Your U.N. at Work

[Roxanne Appleby]

Oh, I forgot to post in the thread title, "Political!"

Edited to add: There is also a humdinger of a brouhaha underway here over art, civilization, and the concept of "sophistication."

WSJ, March 30, 2007

When it comes to actual human rights, the United Nations Human Rights Council reflexively discharges obfuscation, like a squid and its ink. That notwithstanding, the Council's fraudulence was made perfectly clear last week, when a routine hearing on "the Occupied Palestinian Territory" was disrupted by candor.

John Dugard, a U.N. "special rapporteur" on human rights, delivered a treatise on Israel's "colonialism and apartheid," denouncing the purported way in which the Palestinians are "brutally subjugated by a Western-affiliated regime." The envoy was given shows of support from the likes of Council members Cuba and Pakistan, as well as the "observer" states Sudan, Syria and Iran. The last accused Israel of "terrorist activities." Just another day in Geneva.

The U.S. put forward a tepid rejoinder, calling the remarks "unhelpful." Enter Hillel Neuer, executive director of the NGO U.N. Watch. Seated before the Council, Mr. Neuer had the temerity to point up its modus operandi. "The dictators who run this Council," he said, "couldn't care less about the Palestinians, or about any human rights. They seek to demonize Israeli democracy, to delegitimize the Jewish state." He continued, "They also seek something else: to distort and pervert the very language and idea of human rights."

Council President Luis Alfonso de Alba furiously responded, "For the first time in this session I will not express thanks for that statement," thus violating U.N. protocol. He ruled the remarks inadmissible to the official record, and prohibited further statements "in similar tones." In the depths of the U.N., this was of course logical: Mr. Neuer's commentary had been accurate.

 

[gauchecritic]

In the depths of the U.N., this was of course logical: Mr. Neuer's commentary had been accurate.

The point being? Someone claims anti-semitism and someone else denies it and then someone reports it and says it really was? What? What do you want me to say?

 

[Zeb_Carter]

That the UN is a useless piece of crap which the US supports. I say the US withdraws its funding and tears down that monstrosity of a building. If the UN wants to stay together then maybe the French would love to give them the funds and land and building.

 

[gauchecritic]

That the UN is a useless piece of crap which the US supports. I say the US withdraws its funding and tears down that monstrosity of a building. If the UN wants to stay together then maybe the French would love to give them the funds and land and building.

I'd never say that. I like France. But then I'm European and easily influenced by magnificent art and rarely equalled classical architecture.

 

[Grushenka]

I'd never say that. I like France. But then I'm European and easily influenced by magnificent art and rarely equalled classical architecture.

You are such a western chauvinist mutton. I presume by 'classical' you mean European (rather than pre-Columbian, Japanese, Chinese, etc.)

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

You are such a western chauvinist mutton. I presume by 'classical' you mean European (rather than pre-Columbian, Japanese, Chinese, etc.)

I too am a western chauvinist mutton. (Mutton?) I like what Gauche likes. Pre-Columbian is bor-ing. Japanese and Chinese are wonderful, but remember I am a mutton, so Italian Renaissance, baroque, Dutch, French neo-classical and romantic, Impressionism, etc. are my bag. I sing odes to Greek urns, and marvel at the glory that was Rome, architecture-wise. I would also defend Northern Italian cuisine against all barbarian invaders.

So sue me.

In addition, I not only think the UN is a worthless pile of steaming turds, but that it is hopelessly corrupt, and to a large extent an arm of the kleptocratic thug-ocracies that style themselves "governments" in most third world nations. The United States should withdraw, and announce a new organization for democratic states only.

 

[cloudy]

Pre-Columbian is bor-ing. .

Boring?

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

Boring?

OH, me and my big mouth.

