The Western, Christian nations have it sorted; the rest of the world is incompetent

[Seriphyn]

I am taking a Devil's advocate position to incite debate in order for all of us, including myself, to understand the world at a higher level and come to a greater sense of enlightment through the views and opinions of those more well informed. I am not here to spread arrogant bigotry or other such nonsense; this is a debate, not an argument. Think of it as an essay question in an exam.

If you look at the world, western Europe and the Anglosphere and basically anywhere that is traditionally Christian are stable and prosperous. Countries in Africa that are Christian would not be included in this sense, since Christianity was brought over through the empires.

The 'rest of the world', so to speak, are very incapable of holding themselves together. They are instable and rife with chaos. For example, Kenya is incompetent at holding an election, and dealing with the consequences of messing around with the will of the people. China is one big massive slave state, while the Islamist countries are very much oppressive, like Iran or Saudi Arabia with their barbaric public beheadings.

Those countries have no history of democracy, so it is not surprising that they are no good at it. The question is; why do Western/Christian nations have everything nailed and everywhere else struggles? Do we even have everything sorted? Does the media portray those nations as dumps so that we can pat ourselves on the back at how great our nation is?

TIME TO MASS DEBATE (sorry)

[Pilk Man]

The problem with the "uneducated" world (middle east in particular) is that they insist on basing law and politics on their religion. Beliefs are purely personal and do not communicate well from one person to another (as the crusades show quite well).

Hence, when you introduce religous beliefs to politics (which is ALL about putting an idea from one person to another), you end up with a confusing mish-mash of easily-manipulated/misinterpreted facts and fiction, leading to anger, violence and supposed justification of said violence.

If you look at the world, all of the countries which have "sorted themselves out" are those that have had the good sense to completely seperate religion and state. While religion is mixed with state it becomes a case of

"MY belief is better than yours!!"

"fuck you, no it isn't!"

"holy living shit yeah it is!"

*AK-47*

*Car-bomb*

*Hundreds of civilians die "in the name of God"*

etc.


The middle east seems to me like "mine's better than yours" playground politics. If they all got a legal system which relies on facts rather than belief and emotion (religion), they'd all be a lot better off. And to all of you who say things like, "It's their country, let them live how they want!", sod right off. Their own internal violence is having a terrible effect on the civ population (the ones who don't want the fighting), and murdering hundreds of innocent civilians just to try and blackmail a rival militant group into surrendering is unacceptable in today's climate.

Not to mention the disastrous violence they push on the outside world in the name of their religion...*cough 9/11*. Sorry this has mostly turned into a covert "islam causes terrorism" rant, but the points I'm making pretty much apply to africa and the middle east in general.

TL;DR

Religion + Politics = Hatred, Violence and Fail.

[Boyinabox]

The 'rest of the world', so to speak, are very incapable of holding themselves together. They are instable and rife with chaos. For example, Kenya is incompetent at holding an election, and dealing with the consequences of messing around with the will of the people. China is one big massive slave state, while the Islamist countries are very much oppressive, like Iran or Saudi Arabia with their barbaric public beheadings.

Italy is the most Christian country I can think of yet stability in terms of politics and organised crime are fairly low by European standards. Japan, Singapore, Taiwan and Mauritius are very prosperous but are mostly a mix of Buddhist, Hindu, Shinto and Chinese Traditional beliefs.

But as to your main point, I can think of a few possible explanations for what you said:

European nations had the benifit of being closer together, smaller and with a larger (but still small) percentage of the population able to debate and query religion via the printing press. Whilst protestatism vs catholicism was bloody, the violence was ended sooner due to this.
Christianity was mostly dominated by 2-3 main churches, each with a single figurehead able to control their believers. Other religions (e.g. hinduism and islam) are made up from many more different sects, with none lead by a single leader and hence no unifying voice to end the violence.
European nations were the most proactive at exploring the world and so encountered other belief systems and cultures more often than other cultures (for example, Japan banned trade to the outside world before the Meiji Restoration from all but one port and any non-japanese outside this area would be executed). The results were never pretty, but overtime European nations have gained populations with many different cultural backgrounds and hence greater understanding has arisen in these nations compared to those with a homogeneous cultural makeup.


Just points I came up with off the top of my head so I'm sure that they're probably not too correct. But then I'm rubbish at exam essays anyway. :p

[gembird]

A lot of the countries where religion is a problem have been under the rule/control of a more powerful country at some time in their past. This is most certainly true for many countries in sub-Saharan Africa- we came along, told them to believe in God and then left them to it. It's not fair to just go into countries and take them over, because when you leave nobody knows how to run things any more; the Celtic people did just fine until the Romans came along, then when the Roman Empire fell and the soldiers returned to Italy, nobody knew how to maintain anything and we had the Dark Ages. Obviously this isn't true for all the countries outside of the Western world, but it has happened enough that it's recognisable as a pattern.

As for the Middle East, I think the fact that the three major world religions all come from more or less the same place doesn't help. Everyone fights over Israel and the surrounding area because everyone sees it as their Holy Land and therefore they should have it for themselves. Christianity and Islam are, in theory if not in practice, peaceful religions and so Christians and Muslims should really be tolerating each other, even if they don't want to get on well with each other. This goes for Jewish people too- yes, they've had a lot of trouble throughout history, but that's no reason to get a collective chip on your shoulder and start saying "We want this country, God says it belongs to us, now piss off thanks very much".

