Democracy

[Dante Hicks]

Originally posted by acropolis
Neither Africa nor China ever did much in the way of exploring, and Africa was in just as good a position to discover the 'new world' as Europe (and China could have done Australia).

China did explore actually. The Chinese "getting" Australia wouldn't have been the same impact as the European domination of the Americas. The primary "assistance" (if you can put it like that) was the vast sums of gold/silver traded back from the colonies back to Europe which (some say) facilitated the rise of Capitalism (eventually).

And there's an entire section of the book I mentioned which discusses why it's easier to traverse the Atlantic (at that period) for Portugal/Spain than for anyone else (including North America). Clearly the Chinese getting across the Pacific is a slightly different feat.

Also, the "advanced cultures" thing really depends. The Incans/Mayans/Aztecs at different periods had advanced forms of government, irrigation and construction. The wheel wasn't hugely used not through lack of insight but due to lack of easily domesticable animal in the Americas. If the immune system of the American's had been different prior to 1492 the subsequent "battles" would have had an utterly different flavour.

[JonnyBGood]

Originally posted by acropolis
That's silliness.

Neither Africa nor China ever did much in the way of exploring, and Africa was in just as good a position to discover the 'new world' as Europe (and China could have done Australia).

I could see the claim that if middle eastern culture had been in Europe's geographic position, they would have discovered the new world and become today's west. But that's wrong too.

And America didn't have any 'advanced' cultures.

China was trading with the east coast of Africa and the Middle East long before Europe was. In fact they beat "us" there by 80 years. However their most famous admiral, Zheng He, died on his way back from the voyage and the new emperor famously said that he did not care for foreign things. The whole fleet was burned in port. Basically though their situation required colonialism to a lesser degree than ours did.

[acropolis]

Originally posted by Dante Hicks
China did explore actually. The Chinese "getting" Australia wouldn't have been the same impact as the European domination of the Americas. The primary "assistance" (if you can put it like that) was the vast sums of gold/silver traded back from the colonies back to Europe which (some say) facilitated the rise of Capitalism (eventually).

So you are saying that China did have a number of colonies on Australia, but they weren't particularly profitable?

Originally posted by Dante Hicks
And there's an entire section of the book I mentioned which discusses why it's easier to traverse the Atlantic (at that period) for Portugal/Spain than for anyone else (including North America). Clearly the Chinese getting across the Pacific is a slightly different feat.

what

It was easier for them to get across the atlantic cuz they had the right boats.

in point of fact, going from europe to NA by boat sucks. The gulf stream is against you the whole way. once the trade really got going, the europeans would sail all the way down to central africa and then sail across (sailing back from na to europe is great, but that certainly wouldn't have helped them "discover" it). for trade reasons, obviously, but also cuz it was an easier sail.

Originally posted by Dante Hicks
Also, the "advanced cultures" thing really depends. The Incans/Mayans/Aztecs at different periods had advanced forms of government, irrigation and construction. The wheel wasn't hugely used not through lack of insight but due to lack of easily domesticable animal in the Americas. If the immune system of the American's had been different prior to 1492 the subsequent "battles" would have had an utterly different flavour.

they had an incredibly intricate and very interesting society. which the europeans destroyed. that doesn't make it 'advanced', especially not in comparison to europe.

in some ways (like the ones you mention) they were comparable to the roman republic. in other ways, they were still deeply in the stone age. so depending on how you look at it, they could be 1500 years behind, or 5000. either way, calling them 'advanced' is clearly misleading.

Originally posted by JonnyBGood
China was trading with the east coast of Africa and the Middle East long before Europe was. In fact they beat "us" there by 80 years. However their most famous admiral, Zheng He, died on his way back from the voyage and the new emperor famously said that he did not care for foreign things. The whole fleet was burned in port. Basically though their situation required colonialism to a lesser degree than ours did.

i think i should add here that i never said that no one else traded like the west. the mideast traded europe under the table for a thousand years. both china and the middle east had boats all over the indian ocean. but for the most part they weren't reall exploring (sinbad the sailor excepted), they were using boats to replace existing land trading routes.

china is the interesting one. not only did we get gunpowder from them, but also the printing press.

but when the topic is cultural superiority, they also do the best job of making the west look good. because it is abundantly clear that it is the xenophobia so pervasive in the chinese culture that kept them down time after time, despite so many head starts and oppurtunities.

Originally posted by JonnyBGood
<snip>
PS There goes a good portion of my life.

Do you have the impression it was a portion well spent?

