"White Man's Burden"

[TwiceHorn 31982]

So, white western European males (WWEM) arguably advanced culture and civilization to its highest known point in history.  Along the way, it perpetrated all kinds of malfeasances (slavery, other subjugation of native people and women, etc.).

You may take issue with the above thesis statement, but I am also interested in a couple of other points.

First, in historical context, were the malfeasances of WWEM worse than other conquering or imperialistic cultures or groups?  Second, were the malfeasances in any way necessary to establish the advanced culture and civilization (perhaps not "necessary" per se, but expedient, at least**).  Third, did the advanced culture and civilization itself lead to the enlightenment necessary to acknowledge and at least feebly attempt to redress the malfeasances?

 

Kindly be civil, this is a sincere attempt to explore these issues.

 

**Obviously, malfeasances were expedient in that, for example, slavery was expedient to agriculture and building physical infrastructure.  What I really mean is would not engaging in the malfeasances have inhibited establishment of the culture/civilization to the point of failure.

Edited July 3, 2018 by TwiceHorn

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

16 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

So, white western European males (WWEM) arguably advanced culture and civilization to its highest known point in history.  Along the way, it perpetrated all kinds of malfeasances (slavery, other subjugation of native people and women, etc.).

You may take issue with the above thesis statement, but I am also interested in a couple of other points.

First, in historical context, were the malfeasances of WWEM worse than other conquering or imperialistic cultures or groups?  Second, were the malfeasances in any way necessary to establish the advanced culture and civilization (perhaps not "necessary" per se, but expedient, at least**).  Third, did the advanced culture and civilization itself lead to the enlightenment necessary to acknowledge and at least feebly attempt to redress the malfeasances?

 

Kindly be civil, this is a sincere attempt to explore these issues.

 

**Obviously, malfeasances were expedient in that, for example, slavery was expedient to agriculture and building physical infrastructure.  What I really mean is would not engaging in the malfeasances have inhibited establishment of the culture/civilization to the point of failure.

WHERE IN THE FUCK DO YOU THINK YOU ARE.....  YA BIG DUMMY......

[hpslugga 4096]

18 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

What I really mean is would not engaging in the malfeasances have inhibited establishment of the culture/civilization to the point of failure.

I’m sincerely not trying to be a dick, but perhaps you could list what, in your view, constitutes these “advancements” of cultures and civilizations. And again it’s not to be tedious, but the reality is you’ve presented a vague topic and I cannot answer your question without knowing precisely what you mean in order to analyze the cost/benefit element, which is really what you’re posing here. Once you’ve demonstrated what you mean, it’s easy to identify the “malfeasances” and to estimate their severity in terms of their impact on world culture. Interesting topic.

Edited July 3, 2018 by hpslugga

[Bat Guano 363]

Interesting question. Does the end justify the means? In general, the answer has traditionally been no. I think that is an appropriate answer here, too, and it sort of answers your second question - the malfeasances were not justified, and this implies they were not necessary. As for the first, I don't really know in depth how much brutality and exploitation occurred in the course of other conquests than WWEM, so it's hard to measure. As for the third question, it's pretty clear that brutalizing conquered people does not advance enlightenment of the oppressors; quite the opposite. One example is European treatment of the Native Americans. Early on in the conquest of North America, before the European settlements became large and powerful enough to be dominant, they were less nasty to the natives than they would be later on, further west. There was a good amount of communication, and the Euros actually got some good ideas from the natives - notably the portions of American governmental structure borrowed from the Iroquois. In general it's never good for the soul to oppress and brutalize, and that applies to cultures as much as it does to individuals.

[bad_teammate 13479]

What does "advanced" even mean? What determines the "highest" point of civilization?

Is it this moment?

I don't mean that to be snarkily political, but take a few steps back from it, analyze the characters involved in a larger historical context, and contrast the supposed social holiness and wonder of the grand institutions involved with those characters.

And then try to argue something about the highest, most advanced civilization with a straight face.

