Quote from: RPGPundit;352609I think that there was a lot of greed and racism involved, to be sure, and sadly in the end those forces dominated the colonialism of the 19th century. But there were motives besides that as well.

What other motives were there ? Unless you think that the "savages needed to be civilized" is an altruistic motive ?

QuoteAs to the question of "benefits"; I think that pretty much every other society on earth has ended up benefiting from western civilization at this point. The whole concept of "human rights" is something that exists in the form it has today thanks to this civilization.

Well, I think it would be disingenuos for me to argue otherwise. I think this is perhaps the greatest concept that came out of the West.

QuoteMany of the ex-colonial nations are still benefiting, long after their liberation, from the developments in infrastructure, education, health, government/civil service, and both the liberal arts and sciences that were transmitted by the west; and pretty well all of those who in their anti-colonial zeal threw out those babies along with the bathwater of oppression have ultimately come to regret it.

This is rather misleading. Most preliberation infrastructure, education, health, goverment/civil service were determined by how well it facilitated control of the population and the extraction of resources. This meant that large segments of the population were ignored and lived without these socalled benefits. Of course these "benefits" also destroyed the established social dynamic of a diverse range ethnic groups and created discontent that still persist to this day.Things changed post liberation. Depending on where you were, for the better or worse. (I take it we are speaking in generalities, here)

I reject the idea that throwing out the baby with the bath water is purely anticolonial zeal. There are normally a whole host of other factors involved, one of which is post colonial meddling.  

QuoteCuriously, we now stand at the beginning of a century where a former western-colony, India, is poised to become a major world power, and had it not been from the influence of the west on that country, this would neither have been possible, nor if possible would it have been even remotely positive for the world.

You really are infatuated by Imperialism aren't you ? You are aware that India was a major power with it's influence felt in most, if not all parts of Asia and beyond before the arrival of the West ? You don't think it's possible they would become a major power had it not been for the influence of Britain ? Seriously ?

QuoteAnd yes, the West also got back a great deal from those colonies, and I'm not just talking about stolen resources or wealth. I think it could have gained a lot more than what it did, had the western powers been less greedy and racist in their handling of things.

RPGPundit

They still can brother, but you chaps keep wanting to chase out those foreign devils. I soo understand this. (Well, I guess, I am one of those cats, with a sense of humour, when it comes to issues like these, after all )

(I apologize for this derail, guys)

Regards,
David R

Quote from: David R;352623What other motives were there ? Unless you think that the "savages needed to be civilized" is an altruistic motive ?

What motives are there for fighting AIDS or starvation in Africa today?

QuoteWell, I think it would be disingenuos for me to argue otherwise. I think this is perhaps the greatest concept that came out of the West.

Nice to see you give that credit, a lot of others arguing your side of the debate would not.

One of the things people tend to forget while busy Damning Western Civilization is that without any doubt whatsoever, this civilization is by far the most humanitarian that has ever existed in the history of man as we know it.

QuoteThis is rather misleading. Most preliberation infrastructure, education, health, goverment/civil service were determined by how well it facilitated control of the population and the extraction of resources. This meant that large segments of the population were ignored and lived without these socalled benefits. Of course these "benefits" also destroyed the established social dynamic of a diverse range ethnic groups and created discontent that still persist to this day.Things changed post liberation. Depending on where you were, for the better or worse. (I take it we are speaking in generalities, here)

I reject the idea that throwing out the baby with the bath water is purely anticolonial zeal. There are normally a whole host of other factors involved, one of which is post colonial meddling.  

So at which point are you willing to accept that a given Shithole African Post-colonial dictatorship is the fault of its own people? Where do you stop blaming whitey? Or is it a "get out of jail free card" forever?
How many countries in Africa today could be described in general like this: "was an extremely prosperous nation, one of the most prosperous on the continent, at the time of gaining its independence, but has now become a hell on earth due to decades of mismanagement/corruption/civil war"?

QuoteYou really are infatuated by Imperialism aren't you ? You are aware that India was a major power with it's influence felt in most, if not all parts of Asia and beyond before the arrival of the West ? You don't think it's possible they would become a major power had it not been for the influence of Britain ? Seriously ?

Except for under the peak of the Mughals, who were ALSO IMPERIALISTS (just not european imperialists, so apparently they get a free pass), India was never even really close to being a single unified state.  It was a series of petty empires and principalities, mired in abject poverty, a fixed Caste system, and hindu-muslim conflicts.

Let's play a simple game, shall we? Let's imagine that India is going to become the next World Superpower, at least as influential as the U.S.
Now, let's imagine that you get to pick which kind of India gets to be that superpower that will dominate us all: it can be the India we know, with all that brutal British colonialism in its history, OR you can magically choose to erase all British influence from India's history, yet still allow it to be a superpower.
It will be a superpower that believes in the Caste System, Sati, Untouchables, all-powerful luxurious Maharajas, and has none of the concepts that come with British education, no democracy, no concept of western human rights.

