A few days after Sept 11, I saw the following quote in JP Morgan's 'Technology Industry Daily', and suspect someone was trying to make a point on how America should respond to the attack. So I wrote back to the 'editor'. Resulting exchange follows....
Hi Arthur,
It is scary to think what happens when people do take recommendations like your 'quote of the day' to heart. Did it occur to you to ask who did or will follow that maxim? Last week's event looked like a tremendous whack by any measure. Unless you believe only Americans and British can do that. So please don't encourage extremism to anybody. The world need sense and moderation more than Rambo-like behaviours.....
Quote for the day
"If you have an important point to make, don't try to be subtle or clever. Use a pile driver. Hit the point once. Then come back and hit it again. Then hit it a third time--a tremendous whack."
- Winston Churchill
From: Arthur Iger on 09/21/2001 07:47 AM EDT
To: Chee-Khiaw Cheng@JPMORGAN
Subject: Re: Churchill's Contribution
The quote was meant by Churchill as a guide to public speakers, not as a recommendation for how to pursue a war.
I think that Bush did a good job in his speech of laying out American war aims -- these included taking on only terrorists and the governments that harbor them. I believe that they didn't include massive reflexive bombing as in Vietnam, or symbolic scuds or knocking down pharmaceutical plants as in the Clinton administration. In WWII there was a demonization of the Japanese and German people. One of the great things about America now is that it is multi-ethnic, and they vote, so there isn't really a group that can be scapegoated.
Most other enemies that we've fought have been after stuff. With the communists, it was about the struggle for which system can provide the fastest route to economic development and the fairest distribution of the goods created. In WWII, it was largely about territory and markets. This time, the fight's about cultural values. The terrorists want to get rid of market economies and go back to rule by the priest class. They don't want additional territory and they don't want additional goods and they don't want to take material goods away from their subjects. They're very reactionary. I'm not sure that there's a middle road to dealing with a group that has no demands.
art
To: Arthur Iger@JPMORGAN
Subject: Re: Churchill's Contribution
Churchill's greatest speeches as his use for Britain came only after the war had started. He had another quote along the same line when the US entered WWII : "Germany's fate is sealed. Italy's fate is sealed. Japan will be thrashed. The rest will just be subdued by the use of overwhelming force". Churchill did not make such statements as guide to public speakers. Many such Churchillians still exist in your part of the world and they play their hands as do others in the current war/crusade/infinite justice/revenge/retaliation (from Bush's repertoire). Ignorance applied/assumed is as dangerous as arrogance.
Interesting summary of the values involved in the carnage last week. And what power wielders want (money, markets, territory and influence) although some can be satisfied with less (only influence). So I would agree with it to some extent. Especially if we don't bother to understand why the terrorists got to believe what they believe in in the first place. Why the US and not say Finland, Belgium, Germany or Japan. Or the contributions of especially the US and Britain to the state of affairs in the Islamic world centred in the Middle East (remember also oil?). Or that Judaism, Islam and Christianity have many similarities (so the 2 sides are not that different compared to say Hinduism/Buddhism). Or that the US is a great democracy only within the US and only quite recently if we count the 'coloreds'. Democracy ceased to exist the moment governments run an empire (Robert Taft). I'm sure people will understand what their demands are if they really bother to listen or had democracy in mind e.g. Palestine. But that's more complicated or less palatable for many to discuss/imagine.
There is always a middle ground as long as people are willing to accomodate each other - live and let live, and face up to the truths. But then that's not consistent with a superpower's image of itself.
Rgds
CCK
To: Arthur Iger@JPMORGAN
Subject: Re: Churchill's Contribution
My comments in italics below.
From: Arthur Iger on 09/24/2001 09:33 AM EDT
To: Chee-Khiaw Cheng@JPMORGAN
Subject: Re: Churchill's Contribution
Chee-Khiaw,
Whatever the issues, I think that blowing up innocent civilians isn't the route to resolving them. Anticipating your response, I would agree that the U.S's frequent use of its overwhelming military power against civilian targets isn't a model for how to resolve conflicts.
