"White Man's Burden"

[bad_teammate 13562]

56 minutes ago, Cacti said:

Greeks were also classified as non-white and, defying all logic, so were Irish immigrants.

Even if I were inclined to accept "white" as something that made sense, the inclusion of the Irish makes it impossible.

#NoBogScum

#ScandinaviaForever

[zork 629]

3 hours ago, DixonHur said:

Just a couple of quick notes.... recent DNA tests of several mummies shows that the Egyptians were of European ancestry; so...

And its widely accepted that the pyramids were not built by slaves, but rather by Egyptian peasants during the dry season...aka, when they couldn't farm.  

http://www.reshafim.org.il/ad/egypt/timelines/topics/slavery.htm

[DixonHur 11967]

1 hour ago, zork said:

http://www.reshafim.org.il/ad/egypt/timelines/topics/slavery.htm

I've read that before, not sure what point you're attrmpting to make.

[zork 629]

11 minutes ago, DixonHur said:

I've read that before, not sure what point you're attrmpting to make.

Whether the actual Pyramids were built with slave labor or not is irrelevant to the fact that there were certainly Egyptian slaves during the time the Pyramids were built.  

[DixonHur 11967]

53 minutes ago, zork said:

Whether the actual Pyramids were built with slave labor or not is irrelevant to the fact that there were certainly Egyptian slaves during the time the Pyramids were built.  

Never said there weren't, so I'm not sure who you're arguing with on that point, but it's not me.

[TwiceHorn 32087]

6 hours ago, bad_teammate said:

What if they do give a reason by creating a completely artificial category based on race and then argue for the supremacy of that race? What if that happens? Does racist or white supremacist belief disappear if the person espousing it is nice and calm? Is racism defined by the mood of the speaker? Tattoos?

#decorum

White supremacy is the belief that whites are supreme. The OP is explicitly, in its own language, white supremacist.

Regarding what is and what is not constructive, what constructiveness do you see? OP is now at the exact same point he started, despite many people being very nice patient non-white-supremacists and he spent the entire thread being "devil's advocate" for the position he started with.

Please enlighten me on how it's racist.  Just about everything I posted in the OP was qualified and/or stated as a question.  The use of the quoted (that means tongue-in-cheek) "White Man's Burden" in the title is actually a jibe at white supremacy itself. I am perpetually intrigued by why some societies/cultures/civilizations are the way they are, whether good, bad, or indifferent.  Sometimes what appears good is bad and vice-versa.  I wanted to explore the topic with people and when they gave me ideas, I prodded them with countering ideas.  None of this reflects my permanent thinking on any issue discussed here.  Some might actually call it Socratic.

And, in fact, I wasn't in any particular place when I started, and am not in the same place, other than thinking you are a raging cocksucker that is an elitist prig that rarely offers anything constructive on this site and should be banned. 

 

Also, fuck you.

 

When you are a hammer, everything looks like a nail.  And you, friendo, are a hammer.

 

 

Edited July 5, 2018 by TwiceHorn

[bad_teammate 13562]

10 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Please enlighten me on how it's racist.  Just about everything I posted in the OP was qualified and/or stated as a question.

Here's your first sentence:

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

I'm not sure what magic armor you think disingenuous qualifications and question marks add to white supremacist ideas, but I think you're a little too enamored of the FOXNews rhetorical gambit of Just Asking Questions.

You know a person's thoughts by what they say. Your position to start was that the (not actually a thing) "white" people have advanced culture and civilization to its "highest point". This is not an argument made by others that you impartially wish to see sussed out, this is your position, and it is a position you actively defend at all steps along the way. You say "devil's advocate" the way Ricky Bobby says "all due respect". And as it is patiently explained to you by far-too-patient centrist minds, your position moves zero inches because it was never an impartial discussion, it was always an attempt to defend white supremacy. A very banal and tattoo-free version of white supremacy, but white supremacy nonetheless.

Quote

And, in fact, I wasn't in any particular place when I started, and am not in the same place...

lol yes of course

[TwiceHorn 32087]

I said "arguably" and invited people to disagree with the premise for a reason, because I wanted to consider their arguments, and anyone who chose to agree with my premises.

