Quote: Original post by Oluseyi
You will notice that _goat did not say "most," he simply applied those labels to the US.

You're right, but the statement is so broad that it applies everywhere. I thought he must be trying to imply that the United States is more greedy, materialistic, etc. He'll have to clarify for me.

Quote: Name one. A non-Western culture that condones wife beating, that is.

Islam, for one. You're making this too easy, Oluseyi! ;) I'll give the Muslims the benefit of the doubt and cite Islamic apologists. This site contains the typical distortions, distractions, and mealy-mouthed "clarifications" that Muslim apologists like to employ when dealing with Western audiences. But they can't hide the fact that the inferior status of women and the right of husbands to beat their wives are codified in Islam's holy scriptures. You may object to isolated verses as being evidence of a systemic bias against women in Islamic culture, so we can turn to examining customs, legal precedents, and intellectual discourse in the Islamic world, and there we find the situation is quite depressing. Thankfully, Western norms are making inroads, but it's going to be a difficult fight because of the very nature of Islam and how it views itself and its holy scriptures. If you think fundamentalist Christians are "annoying" despite having had centuries to modernize, you ain't seen nothing yet.

Quote: Industrialization has led to globalization, which has led to the exploitation of cheap labor in foreign markets. Stop presenting the development of the West as though it occurred in a vacuum without impact on or influence from the rest of the world.

I'm not pretending it occurred in a vacuum, rather I'm contending that it was beneficial to the entire world, despite the atrocities and abuses that occurred. The West exploited its own people as cheap labor, too. But what you simplistically label as "exploitation" leads to development and enrichment. Dirt-poor, illiterate, ignorant, and culturally backward subsistence farmers don't become engineers, lawyers, and unionized airplane assembly line workers in the span of a single generation.

Thank God nobody stopped the "exploitation" of the Japanese, the Chinese, the South Koreans, or the Singaporeans. And hopefully nobody will stop the "exploitation" of the Cambodians, the Laotians, the Vietnamese, the Indians, and the Brazilians. You'll notice that the countries with the foresight and cultural strength to embrace Western knowledge most eagerly were able to advance the most quickly and retain control of their own destinies. Nations like Pakistan, on the other hand, afflicted with large populations who do everything in their power to reject Westernization in favor of their own allegedly superior, virtuous ways are outright miserable places to live.

Quote: Original post by trzy

Quote: Name one. A non-Western culture that condones wife beating, that is.

Islam, for one.

Islam isn't a culture. It's a religion, which brings with it a set of norms that are interpreted differently in various cultures.

The inferior status of women is codified in Christianity as well, as are a number of other prejudices - murder as an appropriate reaction to homosexuality is stated as a directive in Leviticus. Oh, Christians will employ the "typical distortions, distractions and mealy-mouthed 'clarifications'" when dealing with non-Christian audiences, suggesting that the covenant of the New Testament supersedes everything in the Old - except where it doesn't.

All you're illustrating, trzy, is your own unfamiliarity with the intersections of religious and cultural diversity - true diversity. Your perspective is steeped in the European and Christian Western history, and that's fine, but there are other realities and no amount of casual research will make you an authority. I come from a place where Islam, Christianity and traditional religions co-exist, and there are conflagrations from time to time - violent clashes that result in tremendous death - but they are not the fundamental fissures that threaten the stability of the state.

To make sweeping pronouncements about "Western values" and their superiority in the face of your demonstrable ignorance of the rest of the world is precisely the sort of arrogance that sets the non-Western world philosophically at odds with the West.

Quote: I'm not pretending [the development of the West] occurred in a vacuum, rather I'm contending that it was beneficial to the entire world, despite the atrocities and abuses that occurred. The West exploited its own people as cheap labor, too. But what you simplistically label as "exploitation" leads to development and enrichment. Dirt-poor, illiterate, ignorant, and culturally backward subsistence farmers don't become engineers, lawyers, and unionized airplane assembly line workers in the span of a single generation.

Organic and sustainable indigenous development is curtailed, and in some instance set back significantly, by these "beneficial" incursions. The worst part of your thesis is that it completely discounts the continuing, reciprocal exchanges of knowledge and values between the West and the "Rest." It is, in effect, xenophobic, and as an ethnic and cultural non-Westerner, it is all too familiar - and boring.

