People need to start being more honest, or call it sincere. In social interactions there is no need for lying or to put it nicely, letting things slip your mind. I am aware that we all do it on the regular bases because it makes life easier and I guess as long as it’s inconsequential that’s actually fine. If we addressed everything head on we would be sorting more problems out than we would actually enjoy life. But when it comes to essential facts or serious issues why not just mention them or talk about it.
I know I can get on people’s nerves and I personally have made peace with that. So sometimes you need to tell me to shut the f**k up. It won’t kill me, and no worries, I’d tell you too, so no harm done. If you however let me babble on and you don’t even care what I have to say but you won’t tell me, suck it up! Don’t go blowing off steam somewhere else and then it gets back to me, never a good idea.
Also, if you talk to someone at a bar and that someone tells you that your cute and keeps continuously texting you for the next couple of days, would you interpret that as some sort of interest? Yeah that’s what I thought. So how would you feel if a week later, you ask that someone to go for a drink or so and then you get awkward message slowly revealing… oh there’s someone else… sorry. Is it that hard to let such an important fact slip into the first conversation to make sure you are both on the same page? I don’t think so. I actually feel bad after talking to a girl for a few minutes at a bar and not making sure she’s aware that this couldn’t go anywhere. Even if the chances of that going anywhere were zero, it’s just honest. So I guess that was just me being a little honest and putting together what I’ve heard from friends this week or just noticed myself. Let me know what you think.
A month after the Tunisians freed themselves and one week after the Egyptian Revolution succeeded in ousting President Hosni Mubarak after three decades, protests have erupted and continued in various other Arab nations. As I said earlier, no one can predict the outcome of the entailing demonstrations in other nations but the longer they go on, the greater their potential for success becomes.
The driving forces behind all protest are the young generations who in most cases have never known a different regime than the one they have been ruled by their entire lives. In all Arab nations that are experiencing unrest and demands for reform and/or regime change the median age ranges from 17 to 30 years. In all cases the youth unemployment rate is very high. Therefor, change for the sake of a more democratic government is not the sole motivation of the protesters. The economic situation and level poverty and literacy also play a decisive role, even in the oil-rich gulf nations.
A prime example is the Kingdom of Bahrain. It has been experiencing protests even before Mubarak was overthrown. A BBC article considered Bahrain to be the potential “next domino to fall” even though, according to the Economists Unrest Index, it had the lowest probability for popular uprising. The instability of a small and wealthy nation such as Bahrain is the next step in the evolution of Middle Eastern protest, especially since it has been ruled by one royal family since the 18th century and previously attempted political and economic reforms to meet the demands of its citizenry. If Bahrain were to be the next domino to fall, it would set yet another precedent that could pose enormous threats to other Monarchs in Jordan, Saudi-Arabia and other small gulf states. Lastly, the international and especially US reaction to the protest will be closely watched as world leader once again try to balance intangible principles of self-determination with very tangible economic and military interests (The US Navy 5th Fleet is stationed in Bahrain).
While Bahrain is a luxury example, countries such as Libya, Algeria, Morocco and Yemen are vastly poor and underdeveloped and are being ruled by dictators who have been in power for decades. Here, the motivation is ample frustration with all expect of governmental (in)action and the potential for reform is small because of financial limitations of the respective administrations. If any of those dictators were overthrown, most other may eventually follow. The greater the number of precedents grows the more encouraged and bolder other democratization movements will become. Once serious unrest spreads to the strong police state of Syria, anything is possible.
The Islamic Republic of Iran presents a case different from all others. After the 2009 Presidential elections the country experienced widespread protest and violent clashes between the opposition and police forces but the regime prevailed. The newly arising tensions between the Iranian government and the opposition have the least potential to overthrow the existing regime because the country is greatly divided into pro- and anti-government groups. There is no vast majority of greatly frustrated citizens as is the case in all other countries. Additionally, the Iranian security forces have not shied away from violence against protesters in the past. A chance remains that the current protest can development into more than those in 2009 but in Iran, the chances are clearly the smallest.
Taking the latest developments and future outlook into consideration, we may very well be witnessing fundamental changes in the dynamics of an entire region of the world which will alter the way we perceive international relations to a so far unfathomable extent.
What does this have to do with a Rhetoric and Civic Life blog? I believe that the events in the Middle East and particularly their significance have gone vastly unnoticed among many Americans or have just not been up for discussion. Since this is a blog that can address issues of civil discourse, my goal with the last two blogs was to draw more attention to the history unfolding and encourage awareness of and conversation on the topic.
A momentous day in Egyptian and world history whose true significance won't be known and cannot be judged for a long time.
The implications of the Egyptian Revolution in 2011 for the country itself, the Arab region as well as the international community are plentiful and vary widely.
For Egypt it is a new beginning and as my Egyptian friend opened my eyes, the first time that Egyptians have the opportunity to actually rule their own country. After pharaohs, many foreign oppressors and a chain of dictators which now ends after the 30-year rule of Hosni Mubarak, the people of Egypt are finally able to shape their own destiny. I daresay that no Western college student can imagine, let alone begin to understand, the sense of liberation young Egyptians feel seeing the end of a regime that was in place before they were born and they had not thought possible to overthrow until three weeks ago.
