|
Post by Bayne on Jan 22, 2004 2:39:30 GMT
[glow=red,2,300]Martian elitism, an extension of Nationalism?[/glow]
|
|
|
Post by Earthrise on Jan 24, 2004 1:01:06 GMT
Bit hard to say, Bayne.
Only when their planet was on the verge of dying did they stoop to armed conquest. They could of had us at any stage of our development, even while we were still in the trees. I don't think they are a warring species. Though they do seem to have a single culture and identity.
There is the matter of the second Martian species, the bipedal "cattle" they brought for the in-flight meal. Though not said, there is the implication that the Martians subjected the monkey/ape/homo sapiens line on their planet. This isn't nationalism though, just good old survival of the fittest.
I think Charles might agree that Martian "elitism" probably results from a communal, almost hive mentality. One of the downsides of Socialism is the reliance on educated "elites" to run society. Maybe the Martians had evolved to the point that everyone was elevated to the level of the elite. Then Socialism might work. A democracy relies on everyone being equal.
The other option is they have a truly plural society. Maybe they are so evolved that each individual is a free and empowered force who has the liberty to make informed decisions and free to join in association for whatever need. From the outside, a socialist and plural society might look quite similar. True democracy is the difference.
Bayne, you know better than to use the word politics in your thread, I can't help myself.
Earthrise.
|
|
|
Post by Bayne on Jan 24, 2004 20:36:28 GMT
[glow=red,2,300]Were the tentacled martians and their prey evolved from the same species? Perhaps one group gained power and subjugated the remainder? Perhaps even, a ruling class rose up (maybe a scientific council like in some of Asimovs stories) that intended to rule in benevolent oligarchy. After a while of course they might see what they do as being for the other martians own good....[/glow]
|
|
|
Post by Bayne on Jan 24, 2004 20:44:54 GMT
[glow=red,2,300]The word is there for a reason. Charles is right that politics is an important part of Wells's writing so rather than have it constantly take over other threads, I thought it deserved a thread of it's own. That is not to say that politics doesn't have it's place in other topics, but here you and Charles can go at it like rabid voles if you want, I can get enjoy some good political debate, and we can draw some tension out of the other threads.[/glow]
|
|
|
Post by Earthrise on Jan 25, 2004 2:39:30 GMT
Thanks Bayne, good idea.
(Transfered from Naive Martian thread)
Charles, What's stopping us from allying with Israel now? We wouldn't want the stain of her past and current crimes on our conscience more than they already are. Once we get out of the ME, in other words when Israel returns to her legal borders, we can ally with her legitimately, instead of behind closed doors.
Wars aren't prevented by pre-emptive wars. Nor by goodwill and "peace in our time" statements. In history, the most peaceful times have been when there has been a balance of power. The Cold War and, Europe before and after Napoleon are two examples. While these times were by no means peaceful, the chance of full scale, total war was slight. This is what is so dangerous about the US hegemony, it is unchecked.
After Israel returns to her legal borders, why would the Arabs then go against international opinion and the combined might of the West to attack Israel? Only the lack of moral ground for the Occupations stops the full fury of the world falling on Arabic societies now. Take away their shield
Quite simple. You want to end ME terrorism, remove their source of power. Take away the moral advantage the Occupation gives our enemies and retake the moral high ground ourselves. Without the occupation, these people are no more than criminals. While the West through Israel occupies Jerusalem, they retain the sacred right of self-defence. S11 was retaliation.
We know American power projection protects their way of life. Israel wont be the only country asked to compromise.
"Diplomacy cracked Libya’s Colonel Khadaffi, but who is deluded enough to believe UBL or Hammas are willing to negotiate?"
You don't negotiate with criminals, you catch them and lock them away. Khadaffi is playing a great game though. Ghandi realised too, to beat the West, you have to deny us the moral high ground. Like Syria's recent peace offer to Israel, it exposes the militancy of the West. Peace can be a powerful weapon when we are the ones who don't want peace. Earthrise.
|
|
|
Post by Charles on Jan 25, 2004 8:34:39 GMT
Extremist Islam does not want peace with Israel and the west, and has said it will never accept the state of Israel in any form. They regard Israel as an illegal, (and perhaps more importantly) infidel state, and its friends are their enemies. The real question to the extremists that do the killing is not about the morality of any ‘occupation,’ that’s just something to engage westerners with in ways they might understand; but the fact that Israel exists at all.
I really do hope you’re right about the spontaneous outbreak of peace if and when Israel returns to its “legal borders,” but human nature, infused with a lethal dose of irrational religious extremism is a powerful antidote against peace and goodwill - and this is something you should prepare for.
Its appalling that you attempt to justify or rationalize 9/11 with the term ‘retaliation.’ ‘Retaliation’ means to return like for like, or in kind. When did the U.S. hijack Arabic aircraft and fly them into their cities and indiscriminately murder and maim men, women and children? No, 9/11 was an unprovoked, criminal act of mass murder. I can’t believe you’d even try to justify it by calling it retaliation!
