The Left's False Narrative

[Pindar]

This is an article by Victor Davis Hanson

Our Wars Over the War
“The fault is not in our stars.”


"Ever since September 11, there has been an alternative narrative about this war embraced by the Left. In this mythology, the attack on September 11 had in some vague way something to do with American culpability.


Either we were unfairly tilting toward Israel, or had been unkind to Muslims. Perhaps, as Sen. Patty Murray intoned, we needed to match the good works of bin Laden to capture the hearts and minds of Muslim peoples.

The fable continues that the United States itself was united after the attack even during its preparations to retaliate in Afghanistan. But then George Bush took his eye off the ball. He let bin Laden escape, and worst of all, unilaterally and preemptively, went into secular Iraq — an unnecessary war for oil, hegemony, Israel, or Halliburton, something in Ted Kennedy’s words “cooked up in Texas.”

In any case, there was no connection between al Qaeda and Saddam, and thus terrorists only arrived in Iraq after we did.

That tale goes on. The Iraqi fiasco is now a hopeless quagmire. The terrorists are paying us back for it in places like London and Madrid.

Still worse, here at home we have lost many of our civil liberties to the Patriot Act and forsaken our values at Guantanamo Bay under the pretext of war. Nancy Pelosi could not understand the continued detentions in Guantanamo since the war in Afghanistan is in her eyes completely finished.

In this fable, we are not safer as a nation. George Bush’s policies have increased the terror threat as we saw recently in the London bombing. We have now been at war longer than World War II. We still have no plan to defeat our enemies, and thus must set a timetable to withdraw from Iraq.

Islamic terrorism cannot be defeated militarily nor can democracy be “implanted by force.” So it is time to return to seeing the terrorist killing as a criminal justice matter — a tolerable nuisance addressed by writs and indictments, while we give more money to the Middle East and begin paying attention to the “root causes” of terror.

That is the dominant narrative of the Western Left and at times it finds its way into mainstream Democratic-party thinking. Yet every element of it is false.

Prior to 9/11, the United States had given an aggregate of over $50 billion to Egypt, and had allotted about the same amount of aid to Israel as to its frontline enemies. We had helped to save Muslims in Bosnia, Kosovo, Somalia, Kuwait, and Afghanistan, and received little if any thanks for bombing Christian Europeans to finish in a matter of weeks what all the crack-pot jihadists had not done by flocking to the Balkans in a decade.

Long before Afghanistan and Iraq, bin Laden declared war on America in 1998, citing the U.N. embargo of Iraq and troops in Saudi Arabia; when those were no longer issues, he did not cease, but continued his murdering. He harbored a deep-seated contempt for Western values, even though he was eaten within by uncontrolled envy and felt empowered by years of appeasement after a series of attacks on our embassies, bases, ships, and buildings, both here and abroad.

Iraqi intelligence was involved with the first World Trade Center bombing, and its operatives met on occasion with those who were involved in al Qaeda operations. Every terrorist from Abu Abbas and Abu Nidal to Abdul Yasin and Abu al-Zarqawi found Baghdad the most hospitable place in the Middle East, which explains why a plan to assassinate George Bush Sr. was hatched from such a miasma.

Neither bin Laden nor his lieutenants are poor, but like the Hamas suicide bombers, Mohammed Atta, or the murderer of Daniel Pearl they are usually middle class and educated — and are more likely to hate the West, it seems, the more they wanted to be part of it. The profile of the London bombers, when known, will prove the same.

The poor in South America or Africa are not murdering civilians in North America or Europe. The jihadists are not bombing Chinese for either their godless secularism or suppression of Muslim minorities. Indeed, bin Laden harbored more hatred for an America that stopped the Balkan holocaust of Muslims than for Slobodan Milosevic who started it.

There was only unity in this country between September 11 and October 6, when a large minority of Americans felt our victim status gave us for a golden moment the high ground. We forget now the furor over hitting back in Afghanistan — a quagmire in the words of New York Times columnists R. W. Apple and Maureen Dowd; a “terrorist campaign” against Muslims according to Representative Cynthia McKinney; “a silent genocide” in Noam Chomsky’s ranting.

Two thirds of al Qaeda’s command is now captured or dead; bases in Afghanistan are lost. Saddam’s intelligence will not be lending expertise to anyone and the Baghdad government won’t welcome in terrorist masterminds.

In fact, thousands of brave Iraqi Muslims are now in a shooting war with wahhabi jihadists who, despite their carnage, are dying in droves as they flock to the Iraq.

A constitution is in place in Iraq; reform is spreading to Lebanon, the Gulf, and Egypt; and autocracies in Saudi Arabia, Libya, and Pakistan are apprehensive over a strange new American democratic zeal. Petroleum was returned to control of the Iraqi people, and the price has skyrocketed to the chagrin of American corporations.

There has been no repeat of September 11 so far. Killing jihadists abroad while arresting their sympathizers here at home has made it hard to replicate another 9/11-like attack.

The Patriot Act was far less intrusive than what Abraham Lincoln (suspension of habeas corpus), Woodrow Wilson (cf. the Espionage and Sedition Acts), or Franklin Roosevelt (forced internment) resorted to during past wars. So far America has suffered in Iraq .006 percent of the combat dead it lost in World War II, while not facing a conventional enemy against which it might turn its traditional technological and logistical advantages.

Unlike Gulf War I and the decade-long Iraqi cold war of embargos, stand-off bombing, and no-fly-zones, the United States has a comprehensive strategy both in the war against terror and to end a decade and a half of Iraqi strife: Kill terrorists abroad, depose theocratic and autocratic regimes that have either warred with the United States or harbored terrorists, and promote democracy to take away grievances that can be manipulated and turned against us.

Why does this false narrative, then, persist — other than that it had a certain political utility in the 2002 and 2004 elections?

In a word, this version of events brings spiritual calm for millions of troubled though affluent and blessed Westerners. There are three sacraments to their postmodern thinking, besides the primordial fear that so often leads to appeasement.

Our first hindrance is moral equivalence. For the hard Left there is no absolute right and wrong since amorality is defined arbitrarily and only by those in power.

Taking back Fallujah from beheaders and terrorists is no different from bombing the London subway since civilians may die in either case. The deliberate rather than accidental targeting of noncombatants makes little difference, especially since the underdog in Fallujah is not to be judged by the same standard as the overdogs in London and New York. A half-dozen roughed up prisoners in Guantanamo are the same as the Nazi death camps or the Gulag.

Our second shackle is utopian pacifism — ‘war never solved anything’ and ‘violence only begets violence.’ Thus it makes no sense to resort to violence, since reason and conflict resolution can convince even a bin Laden to come to the table. That most evil has ended tragically and most good has resumed through armed struggle — whether in Germany, Japan, and Italy or Panama, Belgrade, and Kabul — is irrelevant. Apparently on some past day, sophisticated Westerners, in their infinite wisdom and morality, transcended age-old human nature, and as a reward were given a pass from the smelly, dirty old world of the past six millennia.

The third restraint is multiculturalism, or the idea that all social practices are of equal merit. Who are we to generalize that the regimes and fundamentalist sects of the Middle East result in economic backwardness, intolerance of religious and ethnic minorities, gender apartheid, racism, homophobia, and patriarchy? Being different from the West is never being worse.

These tenets in various forms are not merely found in the womb of the universities, but filter down into our popular culture, grade schools, and national political discourse — and make it hard to fight a war against stealthy enemies who proclaim constant and shifting grievances. If at times these doctrines are proven bankrupt by the evidence it matters little, because such beliefs are near religious in nature — a secular creed that will brook no empirical challenge.

These articles of faith apparently fill a deep psychological need for millions of Westerners, guilty over their privilege, free to do anything without constraints or repercussions, and convinced that their own culture has made them spectacularly rich and leisured only at the expense of others.

So it is not true to say that Western civilization is at war against Dark Age Islamism. Properly speaking, only about half of the West is involved, the shrinking segment that still sees human nature as unchanging and history as therefore replete with a rich heritage of tragic lessons.

This is nothing new.

The spectacular inroads of the Ottomans in the16th century to the gates of Vienna and the shores of the Adriatic were not explainable according to Istanbul’s vibrant economy, impressive universities, or widespread scientific dynamism and literacy, or even a technologically superior and richly equipped military. Instead, a beleaguered Europe was trisected by squabbling Protestants, Catholics, and Orthodox Christians — as a wealthy northwest, with Atlantic seaports, ignored the besieged Mediterranean and Balkans and turned its attention to getting rich in the New World.

So too we are divided over two antithetical views of the evolving West — Europe at odds with America, red and blue states in intellectual and spiritual divergence, the tragic view resisting the creeping therapeutic mindset.

These interior splits largely explain why creepy killers from the Dark Ages, parasitic on the West from their weapons to communications, are still plaguing us four years after their initial surprise attack.

"The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars/But in ourselves, that we are underlings.""

[ICantSpellDawg]

that is a friggin' beaut'

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Yes what can you add to that. The most brilliant discourse ive seen on the matter. Those three things are really whats wrong with liberal these days.


Our first hindrance is moral equivalence. For the hard Left there is no absolute right and wrong since amorality is defined arbitrarily and only by those in power.

Taking back Fallujah from beheaders and terrorists is no different from bombing the London subway since civilians may die in either case. The deliberate rather than accidental targeting of noncombatants makes little difference, especially since the underdog in Fallujah is not to be judged by the same standard as the overdogs in London and New York. A half-dozen roughed up prisoners in Guantanamo are the same as the Nazi death camps or the Gulag.

Our second shackle is utopian pacifism — ‘war never solved anything’ and ‘violence only begets violence.’ Thus it makes no sense to resort to violence, since reason and conflict resolution can convince even a bin Laden to come to the table. That most evil has ended tragically and most good has resumed through armed struggle — whether in Germany, Japan, and Italy or Panama, Belgrade, and Kabul — is irrelevant. Apparently on some past day, sophisticated Westerners, in their infinite wisdom and morality, transcended age-old human nature, and as a reward were given a pass from the smelly, dirty old world of the past six millennia.

The third restraint is multiculturalism, or the idea that all social practices are of equal merit. Who are we to generalize that the regimes and fundamentalist sects of the Middle East result in economic backwardness, intolerance of religious and ethnic minorities, gender apartheid, racism, homophobia, and patriarchy? Being different from the West is never being worse.

We see the libs argue these points here everyday.

[Red Harvest]

Having read one of Hanson's military "history of warfare" books, I'm not impressed by him. From the book I quickly concluded the guy has a serious Western superiority complex that seriously erodes the quality of his writing. It has that stench of colonial racial superiority. I hate reading obviously biased work with an agenda other than the subject at hand. I also found some disturbing factual errors in it.

Having a bit of fun with Hanson's dribble I submit the following for amusement:

The Right's first shackle is intellectual dishonesty.

Its second shackle is intolerance. Treating the war on terror as a religious crusade is a mistake of the 1st order.

Its third shackle is believing nobody to the Left of Dubya could fight a war, or do it better. History proves otherwise. And when the history of the present is written, people are going to be looking back saying "WTF?"

Its fourth shackle is mistaking its view for moral/religious righteousness--i.e. never being able to admit a mistake.

Its fifth shackle is that it can't do simple arithmetic--in war or at home.

[bmolsson]

Yep, the left is awful...

Can you send me some more Chinese candy....... ~;)

[King of Atlantis]

Our first hindrance is moral equivalence. For the hard Left there is no absolute right and wrong since amorality is defined arbitrarily and only by those in power.

I agree with the conservatives on this one.


Our second shackle is utopian pacifism — ‘war never solved anything’ and ‘violence only begets violence.’ Thus it makes no sense to resort to violence, since reason and conflict resolution can convince even a bin Laden to come to the table. That most evil has ended tragically and most good has resumed through armed struggle — whether in Germany, Japan, and Italy or Panama, Belgrade, and Kabul — is irrelevant. Apparently on some past day, sophisticated Westerners, in their infinite wisdom and morality, transcended age-old human nature, and as a reward were given a pass from the smelly, dirty old world of the past six millennia.

Rivers of blood dont make peace. Sure war can be neccesary, but it is never favorable.



The third restraint is multiculturalism, or the idea that all social practices are of equal merit. Who are we to generalize that the regimes and fundamentalist sects of the Middle East result in economic backwardness, intolerance of religious and ethnic minorities, gender apartheid, racism, homophobia, and patriarchy? Being different from the West is never being worse.

Just cause something is differnt than the west doesn't mean it has to be bad either. ~;)

[Pindar]

Having read one of Hanson's military "history of warfare" books, I'm not impressed by him. From the book I quickly concluded the guy has a serious Western superiority complex that seriously erodes the quality of his writing.

The West is superior. Three simple examples: the advent of democracy, the creation of science, the rise of civil liberties.

[Zalmoxis]

Obivously, the West can handle these things very well. (http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,3604,1529009,00.html)

[Red Harvest]

The West is superior. Three simple examples: the advent of democracy, the creation of science, the rise of civil liberties.

You can pretty much throw objectivity out the window with that statement...

Its probably not worth getting into, but I'll point out that little of this really jelled until the last 200 years or so. VDH tries to take it forward from ancient Greece (we'll just ignore the intervening several millenia.) He conveniently ignores Assyria, which had a way of warfare that was revolutionary. And of course, there are other cultures that had elements of aspects you mention earlier (especially science) most didn't survive and we know next to nothing about many, many cultures that are long departed. A culture could have had all of these, and still be gone and we would never know. Greece had all of them, but was subdued first by a brilliant general...then by a republic...

VDH's book looks more like an excuse for his beliefs, rather than carrying the reader through a well balanced evaluation that leads to the author's conclusions. And the funny thing is that before reading the book, I would have agreed with VDH. But after reading the book I had an uneasy feeling about it because of the author's tone.

[Louis de la Ferte Ste Colombe]

The West is superior. Three simple examples: the advent of democracy, the creation of science, the rise of civil liberties.

And we betrayed it all; we enslaved the world population in our colonial zele, use chemical weapons massively in WWI to kill ourselves in our patriotic fervour, and applied our ingenious productive mind to find the best way to slaughter millions of people during WWII. Auschwitz.

We, civilisations, know now that we are mortals.

Louis,

[Pindar]

You can pretty much throw objectivity out the window with that statement...

Its probably not worth getting into, but I'll point out that little of this really jelled until the last 200 years or so. VDH tries to take it forward from ancient Greece (we'll just ignore the intervening several millenia.) He conveniently ignores Assyria, which had a way of warfare that was revolutionary. And of course, there are other cultures that had elements of aspects you mention earlier (especially science) most didn't survive and we know next to nothing about many, many cultures that are long departed. A culture could have had all of these, and still be gone and we would never know. Greece had all of them, but was subdued first by a brilliant general...then by a republic...

VDH's book looks more like an excuse for his beliefs, rather than carrying the reader through a well balanced evaluation that leads the author's conclusions. And the funny thing is that before reading the book, I would have agreed with VDH. But after reading the book I had an uneasy feeling about it because of the author's tone.

Democracy can be traced to the Fifth Century B.C.
Science is a product of the Seventeenth Century. It has no prior correlate.
Civil liberties date from the Eighteenth Century.

The above examples regardless of chronological ordering remain Western constructs.

A cultural-parity approach seems only tenable for those who haven't spent time outside of the Western cultural loop.

[Pindar]

And we betrayed it all; we enslaved the world population in our colonial zele, use chemical weapons massively in WWI to kill ourselves in our patriotic fervour, and applied our ingenious productive mind to find the best way to slaughter millions of people during WWII. Auschwitz.

We, civilisations, know now that we are mortals.

Louis,

Slavery, empire building and genocide are not unique to the West unfortunately.

[Louis de la Ferte Ste Colombe]

Oh, I think we beat everybody on the sheer scale of it. And as far as I know, we were the first for massive industrial slaughter.


But back on topic... Even if we are not the only ones, at least others are not parading, pretending they are superior and lecturing people how great they are... are they?

If we're doing this just like anyone else, which is arguable, how are we superior, despite our higher morale status?

Louis,

[Pindar]

Oh, I think we beat everybody on the sheer scale of it. And as far as I know, we were the first for massive industrial slaughter.

Given industry is a product of the West this statement would seem self-evident. But given the spread of industrial technology to non-Western peoples has seen their own use of mass slaughter i.e. China and Cambodia: this doesn't seem to be a particularly unique experience.



But back on topic... Even if we are not the only ones, at least others are not parading, pretending they are superior and lecturing people how great they are... are they?

If we're doing this just like anyone else, which is arguable, how are we superior, despite our higher morale status?

Louis,

Every culture Asian culture I have spend time in seems to argue: it is superior to all others. This usually follows cultural/racial lines. The difference in assertions is, as I have cited: democracy, civil liberties and science are real goods that vastly improve the quality of life of any influenced by them.

[bmolsson]

Every culture Asian culture I have spend time in seems to argue: it is superior to all others. This usually follows cultural/racial lines. The difference in assertions is, as I have cited: democracy, civil liberties and science are real goods that vastly improve the quality of life of any influenced by them.

Singapore argues that the "Asian way" of ruling countries are superior... ~D
And it's sometimes hard to claim otherwise with Singapore....

[Louis de la Ferte Ste Colombe]

This is not the place to argue about the uniqueness of WWII final solution. That's for another topic.




As already mentioned we did not live up to those achievements.

Our claim of superiority is undermined by our history of monstrosity.