Also, before we go any further, I'd like to say that I'll be really annoyed if this ends up being a debate about how Muslims are bad and they're all terrorists. At the beginning of Islam, the Middle East was incredibly advanced compared to Europe, with fantastic science, mathematics and health care for the times. At that time, Christianity was about 1500 years old. Now Islam is that age. Maybe that's the point where things are at their worst in religions, I don't know. But I've seen the way debates tend to go in these forums, and it always seems to end up being an argument about whether or not the Islamic community are trying to take over the world by blowing the rest of us to kingdom come. They're not the only people who can turn to terrorism- I'd like to point out the IRA, the Tamil Tigers, and various nutbags who did it all on their own. Most terrorism is probably more related to politics and religion becoming entangled rather than religion on its own.

Regarding the original question- I don't think we do have everything sorted. Sure, we have a lot of things that other places don't, but we still have an increasing gap between the rich and poor people. We don't help other places as much as we probably should. And Western countries still have issues over religion and government, whatever the extent of free speech.

[Splush]

We're all so inherently biased by the cultural context we grew up in that it's hard to have an objective opinion on anything like this. The 'rest of the world' has certainly proved incompetent in the sense that developmental competence has been defined by the military and economic leaders of the world, but whether that definition is the superior definition or not is something we're poorly equipped to come to a conclusion on. The problem with that sort of thinking, of course, is that it leads to relativism where anything is permitted, and that's extremely distasteful.

So, throwing objectivity out of the window and thinking about my own subjective, western-tainted feelings, I'd say the European/American world has plenty going for it, particularly secularism, decent human rights standards, and fairly solid democracies. But it would be foolish to pretend that we're perfect, and that we couldn't improve ourselves by learning from other cultures. Dissatisfaction with things like the grimy side of capitalism is constantly bubbling under the surface of the western world, and our media and political systems just seem to engineer contempt, not to mention a thousand other things people complain and worry about daily that are inherent to these oh-so-developed societies of ours.

If I had to pick a society whose structure I most admire it would probably be Sweden or Norway, but ask any citizen of those nations and I'm sure they'll be able to churn out a list of things they hate about it. So, perhaps I do think that some western societies of christian heritage are the best examples of societies that mankind has achieved right now, but I don't think for a moment that any one society has all the answers and represents any sort of ideal model.

I think both Christianity and Europe went through a lot of growing pains with church rule and various wars, but came out of the process a lot more mature and rational. After enough centuries of being burned at the stake by angry clerics and gunning down millions of your neighbours in political wars, you begin to see the benefits of keeping religion on a tight leash and opting for diplomacy before war. I suppose most parts of the world have had their share of growing pains, but somehow the process hasn't been as cathartic as it has been in Europe. I suspect a lot of radical Islam's shenanigans can be blamed on the religion being relatively immature and not having been subjected to the same series of reforms that Christianity has, in conjunction with existing in societies which are too volatile and immature themselves to choose to suppress religious rule. I think Islam and Christianity are equally bad if you take away the restrictions of time and space, but as things stand now Christianity is under a tight leash in Europe while Islam runs riot throughout various nations that allow clerical rule. Maybe the constant hubbub in that part of the world is just part of the growing pains that will eventually leave us with secular democracies and an Islam as meek as modern-day European Protestantism. But that's just my western-tainted self talking.

[faragher]

Why do you automatically assume that lack of democracy = incompetence?

Lets look at some countries that don't have democracy:
- Saudi Arabia, Jordan : both richer than god. Stable economically and politically.
- Pre-invasion Afghanistan : had its problems, but the Taliban had significantly reduced drug production and corruption and restored law and order to most of the country. Admittedly they were a little heavy handed, but you could argue that some of the western countries also impose order in a heavy handed fashion - the US will imprison you for pretty much anything, the French just send in the riot police, the Germans have just banned any organisation that they feel is inappropriate.

In addition to this, I think you are overstating the stability of many western countries.
- Spain has only had democracy for less than 30 years. And you'll find a fair few people who think that it is a mistake.
- Italy can barely manage to maintain a government for 6 months and is notoriously corrupt.
- There were significant doubts about the validity of the 2000 US presidential election (and I'm not just talking about hanging chads, I mean the widespread turning away of people from the polls because they shared a name or date of birth with a felon, or the fact that they decided to stop the recounts in Florida, and then allowed the chair of Bush's Florida campaign to certify the count - it may have come to nothing, but as Lord Hewart said "justice should not only be done, but should manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done." Or, to put it more bluntly - if it smells of shit, it probably is shit.)
- The Berlin Wall only came down in 1989
- There are still disputes over independence in Northern Ireland and the Basque region. And people are still dying because of it.
- Belgium. Just Belgium generally.

So we need to be think before we shout about our supremacy too quickly.

/edit

nothing to see here. ¬_¬ And you can shut up as well basstard

[GorillaBearBear]

The Berlin Wall came down in 89, surely?

[Smartie]

Yeah, i'm sure that's just a typo.

