ince the war discussion downthread goes well, I thought I'd bring up another political question. To be truthful, I'm not 100 percent certain of my own answer. Due to a bunch of tecbnicalities, there are large debates over which country was the first to develop true universal sufferage. For the sake of this argument, I'm going to go with Finland, but I am aware that the debate exists.
Anywho, suffice to say, for awhile Finland's civil rights record was a heck of a lot better than ours. If you want to argue that this is because they had fewer people of other colors to actually deal with and race issues are always harder in areas with high concentrations of people of color, I get that and the statistics I've seen on these things would agree with you.
In the early part of this century, Finland's human rights record was a heck of a lot better than ours was. This leads me to some questions,
If Finland had been powerful enough to try to force us to improve our civil rights record, should they have?
If we wouldn't listen, should they have tried to take us over?
If they had, would the state of civil rights in this country today be better?
How much moral authority does a superior human rights record give a country? How should your answer impact the way we approach Iraq? What about Darfur?
I have my own thoughtful if not perfect answers, but I'd like to know yours.