Quote from: RPGPundit;353234That pretty much proves that I was spot on in my analysis of the message he was trying to impart.

That we as a (Western European/American) society are in conflict between our drive to progress and multiply and the desire to live in a peaceful and sustainable environment?  That hasn't been the thrust of your analysis.

!i!

Quote from: Ian Absentia;353264That we as a (Western European/American) society are in conflict between our drive to progress and multiply and the desire to live in a peaceful and sustainable environment?  That hasn't been the thrust of your analysis.

!i!

Hey, call me stupid but that's all I ever saw it being about.

Quote from: Ian Absentia;353264That we as a (Western European/American) society are in conflict between our drive to progress and multiply and the desire to live in a peaceful and sustainable environment?  That hasn't been the thrust of your analysis.

!i!

That Cameron doesn't really believe in humanity, presents civilization as representing the worst parts of humanity, and made this movie to pretty well say as much.

RPGPundit

Quote from: Machinegun Blue;353281Hey, call me stupid but that's all I ever saw it being about.

Stupid.

But, of course, you're right.  All of this "anti-human", "anti-civilisation" "Hollywood Religion" business is just sophomore year Film Critique 101 over-examination and inference.  From someone who hasn't even seen the film*, so it's second hand at best.

!i!

(*Or have you now?  I haven't kept track.)

Quote from: RPGPundit;353334That Cameron doesn't really believe in humanity, presents civilization as representing the worst parts of humanity, and made this movie to pretty well say as much.

RPGPundit

You truly are either a big assed troll or completely deranged.

Quote from: RPGPundit;353334That Cameron doesn't really believe in humanity, presents civilization as representing the worst parts of humanity, and made this movie to pretty well say as much.

RPGPundit

So, pretty much the same movie as District 9.

Quote from: RPGPundit;353233And yet, there are some people living in civilization who (at least, in their in their claims) do not want civilization at all.

Sure but Cameron isn't one of these people.

The Aliens may represent our better natures (the fact that Cameron thinks so highly of what we could be is just further evidence that his films and this film in particular are not ant humanism) but it is the nature of the Humans who see value is not destroying another culture, not engaging in genocide, even though their corporate masters would want them to, which is the major theme of the film. We may be a corrupt greedy culture but there are people who fight against this, these people represent the best of what Human civilization is.

QuoteWell then, I'd just have to say what the fuck are you arguing with me about? If you recognize the value of civilization, and your recognize the value of the civilizing process, and I am in agreement with you that racism sucks and fucks up that process just as it would fuck up any other process, then where exactly is your point of disagreement with me?

My point of disagreement was that you thought that 19th century Imperialism was about civilizing the savages. I disagree that those they civilized were savages. I disagree that they were bringing light to the dark world of savages.

QuoteAnd I think you're making a bit of a blanket statement there. To be fair, I did too earlier on in the discussion, so I can't exactly blame you for that now. But the reality of the thing is a bit more complex than that. Some areas that were colonized were already influenced by (or in India's case, initiator of) previous civilizations. But of course, many other areas (particularly sub-saharan africa) were not. You've highlighted India, Indonesia, and Vietnam as places that had previous civilizations.

Agreed. But then we have to go into detail about those "uncivilized" areas. Who did they civilize? What resources if any brought them there? Was the place of strategic importance in a larger conflict? What and where is the evidence of this "civilization" process? Does civilization (of any kind) exist today in these places?

QuoteWhat I am arguing is that western european civilization had certain concepts, knowledge and values that were very much worth transmitting to these nations as well as to the primitive cultures they colonized, and that the world on the whole is much better off for it than if they hadn't bothered.
I have enormous respect for India's accomplishments prior to the time of European imperialism; as eastern religion is one of my areas of specialty I'm very familiar with some of them, and they are deeply impressive.

Of course I agree that they are many Western European concepts, knowledge and values that were (and STILL ARE) worth transmitting but what I disagree with, is your contention that this was the motivating factor of 19th century Imperialism and that the people who they were attempting to pass these onto were savages. I think the world is a better place because what Imperialism did was provide an opportunity for certain ideas to be born out of struggle for independence. Furthermore I think that Imperialism allowed people to reconsider how they viewed each other and what their views were based on.

QuoteAnd for the record, I would so much rather have seen a colonialism where Britain welcomed India and its people into a true commonwealth, where you'd have that British Empire still around today, where Delhi benefited as much as Liverpool, where everyone was an equal citizen with equal rights, common currency and freedom to travel and to work in any part of 30% (or more) of the globe, and the honorable MPs from Toronto and Allahabad and Aden and Pune sat next to the MP from Manchester or Cardiff.