Edited July 3, 2018 by bad_teammate

[safe sex 11912]

Melania's outfit there is a clear source of inspiration for the mandated fashion of the wives of Gilead. Spooky. 

[sidis 9990]

if i am reading your op correctly, you are simply asking if the "malfeasances" perpetrated in western europe and north america during this presupposed greatest advancement in history (assuming you are talking about the last 2,000 years...or are you only talking post-renaissance empires?) were relatively worse, equal, or better than the "malfeasances" of other cultures that were in culturally dominant positions?  say the persians in asia or the mongols in east asia.  do i have this correct?

[Guest Lobo]

Africans, Asians, and Indians (current-day Americas) invented just as much stuff and killed/enslaved/colonized just as many peoples as White Europeans.  

Only difference is examples of both good and bad, in the case of Europeans, is better known because they engaged in a time-honored White People Tradition...they documented the hell out of everything.  Africans sold each other into slavery, Asians laid waste to millions more than any other people, and myriad Indian societies gave us just as much math and engineering as anyone else in their time.  It just didn't occur to any of them to write books about it.  

[TwiceHorn 31982]

I'm open to answers to the questions you pose.  But I will suggest that we have the highest living standard, scientific advances, highest level of education, etc. etc. that the world has ever seen.  It''s quite possible that these things would have happened without WWEM, but it isn't looking promising elsewhere.  Perhaps the establishment of the WWEM culture/civilization inhibited it occurring elsewhere.

[TwiceHorn 31982]

1 minute ago, sidis said:

if i am reading your op correctly, you are simply asking if the "malfeasances" perpetrated in western europe and north america during this presupposed greatest advancement in history (assuming you are talking about the last 2,000 years...or are you only talking post-renaissance empires?) were relatively worse, equal, or better than the "malfeasances" of other cultures that were in culturally dominant positions?  say the persians in asia or the mongols in east asia.  do i have this correct?

Sort of, yes.  As far as I am aware, all civilizations have perpetrated evil or at least "malfeasance" (trying not to confine it to any one type of bad act) and I am trying to suss out why that is and could an advanced culture even be established without such malfeasances?  I guess the broader question could be, do the advances ever justify the evil?

[Bama Chick 28596]

Holy crap - Melania’s inaugural outfit does look like a Gilead wife outfit.

[Guest Lobo]

Just now, Bama Chick said:

Holy crap - Melania’s inaugural outfit does look like a Gilead wife outfit.

Is it wrong of me to picture her holding Ivanka's legs during the ceremony with Commander Lobo?  

[TwiceHorn 31982]

13 minutes ago, Bat Guano said:

Interesting question. Does the end justify the means? In general, the answer has traditionally been no. I think that is an appropriate answer here, too, and it sort of answers your second question - the malfeasances were not justified, and this implies they were not necessary. As for the first, I don't really know in depth how much brutality and exploitation occurred in the course of other conquests than WWEM, so it's hard to measure. As for the third question, it's pretty clear that brutalizing conquered people does not advance enlightenment of the oppressors; quite the opposite. One example is European treatment of the Native Americans. Early on in the conquest of North America, before the European settlements became large and powerful enough to be dominant, they were less nasty to the natives than they would be later on, further west. There was a good amount of communication, and the Euros actually got some good ideas from the natives - notably the portions of American governmental structure borrowed from the Iroquois. In general it's never good for the soul to oppress and brutalize, and that applies to cultures as much as it does to individuals.

This is the kind of answer I was looking for and I think you are probably correct.  One interesting aspect, considering the "soul," is that most of what seems to "count" as advanced civilization is material things or worldly things, which seem to be always at odds with spiritual things.

[Nice Guy Eddie 13706]

29 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

So, white western European males (WWEM) arguably advanced culture and civilization to its highest known point in history. 

At what point are you counting as the highest known point in history?  1950?  Today?   If you mean today, western culture is on a decline in terms of influence so I don't understand why you are saying that European males are the main reason for the advancement.  