[CCK: Agree but when will people, especially the very arrogant ones not on the less fortunate end, hear the things I talk about below if it is only words?]
One of your other points, the need for a middle ground. I'm not sure that there's a middle ground acceptable to both parties. There's a fundamental conflict of values. I also wonder if the Saudi arabs who seem to be leading this terrorist gang really represent the wishes of the Arab or Afghan people. So a middle ground with out-of-the-box extremists isn't what the US should be seeking. It's hard to say what most people want in these middle eastern countries because none of them are run by a representative democracy.
[CCK: You are right that the few that did this is probably in the minority. Like you said, you will never how wide support for those bombers really is (not for their method but their underlying sentiments). Especially so, when Bush goes round dictating how the world should react ('you are either with us or you are with the other side' as if the world is in such easy black and white). The only reason why the US gets its way and ended up convinced that the world is as simple as that is because it got used to threatening others in many ways.
And the question is why they do it. Why not earlier. Why not someone else. There are structural problems in the current world system that many rich people led by the Americans do not think has any fault because they have head start and advantages (including wealth from the colonial days that ended only 50 years ago - a short time in human history). There are people elsewhere not as extreme as those bombers who think otherwise. It is more than values. It has also to do with basic needs, respect and self-esteem of many less fortunate people/countries. The arrogant conduct of your country and disregard of what others think/feel/need should be looked at. It also has still to convince everyone that Osama is the and only guy involved. Getting the real perpetrators is acceptable but not to ignore the underlying causes for that carnage including why the US government was caught totally off guard. The latter are not of focus to the general American public because of how the US government had managed it e.g. declaring 'war', 'crusade' etc. Americans are not as 'free' as they think.]
One of the interesting aspects of this conflict is that the US is totally unprepared for this fight. Its military and intelligence services are designed to fight a WWII style army. Missions have been added, not taken away. Using stealth fighters and smart bombs against tents and caves in the desert isn't going to "get" the enemy. The Bush administration shows no willingness to think beyond adding missions. In the end, unless force structures are seriously rethought, the cost for this fight will be unnecessarily overwhelming.
[CCK: The US is unprepared because it thought it can get away with its ways and no one will dare mess with it. It is fear not truth that's behind some of the acquiescence and respect for the US. Some countries could probably have warned the US but did not. How can we all know for sure they didn't know?]
Civilian structures are designed for efficiency and not control. It will be interesting to see if the US can remake itself in the face of this new threat and still remain a free and vibrant society and economy.
[CCK: Power, influence, bullying, efficiency and state of the economy are not God chosen measures of greatness or truths. If you can find them in the Bible let me know. Compassion, caring, sharing and living together are in all religions. Not only within man-made borders but wider. No God I know of talk about creating borders or flags. But many free people are not free enough to think of things that way.]
art
From: Arthur Iger on 09/25/2001 08:28 AM EDT
To: Chee-Khiaw Cheng@JPMORGAN
Subject: Re: Churchill's Contribution
Chee-Khiaw,
I think that countries act rationally in their self-interest. After WWII, the U.S. was afraid of both another depression and of Communism. So it helped rebuild Europe with the Marshall plan -- not for altruistic reasons, but because it realized that the collapse of trade after WWI led to WWII. The US approach to open access to its markets has led to the incredible prosperity that many countries now enjoy. The ideological fight with the communists also led to open markets -- which allowed developing countries to join with the US in the benefits of prosperity.
Capitalism helps create prosperity, but it also changes the power structure within a society. Traditional feudal and theocratic classes lose power to commercial classes. This change is very threatening to traditional societies and their power structures. The challenge for many countries is to adapt capitalism in ways that maintain their unique cultural identity.