Brother, this could have been. I am (much to the scorn of some of my more rattled post colonial brothers and sisters) a firm believer in the concept of The Commonwealth. Britain already had relationships with most of the countries they eventually colonized. Imagine how it would have been if they transmitted all their great civilized ideas through trade and dialogue instead of the boot. Imagine what both sides would have learnt from each other. Imagine how it would have been if they looked at each other as equals instead of oppressor and oppressed. Like I said, it was easier to control than to negotiate.

QuoteBut we got what we got, and despite its flaws I'm still completely convinced that it was better than if the whole thing hadn't been attempted in the first place. For all those who suffered in various ways, there are untold millions in the colonies themselves who continue benefiting from what european civlization brought, and who's lives would be worse and not better in comparison had that been absent.

I am not so convinced. Firstly, millions suffered and still do today as a result of the mischief committed during the era of colonialism and by their own greedy corrupt people post liberation. I think certain fell powers took root because of Imperialism, which continue to threaten all that we hold to be good and true today - I'm looking at you, you fuking Wahhabis. And all those great Western European concepts have not taken root because of the way how they were delivered. Post colonial meddling (and meddling of other world powers with Imperialistic and neo imperialistic motives, America, Russia, and China) has further made matters worse, in some former colonies. Let's just say, I think some places are better of than others. I know you will disagree but have at it.

QuoteThe countries that were colonized all benefited from european civilization's spread. Those that benefited the least are those who threw out the most of those benefits in ill-considered acts of anti-colonial zeal or marxist social experiments.

We covered this already. My position is that we have to examine how the colony was ruled. How the colony gained independence and the events leading up to independence and post liberation relationship with their colonial masters.

QuoteMany of the places that were colonized were essentially savage, some had always been so others had fallen back into barbarism after previous civilization. Some had extant civilizations that were not as developed as western civilization in many respects (though they might have been equally or more developed in a minority of respects). That is my position.

Well, what colonies are you talking about then? I don’t think these people were savages (or posed a threat to western Civilization) - India, Africa, Malaysia, Vietnam, Indonesia, Philippines....I mean what colonies were savages and ripe for civilizing. Name them, please. And was civilizing actually going on or was it oppression and greed for resources. Remember, most often, the Great Empires just didn't invade. They traded first and after a while decided that conquering was just more effective and profitable.

QuoteNow feel free to try to address that position again, ideally by arguing the position itself and not peripherals that don't actually make my position any less sound.

Brother, it is you who have been arguing the peripherals. I've made my stand very clear. I have engaged your points and demonstrated why I disagree with them.

QuoteIndividuals are of equal value as human beings, but societies are not of equal value. The life of an agrarian-society farmer or even a cannibal (like the ones that were present in oceania and in africa in the time of western expansion, to answer your question), is equal in worth as a human individual to that of Thomas Jefferson;

People make up societies. This is often forgotten when one neatly makes the distinction between individuals and society. It makes it easier to think the latter as inferior. When you say that a society is inferior what you are basically saying is that the way how the people live, what they believe, their hopes and aspirations are inferior. Now what are people but the way how they live, what they believe and their hopes and aspirations? Now, my question is?  What countries/societies/cultures existing today, do you think are inferior? Do you think they need civilizing? How do you think this process should be carried out? And by who? Or do you think that all societies and cultures are equal now?

Quote....but the value of a civilization that can produce a Thomas Jefferson is greater than that of a society that cannot, where someone of equal talents would be doomed to a life of field-shitting and brain-eating.

Ghandi was produced by the turmoil of Imperialism. Buddha rejected the trappings of his Civilization. Martin Luther King was anathema to the society he was born into. Any civilization is capable of producing great individuals in times of need. Civilizations are influential or they are not. So, you may think, that the culture/society/civilization of the indigenous peoples of the world today are inferior and they need to be civilized, but my thinking is, it is up to them if they want to assimilate into our cultures and societies.

QuoteThe fact that you could see the flaws in your own statements and predict that I would point them out doesn't make them any less flawed.

Actually what I predicted was your usual attempts at rhetorical trickery in the hopes that it would detract from the flaws of your argument.

QuoteOk, now what about my point? What about all those other societies? You are still basically admitting here that some civilizations and societies are in fact inferior to others.

I named the societies I was familiar with and germane to the discussion. I already said I don't view societies as inferior or superior. Sure there are some aspects of some societies I don't agree with but this does mean I think they are inferior.

Regards,
David R

Quote from: David R;353425Sure but Cameron isn't one of these people.

The Aliens may represent our better natures (the fact that Cameron thinks so highly of what we could be is just further evidence that his films and this film in particular are not ant humanism)

Why don't the HUMANS represent our better natures? Why do the humans all have to become Navi to be better? Why is their make-believe culture the one that is presented as being so much better than Not Living In Trees?

QuoteMy point of disagreement was that you thought that 19th century Imperialism was about civilizing the savages. I disagree that those they civilized were savages. I disagree that they were bringing light to the dark world of savages.

