The Left's False Narrative

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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:...om+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.

[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.)

[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. How many times have we heard that?

[bmolsson]

Why is modern science oversold?

It has lost it's objectivity.

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.

[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. 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.

[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.

[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]

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...
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,

[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!

[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......

[Adrian II]

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

I suppose this is a joke, but with BMolsson you never know..

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