[Ozzylator]

Japan.

[Boyinabox]

What happened to half the posts in this thread?
[/offtopic]

[bobfrey the great]

- Belgium. Just Belgium generally.


belgium might be splitting:ultra: so yeah europe isn't that stable, not countries that aren't very heavy on criminals are because, well there's more crime... All this kinda makes you want to make your own country, until you realise how hard it would actually be (getting a country, getting money to start the country working, build stuff, education, citizens etc.)

[GreatBonsai]

Alright, so heres a thought. Try not to expand it too much, or it falls apart. But then so does the original theory, so maybe trying to theorize why cultures fall apart with one general thought is just a flawed process. maybe...

Anyways, it occurred to me while reading this post that maybe it's not religion or politics that has anything to do with an area 'falling apart'. Maybe it's geography? I would say concentration (the middle east has 6-7 countries in the same amount of landmass that houses the us...) but that falls apart when you look at Europe.

Anyways, when you think about it, most countries that aren't declaring war on their neighbors are separated by some sort of geographic feature. Europe is a prime example, what with the alps and the rivers and all. Spain is separated from France by mountains, France and Italy the same, England is an island, Same with Ireland. Most of the smaller countries have rivers at their borders, etc... Japan-Island(s). The USA started out being separated from Canada by the great lakes and that river system, then the just drew a line along a latitude the extended from lake Superior to the Pacific. Mexico is separated by the Rio Grande. So there's the separation.

Now, The middle east has no such separation. It's all flat, no major geographic boundaries. Same with Africa. Again, mostly flat. And war-ridden. Granted, alot of Africa's wars (take the Congo for instance) were started by Caucasian colonizers. We told them that one group of people was different from the other, then played favorites... Never good.

Anyways, My mind is starting to wander, as will happen after a full work day, but this is my 2 cents. No doubt that government/religion has something to do with things, but I think geography factors in just a little bit. It's just not good tactics to take an army over a mountain range (or lake, sea, large river) and expect to win battles the next day.

[Paradigm^]

Interesting theory, GreatBonsai. As for "It's just not good tactics to take an army over a mountain range (or lake, sea, large river) and expect to win battles the next day", I fully expect someone to say "Hannibal" and then I'll smack them for picking out exceptions.

Your idea seems to be "with geographic nastinesses in the way, wars are less likely". This is true, but why should it be just wars that get stifled - why not trade and diplomacy, too? I'd argue that having a big wall of mountains / water / whatever around you makes you more self-sufficient, and more isolationist; looking at the geography, it's no surprise that it was Britain who had an Empire: lots of coasts = big navy + "we're the only ones who are right" viewpoint. Much of mainland Europe has been united by Alexander the Great, the Romans etc. at some point in the past, so they've had a lot longer to practise being stable and cooperative.

If we're going to suggest that geography plays a factor, I'd posit that isolated countries and large countries are likely to become troublemakers (by "troublemakers" I mean "not do the same things as their neighbouring countries"): less chance of the unifying armies of history to wander in, take control of the whole place and set it to be the same as the rest of whichever Empire is doing the dirty work at the time.

[mrsnuffles]

I've always kind of vaguely assumed that the main reason western Europe is prosperous is because the climate is suitable for farming.

[Splush]

Geography was clearly very important in times of epic land wars and such, but I suspect less so now. Although it could still be a big factor I suppose. It's interesting to look at a physical map of the Korean peninsula and see the difference in terrain between NK and SK. Undoubtedly the primary reason for NK's complete implosion is their delusional, egomaniacal dictator, but it sure does suck that their whole country is covered in mountains while South Korea is largely flat.

Also I suppose a lack of natural borders (i.e. water, mountain ranges) makes it harder to claim a primordial ethnic heritage for your nation, and impossible to clearly define the historical boundaries of the nation. Nobody ever confuses England with France, for example, because there's a handy piece of water keeping them seperate, and if either nation decided it wanted a piece of the other nation's land it would be a major military undertaking rather than just a gradual process of small squabbles (military or political) along a border. But nations without clear geographical barriers marking borders don't get the luxury of that sort of security.

I've read that a lot of the features of the structure of Norwegian society have their roots in geographical circumstances. Mountain ranges dividing the land into distinct chunks meant that the people remained divided into tribes with no real central government for a long time, and a distrust of central government still remains today, including their reluctance to join the EU.

[Paradigm^]

That explains a lot - I was going to mention that the Scandinavian / Baltic countries' are somewhat isolationist too but I couldn't think of a reason for it :p

[Roachy]

Mate, you ever been to Ireland?

Catholics VS. Protestants? Bloody Sunday? Battle of the Boyne?

Ring any bells?

[Alleh!]

Western Europe also claimed a large precentage of overseas lands by force, raped, slaved and exploited them. Stole there riches for there own ect ect.

thats proably why we are prosperous

[Splush]

Also, kick-starting the industrial revolution involved a fair amount of forced exploitation of their own countrymen on the part of the ruling class of Britain. Regardless of how great British engineering knowledge or natural resources were, there couldn't have been an industrial revolution without a whole lot of peasants being turfed off their land, forced out of agricultural life and into cities and factories. So whatever great heights industrial capitalist societies achieve, they'll always stand on a foundation of exploitation.