“Wars aren't prevented by pre-emptive wars.” Really? The point is that future and potentially more destructive and bloody conflicts CAN be prevented by a pre-emptive strike or series of strikes. When things are allowed to fester over time history remembers those in power as having ‘lacked the foresight’ to deal with them when they should.
I think we all would agree that the key to peace anywhere and everywhere in the world is to spread democracy and self-rule to all corners. A lofty goal for sure, but the only way to any sort of enduring peace for this ever increasingly interdependent world. Make our neighbor’s welfare and prosperity to be in our best interest and watch the world come together like never before; literally.
|
|
|
Post by Thorgrimm on Jan 25, 2004 12:58:24 GMT
Earthrise, if i may interject my two cents worth the "Legal" borders you describe are in fact the 1948 ceasefire line, that is how far the the invading Arab armies had managed to reach before the ceasefire took affect. Look at the borders of the Palestinian mandate borders as set down in, i believe 1920, under the League of Nations. The border WAS the Jordan River and the Dead Sea in the east, and the current border with Egypt,but with Gaza included in the Mandate territory. So if i understand you correctly you are legitimizing Arab aggression, while at the same decrying Israeli aggression. If that is the case i think you are a little biased my friend, as Israel is the ONLY democratic state in the mid-east, and if we abandon her to totalatarian aggression we might as well abandon South Korea, Nato, Seato and every other treaty obligation we have under that logic,which in my opinion, is not logical. The UN resolution, 242, which brought Israel into being proposed th divide Palestine into roughley 50% between Arabs and Jews, which the Jews accepted and the Arabs flat out rejected. So it was Arab stubborness, not Israeli, that torpedoed peace and started the circle of violence. I think that most people today listen to the media way too much, as it tends to be biased one way or the other, depending on the reporter's personal bias. I think people should read the historical facts before commenting on something otherwise they look rather silly, don't you think? Cheers Thorgrimm
|
|
|
Post by Tripod on Jan 25, 2004 19:43:59 GMT
If you look at the world these days you can see some of the evelotion the Martians have allready bin through. I'm talking/typing about the lack of emocitions. Take the Netherlands two weeks ago a school boy has shot a teacher! The teacher later on died because of his insures. We certainly don't want to become as ruthles as the Martians. But I think we are heading that way!
Tripod
|
|
|
Post by Charles on Jan 25, 2004 22:47:39 GMT
I'd say we've been there for ages. The worst example in 'recent' history to me are the SS Einsatzgruppen. But that's not to say Stalin, Mao, Pot, etc. aren't to be lumped in there, too. European torture techniques in the Middle Ages were pretty inhuman and ruthless, and crucifixion...well, it wasn't all "Life of Brian" pleasant!
But Wells' observations on ruthlessness wasn't limited to WOTW; the Invisible Man and Dr. Moreau are two other period examples.
|
|
|
Post by Earthrise on Jan 26, 2004 1:29:47 GMT
Thorgrimm, Thanks for your two cents, keep 'em comin’. For me, there were no legitimate borders before the enactment of the UN. All borders were held by force before that. The UN represents the rejection of Hitler's expansionist power politics, once and for all. Hence the *legal* border I am taking about is the internationally-recognised borders derived from the 1949 cease fire arrangement. You have bought their propaganda line, bait and all. The Israelis were just as unhappy with the original Israel they were offered, totally undefendable. There are records now that they always planned to annex large parts of Arab Palestine and are just as culpable in the War of Independence. Their actions from 1967 to now add weight to this view.
Your reply totally dodges the Occupation of the Gaza Strip and the West Bank. Here is where the illegality lies, and the brutal and inhuman treatment of the Palestinians exposes Israel’s imperial designs. You also missed my point about a formal alliance with Israel, after she hands back her ill-begotten gain; I have not suggested abandoning her. Quite the opposite, I want to defend Israel, but I cannot while she acts so immorally and brutally in the Territories.
Israel is not a democracy, any more than Iran is. They are a Theocracy in sheep's clothing. They are an nationalist anachronism, a state for one group of people at the exclusion of all others. Jews are first-class citizens in Israel, the rest can't buy land or marry freely.
I think you'll find my historical knowledge acceptable. How about your propaganda warning lights?
Tripod, I think we are more enlightened now than ever before. While most other societies are becoming more civilised, ours has atrophied and I believe our leaders are behind it. Profit dries up in a humane world.
I don't see the Martians as violent or uncivilised, as I suggested if they where Human, they would have colonised our planet many thousands of years ago. They resorted to conquest as a last resort to save their dying planet, and Nature should have been on their side; survival of the fittest and all. But Nature is a cruel mother and she has a habit of discarding old life forms that can't adapt. An advantage gained from our short, violent lives; keeps us adaptable.
Bayne, let me know if you find the tone unacceptable.