[David Dennison 19439]

1 minute ago, TwiceHorn said:

This is the kind of answer I was looking for and I think you are probably correct.  One interesting aspect, considering the "soul," is that most of what seems to "count" as advanced civilization is material things or worldly things, which seem to be always at odds with spiritual things.

That's because "Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by rulers as useful."

[HOOK'EMHOOAH 1610]

The cost of the group "white, western european male" references in the OP was at the expense of any who weren't part of that exclusive group. Until the mid 20th century, there was essentially zero path for anyone outside of said group to advance to any point that could rival them as they were subjugated and killed off. This genocide of culture is a detriment to our species as a whole. The turning point in the 20th century was when pockets of humanity began embracing diversity. There is no way to truly quantify what advances (or setbacks) may have occurred had the genocidal nature of this sect of humanity not destroyed everything in their path in their en route to their conquest of the western hemisphere of this planet.

Personally, I would rather have the lost cultures back instead of the "advancements" brought about by their historical actions. What is quantifiable is that through diversity and cooperation, more methods of procedure for any given problem are able to be conceived and put into practice. Thusly, with more cultures and ways of life, more advances would have undoubtedly been proliferated throughout the world and there would likely be far more parity on a global scale than we have today.

[TwiceHorn 31982]

1 minute ago, HOOK'EMHOOAH said:

The cost of the group "white, western european male" references in the OP was at the expense of any who weren't part of that exclusive group. Until the mid 20th century, there was essentially zero path for anyone outside of said group to advance to any point that could rival them as they were subjugated and killed off. This genocide of culture is a detriment to our species as a whole. The turning point in the 20th century was when pockets of humanity began embracing diversity. There is no way to truly quantify what advances (or setbacks) may have occurred had the genocidal nature of this sect of humanity not destroyed everything in their path in their en route to their conquest of the western hemisphere of this planet.

Personally, I would rather have the lost cultures back instead of the "advancements" brought about by their historical actions. What is quantifiable is that through diversity and cooperation, more methods of procedure for any given problem are able to be conceived and put into practice. Thusly, with more cultures and ways of life, more advances would have undoubtedly been proliferated throughout the world and there would likely be far more parity on a global scale than we have today.

Being a devil's advocate here, but one reason you have the luxury of wanting the "lost cultures" back is that you live in an air conditioned home, with your college education, and no scarcity of any resource you need to exist.  And you aren't competing, whether in actuality or reality, with those lost cultures for same.

[HOOK'EMHOOAH 1610]

3 minutes ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

At what point are you counting as the highest known point in history?  1950?  Today?   If you mean today, western culture is on a decline in terms of influence so I don't understand why you are saying that European males are the main reason for the advancement.  

To build upon this idea, I would surmise that we, as a species, are handicapped by what the "white, western european males" did than we would've been had they not gone out in the name of conquest. There are substantial reparations owed to the world by those who carried out these actions by the Europeans and by the US.

[bad_teammate 13479]

14 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

But I will suggest that we have the highest living standard, scientific advances, highest level of education, etc. etc. that the world has ever seen.

"If the rule you followed brought you to this, of what use was the rule?"

Living standard according to what selected criteria? Selected by whom and for what purpose?

[David Dennison 19439]

The premise of this thread also seems to discount just how much WWEM culture was influenced by non-WWEM cultures. 

[TwiceHorn 31982]

Just now, HOOK'EMHOOAH said:

To build upon this idea, I would surmise that we, as a species, are handicapped by what the "white, western european males" did than we would've been had they not gone out in the name of conquest. There are substantial reparations owed to the world by those who carried out these actions by the Europeans and by the US.

What about the Mongols?  The Romans?  Phoenicians?

[bad_teammate 13479]

2 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Being a devil's advocate here, but one reason you have the luxury of wanting the "lost cultures" back is that you live in an air conditioned home, with your college education, and no scarcity of any resource you need to exist.  And you aren't competing, whether in actuality or reality, with those lost cultures for same.

I don't think you know what "devil's advocate" means.