Although it's probably quite a struggle to find any type of society where the rulers haven't exploited their subjects, I suppose.

[Seriphyn]

I think I just came

Very intelligent replies people have posted. I'm sure many of us will learn a lot from those. Keep it going maybe?

Someone mentioned Japan, which I did think about when I started this topic, but decided not to mention so someone else would. Japan is not Western/Christian/whatever nor did it have overseas imperialism that provided the opportunity for it to be prosperous like western Europe. So, what makes Japan so great? And why does China suck major balls? (if it does, of course).

p.s. side note, what is it with China and black people? I'm not black, but i've heard stories of black folk heading over there and the Chinese people are like OMGWTF TAKE A BATH U DIRTY HO! I mean, holy crap much?!

[Splush]

So, what makes Japan so great?
They generally fit into western standards of a successful developed country, with other perks that western societies tend to lack, like relatively low crime rates. They have lots of weird social idiosyncrasies that would certainly seem like problems to us, though, like pseudo-victorian values that stress obedience and conformity and create a socially repressive climate that results in things like a high teenage suicide rate (and a rather creepy glorification of suicide in popular culture) or mentally ill children kept from being treated because it represents an embarrassment to the family. I don't know how widespread problems like that are to be honest, it could all be meaningless anecdotal evidence, but I do generally get the impression that they have an unhealthily repressive society. Although Sweden has a famously high suicide rate and that's certainly not a nation you associate with social repression.

I did some reading about Japanese businesses for an organisational psychology class and there's a lot of crazy stuff going on, like workers doing morning exercises in front of a big picture of the company president's face, or unpaid overtime being an accepted norm, or top executives killing themselves as a matter of course if the company fails significantly under their control, or workers being expected to represent the company 24/7, including being fired for being spotted smoking on the weekend because it paints the company in a bad light. It seems like Japanese corporate culture has managed to exert the sort of creepy levels of control you'd expect from a fascist or repressive communist state, but without really to actually enforce any of it because social norms are so strong.

There's a good film called Fear and Trembling about a Belgian woman working in a Japanese office and dealing with the weirdness of Japanese corporate culture. I recommend it to anyone who is interested in that sort of thing, it's funny and fascinating.

edit: Although, speaking about the western world's negative influence elsewhere again, who knows how much of Japan's repressive culture stemmed from the American occupation following WW2, where General MacArthur actively crushed socialist movements and set the tone for the country's development. Not that I'm saying America did a terrible job necessarily, but maybe the overzealous anti-socialist witch hunts of the time are partly responsible for modern Japanese labour not really standing up for itself. I don't really know much about this subject really, I'm just waffling.

And why does China suck major balls? (if it does, of course).
Where do you start! There's too much stuff to start listing examples, but here's a place to get a rough idea (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_the_People%27s_Republic_of_China). It's like they've kept all the repressive, totalitarian aspects of communism and abandoned all the aspects that could be considered positive. They pay lip-service to human rights, equality and such but clearly fall far short of their own stated standards. They're obviously an economic success story but they've done it by ignoring human rights. I'm sure China has plenty of positives going for it but it's status as sucking major balls cannot be questioned.

[Qu1f]

However China is at the moment behaving itself (sort of) at this moment of time. Probably because of the Olympic games, they dont want to seem like a country unfit to hold such a prostigous event. However I have a bad feeling that they are going to go back to their old ways after the games are over. They also have nearly taken over the world economy by the ammount of cheap labour and lack of human rights they have in their country.

Also mountains didnt seem to stop the Chinease when they invaded Tibet either. Those guys are still fighting for thier independants, just look at the Dali Lama (religous leader of Tibet) the sharolin monks etc.

[InstaCpu]

edit: Although, speaking about the western world's negative influence elsewhere again, who knows how much of Japan's repressive culture stemmed from the American occupation following WW2, where General MacArthur actively crushed socialist movements and set the tone for the country's development. Not that I'm saying America did a terrible job necessarily, but maybe the overzealous anti-socialist witch hunts of the time are partly responsible for modern Japanese labour not really standing up for itself. I don't really know much about this subject really, I'm just waffling.


Where do you start! There's too much stuff to start listing examples, but here's a place to get a rough idea (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_the_People%27s_Republic_of_China). It's like they've kept all the repressive, totalitarian aspects of communism and abandoned all the aspects that could be considered positive. They pay lip-service to human rights, equality and such but clearly fall far short of their own stated standards. They're obviously an economic success story but they've done it by ignoring human rights. I'm sure China has plenty of positives going for it but it's status as sucking major balls cannot be questioned.

Well for the first example, I don't think the Americans changed Japanese society. They changed some things, but many of the old elite that had been involved in the militarist expansionist movement of the previous half century were left in place. The reason for crushing socialist movements stemmed from the Cold War I think.

Agree on China, have seen a recent films about the daily life in a police station. They brought in one peasant who was collecting and selling scrap without a license (from another city) which he needed to earn some cash outside growing season. Problem as the old man explained was that it took so long to get the license that no one bothers. So they don't, and risk getting caught and their carts confiscated.