(You don't know anything about Africa, do you?)

Quote: Original post by Oluseyi

Quote: Original post by trzy

Quote: Name one. A non-Western culture that condones wife beating, that is.

Islam, for one.

Islam isn't a culture. It's a religion, which brings with it a set of norms that are interpreted differently in various cultures.

Its perfectly reasonable to speak about Islamic Culture, however. Aside from the fact that the average reader would know what he meant, this is an accepted term in academia and other less formal literature(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_culture
). Further, in his books VS Naipaul uses the term even without the trailing culture in the same manner Trzy does, and he's hardly an illiterate redneck(not that is trzy either of course), or a western imperalist.

I think in your hurry to beat up Trzy for happening to prefer Wester Culture, you are being just a little unfair in some of your criticisms, even aside from the above. I don't really want to get into the pros and cons of western thought in this thread, esp since its not really about the WSJ though, so I'll leave it at that.

Quote: Original post by trzy
So because some men beat their wives we ought not judge this sort of behavior as wrong? It's an interesting example, considering that some non-Western cultures condone wife beating, even in the absence of alcohol. How can you fix a problem if you don't even acknowledge it's there?

Soz, I'm a little busy at work, and once I read this I decided there was no point in wasting my time arguing with an idiot.

Edit: To put it a little less bluntly, your comments haven't addressed my arguments, they've shown a lack of understanding about the difference between conformance and adoption, indeed they've shown a lack of intermediate reading comprehension altogether, and you're talking about things you clearly don't have a full understanding of, as others have mentioned.

Quote: Original post by Oluseyi

Quote: Original post by trzy

Quote: Name one. A non-Western culture that condones wife beating, that is.

Islam, for one.

Islam isn't a culture. It's a religion, which brings with it a set of norms that are interpreted differently in various cultures.

Wrong. Religious and philosophical traditions such as Islam, Christianity, and Confucianism overlap with what can properly be considered culture. Islam in particular advocates more than just a religion separate from governing authority, it is a political and legal system as well, demanding far more access to the public square than the other monotheistic religions (and many other religions altogether.) If we can speak of "Western" values, despite the vast cultural differences between "Western" nations as well as other nominally non-Western countries that have nonetheless adopted Western norms, we can certainly speak of "Islamic" culture.

Quote:
The inferior status of women is codified in Christianity as well, as are a number of other prejudices - murder as an appropriate reaction to homosexuality is stated as a directive in Leviticus. Oh, Christians will employ the "typical distortions, distractions and mealy-mouthed 'clarifications'" when dealing with non-Christian audiences, suggesting that the covenant of the New Testament supersedes everything in the Old - except where it doesn't.

Nice try, but I already anticipated and headed off this argument by pointing out that it also necessary to examine customs, legal precedents, and the intellectual discourse of a society. There has been a vast body of theological and philosophical work produced by the Christian and Jewish faiths addressing this. Arguably, the Christian and Jewish ideas of the value and dignity of all human beings, and particularly Protestant ideas of personal salvation, helped lead to the development of human rights as we know them today.

From its very inception, Christianity was forced to question and reconcile the laws of the Torah, a law given to a particular people at a particular time, with the reality of a new covenant. Christianity quickly embraced classical intellectualism within the first century of its existence, unlike Islam which ultimately wholly rejected it as inferior "ignorance." One needs only to look at how Christianity employed the intellectual output of Antiquity versus what Islam did with it to understand there is a huge difference in the fundamental attitudes of these two faiths.

Anyway, arguing religion is ultimately moot. Western culture transcends religion. An important part of its development was the ultimate rejection of religious authority in favor of rationalism, another uniquely Western achievement.

Quote: All you're illustrating, trzy, is your own unfamiliarity with the intersections of religious and cultural diversity - true diversity. Your perspective is steeped in the European and Christian Western history, and that's fine, but there are other realities and no amount of casual research will make you an authority. I come from a place where Islam, Christianity and traditional religions co-exist, and there are conflagrations from time to time - violent clashes that result in tremendous death - but they are not the fundamental fissures that threaten the stability of the state.

And you believe the periodic bouts of religious violence and longstanding tensions in Nigeria are a good thing?

