Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
So Western progressive ideals = cultural superiority = prosperity?
That theory will be hard tested in the coming decades (years?), when India and China pass us by.
I agree with your first sentence. I also agree with your second. I note that you don't seem to be saying "it isn't true"---you seem to be saying "It won't last"....I agree. Nothing lasts forever, and well-fed, satisfied, overweight, overindulged people simply lack that "fire in the belly" necessary to keep on progressing---life's just too good.
Interesting post. Let me take a little bit of a different view in this. I have a long time significant other that was born in St. Petersburg Rus. The family left in the early 90's. From my discussions with my SO and the Parents I got a tale of two cultures. One rural and one city (which they were from.) They feel that the people in the cities were much more refined, better cultured, and much better off than there rural counter part. Basically they looked at the rural as clueless. Also people from the city had the advantage of having (believe or not) a HUGE, very Western style black market. Granted it was a little bit more bartered based and/or bribed based but a lot of deals were negotiated western style. They believed this black market help them assimilate to America and it western ideals much easier than some one from the rural areas. That why I think a lot of the northern part of the ex Eastern block countries are more financially successfully. They have more major cities than in the south. As for political freedom I'm not so sure of that. Not with Putin and other ex-soviets still in Power.
We had this town-country disconnect here in the US as well. It was immortalized in "The Beverly Hillbillies"
I don't recall the article being "christian"-oriented.
I openly admit to reading my own interpretation into your post. If I was wrong, then I was wrong. Done.
Quote:
Originally Posted by macmeal
I think the basic point, that life after communism was simply "better" in some areas than others, is irrefutable.
Of course. No quarrel there. The reasons are impossible to prove but it's fun to try to figure it out with our tiny brains.
Quote:
Originally Posted by macmeal
When one is faced with a heart problem, one can either have open-heart surgery, or rely on inhaling the smoke of various herbs, chanting, praying, and hoping for a cure.
Great example. Recent meta-analyses of open-heart surgery have shown that a lot of these procedures have been unnecessary and occasionally harmful. It's entirely possible that the biochemical chain-reaction of praying, chanting and inhaling herbal smoke could be a better cure for some people than open-heart surgery. This is every bit as "true" as anything published in a peer-reviewed medical journal. I first learned about these heretical ideas from peer-reviewed science journals.
Quote:
Originally Posted by macmeal
Exactly WHY one method is preferred over the other is, of course, up to the patient.
Agreed. We're a lot more complex than what logical empiricists would have us believe.
Quote:
Originally Posted by macmeal
Secondly, your "non-Christian cultures thriving" etc. etc., allegation, I think, is a stretch
Then you should study some American history. Rather than reading it from the perspectives of modern Americans who filter it for you, read the original writings of the European immigrants between the 15th and 18th centuries.
There are well-preserved letters written by Christopher Columbus to his mates in Europe, touting the availability of 12 year old virgin girls in the New World. Our children are taught lies, we were all taught them. We have a holiday celebrating a genocidal pedophile. There is a well-documented history of native women killing their own daughters and themselves rather than becoming the sex slaves of European explorers. And those explorers, while perhaps not Christian by any current definition, did proclaim themselves servants of God. What god was this? Certainly not the one spoken of by Christ.
Quote:
Originally Posted by macmeal
I feel that the "western" cultures have thrived, not because "God loves us more", but because Western culture, by its own definition, gives high priority to personal freedom and progressive thinking.
From a secular point of view I tend to agree with you. As long as we're honest with ourselves about being "progressive" then I'm in agreement, and there's nothing progressive about glossing over the atrocities of one's ancestors. The progressive thing to do is to tell the truth about Columbus, the Pilgrims, the Deist beliefs of most of the nation's founders, the violence of the wars we fought, and the lack of any absolute truth behind these wars. People had conflicting desires and preferences and they fought with each other about those preferences. Canada differs so much from the USA in large part because pro-British Americans fled there during and after the Revolution. Thus, they have no Bill of Rights, there is no guarantee of free speech north of the border, and they're still enamored of the Motherland to a greater extend than we are here in the rebellious colonies.
