The crisis of western civilization

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

3113

But Western Civilization is qualitatively better than any other civilization that's come down the pike. WC constantly strives to eliminate its malignancy. I cant name any other civilization that endeavored to be a better steward as time passed.

DOC is still pissed off because Al Gore lost and Europe didnt invade us to put Al on the throne.

 

[cloudy]

I think you make a good point that it's rather absurd to have a pissing contest about who slaughtered, invaded, enslaved, etc. more people in the name of an empire or a religion. But then, I suspect Dr. M's primary point is that Western Civilization can't and shouldn't be held up by anyone as somehow superior or "more civilized" if it's done and/or is still committing the same atrocities (immoralities) as those in other, presumably less civilized civilizations.

Meaning, Rox. that the wrongs of others--in the past or currently--don't excuse ours. Two wrongs don't make a right. Your point, however, is equally valid. That there can't be a double standard--you can't hold Western Civ to a higher standard than other Civilizations. That goes in both directions, however. Dr. M. can't hold us to higher standards than he does others, but then you can't claim that we are (or ever were) more moral than others if we're doing (have done) the same thing as others.

Which mean, I think, that you've nicely proved yourself a moral and cultural relativist. No culture, as you yourself have shown, no matter their moral values, has avoided doing mean things to others

*applause*

 

[amicus]

Inasmuch as the brutality of all referenced civilizations is not a pretty thing to acknowledge, it does rather drive home the point of a simularity, a, 'universal' characteristic of the beast.

Thus, by your own petard, you have made my point in a converse way that immorality, thus morality, is a common, moral absolute.

Gotcha!

Amicus...

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

I think you make a good point that it's rather absurd to have a pissing contest about who slaughtered, invaded, enslaved, etc. more people in the name of an empire or a religion. But then, I suspect Dr. M's primary point is that Western Civilization can't and shouldn't be held up by anyone as somehow superior or "more civilized" if it's done and/or is still committing the same atrocities (immoralities) as those in other, presumably less civilized civilizations.

Meaning, Rox. that the wrongs of others--in the past or currently--don't excuse ours. Two wrongs don't make a right. Your point, however, is equally valid. That there can't be a double standard--you can't hold Western Civ to a higher standard than other Civilizations. That goes in both directions, however. Dr. M. can't hold us to higher standards than he does others, but then you can't claim that we are (or ever were) more moral than others if we're doing (have done) the same thing as others.

Which mean, I think, that you've nicely proved yourself a moral and cultural relativist. No culture, as you yourself have shown, no matter their moral values, has avoided doing mean things to others

Western civ's status is "learning in progress." That does put it ahead of some others at this moment in history, who haven't accepted that there's anything worthy of "learning."

In an earlier post I responded to Mab's recitation of Western horrors before and since the Enlightenment with this: "Toward the end of that long period of human history, on the threshold of modernity, the Enlightenment promulgated a set of principles that made those traditional (imperialist) practices morally untenable. That it takes a while for those principle to become ingrained, that the old viewpoints held on for a while, should not surprise, and does not diminish the superiority of those Enlightenment principles."

IOW, learning in progress.

Let's recap: Those Enlightenment values - all humans created equal, religious tolerance, freedom of speech, separation of church and state, and more - were assembled by the West, into a package we call "liberalism." The West is the civilization that defined those "old fashioned" attitudes as "vices," and so is guilty of hypocricy when we fail to live up the liberal values we've defined as virtue.

"Hypocrisy is the tribute vice pays to virtue."

So, how should we characterize a society that rejects liberalism, refuses to condemn its opposite, fails to define those Enlightenment values as virtues? Do they get a moral "hall pass" when they trample on others because at least they aren't hypocrites?

No. We should have just as much confidence in saying to others, "These principles are better" as we do when we say to ourselves, "We are not living up to our principles." For true liberals, cultural relativism requires giving that "moral hall pass", and so in my view is not tenable.

