Quote: Original post by Oluseyi

Quote: Original post by Eelco
When i say 'western values', i dont mean 'what any particular country is implementing now, or in the past', but rather my own idealized version thereof. 'the west' does manage to come closest to that ideal though, no questions about it.

Ugh. You need to be much clearer in your statements, rather than expecting people to deduce your intentions.

I dont expect anyone to deduce my intentions. It was you who felt sufficiently informed to comment. You wernt. Hows that beam in your eye, by the way?

Quote:

Quote: Bullshit. There is no correlation whatsoever between 'abandoning western values' (ahem), and material wealth.

Sure there is: exploiting non-Western markets. "Western values" are almost never extended by Western states to non-Western states.

Speaking of non-clear statements.

If you feel consentual interactions can be exploitative, then dont bother pursueing that line of argument, because we are going to have to agree to disagree.

Quote: Original post by Oluseyi
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?

To me, the term "Christian culture" would be most meaningful in discussing the Dark Ages and Medieval periods. It conjures up the idea of a set of religious beliefs and traditions as well as principles, values, and philosophical ideas influenced by Christianity. The Jews are more complicated, being both a religion and a people.

Quote: 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.

After the destruction of the Temple by the Romans, Judaism was quite thoroughly reformed. There was no choice. The Israelites persisted in barbarism for thousands of years but never had aims to conquer the world with violence as was the case with Islam. The relation between the Jew, God, and the Gentile nations is completely incomparable to that of the Muslim, God, and infidels.

Islam rejected modernization a few centuries into its existence. Major reformations have not occurred and fundamentalist theological movements appear repeatedly because the tenets they profess are backed by Islamic scripture. Islamic scripture is believed to be the word of God and by definition is perfect. This is beyond even the Christian concept of divine inspiration. We will continue to see dangerous fundamentalist Islamic movements for a long, long time to come -- perhaps forever -- because the basis for them is all right there in the Koran. This is certainly not the case with Christianity. It's extremely difficult to justify wife beating, slavery, and the mistreatment (let alone murder) of nonbelievers in Christianity. Some have certainly tried (see Thomas Aquinas) but without lasting success. It's simply more difficult to modernize Islam. I think that's why Islamic civilizations stagnated so quickly and rejected modernization.

Quote: Um, no.

If you are intending to argue that the Islamic Golden Age was the result of Islam, you are mistaken. The Golden Age is overblown. The very term implies a flowering of intellectualism inspired by Islam, which is false. It happened in spite of Islam in recently-conquered regions that at the time were the height of civilization in the middle east and North Africa. Islamic, and specifically Arabic (which Islamic culture is based on), ideas did little to drive this Golden Age. Translations of Greek and Latin texts into Arabic were performed largely by Christians. Bernard Lewis, the preeminent middle eastern scholar, writes:

Quote:
We know of no Muslim scholar or man of letters before the eighteenth century who sought to learn a western language, still less of any attempt to produce grammars, dictionaries, or other language tools.

Translations are few and far between. Those that are known are works chosen for practical purposes [philosophy being considered a practical discipline] and the translations are made by converts [who knew western languages before conversion] or non—Muslims.

The role of Nestorian Christian physicians (Hunayn ibn Ishaq, Yuhanna ibn Masawaih, etc.) should not be understated. Still, Muslims produced great work in the field of medicine and absorbed a lot of knowledge from the Indian civilization concerning this and mathematics which was transmitted to Europe. Probably not by coincidence, many of the great Islamic scholars were Persians, who had built an impressive civilization.

However, Islam ultimately rejected Greek knowledge, and this I believe is where the trouble with Islam manifests itself most clearly. It may have began with Abu al-Hasan al-Ashari (who also advanced the notion that the Islamic god controls every particle in the universe, rather than that the universe is governed by rational laws) but certainly occurred with Al-Ghazali who rejected the efforts of thinkers like Avicenna to reconcile Islam with Greek philosophy.

What Europeans translated from Arabic to Latin were primarily medical and mathematical texts, certainly valuable knowledge gathered and developed in the Islamic world. But Europeans were familiar with Greek and Latin philosophical texts and classical literature and themselves sought out translations. It's absolutely silly to postulate that these translations came by way of the Arabs when the Byzantine Empire was right next door. Many important translations came by way of Sicily. James of Venice, working in the 12th century, went straight to the source. And let's not forget that Europeans were deeply familiar with theological works from Antiquity, which incorporated Greek ideas.