Let's admit (and forget ancient Greek) that democracy is a Western value: we had a long history of NOT SHARING IT with our slaves and puppet states around the world. We still don't share it; we pay lip service to the concept in other countries. We've been for years: "it would be great if democracy is everyhwere, we look forward spreading it, yadi, yada....".
When looking at actual achievement over the last 200 years, there is nothing to be proud of.

Science? We put it into greedy hands, or in violent ones... Ah... The chemicals in Ypres...


I got no doubt of the inner good of spreading democracy, I am very happy that our understanding of the world is improving and I see those are great achievements.

But when it comes to try to get our fellow human brothers to adopt those, and given our bloody history of screwing them around while pretending we were superior, I do believe a little more humility, and a more down to earth approach would give you greater good will than arrogant lecturing.
The few last times we were in Iraq, we did nothing to promote democracy: the brit did not in between WW (despite Lawrence pledge), and we did not again after the previous Gulf War.

If I were an Iraqi intellectual reading this... I'd grow cynical.

Louis,

[Pindar]

I got no doubt of the inner good of spreading democracy, I am very happy that our understanding of the world is improving and I see those are great achievements.

Louis,

You have made my point.

[Louis de la Ferte Ste Colombe]

You have made my point.


LOL !

Louis,

[JAG]

Down with the left!

All they ever want to do is hurt, pillage and destroy!

Stupid lefties always trying to help the less fortunate. Disgusting.

[JAG]

Woohoo, Bias propaganda that only servs to keep the crappy wheel of Propaganda spinning. Both sides have policies, party members, and supporters to be ashamed of. That article just smacks of self-rightousness.

The right being 'self-righteous'?! Never!

:book:

[ICantSpellDawg]

The right being 'self-righteous'?! Never!

:book:


the left should be called "self-lefteous"

[Kaiser of Arabia]

Ah. Liberals. You have to love them. They are just so ignorant of the world, yet they persist in attempts to initiate programs that, if they suceed, would lead to the downfall of civilization, the 'Fall of Babylon,' if you will. They have gained a major foothold in formerly conservative Europe, and are begining to spread like cancer throughout the American States. They spread a creed of silent hatred and they worship people like Che Guevera, Bin Laden, and Chaves. In their eyes, these universally recognized villains are nothing more then Freedom fighters. Now, for some debating:

Oh, I think we beat everybody on the sheer scale of it. And as far as I know, we were the first for massive industrial slaughter.

Ah, but you see, it is not always the size of things that counts, it is the impact. No doubt the Holocost had a massive impact on the world, but I doubt it would have happened on the scale it did if the Turks, an eastern culture, didn't massacre well over a million people in the Armenian Genocides. Also, western cultures may have invented genocide, but the east perfected it. Ever hear of the Stalinist Purges? Or the Chinese Cultural Revolution? What about the Genocides in the Sudan, and in Rwanda? Saddams genocide of the Kurds?
we enslaved the world population in our colonial zele
Turks beat us to it, I'm afraid.

Rivers of blood dont make peace. Sure war can be neccesary, but it is never favorable.

Au contraire, war often will lead to peace. The Napoleonic Wars secured peace in Europe for literally 99 years. There hasn't been another major war on the American continent since the United States civil war. I can go on.

[Hurin_Rules]

Democracy can be traced to the Fifth Century B.C.

Actually, it goes back well before that. Greece is the first democracy in western culture to leave large amounts of written evidence. That's it. If you look at pre-literate tribal cultures, many of them are democratic--and far more democratic than ancient Greece. This idolization of Greek democracy is a product of a Eurocentric historiography itself, and in fact proves precisely the opposite of what VDH is trying to say in his myopic rant.



Science is a product of the Seventeenth Century. It has no prior correlate.

If you are referring to discoveries, then the statement is clearly false. If you are referring to the method, there is more substance to the statement.



Civil liberties date from the Eighteenth Century.

False. Read the Magna Carta.



A cultural-parity approach seems only tenable for those who haven't spent time outside of the Western cultural loop.

Actually, the exact opposite is true. Its those who don't know much about other cultures who generally dismiss them as inferior. Ignorance and bigotry go hand in hand.

Anyway, back to Hanson's rant:

Pure crap. This idea that US foreign policy has nothing to do with Muslim anger towards the USA is piffle, and I'm not quite sure why he's spouting it. The US government itself concluded that much of the anger against the USA in the Muslim world can be tied directly to US policies. If you want simplistic explanations, then try this one on for size: 'They' don't hate 'us' because they are evil or hate freedom; 'they' hate 'us' because we support Israel and a horde of dictators across the Muslim world so that we can make bigger profits.

Believe Hanson if you like. I'm sure its comforting to think that your government never does anything wrong, that everyone who disagrees with you is evil and that you're just plain better than everyone else on the planet. The Romans thought that too right up to the moment they saw Alaric's Visigoths coming over the seventh hill.

[Pindar]

Actually, it goes back well before that. Greece is the first democracy in western culture to leave large amounts of written evidence. That's it. If you look at pre-literate tribal cultures, many of them are democratic--and far more democratic than ancient Greece. This idolization of Greek democracy is a product of a Eurocentric historiography itself, and in fact proves precisely the opposite of what VDH is trying to say in his myopic rant.

Democracy is traditionally tied to a larger political ethos. This ethos involves a theoretical strata that defines roles of the state vis-a-vis citizenry. Tribes holding council or friends deciding together what movie to go see may certainly include a consensus, but do not meet the larger standard of civilization.



If you are referring to discoveries, then the statement is clearly false. If you are referring to the method, there is more substance to the statement.

Science is a theoretical position.



False. Read the Magna Carta.

The Magna Carta is typically cited as one of the important steps towards the return of democracy, but referencing it as a civil liberties text seems odd in that it is a royal decree and thus derives its force from royal mandate.

Civil liberties discourse usually places the subject along lines where liberties are beyond the power of the state as their force is extra-governmental.




Actually, its quite the opposite. Its those who don't know much about other cultures who generally dismiss them as inferior.

You haven't spent much time outside the West have you.


Anyway, back to Hanson's rant:

Pure crap. This idea that US foreign policy has nothing to do with Muslim anger towards the USA is piffle, and I'm not quite sure why he's spouting it. The US government itself concluded that much of the anger against the USA in the Muslim world can be tied directly to US policies. If you want simplistic explanations, then try this one on for size: 'They' don't hate 'us' because they are evil or hate freedom; 'they' hate 'us' because we support Israel and a horde of dictators across the Muslim world so that we can make bigger profits.

Believe Hanson if you like. I'm sure its comforting to think that your government never does anything wrong, that everyone who disagrees with you is evil and that you're just plain better than everyone else on the planet. The Romans thought that too right up to the moment they saw Alaric's Visigoths coming over the seventh hill.

The above is not an argument. You should try and restrain your anti-Americanism a little more.

You get a half-point for using "piffle".

[PanzerJaeger]

Very good article.

People on this very board refuse to see Saddams regime as any less moral than western democracy. With that line of thinking, people justify their opinion that a tyrant should be left in power.

[Red Harvest]

People on this very board refuse to see Saddams regime as any less moral than western democracy. With that line of thinking, people justify their opinion that a tyrant should be left in power.

What utter crap. The only one I see making that assertion is you.

[JAG]

What utter crap. The only one I see making that assertion is you.

I am glad someone else spotted it.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

People on this very board refuse to see Saddams regime as any less moral than western democracy. With that line of thinking, people justify their opinion that a tyrant should be left in power.

Worse than that many liberals here love to mention that soon China will eclpise us as a world power. Its not bad enough they seem to find China as moraly equivalent of the US but actually take glee and in fact we may be replaced and cant wait for that day. Thats plain sick.

[PanzerJaeger]

Ive read several times people talk about how the US is bad for making a value judgement about democracy over dictatorships in regards to the Iraq war.

[Hurin_Rules]

Democracy is traditionally tied to a larger political ethos.

This 'tradition' is the very Eurocentric historiography in question. To defend Hanson by referring to it is circular.



This ethos involves a theoretical strata that defines roles of the state vis-a-vis citizenry. Tribes holding council or friends deciding together what movie to go see may certainly include a consensus, but do not meet the larger standard of civilization.

Ah, I see. So the West is now the arbiter of civilization? Good for it.



Science is a theoretical position.

So is the Western superiority complex.



The Magna Carta is typically cited as one of the important steps towards the return of democracy, but referencing it as a civil liberties text seems odd in that it is a royal decree and thus derives its force from royal mandate.

If you want to rule out all documents enacted by royal decree from your definition of civil liberties, then you're going to have to ignore most of the history of civil liberties.



Civil liberties discourse usually places the subject along lines where liberties are beyond the power of the state as their force is extra-governmental.

Modern civil liberties discourses, perhaps, but I thought you were talking about origins?

You keep making arguments along the lines of 'this is usually done this way' or 'traditionally, this is what has been done'. Well, slavery was a 'tradtional' part of western culture for millenia, and racism is a usual foundation for intolerance. Custom and authority are not arguments.



You haven't spent much time outside the West have you.

Enough to know that intolerance springs from ignorance.




The above is not an argument. You should try and restrain your anti-Americanism a little more.

Actually, it is far more of an argument than anything your post provided, which relied on a circular appeal to Eurocentrist historiography and the ponderous weight of unthinking tradition. I, on the other hand, referred to the US governments own study that showed that the amorphous explanation 'they hate freedom' was simply wrong. Most people like America; its the policies of its government they hate. That and all those invasion thingys.

Here's the link:

http://72.14.207.104/search?q=cache:GPryyHGnoQ8J:www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/apr2002/nf20020415_0109.htm+foreign+policy+hate+freedom+study&hl=en




You get a half-point for using "piffle".

Thanks, I'm glad someone noticed. I was originally torn between bilge and dreck, but then piffle suddenly came to me. Call it divine inspiration. ~:cheers:

[Red Harvest]

Democracy can be traced to the Fifth Century B.C.

Well, duh, it can traced because we have written records. And yet there is a huge gap in there where democracy was absent. It did not return until the shackles of the aristocracy and Church were thrown off over two millenia later. Might I remind you that Athen's democracy destoryed itself? The oligarchs won. And so VDH transferred attention to Rome, which was a republic. Carthage was also a sort of elected republic as memory serves... The Framers of the US Constitution actually feared Athen's form of govt. from what I've read.

More importantly we lack information to know how many other societies operated. It is a huge leap to assume that it did not exist elsewhere...considering that there were other elected forms of govt. existing at the same time that we do know of.



Science is a product of the Seventeenth Century. It has no prior correlate.


Recent scientific method is oversold. There were scientific communities well before the 17th Century in various fields. People tested various facets of the world arround them, proposed explanations, and recorded the information. Agriculture and animal husbandry have been with us for many thousands of years. You would be hard pressed to claim there was not scientific method involved throughout. The development of siege technology in Assyria and again later in Syracuse are further examples of science in action.

Why is modern science oversold? Because people fail to recognize that so many incremental advances in so many areas were needed to finally bring us to this point. We now have the interconnection and media to distribute the learnings, and not to forget them so easily. They are not lost by a single conquest or destruction of a nation or library or regime. Before the scientific communities were smaller, travel and communication were far more limited, literacy was far lower, and the media of recording, retaining, and distributing works was meager.

If you want an idea what happens when a community of the learned is too small, look at Tasmania. From what I understand the original Tasmanians had decent aboriginal technology when they walked across the land bridge. When this land bridge was covered by water their simple technologies to even things like fishing and clothing regressed. Without some interchange with a larger community, things were slowly lost.



Civil liberties date from the Eighteenth Century.


So you know for a fact that no other nations/groups had a system that protected individual rights before that time? There is no way of even knowing. Talk about drawing conclusions from incomplete sampling...



A cultural-parity approach seems only tenable for those who haven't spent time outside of the Western cultural loop.

You sound like VDH... I've spent time working in Asia and can appreciate differences of several Asian societies, and I reject VDH's drivel.

Singapore's model is interesting. I'm not sure that I fully understand it but I can recognize some things about it from my time there. China seems to be emulating it as a way to catch up. One might even argue that Singapore's approach is closer to a capitalism/market based govt than any Western govt. which tend to be more bound more by the contraints of individual liberty and property rights (I prefer our way, but theirs seems to work for them so it is worth trying to understand why.)

[Azi Tohak]

Sorry, check lower.

[Azi Tohak]

Why can I not post the rest of my letter?

Azi

[Redleg]

Why can I not post the rest of my letter?

Azi

You can only have so many characters before the document will not post. THat might be it.

[Red Harvest]

Why can I not post the rest of my letter?

Azi

Certain character combinations get rejected as some sort of HTML code. Watch out for "=" and < or > characters together. It will clip them, but they will still be there when you edit so you can identify the problem piece.

Quoting sections use [ quote ] and [ /quote ] (minus the spaces sandwiching what you want in between.)

[Azi Tohak]

Sorry, check lower

[econ21]

“Its fifth shackle is that it can't do simple arithmetic--in war or at home.”

Let me see:

X number of terrorists – 1 dead terrorist (or imprisoned too) = fewer terrorists right?


Assuming no effect (positive or negative) of killing terrorists on their recruitment. But why would we assume such a thing?

Take the Fallujah case cited in the original article there - what really aggravates off many on the "left" (ie critics of Bush) is not that sieging Fallujah was morally equivalent to 9/11. It is rather that it was an avoidable and tragic waste of life. This was not a city of terrorists originally and was even initially mildly welcoming of American "liberation" from Saddam. But it was soon turned to insurgency by the subsequent occupation (US soldiers shooting on demonstrators etc).

From where I'm standing, the Iraq invasion killed virtually no pre-existing terrorists but created thousands of new ones. And judging from the trend in insurgent attacks in Iraq, the occupation does not seem capable of killing them off faster than they are replenished.

[Hurin_Rules]

Well, duh, it can traced because we have written records. And yet there is a huge gap in there where democracy was absent. It did not return until the shackles of the aristocracy and Church were thrown off over two millenia later. Might I remind you that Athen's democracy destoryed itself? The oligarchs won. And so VDH transferred attention to Rome, which was a republic. Carthage was also a sort of elected republic as memory serves... The Framers of the US Constitution actually feared Athen's form of govt. from what I've read.

More importantly we lack information to know how many other societies operated. It is a huge leap to assume that it did not exist elsewhere...considering that there were other elected forms of govt. existing at the same time that we do know of.


Its actually even worse than that Red. If you look to the real roots (as opposed to seeds) of democratic systems in the West, they lie in the Middle Ages, not in ancient Greece. Yes, we know all about Solon and Pesistratus and Cleisthenes, but the people who constructed the first representative governments in the West did not. Whence did the first parliaments arise? Edward Longshanks had never heard of Solon.

Several more mundane and realistic sources for the parliaments can be found in the high middle Ages. One source was the Church itself. The idea of elective represenation can be found in the Reform movement of the eleventh century, which began to push for free elections of bishops from the local clergy. Since the bishop of Rome was included in all this, this gave us the modern system of election by the cardinals. Another source was the germanic traditions of local assemblies (placita, in Latin) and rule by community consensus. These ideas stretched far back into the pre literate past of the germanic peoples, and probably predate the coming of the Greeks to Greece. The Rhine and Danube did far more for democracy in Western Europe than Plato or Aristotle ever did. The Germanic warriors expected to be treated as free men and to choose their own military leaders. Finally, we can also see the beginings of communal republicanism in the Italian city states of the eleventh century. But were the men of the communes reading Solon? No. Even if they had had access to ancient Greek texts, Plato was no lover of democracy. No, the roots of representative government in the West--the English parliament, the French Estates General, the cortes of the Iberian kingdoms, the communes of Flanders and Lombardy--lie in much different soil.

Assuming the cultural superiority of the Greeks becomes harder and harder to maintain when one realizes the real roots of modern democracy.

And assuming the cultural superiority of ANYONE inevitably leads us down a slippery slope towards racism, imperialism and the unmitigated horrors of the last century. Haven't we learned our lesson yet?

[Gawain of Orkeny]

And assuming the cultural superiority of ANYONE inevitably leads us down a slippery slope towards racism, imperialism and the unmitigated horrors of the last century. Haven't we learned our lesson yet?

Ill have to put this away for the next time some Euro tries to claim cultural superiorty of us uncultivated Americans. ~D How many times have we heard that?

[Azi Tohak]

Well, the first thing I can say is that I wish I knew how to quote, but I'll just have to thank Red Harvest for these points as I copy and paste:

"The Right's first shackle is intellectual dishonesty."

In what exactly? I really do wish the White House would admit they were wrong about Iraq, about how it is going to take a long time, but what else do you want them to admit to?


"Its second shackle is intolerance. Treating the war on terror as a religious crusade is a mistake of the 1st order."

Damned skippy! I will not stand by and let some religious nut bags attack my country for whatever specious reasons they have adopted this month. But by the same token, this is not a war against Islam. If it was, wouldn't you think we would have imported some of our own wonderful Jehovah’s Witnesses to convert the Muslims of Iraq? No, the government does not want a puppet state, they want a beacon for the rest of the middle east to rally around. And the war is a crusade, as defined by dictionary.com:

cru•sade
n.
often Crusade Any of the military expeditions undertaken by European Christians in the 11th, 12th, and 13th centuries to recover the Holy Land from the Muslims.
A holy war undertaken with papal sanction.
A vigorous concerted movement for a cause or against an abuse.

Yup, this is most definitely a crusade. Time to rid the world of nutbag Muslim extremists. And I will not tolerate their views that the US government is responsible for the way the world it is today. As fashionable as that is, to blame the US, couldn't France or China have helped out the poor, put-out Muslims that were constantly oppressed by the US? Sure. Did they?