 

[elsol]

An excellant post. As so often happens in these discussions of abstracts, we literally don't know what we're talking about. For some of us, moral relativity means what we might call trans-cultural morality, the precious and hard-won ability to see the world through a different culture's value system. For others, it designates negotiable or situational ethics, those areas of morality that can't be solved by simple appeal to authority. For others, including Rox, "moral relativism" connotes a nihilistic system in which values have no value because they're fixed to no absolutes.

And for some us it means...

"You-all are talking some crazy shit that when I look inside myself I just can't find. Like the whole Life is precious thing. Bullshit! My life is precious, I'd drop you in a heartbeat if I could get away with it. Oh wait, you think your bullshit is for real! Like for real, for real! So even if your bullshit is BULLSHIT, you're going to act like your personal Moses came down from the mountain with that BULLSHIT inscribed on gold tablets... Fuck me! Well... it's not like I can change your mind, I mean Ayn Rand or Al Gore said so! *sigh* What's for lunch today?"

In other words... I'm from the "You Think Your Shit Don't Stink" School of Relativity.

 

[Pure]

note to rox.

So, how should we characterize a society that rejects liberalism, refuses to condemn its opposite, fails to define those Enlightenment values as virtues? Do they get a moral "hall pass" when they trample on others because at least they aren't hypocrites?

No. We should have just as much confidence in saying to others, "These principles are better" as we do when we say to ourselves, "We are not living up to our principles." For true liberals, cultural relativism requires giving that "moral hall pass", and so in my view is not tenable.

you have given no examples of this happening rox. it's a myth. show me an historical evil confronting the US in this century that received a 'hall pass' from 'relativist' leaders.

what are you reaching for, joe mccathy's accusation that spineless fellow travelers in the state dept "lost" China??

rox, you need only look at a decade ago to see the *true nature* of the 'hall pass' phenomenon. look at the US leaders cultivation of Saddam Hussein and arming him. the US has supported any number of dictators for 'reasons of state,' most recently in Sudan.

now, were any of them actually saying, "we think saddam's a good fellow, because his culture approves of him and it's all relative" ? no.

i dare you to show it. the leaders were NON relativists like yourself.
they were believers that the US is the highest and best. so what were they actually saying: to protect the highest and best, we deal and ally with the lesser of evils. we help iraq beat the shit out of iran. the people of your persuasion of western superiority, rox, are, in practice, seeming relativists; they fail to confront evil or actually aid it in the name of their greater good.

in fact, i submit that most examples of 'deference to' or 'hall pass to' evils in US foreign policy are similar to what i've just mentioned. it's simply silly to say 'relativists and nihilists and deniers of truth stood aside because they had a limp-wristed philosophy of capitulation.'

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

So, how should we characterize a society that rejects liberalism, refuses to condemn its opposite, fails to define those Enlightenment values as virtues? Do they get a moral "hall pass" when they trample on others because at least they aren't hypocrites?

No. We should have just as much confidence in saying to others, "These principles are better" as we do when we say to ourselves, "We are not living up to our principles." For true liberals, cultural relativism requires giving that "moral hall pass", and so in my view is not tenable.

you have given no examples of this happening rox. it's a myth. show me an historical evil confronting the US in this century that recevied a 'hall pass' from 'relativist' leaders.

