Because of Soviet style anti-Americanism, it is very hard to do anything today that does not lead some brainwashed fool to view the act as a form of imperialism, and then blame the U.S. for whatever subsequent negative events that occur in that country, no matter how much time has elapsed or the actual impact of the initial U.S. engagement. Thus all the bad can be blamed on the United States and our need to conquer. Strangely though, should we do the opposite and avoid any sort of engagement, then we are guilty of isolating the country and that act is also used to explain all the negatives that the country experiences subsequently. Basically, to these people, the United States will always be at fault no matter what. It is hard not to have had some contact with another country in the 230+ years of our existence, and these people have a gift for spinning whatever engagement in a negative light. Give aid and it's called propping up a government. Don't and it's harm by neglect. The real harm of this tactic is that by viewing every act as harmful, it hides the actions where the United States really did do wrong and prevents a logical, straightforward discussion and analysis of our bad deeds.
So if we try and help Haiti, even with just advice, that act would be seen as propaganda and an attempt to brainwash the Haitians, no doubt so that we can exploit their natural resources later. Any trade thereafter would be viewed as exploitation, and whichever company engaged in trading would be the evil benefactor, the reason that we started the brainwashing/propaganda program in the first place.
Still I feel that we must do what we can to help, even if we will be blasted for it later and blamed for any future setbacks the Haitian people might face. It's our duty to help our neighbors, and we've seldom backed away due to hardship in the past. Clinton did the right thing by restoring order and democratic rule in Haiti, we must not let cowardice deter us today.
No comments:
Post a Comment