>I have lived in cities or suburbs all my life and have never known the urban world you describe. It's sad to think what has been lost. But one thing to consider: for some reason, the metropolitan areas of Europe, Japan and even nearby Canada, though not completely idyllic or safe, do not suffer from the advanced levels of social pathologies that afflict America. Why do you suppose that is?<
It is really quite a shame we did not have this conversation earlier. Now I am busy and must therefore be as brief as I can. I think the answer to your question has to do with history and heritage. Broadly speaking, the cultures you mention above and the laws under which they are governed do not have the history of freedom and religious direction shared by America (the nature of the religion in most all cases was Imperialistic. In Europe, for example, there existed an imperial Catholicism). America's very foundation was once the freedom of the individual and the built-in cultural expectation that an individual's personal religious/ethical constitution guided by religious institutions was the suitable moral agent to hold society together. The very structure and history of the country has inbred in us a determination to "do our own thing, as long as the preacher can take it and it is not something I don't want nobody to do to me". The problem is, having now discarded our religious/ethical moorings, we have made our laws obsolete. Freedom without morality is barbarousness.
The countries of South America, Europe, Africa and the far east, and Mexico and Canada do not share histories similar to that of America. Some of them have histories fraught with nationwide oppression and legal dominance. Certainly some cities of the nordic countries have impressively low crime and riffraff, but I submit the causes here stem from history, legal heritage and ethnic homogeneity. Socialism would work in these countries because, in a nutshell, the people therein were historically bred for it. Not so America. I would simply love to find a tremendous amount of uninhabited land rich in natural resources, then strike out to settle it, suffering and dying, this, to derive my sustenance from the soil, taking responsibility for my own defense, and being free of government domination-- free to produce, to thrive and control my own destiny. It is not a personality conducive to socialism and neat cities. It is the American personality and when it is not moored to religion and ethics, it can be a barbarous thing as we have seen.
The solution to our problems is not to establish Draconian laws, because the American spirit will simply aim to break them. Prohibiting gun ownership in this country will certainly decrease the amount of lives killed by those who use guns, just as forcing Americans to kill all but one of their children necessarily will decrease the American population. But to cause any of this to happen will require Americans to give up the freedoms they now have. Easily done in the UK and Japan, but not in America. History and breeding, so to speak, disallow it. We are a country whose character and history depends upon personal morality and law. Unlike in other countries, in America, each person is a ruler.
>That better urban planning and more green space makes for less tension in densely populated urban areas? That social safety nets prevent people falling into the most desperate of circumstances? I don't pretend to know the answer to the question of whether a lack of decency or failed social policies contributed to so many examples of pathological extremes in America. I just see that concrete steps in improving common space--better public transportation, more parks, better schools--seem to bolster quality of life in urban and suburban areas.<
These things certainly help, and I do nto want to give the impression that none of these efforts are worthwhile. My point is that where there is not basic principle and decency embraced by the people, no effort will be very effective in truly increasing the American quality of life. The system will continually have to police even these new facilities and eventually they will fall into decay. There simply are not and will never be enough policemen to stop the unfettered American spirit. We Americans are a barbarous people. Slavery and native American domination were mere symptoms of our barbarity. Now these things have increased the general barbarousness of the country. We all are barbarians who operate under laws designed for a moral people, and this is nothing but a receipe for injustice.
>I'm a member of the YMCA. What a great institution! I see kids and adults from all walks of life in there exercising, shooting hoop, swimming, taking classes. There's an institution that contributes to the health and decency of anyone who can ante up the few bucks a month it takes to join.<
I somewhat actively support this organization. Think highly of it. But without what I have spoken of here, it cannot significantly help our society.
>Here's an idea to consider: the same licentiousness and sense of liberty that makes America the land of innovation contributes to its anarchic social atmosphere. They're two sides of the same coin.<
Yes! Precisely, and moral principle informed by religion/ethics mitigates the negative aspect of the coin. We must take this component very seriously.
>I actually had a similar experience living in a African-American and Caribbean neighborhood in Brooklyn some years back. At first, the neighbors were suspicious and unfriendly. When they saw I got up, went to work, came home, and had a drink on the front stoop just like everybody else, they became more accepting. Within a few weeks, one neighbor invited me to his home for dinner with his family.<
I have a son who is Black (actually he is of mixed race), a handsome, courageous and extraordinarily noble young man. I happen to live in an area where there are few Blacks. My son has no shortage of young women who seem determined to get their clutches upon him, and one family seems never to let an opportunity pass where they do not subtly suggest we try to influence our son to pair up with their daughter. I find the thing entirely foolish, and must admit I will have a hard time when he eventually marries. I have loved this boy from his infancy more than I have loved my own body. He was my first, the only of my six that I deliberately chose. And now that he is a man, I am bursting with pride and yet suffering like I have never suffered before. But again, I digress. The point is, these people are all white and well-to-do. They have known my family for many years. They know my son to be brilliant, and a young man of honor and character. They have seen him lead others and conquer adversity, and they have felt him honor them and their daughter. Surely people are stupid, and some of them allow their stupidity to rule nearly all their actions. Nevetheless most people ultimately do not care about things such as race. When they see the benefit of aligning themselves with another, they will do it regardless of race. Ultimately, people care only about themselves.