Just this week the New York Times posted a long 'think piece' that was essentially an attack on free speech, expressing views like those you have proclaimed when we discussed a kangaroo court trial of a Candian journalist for "hate speech." The surrender of liberal values by relativists on the Danish cartoons were a huge example. The soft-pedaling by many relativists of the second-class citizen status of women in Islamic societies is another example - I've seen New York Times news articles that essentially suggested, "Maybe those women like it that way." Right - the darkies are dancing behind the slave quarters because they love their chains.

~~~~~~~~

BTW, I notice that you are silent on the question I asked:

'So, how should we characterize a society that rejects liberalism, refuses to condemn its opposite, fails to define those Enlightenment values as virtues? Do they get a moral "hall pass" when they trample on others because at least they aren't hypocrites?'

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

ROXANNE

I have a news flash for you: Most darkies missed the plantation when it was gone. It was, in many ways, Eden. Life was not kind to Blacks once Massa was gone.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

ROXANNE

I have a news flash for you: Most darkies missed the plantation when it was gone. It was, in many ways, Eden. Life was not kind to Blacks once Massa was gone.

You know better, JBJ. You're doing the "macho flash" here. Life is not kind to lots of people and groups, yet if this were 1866 or 1880 I doubt you could find one ex-slave in 10,000 who would agree with what you said, regardless of how hard their lot at the time.

 

[Pure]

reply to rox

'So, how should we characterize a society that rejects liberalism, refuses to condemn its opposite, fails to define those Enlightenment values as virtues? Do they get a moral "hall pass" when they trample on others because at least they aren't hypocrites?'

is this a question or a speech?

care to translate to English?

the first is unclear as to who's being talked of: should i read it as "shouldn't we condemn a society run by spineless, multicultural lefties?" OR "shouldn't we condemn a society embracing islamo fascism?"

the second question equally unclear on who's being spoken of, is furthermore, gibberish.

 

[Pure]

rox's example of an evil flourishing due to 'relativism'

The surrender of liberal values by relativists on the Danish cartoons were a huge example.

wow! is this the best you've got? an instance of the NY Times caving a bit? did the Wall Street Journal publish the cartoons?

in your jeremiad about evils of our time that have flourished because of 'relativism' you come up with this? not armenian genocide, not Japanese fascism, not the holocaust; not Stalin's gulags, or 'the killing fields'; not even the rise of Saddam, the flourishing of al qaeda...

but NY Times cravenness about 8 cartoons?

Western civilization is surely in peril!!

 

[3113]

Those Enlightenment values - all humans created equal, religious tolerance, freedom of speech, separation of church and state, and more - were assembled by the West, into a package we call "liberalism."

No. We should have just as much confidence in saying to others, "These principles are better" as we do when we say to ourselves, "We are not living up to our principles." For true liberals, cultural relativism requires giving that "moral hall pass", and so in my view is not tenable.

I'm confused. Isn't religious tolerance relativism? Isn't all human were created equal relativism? Isn't freedom of speech relativism? I mean, don't all these things give a "hall pass" to people who try to pass amendments against burning flags and saying obscenities and want the U.S. to be declared a "Christian" nation?
My point being, these "virtues" insist on "relativism" meaning a "hall pass" to those who in THIS LAND who don't believe people should be allowed to say whatever they want, or practice any religion, or are equal! So...aren't you the hypocrite if you say that relativism is not a virtue, as all those things are relativism? Oh, wait, I forgot. You're defining yourself to victory. A relativist, by your definition fails to force other countries to hold such beliefs. Well, we already have a problem here:

1) If we are enlightened, and these are the best virtues...shouldn't all the people in our own country have faith in these virtues? Shouldn't we first impose these virtues on Evangelicals who want to stop obscenities, make everyone Christian and take away rights from women? I mean, there's that darn double standard there again. We can't hold ourselves up as a model of virtue if members of our own country don't agree with these moral truths. I think we need to force these people in our own land to realize that letting everyone practice their own religion (or none) is a "better" moral than making everyone Christian.

How do you propose to change their minds? I mean, if we can't get our own house in order, how are we going to get others in order? And um...how do we get our own house in order without breaking our own rules? How do we stop Christians from thinking everyone should be free to follow their own religion--Satanism included, without taking away their freedom of religion--a religion that says go out and convert others to Christianity and this would be a better world if kids were forced to pray in school?