And the only thing that you've done that has been directly related to that has been your defense of India as a civilization. You are right, India was a civilization; one that had fallen into a long decadence compared to its golden age, so that by the 19th century it was quite the shithole, but it was a civilization. The other two countries you added to that list were peripheral colonies of earlier civilizations. You've failed utterly to try to explain how the African Bushmen or half-insane polynesian cannibals were as much of a "civilization" as the guys who built the Taj Mahal, much less the guys who wrote the Declaration of Independence.

And you have failed utterly in the main respect of the point: you've essentially admitted that ALL of these places desperately needed Western Civilization, and what's more that HUMANITY as a whole desperately needed some of the values of Western Civilization to reach these places.

QuoteAgreed. But then we have to go into detail about those "uncivilized" areas. Who did they civilize? What resources if any brought them there? Was the place of strategic importance in a larger conflict? What and where is the evidence of this "civilization" process? Does civilization (of any kind) exist today in these places?

Yes, we could, but that would end up being more effort than I would really be willing to put into a fucking thread about a movie I hated. None of that matters in the long run, if we both know what the RESULTS were, both good and bad ones. You keep looking at "motives" trying to find sinister reasoning in imperialism, as if that will ultimately have any significance in what the ultimate purpose of spreading civilization achieved.
You can maybe, after a great deal of research, show me thousands of people who were doing evil things during colonialism. My answer would be "SO the fuck WHAT?"
Unless you want to claim that there weren't also MILLIONS of people who believed in the idea of spreading civilization (yes, yes, I know "RACISM--booooo"), unless you really want to try to claim that MILLIONS of people back in Europe, the regular populations, actually thought "hooray for exploitation and abuse" instead of "thank god we are helping the savage peoples and spreading the light of education/health/christianity/music/philosophy/art/trade/etc." your whole line of argument is ultimately irrelevant even in the question of motives, and certainly in the question of results.

QuoteI think the world is a better place because what Imperialism did was provide an opportunity for certain ideas to be born out of struggle for independence.

Ideas that were the PRODUCT OF western civilization, not a reaction to it, and certainly not something that came out of native cultures.
The whole idea of "All men are created equal" and "Inalienable Rights" are something that only western civilization could produce.

 

QuoteBrother, this could have been. I am (much to the scorn of some of my more rattled post colonial brothers and sisters) a firm believer in the concept of The Commonwealth. Britain already had relationships with most of the countries they eventually colonized. Imagine how it would have been if they transmitted all their great civilized ideas through trade and dialogue instead of the boot. Imagine what both sides would have learnt from each other. Imagine how it would have been if they looked at each other as equals instead of oppressor and oppressed. Like I said, it was easier to control than to negotiate.

What you are painting here is a fairy tale; it was as much impossible due to the racism of western europe as to the barbarism and intransigence of many of the colonized areas. You make it sound like:
a) all these people were willing to understand the Ideas of western civilization
b) none of them (say, the powerful Maharajas in India, the local Chieftan, the Witch Doctor, etc) had a vested interest in keeping existing power structures and rejecting any and all education that might give his people dangerous ideas.
c)all of these people were intellectually equipped already to even understand many of these complex ideas.

It was a combination of these three factors that made imperialism necessary, not racism. Racism was only what fucked it up later, that once we had in fact westernized these people, we refused to give them the Rights of Man we'd been waxing on so eloquently about now that they were capable of understanding these rights and wanting them.

QuoteI am not so convinced. Firstly, millions suffered and still do today as a result of the mischief committed during the era of colonialism and by their own greedy corrupt people post liberation.

And how do you measure the "suffering" that millions or even billions would have had, over the course of generations, had the British (or some other colonial power) not come along and teach them how to read?
How many would have starved to death before their 10th birthday because of a lack of advanced agrarian methods?
How many millions of people would have suffered and died from a lack of say, penicillin?
How many people would still be virtual serfs living under a fat Maharajah, who instead today get to vote and run for office?
Take away absolutely everything that the West gave to these people, and then imagine the difference, the damage that this absence would have wrought. The reduction in lifestyle and lifespan alike. The way people have suffered under strict colonial regimes, post-colonial dictators, or greedy entrepeneurs is a fucking drop in the bucket compared to the amount of sheer misery that has been averted through the betterment of everyday details in people's lives, and changes in people's thinking.

QuoteNow what are people but the way how they live, what they believe and their hopes and aspirations?

Their potential. What they COULD BE. That is what people are.

QuoteNow, my question is?  What countries/societies/cultures existing today, do you think are inferior? Do you think they need civilizing? How do you think this process should be carried out? And by who? Or do you think that all societies and cultures are equal now?

