Visit the Active Site for U.S. Politics Online -- U.S. Politics Online . com
Concerned Citizen
Re: What is wrong with Western Society?Tibet? Sterotype
There is in the West this Romantic image of Tibet like a kind of wonderful spiritual society. I admire the teachings of Buddhism like I admire the teachings of Jesus
but being a reader of world history, I feel shock due to great publicity stunt which has made of Tibet into the Wonderland and left out
that like in the West, many Tibetans never practiced the loafty and high sterotyped behavior associated in the WEst with Tibetan monks,
In matter of fact , Tibetan society always had corruption , explotation , abuses , and even a previous period of Militaristic agression .
Centuries ago, Tibetans-Budhist , conducted agressive military campaign to conquer and expand their feud.
Tibetan society had been mostly a feudal society , in which the lower members of society had been victimized in favor of the one in the higher schelon of society.
Tibetans remind me the WEstern Medieval period in which despite the abuse committed by the Highest Members of the Church, from the Princes of the Church to the Head of the Church , still , the people was sway to their supposedly Temporal authority in Religious matter.
the different that Western Europe outgrowth that phase by the time of the Enlightment while the Tibetans and the Muslim older societies than the WEstern one are still stuck in it.
I condemn The People Republic of China invasion and occupation of Tibet in 1951 which was and still is an Imperialist act and I condemn that in
Chinese history books Tibet is presented as a province and whitewash the genocide and ethnic cleasing and the military take over . But such behavior to purge from history books truth facts is popular in Asia,
China, KOrea have the same complain in Japan case which purged from her history books the records of genocide, agression , occupation of East ASia,
and human experiments with prisioners and others hard facts too much to swallow for the sensible Japanese reader because forced to face responsability and accountability and such is SElf Criticism is not a feature of Asian cultures , be East ASia, South ASia or Middle East,
or beyond seas like Latin America, ,AFrica or Eastern Europe
such feature is more a North WEstern cultural element, more elemental of the American and BRitish culture
and of course is absent of the Great Tibetan culture, and of their great speakers like the Dalai Lama who preach kindness and gentleness , like the Pope does but refused to really confront accountability and self criticism of their cultural features. The difference between both is that the Pope has the backing of power structure which include an extensive material , political , economical power base which even in followers numerically overshadow in sheer numbers the Tibetan Pope, so the Dalai Lama , lack the global material power structure which could tempt him to sucumb to be as worldly as material based as the Pope, who live in the splendid Vatican and is ruler of recognized temporal st ate .
So the Dalai Lama best option is to preach and base in the non material message and with exception of the Tibetan issue to be less engage in the worldly material political issues and get "as the jargon say , nitty gritty and really dirty leaving , which could leave the robes full of stains( maybe in a methaporically way , non good deeds and contradictory deeds to Jesus teaching )
but I wonder if the Dalai Lama would be in the same worldly powerful position like the Pope is if he could not be potential victim to join such worldly plane
I remember from Jesus, My kingdom is not from this world
no accumulated wealth on earth, ( I am a capitalist and I am sincere and upfront , and not a hypocrite, like many who claiming Jesus name , and ploclaiming to lead the world as spiritual leaders in his Holy name , ( which I respect , Jesus is precious for me ) , those leader , led super wealthy conglomatera and support and give asylum to those who commit crimes, fraud and e ven elevate to sainthood those accused of genocide like the interesting case of the BAlkan new saint a bishop who is accused by many to had led Nazi purges of members of the Orthodox Church during WWII but
thank God, the DAlai Lama situation put him away from such spiritual precipices
but do not make Tibet less human and less fallible than other so cieties and less cover with a mist of half truth and false image making
Originally Posted by Ant64
Vice President
Re: What is wrong with Western Society?
Absolutely no.
Cities are built by successful towns-people.
And history shows that the mere existance of a fantastic city (considering only its physical form) is not enough for anything. The 'glory' that was Athens died in 427 BC. Yet the population that lived in that place a century later were mere shadows of their former 'greatness'. The physical city itself was unable to inspire the people to go beyond the mediocrity of being followers.