[TwiceHorn 31982]

Just now, David Dennison said:

The premise of this thread also seems to discount just how much WWEM culture was influenced by non-WWEM cultures. 

Valid point, but other cultures arguably have been substantially advanced by WWEM, too.

[TwiceHorn 31982]

3 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

I don't think you know what "devil's advocate" means.

You're such a dickwad.  Why don't you positively contribute instead of lobbing shit-ass question bombs?

I agree with his premise in that I think it's shameful that we essentially eradicated Native Americans, but I also understand that that is kind of a post-hoc, luxurious viewpoint that may not have applied 200 years ago while eeking out an existence in a log cabin in Appalachia.

Edited July 3, 2018 by TwiceHorn

[Bat Guano 363]

14 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Sort of, yes.  As far as I am aware, all civilizations have perpetrated evil or at least "malfeasance" (trying not to confine it to any one type of bad act) and I am trying to suss out why that is and could an advanced culture even be established without such malfeasances?  I guess the broader question could be, do the advances ever justify the evil?

Europeans were always at war with each other, far more than the folks from any other geographic region. It is the most blood-soaked continent in human history, by far. This tradition of war was a big part of what led to their technological advancement; war tends to drive technical innovations. Finding the best way to kill your neighbors is a good way to figure out shit like chemistry and physics, so you can apply those principles to weapons. So maybe that warlike mindset is necessary to the rapid advancement of technology. (Playing devil's advocate here, obviously, and the 'necessary' is an overstatement - but I think the point stands). That mindset is also what drives the malfeasance, so you can't have one without the other. Doesn't make it right, though.

[David Dennison 19439]

4 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

What about the Mongols?  The Romans?  Phoenicians?

The Romans are WWEM. 

[bad_teammate 13479]

1 minute ago, TwiceHorn said:

Why don't you positively contribute instead of lobbing shit-ass question bombs?

What constitutes a positive contribution to the "Let Me Argue About How Whites Are Superior Without Anyone Being Mean To Me" thread?

[HOOK'EMHOOAH 1610]

1 minute ago, TwiceHorn said:

Being a devil's advocate here, but one reason you have the luxury of wanting the "lost cultures" back is that you live in an air conditioned home, with your college education, and no scarcity of any resource you need to exist.  And you aren't competing, whether in actuality or reality, with those lost cultures for same.

That competition is preferable to any luxury I or anyone else has because it doesn't necessarily mean war. I recognize that we can never regain the lost cultures or civilizations. As such, I advocate with my entire being for the preservation and conservation of every remaining culture and civilization that is still walking among us today. I don't care about personal luxuries. I condemn those in history who orchestrated and carried out the actions that cost so much more than anyone's ability to carry on the existence of their way of life. I will not be caught on the wrong side of history by not taking a stand against more being lost.

[TwiceHorn 31982]

1 minute ago, bad_teammate said:

What constitutes a positive contribution to the "Let Me Argue About How Whites Are Superior Without Anyone Being Mean To Me" thread?

You just love to ascribe motives.  The OP by use of the term "arguably" concedes that the superiority may be illusory.  Feel free to discuss why it isn't other than by posting pix of Melania.

[HOOK'EMHOOAH 1610]

7 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

What about the Mongols?  The Romans?  Phoenicians?

As I stated in my last post, I condemn all in history who committed acts of genocide that destroyed entire ways of life. Yes, those who carried out genocide owe massive reparations that can never be fully repaid for what they did.

[TwiceHorn 31982]

4 minutes ago, Bat Guano said:

Europeans were always at war with each other, far more than the folks from any other geographic region. It is the most blood-soaked continent in human history, by far. This tradition of war was a big part of what led to their technological advancement; war tends to drive technical innovations. Finding the best way to kill your neighbors is a good way to figure out shit like chemistry and physics, so you can apply those principles to weapons. So maybe that warlike mindset is necessary to the rapid advancement of technology. (Playing devil's advocate here, obviously, and the 'necessary' is an overstatement - but I think the point stands). That mindset is also what drives the malfeasance, so you can't have one without the other. Doesn't make it right, though.