Societies and cultures are most certainly not equal now. You are not going to tell me that the Afghani Pashtun, and how they treat not just women but men and children too, and everything; the fucked up culture of tribal primitives that could blow those two magnificent Buddhas to bits, that murder little girls for wanting to learn to read, and who only know squalor and constant war, are in any way the equal of western civilization, even today. Great chunks of Africa slid right back down into barbarism. And in Europe, everything east of the Vistula has pretty much always been barbaric with only the thinnest veneer of civilized behaviour.

The problem is that the West, Europe and America has slid into this steep decadence, a decadence of post-modernism, of utter intellectual and ethical bankruptcy.  It has been so thoroughly infected by Marxism and Relativism to the point that the vast majority of people in the west not only do not believe in Western Civilization anymore, they couldn't actually even understand what Western Civilization is. They can't get the basic ideas. "Man is endowed with inalienable rights from his creator" would be responded to with "Cool opinion, bro" or "yes!...as long as we don't offend anyone" or "you aren't better than me" or "why "MAN""?

So the answer to the second part of your question is that basically, right now, there is no one who can take up the mantle of civilization; at least, no civilization I'd want to be associated with. Communist China, for example, has none of the culture-bankruptcy we have; but I wouldn't want to imagine what China's world would end up looking like (though the food would be good, at least).
At this point, I think India might be our best bet, but it looks like the underdog in this fight. Maybe if what bits of the West that still have some kind of backbone were to help it along, it might just pull it off. But in all likelihood we'll just end up cowarding up and selling out to the Chinese.

QuoteGhandi was produced by the turmoil of Imperialism. Buddha rejected the trappings of his Civilization. Martin Luther King was anathema to the society he was born into. Any civilization is capable of producing great individuals in times of need.

Except that they're really not. There is NO way that an India free of western civilization could have produced Ghandi. No way. Ghandi the man could have existed, but he likely would have lacked the kind of education to be able to even conceive of the ideas that he came up with in our reality, what things he would have come up with as ideas would have ended up ramming straight into the rigidity of the Caste structure and the absolute authoritarianism of the ruling class, or he would simply have been ignored as a madman saying things no one could understand.
Possibly, his intelligence would have been re-routed into something fitting the cultural paradigm, he might have become a traditional scholar or a guru.  Maybe he'd have become a moderately-competent advisor to some potentate.
But that's the point. You can only accomplish what your civilization is enabled to allow you to accomplish. If Ghandi had been born as a yanomami indian in the jungles of south america, all he'd have ended up being is a shitty hunter, to starve to death or be murdered in battle (or out of it). So would Jefferson, so would Martin Luther King. If Luther King hadn't had the cultural background of the Enlightenment, and the moral principles of his Christian faith, if he'd been born in some african tribe ruled by a chief and a witch doctor, how could he have done what he did?

 

QuoteCivilizations are influential or they are not. So, you may think, that the culture/society/civilization of the indigenous peoples of the world today are inferior and they need to be civilized, but my thinking is, it is up to them if they want to assimilate into our cultures and societies.

And I say, that is an intellectual cowardice condemning millions to suffering and squandered potential. Because it is not "up to them", the individuals in any given society are not capable of making the choice for themselves. So what you are really doing there, if you say "It is up to the mountain tribesmen if they want to learn how to be civilized", then you've just ended up dooming generation upon generation of, for example, little girls to being married off at 12 (if they've lived that long and haven't died of some easily-curable disease first), then forced to drop out 7-10 babies in the next ten years (only half of which, if that many, will survive to their 10th birthday), all while doing unspeakably backbreaking manual labour just to subsist, never learn how to read, never even imagine the possibilities of what human beings have achieved in music, art, literature, philosophy; never even question that she is not in any way the equal of her husband (who is 30 years older than she is and has five other wives), and to die before her 40th birthday of some horrific, easily curable disease.

That's what you've just done, with your "all civilizations are equally good" bullshit.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPunditYes, we could, but that would end up being more effort than I would really be willing to put into a fucking thread about a movie I hated. None of that matters in the long run, if we both know what the RESULTS were, both good and bad ones. You keep looking at "motives" trying to find sinister reasoning in imperialism, as if that will ultimately have any significance in what the ultimate purpose of spreading civilization achieved.
You can maybe, after a great deal of research, show me thousands of people who were doing evil things during colonialism. My answer would be "SO the fuck WHAT?"
Unless you want to claim that there weren't also MILLIONS of people who believed in the idea of spreading civilization (yes, yes, I know "RACISM--booooo"), unless you really want to try to claim that MILLIONS of people back in Europe, the regular populations, actually thought "hooray for exploitation and abuse" instead of "thank god we are helping the savage peoples and spreading the light of education/health/christianity/music/philosophy/art/trade/etc." your whole line of argument is ultimately irrelevant even in the question of motives, and certainly in the question of results.