Now, which India's power would you rather live under? The one you've miraculously "freed" from the evils of western imperialism? Or the one that has wisely learned a great deal from Britain, made those lessons its own, and now is a better place for it, and the world's largest democracy to boot?
Your choice.

Hell, we don't even have to play make-believe. The choice in the 21st century might very well be between India, a country that has had western influence to the point of obtaining democratic values; and China, a place that has had no such thing. There are reasons why everyone is praying to fuck that India succeed, or that China grow a conscience fast (not going to happen, I think).

QuoteThey still can brother, but you chaps keep wanting to chase out those foreign devils. I soo understand this.

I'm a multiculturalist who has never been against legal immigration in my entire life, the son of immigrants to Canada, and am now myself an Immigrant to Uruguay.
I think that qualifies as an Epic Fail in your attempt to paint me as a member of the teabagger set.

RPGPundit

I must say I'm amused about the way this thread evolved. Somehow folks who didn't put the na'vi on a pedestal began being likened to the bad behaviour of their civilizations of origin centuries ago.

All this blatant finger pointing at all of Western Civilization's "past evils" is souding a lot like Ad Homine attacks in disguise.

Quote from: Edsan;352677I must say I'm amused about the way this thread evolved. Somehow folks who didn't put the na'vi on a pedestal began being likened to the bad behaviour of their civilizations of origin centuries ago.

All this blatant finger pointing at all of Western Civilization's "past evils" is souding a lot like Ad Homine attacks in disguise.

As far as I can see, it's you and the Pundit who are pointing out the bad behaviour of the humans in the movie as "anti-human/anti-civilization" from the supposed view of the film makers. Seems rather Ad Homine to me.

Quote from: RPGPundit;352669What motives are there for fighting AIDS or starvation in Africa today?

You didn't answer my question. What other motives were there for Imperalism ? Your answer here seems to imply altruism but what great tragedy was happening in the colonies that needed the attention of the Imperialist ?

QuoteNice to see you give that credit, a lot of others arguing your side of the debate would not.

What exactly is my side ? I'm arguing that Cameron's films (maybe not this one) are more complex than what you make them out to be. As for this little derail, I'm on my own here.

QuoteOne of the things people tend to forget while busy Damning Western Civilization is that without any doubt whatsoever, this civilization is by far the most humanitarian that has ever existed in the history of man as we know it.

What people? Again, I was sceptical of your claim of the benefits of Western Imperialism not Western Civilization. I do think that if the perception is that Western civilization is by far the most humanitarian it's because of the benefits it received from Imperialism.

QuoteSo at which point are you willing to accept that a given Shithole African Post-colonial dictatorship is the fault of its own people? Where do you stop blaming whitey? Or is it a "get out of jail free card" forever?

If you read my reply you would notice that I never said the Africans were blameless. I said "not only purely anticolonial zeal". And I suppose whitey stops getting blamed when they stop interfering in Africa. Remember most of these dictatorships have received support from whitey.

QuoteHow many countries in Africa today could be described in general like this: "was an extremely prosperous nation, one of the most prosperous on the continent, at the time of gaining its independence, but has now become a hell on earth due to decades of mismanagement/corruption/civil war"?

Not many. So, what you are saying is that the darkies can't look after themselves. That they need the white man to control them. That they were better of under white control. Like South Africa, for instance ?.

QuoteExcept for under the peak of the Mughals, who were ALSO IMPERIALISTS (just not european imperialists, so apparently they get a free pass), India was never even really close to being a single unified state.  It was a series of petty empires and principalities, mired in abject poverty, a fixed Caste system, and hindu-muslim conflicts.

This is nonsense. They were of course disparate power structures but India was a vibrant nation of trade, education and culture. Hindu Muslim conflicts were of course present but never really a threat to the influence they projected out of their borders. And certainly not as hostile as it is today, with the British creation of Pakistan. These petty empires managed to spread their culture (which by the way included their system of governance) over wide areas of Asia and Central Asia.

And just so you know, India today is mired in poverty and corruption with states jealuously guarding their autonomy, still struggling with the caste system and mired in Hindu Muslim conflicts. And yet they struggle on despite this. It's not because of the influence of British Colonialism.

QuoteLet's play a simple game, shall we? Let's imagine that India is going to become the next World Superpower, at least as influential as the U.S.
Now, let's imagine that you get to pick which kind of India gets to be that superpower that will dominate us all: it can be the India we know, with all that brutal British colonialism in its history, OR you can magically choose to erase all British influence from India's history, yet still allow it to be a superpower.

Let's play another game, shall we ? Let's imagine that India is going to be the next World Superpower, at least as influential as the U.S. Now, let's imagine that you get to pick which kind of India gets to be that superpower that will dominate us all : it can be the India that we know (read the last para of my reply above) OR you can take your chances on an India which has demonstarted it's influence over all of South East Asia and parts of central Asia. It's influence so subtle that it's mostly hinted at in the cultures it chose to interact/colonize. Trade of course was the dominant motive.