Quote:
Originally Posted by macmeal
...for the last few centuries, the West has been at the vanguard of free thought, scientific inquiry, and exploration. That's simply a fact. The Mayas didn't colonize Europe.
Eh wot? Not sure how the Mayan reference fits here. My comment about their superior systems of sanitation has nothing to do with Mayans violently conquering Europe, it's about Europeans learning from Mayans before wiping them off the face of the earth. I don't know how we're supposed to be proud of this heritage.
Quote:
Originally Posted by macmeal
The morality of the whole thing may be up for argument, (i.e., the Africans didn't enslave Europeans, either), but the facts are not.
Mostly agreed on that. If we leave morality and "good vs. evil" out of the discussion, it's much easier to analyze history.
Quote:
Originally Posted by macmeal
Isn't what we call "acting white" really just nothing more than "acting progressive", and isn't acting progressive really available to anyone who wants to do so?
And now you lost me. I cannot conceive of any possible historical analysis in which "acting white" is equated to "progressive thinking". That's preposterous.
I openly admit to reading my own interpretation into your post. If I was wrong, then I was wrong. Done.
Of course. No quarrel there. The reasons are impossible to prove but it's fun to try to figure it out with our tiny brains.
Great example. Recent meta-analyses of open-heart surgery have shown that a lot of these procedures have been unnecessary and occasionally harmful. It's entirely possible that the biochemical chain-reaction of praying, chanting and inhaling herbal smoke could be a better cure for some people than open-heart surgery. This is every bit as "true" as anything published in a peer-reviewed medical journal. I first learned about these heretical ideas from peer-reviewed science journals.
Agreed. We're a lot more complex than what logical empiricists would have us believe.
Then you should study some American history. Rather than reading it from the perspectives of modern Americans who filter it for you, read the original writings of the European immigrants between the 15th and 18th centuries.
There are well-preserved letters written by Christopher Columbus to his mates in Europe, touting the availability of 12 year old virgin girls in the New World. Our children are taught lies, we were all taught them. We have a holiday celebrating a genocidal pedophile. There is a well-documented history of native women killing their own daughters and themselves rather than becoming the sex slaves of European explorers. And those explorers, while perhaps not Christian by any current definition, did proclaim themselves servants of God. What god was this? Certainly not the one spoken of by Christ.
From a secular point of view I tend to agree with you. As long as we're honest with ourselves about being "progressive" then I'm in agreement, and there's nothing progressive about glossing over the atrocities of one's ancestors. The progressive thing to do is to tell the truth about Columbus, the Pilgrims, the Deist beliefs of most of the nation's founders, the violence of the wars we fought, and the lack of any absolute truth behind these wars. People had conflicting desires and preferences and they fought with each other about those preferences. Canada differs so much from the USA in large part because pro-British Americans fled there during and after the Revolution. Thus, they have no Bill of Rights, there is no guarantee of free speech north of the border, and they're still enamored of the Motherland to a greater extend than we are here in the rebellious colonies.
Eh wot? Not sure how the Mayan reference fits here. My comment about their superior systems of sanitation has nothing to do with Mayans violently conquering Europe, it's about Europeans learning from Mayans before wiping them off the face of the earth. I don't know how we're supposed to be proud of this heritage.
Mostly agreed on that. If we leave morality and "good vs. evil" out of the discussion, it's much easier to analyze history.
And now you lost me. I cannot conceive of any possible historical analysis in which "acting white" is equated to "progressive thinking". That's preposterous.
Last things first--"acting white" most certainly is, and has been, associated with "acting progressive". Many inhabitants of the "inner city" have long decried the near-impossibility of children's getting good grades, using proper English, and dressing conservatively, without the risk of being taunted, mocked, teased, and charged by one's peers with "trying to act white". Some kids have even had their "straight A" homework destroyed by mocking classmates on the pretext that "A's are for whitey". Hell, I've even seen this among adults working for the Post Office. It's very common, very self-destructive, and very well-documented. Bill Cosby has alluded to this; so have Larry Elder, Thomas Sowell, and a host of others.