2) YOU yourself say "Western Civ's status is learning in progress." This would imply that a civilization must grow, learn and develop into this higher form. That it must evolve. That would suggest that forcing these values on a civilization without knowing where they are on the evolutionary ladder toward enlightenment would be a bad idea. And whadda know? When we've tried to impose our values on them, it hasn't always worked. In fact, a lot of times, it's backfired on us. Especially if we take no time to understand how their culture sees things and figure out ways to adjust that thinking to enlighten them, and enlighten them over time.

Western Civ took a long time removing prayer from school and letting girls wear pants. But we expect other cultures that have morning prayer everywhere and women still hiding their faces to suddenly change? Pretty unenlightened of us.

3) Okay. Let's get down to brass tacks. None of this really has to do with murdering people, or great sins of modern history...does it? What this all comes down to is that you hate the fact that some newspaper backed down from printing offensive cartoons of Mohammed because it would "offend" another culture, right? All this comes down to your belief that we should do exactly as France has done and insist that little Islamic girls come bareheaded to school rather than be allowed to wear headscarves. Fuck their religion and culture! Ours is better and right and we should feel free to make them see this, right?

Are we on the right track here on what you're trying to say? Because the other way is the domino theory. We try not to offend another culture and next thing they're slaughtering millions of people and we just let them. Please, Rox, don't use logical fallacies here. Stick to the facts. Hasn't happened, has never happened and is not going to happen. We won't let Iranians slaughter millions of Jews because we respect their culture. We'll let them slaughter millions of Jews because they're sending us oil and we don't want to fuck that up.

So. You need not fret about cultural relativism causing the death of millions. Should we respect other cultures and undermine freedom of speech by not printing a cartoon? Well...now we come to something very interesting. See...you believe in private ownership. So that newspaper belongs to someone and they get to decide what to print or not. It's theirs. According to you. So...they haven't interfered with Freedom of Speech. They've just done what they liked with their newspaper. If the government shuts up the cartoonist THEN it's taken away Freedom of Speech and IF the government does so in order to "not offend" (rather than, say, national security) then you have "untenable" cultural relativism.

So here's the big question. How realistically do you have to fear this happening as compared to someone shutting up the cartoonist because they don't want negotiations over oil to go wrong? And if a relativist wants to say to the cartoonist "You shouldn't do that!" (without forcing them to stop)...isn't that Freedom of speech? That, in the end, is where you really get hypocritical. You hold certain things as ultimate virtues, but you want to undermine them in order to maintain them?

 

[past_perfect]

Interesting discussion. Charley's desire statement reminded me of Russell's take on this - quite lucid and concise (for a mathematician that is )

Here: http://www.solstice.us/russell/science-ethics.html

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

I'm confused. Isn't religious tolerance relativism? Isn't all human were created equal relativism? Isn't freedom of speech relativism? I mean, don't all these things give a "hall pass" to people who try to pass amendments against burning flags and saying obscenities and want the U.S. to be declared a "Christian" nation?
My point being, these "virtues" insist on "relativism" meaning a "hall pass" to those who in THIS LAND who don't believe people should be allowed to say whatever they want, or practice any religion, or are equal! So...aren't you the hypocrite if you say that relativism is not a virtue, as all those things are relativism? Oh, wait, I forgot. You're defining yourself to victory. A relativist, by your definition fails to force other countries to hold such beliefs. Well, we already have a problem here:

1) If we are enlightened, and these are the best virtues...shouldn't all the people in our own country have faith in these virtues? Shouldn't we first impose these virtues on Evangelicals who want to stop obscenities, make everyone Christian and take away rights from women? I mean, there's that darn double standard there again. We can't hold ourselves up as a model of virtue if members of our own country don't agree with these moral truths. I think we need to force these people in our own land to realize that letting everyone practice their own religion (or none) is a "better" moral than making everyone Christian.

How do you propose to change their minds? I mean, if we can't get our own house in order, how are we going to get others in order? And um...how do we get our own house in order without breaking our own rules? How do we stop Christians from thinking everyone should be free to follow their own religion--Satanism included, without taking away their freedom of religion--a religion that says go out and convert others to Christianity and this would be a better world if kids were forced to pray in school?

2) YOU yourself say "Western Civ's status is learning in progress." This would imply that a civilization must grow, learn and develop into this higher form. That it must evolve. That would suggest that forcing these values on a civilization without knowing where they are on the evolutionary ladder toward enlightenment would be a bad idea. And whadda know? When we've tried to impose our values on them, it hasn't always worked. In fact, a lot of times, it's backfired on us. Especially if we take no time to understand how their culture sees things and figure out ways to adjust that thinking to enlighten them, and enlighten them over time.

