subject: The International Discourse: World culture and Civilization [print this page] The International Discourse: World culture and Civilization
It is a lie that the mentality of the West is based on the equality of the people in the world and that it is a refuge of freedom and openness, full of human rights and tolerance and prosperity for all. It becomes more and more difficult to hush up this lie, because the cultures have approached each other and stand very close to each other now. Neither do the presidents Sharon and Bush evoke much applause outside their own groups concerning their policy and its relation to the thesis of human equality and the human right in the democratic world. It is the Europeans who today can understand the suspicion of the Arabs and Muslims so well in the mean time that a new discourse is possible.
There are management essay writing service companies are wrote Thought of world culture and civilization. Within their own groups, opinion leaders on all sides of the culture struggle can make discriminating decisions, and it will not lead to disadvantages. Consider the behavior of authoritarian states the United States and Israel, Which is grounded in fear and other negative things, and Which is hailed by the respective in-group people, and supported. Such a behavior can only prevail, because the public discourse is led under a cheese-cover, protected in argument by the mistakes of the opponent group but not, not even needing that, for the reference to the national security suffices. As an illustration, here is a quote of the Israeli satirist Ephraim Kishon out of the German tageszeitung from 23 August 2002, as a reaction to the politician Blm's criticism of Israel: "Who does not see that this tiny little country Israel, surrounded by 21 hostile countries, is only struggling for its survival, is an anti-Semite. The U.S. now uses by the same line of argument, and other states will follow, if this is not to stop.
My primary criticism is devoted to the super powers, this is a matter of respect. It should not, anyway, distract from the fact that the East as well is not the sole keeper of Nathan's ring, see for example Essay 4, "Muslim Superstition" .
The most striking example for the divergence of the in-group discourses is the comparison with Hitler and the Nazis. Who compares Sharon and Hitler will get into trouble also with Israeli peace groups, who compares Bush and Hitler is not bearable in the parlamentary discourse in Germany, neither is someone who speaks of Nazi methods of the Israelis. Who, on the other hand, compares Saddam or Bin Laden or also Herr Mllemann with Hitler, will have nothing (no, nothing) to fear. The reason for this is that Hitler in the western discourse stands for the absolute evil and thus is the mother of all insults, while the East points to the fact that Hitler was a son of Western Europe and that he emerged out of the solid seeming Weimar democracy, in times of an economic crisis. Who, on the other hand, compares Saddam or Bin Laden or so Mr. Mllemann with Hitler, will have nothing (no, nothing) to fear.. Imperialism and colonialism, too, are assessed in a much more friendly way by the respective donor countries, than by the recipient countries.
These are elements of Which have to be discussed and brought on a common level, in preparation of international discourse that fits the era of the internet. Out of this international discourse - WHICH IS constituting in these years in a natural way - the world grows culture.