Don't know all the sordid details of the early day Europeans' exploits, though I doubt they were significantly more sordid than anyone else's. To say "The Europeans came as happy, God-fearing folk, looking to tame the new land, get to know the interesting inhabitants, and bring forth the fruits of the earth", is, of course, a stretch. On the other hand, to say that "Prior to the 'invasion', the Americas were a huge semi-paradise of happy, contented people who left each other in peace, seeking only to enjoy the flowers and reap what the Great Spirit provided, while they all lived to a happy, healthy advanced old age, before passing away peacefully among family and loved ones", is just as big a stretch.
I'm very leery of feeling TOO MUCH guilt for my ancestors. I never met them, and they never got my advice, and I find it hard to take reponsibility for what they did or didn't do.
One of the tried and true catch-phrases hurled by pro-immigrant forces here in Calif. (presumably at the 'gabachos') is the jingle "YOUR ANCESTORS CAME FROM SOMEWHERE ELSE".(presumably implying that, therefore, 'you' are not qualified to exclude 'us')
My retort to that (if I was ever asked, which I haven't been), is "Yes, they DID come from somewhere else. Your Ancestors, on the other hand DID NOT come; if they HAD, you'd now be citizens. But your ancestors stayed home, and now, the world has changed, and so have conditions. Your ancestors BLEW their chance; if you are angry, please direct your anger at YOUR ancestors, not at me or my ancestors". But all this is beside the point, because personally, I don't see how taking the blame, or the credit, for one's ancestors' actions makes any sense at all. ALL of our ancestors are dead and gone. We are here, now, to work things out. Forget the ancestors; their struggles are over.....
PS Not sure how you conclude that the Mayas were "wiped off the face of the earth". Plenty of them are very much alive, and even lend an odd accent to the Spanish spoken in the Yucatan Peninsula and Guatemala Obviously, of course, they did suffer a terrific power-shift. But I really wonder if the average lower-class Maya "man-in-the-street" actually has it worse now than his ancestors back then. The Spaniards were ornery so-and-so's, no question about it. But they DID seem to hold a dim view of human sacrifice, and the practice is definitely considered a big "no-no" in modern Mexican and Central American society.....
Last things first--"acting white" most certainly is, and has been, associated with "acting progressive". Many inhabitants of the "inner city" have long decried the near-impossibility of children's getting good grades, using proper English, and dressing conservatively, without the risk of being taunted, mocked, teased, and charged by one's peers with "trying to act white".
No argument, that's all well-documented. It doesn't prove that one culture is superior to another in an absolute sense, only that one culture is dominant and you have to play by the rules of the dominant culture in order to succeed in their game.
Quote:
Originally Posted by macmeal
...Larry Elder, Thomas Sowell, and a host of others.
Off-topic: I like seeing those names mentioned. I have tremendous respect for those brilliant men and feel sad that they're marginalized among the "victim-worship" crowd. Sowell is a true genius who could destroy Al Sharpton or Jesse Jackson in any debate, which is probably why they don't debate him. But I digress...
Quote:
Originally Posted by macmeal
Don't know all the sordid details of the early day Europeans' exploits, though I doubt they were significantly more sordid than anyone else's.
Early American history suggests they were, indeed, more sordid. But that's easily explained by the fact that those who adventure into the unknown tend to be those with higher levels of testosterone and a need for adrenaline rushes. It's not like Europe put their best and brightest on those early ships to America. They sent the expendables, led by the courageous and dastardly Columbus. Subsequent waves of migrants were often of the lower classes, outcasts, those who couldn't make it in the old world. So... your point is well-taken if you adjust it with some consideration for the fact that the invaders largely consisted of aggressive drifters relative to the stable cultures of the land they sought to conquer.
Conquering the lands of prior occupants is not a pretty business. Today it's outlawed by every civilization on the planet. But it's how we came to America.
Quote:
Originally Posted by macmeal
On the other hand, to say that "Prior to the 'invasion', the Americas were a huge semi-paradise of happy, contented people who left each other in peace, seeking only to enjoy the flowers and reap what the Great Spirit provided...