"Its third shackle is believing nobody to the Left of Dubya could fight a war, or do it better. History proves otherwise. And when the history of the present is written, people are going to be looking back saying "WTF?""

Oh yes, (democrat) FDR did great fighting the war didn't he? All he did was allow the Japanese to attack Pearl Harbor and not tell any of the 3000 dead (in one morning remember, the left is going ape we have lost 1700 in how many months now?) they were going to get a nasty surprise. FDR allowed Stalin to take half of Europe, and that half is still paying for what happened. Did FDR do the right think? I'm in no position to judge. The best thing he did during the war was keep the people on the home front supportive of it, while staying the heck out of Marshall's way. But remember, the media during the war, with a democrat president in office, was not howling over every dead solider the way our media loves to do, to put as horrible light as possible on Bush and the Republican party.

Then of course there is LBJ. He did brilliantly didn't he? I've got no more to say on him.

Lincoln was a Republican wasn't he? And it was the Democrats who wanted to keep slaves...ahh yes..

Then there is Woodrow Wilson, who refused to get involved in a war until his allies had effectively won it for him (wow…so THAT is where France gets it’s current foreign policy form…).

Seems to me HISTORY has proven that the left, which for some reason has been in power during most of our major wars, has avoided getting involved until our interests were threatened. No chance of (like Lincoln and Bush) starting a war for what is right is there? Nope, we are perfectly content in our moral relativism.


“Its fourth shackle is mistaking its view for moral/religious righteousness--i.e. never being able to admit a mistake.”

A. Has the left ever said “Oops we did it again”?
B. You know as well as I do that to admit a mistake is to cut your own foot off in the next election. Speaking of elections, has the Democratic Party ever apologized for Kerry as their choice? Hell, “Anybody but Bush” should have worked great. Was Kerry really the best choice?
C. Yes, I will agree there is too much religious influence in the Republican party. But the good news is, because of that, people know where Republicans STAND, as opposed to Democrats, who do whatever they think will keep them in power longer (i.e. Kerry, Clinton, LBJ, Carter). I say too much only because I disagree with the party on some big issues.

continue to part II

[Azi Tohak]

“Its fifth shackle is that it can't do simple arithmetic--in war or at home.”

Let me see:

X number of terrorists – 1 dead terrorist (or imprisoned too) = fewer terrorists right?

But I might have to get someone from Harvard, Yale (you know, the Ivy league schools, the only places where smrt people come from, just ask the Democratic Parties leadership about THAT one) to prove that one for your satisfaction.

What else…ooo…more money in the hands of people means more money flowing through the economy right? Unless the people are too scared to invest because the media keeps telling them the sky is falling (which only happened under Bush, therefore it was Bush’s fault right?).

Oh, and here is another one:

National Tax Income – Democrat policies intended to keep them in favor = less money for body armor and APCs right?

I love how the media tries to blame Bush for that too. No. It is Democrats who want to cut military spending (except when it suits them and they have enough publicity) and pay for other pandering projects. Republicans want to increase military funding, at the expense of the pandering projects. But people like being pandered to (see FDR), so the constant increases in pork-barrel projects just hurt the military. I think that is pretty simple math.

Being an engineer, I might be able to do some math. Care to give me any? Mind, this has to be simple math, like how many Democrats does it take to screw in a light bulb.


“From the book I quickly concluded the guy has a serious Western superiority complex that seriously erodes the quality of his writing. It has that stench of colonial racial superiority.”

Ah yes…and racial superiority is only held by white males, who happen to go to church and stay married to their wives right? China is so wonderfully open and friendly! Just ask Tibet. I hear it is lovely in the winter when Chinese tanks go home. Or Japan? Isn’t gaijin an insult there?

I think that covers what I wanted to say about Red’s points.

And why am I reminded of Wasabi’s signature?

Azi

Sorry about the multiple posts, but the computer was having troubles with some math symbols.

[Kanamori]

I'm just surprised to see Pindar start such a qualitative thread ~D

[bmolsson]

Ive read several times people talk about how the US is bad for making a value judgement about democracy over dictatorships in regards to the Iraq war.

I don't see the imaginatory WMD's has anything what so ever to do with democracy. Could you please elaborate ??

[bmolsson]

Why is modern science oversold?


It has lost it's objectivity. :book:



Singapore's model is interesting.


Singapore is a feodal state, disquised as a democracy...... ~;)

[PanzerJaeger]

I don't see the imaginatory WMD's has anything what so ever to do with democracy.

I dont either. :dizzy2:

[PanzerJaeger]

Really? I can see a few ways that the "WMD" issue pertains to democracy. The United States, being a Democracy of sorts, relies on a majority rules within congress before you can declare war. Bush cheated the system by lying about WMDs (as the Downing Street Memo shows, he was in fact lying and he knew it), thus undermining democracy.

Hijacking two threads in one night.. ~:eek: You'd make the terrorists you sympathize with proud. :thumbsup:

America did not declare war on Iraq, just as it didnt in '96 or '91. The precident of undeclared war was set many decades ago, and for you to use that against President Bush while ignoring the fact that 5 generations of presidents before him used it shows your bias... and it has been noted.

And what exactly was the Downing Street Memo besides one mans opinion? And how is removing a dictatorship and replacing it with a democracy in fact undermining democracy? :inquisitive:

[Pindar]

Posted by Pindar

Democracy is traditionally tied to a larger political ethos.




This 'tradition' is the very Eurocentric historiography in question. To defend Hanson by referring to it is circular.



I don't think this post really responds to what I wrote. I don't understand why you have tradition in scare quotes. If you are trying to argue that democracy was developed independent of the West and was a well placed notion in the intellectual discourse of other Civilizations: it was not so.

This is why for example school texts in Japan or China reference the West when discussing the source of democracy.




This ethos involves a theoretical strata that defines roles of the state vis-a-vis citizenry. Tribes holding council or friends deciding together what movie to go see may certainly include a consensus, but do not meet the larger standard of civilization.



Ah, I see. So the West is now the arbiter of civilization? Good for it.



This reply doesn't seem properly placed either. Concepts have certain base meanings. Democracy is a construct of the Greeks. The word gained its meaning within that milieu. Again referencing the Far East: this is why in Chinese or Japanese the word for democracy is a transplant from the West because no such notion existed prior to contact with the West.


Science is a theoretical position.

So is the Western superiority complex.



What's the point to this comment? Are you wanting to argue that science is not theoretical. Are you wanting to argue the West is not superior? If so, I have given three basic reasons for arguing the West is superior. Civil liberties is one of those examples. Now if you wish to argue that a civilization that has no civil liberties tradition is morally equivalent to the West make your case. Comments like the above will not do.


If you want to rule out all documents enacted by royal decree from your definition of civil liberties, then you're going to have to ignore most of the history of civil liberties.


Not really. The standard history of civil liberties finds theoretical impetus in the works of ST. Thomas and then is given more formal structure in the 16th Century by those thinkers that were setting up challenges to the Divine Right of Kings (the exact opposite to royal mandate as justification). Legislative action and formalization also occurred outside of monarchy, as seen in the formation of the Bill of Rights (18th Century). So, the history, as it were, doesn't usually appeal to any Kingly mandate.



Modern civil liberties discourses, perhaps; but I thought we were talking about origins?

See above.

The origin isn't really pertinent to my position as the discussion remains an intra-West affair. This is what is significant..




You keep making arguments along the lines of 'this is usually done this way' or 'traditionally, this is what has been done'. Well, slavery was a 'traditional part of western culture for millenia, and racism is a usual foundation for intolerance. Custom and authority are not arguments.



Yes slavery and racism were part of the West. This is also the case in all other Civilizations. Unfortunately many areas continue to follow oppressive traditions along these lines: India's untouchables for example.

There is no appeal to authority.






Enough to know that intolerance springs from ignorance.



But not enough to know real and critical distinctions exists between peoples, places and cultures.



Actually, it is far more of an argument than anything your post provided, which relied on a circular appeal to Eurocentrist historiography and the ponderous weight of unthinking tradition. I, on the other hand, referred to the US governments own study that showed that the amorphous explanation 'they hate freedom' was simply wrong. Most people like America; its the policies of its government they hate. That and all those invasion thingys.



If we take your prior post as an attempt at a serious position there is a problem: the initial article is focused on the divisions within the Western camp, not cross-Civilization comparisons per say.




Thanks, I'm glad someone noticed. ~:cheers:



Always happy to give credit where it is due. :bow:

[Red Harvest]

Azi Tohak,

There isn't much you have said that I can agree with or that facts support.

Intellectual Dishonesty. It's about being honest with oneself as well as with others.

Explain the term "compassionate conservative." Explain WMD, explain why the budget has been so badly hosed by the party controlling the house/senate and presidency. Explain why the numbers never add up on anything Bush proposes. Explain reprimanding analysts because they give ACCURATE assessments which don't fit the party line. Explain the media bias screams and efforts to suppress the media. Explain politicizing international trade group appointments that were non-political before.

Intolerance

This is a firm plank in the stance of the Right. You can see it whenever abortion comes up, gays, prayer in schools, etc. Intolerance is an unfortunate aspect of the religious right. When people start screaming "liberal" in their best McCarthy-esque tone, you are witnessing intolerance. Even the Air Force Academy is having problems fighting religious intolerance. It is not to our country's credit. Bush has called the Afghan and other fights "crusades" in speeches to Muslims for crying out loud. How damned stupid can he get? It implies a Christian attack against Muslims. A crusade is a religious war, he might as well call it a friggin' jihad. I've heard that in Arabic crusader translates along the lines of "follower of the cross." The fight against terrorism does not and should not be narrowed down to a religious war. It is wider than that, because it is not religious specific. It is terrorism vs. everyone else, regardless of race, creed, or religion.

The wars issue.

Dubya is not being held accountable for his screw ups, and they are huge and of his own making.

FDR did what he could to keep the UK afloat while the US was isolationist. And if you read up on the fight in the Pacific, the local commanders were at fault at Pearl--and especially the Phillipines where the Japanese couldn't believe that the commanders had not done anything to prepare after the attack at Pearl. Unlike Dubya, FDR didn't have the Cole bombing or embassy attacks as a warning before Pearl Harbor. Dubya was disinterested in Al Qaeda until 9/11. He has since failed to get the top targets in Afghanistan and has left it smoldering rather than doing what was needed to get back on its feet. In Iraq he failed to prepare for the post war situation. As a result we have all these post "Mission Accomplished" casualties, and a badly unsettled mess.

As for post war and Stalin, nobody had much choice other than to acceot the Soviets in Eastern Europe or follow up WWII with a protracted fight against the USSR. Truman checked the Soviet plans by dropping the bomb on Japan, sending the right message to the USSR. We had a weapon they couldn't easily contend with, and we weren't afraid to use it.

LBJ? Shall we mention Ike? Didn't he get the ball rolling in Vietnam by helping to create the initial South Vietnamese regime? LBJ, for all his flaws inherited a fight that had no clear path to victory. Short of directly subduing North Vietnam, there was none.

Lincoln? The right wingers here hate him! LOL. He would be a liberal by their definitions. The Republican party changed back with Teddy Roosevelt, it hasn't been the party of Lincoln since then, except in name. Since then the Democrats and Republicans have swapped ends for the most part.

Fourth point You really didn't have anything there to discuss...

Math

I'm an engineer and I can tell you that the GOP and this admin are having real trouble with math. So are the conservative engineers I've worked with. Those engineers can't seem to do the math on energy issues and they are having real trouble projecting trends. I won't go into the creative accounting I've corrected... They are too steeped in dogma with the rosey glasses, and they can't get out of the danged box. Yep, I've fought this fight from within the industry, and their numbers don't add up. Why? Intellectual dishonesty for the most part. They don't want to believe a number, so they ignore it. There is also a tendency to give the "expected answer" rather than what the numbers are telling them. You take some awful heat when you fail to give the answer that the execs want--just like with Dubya's admin. When the GOP said they want to run the country like a business, they weren't kiddin'.

Has Dubya published any plan or budget figures yet that have turned out to be true? He's only a couple trillion short at the moment--and no, he won't get a pass for 9/11. The concern about contingencies for emergencies was dismissed by the GOP while pushing his budget wrecking plans. And what was the answer AFTER 9/11. "That wasn't, enough, let's do more!" Supply side economics were already proven false in the Reagan era. And revenue numbers have not worked any of his forecasted magic.

How about how many troops we will need in Iraq, how much it will cost, casualties, etc? Buy Dubya a friggin' calculator and a few hundred hours of training on how to use it (trust me, it WILL take him that long to believe the numbers coming out of it.)

The GOP economic theories would never work for economic justification on my projects. (And their energy policies/assumptions are a hindrance to good investment in industry but just what the industry wants to hear.)

Ditto for the Social Security accounts proposals...the numbers don't work, and the assumptions are as bad as those used for Dubya's tax cut & spend policy.

You want more fun with numbers? Take an honest look at the proposals for national sales tax vs. income tax. Never mind that it would send the economy into a massive recession, it would also be a large tax increase for much of the scale.

Your rant about China and Tibet Not sure what you are even going on about since my views on China are anything but trusting or forgiving. You have your guns pointed in the wrong direction. ~:handball: However, that doesn't blind me to seeing VDH's book is fairly thinly veiled Eurocentric cheerleading. Like Dubya, he appears to have reached a conclusion, then decided to write an argument (book) to support it.

[Red Harvest]

Singapore is a feodal state, disquised as a democracy...... ~;)

I wouldn't call it feudal, since the workers are doing quite well, and so is business. No serfs ever had it that good. How the govt. operates is a mystery to me although I know political dissent is not well tolerated. The closest I can come up with is Sim City: the Country.

Selamat tidur.

[Pindar]

Well, duh, it can traced because we have written records. And yet there is a huge gap in there where democracy was absent. It did not return until the shackles of the aristocracy and Church were thrown off over two millenia later. Might I remind you that Athen's democracy destoryed itself? The oligarchs won. And so VDH transferred attention to Rome, which was a republic. Carthage was also a sort of elected republic as memory serves... The Framers of the US Constitution actually feared Athen's form of govt. from what I've read.



Hurin challenged the idea of democracy's origins. Your "duh" is misplaced.


Yes the Athenian experiment failed. The idea of democracy did not disappear however. It survived and revived with the return of Classical knowledge. Though typically rejected as akin to mobocracy the notion persisted. Regardless, the ultimate reformation of democratic norm occurred in the West.




More importantly we lack information to know how many other societies operated. It is a huge leap to assume that it did not exist elsewhere...considering that there were other elected forms of govt. existing at the same time that we do know of.



This is an appeal to ignorance. The historical record is based on evidence. The evidence of democracy in the West is clear. If there is no evidence of a democratic superstructure with other civilizations one cannot conclude it existed.




Recent scientific method is oversold. There were scientific communities well before the 17th Century in various fields. People tested various facets of the world arround them, proposed explanations, and recorded the information. Agriculture and animal husbandry have been with us for many thousands of years. You would be hard pressed to claim there was not scientific method involved throughout. The development of siege technology in Assyria and again later in Syracuse are further examples of science in action.



Science is a specific theoretical posture. It is composed of clear principles: physical data, inductive logic, notions of symmetry, verification etc. It can be traced to two specific individuals: Descartes and Bacon. This does not mean people did not learn or study prior to the 17th Century. It does mean that the formal system we call science was not a distinct method.



So you know for a fact that no other nations/groups had a system that protected individual rights before that time? There is no way of even knowing. Talk about drawing conclusions from incomplete sampling...



This is also an appeal to ignorance.




You sound like VDH... I've spent time working in Asia and can appreciate differences of several Asian societies, and I reject VDH's drivel.

Singapore's model is interesting. I'm not sure that I fully understand it but I can recognize some things about it from my time there. China seems to be emulating it as a way to catch up. One might even argue that Singapore's approach is closer to a capitalism/market based govt than any Western govt. which tend to be more bound more by the contraints of individual liberty and property rights (I prefer our way, but theirs seems to work for them so it is worth trying to understand why.)



Singapore was a British Colony. Its distinctive status and infrastructure are a reflection of this history. Capitalism is a Western construct. Lee's rhetoric and the reality are not necessarily the same.

[Pindar]

I'm just surprised to see Pindar start such a qualitative thread ~D

Yeah, what's with him anyway?

[Red Harvest]

This is an appeal to ignorance.


No, it is rejection of theoretical speculation (itself based on ignorance) that is being used as bigoted cheerleading by Hanson. I fail to see any value in his Western Way of War thesis. There is no deeper understanding coming from it. In fact, I felt his treatment of certain aspects was superficial (and in cases factually incorrect.) It read more like trying to spin the history to fit the thesis. That is one reason I find his current essay so ironic.

[Pindar]

RedHarvest: So you know for a fact that no other nations/groups had a system that protected individual rights before that time? There is no way of even knowing. Talk about drawing conclusions from incomplete sampling...

Me: This is an appeal to ignorance.


No, it is rejection of theoretical speculation (itself based on ignorance) that is being used as bigoted cheerleading by Hanson. I fail to see any value in his Western Way of War thesis. There is no deeper understanding coming from it. In fact, I felt his treatment of certain aspects was superficial (and in cases factually incorrect.) It read more like trying to spin the history to fit the thesis. That is one reason I find his current essay so ironic.


The rise of democracy is not theoretical speculation. There is a well established textual tradition that dates from the 5th Century B.C. dealing with the subject. The same cannot be said of other Civilizations.