The most pressing domestic questions now are: How is it all going to turn out for the nation? Will Egypt regain its stability under a democratic, secular government? What are the alternatives, a state in chaos without clear leadership? Will the military relinquish the powers now vested in it to allow a transition to popular government? Most importantly, will the new government be effective in addressing the economic and socio-political challenges of the nation?
Inspired by the success of the Egyptian and Tunisian Revolutions, demonstrations and protests are erupting in many Arab countries. Most are met with brutal force from the autocratic government they seek to overthrow. At this point, no one can predict how far the achievement of the Egyptian and Tunisian people will ripple across the Middle East. Undoubtedly, however, Egypt provides a tremendous precedent because of its importance to the region as well as the previous unlikelihood of regime change. If there is a continued ripple effect among Arab nations, February 11, 2011 may very well be in the neighborhood of November 9, 1989, when the fall of the Soviet Union and the democratization of Eastern Europe began with the removal of the Iron Curtain. The third wave of democratization would finally arrive in the Middle East.
For the international community, the demise of the Mubarak regime and the potential democratization of Egypt pose an entirely new challenge. While self-determination is widely supported around the globe, immediate concerns revolve around the stability of the country and the region. World leaders were reluctant to fully support the peaceful protesters because they were uncertain about the outcome of the demonstrations. Foreign powers couldn't afford to alienate Mubarak if he were to remain in power. Only after the protesters proved to be persistent, governments began to call for reform. When protesters made clear that an orderly transition in September would not be enough, leaders fully supported the democratic movement, implicitly asking for Mubarak’s immediate resignation. This delayed response exhibits the double standard applied by many governments in assessing and responding to the situation. While promoting democracy and human rights on an everyday basis, these principles seem to lose importance in the face of possible destabilization of an ally, no matter how gruesome that ally maybe. The threshold for a shift in tone regarding fundamental displays of democratic movement seems to be generally high and the outcome has to be clear for it to occur. It will be very interesting to watch how this wait-and-see policy continues to evolve as the transition in Egypt progresses and especially if and which governments start to erode in the future.
While there are many uncertainties about the gravity and influence of the events in Egypt to date it cannot be denied that history has already been made regardless and everyone should be aware of that and take a minute to look at the following video to honor the moment:
Thank you, Anderson Cooper, for bringing the following two quotes from Congresswoman Michelle Bachmann to our attention:
“It didn’t matter the color of their skin. It didn’t matter their language. It didn’t even matter their economic status. It didn’t matter whether they descended from nobility, or whether they were of a higher class or a lower class. It made no difference. Once you got here, we were all the same.”
I am hoping that most can agree that she has her history slightly confused. Many groups of immigrants had a rather dark period in their history as part of the US, whether it was merely because of public discontent towards them or direct government intervention. Anderson points out two groups of immigrants that have clearly been unequally treated in the past. One were the Irish (“No Irish need apply”) and another the Japanese who were interred under executive order by the FDR administration during World War II. Not to forget that only Irish (from the East Coast) and Chinese (from the West Coast) immigrants were ‘allowed’ to risk their lives to build the transcontinental railroad in the 1860’s, one of the greatest engineering achievements in US history. While in the meantime there are plenty of other examples to illustrate Mrs. Bachmann’s awfully distorted view of US history, she even fails to realize the current implications of her remarks. At a time, when a state can pass legislation that implicitly in it’s wording but clearly in its common perception discriminates against one group of immigrants. While having established that all were not the same once they got to the US, what about the Native Americans. Remember, they were here long before and never had a chance.
“We know there was slavery that was still tolerated, when the nation began. We know that was an evil. And it was a scourge and a blot and a stain upon our history. But we also know that the very founders that wrote those documents worked tirelessly until slavery was no more in the United States. And I think it is high time that we recognize the contribution of our forebears who worked tirelessly, man like John Quincy Adams, who would not rest, until slavery was extinguished in the country.”
This one is even better, especially from a member of the House of Representatives whose initial composition was determined by the white population and 3/5th of the slave population of every state. Slavery was in the constitution, not no more. It was a compromise. Yes, some founding father’s wanted to abolish slavery but, as Anderson says, others held slaves of their own. Anderson also points out that John Quincy Adams wasn’t even a funding father. While I honestly wouldn’t have noticed since John Adams was, I would have very well been able to place him long before the civil war. How can someone who swore to uphold the constitution be unaware of the 13th Amendment and its history?
Overall, I have a hard time believing that this woman got elected not to mention that these statements were actually made. This is beyond partisanship or political rhetoric, it is plain ignorance. It doesn’t matter in which context this speech was delivered; for once no one can say there was more to it. Worst of all, some international kid had a better grasp of US history than an elected government official. Thank you Mr. Evans and Professor Milligan. Or maybe German high school would have even sufficed for this.