...and so on. Yeah, of course. Agreed. But then why did the US Constitution derive so much of its content from the 5 nation alliance of the Northeast? Yes, Indians fought one another, they're human. We do that. But they weren't as barbaric as the early invaders from Europe. Or so I claim. As if I was there and interviewed all of them... (just ignore me if you wish... )
Quote:
Originally Posted by macmeal
I'm very leery of feeling TOO MUCH guilt for my ancestors. I never met them, and they never got my advice, and I find it hard to take reponsibility for what they did or didn't do.
Another way of looking at this is to recognize that there isn't a human being on the planet whose life isn't owed to the barbaric raping, conquering and pillaging of their ancestors. This is an ugly fact of human evolution that most choose to ignore, but it easily explains why we still tend to be violent and why we can't live together in peace. The genes of the winners of violent conflicts are the genes that survived to create modern humans. Oh boy. What a fun legacy! Yes, all have sinned and we're all in the same boat.
Quote:
Originally Posted by macmeal
One of the tried and true catch-phrases hurled by pro-immigrant forces here in Calif. (presumably at the 'gabachos') is the jingle "YOUR ANCESTORS CAME FROM SOMEWHERE ELSE".
My condolences. That's a good example of a reason why I'm glad I don't live in California any more. Texas has nearly as many immigrants but I don't experience any tension with them. And we don't have a massive population of guilty white liberals constantly telling us how to live our lives and why we're horrible and why we should shoot ourselves and stop speaking English or whatever the latest PC fad is in CA. (Just trying to get some liberals to scream at me, I'm bored...)
Quote:
Originally Posted by macmeal
PS Not sure how you conclude that the Mayas were "wiped off the face of the earth". Plenty of them are very much alive...
Their civilization was so thoroughly destroyed that nobody alive today can interpret accurately what all the symbols mean on the ruins. But I over-simplified by saying "Mayans" --- there were many other cultures that were wiped out during the same period. Just because their DNA survives in people living today doesn't mean that their culture is alive and well. It isn't. It was completely wiped out. ALL of them were wiped out.
No argument, that's all well-documented. It doesn't prove that one culture is superior to another in an absolute sense, only that one culture is dominant and you have to play by the rules of the dominant culture in order to succeed in their game.
Off-topic: I like seeing those names mentioned. I have tremendous respect for those brilliant men and feel sad that they're marginalized among the "victim-worship" crowd. Sowell is a true genius who could destroy Al Sharpton or Jesse Jackson in any debate, which is probably why they don't debate him. But I digress...
Early American history suggests they were, indeed, more sordid. But that's easily explained by the fact that those who adventure into the unknown tend to be those with higher levels of testosterone and a need for adrenaline rushes. It's not like Europe put their best and brightest on those early ships to America. They sent the expendables, led by the courageous and dastardly Columbus. Subsequent waves of migrants were often of the lower classes, outcasts, those who couldn't make it in the old world. So... your point is well-taken if you adjust it with some consideration for the fact that the invaders largely consisted of aggressive drifters relative to the stable cultures of the land they sought to conquer.
Conquering the lands of prior occupants is not a pretty business. Today it's outlawed by every civilization on the planet. But it's how we came to America.
...and so on. Yeah, of course. Agreed. But then why did the US Constitution derive so much of its content from the 5 nation alliance of the Northeast? Yes, Indians fought one another, they're human. We do that. But they weren't as barbaric as the early invaders from Europe. Or so I claim. As if I was there and interviewed all of them... (just ignore me if you wish... )
Another way of looking at this is to recognize that there isn't a human being on the planet whose life isn't owed to the barbaric raping, conquering and pillaging of their ancestors. This is an ugly fact of human evolution that most choose to ignore, but it easily explains why we still tend to be violent and why we can't live together in peace. The genes of the winners of violent conflicts are the genes that survived to create modern humans. Oh boy. What a fun legacy! Yes, all have sinned and we're all in the same boat.
My condolences. That's a good example of a reason why I'm glad I don't live in California any more. Texas has nearly as many immigrants but I don't experience any tension with them. And we don't have a massive population of guilty white liberals constantly telling us how to live our lives and why we're horrible and why we should shoot ourselves and stop speaking English or whatever the latest PC fad is in CA. (Just trying to get some liberals to scream at me, I'm bored...)