Originally posted by Toccata & Fugue
This whole arguemnt all comes under the heading Eurocentric. I think that awareness of non white culture in the West is woeful, I myself despite having a keen interst in such matters find the presence of Non European/American politics almost completely absent form the mass media save for a few paltry footnotes. No wonder people like Bink and spout such idiocy, the poor fool doesn't know any better, he is like a child wandering around a wood not capable of understanding the world outside. That besides all the Americans/Europeans there are 5 billion other people, who aren't savages scrabbling in the undegrowth still trying to discover fire but comlicated and intricate societies based on century's of tradition. His simpe world view cannot comprehend that we are not in some sort of race to Alpha-Centuri but merely one species on a vast and varied planet. Binks crude division of the world into arbitrary groups based on arbitrary and unnatural national boundaries exposes the simplicity of thought and mild racism which presumably serves him well in his delusions of grandeur whilst similtaneously betraying the fact that if we're so advanced how come we have people like him infecting our society.

That is very interesting, like many left wing extremists, you appear to be one of those who genuinely believe that when the majority does not share their views, that means democracy is failing. Taking comfort in fundamentalist dogma is your good right ofcourse. This is a free society after all.

I am sure you would genuinely prefer to suffer the likes of Robert Mugabe, Charles Taylor and Gen. Than Shwe, infecting our society?

Also I find your and JohnnyBGood's recurring references to racism and white supremacy interesting. I didn't mention race. Perhaps you believe culture and race are inextricably linked? I wonder what the black, asian and other members of western society would have to say about that. Perhaps there is no difference to you between Colin Powell and General Butt-Naked?

In terms of liberty, personal freedom, human rights, the things that matter, 'European' culture (a bit broader than the term 'western culture', which artificially excludes eastern europe for example) is the only one that shows progress. A hundred, a thousand, cliche anecdotes about how Islamic culture or Chinese culture were once more advanced and we were once less advanced are no more relevant than remarking that your great great grandfather was well educated.

Fact is that in many ways they are less civilised than they were 1000 years ago, and people from all over the world come here, not seeking wealth, technology or gradiose military displays, but the freedom to speak their mind without getting shot at, and the security of knowing that here they have the contitutional right to be treated the same as anyone else, totally independant of tribal feuds between intricate and complicated societies with a history of centuries.

For every left wing extremist mantra you chant, and irrelevant historical cliche you spout hoping to prove that western society sucks, I can give you a dozen examples of the contrary.

Like I said before, don't try to engage in a battle of the wits, you are ill equipped for it. Please do continue to prove my point, a cookie for you if you manage to say something I haven't heard before. Surprise me.

[MrL_JaKiri]

Nice reply to jonny's post!

All you need now is a coherent argument and you're SET.

[Dante Hicks]

Originally posted by bink
That is very interesting, like many left wing extremists, you appear to be one of those who genuinely believe that when the majority does not share their views, that means democracy is failing. Taking comfort in fundamentalist dogma is your good right ofcourse. This is a free society after all.

Oy vey, how I'd hate to be a straw man after your beating!

Who said anything about democracy failing? This is a slightly bizarre point and seemingly off-topic (irony since that's what the thread's entitled). Political argument (i.e. what people may or may not believe about eurocentrism) has precious little to do with democratic elections.

Who said anything about the west "sucking" (especially compared to other cultures? There are brilliant arguments against these points for sure, but until someone raises them it doesn't seem particularly profitable to bring them up.

Perhaps before we get involved in silly flames (and you might be forced to use your "ill-equipped for a battle of wits" remark again, and we'd all hate that)...
"The history of 'european' culture (including areas settled by europeans) is one of progress. I do not recognise this trend in other cultures."

Now, this is a fine remark. You can say for instance the Chinese progress in earlier centuries doesn't count (which is fair enough) as either progress isn't ongoing now (which is clearly bunk) or they aren't the same culture. When did Chinese culture collapse? Perhaps the Maoist cultural revolution? This seems a good enough place as any I suppose. So since the 1950's are you saying there has been no progress in China (I use this purely as an example you understand, the same point could be raised about the Middle East, India or Africa)?

So the fact that the Chinese people are now better fed, better educated, with more scientific discoveries and general better level of economic infrastructure than in the 50's is not progress? What exactly is progress? If it's progress to democracy (a fine ideal) then we can switch the country to India if you wish.

Or is the argument that the Chinese people (or culture, whichever) is somehow "worse" than it was at some point in the past? I can't remember if the Chinese culture stopped existing or whether it's simply wank nowdays? If this is the argument, what is the criteria? Equality? Justice? Peace? Opera? I'm genuinely confused...

[acropolis]

Originally posted by Dante Hicks
So the fact that the Chinese people are now better fed, better educated, with more scientific discoveries and general better level of economic infrastructure than in the 50's is not progress? What exactly is progress?