In the US, many people believe that capitalism is inextricably linked to individualism and freedom of speech. Many emerging countries don't agree and want to maintain tighter control. Whether it's due to a self serving desire by the ruling party to maintain control of the levers of power , or a genuine nationalism, depends on your perspective. In my view, in the long run, governments always govern with the consent of the governed.
As to US bullying, most countries have a vested interest in continuing the current system that has brought them much prosperity. That's why they go along with the US. There's an old expression, "When the US sneezes, the world catches a cold." No government that wants to stay in power will risk their country catching a cold.
art
To: Arthur Iger@JPMORGAN
Subject: Re: Churchill's Contribution
Arthur,
We are getting much closer to the underlying problems but again we are less than honest with ourselves.
WWI and WWII were fights for more resources (including oil, thus current middle east) and markets/territories where the likes of Britain/France had more of versus the likes of Germany and Japan. The US and Russia did not have that problem and refused to join in for some time (until attacked). If they thought that their trade were restricted the US or Russia would have been the ones initiating war. The other reason for WWII was the punitive war reparations applied on the Germans after WWI. US and Britain decided after WWII that it is better to share the world with those countries than Russia and because they realised that Germany and Japan are not countries they can afford to humiliate for long without pushing them to 'the other side'. Other smaller ones are different matter (according to the likes of Churchill).
Free trade was never a problem for the world. In fact, the world is less free now than a 100, 200 or 1,000 years ago. Then most people could go to most parts of the world to live or work without 'permits' or 'green cards'. A look at the history of the US would show that. Although as we all know, that US 'freedom' also came with quite a bit of slaughtering and slavery of others (that's also not new).
You are right that self interest is the underlying problem (not easy even for the ones enjoying it to say that). That's selfishness not selflessness. That's another way of saying that one has less consideration for others. Another aspect of arrogance. Hardly a virtue in any culture or religion. And if that is the case, one can assume that one should expect some reaction at some point in time if one pushes too far. It is rational. Custer's Last Stand (or rather his Last Attempt at Humiliating Others Somemore), WWII, MacArthur's Korea and now WTC in their own ways are just a few examples.
Rgds
CCK
p.s. Capitalism has a long existence (well before the US discovered it). You may perhaps be thinking about the 'capitalism' of those counter-arguing with the likes of Marx. That's an awfully short history! Freedom (from colonialism, slavery, feudalism etc.), equality and science/technology not capitalism perhaps have greater contribution to the prosperity we see the last 100 years. Again, that should be manifest in US history alone.
From: Arthur Iger on 09/27/2001 09:46 AM EDT
To: Chee-Khiaw Cheng@JPMORGAN
Subject: Re: Churchill's Contribution
Chee-Khiaw,
The concepts of arrogance/humility that you refer to exist in the west, but my guess is that they are more important and meaningful in eastern cultures. Harmony is another value that I believe is more important in eastern cultures.
art
To: Arthur Iger@JPMORGAN
Subject: Re: Churchill's Contribution
Arthur,
All the concepts that I refer to exist everywhere on Earth. Easterners are no different from westerners if we take away the prejudices, arrogance, selfishness & greed. The whites of many western cultures generally live in great harmony with each other. I assume that is important or meaningful for them. Though it may not be so great if we include other 'colours'. I suspect they don't think the latter is important or meaningful.
That is not to say that those behaviours do not exist in the East either. I saw those behaviors when Singapore was starting out as a poor nation and saw it grow as Singapore got richer by the year. That's partly how I arrive at my views. I thought the Asian Financial Crisis was good for Singapore. It brings them back down to Earth. But then I also saw the Americans celebrating their 'irrational exuberance' and 'free market system'.
Many countries West and East, North and South (poor as they may be) take great care to look after all their people of all races. Spain/Portugal could have been like Britain. They ruled the high seas before the Brits got out of the Channel. But they have much better acceptance of blacks in their life and were the first European countries to have black soccer players. They may not be the richest but you will find greater harmony and less killings there. The bombers did not miss them out by accident.