Of course this rather a silly game, because India has no intention of becoming a Superpower of the kind the Pundit envisions. And it's not the British that we have to thank for the way how India is today. It's the Americans. Indians love the Yanks. They love their spirit. They love the fact that America embraces capitalism while remianing deeply spiritual (don't laugh) and welcomes any into the fold. They are not naive but understand the (sometimes) deep undercurrents of racism in the American Dream but some how unlike the Brits, the Yanks manage to rouse them out of their fatalism and insularity.

And guys, remember the Brits were the most devious cunning Imperialist that walked the Earth. I say this with admiration. Their divide and conquer model, is still practised in India today. Think about it.

QuoteIt will be a superpower that believes in the Caste System, Sati, Untouchables, all-powerful luxurious Maharajas, and has none of the concepts that come with British education, no democracy, no concept of western human rights.

This is nonsense of course. Like I said, India was a great influence in Malaya and many other parts of the South East Asia and we didn't have any of this. In fact, what the "natives" had done, with the encouragement of Indian traders is adapt many of their customs - the importance of education - maths and science, the importance of literture as a transmitter of cultural norms - no castse nonsense and the importance of the family unit. Of course it was not all sugar and cream and Indians could be ruthless when they wanted to protect their trading interests but I do think the picture the Pundit paints in his zeal to rewrite Imperiliasm as the salvation of the dark man is simply poopyheadedness. To think that we were all savages before the white man saved us is purely whishfull thinking.

QuoteNow, which India's power would you rather live under? The one you've miraculously "freed" from the evils of western imperialism? Or the one that has wisely learned a great deal from Britain, made those lessons its own, and now is a better place for it, and the world's largest democracy to boot?
Your choice.

Yes your choice. And remember my game is a little more realistic. India would of course have changed with the time unless the Pundit thinks that only the societies of white people evolve. India would probably be influenced more by America than Britain. Some would argue that this is not a good thing but like I said, it's a silly game.  

QuoteHell, we don't even have to play make-believe. The choice in the 21st century might very well be between India, a country that has had western influence to the point of obtaining democratic values; and China, a place that has had no such thing. There are reasons why everyone is praying to fuck that India succeed, or that China grow a conscience fast (not going to happen, I think).

Now of course it's back to reality. I guess this means I have to embrace Imperialism, huh ? Well no. As I said the last time we did this little dance, India is already very influential in the World and so is China. I said we can see what this influence means to India. They have no interest in any form of Imperialism and have no interest in the kind of overt political or military action that the Pundit seems to be hinting at. Just as America (which values freedom and democracy) has sustained despots when it suited their interests, India and China will do the same (if they become a Superpower) paying lip service (in the case of India) to those ideals.

QuoteI'm a multiculturalist who has never been against legal immigration in my entire life, the son of immigrants to Canada, and am now myself an Immigrant to Uruguay.
I think that qualifies as an Epic Fail in your attempt to paint me as a member of the teabagger set.

RPGPundit

When you stop painting me as whatever...I'll stop throwing paint at you. And I was joking, you big pipe smoking dummy.

Regards,
David R

Well I (and my family) quite enjoyed the movie. James Cameron still rocks! He's a great storyteller.

Quote from: RPGPundit;351471From the NY Times:



So is that it? is this movie more of the "Western Civilization and Science are bad, take us Back To the Cave" movement? Matched with a shallow new-agey religion of obliviousness?

Its really amusing to me how this particular kind of nature-worshipping pantheism is a religion that could only come to exist in an utterly pampered privileged society that is very glorious and mercifully separated from Nature. Because any slightly less-privileged, less-advanced or less-pampered society would be able to tell you that Nature is a fucking bitch.

(note also that, however much the Relativist Liberal Hollywood New-Agers want to make you think its so, this philosophy is extremely different from Buddhism, Hinduism or Taoism, none of which have any of the illusions American-Leftist-Pantheism have about the the gentleness of mother nature or the virtue of being reduced to an animal)

RPGPundit

I haven't seen the movie, but I feel obligated to say that embracing death, destruction and pointlessness aren't new and don't require a nature-centric religion. Bible's got Job, Ecclesiastes, and Revelations. And Christians forget those books same as pantheists (if anyone thinks of themselves as such) forget the potential brutality of nature.

As an anecdote though, while hiking on the AT back in middle school for a few weeks, I met a very old man whose trail name was mainframe (he used to work with the old mainframe computers). He was vomiting frequently, and could only hold down water, so he cut his distance down from 24 miles a day to 16 until he could walk somewhere with a doctor. Not all nature lovers reject technology, and as advanced as we are, there are still a handful of tough bastards out there walking from GA to ME (or the reverse) just for the hell of it.

Getting back to the movie though, I've got other reasons not to want to see it... it looks like a bunch of ugly CGI for people who like pretty movies. I'm not gonna waste 10 bucks on a movie my technophile roommate is so certainly going to download off usenet (and watch on our tv) anyway.

