As Americans are obsessed with 'ACTIONS' represented in a form of 'rambo'. Great Brittain is also obsessed with 'VENTURE' represented in '007' known as 'James Bond'.

This obsession to a certain extent would to be near representing the truth as we see if were to believe the movies of the (so-called) II WW, where British 007, but cool type operatives, claim success which they credit to their actions.

If that is the dream of the two nations what are ours then ?

Can we trace our dreams from the types of films we make ?

It is true for the Egyptian films to some extent; they, they dream for "mosta`Bell; in a form of marriage and an apartment". Those of us in the PERSIAN GULF having been dreaming of peace (after the British Military withdrawal from the PERSIAN GULF in 1970), a white servant, a white slave, lot of money, a week end in Dubai a lot of fun and an annual holiday in Bayn`Qoq in Taieland ?

Do you agree.

___________________________________________

Do not ask what your country has done for you
But ask what have you done for your country

Originally posted by Desert_Sloath
As Americans are obsessed with 'ACTIONS' represented in a form of 'rambo'. Great Brittain is also obsessed with 'VENTURE' represented in '007' known as 'James Bond'.

This obsession to a certain extent would to be near representing the truth as we see if were to believe the movies of the (so-called) II WW, where British 007, but cool type operatives, claim success which they credit to their actions.

If that is the dream of the two nations what are ours then ?

Can we trace our dreams from the types of films we make ?



OH YES !!!!
There is the Chinese Bruce Lee
And There is the ( Muslims) Osama bin Laden
There is the Indian Amita Bachan
And there are so many who represent their countries ...
You see the funny thing is that its ok with them for Rambo or James Bond to do distruction and bombing But not the rest of the World .

Originally posted by Dark Project

There is the Chinese Bruce Lee
And There is the ( Muslims) Osama bin Laden




Thank you DP for enlightening but I had always thought Bruce Lee was created in the Hole-wood whilst Usama would have been curved at the CIA to propel young arabian peninsulla 'jihad' over the Afghan. I mean to eject the infidels non-believers out of that sacred Islamic holly shrine ? So Usama has been an inspiration of muslims. Mmm, yankees must have been good and tolerant to have left him have the stinger missles then. How unethical he is to have turned against the hand that fed him.

________________________________________

Do not ask what your country has done for you
But ask what have you done for your country

A creation of their own distructions and there are many ..

D Boys,

Let me start by saying that I found it somewhat difficult to really comprehend exactly what you are trying to say, but from what I understand, you are trying to point out the kinds of heroes and villains created by different countries, the reasons are for that, and the implications that are in consequence. Am I right?:duh:

Well, why dont we examine this phenomenon from a wider scope of analysis?:)

I recently read some of the writings of a Lebanese-Australian scholar, namely Ghassan Hage, who succinctly but efficiently explained this in terms of the National Will, and I found his explanation to be most interesting.

Hage explains that like the immunity system in the body (which happens to be the body's will to survive and thrive), every country has a dominant national will, a will which professes the beliefs/values/culture/ideology of the dominant group in society, and this will is often maintained and protected at all costs.

Any counter-will, however small, will be seen as a threat to the stability and prosperity of this national will, and will therefore be demonised, marginalised, and 'othered' in order to discredit it and therefore disarm its power to potentially take over the dominant national will.

Now if this be the case, it clearly explains the creation of dichotomised 'us vs them', 'hero vs villain', 'good vs evil'. We might be astounded at the simplifying and gross generalising of such character constructs, but it is just another means of maintaining the stability and security of the national will.

So, like you were saying, the all-American Rambo (or Bruce Willis, or or even Denzel Washington) are painted as heroes (as they uphold the beliefs and ideologies of the dominant social group) are set up in binary opposition to the Ossama Bin Ladens, and the Saudi Sheikhs etc, who are seen to present a counter-will, through presumably holding opposing views and beliefs (or maybe just foreign beliefs, which are always somewhat frightening to any of us).

We probably do it in the Arab nations also, although perhaps television (and pop culture in general) is not as common a medium for this as it is in the West, purely for the reason that this industry isnt as advanced in the Arab countries as it is there.

