USA and the modern freedom

Some people might be of the opinion that I completely dislike the west and it's role in the world. However, I prove them wrong by this post.

Actually, USA is the country that symbolizes modern freedom. And, it has a lot to do in the coming years. There are two things that it did, which helped the beliefs/hopes of modern freedom throughout the world.

1. Winning against The British, and establishing the "first free country" of the world.
2. Dropping an atomic bomb on Japan.

Yes, that is right. Though I do not say it is good, dropping an atom bomb helped modern freedom. Today, all the countries in the world are enjoying an unprecedented modernity of co-existence and collaboration. Does this mean, everybody likes everyone else, no. Almost everyone in the world dislikes his/her neighboring countries. Many people dislike other persons of different caste/creed/color/race. But still, peace prevails between countries! (Read my other post on history, if you do not agree with this: http://salahuddin-knowledgehobbyist.blogspot.com/2010/04/i-watched-kingdom-of-heaven-recently.html)

How did it happen? Yes, it is due to the fear of the "ultimate weapon", the "atom bomb". The countries/races which warred for centuries, are afraid of the word "war", only because of this ultimate weapon. As a result, whole humanity is focusing on other frontiers, like science, research, global business collaboration etc... And that is how, majority of the people of the world are living without the fear of war, every day.

The 2000-5000 years of human civilization is a testimony to "casulaties of war". Many a times, no arts flourished in a region, only because there was no good king, no stability there. And, places which were full of arts and artists, are those where the empire is stable for decades/centuries. And people had to be good at war to survive the unstable period. It does not matter what arts/sciences you know, you just have to be able to weild the sword. There is a great mathematician called Galois, who died in a battle, and wrote the stuff of his life, the night before it, since he knew what would happen the next day, anyway. So sad, and a great casualty to the human civilization.

There are no such casualties now. In some sense, post 2nd world war, is the modern era, much much better than the period immediately before that. People of the world are more free today, due to the "atomic bomb". (I do not say it is good to drop an atomic bomb, neighter do I approve of that USA act.)

It is not the nature of war, to result in stale-mates. And it is not the nature of war, to fight 10000 people with 10000 people back. The actions and reactions of war, are always dis-proportionate, and they are meant to be so. This incidentally gives the lost side's rulers, a way to play with history, and the mind-sets and sentiments of their citizens. It also helps the winners, twist the history to somehow justify the brutal slaughter they did. However, it is in the nature of war, that's it.

However, it could have been much worse, had it been another country that discovered the atom bomb first. USA dropped it on Japan twice, and stopped. If one of these colonial nations discovered it, that would have been the apocalypse to the rest of the world. In the name of the queen, all of the world would be mopping the floors of the Br....sh parliament or something. Good that it was the USA, the first free country of the truly modern world.

And USA does not believe in colonizing, it is a country built on freedom, compassion and equal opportunity. Great that USA did not capitalize on that particular technology, and colonized the world. Instead, the mayhem was stopped with Japan's surrender, ushering the gates to "modern freedom". So much so that, today, even the USA is afraid of attacking another tiny country with the "ultimate weapon".

The east had/has a notion of freedom, that is not based on material freedom, opposite to the west. However, in the wake of industrialization, and mechanization, the importance of such a notion was reduced, quite frankly. These are the days when technology wins wars, who would worry about a devout/idealistic warrior or clan of warriors, who do not like your opportunism? The idealism of the east flourished arts like Karate etc..., and made our earlier civilizations prosper. All this lasted before indusrial revolution, and western colonization.

However, post colonization, the whole world was literally forced to become western. It was so forced that by the turn of 20th century, everyone knows and is aware of the rest of the world, in some sense. It was all needed because no man, could win against the machines of the west, it had to be learnt and defeated using it's own way. And, I do not fret in telling that out to others.

Indian independence struggle was also unique in this aspect that, Mr. Gandhi tried to retain the Indian notion of freedom, as a prevailing philosohy of the independence protests. His philosophy of "You can take my life but not my obedience", gave moral strength to countless indians fighting british, and many countries in the world followed the method too. In it, lies the notion of "oriental freedom", which he forced the westerners to fathom.

