Bach Mai itibaren Marathon, NY , USA

bachblame

04/28/2024

Kitap için kullanıcı verileri, yorumlar ve öneriler

Bach Mai Kitabın yeniden yazılması (11)

2018-07-30 15:40

Çanakkale - Dönmeyi Düşünmeyenlerin Hikayesi TrendKitaplar Kütüphanesi

Tarafından yazılmış kitap Tarafından: Ebabil Yayınları

The Ugly American is a story about Americans living and working in the fictional South East Asian nation of Sarkhan. Written in 1958, it is a critique of American foreign policy—specifically the work of embassies and expats abroad. In this novel, Lederer argues that the US is losing the "tiny battles" against the Soviet Union. The US is too focused on dumping money into countries and building giant infrastructure projects that host countries aren't prepared for and don't really need. "We pay for huge highways through jungles in Asian lands where there is no transport except bicycle and foot." (282). Instead, Lederer argues the US must focus more on the "tiny battles". Americans abroad must learn the local language, spend time in the countryside, assess local needs and come up with small, realistic solutions that help the every-man. Lederer makes this argument through his characters, of which there are two basic types: those that immerse themselves in luxury, hire servants, import cars, and make no attempt to understand the culture they live in. And those that live within their means, work with and listen to locals, and seek to understand the culture they live in. It is not difficult to guess which prototype Lederer believes is better suited for US foreign policy and winning hearts and minds abroad. This book is enjoyable and effective, and part of the reason for this is because it is remarkably simple. But that is also one of its faults. It doesn't try to assess the messy details. There are only good and bad people in this book. People that have good intentions and want to understand foreign cultures. And people who are condescending to locals and could care less about the cultures they live in. But what is often more fascinating (and more common) are the well-meaning people who fuck up really bad. The Ghosts of King Leopold humanitarians and the Neoconservatives who ended up creating cruelty despite their good intentions. That’s the fascinating stuff. What’s more Lederer seems to present a false choice in describing these two types of people, suggesting that a development worker can simply choose if they want to be an ugly American or a sympathetic one. In reality, it's challenging to adjust to and understand a foreign culture. It's tough to be patient, tough to change your own habits and to come around to different ways of thinking that are no more perfect than your own. It’s not as simple as hiking out into the countryside, picking up the language, playing your harmonica, making friends, and smiling your way to producing an awesome new fog-trapping irrigation system or some similarly, incredible hippie invention. In one of the stories, a village even builds a shrine to commemorate one of the development workers. This is a good book, but scenes and simplifications like this are laughable. And yet, it is its simplicity that makes the book feel helpful, even motivating. It’s practically a training pamphlet on community development. It’s soaked with Peace Corps type lessons without being preachy in tone. As a current Peace Corps Volunteer, reading this book felt like a helpful reminder of some of the things I believe in. In my work here I put pressure on myself to start a big project that can last long after I’ve left. I call this urge, statue-building. Or shrine-building. I want to build something big and memorable. Something that people can point to and say, Bart built that and it is awesome. This is obviously the wrong approach. Rather it is the tiny sum of things—the tiny battles, the relationships built, the small, incremental progress. Going out and talking with people. Allowing community members to lead. Acting more as a helper, less as a commander. Assessing needs, acting in friendship. This is how real successes are achieved. Lederer makes that point strongly when he writes, “The little things we do must be moral acts and they must be done in the real interest of the peoples whose friendship we need—not just in the interest of propaganda” (267). For this reason, the book felt relevant beyond its Cold War context. It is a sort of working-guide, holy book for development work. It's not ground breaking. Far from it. But its power is that it’s a good reminder: tiny battles, cultural sensitivity, assessing needs, acting in a supportive rather than commanding role. These are points that I wanted to be reminded of. It's not hard for this stuff to hit home.

2018-07-30 20:40

Nevizade- Nevizade Meyle Sarkılar 2 Lp TrendKitaplar Kütüphanesi

Tarafından yazılmış kitap Tarafından: DMS

In the Twilight of Atheism, Alister McGrath gives readers a historical overview of atheism that includes its strengths and its flaws. His analysis is both insightful and honest without disrespect to the many great minds that believe in a godless universe. McGrath, as a Reformation scholar, even suggests, by drawing together a number of scholarly studies on the origins and development of Protestantism, that there is a significant link between the Reformation and the emergence of atheism. He reminds atheists, who seem to forget, that “The belief that there is no God is just as much a matter of faith as the belief there is a God. If ‘faith’ is defined as ‘belief lying beyond proof,’ both Christianity and atheism are faiths. While this suggestion may seem astonishing to some atheists, it is not only philosophically correct but also illuminating in shedding light on the changed fortunes of atheism in recent years.” For those who think one cannot be a legitimate scientist and still have a belief in God, McGrath cites a major survey of the religious beliefs of scientists carried out at the beginning and end of the 20th Century. The original survey taken in 1916 showed that 40 percent of scientists had some form of personal religious beliefs while 40 percent had none and 20 percent were agnostic. In 1996 the survey was repeated and the amazing results were exactly the same. One noted scientist, Albert Einstein, denied being an atheist. Walter Isaacson in his biography of Albert Einstein writes this about the great scientist beliefs, “Throughout his life, he (Einstein) was consistent in deflecting the charge that he was an atheist. ‘There are people who say there is no God,’ he told a friend. ‘But what makes me really angry is that they quote me for support of such views.’” Isaacson also writes of an interview Einstein gave to George Sylvester Viereck shortly after his fiftieth birthday. Viereck asked Einstein if he believed in God and Einstein said, “I’m not an atheist. The problem involved is too vast for our limited minds. We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library filled with books in many languages. The child knows someone must have written these books. It does not know how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. The child suspects a mysterious order in the arrangement of the books but doesn’t know what it is. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of the most intelligent human being toward God. We see the universe marvelously arranged and obeying certain laws but only dimly understand these laws.” The reality is that there are no definitive answers on either side of the debate, so it comes down to a person making a choice as to what they believe. My problem is with the name calling that has recently been evident in the atheist camp. This new tactic takes the position that if you can’t prove something empirically then you need to verbally bludgeon the opposition by name calling such as: simple-minded, stupid, imbecilic, and other deprecatory rhetoric. This has become one of Richard Dawkins weapons against theistic belief. George Orwell in his novel Down and Out in Paris and London describes the character of Bozo in this way, ‘He was an embittered atheist (the sort of atheist who does not so much disbelieve in God as personally dislike Him). This seems to describe Dawkins’s recent diatribes against religion McGrath, at the end of the book, takes a more reasonable stand. He says this about the attitude believers need to have, “Atheism stands in permanent judgment over arrogant, complacent , and superficial Christian churches and leaders. It needs to be heard. In the closing pages of this work, its concerns will be taken seriously and to heart.” The debate, I’m sure, will continue with no definitive answers ever achieved, so perhaps it is more civil to have each side simply respect the others beliefs and let the condescending name calling finally end.

Okuyucu Bach Mai itibaren Marathon, NY , USA

Kullanıcı, bu kitapları portalın yayın kurulu olan 2017-2018'de en ilginç olarak değerlendirdi "TrendKitaplar Kütüphanesi" Tüm okuyucuların bu literatürü tanımalarını tavsiye eder.