As far as VDH's theory of the "Western Way of War" that book is beyond the scope of this thread. The focus of this thread is the left/right dichotomy regarding the war on terror.

[Kaiser of Arabia]

Assuming no effect (positive or negative) of killing terrorists on their recruitment. But why would we assume such a thing?

Take the Fallujah case cited in the original article there - what really aggravates off many on the "left" (ie critics of Bush) is not that sieging Fallujah was morally equivalent to 9/11. It is rather that it was an avoidable and tragic waste of life. This was not a city of terrorists originally and was even initially mildly welcoming of American "liberation" from Saddam. But it was soon turned to insurgency by the subsequent occupation (US soldiers shooting on demonstrators etc).

From where I'm standing, the Iraq invasion killed virtually no pre-existing terrorists but created thousands of new ones. And judging from the trend in insurgent attacks in Iraq, the occupation does not seem capable of killing them off faster than they are replenished.
Kill/Capture them faster than they can recruit them!

[Louis de la Ferte Ste Colombe]

I can't believe this thread keeps going ~:)



The 3 reasons mentioned for West being superior to any other civilisation is showing up as a self fulfilling description.. Given how I defnie those terms, I made them apply to the West onyl, so it's circular and can't be wrong ~D

Lot of fun there, but those tricks are getting old Pindar.

Even if I would agree on those 3 values/concept/whatever being developped in the West (I expect you not to quote the Even if and say "thanks for proving my point"), it does not really matter since we did not live up to those values/concept/whatever, betrayed them multiple times, and only pay lip service to them when we deem it convenient.

So basically we'd be superior for advocating ideas we do not defend nor apply. Hypocrisy.

And as far as the orignal text goes, the Wars on War... A nice sum up of selective facts, a big does of right-wing mythology; like... links between Al Qaeda and Iraq? Even your own governement does not believe that anymore...

I don't think you'd find many here that you would call Lefties or liberal who were or are now againts the war in Afghanistan... Hell, you even got German and French troops there! You even got Euro weenies support in that war!
Do the author failed to mention the nearly full support given on the war on Afghanistan, only because it does not fit with his frame and purpose? Depicting all non righters as soft on Terror?
I'd call that intellectually dishonest...
If he were really interested in the Left approach to the war in Afghanistan, he could have given a much larger sample of opinion... but that would hve included pro war leftie... and that would ruin his final point.

As far as the "war on terror" is going (whatever a war on terror is...), give time to history. We'll see in 20 years how that region is.

Eventually the last 3 final points try to frame the Left so that they fit the picture ~:)
Don't you know some pro war leftie? Even the war in Iraq? Are all lefties utopian pacifist? Really? Then why have they agreed with the war in Afghanistan?


Eventually, I find it utterly disgusting to blame recent bombings on the left. If anyone is to blame it's the bombers. So because I don't have the same opinion as Mr Hanson on the war in Iraq, that explains why they were bombings in London?

Who are you kidding?

Louis,

[Redleg]

I can't believe this thread keeps going ~:)



The 3 reasons mentioned for West being superior to any other civilisation is showing up as a self fulfilling description.. Given how I defnie those terms, I made them apply to the West onyl, so it's circular and can't be wrong ~D

Lot of fun there, but those tricks are getting old Pindar.

Even if I would agree on those 3 values/concept/whatever being developped in the West (I expect you not to quote the Even if and say "thanks for proving my point"), it does not really matter since we did not live up to those values/concept/whatever, betrayed them multiple times, and only pay lip service to them when we deem it convenient.

Does that really disprove Pindar's point because the West has often failed to actually "live" up to the values/concepts/standards that were mentioned?



So basically we'd be superior for advocating ideas we do not defend nor apply. Hypocrisy.

Not really - a human failing mabybe, an inablity to accomplish the standards that one would like to accomplish definetly. However even given the wrongs and the failures - one can not say the Western World did not accomplish such things.



And as far as the orignal text goes, the Wars on War... A nice sum up of selective facts, a big does of right-wing mythology; like... links between Al Qaeda and Iraq? Even your own governement does not believe that anymore...

Selective Facts - can also be said of many left-wing mythology and information.



I don't think you'd find many here that you would call Lefties or liberal who were or are now againts the war in Afghanistan... Hell, you even got German and French troops there! You even got Euro weenies support in that war!
Do the author failed to mention the nearly full support given on the war on Afghanistan, only because it does not fit with his frame and purpose?

Yes indeed a nice selective bent by the baised author of this article - however again the author wanted to make a point.



Depicting all non righters as soft on Terror?
I'd call that intellectually dishonest...

Not really - given that some are soft on Terror in the eyes of the author.



If he were really interested in the Left approach to the war in Afghanistan, he could have given a much larger sample of opinion... but that would hve included pro war leftie... and that would ruin his final point.

Again not really - it would of made it harder for him to prove, it would require a longer article, it would of required doing a better journalistic job.



As far as the "war on terror" is going (whatever a war on terror is...), give time to history. We'll see in 20 years how that region is.


Yep - and to say anything different would be intellectually dishonest.



Eventually the last 3 final points try to frame the Left so that they fit the picture ~:)
Don't you know some pro war leftie? Even the war in Iraq? Are all lefties utopian pacifist? Really? Then why have they agreed with the war in Afghanistan?

Again not all lefties want the war in Afganstan either. You accuse the author of intectual dishonesty and demonstrate it yourself. A little hypocrisy on your part - or like the auther are you attempting to strike a point?



Eventually, I find it utterly disgusting to blame recent bombings on the left. If anyone is to blame it's the bombers. So because I don't have the same opinion as Mr Hanson on the war in Iraq, that explains why they were bombings in London?

And in that I would agree with you. Mr Hanson went to far in his opinion - but he is a pundit, just like another individual who is being discussed in a seperate thread.



Who are you kidding?

Louis,

Maybe ourselves - to include everyone.

[Louis de la Ferte Ste Colombe]

Does that really disprove Pindar's point because the West has often failed to actually "live" up to the values/concepts/standards that were mentioned?

Not really - a human failing mabybe, an inablity to accomplish the standards that one would like to accomplish definetly. However even given the wrongs and the failures - one can not say the Western World did not accomplish such things.


I'd like to answer that part separately.

It's obvious that at least we enjoy the benefit of science, democracy, and civil liberties for ourselves.We did accomplish that. We did err quite a lot on the way even in our own countries (WWI horrors, WWII crime against humanity). We did nothing for others.

Our shortcomings, multiple betrayals of those values, our failings as you name them shall at least stop us from lecturing others about it.

I find it a bit "rich" (French expression, not sure it translates well), to tell others what they shall do when we had the power to do it earlier, and screwed up for them.
I mean, if as a French, I was to lecture Algeria for its lack of democracy, chances are Algerians would get a bit upset: we owned the country, were big mouth about democracy and La Grandeur de la République, never gave it to them, and repressed them when they ask for higher representation, then later independance.
Or picture a Brit lecturing an American about taxation and representation ~D

Can you claim superiority for something you're not doing?

Louis,

[Louis de la Ferte Ste Colombe]

On the text itself.

Sure, some lefties were against the war in Afghanistan. And many more were for it.
In France, the socialist party supported it. I am not sure there were an official stance about that from the Communist party; they had lot of mixed feeling.
Most of the democrats supported the war in Afghanistan... and a fringe did not.
That hardly fits with the mention by the author that "only about half of the West is involved"

Oddly enough, in the run up to the war against Iraq, when 80%+ of the French were against it, you would have found 2 groups supporting it:
- what we call "liberals": libertarian in the US. Usually pro US on any stance.
- left wing interventionist: willing to remove Saddam for his numerous human right related crimes. Those are very pro ICC, pro UN kind of interventionist and believe that in case of human right grave violation other countries got a duty to intervene. Removing Saddam was OK for them. Blair, when he was not talking about the "imminent threat" of WMD (ah! ah! ah!) sounded much like them.

Mr. Hinson ignored that many on the left are not pacifist, and supported the war against Afghanistan. Many democrats also supported the war against Iraq, and so did other Euro lefties.
When Mr Hinson hand pick the facts so that they fit his theory, he is not doing a good job as a newswriter, he's just being dishonest and biased.
It's helpfull to put up the other facts, the one that Mr Hinson purposely ignored, just to debunk his theory.

Is there a 5% frindge on the left who are die hard pacifist and complete morale relativist? Probably. Is it fair to paint the left like that? Certainly not.

Louis,

[Al Khalifah]

I think very few sane people can genuinely believe that the world - both as whole and for the citizens of the involved countries - would have been a better place had the Taliban remained in power in Afghanistan or Saddam Hussein in Iraq. On that point I think absolutely everyone can agree.

Where the issue lies here, however, is not in the ends, but in the means. It seems highly inappropriate that we should shout the praises of democracy to these recently liberated nations. The underlying principle of democracy is consensus not conflict, words not weapons and the maintainance of human-rights and civil liberties.

Our 'superiority complex' must surely be challenged by the fact that in the War on Terror we have failed in each of these aspects.

The U.N failed because it could not secure a consensus about the war or indeed whether the operation was even legal. The Coalition seemed too eager to commit to military action rather than pursue alternative methods and once in control of Iraq has continued an approach of "don't be a terrorist or we'll kill you." Finally, the treatment of prisoners and detainees is in total violation of their human rights and the legislation planned to combat terror makes terrible in-roads to our civil liberties.

Arguably the West is superior at the moment, but if we continue to behave in this way, we will not be able to claim such superiority for long.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Arguably the West is superior at the moment, but if we continue to behave in this way, we will not be able to claim such superiority for long.

And I argue that if we dont get tougher and treat this seriously as the war it really is we will not be able to claim such superiority for long. Again you need security first before you can have freedom. Thats why were still in Iraq.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Other than number three I agree. In every war some freedom must be surrendered for the sake of security. Believing anything else is naive and self defeating. The enemy uses our rightouness against us. Yet those on the left say both sides are as rightous then lecture us on how we have to be more rightous and always claim the highground. Next thing out of their mouths is the US tortures people and holds them illeagly. Were worse than the terrorists and the number one threat to peace in the world. IN comparison to acts done by administrations in past wars the Patriot act is pretty tame. I think it needs strengthing. Again the drug laws are much more invasive of our rights than the Patriot act and effects millions of us in fact all of us.

[Al Khalifah]

No one is saying that the US is worse than the terrorists. The problem is the fact that often the administration will choose to benchmark any action they take (or indeed government they establish) against the actions of the terrorists (or the previous government).

It's all well and good saying that the situation in Iraq is better for the people now than it was before - it is - but that is hardly much of comparisson.

[Hurin_Rules]

Not really. The standard history of civil liberties finds theoretical impetus in the works of ST. Thomas and then is given more formal structure in the 16th Century by those thinkers that were setting up challenges to the Divine Right of Kings (the exact opposite to royal mandate as justification). Legislative action and formalization also occurred outside of monarchy, as seen in the formation of the Bill of Rights (18th Century). So, the history, as it were, doesn't usually appeal to any Kingly mandate.

Actually, you're missing two important steps. First, the urban privileges of the high middle ages, springing mostly from Germanic folk beliefs about consultation and consensus. You don't find that if you just read the philosophers, mind you, but its there in the texts. Note these, like Magna Carta, were conferred by royal mandate. Second, the step after Aquinas, in the 14th and 15th centuries, particularly the conciliarists. One can thus perceive the history of civil liberties stretching back in an unbroken line to the eleventh century, and inextricably linked with royal mandate.

By the way, did you notice which form of government Aquinas preferred?

In any event, democratic systems of government are not unique to the West. One can see them in anthropological studies of small communities throughout the globe. They probably predominated in the pre-literate cultures of Eurasia. The first democracy to leave large amounts of texts that are easily accessible to Western academics is Greece. If one looks carefully, however, one can see democratic ideals in other cultures. Early Muslims were shocked that the Abbassid caliphs became so authoritarian, for example, because in the early spread of Islam all Muslims were seen as brothers. I can't speak for China or Japan, but drawing from the fact that Greece was the first to leave records of democracy the inference that it created democracy is problematic at best. Most cultural 'innovations' are borrowings rather than inventions.

But getting back to the point at hand: whence springs this cultural superiority? Can the people who believe the West is superior please answer me that. Is it linked to a specific race, or not? If not, why the West rather than the East or the South? And will this superiority endure? I think your anwers to that will be revealing.

1000 years ago, the West was the poor cousin to the great world civilizations in China, India, Islam and Byzantium. Was the west still superior then?

Here's a shocker for you all people: civilizations rise and fall. In another 1000 years, will the West still be on top? Perhaps it will be China, or India. Will you still be able to maintain the West's superiority then? Or will we instead be talking about the origins of efficient administration in Confucius and the first Chin emperors in the same way that we now talk about Plato and Athens? Will we be pointing to Mao rather than Pericles? If you can rule that out, then I'll agree wholeheartedly that the west is just plain better than everyone else. If you can't, then try to have a bit more perspective.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

It's all well and good saying that the situation in Iraq is better for the people now than it was before - it is - but that is hardly much of comparisson.

Trying to insinute that the situtation there is comparable to what it was under Saddam is disengenous at best.

Look its pretty simpe. I look at Nations much like people. If I get in a fight withsomeone ane we agree not to do certain things and this guy starts doing them and causing damage to me Im gonna do the same right back at a him. Being the one holding the morale high ground doesnt do you any good if your dead. You fight fire with fire. Again this is about our very survival. I hear many on the left say there is no war on terror and Bush is making it up. THeres no moral equivalancy. Its us or them.

[CBR]

When Mr Hinson hand pick the facts so that they fit his theory, he is not doing a good job as a newswriter, he's just being dishonest and biased.
Same thing with his books on Greek warfare...so doesnt surprise me a bit ~:)


CBR

[Azi Tohak]

I think the thread keeps going because this is entertaining.

My point about China was they are just as, if not more racist, than evil whiteys like me. (Bad Azi! Bad! Against affirmative action? You must be racist!) Same for Japan. Those countries prove that the idea of racial superiority is not just a western thing.

I'm just curious about what Kerry or Gore would have done in Bush's position. Increase aid to the Taliban regime to buy off another attack? Give money to Hussein and ask nicely that he be a good boy and quit butchering his people?

And no, I'll not blame the US and UK for the deaths of all the Iraqi children. What happened to those kids was the fault of their parents for not overthrowing Hussein. But you know the fun part about popular rebellions? That is called Civil War. The same thing that would happen if the US, UK and Aussies pulled out now.

Despite what some people believe, Iraq won't magically calm down if the Allies leave. It will be civil war. And if you thought hundreds of thousands of dead was bad before, wait until you have millions dead because of the rival religious and ethnic factions.

Was Bush wrong to attack Iraq? Maybe. Did any Democrats really try to stand up the administration at the time? (I'd talk about the UK too, but I get confused with the party names.) Not a chance. Now the left is trying to castrate Bush by claiming "we knew it all along!" Ah bulls**t. The left lacked the spine to stand up to Bush before the war, and now with the media dominance, has the US confused about what is going on there. Heck, I'm not even sure about what is happening and I try to follow closely.

Anybody remember what happened in the Philipines when the US finally shut down the rebels? The US governor (MacArthur I believe) captured a bunch of the (moslem) terrorists, tied them up to stake, covered them with piggies blood, and then executed them. The rebellion died. But can the US do that? Nope. It is 'inhuman' and 'immoral', and the media would go even more ape than they did over Guantanamo Bay. It would be political suicide because the left has so thoroughly emasculated our society as to believe anything beyond a slap-on-the-wrist is too much punishment. Remember, it is my fault that the mullahs hate me. I would love to see every terrorist tortured to extract info, and then executed, in much the same way as in the Philipines.

Okay, that about exhuasts my vitriol for right now.

Azi

[Gawain of Orkeny]

This country was founded on principles, and certainly the current Republican stock seems rather keen on making sure we all remember how rightous and justified we are as a country. A good step towards making that claim anything other than Hypocrisy would be to stop the constitutional bastardization. Do you think the founding fathers sat there writing it thinking: "Hey, I hope someone makes this totally null and void some day."

Better tell that to Linclon and FDR for starts who were far worse in this type of thing. You also havent addressed the fact that the drug laws are far more invasive of out privacy.


Anybody remember what happened in the Philipines when the US finally shut down the rebels? The US governor (MacArthur I believe) captured a bunch of the (moslem) terrorists, tied them up to stake, covered them with piggies blood, and then executed them.

Well that was just a story its not true and Mac wasnt the one it was Pershing. The story was he executed 50 Muslim terrorists by slaughtering two pigs and then dipping the bullets in the blood before shooting them. I also believe the story is a fabrication. I still think we should lube our weapons with pig grease though ~;)

I believe the year was 1913 that this story was supposed to have occured in.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

FDR? What did he do? If you're talking about the New Deal, those weren't nearly as bad as the Patriot Act or Homeland Security,

No Im talking about confiscating the property of thousands of Japanese US citizens and interning them for the duration of the war. I hardly think the Patriot act compares to that.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

As for the Drug Laws.. Drugs are a real problem. Just like the great depression was a real problem. But here is where I draw the great distinction:

I don't do drugs, and I don't deal, transport, or otherwise handle drugs. I am not at risk of having my rights violated due to drug-related causes.