No, the physical form of a city is as important as the physical form of your clothing. The reality is the human spirit that animates it. When it is gone, who cares about the old pile of crumbling stones?
No, the peasants don't 'deny' the cityfolk their produce. The failure of the city means the city-people don't have the funds/influence/power to procure the custom of the peasantry (as they may have previously). Indeed, the peasantry are probably now selling their produce to that new city down the river at a higher price - while your old city stagnates and dies. Cities, like nations, apparently are born and can die. I'm not anthropomorphising such entities, only observing their patterns of existence. There is nothing that says a city or nation must die - it may theoretically live forever, or not.
Actually no, I haven't read it. I got put off Jacob's previous book, an attempt at Platonic dialogue that was so brutal I could barely finish it. A horrid experience from one who wrote the Wealth of Cities (an obvious title reference to Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations) which is a brilliant book.
It is a long, slow, accumulative process. It can easily be interrupted.
And even if the Tigris/Euphrates triangle was wiped off the planet, there is the Yangtze river culture doing the same damn thing. And not to mention Cythl Hyak - circa 7000 BC. - a highland trading town in Anatolia. And agriculture developed independantly in Central America as well.
In other words, civilisation was never 'inevitable' - but not quite as 'precarious' as you suggest.
You grant government statistics far more than they are worth. The estimate of the 'un-measured' economy ranges from 15-25% in most western nations.
As for the increase in oil consumption, 'gluttony' is statistically 'true'. Stable populations have shown this same rising pattern of oil consumption - even with a stagnant or retracting economy. When I was a kid, all the kids walked to elementary school themselves (parents walked the little ones to school). Now it is an insane traffic jam in front of every elementary school at 8:30 and 4pm every day. That is more oil with no increase in economics. And air conditioning... and electronic toys... etc.
In the medieval era, it was given away for 'free' in England since it was so pentiful but useless. In Northern England, one of the most coal-rich places on the planet - and some of the easiest coal resources to recover - used to use peat for cooking and heat for thousands of years up until the 16th century.
No, it is a moral argument. You've added a couple of adjectives to dodge my attack, but still, it says the same thing.
There is nothing wrong with "endless growth" of and in itself. There may be a problem of relying upon endless resources, but this is not the case. Our society does not 'rely' upon any assumption of endless resources. Consumption per capita of almost every resource has been dropping significantly over time in the western world. The price mechanism is partially responsible and partially indicative of the pentitude of any given resource.
Your argument is entirely predicated upon consumption of resources being held as evil, of and in itself. Yes, it would be a practical argument if humans actually did burn up and consume resources as you suggest they do. In reality, we use oil (for example) only because it is easy to acquire and plentiful and cheap. If our supply was in danger, the price would naturally rise and alternatives would become economical and thus, oil becomes irrelevant just as becomes scarce. Simple economics that has worked pretty damn good so far.
Indeed, a collarary argument - do you realise that in 1980, for the USA to maintain the level of telephone service that was then in place, if they had to use 1910 technolgy would require one-quarter of the female population to work as switchboard operators. That is to say, technology (and consumption patterns) can and do change over time. Projecting futures based upon today is short-sighted.
Most?
Every other system known produces only poverty for 99% of the population. Westernism produces a relative level of wealth for 1/2 or 2/3 of the population. There is no comparison of systems.
Only insofar as poverty is a bad thing. And poor people suffer diseases and short lifespans and have ill-health by every measure.
No. Only humans lead to happiness. Or alternatively, that which is happiness is entirely human.
No. Those that have no wealth, never had any wealth. They only look poor now because they are the exception rather than the rule when everyone was poor. Now that some are wealthy, those that are not tend to look out of place. Capitalist wealth is NOT a zero-sum game and never has been. Capitalism can create new wealth where before, there was none.