EDIT: And from the sounds of things, it's Ender's Game minus the good stuff (not that Ender's Game doesn't have its own problems)

Quote from: David R;352747You didn't answer my question. What other motives were there for Imperalism ? Your answer here seems to imply altruism but what great tragedy was happening in the colonies that needed the attention of the Imperialist ?

Yes, it was the altruism of seeking to bring a superior civilization and its benefits, to spread it out across the entire world, so that people wouldn't live in darkness.   In a few cases, that sentiment was misplaced, in many it was not.
The europeans brought with them ways of thinking, intellectual disciplines, philosophical teachings and, for lack of a better term, paradigms that were completely new to most of the rest of the world, as well as intellectual disciplines and scientific/technological advancement.

Finally, one cannot put aside the significance of Christianity in motivating the European people at least as much as greed, as a motivation to go out into the world and seek to Save it.

Sometimes, these twin motives of Civilization and Christianity were manipulated by the greedy, and at other times they were subverted by the racist; but it was THOSE motives, and not greed and racism themselves, that prompted the great expansion of European Culture to the world.

QuoteI do think that if the perception is that Western civilization is by far the most humanitarian it's because of the benefits it received from Imperialism.

Really, you don't think that little things like Christianity, Humanism, Freemasonry, and the Enlightenment might be a little more directly responsible?

QuoteIf you read my reply you would notice that I never said the Africans were blameless. I said "not only purely anticolonial zeal". And I suppose whitey stops getting blamed when they stop interfering in Africa. Remember most of these dictatorships have received support from whitey.

And the Democracies there have received at least as much support and financial aid from whitey too.

QuoteNot many. So, what you are saying is that the darkies can't look after themselves. That they need the white man to control them. That they were better of under white control. Like South Africa, for instance ?.

No. I'm saying that the degree to which countries Went to Shit after their independence was directly related to how much of Western Civilization they held on to. Those countries that rejected Civilized values as being something "white" that was not their way ended up on a toboggan ride straight to hell; while those countries that are doing reasonably well are almost invariably the ones that took the most advantage of the Intellectual Infrastructure that the European powers left behind for them. India being pretty well one of the best examples, where many of their institutions (their education system, their civil service, etc) are perhaps more English than the English themselves have these days.

QuoteAnd just so you know, India today is mired in poverty and corruption with states jealuously guarding their autonomy, still struggling with the caste system and mired in Hindu Muslim conflicts. And yet they struggle on despite this. It's not because of the influence of British Colonialism.

Well, I would say that those problems you name are not because of the influence of British Colonialism, they're in spite of them.

QuoteOf course this rather a silly game, because India has no intention of becoming a Superpower of the kind the Pundit envisions. And it's not the British that we have to thank for the way how India is today. It's the Americans. Indians love the Yanks. They love their spirit. They love the fact that America embraces capitalism while remianing deeply spiritual (don't laugh) and welcomes any into the fold. They are not naive but understand the (sometimes) deep undercurrents of racism in the American Dream but some how unlike the Brits, the Yanks manage to rouse them out of their fatalism and insularity.

You do know that the United States is also part of Western Civilization, right?

QuoteThis is nonsense of course. Like I said, India was a great influence in Malaya and many other parts of the South East Asia and we didn't have any of this. In fact, what the "natives" had done, with the encouragement of Indian traders is adapt many of their customs - the importance of education - maths and science, the importance of literture as a transmitter of cultural norms - no castse nonsense and the importance of the family unit. Of course it was not all sugar and cream and Indians could be ruthless when they wanted to protect their trading interests but I do think the picture the Pundit paints in his zeal to rewrite Imperiliasm as the salvation of the dark man is simply poopyheadedness. To think that we were all savages before the white man saved us is purely whishfull thinking.

Well see, except here you've gone and proven my point for me, dude.



Because I never said "you were all savages before the white man". I said that there are Savages and there is Civilization, and everyone is a savage before being civilized. And India has had some whoppers of civilizations in its past. The Mughals, the Guptas, the Buddhist empire of Ashoka, just to name a few.
And you Malayans were savages, until they brought their civilization to you. You just said as much.

And of course, one of the differences between the relative success of India compared to the relative failure of a lot of the Central African Hellholes of today is of course that India already had civilization, not just culture. It was not a new concept for them, to receive new Civilizational elements.

Its got nothing to do with race, David. The Savages of the 1st century were blond haired and blue eyed.



RPGPundit

Quote from: beejazz;352789I haven't seen the movie, but I feel obligated to say that embracing death, destruction and pointlessness aren't new and don't require a nature-centric religion. Bible's got Job, Ecclesiastes, and Revelations. And Christians forget those books same as pantheists (if anyone thinks of themselves as such) forget the potential brutality of nature.

I don't want to speak of what Christians in general may or may not forget. But there is a difference between Forgetting a lesson that is in fact there, not being taught that lesson in the first place, or being taught a LIE that directly contradicts reality.