Western Civ took a long time removing prayer from school and letting girls wear pants. But we expect other cultures that have morning prayer everywhere and women still hiding their faces to suddenly change? Pretty unenlightened of us.

3) Okay. Let's get down to brass tacks. None of this really has to do with murdering people, or great sins of modern history...does it? What this all comes down to is that you hate the fact that some newspaper backed down from printing offensive cartoons of Mohammed because it would "offend" another culture, right? All this comes down to your belief that we should do exactly as France has done and insist that little Islamic girls come bareheaded to school rather than be allowed to wear headscarves. Fuck their religion and culture! Ours is better and right and we should feel free to make them see this, right?

Are we on the right track here on what you're trying to say? Because the other way is the domino theory. We try not to offend another culture and next thing they're slaughtering millions of people and we just let them. Please, Rox, don't use logical fallacies here. Stick to the facts. Hasn't happened, has never happened and is not going to happen. We won't let Iranians slaughter millions of Jews because we respect their culture. We'll let them slaughter millions of Jews because they're sending us oil and we don't want to fuck that up.

So. You need not fret about cultural relativism causing the death of millions. Should we respect other cultures and undermine freedom of speech by not printing a cartoon? Well...now we come to something very interesting. See...you believe in private ownership. So that newspaper belongs to someone and they get to decide what to print or not. It's theirs. According to you. So...they haven't interfered with Freedom of Speech. They've just done what they liked with their newspaper. If the government shuts up the cartoonist THEN it's taken away Freedom of Speech and IF the government does so in order to "not offend" (rather than, say, national security) then you have "untenable" cultural relativism.

So here's the big question. How realistically do you have to fear this happening as compared to someone shutting up the cartoonist because they don't want negotiations over oil to go wrong? And if a relativist wants to say to the cartoonist "You shouldn't do that!" (without forcing them to stop)...isn't that Freedom of speech? That, in the end, is where you really get hypocritical. You hold certain things as ultimate virtues, but you want to undermine them in order to maintain them?

You are confused. I say that with sincerity, not as a dig.

Where did I say anything about forcing anybody to do anything? That's a strawman. What I said was we should not be timid about saying that we think it's not good to make women second class citizens, squash free speech, not be tolerant of other religions, etc.

Religious tolerance is not "relativism." It's a recognition that it's not right to persecute each other over religious beliefs.

All this changing of the subject, talking about "forcing" people to do things (like be tolerant ), red herrings, strawmen, politics - 890 words worth - I feel like you're just playing games because you don't want to go where I'm pointing, but can't think of any good reasons not to.

Fact is, you're already where I'm been pointing - you acknowledged it when you said, "You're right that I hold a culture that puts women as equal as better than one that this not equal."

It makes you uncomfortable being here, because many on the left pretend to be relativists and use the language of relativism, but actually agree with you that a culture that judges itself by liberal values is better than one which does not. Part of it is cant, and part of it is what Mab mentioned, which is that we aren't always talking about the same thing when we say "relativism." In this instance you and I are talking about the same thing, though.

 

[Pure]

note to rox.


[3113] You are confused

Fact is, you're already where I'm been pointing - you acknowledged it when you said, "You're right that I hold a culture that puts women as equal as better than one that this not equal."

It makes you uncomfortable being here, because many on the left pretend to be relativists and use the language of relativism, but actually agree with you that a culture that judges itself by liberal values is better than one which does not.

rox, your original article confused many points.

but its basic proposition that 'western civilization' is threatened with spreading evils whom "relativists" fail to oppose is non sense.

as 3113 correctly pointed out about your cartoon example:

//None of this really has to do with murdering people, or great sins of modern history...does it? What this all comes down to is that you hate the fact that some newspaper backed down from printing offensive cartoons of Mohammed because it would "offend" another culture, right? All this comes down to your belief that we should do exactly as France has done and insist that little Islamic girls come bareheaded to school rather than be allowed to wear headscarves. Fuck their religion and culture! Ours is better and right and we should feel free to make them see this, right?

Are we on the right track here on what you're trying to say? Because the other way is the domino theory. We try not to offend another culture and next thing they're slaughtering millions of people and we just let them. Please, Rox, don't use logical fallacies here. //