Earthrise.
|
|
|
Post by Thorgrimm on Jan 26, 2004 3:00:54 GMT
Earthrise that is where you are mistaken my friend as the borders i mentioned were also established by UN resolution 242 which Established the State of Israel. So it is you who are buying someones propaganda, not i . So if you only accept the 1949 borders you are stating that Arab aggression is ok but Israeli aggression is not. And you still sidestepped the issue that i raised as to the acceptance of the resolution by the jews but not the Arabs. You convienently forget that the League of Nations had nothing to do with Hitler and Nazi Germany. Most people today consider the League the precursor of the UN. If you consider the Un the only legitimate international body why is it ok for the Arabs to ignore the UN resolutions and not condemn them? ;D Cheers Thorgrimm
|
|
|
Post by Charles on Jan 26, 2004 4:52:07 GMT
I think we are more enlightened now than ever before. While most other societies are becoming more civilised, ours has atrophied and I believe our leaders are behind it. Profit dries up in a humane world. But this is exactly what the Victorians thought about themselves and their civilisation, though in retrospect we know they were sadly mistaken. It took the First World War to actually wake the Edwardians from that complacent slumber. Not that it did much good in the long run. Wells understood the danger of this kind of thinking and so wrote novels like WOTW, Dr. Moreau and The Invisible Man in an effort to shake up the complacency that can go along with it. We perceive ourselves as enlightened, but then a few cases of genocide or several dozen mass graves are uncovered here and there to prove otherwise.
|
|
|
Post by Earthrise on Jan 26, 2004 23:29:53 GMT
Thorgrimm, Resolution 242 came about after the '67 war. It doesn't define Israel's borders, but demands she return the territories occupied in that war. Namely the same territories that are still occupied 37 years later.
When Israel was proclaimed in 1947, the split between Israel and Palestine was about 50-50. After the Arabs attacked Israel and lost, the UN took half of Palestine's land and gave it to Israel, leaving the 22% that is now Gaza/West bank. The Arabs paid for their aggression, one of the few time the UN actually worked.
Funny you should mention 242, because before '67, I am pro-Israel. They were quite socialist back then, Kibbutz living and all. The naked, imperial aggression of the '67 war and the resulting annexation of Palestine is the crime that de-legitimises Israel and has earned mine and international condemnation.
Thorgrimm, I assume you aren't condoning the forced annexation of Palestinian land in the face of international law and opinion. Hitler was wrong, wasn’t he? What is your solution?
Charles, I agree. My statement has two halves. I feel we are more enlightened now (despite current evidence to the contrary), you were right to chastise me on complacency. But the second half balances my statement. Our civilisation has atrophied, complacency and a superiority complex has set in. This is why I wrote that pamphlet on WOTW and current Western complacency. Who will warn us this time?
What about the statement: "profit dries up in a humane world"?
Cheers guys,
Earthrise.
|
|
Xav
Full Member
Rules are for the obeyance of Fools and the guidance of wise Men
Posts: 119
|
Post by Xav on Mar 26, 2005 0:50:22 GMT
I would like to contribute to this topic. I think several points have been missed here. One important one is that the Narrator in WotW was convinced that the Martians were telepathic--- he says he saw a group engaging in a most complex task with not a sound or gesture that he could see. If this was indeed the case (and the size of their brains might suggest this) then humanity was up against an enemy that was, indeed, vastly superior than his own millions.
Another important issue is why the Martians made the invasion when they did....there is no obvious reason but we might conject that they had been tracking our progress continuously for perhaps several thousand years and had come to some alarming conclusions.
The first would be that if they did not attack us first, then we would come to them, as indeed we have done.
Mars has been a dry and rather waterless world for millions of years but is the Martians natural home, although they must have their cities/hive deep underground, as the normal atmosphere must surely be unbreathable. The distress noted by the Narrator of the first of the invaders would have been typical, I think, but point to one of two things...either the Martians had an atmosphere in their cities very similar to ours, or the invading individuals had been physically modified to survive. Of the two, I lean to the first. The discomfort of having to make do in our atmosphere and gravity was clearly temporary and thereafter the Martians obviously found plenty of energy, sleepless energy I might add, to build their machinery and to experiment upon humans.
They also enjoyed using humans as sport, apparently releasing men to run and enjoying knocking them down with heat rays, although Wells does not elaborate on this.
To sum up, then...the Martians were, to us, totally unknowable. They clearly evolved along an entirely different and thoroughly alien path. Their immense mental powers, enhanced with telepathy and all that that implies, allowed them to look upon us as merely dangerous bugs, to be eaten and bred without pity or mercy, human qualities that they need not share. There was no need for them to communicate with us, if they could understand such a term outside of their own society.
Many more dreadful comparisons can be made and many more fascinating ideas pursued, but one overwhelming thought remains: one day, we will meet their equivalent out there; Wells had it right, modern writers do not. If there are any more sentient creatures in our Galaxy, then they will be as least as dangerous as we are...as dangerous as Well's Martians.
|
|