Webster’s Dictionary defines marginalize as “to exclude, to ignore” and if we are operating under this definition it is never neither justified nor practical to marginalize others despite differences. More than being immoral to ignore the voice of a group you happen to disagree with, it is unwise because if you ignore them that just gives them the time and space needed to attack you.
When discussing a measure that affects many people it is critical to take into consideration the views of those affected by the measure. As Enloe states NAFTA was agreed to without consideration of the Indian farmers of Mexico and the act harmed them considerably because they were not involved in the negotiations. These people clearly had an interest in the legislation that was being discussed because it directly affected their daily lives and yet they were excluded from the negotiations and therefore marginalized. Furthermore on the domestic side the Native Americans were marginalized in the United States as the American government did not consult them before taking their land and forcing them onto reservations. The health and wellbeing of the Native American population has been severely affected and the United States has lost much moral credibility in the world as a result. Especially in this circumstance not only the marginalized are adversely affected but also those who do the marginalizing.
The United States cannot simply ignore its enemies or else it would be in grave trouble from the security threat those nations or groups might pose. If the United States ceased negotiations with Iran or North Korea that would give them a good incentive to continue developing their nuclear programs. While the negotiations are not halting these programs at the current time they are attempting to keep them from becoming even more dangerous. If the United States were simply to ignore these countries they would even more so be allowed to continue their programs, which clearly pose a threat to the United States. We must seek the input of even those with whom we disagree if we are ever going to resolve differences without war. This does not mean that we must always do what are enemies what us to do for that would often be immoral and unwise but it does mean that we should at least know their perspective on the issue so that we can add credibility to our argument and enhance our decision making abilities.
Erica Peterson
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Negotiating with countries such as North Korea brings up an interesting point - when two countries negotiate, it is a complicated process that involves time and many members of the government; however, I think in a way negotiations force us to marginalize. We cannot possibly meet with everyone in a country who has a stake in the issue we are discussing or nothing would ever be decided on. Negotiations would simply take too long - so we meet with the leaders or group representatives. In the interest of time, Im sure some people with a vested interest in the topic are necessarily left out (marginalized).
While you make a very good point and I agree with you that there are constraints that do not allow us to negotiate with all of the people affected I think that we should always to the best we can to be informed about all views regarding an issue. While you are not going to be able to talk to every single North Korean you can talk to some of them especially their community leaders and therefore be informed of their opinion. While I do not think it is possible to completely avoid marginalization I think it is important that we do our best to not marginalize. If marginalization did not exist than conflict would probably be eliminated because everyone would be considering and acting upon others views and we would never go to war. In a perfect world marginalization would not exist and while I do not think we will ever arrive at that perfect world I do not think that should keep us from trying to achieve. If marginalization did not exist the United States would not have to worry about its security because all nations would have an equal voice and there would be no reason for people or groups to attack the United States. Therefore attempting to not marginalize serves not only the interests of the marginalized but those of the United States as well.
Erica Peterson
So you seem to be saying that it is bad to marginalize because it can harm your security in the long run. But can't marginalization also improve security? Like your North Korea example. Because of the authoritarianism of NK, we can't speak with community leaders. Therefore we must marginalize them and focus on the official representatives. If we attempted to not exclude, we would end up conflicting more with the North Korean regime who would not want us interfering with their sovereignty.
Post a Comment