Alright, alright, much of the tragically tiny remnant that remains is wonderful. As are many forms of primitive art. But my personal preferences definitely run to the works of western civ, and to me the art of any well established civilization is much richer and more interesting than that of any pre- or proto-civilizational culture. The Aztecs, Mayas and Incas were definitely in that last category. If they'd had a couple thousand years to develop they would surely have rivaled any of the other major world civilizations in the richness of their arts. As it was, they only had achieved the level of the early Tigris and Euphrates agricultural communities before they were tragically snuffed out. Or that of my own ancestors in pre-Christian Ireland. And my reaction to the remaining Celtic art artifacts is the same as it is to pre-Columbian.

 

[Pure]

hmmm.

RA The United States should withdraw, and announce a new organization for democratic states only.

While some of RA's last remarks are reality based, this one flies the coop.

Would that be the US and UK only? (the alliance already exists)

Would that be US and W. Europe? (but a box says, the Islamists rule, and as amicus points out, they're weak corrupt and socialist; and only one of them supported the Iraq invasion.)

Not a few of the 'thugocracies' are crucial in the US Iraq and Afghanistan wars: such as Saudi Arabia, Kazakhstan, Pakistan.

I suppose Roxy's proposal amounts to a new organization composed as follows : the US, the democracies favorable to the US, and the thugocracies and dictatorships favorable to the US and open to US trade.

Hey, guess what? The group has a name: The Coalition of the Willing. [but increasingly less so].

Looney right fulminating makes me almost long for Henry Kissinger; he could take an *objective* view of US interests and see what needed to be done.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

RA The United States should withdraw, and announce a new organization for democratic states only.

While some of RA's last remarks are reality based, this one flies the coup.

Would that be the US and UK only? (the alliance already exists)

Would that be US and W. Europe? (but a box says, the Islamists rule, and as amicus points out, they're weak corrupt and socialist; and only one of them supported the Iraq invasion.)

Not a few of the 'thugocracies' are crucial in the US Iraq and Afghanistan wars: such as Saudi Arabia, Kazakhstan, Pakistan.

I suppose Roxy's proposal amounts to a new organization composed as follows : the US, the democracies favorable to the US, and the thugocracies and dictatorships favorable to the US and open to US trade.

Hey, guess what? The group has a name: The Coalition of the Willing. [but increasingly less so].

Looney right fulminating makes me almost long for Henry Kissinger; he could take an *objective* view of US interests and see what needed to be done.

That's the kind of content-free ad homimen sneering one expects from an individual unwilling to condemn an organization that distorts and perverts the very language and idea of human rights, for the rank political political reason that it is even more hostile to the United States, the home of his most hated class enemies. You know, white males, business, anyone whose family income exceeds the median (leftist academic and political elites excepted, naturally), and of course, the most vile of the vile, Republicans, "right wingers," Objecitivsts, libertarians, etc.

 

[Equinoxe]

Alright, alright, much of the tragically tiny remnant that remains is wonderful. As are many forms of primitive art. But my personal preferences definitely run to the works of western civ, and to me the art of any well established civilization is much richer and more interesting than that of any pre- or proto-civilizational culture. The Aztecs, Mayas and Incas were definitely in that last category. If they'd had a couple thousand years to develop they would surely have rivaled any of the other major world civilizations in the richness of their arts. As it was, they only had achieved the level of the early Tigris and Euphrates agricultural communities before they were tragically snuffed out. Or that of my own ancestors in pre-Christian Ireland. And my reaction to the remaining Celtic art artifacts is the same as it is to pre-Columbian.

I'm not going to enter into a debate in this thread, but I will give a short, and I hope polite, comment on this topic, because someone else will not (I have no doubts they'll comment, but I make no guarantees about the rest). Your knowledge of World History, both general and artistic, is somewhat limited. No one with any depth of familiarity with Mesoamerican or Andean civilisations such as the Aztec, Maya, or Inca would ever describe them as "pre- or proto-civilisation", much less "definitely" so. You are perfectly free to prefer Notre Dame de Paris to the Temple of the Cross at Palenque; you may not, however, deny the sophistication of artistic and engineering skill that created either.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

I'm not going to enter into a debate in this thread, but I will give a short, and I hope polite, comment on this topic, because someone else will not (I have no doubts they'll comment, but I make no guarantees about the rest). Your knowledge of World History, both general and artistic, is somewhat limited. No one with any depth of familiarity with Mesoamerican or Andean civilisations such as the Aztec, Maya, or Inca would ever describe them as "pre- or proto-civilisation", much less "definitely" so. You are perfectly free to prefer Notre Dame de Paris to the Temple of the Cross at Palenque; you may not, however, deny the sophistication of artistic and engineering skill that created either.