Actually there are some parallels between how Great Britain (and Europe) industrialised and the USSR. The slave trade on the Triangle Trade route http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triangular_trade
led to the accumulation of a lot of capital which helped kick start the IR. Other European countries did similar things.The Soviets used a lot of volunteers but also slave labour in the gulags to build a lot of projects. They just used their own citizens though. Well not trying to justify any of it...just explaining.

[Splush]

Well for the first example, I don't think the Americans changed Japanese society. They changed some things, but many of the old elite that had been involved in the militarist expansionist movement of the previous half century were left in place. The reason for crushing socialist movements stemmed from the Cold War I think.
Yeah, Japan was at the east/west front of the cold war and the US wanted to make really sure that they turned it into a secure, capitalist, western-loyal country, so general macarthur was really heavy handed about crushing socialist movements. You might be right about America not having that much influence, it's not really a subject I know about, but the relative power that workers enjoy in developed western countries is the result of the socialist/labour movements in those countries constantly questioning the free market and reigning it in, and if Japan's burgeoning socialist movements were just snuffed out after the war it seems logical that that could be an explanation for why the concept of the Japanese worker as powerless and submissive doesn't seem to have changed.

Actually there are some parallels between how Great Britain (and Europe) industrialised and the USSR. The slave trade on the Triangle Trade route http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triangular_trade
led to the accumulation of a lot of capital which helped kick start the IR. Other European countries did similar things.The Soviets used a lot of volunteers but also slave labour in the gulags to build a lot of projects. They just used their own citizens though. Well not trying to justify any of it...just explaining.
Yeah, there's academic arguments to be made for why the USSR's industrialisation process wasn't as brutal or exploitative as that of a capitalist state, or if it's even fair to use the term 'industry' when talking about the USSR, but in practice it's hard to seriously entertain that idea.

Tony Cliff described the USSR as 'state capitalist', rather than socialist, saying that it basically operated as one use corporation, with all the inherent contradictions of capitalism still present. Marxist economies and production were supposed to be about planned in the citizens' interests, but in practice the state had to make their decisions on the basis of what the other 'corporations' (countries) in the 'market' (world) were up to, and so the workers' control was taken away from them by the forces of competition that communism was supposed to avoid.

[metamorphosis]

I am taking a Devil's advocate position to incite debate in order for all of us, including myself, to understand the world at a higher level and come to a greater sense of enlightment through the views and opinions of those more well informed. I am not here to spread arrogant bigotry or other such nonsense; this is a debate, not an argument. Think of it as an essay question in an exam.

If you look at the world, western Europe and the Anglosphere and basically anywhere that is traditionally Christian are stable and prosperous. Countries in Africa that are Christian would not be included in this sense, since Christianity was brought over through the empires.

The 'rest of the world', so to speak, are very incapable of holding themselves together. They are instable and rife with chaos. For example, Kenya is incompetent at holding an election, and dealing with the consequences of messing around with the will of the people. China is one big massive slave state, while the Islamist countries are very much oppressive, like Iran or Saudi Arabia with their barbaric public beheadings.

Those countries have no history of democracy, so it is not surprising that they are no good at it. The question is; why do Western/Christian nations have everything nailed and everywhere else struggles? Do we even have everything sorted? Does the media portray those nations as dumps so that we can pat ourselves on the back at how great our nation is?

TIME TO MASS DEBATE (sorry)

"Western, 'Christain', nations" got that way by exploiting, burning and plundering the absolute crap out of the 'poorer' countries that you're talking about. No wait - they're still doing that. Ever seen a coffee documentary? You should. Think twice before you drink your coffee.
m@

[mrsnuffles]

"Western, 'Christain', nations" got that way by exploiting, burning and plundering the absolute crap out of the 'poorer' countries that you're talking about.

clearly this isn't the sole reason if the western nations have always been in a position to do this. there must have been a greater rate of technological advancement in western countries before interaction with other countries even took place.

[gembird]

From a historical point of view, the Western nations haven't always had greater technological advancement. A lot of the countries which we now think of as being less 'civilised' or advanced than our own were once a long way ahead of our own. The Chinese were making fireworks and paper before we had even thought of putting on clothes and having a haircut. The Middle East was doing algebra and complex surgery when we decided to send our knights over to beat the crap out of them.

It's all a matter of which civilisation is at its peak, and currently that happens to be the 'Western' world. Yes, we did plunder the living shit out of other nations, but at some point in time those nations were plundering the living shit out of someone else. History is cyclic.

[mrsnuffles]

History is cyclic.

Is that a fact though?

I think it would be fair to say that China is returning to its position as a major world power, although mainly due to the intervention of western companies - which means the west also shares in its advancement.

The middle east is a war zone with politics (both social and economical) that have not proved successful in terms of global superiority. And any change (i.e. capitalism) is going to directly involve the west and therefore make the west richer - Iraq, for example.

[gembird]

I'm not saying that countries that were successful in the past are going to be successful again in the next few years- I just meant that if you look at past and present events, the same things crop up all the time- civilisations come and go, wars happen over religion and land, and so on. I don't think I made it particularly clear, so sorry about that- I just wanted to say something about how it isn't just a case of countries like the US and the UK always being the most advanced.