I could really muddle everything all to hell as follows: many non-western societies have improved themselves significantly over the past century. the extent of improvement is equal to extent to which that society has 'westernized' itself ('europeanicized' is too shit a word even for me). E.g., China is now better fed, better educated, more technologically advanced etc. because they have begun to turn into a western culture. South Korea and Japan are much more westernized than China, and their standards of living are appropriately higher.

PS: So far this thread I've been defining 'advanced' for myself as "whoever would be leading in a game of 'civilization' if that were his society."

I guarantee this is a better definition than you'll get out of any uni professor.

And this would mean that 'progress' would be 'playing well'

[Dante Hicks]

Originally posted by acropolis
I could really muddle everything all to hell as follows: many non-western societies have improved themselves significantly over the past century. the extent of improvement is equal to extent to which that society has 'westernized' itself ('europeanicized' is too shit a word even for me).

Well if you define a western culture as an industrial one then sure. You can claim anyone who adopts an industrial society (or an industrial capitalist society) is becoming more western. But that seems a bit...well, misrepresentative. It's like saying that anyone who grows crops is ******fying their culture since the Africans were probably the first people to use agriculture.

edit : p.s. I broadly accept your Civ schema

[Kåre Willoch]

[quote]Originally posted by bink


blablabla......

"That is very interesting, like many left wing extremists, you appear to be one of those who genuinely believe that when the majority does not share their views, that means democracy is failing. Taking comfort in fundamentalist dogma is your good right ofcourse. This is a free society after all."
and more bla bla..
----------------------------------------


This comment is not made to me, but I got to answer it. Do you really think the current US-regime is a left wing one ? It is this regime that decides that the Iraqis aren't mature enough to elect the leaders that are good for them. What any left wing person without power says about the masses matters a bit less than what the ruling right-wing does to people's ability to choose their own leaders.

It's rather silly to claim to have "liberated" a country, and then put a bunch of ex-generals to rule it, while you are brainwashing the public for a few years to see if they finally choose the "right" regime to take over.

Doing this is acting against democracy. If the people want their priests to rule the country, you got to let them choose that, if you believe in democracy. If you believe the people are stupid, and need to be lead by the "superior" leaders of the west, then it's another matter. But be honest about it, and do not call it democracy.

[JonnyBGood]

Originally posted by bink

I don't believe you actually have the arrogance to pretend your ideas are perfectly correct without even bothering to reply to my post. I'd actually cry if your reply wasn't so funny.




PS I'm not left wing.



PPS Millions of people fled Europe seeking the opinion to speak their mind. I'd actually give you a list to try and help you understand but I'm in disgust at the level of wilful stupidity you've displayed in this thread. I do not care any longer if you think you're right and I'm some communist manipulator here to destroy civilisation and prevent progress. I don't think you even read my post. I bid you good day.

[Zar]

Originally posted by bink
I am sure you would genuinely prefer to suffer the likes of Robert Mugabe, Charles Taylor and Gen. Than Shwe, infecting our society?

Well, looking at part of the western world, we have Bush and Blair, both rash nutcase war hungry, blood thirsty neo conservative idiots. They are happy to erode freedom, through silly "security" measures. Also why do people in the west think that everyone in these respective countries hate these leaders? Robert Mugabe, has a lot of support (as well as opposition), his support coming from the blacks in the country, who were sick of white owned farms, who were milking the economy dry, without giving much to the locals. The only reason the whites were there was coming back to this barbarism of the british. Colonialism.

Originally posted by bink
In terms of liberty, personal freedom, human rights, the things that matter, 'European' culture (a bit broader than the term 'western culture', which artificially excludes eastern europe for example) is the only one that shows progress.

Personal freedom is a very sketchy term. For example, i would be so bold to state that i think people in europe enjoy more freedom than they do in a visiciously conservative state like america. Of course americans love the argument that they are the most free citizens in the world. How do we measure freedom? The way we vote? The way the judicial system works? What laws we have in place and what we don't?

Personal freedom? I can smoke pot in parts of europe without risk. I can't carry a gun. In america you can. Beaches are automatically assumed to allow topless women in parts of europe. Not in America. Go to other parts of the world, smoke pot, carry a gun, walk around stark naked. Nobody will care. If someboedy does care - bribe the police. In that case they enjoy more freedom than we do.

Human Rights? America still executes its people. In Britain, the home secretary at one time (not sure still) could change tariffs for parole, for certain crimes, and government influence and politics plays a huge part in sentencing. How is this fair? A person can get a longer term in jail, just because the government (on behalf of the people) are against him/her, even when law states that the crime shouldn't serve that long a sentence.

