The Violence of Competition: Gladiators, Guards, & Government.
In a communicative speech given only minutes ago this first day of June, two-thousand nine anno domini, the United States empire’s president Barack Obama stated the government’s defense for the bankruptcy filing by the automobile manufacturer, General Motors. Evident by the majority shares purchase, Obama, his automotive task force, and the Department of the Treasury support the bankruptcy and the suppossed coming rise of a "new, leaner and stronger GM." Obama remarked toward the end of his address that the ultimate end is for American business to compete globally.
So…
If U.S. businesses are intended to "compete globally" then is the U.S. government ultimately seeking to send people who function within the economic system of another nation into the same type of jobless recession that the U.S. is currently experiencing? Is the drive to compete in business fueled by the longing for self-absorbtion, self-fulfillment, and self-gratification while promoting oppression of others? There are those who think that the people of the U.S. "deserve to be on top." Does such a philosophy reveal an ever-present racism?
What ever happened to loyalty? To friendship? To mutual respect and sharing? Why do our lives center around having more and being the best? What ever happened to Martin Luther King Jr.’s dream? Did that only apply to Americans?
And while I’m at it, why are we so dependent on automobiles?
Competition is violent. Just ask the gladiators in the Colosseum. Ask the guards on the offensive line. Ask the economically oppressed nations.
“Much violence is based on the illusion that life is a property to be defended and not to be shared.”
Henri Nouwen
32 Responses to “The Violence of Competition: Gladiators, Guards, & Government.”
Leave a Reply
“Ask the economically oppressed nations.”
What nations are economically oppressed and how do we ask them?
Possibly GM could have competed globally if they hadn’t developed line after line of such similar cars – only looking slightly different with the aesthetics. And should they really have invested so much money in developing the Volt when the rest of the company was sinking into the abyss of it’s own debt?? Don’t get me wrong – I commend them on their “go green” efforts…but really? They developed too many brand new models, crossovers, and gas-suckers then what their bureaucratic budget could stand.
It’s funny how when I read your “US deserves to be on top” comment on American mentality, I automatically thought of my dad. He used to be fiercely devoted to buying American-made cars and he now he says, “Well, maybe we should look at the foreign-made.” His generation was simply raised to rely on the resources at hand, their fellow countryman’s products. Patriotism via consumerism. I wonder too where that went and when the lust for success, money, and power made the idea of competition become so brutal.
Let me know what you think about this blog I’ve read a few times: http://globalpatriot.com/
Good post to get me thinking this morning
Isn’t “ask the economically oppressed nations” a rhetorical thought/question?
Can’t we just talk about whether God approves of tattoos or not?
ok then. what nations are ecomically oppressed?
i mean “economically.”
Whoever is not doing well economically because of American oppression. In these terms, whoever Americans are defeating in the competition.
Which nations are those, Joe?
etude finch,
I’d need to have further clarification to really understand what Travis meant by “ask the economically oppressed nations. I’m equally unsure about your line of questioning. Are you intimating that there are no economically oppressed nations? That US foreign policy is not responsible for any of this oppression?
Taking your question at face value I’d say you might start by looking south to Cuba. Of course the longest trade embargo in modern history doesn’t seem to effect Cuba’s leaders, just their poor. The embargo has been condemned by almost everyone on the planet aside from our government.
Cuba is oppressed by its dictator. If adminstrations from JFK on have chosen not to trade with a country that stole the private property of its citizens, puts Christians in prisons, and refuses to let its people emigrate, is that really oppression?
Cuba trades with Canada, Europe, Russia, South America, etc. Let “almost everyone on the planet” trade with Castro. Europe will sell anything to anybody.
if anyone cares about the original context of Travis’ suggestion that competition is violent – and that a great example of that is the economic oppression of nations – they should then watch “Blood Diamond”, if they would like a more specific example of an economically oppressed nation.
another example…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cdrCalO5BDs
EF,
You’re very right in saying that Castro’s policies have been primary in the oppression of the Cuban people. He certainly uses the embargo as an excuse for the status quo. However, there are always complexities to these kinds of issues and you would have to be naive, ignorant, or wantonly irresponsible to overlook US complicity in the plight of the Cuban people. I’m talking about the people not the government and the people are always the ones who get crapped on. Also, I was referring to Christians all over the world who have condemned the embargo as hurtful only to the most needy of the island’s citizens. By the way, almost every administration since JFK (and including JFK) have thought the embargo is useless and hurts the poor. Almost all of them have had ongoing secretive talks to normalize relations but they have fallen apart for reasons legitimate and otherwise. I think it is ok to be a grateful, supportive US citizen that can also admit that we are highly flawed as a country (no different than any other country).
Tom, you can also see the devastating effects of the violence of greed and competition by studying the events surrounding “The Trail of Tears”. This was the forcible removal of native Americans from the deep south after they had made every attempt to follow the rules the US government set out for them. They provided too much competition for US citizens.
i haven’t seen it. thanks for the recommendation.
