In Space, Forced Conversion Is Exactly The Same As Ecumenism

[bellatrys]

I have to say, I am a little surprised at all the suggestions of the Vulcan non-interference proto-Prime-Directive being posited as examples of the Ming-the-Merciful "liberating" conquest of Earth with saucers and death-rays and giant robots and powered battle armor, moving into "Destroy the planet to save it" territory

Comments

Regarding the Prime Directive

[deiseach]

That's interesting, since I've seen a few (only a couple, three) comments about the Prime Directive scorning it - generally in terms of '60s hippy-dippy radical Leftist rubbish

well, and you're also a descendent

[bellatrys]

of people who *survived* such a benevolent [sic] reshaping by an invading "superior" civilization. That may make an incalculable differnce in perspective - I really do want people to envision what ID4 would feel like, IFF the aliens were here not to Take Our Stuff and exterminate us, but rather to bring us the blessings of their superior technology and socio-economic structures, and considered the obliteration of existing world capitals to be nothing more than necessary "laser surgery" for the greater good of us all, and couldn't figure out why we got so upset after our metropolises were razed and our armies destroyed...

I can see I'm probably going to have to write that myself, though. Most Americans (and plenty of Britons) don't seem capable of imagining themselves on the receiving end, whether it's "benevolent invasion" or "benevolent dictatorship" when they start prating about how it would be a Good Thing to happen to Other People, in fiction or in fact.

Re: well, and you're also a descendent

[voxwoman]

There were alien civillizations (or at least one in memory) that did this on Stargate SG:1 - but not to Earth (well, there was that time travel one, where Earth was invaded "peacefully" and given longevity with the side effect of sterilization), so maybe at least 2 storylines of that ilk, but the aliens were always portrayed as Evil(tm) and we avoided the "fate worse than death" (or death) by the skin of our teeth at the last second (SOP for SG1 episodes).

And the SG team always thought it was a bad thing for the interference.

They didn't have a prime directive, but they also wouldn't just come in and try to convert planets (of a few thousand or so inhabitants, usually) to Our Ways, either.

come to think of it, wasn't the continued Goua'uld (however you spell that) threat just this sort of thing that you're talking about?

In none of the SG eps that I saw

[bellatrys]

or have read recaps/transcripts of, was the Goauld [sp?] ever presented as anything but a bunch of power-hungry bastards fighting for dominion over everyone and everything else. They didn't, unless it was retconned in at some point, *ever* think that they were playing God-kings for the benefit of their subjects rather than themselves. (The Asgard crew followed the benevolent-hands-off model, iirc.) It could have been interesting if they had - or if the Ra of the movie had turned out to be a rogue type, "god of Thulcandra" Goauld - but that wasn't the way it was played afaik.

So, um, no, not really.

[randwolf]

Cortez cried when he realized that the only way he would rule Mexico was by destroying Tenochtitlán, the most beautiful city he had ever seen. The Mexica would not surrender, because Cortez had already proven himself treacherous.

On the other hand, there are already 130,000 dead (estimated) in Myanmar, and 2.4 million in need of aid--if the government of Myanmar does not accept aid, there could easily be another 500,000 deaths. In this very extreme circumstance, I might support a carefully planned international military intervention; I would not support a Bush administration intervention, because the Bush administration has proven spectacularly incompetent at it, twice.

So who would you support in it?

[bellatrys]

Where will you find your army of angels, instead of your bunch of people who despise poor people for being poor and foreign people for being foreign and don't even realize that they do, because this is our culture bred in the bone? Where will you whistle up ten-thousand Romeo Dallaires, so as not to create another Amritsar, another massacre in Mogadishu, and hence the blowback that led to Blackhawk down, and further US scorn/hate/fear of those we were supposedly "helping"?

Abstraction is all very well, but we don't live in the world of the Platonic forms. (I leave aside the problems of how contemporary Myanmar is greatly the result of colonial British messes post-WWII and Western oil baronies perfectly happy to allow any tyranny so long as the barrels of oil/money keep rolling back and forth, because I am strapped for time.)

How will you not make things worse by sending in conquerers?

or, shorter P@L

[bellatrys]

Geez, you've only got three of the Horsemen, let's give you the Fourth to make it a complete set! How come you're not grateful?

Re: So who would you support in it?

[randwolf]

The UN, which is multicultural. That said, it's extremely unlikely that the UN will intervene militarily--China, Russia, and perhaps the USA would oppose it, or insist on running the operation to their taste. (Permanent members of the Security Council was a really dumb idea.) It would be hard, but it doesn't have to be conquest; UN peacekeepers have overseen elections before, and Myanmar even has a legitimately elected President, Daw Aung San Suu Kyi, who the junta is keeping under house arrest. One would have to weigh the strategic alternatives, but the truth of the matter is--and we all know it--that diplomacy has failed in Myanmar for decades and there are millions of lives at immediate risk.

[violaswamp]

Well, people confuse anti-interventionism with relativism and lack of concern for human rights, believing that "we shouldn't invade Iraq and get rid of Saddam" is the same as saying "Saddam is not a horrible dictator." Much of this confusion is dishonest and trumped-up by National Review types, the sorts who cheerfully ignore the fact that feminists have been calling attention to the oppression of women under the Taliban (for instance) long before 9/11 made it cool. But some of it is honest, especially for people whose only exposure to anti-imperialist thought is through straw-leftists or the occasional obscure academic who makes some outrageous statement. Of course, since a big reason for my opposing the Iraq war is that it was destined to be a humanitarian catastrophe, I spend a lot of time arguing with these notions when I talk to people.

There's a book I'm really looking forward to reading on this subject, Humanitarian Imperialism by Jean Bricmont. The linked interview is pretty interesting in how he talks about which human

Thanks for that link

[bellatrys]

I will definitely ahve to check that book out.

Re: Thanks for that link

[violaswamp]

Based on his interviews, I doubt I'll agree with everything he says, but it should make for interesting reading.

[tlachtga]

The only reason the Vulcans came to mind for me anyway is because of the idea of an outside force controlling us in some manner "for our own good". But yeah, it's not what you meant.

[tlachtga]

And, I mean, I'd like to think I'm intelligent enough to know that imperialism is bad, regardless of what the imperialist thinks about civilizing or liberating or saving their victims. I just wasn't entirely clear what answer you were looking for in your original question. I mean, I don't think giving the wrong answer to your question--and knowing it wasn't really the right answer to being with, but just kind of wanting to contribute some idea off the top of my head--should be the test for whether I'm an imperialist toady and very bad person or not.