February 17, 2010 By A. Gaffar Peang-Meth
PACIFIC DAILY NEWS (Guam)
Apologies are in order to some readers who may feel I repeated some points in my columns in the Pacific Daily News. As these columns online also are read by non-English speakers, some secretly in Cambodia, a rehash drives some points home.
Rote learning is not without its usefulness. Not everyone understands something encountered only once.
The pages of the PDN are not for my propaganda. An educator, I thank the editors and the publisher for the opportunity they provide me to share information and opinions and to provoke discussion. The newspaper is a wall-less classroom where I can describe, explain, analyze and suggest.
As those making up the loose organization calling itself Professional Cambodian Voices in the northwest United States examine the concept of freedom, they might include in their discussion the "four essential human freedoms" described by President Franklin Roosevelt: Freedom to speak and express, freedom to worship; and freedoms from want, and from fear.
The first two freedoms are positive. They give citizens the right to do something. The last two are negative. Citizens have the rights not to be hungry, and not to live in fear. It's the government's duty and responsibility to ensure that this be so.
The rights to hold opinions and to free expression are contained in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. In the covenant, a state party "undertakes to respect and to ensure (those rights) to all individuals within its territory."
The exercise of the right to hold, and respectfully and responsibly express opinions on public policies, is healthy for democratic society. It allows a multitude of options for citizens to choose. As a market of ideas and thoughts, the U.S. lets them grow and bloom. China's Chairman Mao also encouraged "a hundred flowers (to) bloom," but he mowed them down as fast as they bloomed wildly.
Indeed, freedom is not absolute -- a point that's hard for some to swallow. Article 29.2 of the Universal Declaration cites "limitations" as determined by law "solely for ... due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others" and for "meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society." Article 19.3 of the International Covenant cites "special duties and responsibilities" for those rights, and "certain restrictions" as "provided by law."
Freedoms that lack moral and legal restraints breed licentiousness that borders on a state of nature, in which English philosopher Thomas Hobbes saw life as "nasty, brutish, and short."
I have written about how human beings across national boundaries and cultures have appeared to be entrenched on a destructive course of intolerance, characterized by a lack of civility. Individuals of strong political and ideological views have come into conflict; the level of insult and demonizing has increased.
Early this month, as the nation's capital faced its "snowmageddon," President Obama left the White House to speak at the National Prayer Breakfast about "erosion of civility" in America's political debate.
"At times, it seems like we're unable to listen to one another; to have at once a serious and civil debate," he said. "We can take different approaches to ending inequalities, but surely we can agree on the need to lift our children out of ignorance; to lift our neighbors from poverty."
According to a study, in a debate on hot political and ideological issues, one's rational brain shuts down and the non-thinking emotional part takes over and the debate deteriorates. Is one's belief so strong and one's ego so big that this "other guy" has to be demonized? Is respectful dialogue possible anymore?
A specialist in critical thinking says some people tend to lose track of the matter examined, disregard what's relevant, necessary and indispensable to the matter at hand. He coined the term "monkey brain" to describe those whose brains wander everywhere, like monkeys that jump from branch to branch. The specialist begged, "Stay within the question"!
In a recent Internet posting, an academic's deceased father's name and reputation were mauled by a blogger, upset with the academic's political comments. Just how relevant, necessary and indispensable the deceased father's name and reputation was to the academic's comments escaped me completely.
Last week, my column, "Disagree, don't be disagreeable," brought a reader's "open letter" on the Internet, saying nobody would disagree with what I wrote, but asked me since in "a decade from now" the Khmer land will be Vietnamese, "Can you help Khmer in any other way? Or is it that you don't know how?"
So I re-read and appreciated what The Washington Post wrote about Obama bemoaning America's political culture in which disagreement on approaches "quickly morphs into questioning one another's motives."
I was reminded of Indian philosopher Jiddu Krishnamurti: Humans' focus on the "me" in their relationships, actions and thoughts, leads to pettiness, narrowness and shallowness. He urged: end the "me," meditate, transform the mind, and instill compassion, love, and energy.
American psychologist Jonathan Haidt, who sees people in all cultures obsessed with a "natural self-righteousness" that includes their "excessive ... tendency to see the world in terms of good versus evil," or "moralism" that "blinds people to the truth." Haidt focuses his research on the "moral foundations of politics ... to transcend the 'culture wars'" to find ways to overcome moralism.
"When political opponents are demonized rather than debated, compromise and cooperation become moral failings and people begin to believe that their righteous ends justify the use of any means," he states on his Web site, CivilPolitics.org.