However, the world wars are "quests for global dominance", mostly by the colonizing countries, to finally find out who is the champion. This was the pinnacle of mechanization era, which lasted for 200 years, exploiting the colonies and amassing wealths enough the destroy the world 10 times over. However, the destruction was huge, but, the colonizing countries finally had to pay the price. A new bi-polar world where the poles are two totally new countries emerged from those.

And good that those countries were "modern" in the present sense of the word. They do not want colonies, they just fight for freedom. They helped convince the current colonizing countries to grant freedom to other countries. And idealism changes in those countries, also helped colonies get their freedom back. Thus emerged the "modern world".

In this era, the East's notions of freedom (from oneself, non-egoistic living etc...) are of lesser consequence than the Western notions, unfortunately. However, as a matter of evolution, we need to accept that, and go along, even if those look alien to us. And, actually great thanks to USA that gave the countries their way of understanding that, in some manner. Hope that through "global partnership of people, especially the Indians and Americans", as naturally happening now, a new and better notion of freedom, marrying these two would come into prevalence.

Truly USA and the east have a lot to do together, in the future.

Concept of personal freedom and repercussions

Personal freedom is taken very heavily by the west (especially the US). I would say, it is taken a tad more seriously than needed. I am not saying to be shackled, and lose freedom, but what I am saying is that, everything has it's own costs, even freedom.

People may ask, how does freedom have a cost? People might even say that it is the thing of "not having freedom" that is costly than having freedom, which must be benign. Again, I am not saying anything like that. But, volition (the right to choose), needs to be guided, and should not be simply left to the person's perceptions (and freedom). It could be any established social system, or, even a good friend who can guide you, that guides choices. Taking personal freedom too seriously, and not heeding to anyone's (or anything's) judgment, would basically make one go in the wrong direction, most often.

One big evidence of this, in modern societies (even developing countries like India), is the number of divorcees, single parenting, rise of crimes due to bad up-bringing of kids. Now, I don't agree that divorce is a good thing, especially for the kids. (In some countries, kids have their own agendas, and do not listen to parents, even if both are them are together. However, that is a different story :-().

The person who has parted ways in the couple, is thinking of his/her own life, and his/her freedom, and not heeding anything else. This ultimately ends up bad for him/her self too. It is inevitable to have issues, when a relationship breaks up. There is no single human being, who does never feel bad in his whole life, breaking up from (at least one of) partners. Even if one such person exists, it is extremely rare, and I would like to call him/her, a devil or a dracula than a human. This is the cost that one is paying for the arbitrary volition, exercised in the past (and of course, bad society as well).

And the kids, they don't listen to the parents, even though the parents mean no harm. So much of independence in the wrong age! People talk about drugs, friends influencing kids to wrong ways etc... Why is it that the east is more tolerant to such things than the west? Because, we know when to set a bird free, and when not to. It is very bad to let them go, when their judgment is weak, and can't consider all relevant factors. This will do more evil than good. Certainly a heavy price to pay for personal freedom.

And finally, one important thing. One of the things that sets humanity apart from animals, is the ability to feel others, trust others and live by them. Instinctively, and evolutionarily, every creature is self-aware and skeptic of the environment, may it be the nature, predators or social competition from same species. However, only animals live and die like that. Humans should not.

Why shouldn't they, because instinct is in stark contrast to civilization. If humans had not thought and got organized, there would not be any social structures. Even with a large brain, if instinct dominates, then there can't be any civilization. And, having social conditions (may it be live-ins or divorces or whatever), which can bring the beast in you, are dangerous to these structures. Don't forget that these (work/religion/rulers etc...) structures are the reason why humans are able to live happily today (that includes you and me :-))

What is human life, if one does not trust another living thing? What is it, if one does not feel others? And what is a human, if he/she thinks personal ego is paramount? Do we want to live and die that way? And what is the point of forming societies, and co-existence 2000 years ago, if we are not able to let ego go off even now? Ego is part of instinct, and only humans have any opportunity to live outside the instinct. After letting it go, one would have the right freedom, that does not agree to lose, through one's inner self, rather than through the external world.