Originally posted by raffee
[B]D Boys,

Let me start by saying that I found it somewhat difficult to really comprehend exactly what you are trying to say, but from what I understand, you are trying to point out the kinds of heroes and villains created by different countries, the reasons are for that, and the implications that are in consequence. Am I right?:duh:




You couldn't more right. You have yet summarized the Lebanese immigrant's phylosoph of our modern time, in a more clearer representation and clarification of what we meant in our usual hesitant approach to things concerning our destiny, lest the big brother misinterpret our intent.

Now where do we go from here ? I mean do we have an option of not being 'marginalised' therefore forced to change into resistance or do we have to apt for "if you can not resist them join them and thereby accepting globalization in American terms thus disregarding internal difference such as Palestinian (Arab) v Zionist (an artificial nation) forced to exist amidst us in order to perpetuate a policy of distabilizing this part of the world. Or would we be better off as being globalised rather than what we perceive to be ?

The question of 'us' v 'them' is not simply a thing to be rid with by human beings. Simply because it is the first line of indoctrinity we hear as we grow in our homes. For example "them" = our neighbours. Would the globalization treat all minkind more equal ? I mean no green-Indians, Maoris, Aborigines etc etc.

Is the world prepared to enter into the so called "New World Order" (NWO) where all norms of International Relation we have known of after the creation of the United Nations should be allowed to crumble as did the bi-polarity during Gorbachevianism era ?

Isn't this NWO too much for the world particularly when the leader is bankrupt or cannot service his deficits ? I personally see a danger of the leader turning into a high-way robber or bandit who'd grab our national resources for his own survival.
Don't you think so ?

____________________________________________

Do not ask what your country has done for you
But ask what have you done for your country

Originally posted by Desert_Sloath


Now where do we go from here ? I mean do we have an option of not being 'marginalised' therefore forced to change into resistance or do we have to apt for "if you can not resist them join them and thereby accepting globalization in American terms thus disregarding internal difference such as Palestinian (Arab) v Zionist (an artificial nation) forced to exist amidst us in order to perpetuate a policy of distabilizing this part of the world. Or would we be better off as being globalised rather than what we perceive to be ?


There is so much to cover in your post mashallah, so I will take it one point at a time.

Firstly, you asked whether we should resist this marginalisation, or simply submit, accepting that it is far too powerful to overcome.
Personally, I think what a boring world it would be if we all just succumbed to one national will. How could any progress be made, how could we grow and expand our insights, push the barriers of our understandings, if we merely accepted a pre-existing will?

After all, whether we want to admit it or not, humans are a complex, diverse breed; no two people are alike in appearance let alone mind, so how can we expect an entire national population to agree on one specific ideology/belief/culture? I dont believe it to be possible, and therefore resistance is necessary if not unavoidable.

Back with the next point soon;)

Originally posted by Desert_Sloath
Now where do we go from here ? I mean do we have an option of not being 'marginalised' therefore forced to change into resistance or do we have to apt for "if you can not resist them join them and thereby accepting globalization in American terms thus disregarding internal difference such as Palestinian (Arab) v Zionist (an artificial nation) forced to exist amidst us in order to perpetuate a policy of distabilizing this part of the world. Or would we be better off as being globalised rather than what we perceive to be ?



Next, the question of Globalisation. First you mention the question of accepting or rejecting globalisation as defined by the US, and you follow this with a questioning of what glogalisation means to 'us'. (I hope Im following you.)

Well, DS, as I see it, globalisation is fairly constant in its definition, however, it may be viewed differently by different individuals or groups. Thus, some may see it as a positive aspiration, whilst others view is as entirely negative and detrimental to sustaining difference (economic, social, cultural, ideological etc).

It is true, the US does generally appear to be in support of globalisation, and one cannot deny that one of the prime motivations for this is the fact that it is considered one of the most powerful nations (if not THE most powerful nation) in the world today, so attaining globalisation would in fact see an metamorphosis of its national will into a global will (hence, it will secure long-term stability and security on a much larger scale).

Now, what globalisation means to us, therefore, is a risk to our own national wills, a risk to the freedom to continue our own national growth through internal resistances, and therefore a maintenance of a unique, distinct, self-sustained entity that plays a role, but is not consumed by the global economy.