Islam was at the center of the civilized world and at the periphery of other great civilizations, those of the Chinese and Indians. The medieval Europeans, though not as primitive and backwards as common belief makes them out to be, were relatively isolated and suffered through centuries of decline and turmoil (the Dark Ages.) So what's Islam's excuse for screwing up so badly? Who would have thought that banning music, art, and outside philosophy could have such a profound effect on the intellectual life of a civilization!

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

Ibn al-Haytham employed a scientific approach in his great work on optics and Avicenna did important work on scientific inquiry as well, drawing upon the Greeks. Roger Bacon then built upon these ideas and took them further. Avicenna was held with high regard by Western thinkers but fell by the wayside in the Islamic world.

Quote:
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.

My limited understanding is that the Oyo Empire was colonized relatively late in the game and profited immensely from the slave trade prior to this colonization. It sounds to me like the Yoruba were able to hold their ground against Europeans until a supporting pillar of their economy was pulled out from under them and internal political problems led to the rapid decline of their Empire. I should point out that at this time, the Europeans were just as busy conquering each other as well.

No doubt a tremendous amount of evil was done in the name of colonialism. I'm not going to make excuses for these reprehensible moral transgressions. What I remain unconvinced of is that colonialism resulted in a net setback for world civilizations. The spread of Western civilization and the creation of the modern international order has enriched the world. This is rather hard to deny. We finally have a framework in which to try to overcome the petty tribal differences that have cost so much blood since the dawn of mankind and a fundamental respect for the rights of individuals that will forever inform our political thought.

Quote: 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.

You're just as Western as I am. I'm not a Western European and am only a first generation American. So please don't interpret this as some sort of self-glorification on my part. And, correct me if I'm wrong, but nowhere did I try to belittle Nigerians today. In fact, haven't I repeatedly said that the whole world is now moving toward international norms? Everywhere modern civilization as we know it has encroached, it is being embraced and carried forward. Everyone has a role to play. This hasn't been about Europeans for a very long time now.

I do think that the transformation is proceeding more slowly than it should in some places, and I don't think it's wrong to tell it like it is.

Quote: 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).

I didn't call you a "hunter-gatherer society." Some of the societies that Europeans encountered were indeed at that level. Others were at varying degrees of development (many were very far behind anything that can be called modern civilization.) Still other civilizations could rightfully claim to be competitive.

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

Who else to attribute these ideas to? Certainly not the Muslims. The inward-looking Chinese? I don't think so. We still have a long way to go, but it's hard to argue that the West was not largely responsible for promoting the freedoms and rights we all aspire to, for helping demolish traditional systems that precluded these things from developing, and for ushering in a true golden age of intellectual flowering and material well-being.

Quote: Original post by Oluseyi

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.

'evolved a narrative?' I dont have any value judgements to offer, but are the criteria for classifications such as 'neolithic' now a western superiority conspiracy too?

It is completely untenable to suggest there are no objective differences between cultures prior to them coming into contact. It is no strech to say their differences can be described in terms of differences of up to thousands of years of gradual change. Such differences are to be expected, they are but noise on a timescale of hundereds of thousands of years.

If you want to claim other people setting foot in africa hasnt been for the better of it, thats disputable, but ill give it to you. To suggest that africa, if it had remained untouched for the past centuries, would now have had stainless steel and surgery, is ridiculous.

Quote:
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.

Sure, i wouldnt expect a continent to make changes that took other continents thousands of years, in a fraction of that time, even with the added benefit of hindsight.

Take your time, but in the meanwhile: im not considering moving to africa, and material considerations are only a small part of that. And anyone whom explicitly or implicitly blames me for their problems, without a solid argument to back up such a grave accusation: they can go fuck themselves. Just saying..

Reminder: Thread is about WSJ and American politics, mainly on the right. It is NOT around your personal prejudices about culture, Islam, etc. Last warning before I seal the thread permanently.

Quote: Original post by trzy
If you are intending to argue that the Islamic Golden Age was the result of Islam, you are mistaken. The Golden Age is overblown. The very term implies a flowering of intellectualism inspired by Islam, which is false.

