the pursuasion myth

[rini]

The Persuasion Myth - Ralph Peters (New York Post)


It's a foolish error to imagine that, if we only find the right combination of reasoned arguments, we might convince the populations of the Middle East to love us and embrace our national values.
If you want to change the mindset of another culture, your only hope is to "lead by example," to demonstrate the incontestable superiority of your approach until it sinks in.
The Muslim populations of Eurasia don't want our logical explanations for their failures. They want revenge for self-created disasters. They want excuses for the inadequacy of their social, political, and economic regimes. Arab civilization, especially, has backed itself into a historical corner where it deteriorates by the day.
The downtrodden don't want sober analysis. They want someone to blame. And the United States (along with Israel) fits the bill perfectly - facts be damned.


[e-mail]

[bluesoul]

1. Oh my

More of the right-wing BS. Now the republican NY Post? Is there any real left-wing or non RW source that you have posted here? After all this is DU, not Free republic. I am surprised that any progressive would so often quote right wing views and opinions. Ah well....

[rini]

2. I don't believe I've quoted

David Duke, or the Protoccols of Zion, or Stormfront, at least not yet. :9

[bluesoul]

3. Well

Neither have I and I would never even care to read that filth let alone post it here. I would be glad if others did the same regarding RW sources that are evidently anti-Palestinians anti-Muslim in their core and are hardly to be taken credbile here unless one hates Arabs or is a right winger...

[Muddleoftheroad]

4. Sources

So what sources do YOU approve? I mean we have people quoting EI and some other wildly pro-Palestinian sources, but sources that might make the Palestinians look bad are biased? Yeah, that's right...

[ForestsBeatBushes]

10. And they talk about a double standard!

hypocrisy

noun
(plural: -sies)

1 the practice of professing standards, beliefs, etc., contrary to one's real character or actual behaviour, esp. the pretence of virtue and piety

2 an act or instance of this

http://www.wordreference.com/english/definition.asp?en=hypocrisy

[bluesoul]

11. Look

There is hardly an unbiased source Muddle. Come to think of it, everyone is biased in his own way. Some just try harder then other to be at least a bit more objective and even handed. I don't deny that EI is strongly pro-Palestinian nor have I posted or quoted from it so far. There are many other sources that are also pro-Palestinian just as there are many pro-Israeli or pro-Sharon sources. That doesn't make them objective, that's for sure. As for making someone look bad, there is a difference. One thing is argumented criticism, another is generalized conclusions and outright hatred of specific groups of people. You and I know there is a LOT of that on both sides...

[Muddleoftheroad]

12. My point

I think we've reached a situation where no one trusts sources EVER used by the other side. It's so bad that, to make a point yesterday, I deliberately found an anti-Israel site just so no one could claim I was making something up.

Honestly, I don't know how to get past this problem. I don't believe anything from EI and a some other sources here -- ever.

Suggestions?

[bluesoul]

13. Hmm....

Haaretz?

[tinnypriv]

17. Explanation

JCPA is Dore Gold's "pro-Israel" cherrypicking email outfit. The equivalent would be going onto maariv.co.il and posting links to EI articles culled and complied by the Palestinian Authority.

Israeli's would (rightly), question the poster's motives. Same in this case.

JCPA deliberatly attempts to frame and distort the debate. This is as close to a fact as you can determine.

Now, you're free to not trust whatever sources you like, but I'd question why on earth any progressive would actually help JCPA by propagating their messages.

It ain't like they're ISM ran out of a shitty office full of bullet holes, is it? :eyes:

[bluesoul]

18. Informative

Thanks for the info on JCPA Tinnypriv. It's good to know what kind of sources are here posted ;)

[tinnypriv]

19. np - BTW, clarification

I often check out JCPA. Just as I often check out Drudge. I also read EI, ISM etc.

Read widely, read critically is the right motto I think.

Seems like some aren't doing the latter, but a few aren't even doing the former.

[Violet_Crumble]

39. That's definately the right motto....

"Read widely, read critically is the right motto I think."

I think it's the reading critically bit that's the stumbling block for some here, tinnypriv. If people aren't capable of applying critical thought to what they read instead of the 'I don't believe anything THEY say' school of logic, then how on earth are they ever going to question anything that they read? And if they don't ever question anything they read, why do they expect to be taken seriously when trying to discuss a complex issue like this one?

Violet...

[Violet_Crumble]

38. Nope...

Despite it's bias, I have in the past posted links to US-Israel.org in cases where I've got no problems with the sources they've used and the way they've used those sources. Everything carries differing degrees of bias, but the real problem for someone claiming not to believe anything a particular source says should be credibility and not bias, and I'd expect them to show exactly how everything this particular source says is untrue. I share the derision shown by many here towards op/eds from right-wing mainstream media sources, and for good reason. I don't waste my time reading them away from the internet, post at DU because it is a progressive left-wing site, and don't think it's any big surprise that DUers tend to have a problem with right-wing mainstream media sources being touted as credible sources here of all places, or it being expected that people here must give treat them with the same level of legitimacy as left-wing sources are...