Christianity may end up forgetting the violence in the Bible (though I'd argue with you that none of the three books you named are about "embracing death, destruction and pointlessness" though certainly some christian elements have ended up choosing to interpret them that way); but the teachings of Hollywood Pantheism directly lie to their viewers about reality; they teach you that "going back to nature" is going to be a beautiful Love-In where you will all be hip and beautiful and everything will be provided for, and we'll all be singing campfire songs; and it completely ignores the horrible savage brutality of the natural world. It sells you a con job.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPunditI don't want to speak of what Christians in general may or may not forget. But there is a difference between Forgetting a lesson that is in fact there, not being taught that lesson in the first place, or being taught a LIE that directly contradicts reality.

I'd consider the two similar. In either case, both religions (again, I'm hesitant to call vague pantheists members of a religion) acknowledge and deal with the negative nature of the world, but the practitioners of both happily forget that life can suck for people who are good by the standards of their faith.

QuoteChristianity may end up forgetting the violence in the Bible (though I'd argue with you that none of the three books you named are about "embracing death, destruction and pointlessness" though certainly some christian elements have ended up choosing to interpret them that way); but the teachings of Hollywood Pantheism directly lie to their viewers about reality; they teach you that "going back to nature" is going to be a beautiful Love-In where you will all be hip and beautiful and everything will be provided for, and we'll all be singing campfire songs; and it completely ignores the horrible savage brutality of the natural world. It sells you a con job.

RPGPundit

I'm not saying that Christianity *embraces* death, destruction, or pointlessness (any more than older, more mature pantheistic faiths do)... only that it at least acknowledges it. Job says that God will destroy you when it's convenient for Him and you've got no right to question Him for it (otherwise "shit happens"). Ecclesiastes starts with "Vanity of vanities. All is vanity" (or in some versions "All is meaningless") and throws in "This too is vanity/meaningless" every time it's made some point. And Revelations depicts the horrific destruction of the earth and people we don't like under the supervision of a kind and loving God. I'm not saying any of this is a bad thing to have in a religious text. Far from it, Ecclesiastes is my favorite book and I think the "Genesis, Exodus, Psalms and Gospels" reading most Christians have is sadly insufficient. Just saying they at least acknowledge the shit in the world we live in.

As for the movie... it looks like what they were going for was a very different kind of nature than the one we've got if there's something between wikipedia and a hivemind going on. How ethical is it to farm a sentient plant, exactly? (I kid here... I've got no doubt the movie failed to think of an actual good reason for the technological stasis of a species with built in internet access). Now... the movie might fail horribly in terms of plausibility. But to go from saying the movie is implausible and seems rooted in some hippy bullshit and then go on to calling it "pantheism" and then to go from there to calling pantheism bad, as the article seems to... it just looks like a bit of a stretch.

Quote from: RPGPundit;352828Yes, it was the altruism of seeking to bring a superior civilization and its benefits, to spread it out across the entire world, so that people wouldn't live in darkness.  

More like arrogance. The worlds they conquered were not living in darkness. India for instance gave the world Buddhism, Sanskrit, architectural wonders etc. Does this sound like a people living in darkness ?

QuoteIn a few cases, that sentiment was misplaced, in many it was not.
The europeans brought with them ways of thinking, intellectual disciplines, philosophical teachings and, for lack of a better term, paradigms that were completely new to most of the rest of the world, as well as intellectual disciplines and scientific/technological advancement

Except of course in many cases the world they conquered had their own intellectual disciplines, philosophical teachings and scientific technologies. Not to mention medicine, art and warfare. Again, do these people sound like savages needing to be civilized? I am no historian (you are) but didn’t the civilized world learn a lot esp with regards to the sciences from the Middle East and India, pre colonization ?

QuoteFinally, one cannot put aside the significance of Christianity in motivating the European people at least as much as greed, as a motivation to go out into the world and seek to Save it.

Christianity was a means of control. It was also the stumbling block for the colonial powers. For many oppressed people, faith in the Christian God led them to revolt against their colonial masters. This is one aspect of colonialism that I am not critical of. Of course the rise of Christianity created a whole new set of problems but I think in the long run, it is beneficial to the world as the main “defense” against a growing Islam. (I am not Islamaphobic or anything, I just believe in a little ying and yang)

QuoteSometimes, these twin motives of Civilization and Christianity were manipulated by the greedy, and at other times they were subverted by the racist; but it was THOSE motives, and not greed and racism themselves, that prompted the great expansion of European Culture to the world.

I disagree. Like you, they thought the other civilizations were inferior. Nothing in the way how they presented their civilizations demonstrated any altruism of any kind. If you were lucky you were treated as a second class citizens. If not, you were treated much worse. They did do a lot of looting, though. So I think we can put greed front and center.

QuoteReally, you don't think that little things like Christianity, Humanism, Freemasonry, and the Enlightenment might be a little more directly responsible?