>Some would argue the opposite: that getting rich requires you sacrifice some of your principles and decency, sell out some of your values, and stab a few people in the back on your way to the top.<
People who have done this to acquire financial wealth are certainly not rich in my Book.
>Here's a wonkish way to examine and address the problem you describe. 1) Recognize that marriage, primarily an economic social arrangement endowed with religious and spiritual significance, has lost much of its role as a social anchor now that women are no longer dependent on men for their material sustenance. The declining power of matrimony leads to increases in adultery, divorce, and dysfunctional behaviors associated with children coming from broken families of origin.<
I'm with you.
>2) Since passing a law forbidding adultery would not be possible (except in my native Iran), come up with ways to increase the economic incentives for staying married, i.e. income tax credits, mortgage credits, tax credits to companies who offer special perks to married couples etc.<
Very good.
>3) Come up with local, community, or even church-based structures supportive of children from broken homes. You may hate her, but Hillary's "It Takes a Village," argument rings true with a lot of people. Get the community more involved in the rearing of kids.<
I suggest instead of claiming "even" church-based structures, that you change it to "especially" church-based structures. If Jewish, Muslim, Christian, even Mormon and other non-Christian and non-traditional groups desire to help hurting children, our country should support them. There are ways to use these groups so that they do not offend the religious sensibilities of other Americans. If a groups supports the basic morality that Americans claim to uphold, then our government should support them in helping children.
I have a great friend who is an atheist and were his children from a broken home, by no means would he accept their being nurturd by a church. But he would accept them being nurtured by a secular organization that flatly supported the values that most every church would agree are fundamental and sound.
>4) Better enforcement of dead-beat dad laws to protect divorced mothers raising kids alone, and far better and more equitable custody arrangements to protect divorced dads who want a role in raising their kids.<
All this is excellent, and would certainly help. I would suggest that long term, item number 3 will provide more bang for the buck than anything. I do not even suggest the use of Federal dollars to support it. We need merely provide it legal and moral support. The leaders of our nation should be setting the example, encouraging the public toward moral constancy and the acquisition of principle. The changes here will not be immediate but long term, Americans will develop a greater respect for one another. The day will come where New Yorkers will be able casually stroll Central Park at night because even the criminals will realize there is a certain level of honor beneath which no human should go.
>LOL. Gosh, now YOU sound like a good old-fashioned leftie, Johannes! :-) <
I have tried to avoid insulting you. I suggest you try to return the favour. (grin)
>Unfortunately, that few minutes of thought won't come about so easily. Not with the blare of "Seinfeld" reruns blocking out all thoughts not having to do with bodily functions.<
Too true. I have never seen Seinfeld (I do not have a television), but have always been curious as to what the great issue is with this show.
>Not necessarily. There is strong anthropological evidence suggesting tribal and neolithic, i.e. pre-civilized men, at least treated people within their own clan with respect and honor. As for the people across river, well, maybe not so nicely.<
I do not think this evidence terribly strong, but I largely accept it. We see somthing of "honor" existing amongst primitive tribes today, but we also see quite a bit of barbarity amongst them. The "honor" of primitive man was no doubt a different thing than that of so called modern men. Nevertheless it was the relationship between a primitive tribe and the people across the river I had particularly in mind.
>Sure, judeo-christian values and the Enlightenment, may have their flaws. But, basically those values and the institutions they spawned are the only things keeping us from murdering each other, as we used to, the late Ferenc Feher used to argue.<
Precisely, and in America reinfusing these values into our society is critical if we desire to stop the slow progression into further lack of principle and indecency.
>Again, it's really tough, on a policy level, to inject principles and decency into society. Better to broaden the use of stiff fines for frivolous lawsuits and make the loser pay at least part of the litigation costs in civil cases.<
This will help, but without principle and decency we will only shift the manifestation of indecency elsewhere. It will simply be analogous to pushing a gang out of a neighborhood into another. We should hammer the Dickens our of item number three above of yours, after having modified it so as to influence the entire society. Then long term, Americans will not need a law for every single action and they will be free to pursue happiness as our Founding Fathers intended.
>I think your views are fine. It's your rhetoric, your choice of words, that I've sometimes had problems with. I, for one, appreciate some of your views.<
Well then people need merely not throw around insults, and then they will not receive my harsh rhetoric. Present fact and opinion without insult, ANY insult however subtly delievered, and we an enjoy a great exchange. Should I encounter insult, then I will assume freedom to destroy my opponent as much as is allowable on this forum.
(Hmmm. I guess I wasn't as brief as I had planned to be. I had planned to go deeply into Japanese and European history. Dear me. I am glad I did not.) |