in short, rox, you seem to be implying that first the NY Times fails its nerve in republishing some cartoons. and next thing you know it's saying that 9-11 was richly deserved, and next thing we have a Muslim president [even worse than a relativist one] who declares sharia law.
---

now let's get to the main point: does 3113 "pretend" to be a relativist in saying US society is better than Saudi society?

you are being quite silly, rox. there is NO judgment that identifies its owner as relativist. "relativism" is a meta ethical position.

let me explain: 3113 COULD be saying-- and it's quite reasonable--

R: "I appply the standards of my society and culture to judging the US and Saudi Arabia; naturally, i find my own better."

OR she might be saying

non-R "There are transcultural and timeless ethical standards which i appeal to and accordingly judge the US society to be better than the Saudi."

There is simply NO WAY to tell, but charity demands we assume 3113 knows word meanings and hence is saying R.

You can only tell 3113's position if you ask the following additional question: "How would you argue with Saudi relgious leaders who say their society is better, including for women; they point, for example, to the low rate of rape; low rate of divorce, etc."

Here there are two answers:

R* "I can't argue with them; there are no transcultural standards to appeal to. There is no way to convince them."

This is what 3113 should say if she's 'relativist'.

The other answer, the one you Roxanne would say, is:

non-R* "There are transcultural standards and i could appeal to these and convince a rational Saudi cleric."


Well, Rox, at this point, the burden is on you: What ARE the arguments you'd use? Would you appeal to Jefferson in the Dec'n of Independence?

Let me answer on behalf of the Saudi cleric, 'I don't accept your Jefferson as some universal arbiter about equality; but i will note that your Jefferson, while talking "all men are created equal" clearly also advocated: "black men are not equal" in the eyes of Virginia [Jeff's home state] and US law; and he advocated "women should not vote in Virginia [Jeff's home state] or in the US. So I don't think your Jefferson would have a problem with women's rights as they are in Saudi Arabia."

Back to you, roxanne? Your reply, please.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

ROXANNE

Seriously, read the WPA Slave Narratives. Many of the respondents pined for the Old Plantation. Once emancipation came along blacks were cast adrift. Old Massa no longer had to care for non-workers, and Old Massa no longer protected his people from the excesses of the law and exploitation. For blacks, the period from 1865 to 1941 was awful. I have some illuminating books and articles about convict labor during those times.

The WPA writers thought the old darkies were delusional and senile about their fond memories of the Old Plantation. But the old people were right.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

ROXANNE

Seriously, read the WPA Slave Narratives. Many of the respondents pined for the Old Plantation. Once emancipation came along blacks were cast adrift. Old Massa no longer had to care for non-workers, and Old Massa no longer protected his people from the excesses of the law and exploitation. For blacks, the period from 1865 to 1941 was awful. I have some illuminating books and articles about convict labor during those times.

The WPA writers thought the old darkies were delusional and senile about their fond memories of the Old Plantation. But the old people were right.

Think about it. Before emancipation blacks did not go to prison and they werent lynched. Everyone was fed, clothed, medicated, and housed. The plantation was a socialist paradise.

 

[Le Jacquelope]

You know, I'll tell you what's leading to the decline of western civilization.

Bush has invented the term "enemy combatant" to justify throwing anyone into a secret prison without hope of addressing the charges put against them (thank God the US Supreme Court has shot that down). This is nothing different from the Soviet gulags. OK, well, Guantanamo is presumably warmer in the winter time.

Globalist trade has left America bleeding traditional and cutting edge jobs and receiving nothing back but a huge trade deficit. Biotech research is going overseas, our auto manufacturing industry is a wreck compared to Japan's, we're importing really dangerous food and drugs from China. Meanwhile, thanks to Globalism, corporations are leaving the United States to bolster the economies of countries where collapsing factories, mass deaths of miners/workers, child labor, prison labor and other rampant human rights abuses are the norm. Countries with the most decrepit working conditions and the worst pollution in the world, are where businesses want to go, because they're free to pass on the cost of doing business to everyone else.

Every time you buy stuff made from China you buy the Government bullets to put down Democracy, maintain their invasion of Tibet, and you help their citizens afford money to abort or drown their baby daughters (a well documented fact of Chinese citizen life). People who think that capitalism will make China change its ways are just fooling themselves and ignoring China's long history of this behavior.

We're teaching the world that the most powerful nation in the world supports a police state and not the Constitution; and that businesses are free to move the best jobs out to the worst countries to bolster their horrible political, living and working conditions.

THAT is what is causing the decline of Western Civilization: we're making the ENEMIES of Democracy and freedom absolutely rich and powerful on a global scale... at our expense.

 

[dr_mabeuse]

