Linen is a kind of paper. It is used as stationary. It is an expensive stationary, a stationary used to write important documents that are written on and received in person. The linen curtain describes a group of documents that represent U.S. foreign policy around the world. These documents are a part of our effort to reform foreign governments in the interests of American democracy. We have made attempts to liberalize foreign governments in the extension of civil liberties in countries that are viewed as repressive towards minority groups. These minority groups not only have a nationalistic character. The repression against them extends to the denial of civil liberties which people believe they deserve. Our efforts are contrary to government policies that practice the denial of civil liberties in the greater interest of people in general. In some cases, in order to extend this linen curtain, we have partnered with governments and not civil groups in order to extend demands for governmental reform. Countries in which we extend influence include Iran, Saudi Arabia, Russia, Brazil, Colombia, and our own country, the U.S.A.
The major question this blog post raises is whether or not extending democracy overseas is really in the interests of not only those countries, but the people themselves. In this country the experience of liberalization, IMO, has been negative. The extension of civil liberties has led to an erosion of protections of the Bill of Rights. In this country, the most misunderstood political freedom historically, during contemporary times, has been freedom. Freedoms are now extended to new citizen groups who understand it in terms of their own historical context from their experience with overseas governments, We not only accept as citizens persecuted groups of people, which was the American experience of the 18th and 19th centuries. We are now accepting, as citizens, people who intend to extend their wealth. Where previous immigrant groups wanted to escape their way of life-which was threatening and adopt our way of life, and live our heritage, we now see immigrant groups who want to continue their way of life, including the political positions they enjoyed. For example, when we extend the protection of Rights to groups of people who immigrated from socialist countries, we face a concurrent demand to lower protections we have enjoyed as historically AMerican groups of people. Freedom impinges on the rights given to people according to their participation in such groups as family and workplace communities. These places become threatening. There is an erosion of values when the right to freedom replaces the right to assemble and the right to bear arms.
Comments? (All comments are subject to editorial discretion by the Against Ignorance team.)