Thank you. excellent response.

[David Dennison 19439]

1 minute ago, HOOK'EMHOOAH said:

That competition is preferable to any luxury I or anyone else has because it doesn't necessarily mean war. I recognize that we can never regain the lost cultures or civilizations. As such, I advocate with my entire being for the preservation and conservation of every remaining culture and civilization that is still walking among us today. I don't care about personal luxuries. I condemn those in history who orchestrated and carried out the actions that cost so much more than anyone's ability to carry on the existence of their way of life. I will not be caught on the wrong side of history by not taking a stand against more being lost.

I think you are on to something insofar is the WWEM culture being discussed is an amalgamation of many human cultures. We are appropriators and imitators. It's what we do.

[HOOK'EMHOOAH 1610]

1 minute ago, David Dennison said:

I think you are on to something insofar is the WWEM culture being discussed is an amalgamation of many human cultures. We are appropriators and imitators. It's what we do.

If we can all just learn to put down our weapons or war and talk, we may - with any hope and a shot load of luck - find a way to live together. No one alive today can go back in time and bring any lost civilization or culture back, but we must learn from the mistakes of history.

[TwiceHorn 31982]

8 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

The Romans are WWEM. 

Valid point, but their culture/civilization became essentially extinct.  I suppose maybe we should confine the discussion to post-Renaissance WWEM.

[bad_teammate 13479]

3 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

You just love to ascribe motives.  The OP by use of the term "arguably" concedes that the superiority may be illusory.  Feel free to discuss why it isn't other than by posting pix of Melania.

You think that photograph was solely about Melania? Are you trying some kind of "you're mean to women!" thing?

There's no need to ascribe motivation. You admit from the beginning that the premise for your white superiority argument is debatable, but you plow forward with your actual point regardless. You literally define the terms of the argument as being about whiteness and their superiority in terms of culture. You're not even subtle about it, those are literally the criteria you decided to use in OP.

[David Dennison 19439]

1 minute ago, TwiceHorn said:

Valid point, but their culture/civilization became essentially extinct.  I suppose maybe we should confine the discussion to post-Renaissance WWEM.

We are not going to agree at all on this point. 

[TwiceHorn 31982]

5 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

I think you are on to something insofar is the WWEM culture being discussed is an amalgamation of many human cultures. We are appropriators and imitators. It's what we do.

This is an interesting point unto itself.  Arguably, again, WWEM are better at appropriating than are other cultures.  Maybe that's just a function of moving around the earth more than other civilizations.

[David Dennison 19439]

Just now, TwiceHorn said:

This is an interesting point unto itself.  Arguably, again, WWEM are better at appropriating than are other cultures.  Maybe that's just a function of moving around the earth more than other civilizations.

Luck has a lot to do with it, too. If disease hadn't wiped out many of the indigenous peoples of the New World, who knows where we would be.

[F250 29170]

16 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

The Romans are WWEM. 

[HOOK'EMHOOAH 1610]

2 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

Luck has a lot to do with it, too. If disease hadn't wiped out many of the indigenous peoples of the New World, who knows where we would be.

That is where my argument for the power of diversity comes into play. The only way any species thrives, let alone survives, is through diversity, humanity is no different. The major divergence between human and other members of the animal kingdom is that we have the innate ability to understand diversity and use it to advance ourselves.

[TwiceHorn 31982]

40 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

You think that photograph was solely about Melania? Are you trying some kind of "you're mean to women!" thing?

There's no need to ascribe motivation. You admit from the beginning that the premise for your white superiority argument is debatable, but you plow forward with your actual point regardless. You literally define the terms of the argument as being about whiteness and their superiority in terms of culture. You're not even subtle about it, those are literally the criteria you decided to use in OP.

Don't be obtuse.  There's more to the USA than the election of Donald J. Trump.

And everything in the OP is a question, designed to challenge notions of American or European exceptionalism, both positive and negative, i.e. we are exceptionally good or exceptionally evil.