Very polite, and I'm willing to be educated. I suspect that we might be into definitional differences, and my definitions are definitely ad-hoc. I just looked up Palenque on Wiki, and some of the bas reliefs are indeed most sophisticated and marvelous. I'm inclined to think that Notre Dame was a much more sophisticated engineering acheivement, but in some respects (representational art) it was perhaps inferior. It was build in a low point in that regard, however - 1,500 years previously the Greeks had mastered the art.

Looking for a Eurasion analogy, I just wiki'd Egypt, and came up with the timeline pasted below. It's really not my intention to get into a "which was better" debate, because the answer is clearly neither, but it does seem clear that the neolithic civilizations of the Americas just hadn't been around long enough to develop all that much civilizational depth. They were new kids on the block, and never got the chance to develop. Look at where Egypt was around 6000 BC. That seems about analogous.

I'm not all that excited by ancient Egyptian artifacts either, in an artistic sense rather than an antiquarian one. I'm sorry, but I just don't think any of the artistic accomplishments of these early civilizations can compare to the much more sophisticated products of much more developed civiliazations in India, China and the West. I'm trying hard to not make any normative statements here, and don't think that is one.

ca. 8000 BC: Migration of peoples to the Nile, developing a more centralized society and settled agricultural economy
Shipping and Agriculture, from 8th millennium BC
ca. 7500 BC: Importing animals from Asia to Sahara
ca. 7000 BC: Agriculture -- animal and cereal -- in East Sahara
ca. 7000 BC: in Nabta Playa deep year-round water wells dug, and large organized settlements designed in pre-planned arrangements
ca. 6000 BC: Rudimentary ships (rowed, single-sailed) depicted in Egyptian rock art
Copper Age and large-scale Stone Construction, from 6th millennium BC
ca. 6th millennium BC: Metal replacing stone -- farming/hunting equipment, jewelry; tanning animal skins; intricate basket-weaving
ca. 6th millennium BC: possible early Alchemy as evidenced by common knowledge of animal-skin tanning [2]
ca. 5500 BC: Stone-roofed subterranean chambers and other subterranean complexes in Nabta Playa containing buried sacrificed cattle prelude Hathor belief in Ancient Egypt
ca. 5000 BC: Archaeoastronomical stone megalith in Nabta Playa, world's earliest known astronomy [3]
ca. 5000 BC: Badarian contacts with Syria; furniture, tableware, models of rectangular houses, pots, dishes, cups, bowls, vases, figurines, combs
ca. 4500 BC: Geometric spatial designs adorning Naqada pottery [4]
ca. 4400 BC: finely woven linen fragment [5]
ca. 4300 BC: Beaker culture pottery, world's earliest known [6]
Inventing prevalent, from 4th millennium BC
By 4000 BC, the world's earliest known:
Alchemy (see Alchemy in Ancient Egypt)
Cosmetics (antimony)
Donkey domestication
Harps
Iron works (see Iron Age)
Mortar (masonry)
Pottery hieroglyph writing in Girza [7]
ca. 4000 BC:
Flutes
early medicine [8]
4th millennium BC: Gerzean tomb-building, including underground rooms and burial of furniture/amulets, preludes Osiris belief in Ancient Egypt
4th millennium BC: Cedar imported from Lebanon [9]
ca. 3500 BC: Lapis lazuli imported from Badakshan and/or Mesopotamia (see Silk Road)
ca. 3500 BC: possible Silk Road expansion (see Silk Road)
ca. 3500 BC: Double clarinets, Lyres (see Music of Egypt)
ca. 3500 BC: Senet, world's oldest (confirmed) board game
ca. 3500 BC: Faience, world's earliest known glazed ceramic beads