Sounds like the same argument the homophobic rightwingers try to use against gays. Gays themselves are not evil - it is only evil when they actually 'do it' with others.
Wealth is wealth, regardless of the purpose to which it is put.
Get thee to a history book. Civilisation has been cruising along just fine without consuming planetary resources for thousands of years. It is only within the last 50 years that we've gotten rather 'gluttonous' in our resource habits. That is hardly a pattern to prophesize the end of civilisation over.
What evidence that we do have is exactly the evidence that proves that life certainly was, 'nasty, brutish and short'. That is to say, fossil evidence shows 'majority' numbers of those human skulls and bones that we do encounter show considerable evidence of crippling violence.
Rich dictators and kleptocrats is an economy.
And that's not what I said. I asserted that the ONLY thing you will do by getting rid of our oil consumption habit is wipe out the Middle East economy. Nothing else would change very much.
Nice rant.
Well, everyone else has - consistently and constantly throughout time. Indeed, the only ones who say this are rich western suburbanites.
Inuit in Canada (for examples) were left to continue their ancient way of life - but they weren't interested. They wanted guns and skidoos and gasoline to power the skidoos. That destroyed their way of life. Now they are fucked. But they chose to ignore their traditional ways and wanted to hunt with guns and skidoos instead. But ammo and gas costs money and their economy wasn't designed to produce monetary profits so it didn't work.
Certainly.
And unconventional supplies potentially outnumber 'conventional' supplies, so that adds another half-century or so. That is plenty enough time for the development of alternatives.
The cost of extraction and processing of every other known natural resource has fallen consistently and constantly over time. Why do you predict an exception here?
So what? What if we are using hydrogen and solar cells by then? Who will care about oil?
I have no delusions. Such is the demographic of EVERY known boom town in the history of the human race. It is highly efficient and effective.
And across the United States, Indian Bands are financing some of the worst environmentally degrading construction projects out there. The native peoples of North America have no monopoly on environmental rapine - indeed, they have a long history of it.
Sure. Whatever. But for the large number who profit, I'm sure they will disagree.
This is self-contradictory. If civilisation is just going to "collapse" then there is nothing you can manage anyway.
This blows me away. You can't decide if you are convinced whether or not civilisation is entirely good or not - and yet you speculate upon the desirablility of destroying it??? Methinks you are not being honest with yourself (or us) here.
No more than the doomsday scenarios about oil that I've been reading about for twenty-five years now. Or the nuclear doomsday scenarios that have been around just as long (or longer). Or the newest version - the Islamic terrorist doomsday scenario. Or the global-warming doomsday scenarios.
Being the skeptic that I am, all these doomsday scenarios seem a bit forced.
I strongly disagree. Violence is clearly endemic to human beings. Our 'extermination' of Neanderthalis seems illustrative of this human passion.
True, but it too easily answered. All data suggests that our levels of violence are in decline (please don't cite violent crime stats from last year - I'm talking about centuries here. There is no question about the direction of the data - 500 years ago, life was cheap).
Now we are getting somewhere!
I see no reason that 'civilisation' can't change over time - like anything else.
Not today - perhaps tomorrow.
[I]Remember what the dormouse said, 'feed your head'. [/I]
Joint Chiefs of Staff Member
Re: What is wrong with Western Society?
wow, glad to see this thread still going strong.. i'll have to catch up some time.
Boy, I used to have really cheesey signatures.
Vice President
Re: What is wrong with Western Society?
Indeed.
No. You are failing to recognise the apparent human drive for the improvement of human conditions. The development of the city/town is a logical progression from that of an agricultural surplus.
Paleoarcheology provides 'proof' of the human tendency to utilise a surplus of food to support a non-food producing skilled craftsman (Multiple examples of fossil skeletons of "old men" who were lame since childhood. There is examples of this for both Neanderthal and Cro Magnon, circa 25-75,000 years ago).
Indeed, the development of cities is a natural product of the specialisation of labour that is only possible from an agricultural surplus. This specialisation of labour can account for almost every conceivable improvement in human lifestyles going back for many thousands of years.