Some of the greatest killings/dyings in this world were results of poverty and lack of basic education - things taken for granted by many among us the 'fortunate'. Some of us takes things too far when we behave arrogantly towards these 'less fortunate'/'able' people (quotes used because they involved some prejudices). These are great challenges being faced by the world outside the rich countries that WTO or 'globalisation' does not address. We lie to ourselves sometimes. For e.g. that 'capitalism' or 'prayers' will somehow make the world better. But how does a family of 5 or 6 living on less than US$20 a month has the capital or blessing to do anything? Not to say to get an ROE of >15% demanded by 'investors' (later quotes used because something else is hiding behind those terms). That is the income of more than half the people in this world. Unless you don't live in the same world as me. Or you don't care.
Arrogance appears when one focus and succeeds in one's greed to gather greater wealth/power/etc. especially if at the expense of others. It usually makes people feel good to be ahead of others materially.
Humility and harmony will come if we bother to be aware and care about the problems of the others esp the 'less fortunate'/'able'. No matter what colour (as long as one is less tinted by it) or part of the world you come from. Try either of the above on your kids or grandchildren and see for yourself.
I don't make money from all my views/comments. No great ROE to show at yearend. Just trying to do my little part in creating some awareness, and more humility/harmony. All of us should/can. Definitely should not do otherwise. And we don't have to learn from Churchill. The world had seen more enlightened and better teachers.
Rgds
CCK
From: Arthur Iger on 09/28/2001 10:10 AM EDT
To: Chee-Khiaw Cheng@JPMORGAN
cc:
Subject: Re: Churchill's Contribution
Chee-Khiaw,
I think that we are different, to a degree. Somewhere I read that there are studies of brain development that are linked to language and culture.
I wish that I could find the reference. I recall it as a legitimate source, though that might not be the case and I may be mis-remembering what I read. Nonetheless, it seems intuitively correct. Just as the brain of a person who is born blind or deaf, for example, develops heightened awareness with his/her other senses, a brain nourished by a certain language or culture will grow in different ways. Brains grow in response to stimuli in the environment. Is it a major factor? I don't know.
But I use the point to justify the point about people being different. Americans, generally, will be disgusted by the thought of eating an insect, but other cultures see them as treats.
art
To: Arthur Iger@JPMORGAN
Subject: Re: Churchill's Contribution
Arthur,
Would be interested in how you conclude that your source is 'legitimate'. And not view it as a possible attempt at justifying some arrogance. Like claiming 'supremacy' of humans versus other organisms by taking brain size into consideration (even then only certain parts of the head).
Like you said, one's senses can get heightened when one uses them i.e. they grow if used. Otherwise if not. They were not born with predetermined developmental paths. Like you said, one's mind grow with stimuli. So, did Americans stimulate their minds by putting themselves in the shoes of the Palestinians, Iraqis, Africans, Vietnamese, Koreans or Afghans? In the shoes of the poorest of the world instead of brandishing their wealth and power, or exhorting the virtues of their 'capitalism' and 'free market'?
Language and culture can probably determine to a certain extent one's thinking process and prejudices/etc.
Environments (including governments, media, religious authorities etc.) probably also determine one's behaviour & outlook. When practiced in extreme or with subtlety they can in fact manipulate esp. those less aware. Those terrorists are probable examples, so are all of us.
So may ignorance play a part (e.g. the Sikh American killed because he 'looked Afghan'). I bet half of Americans do not know what 'Sikh' is before that. What a display of great freedom in that case - ignorance and arrogance taken freely!
You may think genes also play a part. Who knows for sure? Hitler thought so. America disagreed then.
Before Jesse Owens, many might think that only whites run fast. Mostly they and the Japanese took part in the Olympics! The latter would at best be a wonder for the ignorant, and because of great cultures for the arrogant. The truth?