Folks of the west (US mostly), think that they are more civilized/suave than the people of the east. Many of them, talk about the plights of 3rd world countries like India etc..., in a pretty sad (even derogatory) tone. But, when you think of it, one thing that surprises is that, the Orient is far more civilized than the Occident, and that is the reason why many of the Oriental countries are under-developed (at least developed but, xenophobic).

You read it right, civilization has nothing to do with development, and it is negatively related to development, when you think of it.

The other day, an Indian born American comedian joked, "Indians do not hate America, they just hate each other". Sadly, that is true. When Richard Nixon visited India (50-60 years ago, I think), he commented about Indians as "Treacherous, underhanded and never showing their true face". There might be some sizable cold-war connotations of that statement, however, these are not entirely false. However, you should not worry about visiting the East, remember "they just hate each other".

Today, India is a country of inaction, because, there is no significant good (or bad) that can be done in this country. If a guy kills another, and undergoing trial, there will be some 'human rights folks' etc... in India, who support him. If a guy takes money out of his own pocket, and spends that to alleviate the conditions in a slum, there will be at least a couple of tabloids, thrashing him for 'having ulterior political motives', and say, he wants to make money as a politician holding office.

Nothing is trusted in India, neither good nor bad. This kind of keeps the country, in a stable state, where, the rest of the world is going in either progressive or regressive direction. (You think there is no nation going backwards, what about the nations which militantly urge about "going back to medieval days", Afg....an)

Why do people behave treacherously, hiding their original intentions, never trusting others in India? Why are Indians so touch to get convinced? Why are people of the west, so easy to convince, tell them something good, and they almost always do it, without asking 'what's in it for you?'. Why are the people of East, not trusting anyone, they see or hear or talk to? Is that what civilization and a social history of 2000 years teaches you? May be yes.

I have the following lines of thought:

1) Humans are animals, in groups.
2) Civilization does not change people to be more human.

Does the civilization make our appetites, thirsts any smaller? No
Does the civilization make a greedy man, not greedy? No
Does civilization reduce the crime rate? No.

All that civilization does is 'it tries to ensures fairness to all'. This is important, since, societies are groups of people, which need some amount of fairness, to sustain (We have many examples of civilizations which had no-fairness, crumbling, be revolutions or something else). The way it ensures fairness, is to build systems of people, like, religion men and folks, king and his folks, your boss and you, family system, judiciary etc...

These systems ensure fairness, within their reach. Before Julius Caesar was assassinated, there was no importance to the concept of body-guarding rulers and religion-men, and after that, it has become important. A family system, was the natural offshoot of the instinctive men, when they need to survive together in a group. Religion, is like, an explanation about the inexplicable, you have a huge storm, and to think that it is fair, you invented religion.

However, people are people. There are many men, whom races/civilizations trusted, and moved to their tunes. To their utter dismay, those men cheated them, just to satisfy their own greed. The lesson is very hard to a 'Germany of Second world war' or, to the 'Troy losing by devious means, with a trojan horse'. These lessons can never be forgotten by people. Next time, if such a ruler/fighter is spotted, he/she is obviously doubted, for the well-being of oneself. And, looks like that is the lesson of History.

But, people are smart and the greed always gets the best of them, right? So, after the systems institute a protocol (law, may be) to punish such men, there will be 10 more loopholes staring in front of the greedy. Don't tell me, once the original flaw is closed, it is one less, No. See, how many bad ways of making money are there today, vs, 200 years ago. Today, people know that their jobs get fake news, and they are loathsome bankers to people, and they charge lot of fee in the name of your child's education, but still do that. All civilization teaches people, is to "just hate each other", sadly.

Calculate, how many such incidents happened in the history-rich East and middle-eat, vs, how many in the USA. USA, does not know, men, as it should, and thinks it is cultured. It still has a lot of potential to (:-() trust men, who are no good.