Edited July 3, 2018 by TwiceHorn

[Guest]

5 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

Sort of, yes.  As far as I am aware, all civilizations have perpetrated evil or at least "malfeasance" (trying not to confine it to any one type of bad act) and I am trying to suss out why that is and could an advanced culture even be established without such malfeasances?  I guess the broader question could be, do the advances ever justify the evil?

There are different ways to approach and answer the question.  I'll give a few parameters on the subject and phrase the topic in various ways and give my thoughts:

By WWEM I'll define as all north & western European males of the ruling, professional, and literate ranks from 1550-2000.  We can move the timeline considerably in either direction, but 1550 roughly corresponds to the beginning of the scientific revolution and 2000 as a period where it is not mandatory to be a white male to have significant power and influence in society (i.e. a non white male could be born in the US or Europe and rise to a high rank & influence in society).

Did the accomplishments of the WWEM morally justify their malfeasance? 

Absolutely not.  In order to take this view, one must be an ethical consequentialist or utilitarian and I am not a consequentialist (i.e. I do not believe the ends justify the means).  Even if one is a consequentialist, I don't think that the arguments for the justification of many of the actions of the WWEM in their colonization would be very compelling.  For example, did we really need to capture and enslave Africans to successfully colonize the Americas?   Was this even the most efficient method to achieve this purely from an economic viewpoint?  I don't believe so.  It was clearly a net negative moral outcome and also an inferior economic model; yes, it was effective economically for some folks for a period, but I think there were much more effective overall systems of employment that could have been utilized in which all parties would have profited to a greater extent.  So to focus on slavery (but similar type objections could be made to other forms of malfeasance), I do not believe it was justified - certainly it was not morally justifiable and even assuming one is a complete sociopath who cares only about the ends, I don't believe it was justifiable as the most effective economic system.  

Should we look at the success of the WWEM as justification for the hard decisions that may need to be made today?

No.  I believe that our actions should be justified only on the basis of either virtue or the principle of universality.  It's true that many unscrupulous men have been successful and made significant accomplishments.  But I think this is a terrible method of evaluation for the ethical justification of our actions.  I see it too often employed (e.g. "yes, he is a raging sociopathic asshole, but those are the types of men who get things done.")

Considering all the accomplishments and evils perpetrated by WWEM, would you go back to 1550 and undo all the actions (both good and bad) of the WWEM?

No.  Even though I believe that their evil actions were not justified, I would not undo all that they did.  The reason for this is that we could not replace them with angels.  They would be replaced with other men.  Those men would also enslave and conquer and exploit (as all men before had done); but there is no guarantee that the replacements for the WWEM would achieve any of the positive accomplishments - they may, but then again they may not.  All men have done evil and have the same tendencies within them - this is not limited to WWEM.  It is often stated these days that "the US has a massive racism problem."   Well, yes.  But it is also true that every nation and group of people from the dawn of time to today has a massive racism/tribalism problem.  So the WWEM did do many unjustifiable atrocities, but so did every other group of men to the extent of their capabilities; it seems ridiculous to judge the WWEM in comparison to other men by a standard that we would not expect of any other group.

Edited July 3, 2018 by Guest

[TwiceHorn 31982]

17 minutes ago, HOOK'EMHOOAH said:

That is where my argument for the power of diversity comes into play. The only way any species thrives, let alone survives, is through diversity, humanity is no different. The major divergence between human and other members of the animal kingdom is that we have the innate ability to understand diversity and use it to advance ourselves.

I don't disagree, I think this is a very valid perspective.  Innately, though, humans fear others and congregate among their "own," which is the antithesis of diversity.  Higher-order thinking is necessary to appreciate others and to engage in diversity.  Hell, the word "diversity" is rather latter-day in and of itself.  I'm sure that there were ancients teaching its value, but I am ignorant of them.

 

And, to an extent, the higher-order thinking necessary to appreciate diversity indicates a certain amount of luxury or elevated material standard of living.  People clawing for the last morsel of bear fat DGAF about diversity.