Quote:
To make sweeping pronouncements about "Western values" and their superiority in the face of your demonstrable ignorance of the rest of the world is precisely the sort of arrogance that sets the non-Western world philosophically at odds with the West.

What non-Western cultures do you have in mind and how are they philosophically "at odds" with the West?

Keep in mind that the West is not merely a steamroller that crushes all opposition. It is perfectly able to absorb outside ideas and influences.

Quote: Organic and sustainable indigenous development is curtailed, and in some instance set back significantly, by these "beneficial" incursions.

I don't even know what that means. Hunter-gatherer societies certainly weren't sustainable, requiring more land area per person and suffering from appalling levels of violence. Likewise for modern primitive cultures. The general trend is toward higher life spans and more wealth. I'm not sure why anyone would have beef with longer longevity and less violence.

Quote:
The worst part of your thesis is that it completely discounts the continuing, reciprocal exchanges of knowledge and values between the West and the "Rest." It is, in effect, xenophobic, and as an ethnic and cultural non-Westerner, it is all too familiar - and boring.

This is completely false. I thought I made it clear that when I speak of "Western" values and culture today, I'm talking about the international culture that has spread (to varying degrees) to every part of the globe. It is truly a global culture and one that is still developing and will be changed in exciting ways as billions more are lifted out of poverty.

Quote:
(You don't know anything about Africa, do you?)

I'm not an expert by any means on Africa. All I know is that it is a very large continent with a diverse array of peoples and cultures, many of which (particularly in the Sub-Saharan regions) are sadly beset with serious difficulties.

Quote: Original post by laeuchli
Its perfectly reasonable to speak about Islamic Culture, however.

As a vague generalization, yes. As a specific? No.

Quote: Aside from the fact that the average reader would know what he meant, this is an accepted term in academia and other less formal literature (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_culture).

But does it mean anything when you actually examine so-called "Islamic Cultures"? How are the social, cultural, political and legal realities of, say, Mali or Senegal similar to and/or different from the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia? What commonalities do the United Arab Emirates and the Kano or Sokoto Empires (now parts of Nigeria) share? How about Balkan Muslims? In effect, I disagree that common usage of a term by external parties makes it meaningful in an examination of those to whom it refers.

At best, I'll accept that Islam contains cultural influences, but if you and your academics think that it is the defining element of the cultures of Muslims the world over, then no wonder the West struggles to deal with "radical Islamism" - it doesn't even comprehend the basic kind!

Quote: I think in your hurry to beat up Trzy for happening to prefer Western Culture, you are being just a little unfair in some of your criticisms, even aside from the above.

I think I am being quite fair. I simply think you come with preconceived notions of what is that are not borne out by the realities I have lived and encountered, and I challenge you on them.

Quote: Original post by trzy
Wrong. Religious and philosophical traditions such as Islam, Christianity, and Confucianism overlap with what can properly be considered culture.

Would you ever use the construction "Christian Culture"? When employing the construction "Jewish Culture," are your primary delineators religious - are you speaking of adherents of Judaism - or ethnic - are you speaking primarily of Jews?

Quote: Islam in particular advocates more than just a religion separate from governing authority, it is a political and legal system as well, demanding far more access to the public square than the other monotheistic religions (and many other religions altogether).

The Torah laid out the basis of a legal system and the definition of a state based on Judges at the pinnacles of each of the twelve tribes, and then the cultural annals of the Old Testament describe the selection of the King and the line of succession. Yet this is not the organization of Israel today, nor are the structures laid out is the Qu'ran the organizations of many predominantly or officially Muslim nations.

Quote: From its very inception, Christianity was forced to question and reconcile the laws of the Torah, a law given to a particular people at a particular time, with the reality of a new covenant. Christianity quickly embraced classical intellectualism within the first century of its existence, unlike Islam which ultimately wholly rejected it as inferior "ignorance." One needs only to look at how Christianity employed the intellectual output of Antiquity versus what Islam did with it to understand there is a huge difference in the fundamental attitudes of these two faiths.

Um, no.

Quote: Anyway, arguing religion is ultimately moot. Western culture transcends religion. An important part of its development was the ultimate rejection of religious authority in favor of rationalism, another uniquely Western achievement.

Nope. Peer review and the scientific method rose organically in the Islamic Golden Age as well.