Just a quibble maybe, but I think the motives of the people doing the colonising, "civilising," etc. might be more relevant than those of the people who stayed at home and only heard about it in letters. Apparently a pretty large portion of America believed the whole WMD bit... doesn't mean there actually were any. I think in general there's nothing cynical about saying that colonisation is more often motivated by monetary gain than humanitarian aid... it's easy to see that damn near every act of colonisation (including ostensibly altruistic ones) was profitable (or was supposed to be) and that damn few of them were actually altruistic.

QuoteIdeas that were the PRODUCT OF western civilization, not a reaction to it, and certainly not something that came out of native cultures.
The whole idea of "All men are created equal" and "Inalienable Rights" are something that only western civilization could produce.

This isn't demonstrable is it? We don't exactly have access to alternate timelines where the west didn't interfere with everything do we. Who thought of it first is no indicator of who could have thought of it independently. There are plenty of examples of cultures producing similar advances despite an utter lack of contact in the ancient world. So tell us... how are equality and inalienable rights things that only the west could have conceivably come up with?

QuoteWhat you are painting here is a fairy tale; it was as much impossible due to the racism of western europe as to the barbarism and intransigence of many of the colonized areas. You make it sound like:
a) all these people were willing to understand the Ideas of western civilization
b) none of them (say, the powerful Maharajas in India, the local Chieftan, the Witch Doctor, etc) had a vested interest in keeping existing power structures and rejecting any and all education that might give his people dangerous ideas.
c)all of these people were intellectually equipped already to even understand many of these complex ideas.

It was a combination of these three factors that made imperialism necessary, not racism. Racism was only what fucked it up later, that once we had in fact westernized these people, we refused to give them the Rights of Man we'd been waxing on so eloquently about now that they were capable of understanding these rights and wanting them.

So it was social advances imposed from the outside that were needed. Tell me how well trying to impose social/political change by invading a country works in the modern day.

QuoteAnd how do you measure the "suffering" that millions or even billions would have had, over the course of generations, had the British (or some other colonial power) not come along and teach them how to read?
How many would have starved to death before their 10th birthday because of a lack of advanced agrarian methods?
How many millions of people would have suffered and died from a lack of say, penicillin?
How many people would still be virtual serfs living under a fat Maharajah, who instead today get to vote and run for office?
Take away absolutely everything that the West gave to these people, and then imagine the difference, the damage that this absence would have wrought. The reduction in lifestyle and lifespan alike. The way people have suffered under strict colonial regimes, post-colonial dictators, or greedy entrepeneurs is a fucking drop in the bucket compared to the amount of sheer misery that has been averted through the betterment of everyday details in people's lives, and changes in people's thinking.

Advanced agrarian methods could have been traded. I don't think the fat Maharajah would mind a higher yield in his crops, do you? The better agriculture gets, the more people get to do other things, and the more social change can potentially occur spurred by a growing middle class. All without invading a country and treating its natives as second class citizens or (as in the case of the Native Americans) driving them to the brink of extinction and pretty much leaving them there or (as with Africa) enslaving them and letting so many die in piles of their own shit on the way across the ocean.

Instead of breaking this down into a quote by quote, let me just say that you present a false dichotomy in general. It isn't barbarism vs imperialism. Civilisation can be spread by other methods than war. Medicine and agriculture in particular can be traded. And if guns are easy to produce and obtain that will go a long way towards getting the majority the government they want (if not the one you want for them).

Your comments bring this quote by British General Charles Napier on Sutee

QuoteYou say that it is your custom to burn widows. Very well. We also have a custom: when men burn a woman alive, we tie a rope around their necks and we hang them. Build your funeral pyre; beside it, my carpenters will build a gallows. You may follow your custom. And then we will follow ours

My opinion is that the situation is complicated. Interference with other cultures can and has lead to more grief and suffering for both sides. But also there are things that humans do to other humans that can't be tolerated under any circumstances. The best solution is to be aware of the problem, muddle along as best as you can, and know where to draw the line at abhorrent practices.

Quote from: RPGPundit;353445And I say, that is an intellectual cowardice condemning millions to suffering and squandered potential.

I have nothing to add to the debate, but would like to thank the Pundit and David R for a fascinating and entertaining read.

Quote from: RPGPundit;353234That pretty much proves that I was spot on in my analysis of the message he was trying to impart.

Nope. You didn't include the full quote:

QuoteQ.

Have you gotten any criticism that the film might be perceived as anti-American?

A.

It's something that I've anticipated the possibility of because people will misinterpret things in certain ways. You can almost count on people misinterpreting things. The film is definitely not anti-American. It's not anti-human either. My perception of the film is that the N'avi represent that sort of aspirational part of ourselves that wants to be better, that wants to respect nature. And the humans in the movie represent the more venal versions of ourselves, the banality of evil that comes with corporate decisions that are made out of remove of the consequences.

