7-Feb-11 News -- Cameron's attack on 'Multiculturalism'

Discussion of Web Log and Analysis topics from the Generational Dynamics web site.

7-Feb-11 News -- Cameron's attack on 'Multiculturalism'

Postby John » Mon Feb 07, 2011 12:38 am

7-Feb-11 News -- Cameron's attack on 'Multiculturalism' advances the theory of suicide bombers

Why do some cultures celebrate terrorism, and others don't?

** 7-Feb-11 News -- Cameron's attack on 'Multiculturalism' advances the theory of suicide bombers
** http://www.generationaldynamics.com/cgi-bin/D.PL?xct=gd.e110207#e110207
John
 
Posts: 4440
Joined: Sat Sep 20, 2008 12:10 pm
Location: Cambridge, MA USA

Re: 7-Feb-11 News -- Cameron's attack on 'Multiculturalism'

Postby vincecate » Mon Feb 07, 2011 7:45 am

John wrote:For the first 40 years after the end of the war (generational Recovery and Awakening eras), there is relatively little violence, and such as there is is resolved by police action or mediation by the elders.


John, I suspect there is a link between generational dynamics and attitudes toward guns. I really think it is worth checking into.

My mother-in-law is 87 years old and "fought" in Anguilla's revolution. Clearly a hero personality type. As part of getting independence from St Kitts and keeping independence from St Kitts many guns were first smuggled and then shipped into Anguilla. After St Kitts was out there was not really a police force here for awhile. People were responsible for protecting themselves and often had the guns to do so. She, and much of her generation, had weapons and was comfortable with them. There was almost no crime in Anguilla for more than 30 years. One of the safest places in the world.

However, about 10 years ago they stopped issuing gun licenses so that good guys could legally defend themselves and crime is going up (still not too bad but the trend is bad). My mother-in-law's generation is dying off and guns from the revolution days are gone or in museums. There is a very different view towards guns now. Even my mother-in-law is not in favor of issuing gun licenses. To me it seems like their generation feels they protected and fixed Anguilla so there is no need for guns any more. The truth is criminals still have guns. It is like these older folks want to protect us from guns but in trying to do so they are destroying the country.

The author of "More Guns Less Crime" has looked at different statistics and found that whenever you make it harder for good guys to get guns to defend themselves the violent crime rate goes up. In Jamaica they took guns from the good guys in 1974 and the murder rate is now 10 times higher. To me it makes sense. You improve working conditions for criminals when you disarm their victims. This makes crime a more attractive profession. Those in it can expand their business and more will join.

http://www.amazon.com/More-Guns-Less-Cr ... 956&sr=8-1

Anyway, I bet views towards guns is part of the change in generational attitudes and level of good-guy gun ownership is much of the reason for change in violent crime levels. After a war there are more guns around. People who have used guns in a war seem more likely to keep a gun at home. Someone who has shot at people in war will not find it as hard to shoot at a burglar in their house as people who were never in war.
vincecate
 
Posts: 1253
Joined: Mon May 10, 2010 7:11 am
Location: Anguilla

Re: 7-Feb-11 News -- Cameron's attack on 'Multiculturalism'

Postby vincecate » Mon Feb 07, 2011 5:02 pm

While other places have changed attitudes towards guns, Switzerland has had about the same attitude for a very long time. So I wondered what Generational Dynamics would say about Switzerland. The page does not say much. Does Switzerland with their fixed attitudes about guns not behave like other countries, does it not have generational dynamics? This may fit with my idea that generational attitudes towards guns are important for generational dynamics. If a population is disarmed invasion is much more reasonable. It may take 80 years to get people fully disarmed to encourage the next invasion.

John, any thoughts on Switzerland or the relation of gun attitudes and generational dynamics?

http://www.generationaldynamics.com/cgi ... 2010.cs.sz
vincecate
 
Posts: 1253
Joined: Mon May 10, 2010 7:11 am
Location: Anguilla

Re: 7-Feb-11 News -- Cameron's attack on 'Multiculturalism'

Postby OLD1953 » Tue Feb 08, 2011 12:17 am

I'd have to say that every country has suicide attackers during a crisis, however, if they are in a crisis war, the suicide attackers are "inside" the social norm and lauded (Medal of Honor during WWII, which is NOT the same as Medal of Honor in prior times, etc) while suicidal attacks when not at war are "outside" the social norm and not lauded except for a small peer group. I don't really differentiate between someone who charges a machine gun and someone who blows themselves up to attack those they perceive as enemies of their way of life, it's a different mechanism, but the internal thought process OF THE PERSON PERFORMING THE ACTION has to be remarkably similar, IOW, self sacrifice, determination for revenge or prevention of further damage to the home family or society, etc.

Socially we see these actions as immensely different, but does the suicide bomber see himself any differently than Rodger Young saw himself?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rodger_Wilton_Young

I submit that the difference is in the outside, not the inside. And that's the essence of the generational dynamic at work, during a crisis era people will attack those they perceive as enemies of their "way" with any means that come to hand, and the longer the official declaration of war is delayed, the more bitterly they will attack. Individuals will tend to use explosives, persons inside a support structure (military) will use more sophisticated means.

This post will get some flames.
OLD1953
 
Posts: 946
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 11:16 pm

Re: 7-Feb-11 News -- Cameron's attack on 'Multiculturalism'

Postby jkeating » Tue Feb 08, 2011 5:45 pm

As for a culture "celebrating terrorism", what is the definition of terrorism? Is it to make innocent civilians terrified? Is it attacking innocent civilians such as my mother, Barbara Keating, who died on AA Flt 11 on Sep 11?

"Shock and Awe" was widely celebrated in the US, but what was it? It was shooting rockets into downtown Baghdad to start the invasion of Iraq. These rockets killed, burned and maimed innocent civilians in a crowded city. One must assume that all 6 million residents of Baghdad were terrorized - in fact, if "Shock and Awe" was successful then the residents most certainly were feeling terror since that was the objective. Shooting a rocket into an American city would be considered an act of terrorism.

When the US sends heavily armed, pilot-less drones over Pakistan or Afghanistan whose operators are in a control room in Colorado, do these drones terrorize the people on the ground? Most likely they so, since thousands of innocent people have been killed and maimed by them because thei drone operators often have no idea what they're seeing on their screens. Is their use celebrated in the US and their operators considered 'heroes'? I say that they are. Killing innocent people on the ground in the US using a drone would be considered terrorism.

We kill and terrorize innocent people who have never meant us any harm and yet we never think that our acts of war make us "terrorists". Terrorism is not restricted to any religion, skin color, nationality, etc. It's a result of actions.
jkeating
 


Return to Weblog News Comments and Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 2 guests

cron