 

[cloudy]

I'm not going to enter into a debate in this thread, but I will give a short, and I hope polite, comment on this topic, because someone else will not (I have no doubts they'll comment, but I make no guarantees about the rest). Your knowledge of World History, both general and artistic, is somewhat limited. No one with any depth of familiarity with Mesoamerican or Andean civilisations such as the Aztec, Maya, or Inca would ever describe them as "pre- or proto-civilisation", much less "definitely" so. You are perfectly free to prefer Notre Dame de Paris to the Temple of the Cross at Palenque; you may not, however, deny the sophistication of artistic and engineering skill that created either.

Thank you.

eta: I wasn't going to be rude. As you say, her preferences are just that, and I have no argument with that, in and of itself.

However, it irks me no end to be told how "uncivilized" we were, when one does not bother to actually find out whether we were or not. I expect it from amicus. It comes as a blow, to be honest, to hear it (per se) from someone whose opinions I would normally respect, even if they differ.

S'okay. I've been wrong before. It most certainly it won't be the last time, either.

*****************************

Strike all that polite shit. S/he wants to be an ass, I'll be an ass, no problem.

Rox: You don't know me, so don't act like you do, mmkay? Fuck you and the horse you rode in on. You're nothing but a psuedo-intellectual clone of amicus. Oh, and all that civility shit you constantly spew? Don't pay much attention to it yourself, do you, in a PM? What a fraud you are.

I may be a down and dirty bitch, but at least people know where they stand with me.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

There is nothing confrontational or disputatious in pointing out that an early-level civilization that had less than 1500 years to develop was less sophisticated that ones that had 5000+ years to develop.

If one wanted to make a more sophisticated argument about pre-Columbian civilizatons one could point out that given their relative isolation, their insulation from cross fertilizing influences, and the paucity of many natural material resources (see Guns, Germs and Steel) compared to early Eurasian civilizations, it is remarkable how much the early American civilizations accomplished, and in that sense, they were far more advanced than those on the other landmass at a comparable period of development.

It's silly to have any affective response (like/dislike) to the simple statement that much older civilizations are more sophisticated than much younger ones. To take this as some kind ethnic slur is absurd.

 

[cloudy]

There is nothing confrontational or disputatious in pointing out that an early-level civilization that had less than 1500 years to develop was less sophisticated that ones that had 5000+ years to develop.

If one wanted to make a more sophisticated argument about pre-Columbian civilizatons one could point out that given their relative isolation, their insulation from cross fertilizing influences, and the paucity of many natural material resources (see Guns, Germs and Steel) compared to early Eurasian civilizations, it is remarkable how much the early American civilizations accomplished, and in that sense, they were far more advanced than those on the other landmass at a comparable period of development.

It's silly to have any affective response (like/dislike) to the simple statement that much older civilizations are more sophisticated than much younger ones. To take this as some kind ethnic slur is absurd.

And one could also realize that they know little to nothing of the civilization that was developing in the Americas.

In fact, many of the ruins in South America pre-date the pyramids in Egypt.

 

[Pure]

roxannes world and cultural history

RA I just looked up Palenque on Wiki, and some of the bas reliefs are indeed most sophisticated and marvelous. I'm inclined to think that Notre Dame was a much more sophisticated engineering acheivement, but in some respects (representational art) it was perhaps inferior. It was build in a low point in that regard, however - 1,500 years previously the Greeks had mastered the art.

Looking for a Eurasion analogy, I just wiki'd Egypt, and came up with the timeline pasted below. It's really not my intention to get into a "which was better" debate, because the answer is clearly neither, but it does seem clear that the neolithic civilizations of the Americas just hadn't been around long enough to develop all that much civilizational depth. They were new kids on the block, and never got the chance to develop. Look at where Egypt was around 6000 BC. That seems about analogous.