While we are at it, this is from the official Pandorapedia:

The Avatar Program

QuoteOrigins

Under strong pressure from the UN, scientists and the general public, the RDA agreed to set up a program to enhance communications between humans and Na'vi. At first, this consisted solely of an Indigenous Terrain program to study Na'vi culture and language and to attempt to establish communication between man and Na'vi.

Practical difficulties soon showed a need for a more profound means of communication between the human and Na'vi species.

The RDA

QuoteControversy

Illegal Practice / Violations

Recent Interplanetary Commerce Administration (ICA) investigations suggest that the RDA may have violated ICA and United Nations (UN) sanctions on multiple separate occasions, specifically those relating to certain high-powered projectiles authorized only for use in self defense or emergency situations.

Environmental

Many environmental organizations and leading scientists have protested the RDA's unrestricted mining of unobtanium, calling it reckless and irreversibly damaging to Pandora's ecosystem. Countless appeals made to the Interplanetary Commerce Administration (ICA) to revoke the RDA's exclusive licenses have been dismissed.

Quote from: RPGPundit;353445Why don't the HUMANS represent our better natures? Why do the humans all have to become Navi to be better? Why is their make-believe culture the one that is presented as being so much better than Not Living In Trees?

The main Human protaganists in the movie do represent our better natures. Humans don't have to become Navi to be better, going against their genocidal Corporate Overlords makes them better. As for make belive cultures...why do filmmakers/writers create make believe cultures in the first place ?

QuoteAnd the only thing that you've done that has been directly related to that has been your defense of India as a civilization. You are right, India was a civilization; one that had fallen into a long decadence compared to its golden age, so that by the 19th century it was quite the shithole, but it was a civilization.

You make this claim that India was a shithole. This goes against everything the British Empire encountered when they first arrived there in the form of traders. It goes against historical records. The wars that were fought, the alliances made than broken, the trade which went on, all point to a civilization anything but in decline.

QuoteThe other two countries you added to that list were peripheral colonies of earlier civilizations. You've failed utterly to try to explain how the African Bushmen or half-insane polynesian cannibals were as much of a "civilization" as the guys who built the Taj Mahal, much less the guys who wrote the Declaration of Independence.

The two other countries I described were not really peripheral colonies - the French didn't think so and neither did the Dutch. Both Vietnam (fought of her Chinese ovelords and begun asseritng itself for some time before the French and others came) and Indonesia was a thriving civilization whose presence was felt in South East Asia. I don't have to explain how the African Bushmen or half insane polynesian cannibals were as much a civilization as the guys who built the Taj Mahal or wrote the declaration of independence, because what I said was that I don't view civilizations/cultures/socities as inferior or superior but rather those who have contributed more to the progress of mankind.

QuoteAnd you have failed utterly in the main respect of the point: you've essentially admitted that ALL of these places desperately needed Western Civilization, and what's more that HUMANITY as a whole desperately needed some of the values of Western Civilization to reach these places.

Now you're just making shit up. Please point out where I essentially admitted that all those other places needed Western Civilization. I mean, you don't have to lie.

QuoteYes, we could, but that would end up being more effort than I would really be willing to put into a fucking thread about a movie I hated. None of that matters in the long run, if we both know what the RESULTS were, both good and bad ones.

Hey, you raised the point about "uncivilized" places. Seeing as how you seemed to lump every non Western country in that definition, I thought it only be fair, to discover exactly which place was uncivilized and not merely decadent or as I now discover, peripheral.

QuoteYou keep looking at "motives" trying to find sinister reasoning in imperialism, as if that will ultimately have any significance in what the ultimate purpose of spreading civilization achieved.

Of course because it's your contention that they spread their civilization to bring light to the savages. That's not a motive which I think is historically accurate, never mind the fact that they did very little enlightentment and a lot of looting.

QuoteYou can maybe, after a great deal of research, show me thousands of people who were doing evil things during colonialism. My answer would be "SO the fuck WHAT?"

Of course this is your answer. You have a very unrealistic view of what Imperiliasm was about and what it achieved.

QuoteUnless you want to claim that there weren't also MILLIONS of people who believed in the idea of spreading civilization (yes, yes, I know "RACISM--booooo"), unless you really want to try to claim that MILLIONS of people back in Europe, the regular populations, actually thought "hooray for exploitation and abuse" instead of "thank god we are helping the savage peoples and spreading the light of education/health/christianity/music/philosophy/art/trade/etc." your whole line of argument is ultimately irrelevant even in the question of motives, and certainly in the question of results.