Violet...

[Muddleoftheroad]

40. Bias

My point is that I find bias on both sides of the coin. For every "right wing" publication (amazingly, as soon as they write something pro-Israel, they BECOME right wing) I find the same type of writing and sourcing in a "left wing" publication.

I don't think there are many sites that any of us trust at this point to provide an unbiased view.

[Violet_Crumble]

41. I think there's very little that's unbiased...

So we're agreed on that one, Muddle. And that's why I think it's important to read everything critically. But in the case of the article that started this thread, I don't think there'd be any dispute that the New York Post is a right wing publication, the same as any Murdoch rag is here....

I think Ha'aretz, Sydney Morning Herald, and The Age all provide credible articles and their op/ed pieces on the conflict allow biased pieces from both sides of the issue. Plus, none of them are owned by Murdoch :)


Violet...

[Forkboy]

21. This IS a left wing site after all

while I do believe that all sources have a bias to a degree,trying to persuade left-wingers with such right wing neocon luminaries as a Jeff Jacoby or Daniel Pipes seems to be a bit much.It would be one thing to post these people and disgree or disavow them,but to see supposed left wingers endorse and flatter them seems to be,and should be here,a losing battle.

As for NYP,it's so bad even their sports page sucks.

[rini]

5. then

why are anti Israel anti-Jewish sources allowed, whether they are overtly or covertly biased?

sorry for the previous wording

[bluesoul]

6. Well

What such sources have I posted and quoted? I can't speak for others or influence their choice of articles. I may not agree with all of them either. As you may have seen I mostly just respond to the articles/threads, and I rarely post anything. I am aware that there is a lot of bias on all sides. But my personal views are my personal views.

[rini]

7. sometimes

language gets in the way of understanding, I used the plural of you. This may or may not include you but does not put any onus on your posts.

[Classical_Liberal]

27. They are left wing

Yours are right wing most of the time.

[Forkboy]

20. Seems to be only a matter of time

at least not yet

[SlavesandBulldozers]

8. "lead by example"

"If you want to change the mindset of another culture, your only hope is to 'lead by example,' to demonstrate the incontestable superiority of your approach until it sinks in."

Is Ralph suggesting that the U.S. is currently leading by example? If so, he should present some evidence that A) we are and B) if we, are, that its working. I think what he'll find is that A) the U.S. isn't currently leading by example and B) whatever approach he thinks we have isn't working to demonstrate the "incontestable superiority of our approach." In fact, what he'll find is that the world community, at every level, is contesting our approach.


"They want revenge for self-created disasters.. . They want someone to blame." Again, the same accusation can be levelled at us in the U.S. The U.S. sought revenge against Saddam Hussein, though Saddam did not cause the disaster that befell the U.S. on Sept 11.

[bluesoul]

9. If

it's the neocon mentality/ideology and policy that is "lead by example" then god help us all....

[bemildred]

14. Does this come with a link?

A few comments:

"It's a foolish error to imagine that, if we only find the right
combination of reasoned arguments, we might convince the populations
of the Middle East to love us and embrace our national values."

This much is correct. More to the point, they don't want to be you.
Who are you to demand love and emulation?

"If you want to change the mindset of another culture, your only hope
is to 'lead by example,' to demonstrate the incontestable superiority
of your approach until it sinks in."

This is horseshit, it assumes, among other things, that cultures can
be changed like diapers, and that one is in possession of "incontestable
superiority" which is most likely precisely the issue in dispute, and
which is in any case a matter of opinion, ones own good opinion of
oneself, and not a matter of fact.

[rini]

15. if you can't get it from the first link try this

COP/JCenter

[rini]

16. try this

http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/opedcolumnists/9768.htm

[bemildred]

24. There ya go.

Thanks.

[bemildred]

25. Great propaganda.

An interesting mix of sound thinking and
egregious bullshit. Thanks for posting.

[Darranar]

22. LOL...

Arab culture isn't backward; it's Arab governments which are backward. There's a difference.

And both the US and Israel can be blamed somewhat for the current problems, the US far more so.

[Darranar]

23. LOL...

Arab culture isn't backward; it's Arab governments which are backward. There's a difference.

And both the US and Israel can be blamed somewhat for the current problems, the US far more so.

[ForestsBeatBushes]

26. Do I hear an echo?

[rini]

29. I haven't heard cultural relativity since

undergrad studies. Cultures and or societies can be backward. By that I mean not into certain ways of life, i.e. slavery is backwards, women having no rights is backward, the idea of a totally patriarchial society is backwards. So how does that affect people, people? You, I everyone is a product of their culture and society. This is not set in stone, societies and cultures can be modified and people change along with the changes. Backwards, yes, they can be backwards or backlooking if that suites your PC mode.