I don't think the Islamic Golden Age was inspired by Islam any more than I think the renaissance, rationalism, the industrial revolution, etc were inspired by Christianity. To me the Islamic "Golden Age" occurred while Islam was thriving, which refutes your stated "rejection of rationalism" by Islam. I don't think you apply the same criteria, and I think you overvalue the histories of the East written by the West. I find them suspect. Does this discovery of some 8,000 Islamic women scholars in the Middle Ages jibe with your notion of a repressive, barbaric, primitive and monolithic "Islamic Culture"?

The reality is that Islam has declined significantly in the past four to five hundred years, mostly as a function of politics in the Arab peninsula and largely as a direct consequence of the Crusades - politics perverting religion (on both sides) for power, how shockingly unusual.

Many of the things you claim are difficult to justify based on Christian scripture have and are being justified based on Christian scripture around the world, today. I've seen it in person. Obviously, I'm not going to convince you, so let's leave it at this: I think your "our values are superior" shtick is bullshit. It's not your values that have conferred upon you an advantage; it's your capitalism. In fact, your stated values have mostly been made manifest as a function of first opening markets to previously prohibited classes as consumers, then as producers, and they have enriched your commons by contributing their inventiveness and appetite for product.

Your development is a function, really, of market optimization, not idealistic rhetoric. Heh. I think that's a position the WSJ could get with. [smile]

I'm done. I give you the final word. Cheers, and thanks for an interesting discussion! [smile]

Quote: Original post by Oluseyi

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!

And yet there a books that do just that, that are generally agreed to be insightful, or at least held to have something intresting to say, and not written by say, Western Imperialists..take V.S. Naipaul again for instance.

Quote:

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.

I've lived a good number of years in African too my friend, so I dont know that my notions are "preconceieved". But as I said before, I'd dont think this is the thread to really hash it out.

To return to the topic of the WSJ..over the last week I have recieved a free subscription to the newspaper. I really perfer to read the IHT or the WaPo, but since it was free I've been perusing it, and with this thread in mind paying paticular attention editorial section. While obviously a week is not enough to comment about any long term trends, it seems like they make an effort every day to have one or two more liberal viewpoints. Really 99% of the paper seems to be about w/e is going on in the buisness world though..any poltical commentary seems anncillary.

Quote: Original post by OluseyiIt's not your values that have conferred upon you an advantage; it's your capitalism. In fact, your stated values have mostly been made manifest as a function of first opening markets to previously prohibited classes as consumers, then as producers, and they have enriched your commons by contributing their inventiveness and appetite for product.

Your development is a function, really, of market optimization, not idealistic rhetoric. Heh. I think that's a position the WSJ could get with. [smile]

While i dont mean to misrepresent trzy: i do think he considers capitalism part of his values; i would guess hed say capitalism is very much implied by his stated values.

Quote: Original post by Dreddnafious Maelstrom
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.

But it will never support Obama or any other Democrat. There is no difference these days between Republican and neocon. But hey, look, now it's Libertarian: 'Atlas Shrugged': From Fiction to Fact in 52 Years. If you're looking for neocon central, look to the op-eds in the WaPo.

Quote: Original post by LessBread
But it will never support Obama or any other Democrat. There is no difference these days between Republican and neocon. But hey, look, now it's Libertarian: 'Atlas Shrugged': From Fiction to Fact in 52 Years. If you're looking for neocon central, look to the op-eds in the WaPo.

It will support his policies, so long as it lines up with their own. They just cant afford to support the person because that would betray the facade they've built for their readership.

You seem to equate Rand with libertarianism. Keep in mind that Rand was a war monger. Libertarianism is based on the non-aggression axiom. The two ideologies are completely incompatible.



As for their not being any difference between Republican and neocon, that of course depends on to whom your pronoun refers. There's a big difference between Pat Buchanan and a neocon, and he's considered a Republican. There's a big difference between Ron Paul and a neocon, and he's a sitting Republican congressman.

There are several Democratic members that are much like a neocon as well. Indeed, Obama is probably pleasing the neocon commnity quite well with his launching and ramping up a new campaign in Afghanistan and the facisistic move with the auto industry of private profits and public costs.

Honeslty I'm not sure what more they would have expected from "100 years in Iraq" McCain. Different rhetoric to be sure but the ends can't be far from their initial aspirations. Maybe McCain would have invaded Iran, but that's not exactly off the table with Obama is it?