Alexander the Great and Ceasar are two that come to mind that were pretty self confident about the rightness of spreading their culture by the sword; Darius and other Persians too, and their predecessors the Medes. I don't imagine the Romano-Celts of Gaul, Britain or the Iberians were hugely consoled by the fact that their Germanic invaders had just plain old armed robbery on their minds vs. "cultural imperialism," and the same would apply to all those subjected to the terror of warriors from the steppes, from the Hyksos through the Scythians, Huns, Magyars, Mongols and Turks.

I believe India's history is filled with similar tales; I don't know far eastern history well enough to cite similar examples, but I'd be shocked if it didn't also demonstrate my previous suggestion, that your assertion reveals a curious brand of ethnocentrism. Are you sure that your view is not based on the possibility that, like me, you just know a lot more about the history that's occured on this side of the steppes and Himalayas?

I'm afraid I didn't make myself clear. I was talking about conquering cultures that imposed their religions on the conquered peoples.

None of these civilizations Rox mentions was missionary regarding their religion. It's a simple fact of history and I dare you to prove me wrong. Neither Rome nor Greece nor the Persians nor the Aztecs nor the Huns nor the Han nor the Vikings nor any other conquering culture has been militantly missionary regarding its religion. Only two: Islam and Christianity.

These are the only two religions that saw conversion of other peoples as its moral duty. And as I said, that's fucking hubris to me.

The Romans never insisted that anyone worship at the Temple of Jupiter, and though later on they did require recognition of the emperor as divine, that was more political than religious. The Greeks never imposed their religion on anyone, and neither did the Persians, the Aryan invaders of India, the Huns, the Vikings, the Aztecs, the Goths, Egyptians, or anyone you can name in all of history except for two cultures: Christianity and Islam.

I'd suggest that Western Civilization -- at least in the United States -- gets some of its special virulence from the unusually tight bond between its morals and its religion. The United States is still an Evangelical Nation on a Salvific Mission.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

None of these civilizations was missionary regarding their religion. It's a simple fact of history.

I think you're quibbling. Many conquerors were missionary about imposing their "superiority." Alexander and the Greeks, for example - you know where the word "barbarian" comes from, right? "It's those people who's speech consists of 'ber-ber-ber-ber'." Ceasar was all hot to install superior Roman law and institutions throughout Gaul - the equivalent of a civic religion.

I forgot one in my laundry list - Japan, 1970-1945. Talk about arrogant sense of cultural superiority! Almost as soon as modernization gave those people the means to expand and start pushing people around they were at it, beginning with Manchuria and Korea starting in the late 19th century. Do we give them a pass because they weren't trying to convert by the sword, but "only" exploit untermensch? I don't think the untermensch would have been much comforted.

That same model has been the pattern countless times through history in every part of the globe - what makes the Western (or Islamic) model so uniquely perfidious? I share your condemnation for that "convert by the sword" brand of perfidiousness, but will note that, unlike the other pattern, at least it did provide a "path to citizenship" - conversion - whereas in the more common model untermensch you are and untermensch you will remain. Just different forms of evil, with neither uniquely worse. (Is that relativist of me? )

(Actually the Romans also created a form of "path to citizenship.")

 

[Pure]

as to imperialism, colonialism, etc.

are we trying to find civilizations that considered themselves superior to surrounding "tribes" or "savages". there are any number.

if one means cultures who considered their religion to be the only one, and wanted no syncretism, then it's as the doc says.

will someone remind me the point of this line of debate? is rox saying that the advance of US civilization is good and the others, esp non european, were iffy or bad?

is rox saying, "oh me, oh my, the advance of US civilization is slowing due to the pernicious influence of 'relativist' leaders who aren't convinced the US is superior"? "oh my, US global hegemony is being undermined by nihilism in its leaders!"

 

[dr_mabeuse]

What if everyone in a democracy votes for slavery?

Better yet, what if just a majority does?

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

as to imperialism, colonialism, etc.

are we trying to find civilizations that considered themselves superior to surrounding "tribes" or "savages". there are any number.

if one means cultures who considered their religion to be the only one, and wanted no syncretism, then it's as the doc says.

will someone remind me the point of this line of debate? is rox saying that the advance of US civilization is good and the others, esp non european, were iffy or bad?

is rox saying, "oh me, oh my, the advance of US civilization is slowing due to the pernicious influence of 'relativist' leaders who aren't convinced the US is superior"? "oh my, US global hegemony is being undermined by nihilism in its leaders!"

Not concerned about "advance of U.S. civilization." Concerned about advance of liberalism and Enlightenment principles. Concerned about their survival in a world full of enemies to these ideals, when their friends are weak and have lost confidence in the value of these ideals.