Edited July 3, 2018 by TwiceHorn

[SimonBolivar 11014]

There's no such thing as a more advanced culture. Technology can be more advanced, but a culture cannot. That's just ethnocentrism. 

[HOOK'EMHOOAH 1610]

Just now, TwiceHorn said:

I don't disagree, I think this is a very valid perspective.  Innately, though, humans fear others and congregate among their "own," which is the antithesis of diversity.  Higher-order thinking is necessary to appreciate others and to engage in diversity.  Hell, the word "diversity" is rather latter-day in and of itself.  I'm sure that there were ancients teaching its value, but I am ignorant of them.

I'm not stating that early humans had an understanding of diversity or the power it can bring. However, today... today we do have the ability to understand what it means and how it can be used to ensure everyone is able to equitably be included in our species. We just have to stop trying to destroy each other.

[bschoolprof 6335]

Finally, a real thread in this fucking cesspool. For my answers, I'm equating WWEM in the op to the European enlightenment and the scientific revolution.  

1 hour ago, TwiceHorn said:

First, in historical context, were the malfeasances of WWEM worse than other conquering or imperialistic cultures or groups? 

No.  Imperialism, slavery, subjugation, pillaging, and denial of basic human rights existed across the globe long before the enlightenment.  It's precisely because of the thinking and rhetoric of this era that we now believe axiomatically that all people have basic human rights, and governments should exist to serve the people, and not the other way around.  

Second, were the malfeasances in any way necessary to establish the advanced culture and civilization (perhaps not "necessary" per se, but expedient, at least**).

This is a tough one.  The wealth creation in Europe from the scientific revolution and the enlightenment created a demand for more resources and foreign imports, which almost certainly at least sped up imperialistic conquest.  But imperialistic conquest probably would have happened anyway, just at a much slower pace, simply because imperialistic conquest has been a facet of human civilization for thousands of years.  

  Third, did the advanced culture and civilization itself lead to the enlightenment necessary to acknowledge and at least feebly attempt to redress the malfeasances?

Yes - of course.  See my response to the first question.  Slavery - something that had been part of human civilization for millennia - was wiped out in the west in a few hundred years due to thoughts, reason, and rhetoric (and of course bloodshed).  That's remarkable.   

 

[TwiceHorn 31982]

2 minutes ago, SimonBolivar said:

There's no such thing as a more advanced culture. Technology can be more advanced, but a culture cannot. That's just ethnocentrism. 

Hmmm, possibly so.  Probably a nomenclature problem on my part.

[Dahobbs 18181]

The premise here is flawed. We may be the most advanced we have been technologically, but we are also at the farthest point to the right in the timeline. Assuming there is a positive correlation between the advancement of time and the advancement of technology (and even including some of our set backs, I think it is fairly clear that there is), any connection between our technology and the rise of WWEM is probably coincidental. 

[Guest]

11 minutes ago, SimonBolivar said:

There's no such thing as a more advanced culture. Technology can be more advanced, but a culture cannot. That's just ethnocentrism. 

This is excessively vague as it depends on what you confine to culture.  If you mean only things like language, food, marriage & funeral rituals, and music, then I agree and this is largely noncontroversial.  But if you also consider a society's prevailing moral views, laws, knowledge base, and approach to humans rights and education & science, then this is clearly not true.  If one believes in the possibility of advancement for human society, then this presupposes that there is such as thing as a more advanced society to advance towards.  

Edited July 3, 2018 by Guest

[David Dennison 19439]

Just now, Aphelion said:

This is excessively vague and as it depends on what you confine to culture.  If you mean only things like language, good, marriage and funeral rituals, and music, then I agree and this is largely noncontroversial.  But if you also consider the prevailing moral views, laws, knowledge base, and approach to humans rights and education & science, then this is clearly not true.  If one believes in the possibility of advancement for human society, then this presupposes that there is such as thing as a more advanced society to advance towards.  

There are numerous examples of such societies.