Before Tiger Woods or Vijay Singh only whites win golf tournaments. Genes? Neither Africans, Indians nor Thais used to win golf tournaments - so genes cannot be the reason. The more likely truth is that before that the likes of Tiger Woods or Vijay Singh were likely to be cleaning someone else's barns just to survive.
Many relatives of your forefathers would probably be horrified with eating the first turkeys the Indians brought along. I hope you look at your Thanksgiving Day the way I do - an appreciation of the goodwill shown by the native and non-native people that partook in those first celebrations, not your God that those natives did not believe in (as many Thanksgiving Day proclamations have it).
Many people will not put the above that way to their children. Americans included for I find no 'legitimate' reason why they should not. They are just a few examples of how those in power and arrogance hijacks and corrupts the truth.
It takes awareness of all the above, some fair history and the desire to understand others' situations (putting one in someone else's shoe in your language) to get a balanced view of this world. Formulating an internal comprehension of how things really work and not what others tell us how they work. That means to discover the world bigger than one's own - another way of saying not to be selfish/arrogant. Read not what you are told or what your neighbour says. Discover what you are not told or your neighbor doesn't know. There are a lot of truths hidden from people both subtlely and otherwise. And not many want to or can break out of that unreal world. The flat world before Copernicus is a good example. The 'free market and capitalism are answers to everything' when the world is not truly free is another.
Which is why one should not have those behaviors I mentioned.
Which is why one should get to know as many languages and cultures as possible, and not read them from a narrow set of sources. So what did the Chinese, Iraqis, Belgians, Icelanders or Indonesians said about lessons from WTC? They are too irrelevant for Americans to bother about?
With awareness and the desire to really understand our world, I am certain you will arrive at similar views. Hopefully it also brings humility, moderation and compassion. Not just because it makes one feel good. But because one will then see the terrible results of doing otherwise.
Rgds
CCK
To: Arthur Iger@JPMORGAN
Subject: Re: Churchill's Contribution
Arthur, My comments in italics. Rgds CCK
From: Arthur Iger on 10/01/2001 06:35 AM EDT
To: Chee-Khiaw Cheng@JPMORGAN
Subject: Re: Churchill's Contribution
Chee-Khiaw,
My Thanksgiving holiday thoughts generally go to being thankful that America took in my parents and my sister when they were on the run from the Nazis. (I know that a lot of others didn't get in and died in the death camps as a result).
[CCK: Many people died in Palestine, Vietnam, Korea, Afghanistan and elsewhere too. Many millions of them remain poor and homeless today. They will probably die that way without us talking about them. I sympathise with them all. I also sometimes wonder why Jews seem to be enmeshed in the most extreme of situations: doing really well in certain environments like capitalism where greed plays such a key role, and the worst of modern conflicts where hatred/arrogance are so prominent. Perhaps they are all accidents or someone did not 'work' hard enough.]
I'm thankful for the richness of the land, its openness to immigrants, and its ability to reward those who are willing to work hard. (I'm also aware that there's a lot more work to be done.).
[CCK: If that's the case, why do the likes of Woods, Jordan, Powell or Rice appear only 200 years after the creation of the US? It is and was not as simple as that.]
Anyone can leave America who thinks that they can get a better deal somewhere else. (So far, more people want in than want out.)
[CCK: That's a very arrogant way of saying things considering my questions above. That sounds like the beginning of all the exoduses familiar to your forefathers. And you seem to think you can decide things for America! That may perhaps be the case but I don't think many in free America are aware of it.]
I am sorry that America is seen as arrogant in many quarters. America is a great power and, whatever the reality, that's how great powers are perceived.
[CCK: In many eyes Nazi Germany was a great power too. If sorry is all we end with, then we do great injustice to the many who died before us.]
Thanks for your thoughts,
art
No comments:
Post a Comment