Now it's my turn to say "Who the fuck Cares" what the millions of people who thought they were spreading civilization cared. I doubt very much they knew exactly what spreading civilization meant in terms of what their goverments were really doing or even if they did get pass the propaganda, would be bothered when their lives were so miserable (not as miserable as the "savage natives" , though) to do anyhting about it. There's a reason they all wished to escape their countries and be somebody in the Colonies, you know.

Seriously when Bush declared that God told him to spread democracy to the Arab world, don't you think there were some who actually believed in this cause but were unaware of what this really meant or their country's history in the Middle East.

And my line of argument is extremely relevent because unlike you I question the motives of Imperialism and those who support it, esp since the results of Imperialism is so damaging in many ways.

QuoteIdeas that were the PRODUCT OF western civilization, not a reaction to it, and certainly not something that came out of native cultures.
The whole idea of "All men are created equal" and "Inalienable Rights" are something that only western civilization could produce.

Bullshit. Ghandi's ideas of nonviolent resistance was not a product of Western Civilization. If anything it was a product of his native culture. Many of the ideas behind the concept of human Rights today are a reaction against Imperialism which although not product of Western Civilization, was certainly an Ideology that was refined by Western Civilization.

QuoteWhat you are painting here is a fairy tale; it was as much impossible due to the racism of western europe as to the barbarism and intransigence of many of the colonized areas.

Wait, wanting to hold on to your freedom, culture and autonomy is barbarism and intransigence ?

QuoteYou make it sound like:
a) all these people were willing to understand the Ideas of western civilization
b) none of them (say, the powerful Maharajas in India, the local Chieftan, the Witch Doctor, etc) had a vested interest in keeping existing power structures and rejecting any and all education that might give his people dangerous ideas.
c)all of these people were intellectually equipped already to even understand many of these complex ideas.

a) Of course people were often unwilling to listen to Ideas of western Civilization. They had their own damn ideas about their civilization. And judging by the way how the Western powers conducted themselves, they weren't much different in some respects from their own civilization.

b)Of course they had a vested interet in keeping their powers, much like the Imperialists who had an interest in relieving them of their power.

c) Complex ideas like what. "Me Want. You Give. Or else". These uncivilized natives had a education and literature that goes back hundreds of years. They had a rich written and oral history. I'm sure they were intellectually equiped to deal with these complex ideas.

QuoteIt was a combination of these three factors that made imperialism necessary, not racism. Racism was only what fucked it up later, that once we had in fact westernized these people, we refused to give them the Rights of Man we'd been waxing on so eloquently about now that they were capable of understanding these rights and wanting them.

Bullshit. What it did was to ensure that control not negotiation was the solution to the problem. There was never any intention of giving them Rights because they were only westernized to make it easier to administer the colony. Racism was always part of the equation. People don't magically start believing people are inferior. It's a process.

QuoteAnd how do you measure the "suffering" that millions or even billions would have had, over the course of generations, had the British (or some other colonial power) not come along and teach them how to read?
How many would have starved to death before their 10th birthday because of a lack of advanced agrarian methods?
How many millions of people would have suffered and died from a lack of say, penicillin? How many people would still be virtual serfs living under a fat Maharajah, who instead today get to vote and run for office?

Did the the Colonial powers teach them how to read ? How many Colonial powers actually did this ?

How many starved to death because they were denied treatment because they were merely native and as such, inferior ?

Wait, what has this got to do with Imperialism. If you want to talk about how Western Civilization introduced this, great, because I have no issue with western Civilization.

How many people were sefs under the Queen ? Who knows how India would have turned out without Imperialism. I know you think only white civilzations are capable of evolving. But I'm sure that country which could produce a religion like Buddhism would be capable of evolving .

QuoteTheir potential. What they COULD BE. That is what people are.

Exactly. What they COULD BE means different things and FOR THEM to decide .  

QuoteSocieties and cultures are most certainly not equal now. You are not going to tell me that the Afghani Pashtun, and how they treat not just women but men and children too, and everything; the fucked up culture of tribal primitives that could blow those two magnificent Buddhas to bits, that murder little girls for wanting to learn to read, and who only know squalor and constant war, are in any way the equal of western civilization, even today. Great chunks of Africa slid right back down into barbarism. And in Europe, everything east of the Vistula has pretty much always been barbaric with only the thinnest veneer of civilized behaviour.

Of course I'm not going to tell you that the Afghan Pashtun culture is equal to not only western Civilization but ALSO ASIAN CIVILIZATIONS. But then again I never said all Cultures/Sociieties are equal. What I said was that some cultures are more influential in promoting human progress, this culture obviously isn't one of them.

QuoteThe problem is that the West, Europe and America has slid into this steep decadence, a decadence of post-modernism, of utter intellectual and ethical bankruptcy.  It has been so thoroughly infected by Marxism and Relativism to the point that the vast majority of people in the west not only do not believe in Western Civilization anymore, they couldn't actually even understand what Western Civilization is. They can't get the basic ideas. "Man is endowed with inalienable rights from his creator" would be responded to with "Cool opinion, bro" or "yes!...as long as we don't offend anyone" or "you aren't better than me" or "why "MAN""?