Their civilization was so thoroughly destroyed that nobody alive today can interpret accurately what all the symbols mean on the ruins. But I over-simplified by saying "Mayans" --- there were many other cultures that were wiped out during the same period. Just because their DNA survives in people living today doesn't mean that their culture is alive and well. It isn't. It was completely wiped out. ALL of them were wiped out.
Once again, a very well-informed post-you don't let me "get away" with anything...
Your point about the "rough" qualities of the Europeans is well-spoken. Add to this the fact that the large majority of early Spanish "settlers"(?) were unattached males, and the subsequent drama shouldn't surprise anyone. (The "Pilgrims" were a little more stuffy--they mostly came with wives and kiddies).
Your reference to an "absolute" sense of judging cultures is interesting. I don't think ANY of us can truly view things in an absolute sense; this is part of the problem. I am very leery of people who say "I think it's wrong and evil, but shucks, that's just me". I don't think it's possible NOT to believe there are degrees of "desirability" in different practices and behaviors--some are better than others (but shucks, that's just me.) In this sense, to be absolutely non-judgemental, you'd have to give up any pretense of differentiating "right" from "wrong"--and yet this, too, soon runs into problems. For if there's no "wrong", then how would you judge me, when I state that there IS wrong? It all gets very convoluted....
I've often wondered (and still carry the resultant bruises for expressing it) if a sort of "Christian Guilt" hasn't caused some of the more liberal among us to judge our OWN actions more harshly than those of others. If so, it's ironically elitist, for we're saying "WE should be held accountable, because we should know better; but THEY are, after all, just simple 'natives', and really aren't capable of such moral responsibility"...once again, this is just an impression I get now and then.
Good Points......
I have two things to say which come to mind as I read your post. (1) I don't recall the article being "christian"-oriented. I think I'd have remembered if it was. Is it possible that an atheist, or a Jew, or even a Muslim might not have come to the same conclusions, as long as their mind was open? I think the basic point, that life after communism was simply "better" in some areas than others, is irrefutable. The age-old reasons for this may be debatable, I admit. When one is faced with a heart problem, one can either have open-heart surgery, or rely on inhaling the smoke of various herbs, chanting, praying, and hoping for a cure. Exactly WHY one method is preferred over the other is, of course, up to the patient.
Secondly, your "non-Christian cultures thriving" etc. etc., allegation, I think, is a stretch, but you have managed to touch upon one very important point that's always interested me; I feel that the "western" cultures have thrived, not because "God loves us more", but because Western culture, by its own definition, gives high priority to personal freedom and progressive thinking. It hasn't always, and others have done this as well, (to some degree at least) in the past. But for the last few centuries, the West has been at the vanguard of free thought, scientific inquiry, and exploration. That's simply a fact. The Mayas didn't colonize Europe. The morality of the whole thing may be up for argument, (i.e., the Africans didn't enslave Europeans, either), but the facts are not. My assertation (relevant to much of today's inter-ethnic squabbling here in the US) is this: Isn't it possible that "Acting White"(or christian), which causes so much anger and disagreement among so many people, is really a misstatement? Isn't what we call "acting white" really just nothing more than "acting progressive", and isn't acting progressive really available to anyone who wants to do so?
Isn't it possible that the "christian" nations are generally better off than others (for the most part) not because they're christian, but simply because they do things that make sense and "work"? Japan is not a Christian nation, and seems to be doing quite well. Ditto for South Korea and Taiwan and Singapore. All fairly affluent, stable places, none of which are "christian", just progressive. (And, with apologies in advance to Bily4, only ONE of which could be called multicultural--and it's a tiny one, at that)...
Anyway, Harvester, no, I didn't detect a "christian rant" in the article. I'm sure where I read it was in a very secular publication. Enjoyed your post
Macmeal, it really all depends on how you see lifes progress, a scientist might like to work on diversity and numbers, in which case the search for gold counts for little. The third world wins.