I'm not all that excited by ancient Egyptian artifacts either, in an artistic sense rather than an antiquarian one. I'm sorry, but I just don't think any of the artistic accomplishments of these early civilizations can compare to the much more sophisticated products of much more developed civiliazations in India, China and the West. I'm trying hard to not make any normative statements here, and don't think that is one.


------
Pure: this little survey is of course by someone who holds
1) western civilization is the most advanced in almost all ways.
2)western values are 'objectively true,' as compared with the subjective imaginings of other less advanced cultures.
3) the American political system, and the degree of human flourishing in it, show that nation to be best, objectively, among the other Western nations.

the assumption is something of a technocratic one: coincidentally, the one who can make the biggest, more complex and destructive bomb gets the prize for "sophistication." just as God is known to favor the side with the best army, objective truth is found in the side with the most megatons.

this is something like the fallacy long disposed of in biology: that evolution is toward the 'higher' forms of life, the human [the one constructing the measure] being the highest. hence the human is a better animal [in biological functioning] than the dog, and the dog, than the fish. to put it in Roxanne's terms, the human responses are the 'most sophisticated,' and hence the human is at the top of the ladder; indeed above the ladder, with no animinal even in the ball park (this because of human language and reasoning).

looking at the substantial points, Roxanne avers that the Pre Coumbians in a couple thousand years didn't have time to develop, and get to "civilizational depth." (as she assesses it).

in the middle of the piece, switching sides, she apparently thinks the Egyptians had the time, but lacked some of the other prerequisites (artistic talent?)

RA but I just don't think any of the artistic accomplishments of these early civilizations [presumably including Egypt]
can compare to the much more sophisticated products of much more developed civiliazations in India, China and the West.

P: the Egyptians just lacked the artistry, it would seem, of Rembrandt or Raphael. Evidence? It seems that way to Roxanne.

RAI'm not all that excited by ancient Egyptian artifacts either, in an artistic sense rather than an antiquarian one.

P: none of this opining, of course, is said to be 'normative':

RA I'm trying hard to not make any normative statements here,

the whole piece is suffused with the normative, in my impression; just carefully worded.

---
as equinox pointed out, Rox is free to have her preferences. She can have Aristotle over Chuang Tzu, or Renaisance Florence over any PreColumbian city. the pistol over the blow gun. what she doesn't 'get' is the wholly subjective basis of her tastes.

 

[cloudy]

as equinox pointed out, Rox is free to have her preferences. She can have Aristotle over Chuang Tzu, or Renaisance Florence over any PreColumbian city. the pistol over the blow gun. what she doesn't 'get' is the wholly subjective basis of her tastes.

Different tastes in art, etc., are to be expected. I have no problem with that.

I do have a problem with someone representing my culture as "primitive." We had little to no formal writing system, this is true, but our civilization itself is very old. It hasn't changed much, true, but change isn't always a good thing, no? It worked for us just fine until those more "civilized" destroyed us. We are a pitiful remnant of what once was something much more civilized than some realize.

There is some speculation that the Mayan and/or Incan civilizations rose and fell, much like Rome, only long before Rome ever developed.

eta: It always amuses me to see someone who thinks the democracy of the US is absolutely wonderful deride the civilizations of the Americas. I don't suppose they realize that the democracy model they think so highly of was taken almost directly from the Iroquois Confederacy.

 

[Pure]

this concept of 'primitive' is pretty much discredited, just as in biology, "lower life forms."

roxanne's 'sophistication' is pretty much in the eye of the beholder; somehow notre dame cathedral is more sophiscticated that the Egyptian pyramids, even though no one knows how the heck they were built.

the Olmec heads do not have the detail of the head Michelangelo's David [as far as we see now]. the Olmecs lacked steel chisels.

http://www.latinamericanstudies.org/olmec/olmec-heads-2.jpg

http://www.automaticfreeweb.com/index.cfm?s=SOUTHAMERICANHISTORY&act=3&text=486

http://vlsi.colorado.edu/~rbloem/david.html

but to go on about the "civilizational depth" of the latter is pretty fruitless; a rationalization of a subjective leaning (since the person was brought up to admire the 'classics of art' defined in specific ways.)

