• BookTalk.org News will soon go out via email in HTML format. The goal will be to keep people posted on our current book discussions and other relevant news items.
• Contest #2: "On The Importance of Reading" has started. Visit the Contests forum - the very top thread.
Please support our free community by making a credit card donation through our secure PayPal account. We appreciate and depend on the generosity of our members. Thank you!
Posted: Mon May 12, 2008 7:50 am Post subject: The scourge of the Burmese military.
The scourge of the Burmese military.
I am outraged (like millions of other people I'm sure) at the incompetence and cruelty of the military junta in Burma.
What can those unfortunate people have done to deserve such a blight (and here I mean, again, the blight wearing a uniform)?
I have read in wikipedia that in normal times 40 % of the GDP was swallowed by the military-- and now, I wonder, how close to 100% of the resources do they appropriate?
I enclose an article by a blogger from New Zealand.
You may also wish to read the comments written by their readers below the article.
And Ralph, do you have access to more information than what we hear on television?
I haven't had a chance to read from the links you provided, but thank you for continuing to provide background on the issues. This reminds me of an opinion piece I read in the Wash. Post, whose author I forget. But one thing he talked about was the tendency of some observers to label certain regimes "evil." Pres. Bush of course has done this. Now, some do not go along with this labeling, believing either that it always inflames situations or that it just amounts to name-calling anyway, that underlying the conditions in a given country are complex realities that are not so easliy simplified. The view of the author, though, was that it is justified and even necessary in certain cases to make this kind of public, moral judgment. I just bring it up, not being certain about the appropriateness of such declarations. But it is hard to avoid at least the private conviction that a regime that appears to willfully consign its people to death is indeed evil.
DWill
But one thing he talked about was the tendency of some observers to label certain regimes "evil." Pres. Bush of course has done this. Now, some do not go along with this labeling, believing either that it always inflames situations or that it just amounts to name-calling anyway, that underlying the conditions in a given country are complex realities that are not so easily simplified. The view of the author, though, was that it is justified and even necessary in certain cases to make this kind of public, moral judgement.
About making moral judgements: this should be avoided by journalists and above all politicians, for the reasons you mentioned.
In my opinion, using a word like "evil" is a separate problem because it adds a religious dimension, and no politician should communicate by using religious vocabulary.
Here, when we hear George Bush saying things like "The Axis of Evil", people shake their heads and say "Bush is ranting again" so it's counterproductive (but of course it may sound right to his voters).
I think private people may have more freedom in whether to express anger or make moral judgements (just in case: I did write "scourge " and "blight", and I know they are in the Bible, but to me they are part of lay vocabulary ).
When you read about the history of Burma since the early 1960's it seems very difficult to imagine that there could be good things about those regimes or that there is more than meets the eye. It really looks like a simple case of raw power.
If you are interested in history it always looks like you've heard or read about every possible type of dictatorship and inept government, but then purposefully sending back a plane that is bringing help is not an ordinary occurrence.
Two more things from what I saw on television: those pictures where military rulers are seen giving what is said to be food (from their own hands) to their needy countrymen-- this looks so contrived and unconvincing, and therefore cynical.
Also, I saw one example when they had ordered people to throw the bodies of victims into the river.
This does not mean that I agree with the conclusions of the readers of "Apocalyptickiwi" though.
Oh, DWill and Ophelia, the military regime in Burma is truly evil. They won't abide dissent, kill their own people, and operate as potentates/dictators/totalitarians in their own small world. One reason they are not denounced by much of the world is because they are not a threat to anyone except themselves. They are not a nuclear nation, have no oil, so who cares?
We care. The people care. Governments come and governments go, but the people survive. Most of us, anyway. But most of us are not under threat from our own governments.
Aid is getting in - more and more everyday. No thanks to the ruling junta of Burma (I never know whether to write Burma or Myanmar - I guess it's Myanmar now). The dead are dead, nothing will change that. And the rest will survive on their meager rations - aid or not. They will eat and drink whatever will keep them alive; fortunately for them, many asians are accustomed to eating little and eating what nature provides. If its a bug or a rat, so be it, it's sustenance. The human condition, it's unstoppable.
But the regime is truly evil. And so is what China did in Tibet!
Please, I know all about George Bush and dislike his politics/policies as much as any of you, but he's not evil - nor is the US Government. Just inept and misguided; we got off the track during the past eight years - but that can be (and will be) righted. All governments are nationalistic and quite naturally put their own interests first - but Myanmar and Tibet are examples of governments/regimes run rampant.
the military regime in Burma is truly evil. They won't abide dissent, kill their own people, and operate as potentates/dictators/totalitarians in their own small world. One reason they are not denounced by much of the world is because they are not a threat to anyone except themselves. They are not a nuclear nation, have no oil, so who cares? Ralph
Thanks, Ralph, for your view. I am not even sure why I hesitate to make this call. It could be simply not having seen anything like what is reported to be going on there (naivete). Unless I'm able to see it closer up, I might be inclined to hold back. Another reason could be that, while there will be cases where such a call is justified, there will be others where it is not, so this charge of evil can easily be abused. Maybe we should avoid such general language and stick to talking about the actions that are taking place. That would put the emphasis on the actions themselves and not so much on the people doing them. It might encourage us to take more action ourselves. These are just a couple of thoughts.
Will
Nice to hear from you again. How's the studying going? Hilary just won West Virginia by 41 points; too late, huh?
I think evil is an appropriate word in some extreme cases - it was a good word before Bush and his "Axis of Evil" speech and it's still a good word.
You'd probably agree that Hitler was an evil man, right. Stalin? Papa Doc? Mugabe?
I know quite a lot about what is going on in Myanmar; it's always been a passion of mine. As has Tibet. There's a huge difference between misguided or inept and evil. I know it's only my opinion, but I think the government in Myanmar is evil. And what China did in Tibet in 1959 was an evil act. Some people agree with me, some don't. That's life, and I respect what others may feel. But I'll not change my views without some real evidence.
Einstein said something about nationalism being stupid (or something like that). I'll try to find the exact quote. I know it's a utopian dream, but I would like to see everyone in this world treated fairly and respectfully. And we must keep trying to make that happen.
Have you read much about Haiti over the years? There's another country where the people have been cheated out of a decent lifestyle for years.
I've been occupied with some small stuff that as you know has a way of cascading. Not studying right now, though. I think one other thing that might tend to warn me away from condemning people as evil (but still condemning what they do) is that labeling in this way might condition us to expect to be able to identify them easily by the way they present themselves. I mean that "evil" sets up an image in my mind of someone who pretty much advertises who he or she is. Problem is, aside from the rare person who is is clearly pathological and not in control of the way he presents to others, most are going to seem not out of the ordinary. Even the really bad guys you mention--well, I'm not sure they came across as monsters to others--and that is the truly scary thing about them and the times in which they lived. Lurking here is that phrase of Hannah Arendt's, "the banality of evil." I've never read the essay where the phrase occurs, but should look it up.
DWill
