We export so much of our popular culture abroad. Unfortunately, not only jazz, baseball, blue jeans and cowboy lore, but Paris Hilton, the Saw movies, OJ Simpson trials, Bay Watch, McDonalds, Super Bowl half-time, Pizza Hut and a lot of really base crap, gets sent overseas. My only question is why they don't hate us more.

Instead, let's not "engage" the Muslim world at all. Let's leave them alone as much as humanly possible. No wars, no bombing, no saber rattling; no "peace processes," no attempts to win them over with our "culture," no summits, no humanitarian assistance, no any kind of assistance, no nothing. Let's get off of their oil as much and as quickly as possible. Let's have as little relationship with the Muslim world as possible. Let's just leave them alone.

As long as the Muslim world remains so backwards, self-pitying, primitive and dysfunctional, which basically, but for Turkey and parts of Indonesia that's all of it, every thing we do, either with good or bad intentions will backfire. You can't even try to help or "win over" such a sick, hate-filled, self-hating person without being held in contempt and dragged down.

The idea that Muslims will fall in love with our "culture," as in the products of our culture, is pretty lame. They may, eventually, be inspired by the roots of our culture, the personal freedoms and elevation of the individual our values celebrate, and that may ultimately loosen them up a bit. And hopefully, some day, they will find a way to embrace these ideas and turn their own society into a different, non-American kind of humane, democratic Muslim society.

But even that can't happen by design, by the US trying to make it so. Anything we do, good or bad, will be considered meddling. We could cure cancer in the Muslim world and they wouldn't take the cure. Their dignity and all. It would have to be an added side effect to the act of just leaving them alone to rot or prosper on their own.

Star Trek rules.

I really don't understand what that means. I'm not a Trekkie.

But I do remember the gist of what it meant and it sounded exactly like what you postulated: Leave other civilizations alone so that yours wouldn't unduly influence their development/evolution. Except that the Star Trek writers presented it as a noble enterprise while yours sounds more like I don't want to play with those kids so I'm taking my ball and going home.

The "Prime Directive" was a major, recurring storyline hook in Star Trek.

Basically, the "Fenderation" had a law where you wern't allowed to interfere with the cultural development of species who were less technologically advanced on the assumption that such interference, however well intentioned, would wind up causing more harm than good.

Kind of like how giving a baby a chainsaw is a big no-no.

That's pretty much it. I don't want to play with those kids because they'll end up putting a bomb in the ball before they throw it over to me.

If you've ever met someone who's angry, self-loathing, depressed, has horribly low self-esteem, you learn that nothing you can do will help, only hurt, you at least if not also the sad sack. And the sad sack uses that as a way to manipulate and use power in a negative way. That's how they've been running their society since the decline of the Ottoman Empire. They can go suck eggs.

Wait a second! I've got a nice 12 horsepower Black and Decker chainsaw all wrapped up for a baby shower. Now I've got to return it!

yastfort:

But I do remember the gist of what it meant and it sounded exactly like what you postulated: Leave other civilizations alone so that yours wouldn't unduly influence their development/evolution. Except that the Star Trek writers presented it as a noble enterprise while yours sounds more like I don't want to play with those kids so I'm taking my ball and going home.

What's wrong with that?

It's a *lot* more enlightened to just leave someone alone or don't associate with someone who annoys you than attacking them somehow.

We don't have to stick our noses into everyone's buisness.

but if it were us in their shoes wouldn't we be feeling the sand as well? <link>

I just thought Earlybird's motives were less than pure.

earlybird's motives are less than pure. you're right to think so. They are based on ignorant stereotyping and hate. I agree with the policy though, if only because most of the actors engaging the middle east also have less than pure motives...

I'm certain my general view of the Middle East and Muslims in general is just that, a generalization. At least I'm informed enough to know that they're not "all" like that. But the reality is that the loudest among them, whether or not they are a minority, a very large minority, or a majority, seem to be running the show.

In other words, it's nice to know that there are thoughtful, peaceful, educated Muslims in places like Cairo and the West Bank - and there are - but they're beside the point.

My views are not based on hatred. I don't hate anybody. I would prefer a happy, healthy, productive Muslim world whom everyone could get along with. But in absence of that I would prefer to avoid them at all costs.

I believe the average Muslim would agree with my proposal, that we have "as little to do with the Muslim world as humanly possible."

yastfort:

but if it were us in their shoes wouldn't we be feeling the sand as well?

I have a serious disagreement with the concept of multiculturalism for the following reasons.

-Cannibalism.

-Human sacrifice.

-Femal circumscision

-Honor killings.

I get that not having an arrogant attitude twords others ways of life can be good and that we can learn from others, but how silly are we going to get? Culture, like anything man made, can be either beneficial, destructive, or somewhere in-between.

In some arabic cultures, it's acceptable to kill your sister if she sleeps with a man before she gets married or to kill your brother if he's gay. I think that's wrong but, according to the author of the article you linked, that makes me guilty of being a racist if I think so?

People do not act based on their skin color. Genetics have nothing to do with learned behavior, which is what culture is.

There is a lot of contradictions in "progressive" thought today. You can't be a multiculturalist and believe all cultures are ok, yet support woman and gay rights because some cultures treat women like objects and kill gays.

Relative morality = moral confusion. Everything becomes grey after a while.

as I see it so it's sure 'nuff a muddle. No culture is perfect and I'm not on a high enough horse to damn another. I now what I like and what I don't like and I find evidence of that in all cultures that I'm aware of. You seem to be an extrapolator who takes another's point and tugs it out to its absurd edge and then calls the pointmaker on your stretch. I'm more of a middle of the road kind of guy.

1. We are not going to "get off of their oil" any time soon. The physical structure of American civilization is low density housing, retail and office development, and freight moved by motor truck, all based on cheap motor fuel. Even if we start driving Priuses instead of SUVs, that's only a marginal change. I don't think the middle class is about to give up the single family house and yard so that it can live in appartments, ride mass transit and walk to the grocery store. Technological deus ex machina, anyone.

2. At least in Europe, the Muslim world insists on moving here and living by its own rules, in opposition to Western norms, when it gets here. In particular Western ideas about the rights of women are anathema to traditionalist Muslim men, and Muslim women in Europe who might want to live by them are kept in line by the fear of "honor killings." There, here or back home, Western ideas about "personal freedom and elevation of the individual," as well as Western ideas about sexuality, strike at the patriarchal position Muslim men enjoy.