I didn't make that point. I agree that Gates could not have achieved his wealth without the utilisation of natural resources. That is self-evident. My point is that Gates' has produced far more wealth from far less natural resources than just about anything ever before. This is an example of the genius of human ingenuity.
Wealth drives our economic system - Gates' has proven that greater wealth can be created utilising minimal resources. The natural effect of the economy is to reduce the capital allocation to the 'formerly' massive wealth producing process of cruder/ruder/destructive habits of resource-exploitations. Simple argument of the market principle here.
I believe that you are over-idealising the plight of the natives of North America. The historical record does not support your direct interpretation. The native indians most certainly accomodated and 'granted' permission to the white colonist/settlers to land in the initial phase of contact (16th/17th century). True, the natives didn't understand the full ramifications of this and as settler numbers rose, the natives 'turned' and decided this wasn't good (late 17th c.) Too late, the settlers were too strong to dislodge, so the native groups either fought to the death along the East Coast, or retreated inland (early 18th c.). Then the settlers needed more land and that's when the 'civilised' settlers began to make systematic war (of extermination) against the natives (throughout 19th c.). That is the basic chronology of the 'Indian Wars' in America (writ large).
I'm not 'blaming' the natives here, merely pointing to the fact that your assertion that "Indians tried to fight back and were mostly killed in the process, otherwise they would have been enslaved" was incorrect. The natives first contacts and relations with Anglo-colonists were generally positive relations and this generally continued throughout the 16th and 17th centuries. In many cases, it was the natives who initiated the violent clashes between the natives and settlers in the latter 17th century and early 18th century.
I am convinced.
The plight of the native indians of North America on their reserve system has shown that the native attempt to disengage from our western system is a total and dangerous failure. Yes, us 'civilised' folk have a lot to blame here, certainly, but the native peoples share the blame for their own fate.
As I noted above, the Inuit of northern Canada provide a particularly clear example of this. It is to be noted there never was any direct settler-indian conflict (pre-20th century) with the Inuit due to the Inuit living in Arctic conditions. There was no 'conquest' to speak of here. Relations were benign. The Inuit traded for goods. They loved our guns for hunting and snowmobiles for mobility. That destroyed their economic system. They traded freely for these objects - they desired and valued them greatly. We didn't force nothing upon the Inuit (originally).
My key point here is that when the colonist-settlers arived in North America and set up an extension of the 'western' model of economic production, the lives of the natives were all fundamentally changed (simple fate, like the arrival of a hurricane). The natives had a choice then, they could a) attack, b) retreat (not really possible) or c) engage. Partial engagement combined with retreat is what the natives ultimately and generally tried to do - by their own choice. This poor choice absolutely destroyed/overwhelmed their own socio-economic cultural system - entirely independent of any malevolent actions on the part of the settler-colonists.
(I am not denying the existence of malevolent actions on the part of the settler-colonists, only asserting that most of those actions came long after the natives had already chosen and failed - in a crude way, the 'extermination policy' adopted later on was an effort to 'clean up the mess' of the failed native cultures).
I don't doubt the possibility of such a disorder being endemic to the human race - it is commesurate with our penchant for manipulating things to our benefit.
Please note that the native indians of North America have a proven track record of enormous environmental destruction and degradation - pre-arrival of Europeans. There is 'proven' evidence that careless and reckless hunting of big-game resulted in the extermination of a half-dozen large mammals in North America circa 6000-10000 BC. There is also evidence of extreme environmental degradation in the Peublo river cultures of Arizona/New Mexico (Cf. also Easter Island example).
In other words, enviromental destruction has a long human history independent of our 'western' variety.
It is a pleasure to engage.Anyway, thanks for indulging me.
I'm figuring that the 'right' answer to my thread question might be the answer proposed that I can't shoot down.
[I]Remember what the dormouse said, 'feed your head'. [/I]
Posting Permissions
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
Bookmarks