Quote: And you believe the periodic bouts of religious violence and longstanding tensions in Nigeria are a good thing?

No, I don't believe they are a good thing, but you provide me with an excellent opportunity to illustrate the damage that the West wreaks on non-West cultures and then turns around and blames them for.

Nigeria is a fiction invented by the British in 1914 when areas north and southwest of the Niger River and north and south of the Benue were amalgamated into a protectorate of the crown. With some unclear fumbling, the area came to be called Nigeria. It united disparate, ethnically, religiously and culturally unrelated people into a whole and conferred on them a common nationality. Nigeria gained independence a scant 46 years later, and these intrinsic differences have troubled her intermittently ever since. It is actually remarkable that the nation has not been ripped apart - there was a Civil War in 1963 - given the natural ethnic, cultural and religious tensions that exist.

In contrast, in the centuries prior to the colonization of the British, the kingdoms of Dahomey and Oyo and the empires of Sokoto and Kano thrived. Sure, they made war with their neighbors, but they were politically stable themselves.

Now, I'm not blaming the West for Nigeria or Africa's current problems. I'm just saying it's a bit hollow to criticize us or to claim your superiority when you came in and fucked up the good thing we had going. We've only had about 50 years to pick up the pieces. Shit, give us a fucking minute, assholes.

Quote:

Quote: Organic and sustainable indigenous development is curtailed, and in some instance set back significantly, by these "beneficial" incursions.

I don't even know what that means.

I'll point to my own culture, the Yoruba, who demonstrated tremendous metalworking knowledge and advanced anatomical facility hundreds of years ago. Subsequent to invasion and occupation by the Europeans, not only are we living in comparative squalor, but the Europeans have evolved a narrative about us that effectively asserts our primitiveness. Our culture, society and polity were growing and the West set us back.

Nobody is talking about "hunter-gatherer societies," as you so dismissively label us (because, you know, non-Westerners didn't have societies with economies, markets, physicians, artists, poets, entertainers, farmers and technology).

Quote: This is completely false. I thought I made it clear that when I speak of "Western" values and culture today, I'm talking about the international culture that has spread (to varying degrees) to every part of the globe. It is truly a global culture and one that is still developing and will be changed in exciting ways as billions more are lifted out of poverty.

Why do you attribute this wonderful, world-healing culture exclusively to the West?

Back on topic. The War Street journal isn't a Republican periodical, it's a neocon periodical. It's sympathy to the Republicans lie in their willingness to mouth the mantra of free markets.(Which satisfies its core constituency) It is on record as supporting a variety of government interventions and is in fact Keynesian in it's economic and political philosophy.(Which, by rhetoric, would align it with the Democratic party, but in reality aligns it with both.)

It will broadly support Obama's new military adventurism as it did GW's. If anything, it will poo-poo his lack of zest in prosecution, if it finds any.

Quote: Original post by Dreddnafious Maelstrom
Back on topic. The War Street journal isn't a Republican periodical, it's a neocon periodical.

You raise an interesting point in that the Democratic and Republican parties have become umbrella labels that (barely) cover far too many real divisions. I wonder if the same forces that make a true multiparty system difficult to attain in America also influence the reductionism toward simplistic "Left" and "Right"/"Liberal" and "Conservative" taxonomy.

Quote: Original post by Oluseyi

Quote: Original post by Dreddnafious Maelstrom
Back on topic. The War Street journal isn't a Republican periodical, it's a neocon periodical.

You raise an interesting point in that the Democratic and Republican parties have become umbrella labels that (barely) cover far too many real divisions. I wonder if the same forces that make a true multiparty system difficult to attain in America also influence the reductionism toward simplistic "Left" and "Right"/"Liberal" and "Conservative" taxonomy.

That reductionism is groomed, marketed, focus grouped, and then zealously reinforced.

If you look at each "divide" between "left and right" on the more accurate scale of authoritarian vs. classic liberalism. I think you'll find the parties split the rhetoric and the dirty deeds by a roughly equal amount.

Something that's interesting to me is to try and determine what makes people choose a team initially. When it comes to football I'm a Dallas Cowboys fan, I grew up in Dallas, and my parents were Cowboys fans. How much of one's political jaundice is hereditary? [smile]