Two can play this game


As for the Terrorist Laws.. Terrorists are a real problem. Just like the great depression was a real problem. But here is where I draw the great distinction:

I don't do terroists things, and I don't deal, transport, or otherwise handle terrorists. I am not at risk of having my rights violated due to terrorist-related causes.
:duel:

Also you pay for and are effected by the war on drugs just about everyday in more ways than you can imagine. Where do you think they got many of the provisions of the Patriot act from. Apparently druggs are more dangerous them terrorists. If theres anything were guilty of making more of by fighting them its drug dealers and organised crime.

[Red Harvest]

As far as VDH's theory of the "Western Way of War" that book is beyond the scope of this thread. The focus of this thread is the left/right dichotomy regarding the war on terror.

No, Hanson's credibility and his bias in historical writing are quite relevant to the thread. His villification of those who disagree with how things have been conducted is further evidence of his failings as a writer. How can one evaluate history objectively, when revealing an utter lack of objectivity in the present?

I was for invading Iraq and finishing the job that his father left undone, yet I cannot objectively look at what Dubya has done and feel that he has managed the situation with any competence. He ignored good advice about what the campaign would require (and those weren't leftists either.) And the WMD aspect really makes my blood boil. His strategic blunders have been large, and his integrity on the matter is at best highly questionable.

Look at Hanson's claim that "America has suffered in Iraq .006 percent of the combat dead it lost in World War II." World war II had 292,131 combat deaths (vs. 404,399 total.) In Iraq we presently have had 1352 combat deaths (DoD numbers excluding contractors.). That is 0.46%, so Hanson was only off by a factor of 76 or so. There are some problems with the simplification he is attempting too, as the survival rate is much higher now than it was in WWII. So far in Iraq there have been 13,438 wounded with about half being in the "return to duty" category.

Perhaps Hanson should try his hand at fiction?

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Another splendid post!

Why dont you just marry him and get it over with ~D We get it you two think alike.


So? Countless Americans are at risk. Innocent Americans who have done nothing wrong. Far beyond the point where it is acceptable. So what if you're not at risk?

Thhe fact that your not at risk is your reason to support unconstitutional drug laws. I say countess innocent americans are far more at risk from terrorism than drugs. The main reason theres a drug problem is the government created it. Your being nothing but a hypocrite here.


Terrorists are not exactly rampant within America,

I say they are. Would you like to wait for the next 911 before you do something about them? Have some consistancy.

[Kanamori]

Before I could discuss his writing seriously, I would need to know what the West is more specifically; it seems so broad he can pick and choose as he likes. I would like to see a more specific definition of leftist as a opposed to liberal, and rightist opposed to conservative.

[Pindar]

I can't believe this thread keeps going ~:)



The 3 reasons mentioned for West being superior to any other civilisation is showing up as a self fulfilling description.. Given how I defnie those terms, I made them apply to the West onyl, so it's circular and can't be wrong ~D

Lot of fun there, but those tricks are getting old Pindar.


I don't understand the reference to circularity. I have made no circular appeals. Science refers to a set theoretical disposition that involves, as I previously mentioned: physical data, inductive logic, symmetry, verification schema etc. Nothing along these lines developed anywhere else. Democracy refers to popular sovereignty meaning the government reflects the will of the citizenry and derives its power from the same. No other Civilization developed along those lines. Civil liberties refers to an inherent limitation on government force and intrusion power. The initial theoretical impulse for this was found in natural law which gave the individual standing independant of the government. This also was a uniquely western construct. Each position has set criteria that makes no reference to the West, but was developed by the West. There are no tricks, sorry.


It's obvious that at least we enjoy the benefit of science, democracy, and civil liberties for ourselves.We did accomplish that. We did err quite a lot on the way even in our own countries (WWI horrors, WWII crime against humanity). We did nothing for others.


Reagardless of any perceived failings, if you recognize the above as 'goods': that science does have positive products, democracies do in fact exist, and civil liberties have recognized legal standing then the point is made.

[Pindar]

Actually, you're missing two important steps. First, the urban privileges of the high middle ages, springing mostly from Germanic folk beliefs about consultation and consensus. You don't find that if you just read the philosophers, mind you, but its there in the texts. Note these, like Magna Carta, were conferred by royal mandate. Second, the step after Aquinas, in the 14th and 15th centuries, particularly the conciliarists. One can thus perceive the history of civil liberties stretching back in an unbroken line to the eleventh century, and inextricably linked with royal mandate.

I know of Germanic cultural traditions and their influence on the West as it emerged from the Dark Ages, I think such are important when considering the rise of a merchant class etc which are helpful when trying to put more pieces in place to understand how things came to be. The relevant point however, is that civil liberties is itself a theoretical position. Thus, to trace its origins as a theory one has to look at intellectual history.

I understand why you mention Conciliarism, but the roots of the movement are actually quite a bit older than the 14th Century. The Eastern Church had assumed a Conciliarist posture well before. More to the point however, is this position did not involve secular law whereas natural law does.


By the way, did you notice which form of government Aquinas preferred?

Yes. Recall, I argued civil liberties finally come to the fore in the 18th Century with the construction of the Bill of Rights.


But getting back to the point at hand: whence springs this cultural superiority? Can the people who believe the West is superior please answer me that. Is it linked to a specific race, or not? If not, why the West rather than the East or the South? And will this superiority endure? I think your answers to that will be revealing.


I think, the key to West's rise was it remained basically fractured whereas the other older more developed Civilizations atrophied under a single dominant system.


Here's a shocker for you all people: civilizations rise and fall.

Yes they do.

[Pindar]

No, Hanson's credibility and his bias in historical writing are quite relevant to the thread.

You have a very different approach than I. I don't care what a person thinks about other things any more than I do the color of their shoes. I take any argument or essay presented on its own merits.

[Pindar]

Before I could discuss his writing seriously, I would need to know what the West is more specifically; it seems so broad he can pick and choose as he likes. I would like to see a more specific definition of leftist as a opposed to liberal, and rightist opposed to conservative.

My guess:

I think he defines the West as the Civilizational children of the Greeks with perhaps a more specific orientation on the Western European strand: those lands dominated by Catholicism and Protestantism.

I think he would define Leftist as those views that are inspired by socialism and the right would be views inspired by market driven approaches.

[Hurin_Rules]

I know of Germanic cultural traditions and their influence on the West as it emerged from the Dark Ages, I think such are important when considering the rise of a merchant class etc which are helpful when trying to put more pieces in place to understand how things came to be. The relevant point however, is that civil liberties is itself a theoretical position. Thus, to trace its origins as a theory one has to look at intellectual history.


Why must civil liberties be considered a theory rather than a practice?

Why do you assume this theory precedes practice, rather than vice versa?

Neither of these assumptions has been proven. Moreover, if you're talking about origins, then surely you must be able to demonstrate a consistent link between the democracy of the high middle Ages and the democracy of ancient greece. Yet, there seem to be major lacuna here that would suggest different origins for modern democracy in the ideas of the high middle ages rather than ancient Greece. Are the origins of our democratic practices really to be found in Greece rather than medieval Europe?



I understand why you mention Conciliarism, but the roots of the movement are actually quite a bit older than the 14th Century. The Eastern Church had assumed a Conciliarist posture well before. More to the point however, is this position did not involve secular law whereas natural law does.

Note I was only pointing out some, not all, of the steps you had missed.

There is no relevance to the distinction between secular and canon law. It's not doing any work for you.



Yes. Recall, I argued civil liberties finally come to the fore in the 18th Century with the construction of the Bill of Rights.

And which documents did the constructors of the Bill of Rights have as their models?



I think, the key to West's rise was it remained basically fractured whereas the other older more developed Civilizations atrophied under a single dominant system.

I might agree with you to some extent there. Nevertheless, this creates tremendous problems for Hanson's theory and your defence of it. If being politically fractured is an inherent characteristic of 'The West' that makes it superior, then the Greece and Rome you look to for the origns of 'The West' were not truly 'Western'. Greece was unified by Alexander and Rome was an empire for over 500 years.

[Kanamori]

I think he defines the West as the Civilizational children of the Greeks with perhaps a more specific orientation on the Western European strand: those lands dominated by Catholicism and Protestantism.

Then, as I'm pretty sure you see this coming, where do places like Japan stand? They are certainly a succesful democracy, and they have many cultural portions of his Christian "West". Perhaps a better question is: If the advent of Civil Liberties, Democracy, and the Scientific Method come from the West, as you have defined it, why is the West still superior to any other place that has adopted Western ideals?


I can agree with the majority of what he has said, but it is reminiscent of Kipling's The White Man's Burden, and all of the problems a superiority complex can bring.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Are you implying that Terrorism is more common and more of a threat than the Drug industry here in America?

Im not implying anything. Im stating a fact. Terrorism is a much larger and more dangerous threat to our way of life than drugs are.

[Kanamori]

I can agree with the majority of what he has said, but it is reminiscent of Kipling's The White Man's Burden, and all of the problems a superiority complex can bring.

What an ironic post ~D

[Pindar]

Why must civil liberties be considered a theory rather than a practice?

Why do you assume this theory precedes practice, rather than vice versa?

If we look at what the Founding Fathers wrote both in the Federalist Papers and other personal works it is clear that the rights position they took was derived from the work of Locke, Hobbes, Montesquieu and Rousseau etc. It was a theoretical enterprise and thoroughly a product of Enlightenment thought.


Neither of these assumptions has been proven. Moreover, if you're talking about origins, then surely you must be able to demonstrate a consistent link between the democracy of the high middle Ages and the democracy of ancient greece. Yet, there seem to be major lacuna here that would suggest different origins for modern democracy in the ideas of the high middle ages rather than ancient Greece. Are the origins of our democratic practices really to be found in Greece rather than medieval Europe?

The fall of the Classical World did not mean a complete erasure of all that it had produced. Certain platonic works (like the Republic) survived in the West. The same is the case with elements of Roman legal dicta. Further, from 1087 with the fall of the Library of Toledo to the Christians, the Aristotelian corpus was again available.

The reason 'democracy' in English is Greek derived and not German is not insignificant. (love those negatives!)




Note I was only pointing out some, not all, of the steps you had missed.

There is no relevance to the distinction between secular and canon law. It's not doing any work for you.

I'm not attempting any exhaustive exegesis. My original point was civil liberties is a Western construct.

Conciliarism isn't tied to civil liberties discourse.



I might agree with you to some extent there. Nevertheless, this creates tremendous problems for Hanson's theory and your defence of it. If being politically fractured is an inherent characteristic of 'The West' that makes it superior, then the Greece and Rome you look to for the origns of 'The West' were not truly 'Western'. Greece was unified by Alexander and Rome was an empire for over 500 years.

I don't think fracture is an inherent characteristic. Rather is was a characteristic and in areas where this has been the case: the Greek city-states, the Italian Peninsula or Western Europe in general that situation has generally produced more dynamic societies.

[Hurin_Rules]

If we look at what the Founding Fathers wrote both in the Federalist Papers and other personal works it is clear that the rights position they took was derived from the work of Locke, Hobbes, Montesquieu and Rousseau etc. It was a theoretical enterprise and thoroughly a product of Enlightenment thought.

Which itself looked back on the actual struggle between Cromwell, parliament and the monarchy in the previous century, which itself cited the Magna Carta and the liberties of the middle ages, which themselves... etc. etc.




The fall of the Classical World did not mean a complete erasure of all that it had produced. Certain platonic works (like the Republic) survived in the West. The same is the case with elements of Roman legal dicta. Further, from 1087 with the fall of the Library of Toledo to the Christians, the Aristotelian corpus was again available.

Actually, only the Phaedo and Timaeus were widely available in the West. Where are you getting the idea that the Republic was known?

The entire Aristotelian corpus was available in Latin translation only in the thirteenth century.



The reason 'democracy' in English is Greek derived and not German is not insignificant. (love those negatives!)

Latin was the written language, Germanic tongues spoken. Again, you're looking only at theory and not at practice.



I'm not attempting any exhaustive exegesis. My original point was civil liberties is a Western construct.

Do Byzantium, Jerusalem and Alexandria count as part of The West?



Conciliarism isn't tied to civil liberties discourse.

The concept of free elections certainly is.



I don't think fracture is an inherent characteristic. Rather is was a characteristic and in areas where this has been the case: the Greek city-states, the Italian Peninsula or Western Europe in general that situation has generally produced more dynamic societies.

Then what is the inherent characteristic that makes the West better?

[Pindar]

Then, as I'm pretty sure you see this coming, where do places like Japan stand? They are certainly a succesful democracy, and they have many cultural portions of his Christian "West". Perhaps a better question is: If the advent of Civil Liberties, Democracy, and the Scientific Method come from the West, as you have defined it, why is the West still superior to any other place that has adopted Western ideals?


I can agree with the majority of what he has said, but it is reminiscent of Kipling's The White Man's Burden, and all of the problems a superiority complex can bring.

Japan isn't a Western nation. From the Meiji Reformation forward Japan has adopted or had imposed certain elements of the West. Several of these elements have become more or less settled, but the source remains foreign: the primary civilizational impulse remains Far Eastern.

My use of superior was historical and moral. The West produced these 'goods'. I think they are superior to rival claimants. For example: I think science is demonstrably superior to superstition when dealing with the world. I think the same is the case on the moral plane: I think democracy and civil liberties are superior to autocracy. As these ideas spread to other arenas I think the people there naturally benefit: Japan is an example. I hope Iraq proves to be as well.

[Pindar]

Which itself looked back on the actual struggle between Cromwell, parliament and the monarchy in the previous century, which itself cited the Magna Carta and the liberties of the middle ages, which themselves... etc. etc.

I don't think this is right. Just to cite Locke as an example, he used the followng language:

"To understand political power right, and derive it from its original, we must consider, what state all men are naturally in, and that is, a state of perfect freedom to order their actions, and dispose of their possessions and persons, as they think fit, within the bounds of the law of nature, without asking leave, or depending upon the will of any other man." (Second Treatise of Government, 1690.)

Like the above, Enlightenment Thinkers were not involved in historical argument to justify their position, but rational inquiry as to the nature of rule.




Actually, only the Phaedo and Timaeus were widely available in the West. Where are you getting the idea that the Republic was known?

The entire Aristotelian corpus was available in Latin translation only in the thirteenth century.

I thought the Republic and the Laws were both available. Maybe I'm remembering wrong. (constant expossure to leftist thought tends to deaden the mind).

Yes, the translation process took time, the key point is the recovery of Classical thought.




Latin was the written language, Germanic tongues spoken. Again, you're looking only at theory and not at practice.

Latin was written and spoken among the intelligensia.

Yes I am looking at theory because it was theory that was used to justify the overturning of monarchic systems.



Do Byzantium, Jerusalem and Alexandria count as part of The West?

The 'West' is not a set geogrpahic point, but the ideas and values of a Civilization. Areas where those values have been replaced by say Islamic notions wouldn't qualify.




The concept of free elections certainly is.

I don't know what this means. Paritcipants in Ecumenical Councils were Bishops, themselves appointed, who were to decide theoretical stances. The last of these was in the 8th Century. This has nothing to do with the governance of a state or the rights of men.




Then what is the inherent characteristic that makes the West better?

I don't know there is an inherent characteristic. I don't even know what that would mean given culture and Civilization are constructs.

[Hurin_Rules]

I thought the Republic and the Laws were both available. Maybe I'm remembering wrong. (constant expossure to leftist thought tends to deaden the mind).


Ah Pindar, my friend, I've known you long enough to recognize that a diversionary, backhand swipe at the left is the closest you can come to admitting an error. I'll just take it for what its worth and keep delivering the tough love. Rock on, buddy. :guitarist:

More to come on your more substantial points when I get a moment free from work.

[Pindar]

Ah Pindar, my friend, I've known you long enough to recognize that a diversionary, backhand swipe at the left is the closest you can come to admitting an error. I'll just take it for what its worth and keep delivering the tough love. Rock on, buddy. :guitarist:

More to come on your more substantial points when I get a moment free from work.


Cheers ~:cheers:

When you reply clarify for me: your position isn't so much contra my claim about democracy and civil liberties arising in the West as much as when this occurred. Is that right? If so why do you consider this important?

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Prove it.

Look at the NEWS. Drugs are not a threat to our way of life. The real harm was done by making them illegal and in fact its the governments ridiculous position on it that causes almost all the problems with drugs. There was no drug problem until the drug laws of the 60s. Most of the deaths from drugs can also be layed squarely at the feet of the government.

[bmolsson]

Prove it.

BOOOOM !!!!! ~D

[Goofball]

Wow. A guy writes an article that says "The war in Iraq was a good idea, detaining people at Gitmo is a necessary and just thing, the Patriot Act doesn't infringe on civil liberties, and western (read "American") culture is superior to all others," and all the conservatives in the Backroom have themselves a love-in gushing over his brilliance.

Who'd of thunk it?

~;)

At any rate, I am aquainted with quite a few lefties, and most of them are even non-American lefties (the worst kind, from what I understand). Never have I heard any of them even hint that they believe American bears any culpability for the Sep11 attacks. This claim is just a tactic used by the right to villify those who have political viewpoints anwhere even slightly left of Ronald Reagan. While there may be a few rabid freaks on the fringe who believe the U.S. "had it coming," on Sep11, it is certainly not mainstream liberal thinking.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

That's not proving it. In September 2001, let's say about 3000 people died from Terrorism in the US. Less actually, were American citizens. I think I can safely say alot more than 3000 people died in the US from drug-related causes in September of 2001.

I knew you would go here. Fuist off less people die from drugs than from terrosim. But many more Americans die from the war on drugs than from the war on Terror. Also by your reasoning the automoblie is a fer greater danger to our way of life than either of these as more peole dir in car accidents. Im talking of threatening our way of life not how many people die from it.