Originally posted by bink
A hundred, a thousand, cliche anecdotes about how Islamic culture or Chinese culture were once more advanced and we were once less advanced are no more relevant than remarking that your great great grandfather was well educated.

Fact is that in many ways they are less civilised than they were 1000 years ago, and people from all over the world come here, not seeking wealth, technology or gradiose military displays, but the freedom to speak their mind without getting shot at, and the security of knowing that here they have the contitutional right to be treated the same as anyone else, totally independant of tribal feuds between intricate and complicated societies with a history of centuries.

They are relevant. Once again determine civilization? I could argue that throughout history, the west have been the barbaric and war hungry ones, while the east have been the thinkers. We often give too much credit to greece and even britain sometimes for discoveries, that were well years if not hundreds of years late. You see, the thing is the history we study today in school, in many parts is influenced from a european/american perspective. There are plenty of historians, and indeed too much evidence to suggest, that the greeks were late with the discovery of almost about everything (either being copycats, or the spread through waterways).

For example, the most commonly believed origin of the numeral system including the number zero, was what is today india (then a fragment, of vedic/dravidian societies). However today in many parts of the world, they are called Arabic Numerals. Why? Because the arabs spread the numeral system to the west europe. Arabs themselves credit numerals to the civilization in india (they call it hindse - meaning "from hindustan" (india)).

This applies to many things, pythagoras, trig, and other discoveries made my copernicus and gallileo. The great philosphers of greece also borrowed or learned much from the east. There are even a huge amount of historians that will claim, newton was a few hundred years late in discovering gravity and his laws. Many of these laws are well documented in ancient indian and chinese, as well as other cultures books and history. I guess its european and western arrogance to admit that to be honest, in the past couple of centuries uptil at least the last 200 years, the west have been decisively slow in discovering everything. In fact they were too slow and years behind.

Oh and by the way. Try protesting against the war in America in mass rally's. Either american protestors are unusually violent, or american neo conservatism is slightly out of hand. Protests were held all over the world with little glitch. protests numbering thousands upon thousands. Protests were much smaller in the usa, but more often than not- you hear of police intervention, firing rubber bullets into a crowd that claims that they didn't do anything. Freedom to express your viewpoint? Perhaps. expect a rubber bullet in your face though if you protest against the state.

you should be less dismissive of other cultures and civs, that have progessed just as well as we have. they have taken different routes to us, but they have developed also, and hey. If it is your belief that european culture is superior at the moment, just remember that europeans were far behind other cultures in the past. They managed to grow rapidly in the last 200 years. Those cultures and civilzations taht dominated the last 2 milleniums bar 200 years might well as easily reverse their problems around now and overtake european and western culture again

Zar

[Nusselt]

Originally posted by acropolis
I could really muddle everything all to hell as follows: many non-western societies have improved themselves significantly over the past century. the extent of improvement is equal to extent to which that society has 'westernized' itself ('europeanicized' is too shit a word even for me). E.g., China is now better fed, better educated, more technologically advanced etc. because they have begun to turn into a western culture. South Korea and Japan are much more westernized than China, and their standards of living are appropriately higher.
well'

i take your point. The problem i have with binks argument (i must be a left wing loonie) is that its absolute. European culture (western whatever) was partially founded on that of others (irrigation from the mid east etc) so we 'improved' by copying them. At this moment in time, yes you can say that we whiteys are oh so much more civilised then the men in wagga wagga land. But i for one dont presume that this will always be the case, and some other culture may well find a socio-economic model that is better then ours whilst retaining all personal freedoms. We arent the final product of humanity.

One further point that i feel i have to bring up is this whole notion of 'white mans burden'. And the whole we could help them out if we wanted to, now i have a problem with the tag 'white mans burden' since it includes every country that has a white face regardless of its history. But taking the specific example of britain, i think that yes there is a burden there simply because of the empire. India was the first to gain independance 56 years ago - just over half a century - to form a national identity and get an indian society accountable to indians up and running. Are they perfect (compared to us 'civilised' men) no, but the level of social change and progressthat they have had to go through over the past 56 years is greater than anything we civilised men have had to go through. One of the 'images' that is protrayed in the civilised west is that women in the sub continent are subservient, isnt it great that women here have all the freedom they do. Well yeah, im sure there are some social restrictions that occur there that dont occur here. The poor women eh. Well both India and Pakistan have have female prime ministers. How many has America had?