Not really. I think when you get rich of the work of others you can afford to be humanitiarian. While others are toiling away and you look upon their lands as a “great adventure”, you can afford to be charitable.

QuoteAnd the Democracies there have received at least as much support and financial aid from whitey too.

What’s your point ? If whitey supports democracies he gets to share some of the credit. If whitey supports crackpot dictators he gets to share some of the blame.

QuoteNo. I'm saying that the degree to which countries Went to Shit after their independence was directly related to how much of Western Civilization they held on to. Those countries that rejected Civilized values as being something "white" that was not their way ended up on a toboggan ride straight to hell; while those countries that are doing reasonably well are almost invariably the ones that took the most advantage of the Intellectual Infrastructure that the European powers left behind for them.

This is rather misleading. The degree to which countries Went to Shit after their independence was directly related to how the colonial powers left the country. How the country gained independence. What kind of support they got from their former colonial masters.

QuoteIndia being pretty well one of the best examples, where many of their institutions (their education system, their civil service, etc) are perhaps more English than the English themselves have these days.

India is often used as an example of “what is right with colonialism”. This ignores the precolonial history, India had with Britain. The kind of relationship it had with Britain during WW2. There are very few colonies….I would say India is the only one, that had the kind of relationship it had with it’s colonial master.

QuoteWell, I would say that those problems you name are not because of the influence of British Colonialism, they're in spite of them.

Really ? You don’t think the bureacracy that was left behind and the way how it worked during the colonial period has anything to do with it ? You don’t think the creation of Pakistan has any influence ? Seriously ?

QuoteYou do know that the United States is also part of Western Civilization, right?

We were talking about Western Imperialism, right?

QuoteWell see, except here you've gone and proven my point for me, dude.
Because I never said "you were all savages before the white man". I said that there are Savages and there is Civilization, and everyone is a savage before being civilized. And India has had some whoppers of civilizations in its past. The Mughals, the Guptas, the Buddhist empire of Ashoka, just to name a few.
And you Malayans were savages, until they brought their civilization to you. You just said as much.

Um, no. You are making this argument, now. Look back at the beginning of your reply. You said that Christianity and Civilization was used to bring light to the darkness of the savages. Savages being the colonized. You said Western Civilization was superior. You didn't think that the people they colonized were part of an older (sometimes) Civilization , you thought they were savages.

But of course when you say they are Savages and there is Civilization – you don’t mean any Civilization except Western Civilization because if you did acknowledge other Civilizations you would not consider India, as being an example of Savages.

QuoteAnd of course, one of the differences between the relative success of India compared to the relative failure of a lot of the Central African Hellholes of today is of course that India already had civilization, not just culture. It was not a new concept for them, to receive new Civilizational elements.

Of course comparing Africa with India is bizarre. Africa with it’s history of slavery, numerous colonizers and it’s violent revolts, is totally different from the Indian experience.

QuoteIts got nothing to do with race, David. The Savages of the 1st century were blond haired and blue eyed.

That maybe so, but there were no savages that were colonized by later day Imperialist only other Civilizations.

(Again I apologize for my part in this derail)

Regards,
David R

Quote from: RPGPundit;352829...but the teachings of Hollywood Pantheism directly lie to their viewers about reality; they teach you that "going back to nature" is going to be a beautiful Love-In where you will all be hip and beautiful and everything will be provided for, and we'll all be singing campfire songs; and it completely ignores the horrible savage brutality of the natural world. It sells you a con job.

You must have been out getting popcorn or tamping your pipe bowl during the first part of the movie.  Quite early on, Jake wanders away from the scientists on his covert mission to infiltrate the Na'vi, and is almost eaten by the local fauna.  In fact, most of the scenes where he is learning their culture are highlighted by nature kicking his ass.

But only someone who is ideologically entwined with technology would describe the natural world as 'horrible savage brutality'.  Sounds like you should watch less Discovery channel, and take a hike into the Uruguayan foothills a bit more.

Quote from: RPGPundit;352828Really, you don't think that little things like Christianity, Humanism, Freemasonry, and the Enlightenment might be a little more directly responsible?

And the Democracies there have received at least as much support and financial aid from whitey too.

Well, the Freemasons were responsible for salvaging a little native culture and civilization that wasn't completely destroyed by the European Conquests. In some cases they (The Masons) preserved the culture and knowledge, and in others, they thought to obscure or eliminate unique cultural knowledge due to other more pressing conflicting goals.

I'm currently reading Mysteries of the Mexican Pyramids (c) 1976 by Peter Tomkins. The Spanish Church had instituted a uniform policy of destroying and/or looting native cultural sites during the Conquest. This included burning heretical natives at the stake when they sought to teach others from their writings and artworks, and destroying any writing and artwork they came across, especially if the writings and artwork were created in gold or silver.