So the answer to the second part of your question is that basically, right now, there is no one who can take up the mantle of civilization; at least, no civilization I'd want to be associated with. Communist China, for example, has none of the culture-bankruptcy we have; but I wouldn't want to imagine what China's world would end up looking like (though the food would be good, at least).

At this point, I think India might be our best bet, but it looks like the underdog in this fight. Maybe if what bits of the West that still have some kind of backbone were to help it along, it might just pull it off. But in all likelihood we'll just end up cowarding up and selling out to the Chinese.

I'm not going to respond to this part because I said, the issue of Western decadence is not something I want to discuss. Thanks for answering my question, though.

QuoteExcept that they're really not. There is NO way that an India free of western civilization could have produced Ghandi.

Ghandi was a reaction against Western Imperialism, so of course he would not have existed without Imperilism but....

QuoteNo way. Ghandi the man could have existed, but he likely would have lacked the kind of education to be able to even conceive of the ideas that he came up with in our reality, what things he would have come up with as ideas would have ended up ramming straight into the rigidity of the Caste structure and the absolute authoritarianism of the ruling class, or he would simply have been ignored as a madman saying things no one could understand.

Rubbish. Now you are just resorting to some bigoted fantasy. Indian education has produced many renowed thinkers in the Indian continent. Buddha was a reaction against the practises of the Civilization. Your understanding of the caste system is incomplete. There is more to the caste system than just the dalits. They are traders farmers etc and within these stratas there is a form of social moblity. In spite of the caste system, India became a great civilization because of it's fluency in the arts and sciences - astronomy, botany etc. And you would be surprised how many "madmen" were advisors to Kings and Queens.

QuoteYou can only accomplish what your civilization is enabled to allow you to accomplish. If Ghandi had been born as a yanomami indian in the jungles of south america, all he'd have ended up being is a shitty hunter, to starve to death or be murdered in battle (or out of it). So would Jefferson, so would Martin Luther King. If Luther King hadn't had the cultural background of the Enlightenment, and the moral principles of his Christian faith, if he'd been born in some african tribe ruled by a chief and a witch doctor, how could he have done what he did?

You are really not reading my replies are you? Ghandi was a reaction to Imperialism. Martin Luther King was a reaction against the oppresion of his society.  Their civilizations did not enable them to become what they were in fact it tried to restrain them. What they did was bend Civlization to allow them to exist. As I said in trubulent times in any Civilization great people are created. . If Martin Luther King was born to a African Tribe ruled by a chief and witch doctor why would he need to do what he had did ? It all boils down where you are born and when. I'm not seeing your point here. Well he may have been a Jomo Kenyatta....
 

QuoteThat's what you've just done, with your "all civilizations are equally good" bullshit

Again with the lie. I never said all civilizations are equal. I said I don't perceive civilizations as superior or inferior. I see some practises of socities which I despise, one is the Pasthun example and another is Imperialism.

QuoteAnd I say, that is an intellectual cowardice condemning millions to suffering and squandered potential. Because it is not "up to them", the individuals in any given society are not capable of making the choice for themselves. So what you are really doing there, if you say "It is up to the mountain tribesmen if they want to learn how to be civilized", then you've just ended up dooming generation upon generation of, for example, little girls to being married off at 12 (if they've lived that long and haven't died of some easily-curable disease first), then forced to drop out 7-10 babies in the next ten years (only half of which, if that many, will survive to their 10th birthday), all while doing unspeakably backbreaking manual labour just to subsist, never learn how to read, never even imagine the possibilities of what human beings have achieved in music, art, literature, philosophy; never even question that she is not in any way the equal of her husband (who is 30 years older than she is and has five other wives), and to die before her 40th birthday of some horrific, easily curable disease.
RPGPundit

And this is why you are intellectually dishonest. You are implying because I disagree with Imperialism and the reuslts of such an ideology means that I am anti civilizational or uninterested in the welfare of these so called "savages". And yes it is Up To Them. What we can do (depending on where we live), is ensure that healthcare is provided. What we can do ensure that they are well compensated for their labour and not taken advantage off. What we can do, is introduce technologies which would make their lives easier or introduce new avenues for them to make a living. We can ensure that the laws of the land are fairly applied to them and that women and children understand their rights. We can do all this without stepping on them or dominating them or making them our slaves, which is what your grand ideas of Imeprialism did when they supposedly brought civilization to the savages.

Regards,
David R

Quote from: RPGPundit;353445Why don't the HUMANS represent our better natures?

Because that's been done elsewhere?

Ladies and gentlemen, I give you...



Battlefield Earth!

!i!