Originally Posted by Diff-chan
I don't see the two standards of one rhetoric. It's usually the Americans killing people part that leads to the Americans being killed part. For example, Iran. When the U.S. put the Shah in power, Iran became almost a haven of western culture. My father remembers a lot of good things about that time, but in exchange for what? The Shah was a dictator, almost disgustingly elite in his methods. The U.S. recieved 97% of all Iranian oil during that time, with Iran recieving 3%. How is that fair? The people began to see that they were getting the shaft and the finger was obviously pointed at the U.S. backed Shah. So animosity towards the Shah was almost direct animosity for the U.S. Then came the hostage situation and Reagan became president etc. So who was to blame for those American hostages being taken? Iranians should not have taken hostages and I think they are at partial fault. But it wasn't like they weren't provoked; they didn't take hostages for the hell of it. So while Iranians shoulder some of the blame, the U.S. is just as guilty if not more so. It's kind of like my views on socialization. If a kid is raised in house where being a racist is promoted and the kid becomes a racist, who is at fault? The kid for being socialized by their primary agents and institutions to be racist? Or said agents for socializing an otherwise normal kid to hate people based on their racial and ethnic status?
SC
Bookmarks