Us Vs. Them

A man walked into a diner wearing a red jacket adorned with the logo and emblem of a certain sports team, the team of an out of town school. The conversation between the waitress and patrons began to evolve into a competition between what school team they supported, and how the school they attended was superior. This odd competition seems to be common place in society.  Human history is speckled with this mindset. This concept is seen in the micro with local towns and school competition to the macro as seen with Adolf Hitler and the rise of the Third Reich and the desire to put one race above all others. Somewhere within culture man has developed a concept of “Us vs. Them”. Karl Marx saw the problem arise in the bourgeoisie, a group of capitalists seen as evil and exploitative (Marx, 02). This is also seen in the nomadic tribes throughout ancient Mesopotamia, and support for their gods, or at a level of a local inner city gang who defends their colors and traditions.

To contemplate the Us Vs Them concept and attempt to see it in every day life all around is an enlightening exercise.  It can enable one to begin to gain a better perception of the world around.  It can help one to begin to open their eyes to new possibilities and alternatives that may have not been previously aware of.  Far too often the only conflict in a situation is simply this concept alone.

America should return to a foreign policy of old.  A non-interventionist neutral concept that would serve to avoid conflicts and dependence.  The nation as a whole has taken a philosophy that will only ruin relationships with the world and weaken the nation as a whole.  To stand against wars alone would not be acceptable, one must watch friendships and alliances.

There are philosophical, financial, and political stand points to support such a neutral policy.  Karl Marx envisioned a world working as clockwork all without possessions all a ward of the state all equal and peaceful.  Under his world view this would work, only his approach and foundation for all of this was flawed. This would only work with beings who did not posses so many flaws, desires, and such a spirit of competition which naturally runs through human beings.  This unity may sound nice, but how can it come to be if even a local society can not work together peacefully?

It seems that man has an instinct to find a place within society where they feel a sense of belonging, brotherhood, and comradary. In Hellenistic cultures one can see the schools of philosophy that were chosen at a young age before the individual had a chance to truly come to a complete knowledge of what it was they were dedicating their lives to. As Plato wrote attributing to Socrates, “An unexamined life is a life not worth living.”(Plato, 71) So as a part of examining one’s life and finding purpose and place within the scheme of the world around them humans tend to collect into these groups that focus upon their similarities, and the differences of neighboring groups. This is one major problem with creating a complete utopia and peaceful society. It is the concept of human error and conflict with which we have always struggled. Much of this paper will focus on the conflicts that can occur, and individual and their desires to be free as well as the flaws men have and how a society can allow for these individual identifications to thrive without the attempt of oppression. This will touch on subjects of examining one’s life, concepts of personal responsibility, and government. This will also touch on concepts of compassion in relationship to responsibility and liberty as a whole.

To remain as uninvolved with foreign disputes as possible is also a major point of America’s founding fathers. There were few functions of federal government perceived by Thomas Jefferson. The basic concept was to keep peace and order. Being a government of the people those people should take up the shared burden of compassion and responsibility within the society so that the government should have no reason to take steps to intervene. It is solely on the shoulders of the people to act accordingly. It is in part the government’s part to nurture philosophy of ethics within the people that will enable it’s citizens to function properly.

George Washington made it a point to emphasize a non interventionist foreign policy in his farewell address.   “The great rule of conduct for us in regard to foreign nations is in extending our commercial relations, to have with them as little political connection as possible. So far as we have already formed engagements, let them be fulfilled with perfect good faith. Here let us stop. Europe has a set of primary interests which to us have none; or a very remote relation. Hence she must be engaged in frequent controversies, the causes of which are essentially foreign to our concerns. Hence, therefore, it must be unwise in us to implicate ourselves by artificial ties in the ordinary vicissitudes of her politics, or the ordinary combinations and collisions of her friendships or enmities.”