[Darranar]

30. Sow how come the "backward" culture...

of the Arabs is responsible for a tremendous amount of intellectual and technological advancement?

"Backwardness" is in the eye of the beholder. Define it.

[rini]

31. First

I never used the word Arab, if that is the first ethnic group that came to your mind, well, I am sorry you think that way.

[Darranar]

32. The article you posted used the word "Arab"...

and you were defending it.

[rini]

33. No

I was discussing the old fashioned and out dated theory of cultural releavance.

[Darranar]

34. Then...

as you are all too fond of saying, what is your point?

[The Magistrate]

37. The Glorious Past, Mr. Darranar

Is a good part of the present problem. In looking at Islamic Arab civilization, the old ward-heeler's squawk, "What have you done for me lately?" springs often to mind. Cultures which can look back to a past of great magnifigance often have great difficulties, for there is a great tempation to seek a restoration, rather than a progress, and where the conditions of the world have changed, the former is most likely to prove a cul de sac, both in thought and action.

There are several legitimate points to made in this regard, for many adopt a view that is rather glazed in romance of the past of this culture.

First, a great deal of the mathematics and philosophy of the Arab flouresence was not origional, but was simply enchantment with the works of classical Greece, taken on whole when portions of the old Roman world were overrun in the Near East and North Africa. Falsafah was little more than an attempt to square these with the Koran, rather as much of the work of the old sage Philo was an attempt to square Platonic and Aristotilean concepts with Hebrew scripture. Renaisance Europe, too, built on these same foundations of ancient Greek ideas, acquired in some cases by transmission through Arab schools.

Second, the Arab flouresence, impressive as it was in its day, rather shut itself down, in the wake of disasters in the late Medieval period that came to be viewed as the consequence of divine disfavor with lapses from the true ways of the Koran. This is inherent to basic doctrine, stipulating that a society which truely surrenders to the will and ways of the diety will be manifestly favored, and one which does not, will suffer affliction. Thus, the attempt to restore past glories, through a sort of "advance to the rear", is a phenomenon that predates the modern era, and had a great deal to do with the helplessness of Arab civilization against the West once the latter was capable of expansion.

Third, it seems to me past argument that such features as the subjugation of women, and tribal political structures, make a great contribution, to this day, to Arab difficulties, and further, that these can only be viewed as backward by any person of progressive views. Where half the people of a society are systematically excluded from political and economic power, and denied legal equality, that society must suffer, even by compare to one which does these things to a lesser degree. Centralized power in a society, bound together by national conciousness and political institutions which foster this, is more effective than dispersed power fragmented by considerations of kinship, and will always have the advantage over the latter.

[Darranar]

42. That has not been missed by me...

I think we agree on all points; however, my point was that one cannot simply dismiss "Arab" culture as "inferior" because of the current state of the Arab world. It would be the equivalent of calling Western culture worthless because of the Dark Ages.

Religious fundamentalism is most certainly a problem in the Arab world, as is lack of rights for women. Such things do not escape me. But they are problems that are bolstered by what some people call for to stop it. If the western world adopts the tactic of "kill 'em all, because their culture is inferior and they'll always hate us for our freedom" and the like (as this article suggests, however cloaked it may be), no progress will be made for either side, unless you count multitudes of deaths as progress.

[sushi]

36. Agreed!

"Backwardness" is in the eye of the beholder.

Definitely. I would like to add that the cold, selfish, and greedy culture of the west has resulted in loneliness. The extended family is no more. We're fighting a losing battle against drugs. Is this superior?

I think two things the people in the socalled backward countries need is (more) money, and they will have it (it's only a matter of time), and more education in technology, away from religion.
Meanwhile the West could be destroying itself by an excess of everything.

[Classical_Liberal]

28. Makes no sense

1)If they can't learn by logic, then leading by example won't work either. Occupation doesn't constitute leading by the example, because it is undemocratic. You can't demonstrate the superiority of democracy by taking away democratic rights. Perhaps logic doesn't work because the right wing approach is in no way logical.

2)The Palestinians didn't create Israel, and aren't responsible for the problem that it has caused them.

[sushi]

35. I find this an arrogant piece

<If you want to change the mindset of another culture, your only hope is to "lead by example," to demonstrate the incontestable superiority of your approach until it sinks in.>

I don't think the "first" world is setting good examples, and it's not for us to say that our "approach" is incontestably superior.

"The Muslim populations of Eurasia don't want our logical explanations for their failures...."

Can't believe this sentence. Everybody has failures. Our biggest failure is meddling in their business, and trying to make them accept our ways (Why should they?), and trying to dominate them!

The rest is just as bad.