Prove terorism is more dangerous, more of a threat, or otherwise a bigger deal. Or are all Republicans afraid to pull out some hard facts these days?

All it takes to realise Im right is a brain that works.

[Louis de la Ferte Ste Colombe]

Reagardless of any perceived failings, if you recognize the above as 'goods': that science does have positive products, democracies do in fact exist, and civil liberties have recognized legal standing then the point is made.

If the point is: "and that proves the West superior", the existence of democracy as a concept (or science, or civil liberties) is not enough. To be superior, the West would have to be clearly ahead in the exercise of democracy. It's not enough to have thought about it first, to be superior, one also need to apply its finding. And the West has been faulty on that.

It would not come to my mind to claim France is superior to Algeria as far as democracy or civil rights are concerned since WE WERE THE ONE TO DENY THEM THOSE RIGHTS TO START WITH. And for each and all countries in the West, there is a ugly backyard. None of us have been able to stand up for those standard.

Why shall we claim superiority for standard we have not uphold and applied? Worse, we betrayed them multiple times...



As far as the practice/ theory discussion goes about democracy and civil liberties... that's a good example of discussion framing by Pindar.

A good example of non western democracy at works would the Nordic "thing"; given that Pindar defines Western as "Children of the Greek" and that I doubt anyone can trace the thing institution back ot Greece, I'd say it's non western.
The roots of modern day democracy in the land "of the children of the Greek dominated by catholicism and protestantism" are not in Athens... It's only later, once there were already some form of democracy that some people thought of the Greek. As mentionned above, in Western Europe, that would be XIth-XIIIth century.
For Iceland, the thing institution is far older, I think they can claim the title for being the oldest strand of democracy still alive nowadays. I guess it makes them superior. And since they are not "children of the Greek from a catholic-protestant dominated land", I guess we ought not to consider them western.

Unfortunately, as there is no theorical work from VIIIth century Icelander and no philosophical corpus describing it and the principle at work behind it... (none that I know of) chances are we can dismiss it.


We did not even came up with the idea first... Then we stabbed that very idea in the back anyway. But in the name of that very idea, we would claim superiority on others?

Louis,

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Second: Even if you take the cops and the government out of the picture, more people are dying. Overdoses, drug wars between dealerships, ect.
You just dont get it do you? Overdoses and and drug wars are a result of making drugs ilegal.


First off: Automobiles are stupid. Mass Transit would solve most if not all of the Automobile-Related problems. But good luck getting that kind of system in place.

Again theres a big difference between what kills people and what threatens our way of life.


Your argument wreaks of self-rightousness,
I would say the same of you. I dont see how my arguing that terrorissts are a bigger danger to our way of life than drugs makes me self rightous. You however think that your right yet havent made one factual point here.


Maybe I'm just stupid, but around here alot more people die from overdosing on Meth than from Drug-Busts

People OD because the drugs arent regulated. You know like the FDA does. You never know how strong the drug your buying maybe. Again fatalities from something dont make it a threat to our way of life.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

What a load of crap. You think that illegal sale of drugs would end if they became Legal? They'd still sell it on the street, and people would still kill eachother over it.

The only load of crap here was just spewed forth by you. Yes making drugs legal would stop almost all street sales. Why take a chance of goig to jail to make 10 dollars for something you can buy in the store? The only clients left would be kids. You simply make a law anyone caught selling drugs to a kid gets 10 or 20 years minimum. The only reason people sell drugs is theres a huge profit margin in it.

Again this isnt about what or who kills more people.

[Pindar]

If the point is: "and that proves the West superior", the existence of democracy as a concept (or science, or civil liberties) is not enough. To be superior, the West would have to be clearly ahead in the exercise of democracy. It's not enough to have thought about it first, to be superior, one also need to apply its finding. And the West has been faulty on that.

Hypocrisy objections are interesting. If there is a nation say the U.S. that claims: all men are created equal and yet possesses slaves and another society, say a Muslim state where slavery is an age old practice that has no conceptual or legal challenge the argument seems to be moral equivalence. There are a couple ways to respond to this. For example, if popular sovereignty is recognized as a good then one could argue that to the degree it exists, to that same degree there is a manifestation of that good. From this simple perspective it would seem that a state that has some liberty vs. a state that does not is superior. This would apply even to an imperfect model.

There is also the expansion model. Popular sovereignty from inception forward seems to have worked off of a growing recognized circle of participants. The root is typically citizens. Citizens have often been qualified say: male, possessing certain wealth or property, being of a certain age etc. Now the history of the concept has shown this growth to include an ever increasing profile of recognized participants: all men, all races, both genders etc. Now if one wishes to argue that no single point along that process is democratic because it does not include all possibles then the concept loses meaning. I think a more prudent approach is to center the idea around the core concept: popular sovereignty. This means if rule is determined by the citizenry and is amenable to the same (even if that citizenry is not all inclusive) then the label can be applied. As it is applied it can also be justifed and jusification is a moral label.




A good example of non western democracy at works would the Nordic "thing"; given that Pindar defines Western as "Children of the Greek" and that I doubt anyone can trace the thing institution back to Greece, I'd say it's non western.
The roots of modern day democracy in the land "of the children of the Greek dominated by catholicism and protestantism" are not in Athens... It's only later, once there were already some form of democracy that some people thought of the Greek. As mentionned above, in Western Europe, that would be XIth-XIIIth century.
For Iceland, the thing institution is far older, I think they can claim the title for being the oldest strand of democracy still alive nowadays. I guess it makes them superior. And since they are not "children of the Greek from a catholic-protestant dominated land", I guess we ought not to consider them western.

The Althing does appear democratic. I also think one could argue the Vikings had moved beyond simple tribal organization. From my understanding of Icelandic history the Island was not able to maintain its independence. It fell under foreign sovereignty and control from the 13th Cen. Regardless, the 10th Cen. innovation of the Althing is not older than the Athenian model. Therefore the Greeks still get their due. Also, I don't think the Althing had any impact outside of Iceland. The thinkers who were exposed to the idea of democracy looked to recovered Greek texts not Iceland. The critical point however, is the rational tradition of the Greeks was thoroughly a part of Western European culture and consequently the notion of democracy could be appraised afresh in light of the conditions of the time. I think this is exactly what happened in the 17th Cen. when thinkers were working against the Divine Right of Kings model.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

And, yes. It is about what kills more people.

How do you figure that?


People overdose on legal drugs all the time, because it gets them high. If you made them legal for recreational purposes, that would hardly be less Detrimental to society--people would still build up a tolerance to the drug, and eventually overdose. Making them legal for medicinal use only would do nothing to discourage their sale on the streets. You're argument is shot all full of holes.

Would you like to give me some stats on that? Does their doctor over prescribe the drug or do they go out and buy it illegally? Do you really belive prescription drugs are a bigger threat to our way of life than terrorism. This is becoming more ridiculous by the moment.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

That's the best way to gauge it. It's physical proof for your arguments. Spout political drivel all you want for either side of the argument, it's still Bias and still crap.

How soes the thing that kills the most people make it the biggest threat to our way of life? If thats so old age and disease are the biggest threat. Again it to our way of life not to our life that were speaking on.


By all means. I've been trying to get you to post some stats to back up your position since several posts back.

I dont need to as my position is that the number of people killed by these things is totaly irrelevant.


Both. But for those using it medically, it's almost always an accident. Those who get it illegally for recreational purposes die from overdose.

Its far from a threat to our way of life. It seems you just dont get it. You dont think making drugs legal would greatly reduce fatalities. I cant believe Im arguing here basicly for the left in this thread.


Terrorism is not anywhere near as dangerous in America as Drugs. Oklahoma City Bombing, Columbine, Twin Towers the first time, 9/11, ect. Yes, we get the occasional act of senseless violence, but they are rare when compared to people dying every day from overdoses, or inter-dealership drug wars.

Earth to th Cube. Yor right until the first city gets nuked by them. Then I dont want to have to be the one who has to tell you "I told you so" Again its not how many people have died or will die from it but whether it can overthrow our government and way of life. Its not our physical lifes Im speaking of. You simply keep dodging the point and go on about deaths. It irellevant here.

[scooter_the_shooter]

Nukes could be shiped into a port very easily.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Now I must be missing something with your drug Argument. Do you actually think that people would stop dying from them if were made legal for recreational use?

Dont be ridiculous. Of course people will still die from them but a very reduced rate. They in no way threaten our way of life.


Give me a break. If our intelligence agencies and our border gaaurds do their jobs right, there is no way someone could get a Nuke off within the US. They are large devices, and complicated to build. You would either have to smuggle one in or build one here in the US--both of which are impossible if the powers that be do their job. Mind you, it's not inconcievable that someone could sneak a Nuke through the Mexican Border, but that's because the Administration is too pussy to tell Vincent Fox to shove it, and ruthlessly enforce the border laws.

Are you serious? They can smuggle hundreds of thousand of people accross our borders every year and millions of pounds of drugs accross our borders but not a suitcase nuke? Its time you faced reality here. How much damage do they have to do before you realise the threat?

[scooter_the_shooter]

In a way they are because they harm the country.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Like I said before, the Border problem is the Government's fault. And Mexicans coming accross the Border are hardly terrorists, if that's what you're trying to imply.

So you think its only mexicans who are sneaking accross the border?

Besides that the recent bombings in London show that even entirely closing the border cant stop these people. Radical Islam is not only the biggest threat to our way of life but of the entire free world.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

And as long as you fail to acknowledge that more people die from Drugs (which should not be made legal, in my opinion) than from Terrorism within the United States, this argument will go nowhere.

Ive always acknowleded that. You just dont get the fact that its irellevant here. Again terroism THREATENS to kill many more and in fact overthrow our government.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Says who? I maintain that the terrorist threat here in the US is overstated greatly. Without it, the Bush administration could never get away with half the crap it does.
Well your entitled to your opinion but can you back it up. Im glad were at least starting to discuss the real subject. Excatly what crap are you speaking of? So you think however it seems that they are doing a good job of protecting us it seems or there is no threat. I find that again very naive looking at what has happened around the world over the last few decades.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

The FBI is sufficient to deal with internal threats, and the CIA is sufficient to make sure External threats don't find their way inside.

Again theres 3000 dead people in my city who would dissagree with this.


And then he used the Patriot Act to butcher the constitution.

Thats pretty funny. Once more much of the Patriot act was taken from our drug laws which are much more invasive and unconstitional than the Patriot act.


I have motive, I have circumstance. What do you have?

You have nothing. I have attacks upon us and others by them for over 30 years.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

You are taking that out of context. Badly too, since the rest of the context is right in that post. I said 9/11 happened because the FBI and CIA have become too politicized. The breaking point happened in the '80s, I think. To truly prevent future attacks we don't need Homeland Security or Patriot Acts, we need to de-politicize the CIA and FBI. They need to cease being agencies of politics, and do what they are supposed to do.

No what was needed was the homeland security act which was designt do just whar asking for and it seems theve been succesful. So far at least.


We went over this several pages back. I still stand by what I said then.

D you realise how invasive and unconstitutional these drug laws are? Theymake the patriot act look like the Emancipation Declaration.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

I know nobody is using the Drug Laws for Malicious Purposes. I can't say alot of that for the Patriot Act.

They use it to tap your phones and all sort of other invasive things. They also confiscate your property. There is probably no laws that are more missused for profit by the government and trample our freedoms. I gues as long as YOU agree with there program the constitutionality of these laws matters not but ones that ar far less intrusive like the Patriot act are wrong. The only way to stop drug use is education. Once more making them ilegal has proven only to exasterbate the problem.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

I'll tell you what: How about we call them both unconstitutional, scrap them, and find legal ways to do things?

Well we really do think much alike. I can go for that. ~:cheers:

[Xiahou]

There is probably no laws that are more missused for profit by the government and trample our freedoms.
What about traffic law? :hide:

[Hurin_Rules]

Cheers ~:cheers:
When you reply clarify for me: your position isn't so much contra my claim about democracy and civil liberties arising in the West as much as when this occurred. Is that right? If so why do you consider this important?

My objections are mostly to the following:

1. The privileging of the west over other cultures. In some spheres this can be done--there is no doubt the west was more technologically advanced than others in the mid-20th century. But how does one judge morality? The value of a culture's beliefs? I know you believe you can find some objective standard, but I don't. And I've seen what happens when one culture thinks it is superior to others, from the horrors of colonialism to Nazi expansionism. I don't want to go back down that road of a 'white man's burden'. We must treat all cultures not as means, to paraphrase Kant, but as ends in themselves.

2. The idea that the Greeks thought of everything first and that the West invented everything about science and democracy. This is just ahistorical. Like any culture, the west borrowed a lot from its neighbours. Moreover, the historical record does not unfold in such a simplistic progression from bad to good as Hanson tries to prove. Greek-style emocracy was abortive in Greece and had little effect on 'the West' (another monolithic construct that, like 'feudalism' or 'the decline and fall of the Roman empire' does almost as much harm, historiographically speaking, as it does good) for millenia (see below). Moreover, privileging Western science over all other culture's scientific discoveries is both ignorant and erroneous. The chinese invented many of the greatest scientific discoveries of the classical and medieval and even early modern worlds. Arabic learning and science was leaps and bounds ahead of the West for most of the Middle Ages. European doctors even at the end of the Renaissance were still using the Arabic works as their basic textbooks. The list goes on and on. So in terms of discoveries, there is no question that many other cultures have made innovations as valuable and significant as those of the West. In terms of methodology, yes, the West has played the dominant role in developing it since the renaissance. I have no problem recognizing that. But to see science as a whole as the West's child, without acknowledging its mother, is rather silly.



The Althing does appear democratic. I also think one could argue the Vikings had moved beyond simple tribal organization. From my understanding of Icelandic history the Island was not able to maintain its independence. It fell under foreign sovereignty and control from the 13th Cen. Regardless, the 10th Cen. innovation of the Althing is not older than the Athenian model. Therefore the Greeks still get their due. Also, I don't think the Althing had any impact outside of Iceland. The thinkers who were exposed to the idea of democracy looked to recovered Greek texts not Iceland. The critical point however, is the rational tradition of the Greeks was thoroughly a part of Western European culture and consequently the notion of democracy could be appraised afresh in light of the conditions of the time. I think this is exactly what happened in the 17th Cen. when thinkers were working against the Divine Right of Kings model.

Iceland fell under the sway of foreign powers, but the assemblies were maintained. Hence, Iceland remains the oldest continuing democracy in Europe. Why do you think the Allthing is younger than the Athenian model? What I'm getting at is that the germanic and Celtic peoples had a history of tribal assemblies that go back to the time of Homer. Why are you assuming that they did not exist during Athens' golden age? Why do you assume that since they could not write, they could not hold tribal assemblies? Also, the Allthing did have an impact outside of Iceland, if you consider that it was an expression of practical, Germanic ideas about political organization. This was an ancient folk belief that required consultation of the community before any change was initiated. Your statment that 'The thinkers who were exposed to the idea of democracy looked to recovered Greek texts not Iceland' is both vaguely worded and circular. If they were exposed the the idea of [Greek] democracy, of course they were looking to the Greeks! But you don't note that these were very few and not particularly influential. Few people had read any of the Greeks when the Allthing, the English Parliament, the French estates general, the Spanish cortes, the communes of Lombardy and Flanders were created. Nor is your statment that Greek democracy was 'thoroughly a part of Western culture' borne out by the facts. Certainly not when representative parliaments and communal governments appeared in 'the West' in the high Middle Ages, which is the only source and period to which our modern democratic sytsems can be traced in an unbroken line. You've been led astray by a classicist (Hanson) who doesn't understand the medieval material, and by a historiographical tradition that is dated, inaccurate and circular.

[Pindar]

My objections are mostly to the following:

1. The privileging of the west over other cultures. In some spheres this can be done--there is no doubt the west was more technologically advanced than others in the mid-20th century. But how does one judge morality?

One judges morally by appeal to morals. My morality says that Aztec society sacrificing tens of thousands of people to the sun is inferior to say Modern Britain.



2. The idea that the Greeks thought of everything first and that the West invented everything about science and democracy. This is just ahistorical.

I have never argued the Greeks thought of everything. Nor have I argued the Greeks invented science. I did argue democracy is a Greek product. I have also explained I don't consider tribal or personal compacts as civilizational models. Civilizations can only be compared to other civilizations.



Iceland fell under the sway of foreign powers, but the assemblies were maintained. Hence, Iceland remains the oldest continuing democracy in Europe.

If a land is not independent it cannot claim democratic nation status.


Why do you think the Allthing is younger than the Athenian model?

Because the Allthing dates from the 10th Cen. A.D. and the Athenian model dates from the 5th Cen. B.C.


Also, the Allthing did have an impact outside of Iceland, if you consider that it was an expression of practical, Germanic ideas about political organization.

You're arguing that the Germans looked to Iceland as the model for their society? Who did this, when and where?


Your statment that 'The thinkers who were exposed to the idea of democracy looked to recovered Greek texts not Iceland' is both vaguely worded and circular. If they were exposed the the idea of [Greek] democracy, of course they were looking to the Greeks!

I did not say "Greek" democracy. I said: "The thinkers who were exposed to the idea of democracy looked to recovered Greek texts not Iceland." I don't think this is vague. This means the concept democracy and the texts that discuss it were Greek not Icelandic. I don't know of any Enlightenment thinkers who appealed to Iceland.


