is that US is more likely to be defeated "by mounting internal weaknesses--economic, political, and social-- caused by the burdens of hegemony, which are a consequence" overstretching their power.
So, narrowmindedness and power go hand in hand as the powerful hold to their chosen course and ignor lessons of history, because this time history will be different and not repeat.[Edit by="lsutton on May 31, 11:02:30 PM"][/Edit]

[Anonymous]

FUTURE POWER PARADOX
Your post reminded me, there's a futuristic Sci fi novel where a Hegemony monopolizes political power, technology and the chemical secret of longer life. The book is called The Snow Queen and includes intricate complex behind the scenes dirty tricks and intrigue to maintain or regain power like those described in Bush I and II. If you like Sci Fi with very complex politics, I'd recommend that and the sequel, The Summer Queen. Author is Joan D. Vinge.

In that book, the key to everything is the"water of life," the chemical substane that prolongs life. Interesting reminds me of our dependence on oil. I was reading an article on Denmark's experiment- (this month's Discover magazine) they have an island that went to a large extent with local cleaner energy sources. They reduced emissions by 71%. The government there was partially footing the bill,(via tax breaks) and now the program is threatened by a new conservative government. I was thinking that the supposedly cheaper source of energy (petroleum) has has not only skyrocketed, but has this huge war bill attached to it. I was wishing in the energy crisis of the 70's someone had the gumption to firmly back alternative technologies, and know it would pay off in dependence and environmental considerations.

Now China is becoming more of an energy junkie like te US., and even if we changed energy policy tomorrow, the atmospheric impact would continue. I remember the heat wave that killed so many in France and Italy. If the climate destabilizes further, I suspect that will just be the beginning of the real energy bill.

[Author]

Posts