One exception was Don Carlos de Siguenza y Gongora (Who had been expelled from the Jesuit order). He acquired and preserved small collections of the remaining caches of native documents and shared them with the Italian, Giovanni Francesco Gemelli Careri when Careri visited Mexico from 1697 to 1698. Careri published the first and best description of Pre-Columbian Mexico, however until recent times, was completely discredited with naysayers stating that he had not ever even visited Mexico. Such was the nature of the Church (and State) during those times.

It wouldn't be until 1803 when Baron Fredrich Heinrich Alexander von Humboldt (A Freemason) arrived in Mexico that additional information on just how civilized the natives really were prior to the Spanish Conquest would come to light.

As Humboldt and his companions approached Mexico City, a messenger brought word of welcome from Viceroy Don Jose Iturrigaray, granting Humboldt passports to travel wherever he pleased in New Spain, a special treatment arranged for Humboldt in Madrid by the Minister of Saxony, who had convinced the Spanish Crown that such a distinguished scientist and 'conservative' young nobleman would not rock the boat of state with his reports from Mesoamerica. Actually the arrangement had every earmark of being a masonic ploy to facilitate the reconnaissance of Mexico, possibly on behalf of long-term mining interests in Europe.

Within the city, with its wide clean avenues, flanked by iron candelabra, respendent at night with lighted palaces and churches, Humboldt was welcomed as a learned and erudite visitor. It was his charm however, and his apparent sincerity and ease, along with his sociability and brilliance of conversation, which really opened doors to him. Wherever he went, cultivated persons gave hime their confidence; In Mexico he got help from peasant and governor, missionary and bishop, savant and noble, being welcomed indiscriminately in palaces or shack, workshop or hacienda. Almost everyone had heard of Baron Humboldt as either astronomer, physiologist, botanist, economist, archaeologist or Philologist; but seldom had any of them had occassion to frequent so distinguished a personage.

Most amazing, the viceroy immediately opened up for Humboldt the country's classified archives. To help with his research, Humboldt found, in circumstances that seemed more than fortuitous, a former classmate from Freiberg University, Don Andres Manuel del Rio, who had providentially become director of Mexico's school of mines. A young savant, Dr. M. Oteyza, was selected to tutor Humboldt on the history of Mexico and show him where he could obtain the rare Indian picture writings which had escaped the autos da fe of the Conquest, picture writings so scarce in New Spain, that the majority of educated persons had never seen one.

With access to the official files, and a bent for statistics Homboldt completed a population survey of Mexico City (Twice the size of New York at the time). Humboldt found both town and county teeming with priests, monks, and nuns - one priest for every sixty inhabitants, or 100,000 priests in a county of six million people. To Protestant Humboldt, the higher clergy of Mexico appeared to be living in clover, some receiving incomes greater than that of the then president of the United States, Thomas Jefferson.

After several months of studying the statistics and geography of the country, and of analyzing Mexico City as the political, commercial, industrial, and ecclesiastical capital of New Spain, Humboldt turned to the city's antiquities to observe it as an ancient center of civilization. He was shocked to discover the extent of the destruction of Tenochtitlan (Founded in 1325 btw), as well as the statues and painted codices. He also learned that since Siguenza's death another great collection of books, manuscripts, and codices had been pillaged and dispersed, that of the eighteenth century Milanese traveler Lorenzo Boturini Benaducci, which had been burned, stolen, or taken abroad, where a part of it was siezed by British pirates who destroyed it without understanding its value.

My opinion is that any "Support" and "Financial Aid" received from European powers after emancipation pales in comparison to the amounts looted and destroyed during the earlier era...

Quote from: David R;352853More like arrogance. The worlds they conquered were not living in darkness. India for instance gave the world Buddhism, Sanskrit, architectural wonders etc. Does this sound like a people living in darkness ?

Quite right, they did provide the world all kinds of wonders. India is a truly ancient culture that has lived through a number of cycles of civilization and decadence. But by the time that the west came along to conquer India, it was back in another stage of decadence.
Again, India had marvelous civilizations, including several that were, at the time, foreign invasions, and it has managed to learn from each of them. Your case study here seems to be arguing in favour of my point, actually.

 

QuoteExcept of course in many cases the world they conquered had their own intellectual disciplines, philosophical teachings and scientific technologies. Not to mention medicine, art and warfare. Again, do these people sound like savages needing to be civilized? I am no historian (you are) but didn't the civilized world learn a lot esp with regards to the sciences from the Middle East and India, pre colonization ?

Hundreds of years earlier, when the Middle East and India WERE the civilized places, and Europe was clawing its way back out of barbarism, yes, absolutely.

QuoteChristianity was a means of control. It was also the stumbling block for the colonial powers. For many oppressed people, faith in the Christian God led them to revolt against their colonial masters. This is one aspect of colonialism that I am not critical of. Of course the rise of Christianity created a whole new set of problems but I think in the long run, it is beneficial to the world as the main "defense" against a growing Islam. (I am not Islamaphobic or anything, I just believe in a little ying and yang)

That's ironic, because what I consider to be one of the greatest mistakes of colonialism was the sequence of events that allowed Islam to be co-opted by radical fundamentalism. The modern Wahabi movement is entirely a product of European intervention during the colonial era, and a tragic and stupid mistake.