 

[cloudy]

this concept of 'primitive' is pretty much discredited, just as in biology, "lower life forms."

roxanne's 'sophistication' is pretty much in the eye of the beholder; somehow notre dame cathedral is more sophiscticated that the Egyptian pyramids, even though no one knows how the heck they were built.

the Olmec heads do not have the detail of the head Michelangelo's David [as far as we see now]. the Olmecs lacked steel chisels. but to go on about the "civilizational depth" of the latter is pretty fruitless; a rationalization of a subjective leaning (since the person was brought up to admire the 'classics of art' defined in specific ways.)

I really think that a lot of it has to do with the "foreignness" of the art of the Americas. It's very different than classical art, and highly stylized, in a lot of cases. To me, it's like comparing Picasso to Raphael - both beautiful, but very, very different.

 

[Pure]

that is a good point about 'stylization,' cloudy. the assumption of some people is that the detail of the picture, sculpture, etc. reflects skill or sophistication in observations, and/or in rendering.

but an artist decides on the detail--in accord with his or her purposes. to say that Picasso is "unsophisticated" or 'less complex' because his painting do not show [details such as] the hairs on the head, as in Raphael or Vermeer, is mis conceived.

one hears a person in the museum say 'my child could do that'. we know children at a young age draw square bodies and arms with a single line (skinny). the 'primitive' is thought to be like this child, where the results bear any remote similarity.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

Alright Pure, Mr. Smartypants, go ahead and assert that the bas reliefs of the Olmecs are equivalent in sophistication to Baroque painting or Michelangelo's sculpture.

Saying that a thing is less sophisticated does not mean that it is intrinsically less praiseworthy. The absence of steel chisels may make the accomplishment even more admirable. There is nothing intrinsically superior about representational art than stylized. Those are normative statements and value judgement.

Asserting that Baroque painting is more sophisticated is a simple matter of fact.


http://i48.photobucket.com/albums/f224/spitfiregriffin/caravaggio.jpg


A sophisticated Baroque painting. Is it "better" than a Mayan bas relief? That is a matter of taste and preference. It is more sophisticated in many dimensions, however. That is a fact.

 

[cantdog]

Take the blinders off, sometime. I mean it in a friendly way.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

Take the blinders off, sometime. I mean it in a friendly way.

You realize of course that both of the principles in this little dust-up are convinced that you're referring to the other. I won't ask you to divulge if you don't want to (but if it's me don't worry - I won't be offended. I'll still respect you in the morning.)

 

[elsol]

So the U.N. sucks because European art is better than primitive art...

Got it!

Can we get primitive on the U.N. then? I mean a little blood sacrifice might make the ambassadors volunteer to move to Switzerland.

 

[Pure]

Alright Pure, Mr. Smartypants, go ahead and assert that the bas reliefs of the Olmecs are equivalent in sophistication to Baroque painting or Michelangelo's sculpture.

Actually I didn't say that: I said there was no evidence [put forward by RA] that the latter were more sophisticated, and i suggested that the exercize of attempting that determination is futile. it's a bit like the problem of whether a mouse is smarter than a cat.

RAAsserting that Baroque painting is more sophisticated is a simple matter of fact.


http://i48.photobucket.com/albums/f224/spitfiregriffin/caravaggio.jpg


A sophisticated Baroque painting. Is it "better" than a Mayan bas relief? That is a matter of taste and preference. It is more sophisticated in many dimensions, however. That is a fact.

Well, if it's a fact, then you must have evidence. And that should convince every sane person on this forum. I posted pics of Olmec and Michelangelo heads, which is more sophisticated? why?

Incidentally, do you hold that the human is a more sophisticated biological entity than a wolf? why?