Washington warned against the entanglements of a foreign policy that became too entangled or involved with others.  One can look at our past and see where our interaction with other countries has grown and conflicts have grown.  If one looks at points that America has kept far from the affair of the world they will find much more peace.  There will come times when certain involvements may become necessary such as in the case of World War II.  These problems must be avoided.  To take a stance of involvement and force as a preventitive measure can often be the jumping point in itself of the entire conflict.

Many of the ethics in countries such as China oppose those that the United States holds.  Keeping the stance and philosophy of Washington in mind one must ask what part should the United States take in all of this.  Many are threatened by concepts and priorities that China holds in regards to Enviornment and human rights.  There are some that would feel it is the United States or United Nations place to correct this country.  The United States has gone far from Washington’s vision to becoming the police state, or an answer for policies and hurts of almost all other nations.  Nothing could be further from Washington’s vision for the country. (Johnson, 01)

Financially war is not necessarily good.  If one provides for a war such as the case with America in World War II it is seen that war is profitable.  In cases where one must fund and pay for the war it is seen that such a thing can be a drain on resources, funds, and human lives.    Reperations are another cost of war, once the victory has been declared the United States begins to pay to rebuild another country. (Parrini, 02)  The exchange of funds between governments seems to often breed more tension, both between the countries involved and other countries who look on while this occurs.

Preventative actions are often seen as a reason for entanglements with other countries.  These actions are based often on fear of the other country growing to a point that they could cause America harm.  Is it ethical to take punitive steps against a country that may cause an incident?  John R. Bolton writes of many possible nuclear threats from other countries.  The question here is often why do these countries want to have nuclear capabilities?  America has such capabilities, but why?  Do they plan on using them against the world?  Is this the intent of other countries to use them against the world?  Is it not logical for other countries to fear the United States and the awesome power they hold against mankind and in retaliation wish to have an equal power to protect ones self?  By growing as large and powerful as the United States has grown would it be logical to expect an escalation across the world in the same direction?  How is it a country will punish another country for wanting to raise to a higher more equal level?  Has becoming more involved in foreign relations actually created the monsters one fears?

Parrini, Carl P, and James I. Matray. “Reparations.” Encyclopedia of American Foreign Policy. Ed. Alexander DeConde, Richard Dean Burns and Fredrik Logevall. 2nd ed. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 2002. Opposing Viewpoints Resource Center. Gale. Apollo Library. 22 Sep. 2008 <http://find.galegroup.com/ovrc/infomark.do?&contentSet=GSRC&type=retrieve&tabID=T001&prodId=OVRC&docId=EJ3010308107&source=gale&srcprod=OVRC&userGroupName=apollo&version=1.0>.

John R. Bolton. “Rogue Nations Pose a Serious Nuclear Threat.” Opposing Viewpoints: Rogue Nations. Ed. Louise Gerdes. Detroit: Greenhaven Press, 2006. Opposing Viewpoints Resource Center. Gale. Apollo Library. 22 Sep. 2008 <http://find.galegroup.com/ovrc/infomark.do?&contentSet=GSRC&type=retrieve&tabID=T010&prodId=OVRC&docId=EJ3010448213&source=gale&srcprod=OVRC&userGroupName=apollo&version=1.0>.

Johnson, Chalmers. “The United States Should Not Try to Control China.” Opposing Viewpoints: China. Ed. James D. Torr. San Diego: Greenhaven Press, 2001. Opposing Viewpoints Resource Center. Gale. Apollo Library. 22 Sep. 2008 <http://find.galegroup.com/ovrc/infomark.do?&contentSet=GSRC&type=retrieve&tabID=T010&prodId=OVRC&docId=EJ3010117231&source=gale&srcprod=OVRC&userGroupName=apollo&version=1.0>.

Marx, Karl., & Engels, Friedrich. (2002). The Communist Manifesto. London: Penguin Group.

Plato,  (1971). The Republic (13th ed.). Baltimore: Penguin Books Ltd.

Washington George, (1996). Washington’s Farewell Address 1796. The Avalon Project at Yale Law School. Retrieved September 13, 2008, from http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/washing.htm