[Splush]

clearly this isn't the sole reason if the western nations have always been in a position to do this. there must have been a greater rate of technological advancement in western countries before interaction with other countries even took place.
Blaming it on technology is just passing the buck though, technology is morally neutral until you decide how to use it. You have to have a will to go and pillage other societies.

Also, even implying that "better technology" = "better society" is troublesome. I mean, I tend to instinctively agree with that idea because that's the cultural context I've been raised in, but I probably wouldn't if I was a 16th century native American being shot at by European settlers, or even an 19th century Scottish crofter being forced off my land and into some grim factory where my kids get their arms ripped off by machines because they got sleepy towards the end of a 12 hour shift. That kind of thing.

[mrsnuffles]

Blaming it on technology is just passing the buck though, technology is morally neutral until you decide how to use it. You have to have a will to go and pillage other societies.

Also, even implying that "better technology" = "better society" is troublesome. I mean, I tend to instinctively agree with that idea because that's the cultural context I've been raised in, but I probably wouldn't if I was a 16th century native American being shot at by European settlers, or even an 19th century Scottish crofter being forced off my land and into some grim factory where my kids get their arms ripped off by machines because they got sleepy towards the end of a 12 hour shift. That kind of thing.

i appreciate i didn't explain in very much detail at all, but i don't think you quite got the point I was trying to make.

Great Britain got rich by invading a large proportion of the world, and I would say there are two key reasons for this - because it wanted to and because it could. Picking up from what you said - how come European settlers had guns and native Americans didn't? Stealing other people's stuff for centuries may well be why we all live in relative luxury in the UK, but how come we were in a position to do that?

I find genuinely interesting that the Australian aborigines would probably still be living exactly as they had done for thousands of years had we not shown up. I personally think it's probably due to a combination of natural resources (including land suitable for farming) and a relatively high concentration of people (in Europe as a whole) forcing technological advancement in order to compete both economically and in war. I don't actually have any idea what the generally accepted reason is though.

[Splush]

Fair enough, I suppose there were probably plenty of nations with the desire to have an empire but without the technological might. You could say that out of nations with that specific orientation Britain did much better than a lot of its rivals. That's the problem with the whole concept of the thread, of course, you have to define the criteria for success, and that's pretty subjective.

I don't know much about native Americans but I know they didn't have any concept of ownership of land, animals or goods, and no sense of common nationhood. I think for the native Americans to go the route of imperialism (invading other nations and taking their stuff) there'd be a lot of ideological hurdles to overcome before the issue of inventing rifles even came up.

Still, the problem is the idea that a lack of technological advances, whether it's native Americans or Australians or whoever else, is a sign of being a worse society. If all of humanity had developed in similar ways to native Americans, as tribes without ownership or organised government, and the whole world in 2008 just consisted of borderless continents populated by primitive (in our eyes) tribes living lives based around existing in harmony with nature rather than conquering it*, would that necessarily be a worse way for our species to live that how it does now? I suppose the choice of wording in the thread title represents a judgement in itself, in its tacit support of the concept of nations.

*I know this is some rose-tinted bullshit, and native American tribes weren't really just a bunch of hippies. I just couldn't think of a better way to say it.

[mrsnuffles]

Fair enough, I suppose there were probably plenty of nations with the desire to have an empire but without the technological might. You could say that out of nations with that specific orientation Britain did much better than a lot of its rivals. That's the problem with the whole concept of the thread, of course, you have to define the criteria for success, and that's pretty subjective.

I don't know much about native Americans but I know they didn't have any concept of ownership of land, animals or goods, and no sense of common nationhood. I think for the native Americans to go the route of imperialism (invading other nations and taking their stuff) there'd be a lot of ideological hurdles to overcome before the issue of inventing rifles even came up.

Still, the problem is the idea that a lack of technological advances, whether it's native Americans or Australians or whoever else, is a sign of being a worse society. If all of humanity had developed in similar ways to native Americans, as tribes without ownership or organised government, and the whole world in 2008 just consisted of borderless continents populated by primitive (in our eyes) tribes living lives based around existing in harmony with nature rather than conquering it*, would that necessarily be a worse way for our species to live that how it does now? I suppose the choice of wording in the thread title represents a judgement in itself, in its tacit support of the concept of nations.

*I know this is some rose-tinted bullshit, and native American tribes weren't really just a bunch of hippies. I just couldn't think of a better way to say it.

yeah I completely agree.

I think it's probably debatable if people are actually 'happier' in the western world today, considering the relativeness of it, but I think it's fact that people are safer in our society than at any point in history. And I mean purely in terms of survival. More people in our society have access to shelter, food and water than in any other. Medical advances mean childbirth is far safer than it once was and many former fatal diseases can be cured.

Though I suppose you could argue that some cultures would not see this as being significant.

[Splush]

Maybe the better medicine gets and the steadier our food and water supply is, the less alive we feel because we take being alive for granted. That's really clutching at straws to be devil's advocate though, I bloody love running water personally :)

[GorillaBearBear]

I don't think you're far off though splush. I'm sure somewhere there is a happy medium but I reckon the level of affluence we've reached now in the West certainly contributes to our cynicism and general malaise which I'm sure is there. I doubt Radiohead could have written OK Computer if it wasn't for the fact that there are like a million different brands of Shampoo.