With respect to africa, oh the ******s, we left africa and it went down the toilet. There have been studies documenting (no i havent got the study to hand google yourself) the relative level of african involvement in the civilian structure compared to other parts of the empire. The africans were only really allowed to progress through local militias and arimies (as opposed to again say india where there were more indians employed in civilian authority - and did relatively better as a result) is it really surprising that after the foreign occupation force left that tribes who were combined on some map in paris suddenly found themselves without the common enemy trying to run a state with out an effective bureaucracy? ah but look at them they cant run themselves they havent changed they havent progressed well ill leave you to search just how many members of the common wealth were military dictatorships in the late 70s as opposed to now. They know they made mistakes, they're changing they're progressing. If you're blind to that its your problem not theirs.

Oh and those freedoms that we cherish, womans rights, even the sexual revolution of 60s counter culture that led to us being so laid back about everything. Those came about because we civilised men in europe started two world wars that killed tens of millions of people, the first led to a greater emancipation of women as they had to take up work, the second led to the baby boomer generation, which in turn led to a large percentage of the population being 'young' and hence drastically redefining 'culture', ill admit that the (relative) social freedoms that were in britain at the time helped (as opposed to Iran where the young are trying to change and progress under more restriction )

we caused suffering across the planet to bring about our 'freedoms', men who were under our occupation fought and died for our freedom when we ruled them. Those backward people in the dark lands, yes they commited genocide, they have the same evil in them that is in us. But ill tell you something, they only ever killed their own, they never came to europe to round up volunteers, then they changed and progressed (and in some cases still need to - i dont deny it).

What i really hate about binks argument is that he looks at the west and sees how

The history of 'european' culture (including areas settled by europeans) is one of progress. I do not recognise this trend in other cultures.

Its great huh isnt it, we're top of the world and its because we are about progress, never mind all the improvements that others have done (based on 'us', we improved from others knowledge - there is NO ****ing shame in it), we're number 1 and **** the rest. I sound pissed dont i, well yeah i am, i know the history of my country and europe. I know we have many things that others aspire to, i also know that we truly did **** up the face of the planet simply to suit our needs. Those primitives that you look down upon they've had less then a century to develop not only national identities (there WAS no Kenya or Uganda we stuck a group of tribes together and said YOU ARE)but social ones they have had only half a century and i think they've done pretty damned remarkbly well. And you know what, i hope they carry on past us i hope all the slitty eyed and brown people of the world develop past us then look down and pity us. They HAVE changed they HAVE progressed. Ill say this to them they're learning not only from their own mistakes but from ours. But they are intelligent enough to learn. If you have utterly no empathy for what other people have had to go through and are going through, then please stay at home. I dont want to go to them and say sorry for what my western civilised people have said. Its ok, ill go on my own, ill look them straight in the eye and ill honestly say under all the circumstances that have been inflicted on them so far, all the battles they have had to fight - and how far they've progressed. 'well done'.

Oh and one more thing i am still waiting patiently, to see if america that bastion to western progress the temple to change and self improvement has learned anything from vietnam. How many decades since that ended? how many years? your not serioulsy telling me that the american military has not progressed beyond that? All the civil liberties that have been advanced all the learning, not much empathy to show for it is there. Feeling hopeful that the US wont **** it up again? lets wait and see shall we. Lets see how far the american people have progressed. I am judging them. Im sitting here with little feeling for what they're going through and i am going to Judge.

[Zar]

Originally posted by Nusselt
i take your point. The problem i have with binks argument (i must be a left wing loonie) is that its absolute.......................

good post

Zar

[Tactitus]

Originally posted by Nusselt
Oh and one more thing i am still waiting patiently, to see if america that bastion to western progress the temple to change and self improvement has learned anything from vietnam. How many decades since that ended? how many years? your not serioulsy telling me that the american military has not progressed beyond that?

I really have no idea what you're talking about here. The lesson the American military took from Vietnam was not to wage war in a half-assed manner. Don't commit forces piecemeal, don't start small and 'escalate', don't fight at all unless you're prepared to win.

If you look at the major US engagements since Vietnam you will see that lesson in action: Gulf War I, Afghanistan, Gulf War II. Overwhelming force => swift victory.

The other lesson the American military learned from Vietnam is not to take the fall for failed political policy. Vietnam was fought primarily with young draftees taken from the lower end of society. Soldiers whom the politicians and, ultimately, the public were willing to throw away pursuing ill-defined objectives. Today, the US military is an all-volunteer force. Furthermore, the US military is constructed such that any major operation necessarily involves calling up large numbers of reservists--people who have jobs and families and who can't be (so easily) thrown away. The theory is that this requires a much higher "buy in" by the American public and reduces or eliminates the possibility of an "unpopular" war like Vietnam. And, like it or not, the two Gulf Wars and Afghanistan had a large degree of public support in the US.

With respect to Iraq, the American military would say--in effect--that the war is over. Iraq's armies have been defeated and the remaining problems are largely political problems--not military problems. I think most people would agree with that.