Nor is your statment that Greek democracy was 'thoroughly a part of Western culture' borne out by the facts.

This is not what I wrote. I wrote: "The critical point however, is the rational tradition of the Greeks was thoroughly a part of Western European culture and consequently the notion of democracy could be appraised afresh in light of the conditions of the time." Rationality is a Greek construct. This was part of the Western Tradition, all the more by the time of the Enlightenment. It was through rational appeal that democratic revolution was justified.


The chronological argument does not impact the more general notion that democracy is a Western construct.

None of this effects the thrust of the essay which is focused on divison within Western ranks.

[Hurin_Rules]

One judges morally by appeal to morals. My morality says that Aztec society sacrificing tens of thousands of people to the sun is inferior to say Modern Britain.

The example is facile. How about the Greeks telling you your system of government is not a democracy because you don't get to vote yourself, but rather you rely on representatives? Which is better? Why is it you that gets to decide?



I have never argued the Greeks thought of everything. Nor have I argued the Greeks invented science. I did argue democracy is a Greek product. I have also explained I don't consider tribal or personal compacts as civilizational models. Civilizations can only be compared to other civilizations.

You are defining your ideas into existence. What exactly is 'civilization'? Was medieval Europe a 'civilization', according to your definition? If you're going to make the arguments that tribal societies don't count as civilizations, then go ahead and make it. But you haven't yet.



If a land is not independent it cannot claim democratic nation status.

Yet it can claim to have maintained democratic institutions, and the oldest continuous ones have nothing to do with the Greeks.



Because the Allthing dates from the 10th Cen. A.D. and the Athenian model dates from the 5th Cen. B.C.

You're arguing that the Germans looked to Iceland as the model for their society? Who did this, when and where?

I'm saying germanic assemblies where consensus ruled predate written records of the allthing. It wasn't just the Icelanders who had them. We can see them already in Merovingian placita and even as far back as Tacitus. Why do you assume they only began at the exact moment when they left us their first written record?



I did not say "Greek" democracy. I said: "The thinkers who were exposed to the idea of democracy looked to recovered Greek texts not Iceland." I don't think this is vague. This means the concept democracy and the texts that discuss it were Greek not Icelandic. I don't know of any Enlightenment thinkers who appealed to Iceland.

Nor do I know of any representatives at the Allthing who appealed to Cleisthenes.

Your sentence was leading. You have narrowly defined democracy to rule out most of the democracies that have existed in the world. Then you use this definition to show that only the Greeks could have invented democracy. You're looking only at thinkers, not at practice, as if democracy were merely the progressive reification of philosophical musings from on high. That's putting the cart before the horse. When democracy first really began to take hold in western Europe, long after the Greek abortion, practice preceeded theory.



The chronological argument does not impact the more general notion that democracy is a Western construct.

Ah yes but it does. I thought I was being clear, but let me spell it out in detail then: if you cease to define democracy anachronistically as something only the Greeks could have developed, you see that democracy is not the exclusive preserve of Western culture. Native Americans, Africans, Asians... all of them can point to times in the past when their tribal societies worked by community and consensus. This is a shared world heritage, not the brainchild of the West.



None of this effects the thrust of the essay which is focused on divison within Western ranks.

Ah yes, we wouldn't want to question ourselves as we create our worldwide empire now, would we? That would seriously undermine the Pax Romana.. I mean Pax Britannia... I mean Third Reich... I mean Pax Americana... I mean New World Order.... Wait, I need some help: which euphemism are we using for imperialism now?

[Pindar]

The example is facile. How about the Greeks telling you your system of government is not a democracy because you don't get to vote yourself, but rather you rely on representatives? Which is better? Why is it you that gets to decide?

The definition of democracy is not a moral concern. Judgment of Aztec human sacrifice vis-a-vis Modern Britain is.

Modern Britain is better.

I can decide because I am a moral being.




You are defining your ideas into existence. What exactly is 'civilization'? Was medieval Europe a 'civilization', according to your definition? If you're going to make the arguments that tribal societies don't count as civilizations, then go ahead and make it. But you haven't yet.

I think the standard use of Civilization is a complex society involving: metal working, a writing system, societal division of roles (political roles, labor roles etc.) cities with an attendant level of engineering, an established agricultural system, the development of abstract thought etc.

I think parts of Medieval Europe were civilized, other parts weren't.




Yet it can claim to have maintained democratic institutions, and the oldest continuous ones have nothing to do with the Greeks.

If Iceland was not independent it was not democratic. Popular sovereignty must be maintained to be democratic.

I don't think you have understood my position. I have argued that the Greeks developed democracy. Therefore at the impetus of the Western Traditon democracy was an extant principle. The West is a product of the Greeks and the Classical Tradition. Part of this product is rationality. Rationality was used to develop anew democratic notions.



I'm saying germanic assemblies where consensus ruled predate written records of the allthing. It wasn't just the Icelanders who had them. We can see them already in Merovingian placita and even as far back as Tacitus. Why do you assume they only began at the exact moment when they left us their first written record?

I haven't assumed anything. I simply stated the Allthing is from the 10th Cen. and therefore younger that the Athenian model. I also said I doubted Iceland influenced Germany.



Nor do I know of any representatives at the Allthing who appealed to Cleisthenes.

So you wouldn't argue the Greeks impacted Iceland and would agree the Icelanders didn't impact the Enlightenment I assume.


Your sentence was leading. You have narrowly defined democracy to rule out most of the democracies that have existed in the world. Then you use this definition to show that only the Greeks could have invented democracy. You're looking only at thinkers, not at practice, as if democracy were merely the progressive reification of philosophical musings from on high. That's putting the cart before the horse. When democracy first really began to take hold in western Europe, long after the Greek abortion, practice preceeded theory.

I haven't narrowly defined democracy. I consider democracy as popular sovereignty. Sovereignty implies an organized state. A state implies distinctions of membership i.e. a political body: citizens.

I look at "thinkers" because they informed the Modern reality.
The Medieval World was dominated by Monarchic systems. Other political variants tended to be eventually absorbed. These other models are after the Classical model and did not form the intellectual framework or what was to follow.




Ah yes but it does. I thought I was being clear, but let me spell it out in detail then: if you cease to define democracy anachronistically as something only the Greeks could have developed, you see that democracy is not the exclusive preserve of Western culture. Native Americans, Africans, Asians... all of them can point to times in the past when their tribal societies worked by community and consensus. This is a shared world heritage, not the brainchild of the West.

I don't accept barbaric practice or private practice as demonstrative. One of the reasons is because as societies develop these penchants tend to be replaced by more autocratic forms. One of the reasons for this is because the rule of law is yet to develop.




Ah yes, we wouldn't want to question ourselves as we create our worldwide empire now, would we? That would seriously undermine the Pax Romana.. I mean Pax Britannia... I mean Third Reich... I mean Pax Americana... I mean New World Order.... Wait, I need some help: which euphemism are we using for imperialism now?

Put your anti-Americanism back in its box. You really should try and overcome your inferiority complex.

[Hurin_Rules]

I'm off to a wedding for the weekend, so I won't be able to respond point by point till Monday, but there were three things I just had to address before then:



I look at "thinkers" because they informed the Modern reality.

And the 'doers' did not? Why do you assume 'thinkers' were more important than 'doers'? This I really just do not understand. Is it perhaps because you are more familiar with thought than with practice, and it is easier to research?



The Medieval World was dominated by Monarchic systems. Other political variants tended to be eventually absorbed. These other models are after the Classical model and did not form the intellectual framework or what was to follow.


Sorry, but that is just plain wrong. In fact, communal governments tended not to be absorbed but in fact to absorb the monarchies. Take a look at Germany and Italy.




Put your anti-Americanism back in its box. You really should try and overcome your inferiority complex.

It's anti-Imperialism, not anti-Americanism, and no, I will not be silenced.

Ok, that's it for now. Have a good weekend!

~:cheers:

[Pindar]

I'm off to a wedding for the weekend, so I won't be able to respond point by point till Monday, but there were three things I just had to address before then:

Lets see. Canada legalizes gay marriage. Hurin excuses himself...for a wedding. Hmmmm, could it be?




And the 'doers' did not? Why do you assume 'thinkers' were more important than 'doers'? This I really just do not understand. Is it perhaps because you are more familiar with thought than with practice, and it is easier to research?

Modern democracy's founding made a distinct theoretical appeal. That appeal is tied to the rational tradition. That is the point.



Sorry, but that is just plain wrong. In fact, communal governments tended not to be absorbed but in fact to absorb the monarchies. Take a look at Germany and Italy.

Both what became Germany and Italy were unified under a monarchy. Prior to that action the regions were composed primarily of aristocratic and oligarchic polities. Further, large swaths of both were under the suzerainty of an Emperor.



It's anti-Imperialism, not anti-Americanism, and no, I will not be silenced.

You don't need to be silenced just a little less consistently hostile towards those who are not your enemies.

I'm glad to see the anti-imperialism. Now get the queen off your money!


Ok, that's it for now. Have a good weekend!

~:cheers:

You too. Cheers. ~:cheers:

[Hurin_Rules]

Lets see. Canada legalizes gay marriage. Hurin excuses himself...for a wedding. Hmmmm, could it be?

Haha. I guess I should have specified-- someone else's wedding. No, I'm not gay... not that there's anything wrong with that.



You don't need to be silenced just a little less consistently hostile towards those who are not your enemies.

Fair enough. I just really, really, really dislike the way in which the 'War on Terror' (or 'struggle against extremism', which is the Pentagon's new name for it, realizing that if its a War they might actually be judged to be losing it) has resurrected the ideas and even the terminology of the nineteenth century. We're back to barbarism vs. civilization, good vs. evil, savagery vs. enlightenment etc. I almost expect people to start talking of the White Man's Burden again. Yech.



I'm glad to see the anti-imperialism. Now get the queen off your money!


I'm perfectly willing to boot the old lady off the loonie. Would you reciprocate by removing 'In God we trust' from yours?

[Pindar]

... not that there's anything wrong with that.

That's what I hear.



Fair enough. I just really, really, really dislike the way in which the 'War on Terror' (or 'struggle against extremism', which is the Pentagon's new name for it, realizing that if its a War they might actually be judged to be losing it) has resurrected the ideas and even the terminology of the nineteenth century. We're back to barbarism vs. civilization, good vs. evil, savagery vs. enlightenment etc. I almost expect people to start talking of the White Man's Burden again. Yech.

I think Islamo-fascism is a barbarism, evil and savage. You disagree I take it.



I'm perfectly willing to boot the old lady off the loonie. Would you reciprocate by removing 'In God we trust' from yours?

Sure. I'll send a memo.

[Hurin_Rules]

I think Islamo-fascism is a barbarism, evil and savage. You disagree I take it.

I don't believe in evil as a metaphysical construct, so that is right out. I put it in the same category as God. Barbarism and savagery I would only use in very specific contexts. They have been used to justify imperialism far too often: those people aren't like us, they are therefore savage, and whatever we do to them will be an improvement. Killing more people is somehow justified if you're 'civilized' and they are 'barbarians'.

Do you really find the rhetoric of civilization/savagery to be useful?

[Pindar]

I don't believe in evil as a metaphysical construct, so that is right out. I put it in the same category as God.

I understand. I see rape, torturing children, beheading civilians etc. as evil. We disagree.


Barbarism and savagery I would only use in very specific contexts. They have been used to justify imperialism far too often: those people aren't like us, they are therefore savage, and whatever we do to them will be an improvement. Killing more people is somehow justified if you're 'civilized' and they are 'barbarians'.

That has certainly been the case.


Do you really find the rhetoric of civilization/savagery to be useful?

Yes.

[Hurin_Rules]

I understand. I see rape, torturing children, beheading civilians etc. as evil. We disagree.

I see them as bad, and as things that should be stopped, but not Evil with a capital E, because I don't believe that Evil subsists.

Were the Americans who tortured detainees at Abu Ghraib evil?

[Pindar]

I see them as bad, and as things that should be stopped, but not Evil with a capital E, because I don't believe that Evil subsists.

If bad is a moral judgment then I'm not really sure why the semantic distinction save perhaps to say that torturing children doesn't really meet the maximal condemnation. If bad is not a moral charge then I don't know how you are using the word.


Were the Americans who tortured detainees at Abu Ghraib evil?

Depends on the definition of torture. I don't consider panties on someone's head or dog collars torture. If we are talking about cutting off limbs or beating to death then I would say yes.

[bmolsson]

Depends on the definition of torture. I don't consider panties on someone's head or dog collars torture. If we are talking about cutting off limbs or beating to death then I would say yes.


Maybe the guy's in Gitmo have a different sexual orientation than you Pindar, so they don't appreciate the mentioned appliances..... ~;)

[Adrian II]

Modern Britain is better.
I can decide because I am a moral being.The first sentence of that statement couldn't be more true. The second sentence, however, made me laugh out loud. And that contradiction made me think. I believe the second sentence exposes a major weakness in your position.

Western civilization can boast of unique accomplishments that we should cherish and defend with our lives, not ignore, debase or sell out to the first (or second) president or terrorist who comes along. The West is superior (or rather: has been superior until now) in the various ways that you state.
The West is superior. Three simple examples: the advent of democracy, the creation of science, the rise of civil liberties.And Isabelle Adjani, I would add. All those who have watched that scene where she rises naked from a bathtub will immediately understand her inclusion in a list of Western civilizational achievements.

But here's the rub: the fact that the West produced these superior institutions does not mean that westerners are superior human beings. The West has changed the world, but it has not managed to change human nature. And I don't think we ever will, at least not in our lifetime, unless by crude genetic and pharmaceutical means with very uncertain outcomes.

I agree with Victor Davis Hanson's position that sees..
.. human nature as unchanging and history as therefore replete with a rich heritage of tragic lessons.Which gives rise to the following question: how could these superior institutions have evolved in the face of immutable human nature? Why are they successful? My answer would be that they are superior responses to the 'tragic lessons' mentioned (I guess that, in a way, I am betraying my Dutch calvinist roots here).

As fas as democracy is concerned, I think that it is successful not because it reflects a superior human nature or moral position of people in the West, but because democracy is better than other, previous political systems at containing human nature and channeling its aspirations and energies in productive ways. It is the best system for humans to mutually check and balance their ambitions, to their mutual advantage. In other words, democracy is the best palliative for the disease called 'society'. This rhetorical short-cut is not meant to devalue democracy in any way, but this is a Internet forum post, not a Ph.D. thesis.

In a similar way, science is a superior response to eternal human curiosity and civil liberties are a superior response to the eternal human yearning to be socially and intellectually free. Of course these three major civilizational accomplishments have deep historic roots; so has human nature. Of course they can be traced back to Antiquity and the dawn of written sources; so can human nature. Of course they have roots and precursors in any historical civilization and in the remotest corners of the world: so has human nature. And of course, for that very same reason, they appeal to the large majority of mankind.

Pindar may well be right that these institutions could evolve more easily in Europe as a consequence of European historic fragmentation and competition between neighbouring political systems, competing religions and rival ideologies. We will never now because we can not experiment with history, turn back clocks or change historical outcomes.

And Pindar is certainly right that Asian cultures have no hang-ups about their superiority. Ask any Japanese, Chinese or Indian what they think of their civilization, and nine out of ten will shamelessly vaunt its superiority and (in the case of Japan) its superior uniqueness as well. Westerners, on the other hand, have always displayed and cultivated a great curiosity about other civilizations. Remember who invented anthropology.

On a side-note I would say that socialism is, in my view, a fourth major accomplishment of Western civilization, 'invented' in nineteenth century Germany and spreading across the world ever since. Arguments that socialism runs counter to human nature don't cut it with me. So does democracy, and look how we embraced that system after its numerous failures and in spite of lingering (and oft justified) doubts about its outcomes.

Now back to my initial question: what justifies our judgment that modern Britain is superior to Aztek society? I think it is justified by the knowledge that we have drawn from the aforementioned 'tragic lessons' of human failure and conflict. We know that our way of life is superior, we know that there are no Gods who demand human sacrifice, we know that dictatorship and slavery are both unproductive and unjust. As individuals we may not all be morally superior to an Aztek high priest, but our institutions are.

PS Superior topic, Pindar! :bow:

[bmolsson]

Now back to my initial question: what justifies our judgment that modern Britain is superior to Aztek society? I think it is justified by the knowledge that we have drawn from the aforementioned 'tragic lessons' of human failure and conflict. We know that our way of life is superior, we know that there are no Gods who demand human sacrifice, we know that dictatorship and slavery are both unproductive and unjust. As individuals we may not all be morally superior to an Aztek high priest, but our institutions are.


You don't know how the Aztek institution would have looked like today, if they would have been allowed to develop.
Warfare isn't a measurement on superiority, neither is resistance to small pox. Most western culture did have human sacrifice in their history.

Further more, ther is nothing that says that dictatorship and slavery are both unproductive and unjust. Look at China today...... ~D

[Adrian II]

Further more, ther is nothing that says that dictatorship and slavery are both unproductive and unjust. Look at China today...... ~DI suppose this is a joke, but with BMolsson you never know.. ~:cool:

So I'll answer your point anyway. Yes, slavery is unjust because nothing that we know of justifies the legal ownership of one race by another, or one group of people by another.

And we know that slavery is unproductive (or rather; less productive than free labour) as well. Slaves do not work any harder than they have to in order to survive and prevent being sanctioned by their masters. Therefore every nation will try to develop beyond that stage as soon as it can, to cut bond labour and child labour, to introduce minimum wages and to set about modernising its economy and social system.