[Splush]

Absolutely, I think a lot of people have a love/hate relationship with the state of our society, and maybe a peaceful utopia would be much poorer in terms of individual creativity, and Thom Yorke would be satisfied to just sit at home with his family rather than feeling compelled to go and wail into a microphone. Personally one thing I really love is any type of clever political satire, and that just wouldn't exist in a perfect world without an alienating, bureaucratic social structure. I probably don't really want to live in a perfect world, it would be so dull.

I've long felt this way about the concept of heaven. I realise heaven is supposed to be a metaphysical state and you're not literally walking around on clouds listening to angels playing harps, but that's the way people seem to want to represent heaven and it always seems phenomenally boring. I generally like the idea of the dialectic, that conflicting arguments/ideas/forces are the catalyst of creativity, and modern western societies are definitely crammed full of conflicting ideas and forces.

[Seriphyn]

Heaven....well according to some thinking it's just this world post-armageddon, just a super super nice uber version of it.

But anyway, I'm going to go onto the topic of bringing eastern culture to the West...the area I live in is practically New South Asia (fyi, I am of dark skin colour...half-white, half-tamil) and I'm finding it exceedingly difficult to find white people abouts...and even as a 'darkie' myself, I would prefer to live in an area which is ALL white...why? Something to do with the fact that I've been victims of violent and non-violent crime exclusively from black or Asian youths.

In addition, I identify as a metal listener dressing up indie-style...otherwise I would not be speaking to you here if I was expressive about my musical tastes. I seem to be finding that all Muslim youths in my area at the very least are almost all universally aggressive and antisocial...yes I am sure there are nice Muslim teenagers but I haven't seen any so far.

I can't seem to pull a joke about Islam with a muslim friend either (I only have one for above reasons...who's a girl which doesnt matter anyway since she's so goddamned oppressed), because arms start wailing about...it's this overtolerance I'm having trouble with. If Islam is a peaceful religion, then why do I get threatened for a stupid facebook joke simply saying "Palestine is Israel btw"?

I'm making this personal I know, forgive me for my bias but this is obviously a huge problem for me at least. My point is, is that we're so eager to tolerate Muslim culture, while if we went to any Islamic country and started going "Right, take that <islamic symbol> down, we're Christians and we're living in your country" I believe we would be beheaded (like in Saudi Arabia). Why should we have to take our Christian and/or British symbols down because it upsets you? If you wanted to live in an Islamic society, why did you move? Why can't you accept OUR culture?

Arrrghh yes, I seem to have gotten quite passionate about it...if anyone has a degree in Islamic Studies or something, please please tell me whether or not Islam is peace or violence...it can't be both

(written by a third generation immigrant)

[Splush]

My point is, is that we're so eager to tolerate Muslim culture, while if we went to any Islamic country and started going "Right, take that <islamic symbol> down, we're Christians and we're living in your country" I believe we would be beheaded (like in Saudi Arabia). Why should we have to take our Christian and/or British symbols down because it upsets you? If you wanted to live in an Islamic society, why did you move? Why can't you accept OUR culture?
Where in the UK have Muslims demanded that people take down Christian or British symbols because they upset them? We shouldn't have to take down symbols because they offend Muslims, but I'm not sure if that's ever actually happened.

Arrrghh yes, I seem to have gotten quite passionate about it...if anyone has a degree in Islamic Studies or something, please please tell me whether or not Islam is peace or violence...it can't be both
I suspect that, as with any big holy book, you could go through the Koran and the Hadith and find plenty of evidence to support either answer to that question. I'm afraid a straight, honest answer to that question might just be impossible.

[Seriphyn]

I suppose you could do that with the Bible too. Kill all gays for example, in the Old Testament, if taken out of context that Jesus said "actually no don't"

I know of two issues of the above...

- Someone in the parish was organizing a redecorating of a hospital ward room. It had a cross, and the designers or someone demanded it to be taken down
- I saw a church that was converted into a mosque...that's not really much but seemed kinda !!

Also, sometimes theres just talk. Like the BBC reported on the Proms being 'not catering' enough to people from 'all walks of life', which probably inferred non-brits...

Then there's that BBC documentary about the white working class...

Damn you media for putting these opinions in my head without providing evidence...I'm sure I've got evidence somewhere in my head...

[Splush]

I probably agree with the hospital thing, assuming it was an NHS hospital/ward. I think government institutions should be as secular as possible. Not that I freak out if I see a cross on a wall or anything, but I have my doubts that any Muslims do either.

The proms do get kind of offensive to be honest, the last night of the proms can resemble a nationalist rally with the sea of union jacks and the nationalist/imperialist music. It's like everybody gets together and pretends the British empire still exists for one crazy night, and I can understand why that makes a lot of people uncomfortable. I don't know if it should cater to 'non brits' so much as try to represent modern Britain as it actually is, rather than what it was in 1900 or whatever.

[Shiyiya]

Bugger, I've given out too much reputation now, trying to spread enough to + Splush again for a different post :S Splush, you make too many good posts!

Anyway, to the subject at hand.

A lot of poeple have made good points, but one thing has been left out: the USA.