A. Gaffar Peang-Meth, Ph.D., is retired from the University of Guam, where he taught political science for 13 years. Write him at peangmeth@yahoo.com.
Rote learning is not without its usefulness. Not everyone understands something encountered only once.
The pages of the PDN are not for my propaganda. An educator, I thank the editors and the publisher for the opportunity they provide me to share information and opinions and to provoke discussion. The newspaper is a wall-less classroom where I can describe, explain, analyze and suggest.
As those making up the loose organization calling itself Professional Cambodian Voices in the northwest United States examine the concept of freedom, they might include in their discussion the "four essential human freedoms" described by President Franklin Roosevelt: Freedom to speak and express, freedom to worship; and freedoms from want, and from fear.
The first two freedoms are positive. They give citizens the right to do something. The last two are negative. Citizens have the rights not to be hungry, and not to live in fear. It's the government's duty and responsibility to ensure that this be so.
The rights to hold opinions and to free expression are contained in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. In the covenant, a state party "undertakes to respect and to ensure (those rights) to all individuals within its territory."
The exercise of the right to hold, and respectfully and responsibly express opinions on public policies, is healthy for democratic society. It allows a multitude of options for citizens to choose. As a market of ideas and thoughts, the U.S. lets them grow and bloom. China's Chairman Mao also encouraged "a hundred flowers (to) bloom," but he mowed them down as fast as they bloomed wildly.
Indeed, freedom is not absolute -- a point that's hard for some to swallow. Article 29.2 of the Universal Declaration cites "limitations" as determined by law "solely for ... due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others" and for "meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society." Article 19.3 of the International Covenant cites "special duties and responsibilities" for those rights, and "certain restrictions" as "provided by law."
Freedoms that lack moral and legal restraints breed licentiousness that borders on a state of nature, in which English philosopher Thomas Hobbes saw life as "nasty, brutish, and short."
I have written about how human beings across national boundaries and cultures have appeared to be entrenched on a destructive course of intolerance, characterized by a lack of civility. Individuals of strong political and ideological views have come into conflict; the level of insult and demonizing has increased.
Early this month, as the nation's capital faced its "snowmageddon," President Obama left the White House to speak at the National Prayer Breakfast about "erosion of civility" in America's political debate.
"At times, it seems like we're unable to listen to one another; to have at once a serious and civil debate," he said. "We can take different approaches to ending inequalities, but surely we can agree on the need to lift our children out of ignorance; to lift our neighbors from poverty."
According to a study, in a debate on hot political and ideological issues, one's rational brain shuts down and the non-thinking emotional part takes over and the debate deteriorates. Is one's belief so strong and one's ego so big that this "other guy" has to be demonized? Is respectful dialogue possible anymore?
A specialist in critical thinking says some people tend to lose track of the matter examined, disregard what's relevant, necessary and indispensable to the matter at hand. He coined the term "monkey brain" to describe those whose brains wander everywhere, like monkeys that jump from branch to branch. The specialist begged, "Stay within the question"!
In a recent Internet posting, an academic's deceased father's name and reputation were mauled by a blogger, upset with the academic's political comments. Just how relevant, necessary and indispensable the deceased father's name and reputation was to the academic's comments escaped me completely.
Last week, my column, "Disagree, don't be disagreeable," brought a reader's "open letter" on the Internet, saying nobody would disagree with what I wrote, but asked me since in "a decade from now" the Khmer land will be Vietnamese, "Can you help Khmer in any other way? Or is it that you don't know how?"
So I re-read and appreciated what The Washington Post wrote about Obama bemoaning America's political culture in which disagreement on approaches "quickly morphs into questioning one another's motives."
I was reminded of Indian philosopher Jiddu Krishnamurti: Humans' focus on the "me" in their relationships, actions and thoughts, leads to pettiness, narrowness and shallowness. He urged: end the "me," meditate, transform the mind, and instill compassion, love, and energy.
American psychologist Jonathan Haidt, who sees people in all cultures obsessed with a "natural self-righteousness" that includes their "excessive ... tendency to see the world in terms of good versus evil," or "moralism" that "blinds people to the truth." Haidt focuses his research on the "moral foundations of politics ... to transcend the 'culture wars'" to find ways to overcome moralism.
"When political opponents are demonized rather than debated, compromise and cooperation become moral failings and people begin to believe that their righteous ends justify the use of any means," he states on his Web site, CivilPolitics.org.
A. Gaffar Peang-Meth, Ph.D., is retired from the University of Guam, where he taught political science for 13 years. Write him at peangmeth@yahoo.com.