I've often wondered (and still carry the resultant bruises for expressing it) if a sort of "Christian Guilt" hasn't caused some of the more liberal among us to judge our OWN actions more harshly than those of others. If so, it's ironically elitist, for we're saying "WE should be held accountable, because we should know better; but THEY are, after all, just simple 'natives', and really aren't capable of such moral responsibility"...
Wow... That's rather profound, and I'm not being sarcastic. Did you articulate that on your own or have you distilled that from others? I think you've said it very well. It has enormous implications for everything we call "charity" and for many aspects of our foreign policy. Regardless of political party, our leaders (and those of us who elect them) tend to view other peoples as being "less developed" and "needy" and "helpless" --- we treat them with a patronizing sense of guilt, which translates into a neo-imperialist philosophy such as we're seeing in the current popularity of "spreading democracy". The underlying assumption of such a policy is that "those people can't take care of themselves, we must help them be more like us because we have the truth and we know what is best for them."
The truly odd thing about neo-Conservative ideology is how closely it resembles Liberal Elitism --- in both cases, the underlying philosophy is that one is better equipped to make decisions about the lives and destinies of others. Do we really have that right? Your words have made me even more strongly in favor of Ron Paul's presidential candidacy.
Last edited by TheHarvester; 08-23-2007 at 10:58 AM..
Wow... That's rather profound, and I'm not being sarcastic. Did you articulate than on your own or have you distilled that from others? I think you've said it very well. It has enormous implications for everything we call "charity" and for many aspects of our foreign policy. Regardless of political party, our leaders (and those of us who elect them) tend to view other peoples as being "less developed" and "needy" and "helpless" --- we treat them with a patronizing sense of guilt, which translates into a neo-imperialist philosophy such as we're seeing in the current popularity of "spreading democracy". The underlying assumption of such a policy is that "those people can't take care of themselves, we must help them be more like us because we have the truth and we know what is best for them."
The truly odd thing about neo-Conservative ideology is how closely it resembles Liberal Elitism --- in both cases, the underlying philosophy is that one is better equipped to make decisions about the lives and destinies of others. Do we really have that right? Your words have made me even more strongly in favor of Ron Paul's presidential candidacy.
Of course I do read a lot, but no, my ideas are my own. Guess it comes from lots of things--an innate love of a good argument, besides any merit it may otherwise have---having traveled a bit under "rough" conditions---having worked beside, eaten beside, and socialized with a number of "illegals", and having been married for almost 4 decades into a "minority" family to a very pragmatic wife (with whom I've produced 3 kids and 4 grandkids). These things have perhaps given me a "grittier" view of the reality of things than is held by some of my more eloquent contemporaries, while, at the same time, seeing a clearer view of just what is, and what is not, "racism". Also the ability, I feel, to evaluate the good reasons, as well as the silly ones, that are the cause of "white Guilt"--believe me, the "inside story" is a little different than the "party line", to say the least.....
Thanks for the accolades---I do try
PS Want to know what REALLY turned me into an ornery, hard-boiled old meanie? It was BUYING and OWNING rental property! I will defy ANYONE to sink their life savings into Rental Property and remain a liberal !!
I will defy ANYONE to sink their life savings into Rental Property and remain a liberal !!
Depends on how you define "liberal."
I have rental property but it hasn't changed my politics, probably because I'm in Texas where property owners still have rights. California would be a different situation, I'd probably be campaigning for Genghis Khan.
The thing that bit off a huge chunk of my liberalism was owning a small business. When I experienced the apparent hatred that the government has towards those of us who try to make a living by creating our own businesses, and how difficult they make it for us to create jobs and hire people, that put me over the edge into "I hate the feds" territory. I'm no conservative, though. More like a libertarian with a streak of neo-Marxism that simply won't go away. The latter is due to my unwavering belief that social inequity is the number one cause of almost every problem that liberals try to solve through their bandaid big government programs.
I'm anti-liberal, pro-radical. We wouldn't need most of government if we implemented a system that naturally steers wages towards a median level. A lot of racial tension has roots in class struggle. See, I can sound just like a Marxist pinhead, yet I vote Libertarian. Go figure.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
)
