First off I want to say how impressed I am with Obama’s speech. Though perhaps it was a speech of little substance in terms of offering explicit solutions or addressing immediate issues, the speech should not be criticized, but rather praised. The speech, at least in my interpretations, was to promote a new attitude to Muslim academia and future (democratic) leaders, to being to shape a new mindset amongst listeners that could potentially create a peaceful overthrow in extremist fundamental governments. Almost like the Iranian revolution, but the other way.
Of course, I was curious to global reactions – in Israel, in unmentioned countries such as Syria, and in Lebanon, whose upcoming elections favor an extremist-leaning party – so I pursued to read further comments. I read eulogies, denouncements, reprimands, and neutral comments on the article, most understandable (especially those of Hamas etc organizations). Unsurprisingly was the consensus (on both supporters and condemners) of his eloquent elocution (and now that I put these two words together I suddenly realize they are related…) Most appalling, however, were those of American press, or American “analysts” and “journalists” of the Middle East. Reasons are as follow:本科
1) Super-super-superfluous analysis!! Okay, okay I get it, as “analysts” and “journalists”, their job is to analyze, to break down and break down further all components of the speech. Well, that’s sad. I think the speech was meant to create an inspiration, a motivation – which Obama is really, really, good at – to promote peace. Yes, through careful dissection or phrases and sentences you can deduce his personal attitude toward Issue A or Issue B, but despite his stances his ultimate goal is to promote peace.
2) They were more critical and more zealous about the speech of Obama’s speech whilst local construction workers, students, professors, governmental workers, etc common people were supportive of the speech.
3) Some of these arguments are so far-fetched and so over-analytical that they don’t even pertain to the speech anymore. They have these ominous interpretations of a speech that, well, essentially is JUST A SPEECH.
4) All 3 above points may be (this is just me being cynical) attributed to the fact that in their field of work, controversial and un-ingratiating arguments do make money, fame, and name.This is the part of my little rant that might make me seem crazy:These past couple days, censorship has been the hubbub-bing topic in our university.Being in China, which has a bad track record of human rights and censorship, (up to the days of the 20th anniversary on our Xiaonei (Chinese facebook) we couldn’t type (or variants, including ), student movement, etc or a little popup box would say “Please do not post anything touchy to the government”. And you wonder, why do they keep up with the censorship? People should have a voice! People should know what’s going on! Well, say hello to reality. Some people shouldn’t (and maybe you think I am one of them).
Let me quote the most disheartening excerpt of a Jordan based Middle Eastern “expert”.
“In sum, great presentation, mediocre substance and a seeming failure to recognize it’s all about policy, not respect. And when it comes to the U.S., policy is about much more than an initiative to promote female literacy.”
- Middle Eastern “expert”
So I agree with you on “great presentation” and “mediocre substance” but honey, it’s not all about policy. He mandates policy and there will be controversy. By making this speech he already risks drawing criticism for promoting American interests in an already American-weary world. Some that tuned in wanted answers, but this outlook is very, very wrong. The so called “extremists” could use policy suggestions in dangerous and harmful ways. So, unless you wanted the speech to be rendered a potential bomb threat, don’t stress policy. The take on recognizing mutual respect was actually a work of genius, for that is the root of US-Muslim conflict. Muslim extremists and a lot of American oriented hate is due to cultural differences. Recognition and building respect for these differences is key. Samuel Huntingdon’s “Clash of Civilizations” theory? Don’t know it? Look it up! With good reason it is received by the majority of international academics… It is inevitable that we will be different but the way we deal with this inevitability is rooted in attitude, not “policy”.
And about the “policy is much more than an intiative to promote female literacy”? Promotion of female literacy and capability in an originally suppressed culture is an ad rem justification of a new attitude that of a generally increased tolerance – to women, to politics, to religion, to culture. In Psychology there is a “foot in the door” theory. You start out by asking small, and once a small request is fulfilled people will be willing to fulfill soooooooo much more.
【免费咨询报名电话：010-6801 7975】
咨询报名MSN:xueliedu@hotmail.com
试一试网上报名
咨询报名QQ：
| 1505847972 | 1256358232 | 1363884583 | 1902839745 | 800072298 | 754854002 |
| 中专升大专 | 中专升本科 | 高升专 | 高升本 | 专升本 | 自考 |
报名咨询在线MSN：