>>You’re very right in saying that Castro’s policies have been primary in the oppression of the Cuban people.
Thank you.
>>>…Almost all of them have had ongoing secretive talks to normalize relations but they have fallen apart for reasons legitimate and otherwise.
So Castro AND Cuban-Americans in Florida who elect anti-Castro representatives are responsible for oppressing Cuba and so I should admit that the US is “highly flawed as a country”? The logic escapes me.
And are you saying Sierra Leone is an ecomonically oppressed country because they had a civil war and the US is responsible? (If so, who oppressed the US in the 1860s to bring about its civil war?)
Do you know of any other economically oppressed countries?
There are economically oppressed and wealthy people in every nation. I have a hard time picking a nation to be a posterboy for what happens in every country. I tend to think of countries in the South Pacific like the Philippines, Vietnam, Thailand, China, Indonesia, Malaysia, and India, and every other place that you can read on the tongue of our shoes and tags of our shirts (i realize that there are tagless shirts made now that are also made form these countries, I assume you the metaphor). I think it’s great that we don’t have 7 year old kids in factories working 60 hour weeks in America. But I don’t think that it’s great that we can buy our stuff at half the price because it’s okay to make a 7 year old kid work 60 our weeks for pocket change because 1.We don’t have to see it 2. It’s still a job opportunity that he might not have had 3.We can buy even more … things… because we have so much money left over. There are more televisions in American homes than running showers. If we make the laws because we think that it’s morally wrong to live a certain way, then why is it okay to outsource the immoral to other countries? Is that not oppression? Did I miss something?
I am saying that Sierra Leone is economically oppressed because their country was raped of it’s valuable resource (by American/European corporations), yet profited nothing themselves, except a generous amount of violence. Which drives home Travis’ original point that competition is violent. just ask the economically oppressed nations, like Sierra Leone.
America’s civil war was fought because of it’s own oppression of a highly profitable African population, often referred to as slaves, who picked shit-loads of cotton, yet profited nothing themselves, except a generous amount of violence.
EF,
I wasn’t saying you should admit anything. I’m saying that I personally am a grateful for and supportive of my country while admitting that it has significant flaws. I’m saying that I can see both the good and bad in our country and I think that’s not only ok but needed in order for our country to be what we claim that it is. We have meddled in the affairs of the middle east and South America for years, helping to install governments just to turn around and attempt to unseat them when they don’t do what we want. We have greed, genocide, slavery, racism, suspect foreign policies, crooked politicians and 1980′s hair bands in our past that make us highly flawed. Our current economic crisis should be an example of our frailty. We also have shinning examples of goodness in our past and present that have set a high standard for our future.
You said: “So Castro AND Cuban-Americans in Florida who elect anti-Castro representatives are responsible for oppressing Cuba and so I should admit that the US is “highly flawed as a country”? The logic escapes me.” What strikes you as illogical about this? Two people or groups that hate one another being willing to hurt the weak in order to play out their hatred? Have you ever been through a divorce or counseled those who have? Often the kids get smashed in order for the people in “control” to play their game. Same principle on an international scale. It is possible to have two parties with opposing opinions who both happen to be wrong. I guess we could just sit around saying, “The US is good enough, smart enough, and gosh darn it people like us!” It seems like a case of rose colored glasses to me.
Peace,
M. Feltner
Joe, it’s just shallow thinking and lazy to say that we oppress other countires when we buy things from their businesses. That kind of paternalistic thinking is what is crippling many countries.
TJ, Sierra Leone is selling its diamonds to foreign companies. Who else are they suppoed to sell them to, Sierra Leoneans? You say that buying diamonds from them is raping them of a valuable resource. How are they valuable if nobody buys them?
Matt, if the US changed policy toward Cuba and let Americans buy cigars, bananas, and whatever else Cuba has and start going to Cuban casinos, you would probably call that economic oppression, too. I guess it’s OK if it’s helps a communist dictator. US-Cuba relations are just like divorce “on an international scale”? Please tell me you’re not in education or government.
right. because they need western, white corporations to buy their diamonds and distribute them for them, leaving them enough profit to finance a war. those dumb black Africans. can’t they do anything for themselves??
Dadkii waa dhibtee nagala soobax
Dhibkii waa batee nagla soobax
Dhiigi waad qubtee nagala soobax
Dhulkii waad gubtee nagala soobax
Nagala soobax, nagala soobax
Dadkii waa dhibtee nagala soobax
Dhibkii waa batee nagla soobax
Dhiigi waad qubtee nagala soobax
Take me deeper then finch. I do believe that systemic oppression does exist, even if we don’t realize that it’s wrong. Did people specifically enforce reading tests as a voting requirement to keep Black people out of poles, probably not, but did it oppress an entire people group? yes. Do businesses exist that partake in practices that are “immoral” even by the most “secular” standards that we hold in America today? yes they do. Why is it shallow thinking that support of a company that practices immoral actions is supporting immoral actions?