So I think the question you should have asked is if American political policy has progressed beyond Vietnam...

To that the Elves know not the answer.

All the civil liberties that have been advanced all the learning, not much empathy to show for it is there. Feeling hopeful that the US wont **** it up again? lets wait and see shall we. Lets see how far the american people have progressed. I am judging them. Im sitting here with little feeling for what they're going through and i am going to Judge.

Judge away.

Originally posted by Zar
Also why do people in the west think that everyone in these respective countries hate these leaders?

I picked those 3 because they are racist murderers, in control of a country (though at the moment Taylors control is being disputed in a manner based on cultural traditions that go back thousands of years), and vocal opponents of western culture.

Anyway, to get back on the topic of this thread, they didn't hold elections in Germany and Japan immediately after their surrender in 1945 either, and for a reason. If a year or two from now the Americans still havent kept their promise to bring democracy to Iraq, then it is a different matter, but right now it is still chaos, there are still skirmishes every day, the old dictator is still at large, order has not been restored yet. Handing over control now, would mean handing it over in a completely polarised atmosphere. Retribution against the former supporters of the old regime, uprisings against the american presence etc.

[acropolis]

good posts etc.

Anyway, for what I actually think on the topic,

I believe that there is prerequisite belief to purposeful advance or change in your society, and that belief is simply that progress can be made.

To advance, you must believe that change can be good, that there are better things out there, that there are new inventions to be invented, new ideas to be thought, that better forms of government can be formed, that lives can be healthier, happier, and longer. That tradition is just what we have because we haven't found anything better.

Starting somewhere between 5 and 7 hundred years ago in Europe, this belief was widely held (at least among the 'elite'). In China, however, the very word 'change' in terms of society was almost a swear word.

But I don't think you can say that that idea is a part of western culture. I find that to weaken it. I believe that it is a far deeper truth, and to say that it is a part of western culture is just as wrong as to say that, say, calculus is a part of western culture.

Hence my post above. Obviously if you define progress as a part of western culture, only 'western' countries will progress. But I don't think you can do that.

[Radical Edward]

Originally posted by Toccata & Fugue
Robert McGabe

Mugabwe surely?

Originally posted by Toccata & Fugue

<snip>

I get the feeling I've been had, and Toccata & Fugue is a parody account of cryptic or kurashima...

[Dante Hicks]

Originally posted by bink
I get the feeling I've been had, and Toccata & Fugue is a parody account of cryptic or kurashima...

To be honest, I thought you were trolling.

Anyway, even if T&F was a gimmick (which he isn't, since I've sadly know the man for over ten years now) what about everyone else in this thread who disagreed with you?

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally posted by Dante Hicks
To be honest, I thought you were trolling.

Didn't we all?

Originally posted by Dante Hicks
To be honest, I thought you were trolling.

Anyway, even if T&F was a gimmick (which he isn't, since I've sadly know the man for over ten years now) what about everyone else in this thread who disagreed with you?

The others, even the lightweight and flame happy JohnnyBGoode tried to support their point with arguments, you even cited a book I might read if I can find it.

T&F started off with calling me a white supremacist and an uninformed child, and to support this claim he reveals that he is a Communist and spouts some narrow minded seventies-retro dogma. It sounds like a parody of left wing extremism. "You are wrong because I don't like you" would have been more convincing.

[Nodrog]

Originally posted by Toccata & Fugue
This whole arguemnt all comes under the heading Eurocentric. I think that awareness of non white culture in the West is woeful, I myself despite having a keen interst in such matters find the presence of Non European/American politics almost completely absent form the mass media save for a few paltry footnotes. No wonder people like Bink and spout such idiocy, the poor fool doesn't know any better, he is like a child wandering around a wood not capable of understanding the world outside. That besides all the Americans/Europeans there are 5 billion other people, who aren't savages scrabbling in the undegrowth still trying to discover fire but comlicated and intricate societies based on century's of tradition. His simpe world view cannot comprehend that we are not in some sort of race to Alpha-Centuri but merely one species on a vast and varied planet. Binks crude division of the world into arbitrary groups based on arbitrary and unnatural national boundaries exposes the simplicity of thought and mild racism which presumably serves him well in his delusions of grandeur whilst similtaneously betraying the fact that if we're so advanced how come we have people like him infecting our society.

Could you give some examples of specific cultures we should pay more attention too, and possibly model ourselves on?

[Dante Hicks]

Originally posted by Nodrog
Could you give some examples of specific cultures we should pay more attention too, and possibly model ourselves on?

We should pay more attention to the whole damn world, but not in the interests of being like them.

[Nodrog]

Originally posted by Dante Hicks
We should pay more attention to the whole damn world, but not in the interests of being like them.