QuoteI disagree. Like you, they thought the other civilizations were inferior. Nothing in the way how they presented their civilizations demonstrated any altruism of any kind. If you were lucky you were treated as a second class citizens. If not, you were treated much worse. They did do a lot of looting, though. So I think we can put greed front and center.

That's a deeply cynical view. Again, you can say it was a tainted altruism, but what motivated the western culture as a whole (apart from profiteers) was the sense of responsibility of spreading civilization.
Judging some of the actions and forms of this sense of responsibility by today's modern standards may end up finding it erroneous on many levels; and certainly racism was mixed into things in a way that harmed the whole enterprise, but don't pretend that an entire civilization got up one morning and said "hey, let's go destroy all these people for kicks and our own benefit!"; that's not what was going on.

QuoteNot really. I think when you get rich of the work of others you can afford to be humanitiarian. While others are toiling away and you look upon their lands as a "great adventure", you can afford to be charitable.

Lots of other civilizations got rich off of lesser nations they conquered, but did NOT end up developing humanitarian ideals.

QuoteWhat's your point ? If whitey supports democracies he gets to share some of the credit. If whitey supports crackpot dictators he gets to share some of the blame.

Yes, that's fair, fine.
What it also means is that ultimately the other half of the blame depends on the choices made by the people in these countries themselves. They are not free of responsibility, praise or blame.

QuoteThis is rather misleading. The degree to which countries Went to Shit after their independence was directly related to how the colonial powers left the country. How the country gained independence. What kind of support they got from their former colonial masters.

No, I don't think that's the determinant factor. According to you (and others, and yes, a good argument can be made), the English intentionally tried to sabotage India when they left; there were other countries where England or other powers tried to leave on good terms, but the place was subverted by warlords or marxist guerillas. India, in any case, turned out quite well.

QuoteReally ? You don't think the bureacracy that was left behind and the way how it worked during the colonial period has anything to do with it ? You don't think the creation of Pakistan has any influence ? Seriously ?

The creation of Pakistan is certainly something that England bears some responsibility, but if I'm not mistaken there was also the little matter of the Muslim intelligentsia in India desperately wanting to create their own state, and millions and millions of muslims in India who were convinced that without the british around to protect them the Hindus would end up devouring them. So like, you know, I don't recall that British troops had to go around forcibly making the state at gunpoint, either.

QuoteWe were talking about Western Imperialism, right?

Well, you were. I'm talking about Civilization. Although, if you really think that the U.S. isn't an imperialist nation, and one of the most successful of all time, you're kind of being blind. They probably did better than the greeks, romans and british combined when it comes to spreading their culture all over the world, the good and the bad.

QuoteUm, no. You are making this argument, now. Look back at the beginning of your reply. You said that Christianity and Civilization was used to bring light to the darkness of the savages. Savages being the colonized. You said Western Civilization was superior. You didn't think that the people they colonized were part of an older (sometimes) Civilization , you thought they were savages.

Perhaps I wasn't clear, and if so I'm sorry. I do think that western civilization is a superior civilization; there are lots of other civilizations that also have a lot of virtues to them. Then there is savagery, which is different than civilization.
Some of the places that western civilization expanded into had their own previous civilizations, or had already been influenced by earlier civilizations that were also foreign to them. Other areas were barbaric, either having always been barbaric or having fallen into barbarism after long periods of decadence.

QuoteBut of course when you say they are Savages and there is Civilization – you don't mean any Civilization except Western Civilization because if you did acknowledge other Civilizations you would not consider India, as being an example of Savages.

(most of) India in the time of the English domination of India was not savage; it was a decadent civilization.

QuoteOf course comparing Africa with India is bizarre. Africa with it's history of slavery, numerous colonizers and it's violent revolts, is totally different from the Indian experience.

India had slavery (and untouchables), was conquered and colonized multiple times, and had unspeakable violence occur in the course of its history.
The main difference between India and Africa was actually that India already had prior experience of civilization before its encounter with the West; whereas most of sub-saharan Africa did not.


RPGPundit

Quote from: StormBringer;352874You must have been out getting popcorn or tamping your pipe bowl during the first part of the movie.  Quite early on, Jake wanders away from the scientists on his covert mission to infiltrate the Na'vi, and is almost eaten by the local fauna.  In fact, most of the scenes where he is learning their culture are highlighted by nature kicking his ass.

That is meant to show the contrast between the foolish evil civilized man who cannot be in harmony with nature, and the Navi who are.

QuoteBut only someone who is ideologically entwined with technology would describe the natural world as 'horrible savage brutality'.  Sounds like you should watch less Discovery channel, and take a hike into the Uruguayan foothills a bit more.

Paying nature a little visit, and actually living in nature without any of the benefits of civilization, are two very different things.

RPGPundit