...more to come;)

Originally posted by Desert_Sloath


The question of 'us' v 'them' is not simply a thing to be rid with by human beings. Simply because it is the first line of indoctrinity we hear as we grow in our homes. For example "them" = our neighbours. Would the globalization treat all minkind more equal ? I mean no green-Indians, Maoris, Aborigines etc etc.

Is the world prepared to enter into the so called "New World Order" (NWO) where all norms of International Relation we have known of after the creation of the United Nations should be allowed to crumble as did the bi-polarity during Gorbachevianism era ?

Isn't this NWO too much for the world particularly when the leader is bankrupt or cannot service his deficits ? I personally see a danger of the leader turning into a high-way robber or bandit who'd grab our national resources for his own survival.
Don't you think so ?



Now the question of globalisation in terms of a New World Order.
DS, this is a difficult area of politics to articulate, and Im no politician, but I shall attempt to express my own personal opinion on it.

My problem is that you are relating equality to the dismissal of difference, or a rejection of the acknowledgement of difference, but you are also establishing equality as a goal of globalisation.

Personally, I believe that globalisation, as defined in the current global political context offers no real possibility for any equality whatsoever. To have one global political and economic leader dictating the standards by which all nations must abide and adhere to is unreasonable if not indeed farcical.
This New Wrold Order is simply an attempt to limit diversity and free thought, and indoctrinate the political heads of the world into like-minded puppets(Sadly, it would appear that this is quickly being achieved without too much effort).

Maybe if the very definition of globalisation were altered, maybe if it pertained to an effort to better communicate, better extend ourselves to understanding and accepting the other, in order to better accomodate difference, then maybe we may consider it.

If we take an Islamic perspective on this, we will see that there is a duty upon Islamic leaders to permit the other religious beliefs to be practiced freely and in peace. There has never been compulsion in religion (theologically speaking...whether or not this has been historically applied is another issue) but the point Im trying to make is that we, as human beings,have a responsibility to value and accept difference, and use it as a means of learning.

Thus, my conclusion is that globalisation, or a NWO, as defined today, is not something to be commended or supported. If we desire an improved global village, then we need to reconcile our own ideologies/cultures/politics etc with the other, and continue to place priority on our own national issues.

Thankyou for an interesting topic of discussion ;)

It is me who should thank you for the explanations offered by you.

In your replies to several points above, you seem to have clearly painted a gloomy picture contrary to the Anglo American ambitions. His Excellency Bush the father, to my understanding is the first person who came up with the idea of 'globalization' and 'New World Order' at the time when the mighty SOVIET falling by domino style. In fact the crumbling of the so called 'iron curtain countries' came like a surprise to the world. Russians had a high hopes for a better live and Western Club seemed as if they were ready to give a helping hand in order to win friendship of the old foes. This hope can be better explained by the events of the East/West German.

At the start, it seemed the world was heading towards a better future for all. Forgive me I may be confused on whose era was, but during the terms of office of Regan and Bush some exitment events took place concerning the world. Anyhow, what I am trying to say, that after President Bush and during Clinton's tenure, it seems the question of NWO took a lower priority of the Administration of the time. Instead Clinton's administration headed towards improvement of economy and tried a bit of reconciling between the waring parties in the Middle East. Even he did not concentrate much time on Iraq, apart from throwing a couple of missles to divert the domestic presure over the Monica issue. Your views here would tend to agree with many around the globe and as the days pass it becomes more difficult to persuade the world on globalization or NWO. Am not sure, but I suspect Bush the father does exhert a degree of influence to the son, because the later behaves as if they have achieved the altimate aim of globalizing the world and that they have entered a phase of actual resistance with the world. This is manifested in their media declaration of 'going it alone' without involvement of the Sucurity Council when it comes to punishing a renegade nation.

If USA is seen as a potential candidate for the leadership, albeit with Great Britain as a co-leader, is there that quality in them that they could be fair leaders in this NWO ? Are we therefore seeing any chance of a new world administrative body being born in lieu of the incumbent UN ?

I am afraid this is an issue of prevalent affairs of the world and there seems an utterly absence of our leadership ? We don't even seen movements of diplomacy as we are used to see in times of tranquility ? Are we all safe ? I get a feeling of being in a theatre where multi games are being played without coachers nor attention of anyone :eyes:

_______________________________________

Do not ask what your country has done for you
But ask what have you done for your country