No no no, I'm genuinelly curious. I hear so much about how Western culture isnt superior to others, but never any examples of specific cultures that are even remotely close to it.

Edit: some people call "paying attention to the whole world" imperialism

[Nusselt]

Originally posted by Nodrog
Could you give some examples of specific cultures we should pay more attention too, and possibly model ourselves on?

i suspect you're asking about the social structure of the country (democratic-capitalism) well personally i dont feel that there is anything outthere to better it yet, but who knows the chinese may be onto something. Doesnt mean that its the best that humanity could ever come up with tho, and someone else may come up with something better, who are we to preempt and laugh?

in the more technology aspect of 'civilisation' or technological 'culture' the west learned and continue to learn a hell of a lot from the Japanese.

Are you a stupid/ill-infornmed/racist with some warped white supremicist view of progress too, Nodrog?

[Nodrog]

Originally posted by Nusselt
i suspect you're asking about the social structure of the country (democratic-capitalism) well personally i dont feel that there is anything outthere to better it yet.

racist

[Nusselt]

Originally posted by Nodrog
racist

fine, troll.

[Dante Hicks]

Originally posted by Nodrog
No no no, I'm genuinelly curious. I hear so much about how Western culture isnt superior to others, but never any examples of specific cultures that are even remotely close to it.

Well, this really depends what you mean by "culture". For instance, saying the English language is superior to some pygmy language is silly, and doesn't merit much remark. "Ah, but find me a book close to Hamlet in stature amongst the pygmies, written in their language". That would be a nonsense question, of course. Lifestyle != Culture.

If you mean economics by culture, sure we're miles ahead of everyone. Yay us! Since things like personal freedom, socail structures, etc are all tied up in economics (Marxism) then obviously we're going to be ahead there too.

Quite evidently Western "culture" if better than non-Western "culture" is you mean we have more personal freedoms, toleration of dissent, etc. That's kinda obvious. But saying "Other cultures aren't advancing" (or words to that effect) is a whole other ballpark.

[queball]

Originally posted by Dante Hicks
If you mean economics by culture, sure we're miles ahead of everyone. Yay us! Since things like personal freedom, socail structures, etc are all tied up in economics (Marxism) then obviously we're going to be ahead there too.

It's not good vs bad. I wouldn't say any culture is better than another. You would first have to have some criteria which would neccesarily be cultural.

Economists are always looking at history and other countries, for example "gift cultures", the roots of land ownership, that sort of thing. The usual examples are learning a foreign language helps you think clearly (by immersion, not studying it in school) and music (world music ).

[Nodrog]

Originally posted by Dante Hicks

Quite evidently Western "culture" if better than non-Western "culture" is you mean we have more personal freedoms, toleration of dissent, etc. That's kinda obvious. But saying "Other cultures aren't advancing" (or words to that effect) is a whole other ballpark.

Well thats a different issue entirely. Saying that Western society has some pretty huge problems is completely different from multiculturalism, especially when most other 'cultures' have the same problems to an even greater degree. .

[Nusselt]

Originally posted by Nodrog
Well thats a different issue entirely. Saying that Western society has some pretty huge problems is completely different from multiculturalism, especially when most other 'cultures' have the same problems to an even greater degree. .

i dont understand elaborate a little.

[Dante Hicks]

Originally posted by Nodrog
Well thats a different issue entirely. Saying that Western society has some pretty huge problems is completely different from multiculturalism, especially when most other 'cultures' have the same problems to an even greater degree.

I wasn't saying that at all. I'm merely disagreeing with the notion that there's something "special" (intristically, I presume) about our culture which sets us aside from anyone else. We're further along the line, as it were, but I think any attempt to trace back our advantage to something ideological about us is just spasticated.

Multiculturalism is either saying something bloody obvious (e.g. curry isn't superior to fish and chips) or it's saying something so bloody stupid no-one would agree (a culture where women are routinely beaten isn't inferior to a culture where they're not). So it really depends what you're trying to attack.

I'm sure there have been a few idiots who have gone on record to say that "all ways of living are equally valid" or something equally moronic, but not even they believed it. If all ways of living (culture/whatever) were the same then progress would be impossible. I do believe that liberal capitalism (for want of a better term for today's ideology) is better than feudalism which in turn was better than despotism, etc, etc. All this should be obvious though.

[Nodrog]

Originally posted by Nusselt
i dont understand elaborate a little.

What problems do you think "Western" culture has, what other cultures don't also have these problems, and for what reasons do they not have them?