Quote: Original post by Dreddnafious Maelstrom

Quote: Original post by LessBread
But it will never support Obama or any other Democrat. There is no difference these days between Republican and neocon. But hey, look, now it's Libertarian: 'Atlas Shrugged': From Fiction to Fact in 52 Years. If you're looking for neocon central, look to the op-eds in the WaPo.

It will support his policies, so long as it lines up with their own. They just cant afford to support the person because that would betray the facade they've built for their readership.

It will support some of his policies, those that line up with theirs. Your lack of nuance makes it sound like they support all of his policies, which is far from the case. Did they support the GI Bill, the extension of SCHIP, or the stimulus? No. Do they support cap and trade or the public option on health care? No.

Quote: Original post by Dreddnafious Maelstrom
You seem to equate Rand with libertarianism. Keep in mind that Rand was a war monger. Libertarianism is based on the non-aggression axiom. The two ideologies are completely incompatible.

She may have been a war monger, but in my experience, scratch a Libertarian, find a fan of Ayn Rand. "Rand's fiction has had such an energizing effect on millions, including almost every significant figure in the American libertarian movement." Ayn Rand at 100: "Yours Is the Glory". "My very first exposure to libertarianism was provided by Ayn Rand, whose 100th birthday is being celebrated today." Ayn Rand Introduced Me to Libertarianism. "I don't know how many objectivists voted for Ron Paul, but all I knew was that him running was almost like being able to witness Ayn Rand running for President" Ayn Rand: The missing Libertarian Ingredient, the secret Ron Paul ingredient. "Without Ayn Rand, the libertarian movement would not exist." David Nolan, founder of the Libertarian Party Praise for Ayn Rand [Note: This quote is backed up with a book citation, but the web site is clearly a fan page, so ...] "Ayn Rand was a wonderful philosopher." Michael Badnarik

Completely incompatible? I'm sorry, but either you don't know what "completely" means or you don't know what "incompatible" means. Ayn Rand does not equal Libertarian, but she's a major influence on Libertarianism and there's no point in denying it.

Have you ever read Justin Raimondo's account of meeting Rand? If not you should check it out. I think it's at Taki's site.

Quote: Original post by Dreddnafious Maelstrom
As for their not being any difference between Republican and neocon, that of course depends on to whom your pronoun refers. There's a big difference between Pat Buchanan and a neocon, and he's considered a Republican. There's a big difference between Ron Paul and a neocon, and he's a sitting Republican congressman.

The key to my statement was "these days" which has nothing to do with pronouns. A large part of the difficulties the Republicans have these days is that they are unable to get past the neocon thinking that defined them during the Bush years. Pat Buchanan is a paleocon, but after his stint with the Reform Party can he truly be considered a Republican? And Ron Paul is not in the mainstream of the Republican party. He doesn't have the popularity with Republicans that Sarah Palin has or Rudy Giuliani has or that Mitt Romney has. The Republican party pretty much banned him from their national convention last year.

Quote: Original post by Dreddnafious Maelstrom
There are several Democratic members that are much like a neocon as well. Indeed, Obama is probably pleasing the neocon commnity quite well with his launching and ramping up a new campaign in Afghanistan and the facisistic move with the auto industry of private profits and public costs.

Joe Lieberman. The neocons probably are pleased with Obama's approach to Afghanistan. They weren't pleased with his approach to Iran during their election crisis or with his approach to Israeli settlements. They probably weren't pleased with the bailout of GM and Chrysler, which could as easily be deemed Hamiltonian instead of fascistic.

Quote: Original post by Dreddnafious Maelstrom
Honeslty I'm not sure what more they would have expected from "100 years in Iraq" McCain. Different rhetoric to be sure but the ends can't be far from their initial aspirations. Maybe McCain would have invaded Iran, but that's not exactly off the table with Obama is it?

Obama and McCain may agree on a few things, like cutting the F-22, but they don't agree on everything. McCain would have taken us to war with Russia over Georgia. McCain would have praised the coup in Honduras rather than calling it illegal. McCain would have responded to the election crisis in Iran with a lot more bellicosity. McCain would never have said that it's up for Iranians to decide things for themselves.

The problem with lumping them all together is that it covers over the truth rather than expose it to the light.