[Tribesman]

Yes, slavery is unjust because nothing that we know of justifies the legal ownership of one race by another, or one group of people by another.
Rubbish , slavery is right and slavery is just , it says so in the bible ~;)

[Franconicus]

...On a side-note I would say that socialism is, in my view, a fourth major accomplishment of Western civilization, 'invented' in nineteenth century Germany and spreading across the world ever since. ...
Adrian, this is too much honor. :bow:
German philosophers did their share. But do not forget the British socialists (like Morris) or even the French (Proudhon). We owe them a lot. Even the British capitalists. They were always a source of inspiration for socialism.

[Adrian II]

Adrian, this is too much honor. :bow:
German philosophers did their share. But do not forget the British socialists (like Morris) or even the French (Proudhon). We owe them a lot. Even the British capitalists. They were always a source of inspiration for socialism.Franconicus, you are a gentleman. As is the case with the other achievements, the roots of socialism can be traced far back in history, from Plato's Republic to the oldest African village economy. In the Middle East they can already be found in the Sermon on the Mount. Through the ages some of the world's major religions, both Western and non-Western, have been the bearers of socialist notions of social justice and collective responsibility, as well as laboratories for the practice of these ideas. Socialism was baptized by the French revolutionary Gracchus Babeuf somewhere around 1790, but its main tenets go back as far as mankind's known history for the same reaons I mentioned in connection with the other civilizational achievements.

[Franconicus]

Franconicus, you are a gentleman. As is the case with the other achievements, the roots of socialism can be traced far back in history, from Plato's Republic to the oldest African village economy. In the Middle East they can already be found in the Sermon on the Mount. Through the ages some of the world's major religions, both Western and non-Western, have been the bearers of socialist notions of social justice and collective responsibility, as well as laboratories for the practice of these ideas. Socialism was baptized by the French revolutionary Gracchus Babeuf somewhere around 1790, but its main tenets go back as far as mankind's known history for the same reaons I mentioned in connection with the other civilizational achievements.
Adrian, your knowledge is beyond comparison! :bow:
It is great to have a person with your wisdom and politeness back in the org :bow::bow:

[Louis de la Ferte Ste Colombe]

Hypocrisy objections are interesting. If there is a nation say the U.S. that claims: all men are created equal and yet possesses slaves and another society, say a Muslim state where slavery is an age old practice that has no conceptual or legal challenge the argument seems to be moral equivalence. There are a couple ways to respond to this. For example, if popular sovereignty is recognized as a good then one could argue that to the degree it exists, to that same degree there is a manifestation of that good. From this simple perspective it would seem that a state that has some liberty vs. a state that does not is superior. This would apply even to an imperfect model.

I am tempted to say; so what?

There are two points that bother me here:
- being just merely slightly better is probably not enough to lecture other country how they shall rule themselves; there is an attitude behaviour problem with lecturing people when you hardly do any better. In your example, if we take Pre civil war US and any other non western country with slaves, I can probably agree that some freedom is better than no freedom at all, however, however I would find it very rich for Pre Civil war US to lecture that non western state about slavery, because at least in the US, there is some notion of freedom. Got a pretty big piece of wood in your face.
- I also think that case would be far more convincing if the West and other countries had been completly separated. Too bad, they had not. To go back to slavery, not only we had slaves, (just like the non western), but we help spread it all other the world, and actively discourage other countries to move away from it... Triangular trade for slave is a western invention too, and slavery on Africa West Coast would never has reached that extent without our interference.
It's not about superior in an imperfect model; it's us keeping them low on purpose and at our convenience...


There is also the expansion model. Popular sovereignty from inception forward seems to have worked off of a growing recognized circle of participants. The root is typically citizens. Citizens have often been qualified say: male, possessing certain wealth or property, being of a certain age etc. Now the history of the concept has shown this growth to include an ever increasing profile of recognized participants: all men, all races, both genders etc. Now if one wishes to argue that no single point along that process is democratic because it does not include all possibles then the concept loses meaning. I think a more prudent approach is to center the idea around the core concept: popular sovereignty. This means if rule is determined by the citizenry and is amenable to the same (even if that citizenry is not all inclusive) then the label can be applied. As it is applied it can also be justifed and jusification is a moral label.

Funny how we move away from the three basic notion you mentionned before...

Again, for a topic whose title is "the left false narrative" that is a funny statement... Given that the left is, in most countries, the force that pushed for the extension of that circle.

And you are still reharsing the same argument. But that does not counter the hypocrisy argument the slightest... Apply the label all you want, that does not change the fact we were actively denying to others...

Was the US a democracy before the civil war? Sure it was, I am not denying that label under the pretexte that it was not all inclusive. Would that allow the US to parade around lecturing others how better they are? Certainly not.



The Althing does appear democratic. I also think one could argue the Vikings had moved beyond simple tribal organization. From my understanding of Icelandic history the Island was not able to maintain its independence. It fell under foreign sovereignty and control from the 13th Cen. Regardless, the 10th Cen. innovation of the Althing is not older than the Athenian model. Therefore the Greeks still get their due. Also, I don't think the Althing had any impact outside of Iceland. The thinkers who were exposed to the idea of democracy looked to recovered Greek texts not Iceland. The critical point however, is the rational tradition of the Greeks was thoroughly a part of Western European culture and consequently the notion of democracy could be appraised afresh in light of the conditions of the time. I think this is exactly what happened in the 17th Cen. when thinkers were working against the Divine Right of Kings model.


The "thing" institution also existed in other Nordic countries.... Sweden, Norway...

Whether Athenians were first or not does not really matters, we're talking about living democracy, and the Greek one was long dead. Not so for Iceland and other Nordic countries (although, at some point it was only living at a local level).

Thinkers had looked at Greece and Rome. But living democracy in "modern" Western Europe came before those thinkers.
You also seem to think that people who took la Bastille on July 14th had all read Montesquieu... Chances are they did not. That's "post fact rationalization". Bastille day and the French Revolution would have happened with or without Athens, and with or without l'esprit des lois. You overstate the importance of Enlightement thinkers on the Revolution. For the French craftmen living in Paris, the revolution was more about royal scandal, unfair tax burden and bankruptucy than about Greek ideals.

Louis,

[Louis de la Ferte Ste Colombe]

And Isabelle Adjani, I would add. All those who have watched that scene where she rises naked from a bathtub will immediately understand her inclusion in a list of Western civilizational achievements.

She is Algerian ~:cool: ~D


Sir, your argumentation, although proved false, would have been better served with Monica Belluci anyway.

Louis,

PS: unless the major achievement was the bathtub, in which case, I'd like to apologize for my misunderstanding...

[Don Corleone]

What move does Isabelle Adjani get nekkid in??? :smitten:

[Louis VI the Fat]

And Isabelle Adjani, I would add. All those who have watched that scene where she rises naked from a bathtub will immediately understand her inclusion in a list of Western civilizational achievements.
She is Algerian ~:cool: ~D

Sir, your argumentation, although proved false, would have been better served with Monica Belluci anyway.

Louis,

PS: unless the major achievement was the bathtub, in which case, I'd like to apologize for my misunderstanding...The 'her' in Adrian's post can in English, unlike in French, only refer to living beings, not things. The unimaginative Anglosaxon mind does not think of a bathtub as a metaphysical female entity. ~;)

[Hurin_Rules]

If bad is a moral judgment then I'm not really sure why the semantic distinction save perhaps to say that torturing children doesn't really meet the maximal condemnation. If bad is not a moral charge then I don't know how you are using the word.


I'm using the distinction Nietzsche first elucidated in his Genealogy of Morals. Yes, it is a moral charge. I define things as good and bad, rather than Good and Evil. Good and Evil imply that morality is absolute and unchanging, that what is Good now will always be good for all people. Good and bad imply a relativistic morality. When I make the charge that something is bad I am simply saying bad from my perspective, recognizing that others may disagree.



Depends on the definition of torture. I don't consider panties on someone's head or dog collars torture. If we are talking about cutting off limbs or beating to death then I would say yes.

Where then do you stand on chaining people in stress positions for 20 hours at a time, jumping on their naked bodies, grinding their hands into concrete with combat boots, ordering your dogs to bite them, sodomizing them with flashlights and beating them to death in interrogations?

Anyway, you've said that those that beat prisoners to death were evil. I've just never found Evil a productive explanation for human behavior. It seems like a cop out to me, no offense. Why did Hitler hate the Jews? Oh, he was just evil. Why did terrorists attack on 9/11? Oh, they're just evil. But note how facile and divisive this is: it could be applied to anything. Why do Americans support Mubarak and Musharraf? Oh, theyr'e just evil. It avoids actually having to look at the facts of the matter. It promotes division and intolerance. It is a metaphysical rather than a scientific explanation.

I don't want to sidetrack this thread, expecially since it has sprung to life anew, and inevitably a discussion between you and me about the nature of evil would do precisely this. However, to return to the matter at hand: The problem with Hanson's idea of the 'left's false narrative' is not only its historical inaccuracies, but the fact that it obviates any serious understanding of why the terrorists are doing what they are doing. Simply saying 'they are Evil' is very comforting, I am sure; but it tells us nothing about the facts of the matter.

[Adrian II]

She is Algerian ~:cool: ~D She is French. Check for yourself (http://www.isabelleadjani.net), you self-deflating excuse for a soufflé. :mellow:


Isabelle Yasmine Adjani est née à Paris 17ème le 27 juin 1955. Elle a un frère de quelques années plus jeune, Eric, célèbre photographe. C'est en 1969, au lycée de Courbevoie, que la découvre l'assistant du réalisateur Bernard Toublanc-Michel qui lui propose le rôle principal de son film Le petit Bougnat. Etc. etc.

[Louis de la Ferte Ste Colombe]

Since when is anyone checking anything here :furious3: ? I thought it was the place to discuss stupid generalisation, and put forward lie as truth! I want my money back!

Ok, her parents are algerian ~D

Louis,

PS: by the way being born somewhere does not mean she is not of whatever citizenship ~D am only nitpicking ~D
Although, being born in France means being a French citizen, she may very well have both citizenship if she so wishes.

[Adrian II]

Although, being born in France means being a French citizen (..)Aha, yes. Now, I don't want to nit-pick either, but here we touch upon one of the superior characteristics of French immigration policy. It does not attribute nationality according to 'blood and soil' principles, but according to those of Ernest Renan: all individuals who support and respect a nation's institutions are considered part of that nation.

Adjani is a French institution.

Nuff said. ~:handball:

[Pindar]

The first sentence of that statement couldn't be more true. The second sentence, however, made me laugh out loud. And that contradiction made me think. I believe the second sentence exposes a major weakness in your position.

Hello AdrianII,

Nice to here from you. I actually listened to I believe a colleague of yours the other day. I can't recall his name, but I think the fellow's name was something like De Veers. He has taken over the column that used to be handled by the murdered Van Goth. My guess is the position he was arguing is not very popular in your homeland.

Anyway, back to the matter at hand: I agree with most of your post. I only have a few minor comments. The first refers to the above quote: I don't believe there is any contradiction in a moral position making moral conclusions. I don't think it is a weakness either.

I don't think any one is arguing Western people are superior. People are people regardless of time or place. The focus, or rather my focus, was on civilizational mores.

I'll leave socialism aside for another time.

Now, to your major failing. Western Civilization's greatest achievement is not Isabelle Adjani (http://morganea.free.fr/Interviews/Photo3.jpg) , but Monica Bellucci (http://www.idolpleasures.com/m_bellucci/pages/m_bellucci13_jpg.htm). This should be a self evident truth. Go and sin no more.

[Pindar]

- being just merely slightly better is probably not enough to lecture...

Perhaps, but slightly better is still, well better.



Was the US a democracy before the civil war? Sure it was, I am not denying that label under the pretexte that it was not all inclusive. Would that allow the US to parade around lecturing others how better they are? Certainly not.

A state with popular sovereignty is superior to an autocratic state. If a democratic nation wishes to use that truth as a rhetorical point, bully for them.



The "thing" institution also existed in other Nordic countries.... Sweden, Norway...

Whether Athenians were first or not does not really matters, we're talking about living democracy, and the Greek one was long dead. Not so for Iceland and other Nordic countries (although, at some point it was only living at a local level).

A polity that recognizes a monarch who has real power to determine legal dicta is not a democracy.


You also seem to think that people who took la Bastille on July 14th had all read Montesquieu... Chances are they did not. That's "post fact rationalization". Bastille day and the French Revolution would have happened with or without Athens, and with or without l'esprit des lois. You overstate the importance of Enlightement thinkers on the Revolution. For the French craftmen living in Paris, the revolution was more about royal scandal, unfair tax burden and bankruptucy than about Greek ideals.


I have made no reference to the French Revolution. That revolution failed. I have referenced the American Revolution which did not fail and whose framers did make explicit appeal to Enlightenment Thinkers.

[Pindar]

I'm using the distinction Nietzsche first elucidated in his Genealogy of Morals. Yes, it is a moral charge. I define things as good and bad, rather than Good and Evil. Good and Evil imply that morality is absolute and unchanging, that what is Good now will always be good for all people. Good and bad imply a relativistic morality. When I make the charge that something is bad I am simply saying bad from my perspective, recognizing that others may disagree.

Do you wish to argue a position based on The Genealogy?

Structurally, I don't see how the bad/evil distinction holds up. I don't know of anything that requires bad to suggest a 'to me' and evil cannot suggest 'to me'. This seems ad hoc. The use of good also seems problematic given in one formula it is supposed to be absolute while in the other it is not. This is an equivocation.

So you admit a moral charge is being made even if we substitute evil for bad. Using 'bad' demonstrates others may disagree. Why is this relevant? Does disagreement invalidate the moral charge? If so then moral judgments cannot be made. If not then the reference to possible disagreement serves no purpose.



Where then do you stand on chaining people in stress positions for 20 hours at a time, jumping on their naked bodies, grinding their hands into concrete with combat boots, ordering your dogs to bite them, sodomizing them with flashlights and beating them to death in interrogations?

Does it matter if morality is a personal preference?




I don't want to sidetrack this thread, expecially since it has sprung to life anew, and inevitably a discussion between you and me about the nature of evil would do precisely this. However, to return to the matter at hand: The problem with Hanson's idea of the 'left's false narrative' is not only its historical inaccuracies, but the fact that it obviates any serious understanding of why the terrorists are doing what they are doing. Simply saying 'they are Evil' is very comforting, I am sure; but it tells us nothing about the facts of the matter.

You have demonstrated no historical inaccuracies.
Hanson's essay isn't focused on why terrorists do what they do.

[Hurin_Rules]

Do you wish to argue a position based on The Genealogy?

Structurally, I don't see how the bad/evil distinction holds up. I don't know of anything that requires bad to suggest a 'to me' and evil cannot suggest 'to me'. This seems ad hoc. The use of good also seems problematic given in one formula it is supposed to be absolute while in the other it is not. This is an equivocation.

Please note the capitalization. It avoids equivocation.



So you admit a moral charge is being made even if we substitute evil for bad. Using 'bad' demonstrates others may disagree. Why is this relevant? Does disagreement invalidate the moral charge? If so then moral judgments cannot be made. If not then the reference to possible disagreement serves no purpose.

Moral judgements can only be made from moral perspectives. These are themselves multiple.



Does it matter if morality is a personal preference? .

Yes. Because all moral perspectives, not just the ones I agree with, generate values. That is, in fact, their function.

[Pindar]

Please note the capitalization. It avoids equivocation.

You didn't answer the ad hoc element to your post.

As far as equivocation is concerned: if capitalization is all that is required, why can't I do the same with evil and Evil or bad and Bad? Further, this seems to prioritize written communication. There is no verbal capitalization. So if a subject says: "X is good" which is being referred to? The expression alone isn't clear.



So you admit a moral charge is being made even if we substitute evil for bad. Using 'bad' demonstrates others may disagree. Why is this relevant? Does disagreement invalidate the moral charge? If so then moral judgments cannot be made. If not then the reference to possible disagreement serves no purpose.

Moral judgments can only be made from moral perspectives. These are themselves multiple.

This reply doesn't respond to my comment. Recognizing a multiplicity of moral positions does not mean they are all equally justified. If all positions are equivalent then there is no need for the category. If an actual standard does exist then contrary opinion is irrelevant.

.

Yes. Because all moral perspectives, not just the ones I agree with, generate values. That is, in fact, their function.

Morality's function is to create a value? Most moral systems focus on content over and above structure. If morality is simply a perspective like preferring vanilla over chocolate: it doesn't matter.

[Adrian II]

Now, to your major failing. Western Civilization's greatest achievement is not Isabelle Adjani (http://morganea.free.fr/Interviews/Photo3.jpg) , but Monica Bellucci (http://www.idolpleasures.com/m_bellucci/pages/m_bellucci13_jpg.htm). This should be a self evident truth. Go and sin no more.I'm afraid such blasphemy must lead to yet more heresy in one's Church. Watch, dear Pindar. Don't search your soul; just watch this image of pure delightsomeness and its truth will set you free.

For those who asked: the epochal bathtub scene was from the 1997 film L’Été Meurtrier (‘Murderous Summer’).

http://www.celebritystorm.com/images/i/isabelle_adjani/23743_standard.jpg

[Kanamori]

Does it have anthying to do with schnapps?
:inquisitive:

[Adrian II]

Does it have anthying to do with schnapps?
:inquisitive:I couldn't answer that, Bourgeois, because I don't get the point. Please elaborate?