~~~~~~~

Pure, the reason you don't think my examples of Western elites going soft on core liberal values like freedom of speech and press are worthy of concern is because you are among those who have gone soft, wanting to add new exceptions and qualifications to those particular principles, for example.

Your reaction is similar to the phenomenon of "media bias" in the political arena, in that those in whose direction a report is biased will argue that it's not biased, and claim that criticism of the report is off-base. However, the arbiter of whether a report is biased is the side against whom it is biased - if they say it's biased, then it is, and that applies equally to both sides.

So here, I say that Western elites caviling on core values is a serious and troubling development. You say it's no big deal. In the fullness of time one of us will be shown to be right, but the fact that I and others believe it's a concern is sufficient to put the item on the agenda for serious discussion. IOW, it can't be dismissed from the agenda by those who disagree it's serious.

~~~~~~~

Your previous post contained questions that appear to be legit but I don't have time to dive into right now - maybe this weekend.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

What if everyone in a democracy votes for slavery?

Better yet, what if just a majority does?

Liberalism and Enlightenment values are the thing to be protected, preserved and expanded. "Democracy" is just a tool, not a necessarily a value in itself, as your question demonstrates. It's generally a necessary adjunct of those real values, however, although circumstances can be imagined in which you have the values in place without that tool, and there may even be a rare example or two.


PS. on "expanded." By persuasion, not force. I believe that these values appeal to something at the core of all humans, which makes them attractive to individuals in every culture. Meaning that they are universal. Needless to say each culture will express these values in their own "accent," but the "melody" is the same.

 

[dr_mabeuse]

I think you're quibbling. Many conquerors were missionary about imposing their "superiority." Alexander and the Greeks, for example - you know where the word "barbarian" comes from, right? "It's those people who's speech consists of 'ber-ber-ber-ber'." Ceasar was all hot to install superior Roman law and institutions throughout Gaul - the equivalent of a civic religion.

I forgot one in my laundry list - Japan, 1970-1945. Talk about arrogant sense of cultural superiority! Almost as soon as modernization gave those people the means to expand and start pushing people around they were at it, beginning with Manchuria and Korea starting in the late 19th century. Do we give them a pass because they weren't trying to convert by the sword, but "only" exploit untermensch? I don't think the untermensch would have been much comforted.

That same model has been the pattern countless times through history in every part of the globe - what makes the Western (or Islamic) model so uniquely perfidious? I share your condemnation for that "convert by the sword" brand of perfidiousness, but will note that, unlike the other pattern, at least it did provide a "path to citizenship" - conversion - whereas in the more common model untermensch you are and untermensch you will remain. Just different forms of evil, with neither uniquely worse. (Is that relativist of me? )

(Actually the Romans also created a form of "path to citizenship.")

It's not quibbling at all. Every not-relativistic culture is ethnocentric and thinks it's way of life is the RIGHT way. The Militant Missionary cultures are saying, however, that their way of life is the ONLY way, and that other ways of life will simply not be tolerated.

That's a huge difference.