[Nodrog]

Originally posted by Dante Hicks
I wasn't saying that at all. I'm merely disagreeing with the notion that there's something "special" (intristically, I presume) about our culture which sets us aside from anyone else. We're further along the line, as it were, but I think any attempt to trace back our advantage to something ideological about us is just spasticated.

True, however its also stupid to look behind us at those who are still severely lacking, and say that we should somehow 'learn' from them.

Originally posted by Dante Hicks

I'm sure there have been a few idiots who have gone on record to say that "all ways of living are equally valid" or something equally moronic, but not even they believed it. If all ways of living (culture/whatever) were the same then progress would be impossible. I do believe that liberal capitalism (for want of a better term for today's ideology) is better than feudalism which in turn was better than despotism, etc, etc. All this should be obvious though.

I was initially replying to :

Originally posted by Toccata & Fugue
This whole arguemnt all comes under the heading Eurocentric. I think that awareness of non white culture in the West is woeful, I myself despite having a keen interst in such matters find the presence of Non European/American politics almost completely absent form the mass media save for a few paltry footnotes. No wonder people like Bink and spout such idiocy, the poor fool doesn't know any better, he is like a child wandering around a wood not capable of understanding the world outside. That besides all the Americans/Europeans there are 5 billion other people, who aren't savages scrabbling in the undegrowth still trying to discover fire but comlicated and intricate societies based on century's of tradition. His simpe world view cannot comprehend that we are not in some sort of race to Alpha-Centuri but merely one species on a vast and varied planet. Binks crude division of the world into arbitrary groups based on arbitrary and unnatural national boundaries exposes the simplicity of thought and mild racism which presumably serves him well in his delusions of grandeur whilst similtaneously betraying the fact that if we're so advanced how come we have people like him infecting our society.

[Nusselt]

Originally posted by Nodrog
True, however its also stupid to look behind us at those who are still severely lacking, and say that we should somehow 'learn' from them.

well again if you're talking about the social aspect of the west in terms of its political/economic structure and the associated freedoms i havent denied that it is probably the best the human race has developed so far. But at the same time it is pretentious to think we are the end product of humanity, others (or us) may develop something better.

I think what you're trying to say is that we've elliminated some of the things they're going through. Thats fine. I wouldnt disagree.

[JonnyBGood]

Originally posted by Nodrog
Well thats a different issue entirely. Saying that Western society has some pretty huge problems is completely different from multiculturalism, especially when most other 'cultures' have the same problems to an even greater degree. .

All that was said in this thread was that European/western civilisation had a steady progression not seen in other civilisations. I believe I disagreed with this to the extent that western culture has not progressed uniformly or even always positively. Somehow strawman arguments always come charging out of the woodwork though.

To be honest I'd sum up this entire argument as completely pointless as I disagree with all forms of civilisation to date. It's like adding two and two. Some people get fifty, some five, some five million. Who cares though, it's still wrong.


PS I don't believe I've been called flame-happy by someone who used the phrase, "Don't try to engage in a battle of the wits, you are ill equipped for it", twice in the same thread. Heh.

[Nodrog]

Originally posted by JonnyBGood
All that was said in this thread was that European/western civilisation had a steady progression not seen in other civilisations. I believe I disagreed with this to the extent that western culture has not progressed uniformly or even always positively. Somehow strawman arguments always come charging out of the woodwork though.

The graph of western 'progress' for the last 4000 years would probablylook like a sin wave. Im not sure why this is relavant though.

Originally posted by JonnyBGood

To be honest I'd sum up this entire argument as completely pointless as I disagree with all forms of civilisation to date. It's like adding two and two. Some people get fifty, some five, some five million. Who cares though, it's still wrong.

So youre saying that the non-existance of utopia justifies across the board cultural relativism?

[JonnyBGood]

Originally posted by Nodrog
The graph of western 'progress' for the last 4000 years would probably look like a sin wave. Im not sure why this is relavant though.

Because somebody else stated something that was factually inaccurate?

So youre saying that the non-existance of utopia justifies across the board cultural relativism?

No, I'm saying that you're all pants, and you should sort out your bigger problems first before going around shouting "we're number one!" at the top of your voice. What's the point in being top of a pile of shiet? You're the one practicing cultural relativism here.

[Chrism]

Originally posted by Radical Edward
Mugabwe surely?

Mugabe

Originally posted by JonnyBGood

PS I don't believe I've been called flame-happy

I called you light-weight and flame happy

[Dante Hicks]

Originally posted by Nodrog
So youre saying that the non-existance of utopia justifies across the board cultural relativism?

No. No-one said that ever. Stop wasting your time fighting straw men, and what you imagine other people to believe.

[W]

No culture is superior or inferior (one really gives the other). By "western" standards "western culture" is superior. Doesn't mean a damn thing.