Everybody is making the assumption that because the US is huge and not in civil war, it is stable. It is most emphatically NOT. Soon enough (soon being relative, could be ten years or it could be fifty or even a hundred), the American government is going to collapse under its own weight. The US, despite assumptions, is not very good at serperating church and state, at all. See the fact that gay marriage is illegal and abortions are still having their legality contesting. Fucking right-wing religous fanatics. Anyway, the point is, the US is not in good shape, at all. There either needs to be a lot of really fantastic presidents and no bad ones, along with good Senate and House Of Representatives, to put the country in order, or there needs to be a revoltuion to fix everything that is so very, very wrong with this piece of shit country, or it is going to fall apart. The US went to war on flimsy provocation and with the wrong people for what is generally understood by the world as 'we want moar cheap oilz pls'. The US is complete crap. Also, the medical thing? Maybe its all fine and dandy in your pretty little countries where you get medical care if you need it (don't take my sarcasm wrong, I think that that's a fantastic system and the US should use it), but over here in the US, people die waiting for insurance to pay medical bills, or they die because they couldn't afford insurance and they can't afford their medical bills, or they die because some greedy insurance company decided not to pay for something. The US healthcare system is EXTREMELY fucked up, it's unbelievable. And my family's gone thru some rough shit with insurers lately, so I know where I'm coming from. (My mother and grandfather both diagnosed with cancer, mum fine, granddad died, rather wish it was the other way around but that's not the point and I'm mad at her today, don't chew me out for hating my mum please.)

I seem to have done one of my mad long posts again. Um, was there anything else I wanted to say? Oh yes:

Japan. I'm not going to pretend that reading manga makes me an expert on the country, but I do know that some weird and sick shit happens there. Wives practically beat on their husbands for not being successful enough, girls are told it's their own fault where they're raped and are forever though of as ruined, academic pressure is so ridiculous students kill themselves over not getting into the right high school or getting the equivalent of a B on a test or whatever. (Not saying that doesn't happen anywhere else, jsut the culture is set up for it to happen with greater frequencyin Japan.) Um, what else.... Oh yeah. not only are students hard on themselves about grades, parents are too. Forcing six-year-olds to take ten page tests with a stopwatch in the worning or whatever. Probably not mostly that bad. Also, I don't know if this is a solely American turn of phrase, but if you've ever heard of 'keeping up with the Joneses'? Japan is that on stereroids. Major stereroids. YOu child must be the smartest and your car/house/vacation/wife/husband/whatever the best there is. It's fairly insane. By the by, this is poeple high up in corporations and shit. They don't seem to write manga about poor Japanese people, really, or if they do I don't remember those stories..wait, yes I do! Less affluent families majorly push their daughters (and maybe sons too but this manga was a female main character) to marry up and become wealthy, to let the parents live in luxury. It's practically the obligation of the child to keep the parents in comfort and/or luxury for the rest of their lives.

Okay, there may be, probably are, factual inaccuracies in my gleaning of knowledge of Japanese culture from manga, but it's all I've got and because people like to relate to their books, it's probably reasonably accurate. At least I think so. Please don't minus me about that ^_^

Sorry for the mad long post again, i always seem to do that.

[Seriphyn]

"That" side of the world, all a bit odd, says me

"That" side of the world, all a bit odd, says someone from "that" side of the world

Regarding the West, I love the United States, I identify as British/American nationality wise, and have been there many times, and seriously considering moving there after an MA from university.

Of course, then you said what you said. It would seem you could only get by in the States if you rich. Although I've been there and love it, I haven't lived there...

Even being rich, my 'second home' is at the SF Bay waterfront in Tiburon, something like the 8th (or 18th) most expensive real estate market in the US. That house is slowly being taken into the sea, as much as I love it to bits, it'll cost a couple hundred thousand dollars to repair...and then there is maintenance...

I am in a love-hate relationship with the UK, mostly wanting to leave ASAP, but then again it might stem from the area I live in

[Shiyiya]

"That" side of the world, all a bit odd, says me

"That" side of the world, all a bit odd, says someone from "that" side of the world

Regarding the West, I love the United States, I identify as British/American nationality wise, and have been there many times, and seriously considering moving there after an MA from university.

Of course, then you said what you said. It would seem you could only get by in the States if you rich. Although I've been there and love it, I haven't lived there...

Even being rich, my 'second home' is at the SF Bay waterfront in Tiburon, something like the 8th (or 18th) most expensive real estate market in the US. That house is slowly being taken into the sea, as much as I love it to bits, it'll cost a couple hundred thousand dollars to repair...and then there is maintenance...

I am in a love-hate relationship with the UK, mostly wanting to leave ASAP, but then again it might stem from the area I live in

If you're rich, can afford to live in a nice area, and are willing to ignore a country of hypocrites going to shit and falling down around your ears :P I absolutely hate it here and am going to escape to the UK at first opportunity, which will be University (I'm going to get a BA in English). Also, Cali is expensive as HELL. You have to be one rich sonofabitch to afford living there. The cost of living is mad, and housing is just insanity. My aunt lives in SoCal.

Another thing aobut the US is, it's idiots, really it is. Most of the people I get on with here are other people who hate it. I had a scottish friend tell me once that I was a brit in an American body.