Look, I just want to know what countries are economically oppressed by the United States. I don’t think Cuba is: even Matt said Castro is the primary oppressor of the Cuban people. And if African countries have diamonds, why should they not sell them and why is that the fault of the US? And pointing to slavery, Jim Crow, or the treatment of American Indians doesn’t answer the question at all. To me, you ALL seem to have a knee-jerk “blame America first” attitude that I do not understand.
Do other countries economically oppress the United States?
Is it fair to only question the integrity of competition when it is not sports-related?
Why ARE we so reliant on automobiles?
…and do we (myself very much included) get so caught up in trying to prove our own points that we sound like clanging gongs?
well, i apologize, because my argument had nothing to do with “blaming America first”. my argument was under the context that competition is violent, no matter who we blame (which I think is the real issue at hand, needing to be reconciled). but it is obvious, in my mind, that any first world country has it’s own interest and self-worth in mind, above all else – and inevitably, it results in oppression of third world people groups, while raping the land of resources, like bananas, diamonds, oil, etc.
I agree with the ghost of Tom Joad.
Violence is violent. Competition is not. Rape is rape. Buying diamonds or gasoline is not. Bananas are a crop, not a resource.
Having an automobile=freedom, the opposite of dependence (Travis) or reliance (Steph). You people act like you feel oppressed by your own cars.
“Much violence is based on the illusion that life is a property to be defended and not to be shared.”
Henri Nouwen
If having an automobile is freedom, and we live in the land of the free, a land where most folks have (many don’t own it, their banks do) an automobile, then why are so many people in America not free. Living in debt, with depression, in the midst of divorce. The reason some of us believe that an automobile may not be freeing is because to use it one must be licensed, have insurance, fuel, oil, properly maintenanced tires and brakes, child safety seating, etc, etc. To account for such things one must work for pay. As time and work goes into appropriating these THINGS, we are more likely to become violent in defense of our things that we have worked so hard to appropriate. We have more in common with our whips than the guy/girl down the hall.
Is technology freedom?
Joe, I have two cars. I bought them used. I own them. Not the bank. I was free to buy them or go in to debt for a car. I am also free not to own a car if I chose. Free as in freedom. As in life, LIBERTY, and the pursuit of happiness. I have never been violent to defend my stuff, but it’s nice to know if I want to steal your THINGS, you won’t get violent.
How can you sit at your computer and ask “is technology freedom?” Even you must see how wacky that is?
My head spins with the silliness of it all.
What planet do you live on, people?
You are silly. Sorry I just wanted to say that to start off. Things can bring freedoms and take away freedoms at the same time. Although an automobile can allow me to travel longer distances in shorter periods of time they also bring on all the things Joe brought up. Although a computer and internet allow me to communicate to more people with less effort (a freedom which I value) it also makes me feel as if I am somehow missing something if I take a break from the internet for a few days. When I’m out of college I’ll have to pay for the internet (unless I decide to steal it from someone who is paying). I think you are silly if you don’t realize that although technology can bring a lot of benefits it can also bring a lot of things that do not bring us closer together but further apart. If you can not see any of the ways technology has hurt us then I would question which planet you live on.
- “Is technology freedom” was the question? It was a question. A question asked, not a statement implied.
– I’ll let you in on my line of thought. The kingdom of God is here and now but not here fully. The Kingdom of God is contrary and backwards to that of the world. Life is no longer defined as existence, but is rather something that is first found in death. In this kingdom “upside down” that I believe in, there is a foundation to all philosophy. I believe, even when I don’t understand, that Freedom is found in Christ. Freedom to live. This freedom is for all people who live in America and don’t live in America. Some have said that with Christ people can turn prisons into sanctuaries (Martin Luther King Jr. and Nelson Mandela). Even behind bars people can be totally free.
This is how it’s possible for me to type the question “is technology freedom?” on my expensive, hi-tech, laptop computer. I am free to ask questions about things that seem obvious. I would rather be wrong and ask, and spend time thinking about it. I don’t care if i’m right, I just think there is more to it. The internet allows me access to many more people and things than I would have had access to twenty years ago, but is there something about a handwritten letter. There’s something about watching your vegetables grow, and biking or walking into town to work. It’s this “something” that I am interested in.
– In my thought, if technology is freedom then and life is existence, and modern medicine is practically equivalent to Christ. I don’t see a consistency, so I ask a question.
– Hey brother, I don’t know where your are or who you are, but if you want to meet sometime and talk, that’s cool.
– Technology allows me to have a conversation with a person I don’t not know. I don’t feel it would go the same if we were face to face. Even if it’s just on my side, I know I would be different. I feel like technology can be dehumanizing.
Daniel, It would be nice if we all lived in Perelandra.
Joe, You’re right. The Kingdom is the thing, isn’t it?
Sorry I haven’t read C.S. Lewis’ sci-fi trilogy so I don’t get the reference. I like C.S. Lewis a lot so hopefully I’ll get around to reading it eventually.
Great book. Of course you must read Out of the Silent Planet first.