Let them eat War!-Volume 21

Got up this morning and heard Let Them Eat War, by Bad Religion off the Rock Against Bush album. The song echoed through my mind during a political conversation during brunch. The question is should "us" as the liberals really try and take control of a conservative society. If we assume that most (50%?) of our country is conservative or what liberals call the "dumb" or "ignorant", is it right to lead them if we are not the majority. The conservative Reich has a handle on the Midwest. Would it be right for the Liberals, a group who denies Republicanism, to be the LEADERs of such a group?

The obvious first solution that our liberal minds go to is that "we" should split this country up. If we consider that Liberals live in NY & California and the Midwest fences in the conservatives.  We first all laugh, then sigh. Then depression sits in and we have to continue our discussions.

An argument for leading people is the simple that the right (the truly justified, not the right wing) are suppose to be the leaders of human kind. Take for instance the time of Hitler; it can be perceived-in a generalized way-that Germany with its Hitler Youth had a leader that mirrored its national state of mind. Therefore the "just" have an obligation to move in and defeat such tyranny to correct those who are ignorant. Then again did the "just" only react because Germany began infringing on other countries or groups. When do the "just" have the right to really intervened? Is it all the time or only some of the time?

The US has always taken the road that WE are the "Just"; "Our democracy is the way to go." But WE forget that it took time to make changed. We added in Civil (Human) rights slowly into our society, when it started with a quick change. This may have ultimate lead to the sick & twisted segregation between the races in later years, where one race still presided over another in a social slavery. Was it that the designers of the change compromised too much? It is hard to say that if the promoters of this justified change kept to their guns the general public would have quickly agreed. 

Assumable not; People have their convictions and they are mostly going to reject changing what they know.  Humans become frighten of things they don't understand or have never seen before. An article in the recent news illustrated the fear of a tribe untouched by modern (technological) times 

(http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7426794.stm). This tribe in the remote parts of Brazil, throw spears at the plane that photographed their whereabouts. Obviously this culture is simple afraid of a mechanical bird booming overhead. The first reaction of the tribes men(woman) is to try and knock the plane out of the sky; Maybe not to kill it, but assumable to hurt it or intimidate it. So what if we assume that this society does not have a legal system with checks & balances and that one chief decides the fate of each person. Do we intervene because he could be ignorant to the evolution of human rights? Maybe children are placed in danger in a society test. Like being force to face a lion by themselves. Do we intervene because the child could get hurt or will we destroy their whole existence by just arriving? (see the history of the "Western Movement" for the true reference on destruction of culture.) If we did come in a protect the boy, could it be suggested that the boy would not know how to defend himself in the jungle due to the removal of this one event. As he wonders out for food would he have missed the forced education. Is it for the greater good that he is tested in this manner? Those who watch Star Trek have seen this put into fictional action by the Prime Directive. (Although it seems that there would be no show if they didn't break that rule, like, every episode.)

This issue always comes up in modern medicine. This Brazil tribe does not have access to modern drugs or medical techniques. If they keep getting sick from eating the same poisonous plant do we swoop in and say "no that's bad for you" and/or provide a remedy; will we offset an immunity that could come about through generations? By eating the plant over and over again will their genetics create an immunity to the poison? 

Who is truly knows what to do? We want to know if we didn't have the ultra-conservative would be truly be so liberal? Would we have races, sexes, educations, cultures, & religions all intermingling because we were separated? Or maybe at one time we did start a new nation with the Liberals, and the conservatives emerged because we must have an adversary that enunciates our convictions. 

So the title of Let Them Eat War may not be correct; "They" know not so we must educate. But we should step lightly with understanding because they may just throw spears at us out of fear. Upholding the fictional Prime Directive (Star Trek) may be all that saves cultures or may ultimately kill us all.  To monitor progression of this conservative society could be the truly just thing to do. Make them feel as though their laws and beliefs all still in tacked, but sneak in a slow change? I don't think so. At some point the right truly have to provide justice for all. At the risk of even being unjust. The chance has to be weighed time and time again, but "we" the just  have to step in and force change...right?