 

It's called an exchange of ideas.  People of your ilk might be well served to engage in it rather than just calling people names and making assumptions about their viewpoints.  And don't get me wrong, your ilk has little to do with your party affiliation or political viewpoint.  In other words, BOTH SIDES!

[TwiceHorn 32087]

Goddam quote button.

Edited July 5, 2018 by TwiceHorn

[Cacti 191]

1 hour ago, TwiceHorn said:

Please enlighten me on how it's racist.  

It's not. I think the majority of posters on this thread would agree.

[bad_teammate 13562]

36 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

I said "arguably" and invited people to disagree with the premise for a reason, because I wanted to consider their arguments, and anyone who chose to agree with my premises.

Yes, your premises.

It's hilarious to see you acknowledge that with zero self-awareness only a post after you (dishonestly) say, "I wasn't in any particular place when I started".

You started in a place. You were never amenable to reason. You were always going to end up in the same place. Multiple people decided to engage your disingenuous bullshit with patience and it had zero effect.

Quote

It's called an exchange of ideas. 

Ideas were exchanged with you by very patient people. Ideas far more nuanced and educated than your own, and SHOCKINGLY you ended up exactly where you began.

[TwiceHorn 32087]

On 7/3/2018 at 10:38 AM, Dahobbs said:

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. 

Back to this, yes, at a particular point in the timeline, one society or another can call itself the most advanced.  But my interest is in why that society finds itself at the furthest right, while others at the same point in the timeframe are further left on the progress scale.  Is it really just historical accident? 

Yes, the Mongols collapsed under their own weight (I sense this is probably true, without being intimately familiar with the history), but they also ceased (I think?) to continue to have influence over other civilizations in the same way that Romans, Greeks, and Egyptians did.  Perhaps their influence/progress was driven only by "warlike" materialism as opposed to potentially more benign forms of materialism?

[TwiceHorn 32087]

1 minute ago, bad_teammate said:

Yes, your premises.

It's hilarious to see you acknowledge that with zero self-awareness only a post after you (dishonestly) say, "I wasn't in any particular place when I started".

You started in a place. You were never amenable to reason. You were always going to end up in the same place. Multiple people decided to engage your disingenuous bullshit with patience and it had zero effect.

Ideas were exchanged with you by very patient people. Ideas far more nuanced and educated than your own, and SHOCKINGLY you ended up exactly where you began.

I'm not arguing with you anymore.  You have no fucking idea what I think.  My premises in this thread are not my beliefs.

[bad_teammate 13562]

Just now, TwiceHorn said:

I'm not arguing with you anymore.  You have no fucking idea what I think.  My premises in this thread are not my beliefs.

Yes you just argue on their behalf incessantly. lol

[EuroHorn 3295]

1 minute ago, TwiceHorn said:

I'm not arguing with you anymore.  You have no fucking idea what I think.  My premises in this thread are not my beliefs.

You’ve been  groveratted...

[TwiceHorn 32087]

I've seen the groverat theory and am not sure I buy it.  Groverat was so far left he could barely get out of bed, but he wasn't a strident dickhead like BT and actually voiced opinions and made substantive comments other than personal assaults.

[zork 629]

17 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Back to this, yes, at a particular point in the timeline, one society or another can call itself the most advanced.  But my interest is in why that society finds itself at the furthest right, while others at the same point in the timeframe are further left on the progress scale.  Is it really just historical accident? 

Yes, the Mongols collapsed under their own weight (I sense this is probably true, without being intimately familiar with the history), but they also ceased (I think?) to continue to have influence over other civilizations in the same way that Romans, Greeks, and Egyptians did.  Perhaps their influence/progress was driven only by "warlike" materialism as opposed to potentially more benign forms of materialism?

Maybe the Mongols were excellent at winning the war, but shitty at winning the peace?  Plus their tactical advantage of swooping in with horse riders might have been short term success even on the winning the war front.  That is just off the top of my head and I'm certainly not a Mongol expert.

Edited July 5, 2018 by zork

[EuroHorn 3295]

2 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

I've seen the groverat theory and am not sure I buy it.  Groverat was so far left he could barely get out of bed, but he wasn't a strident dickhead like BT and actually voiced opinions and made substantive comments other than personal assaults.

It’s groverat. Exact same posting style.  Not worth the trouble 

Edited July 5, 2018 by EuroHorn

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

9 hours ago, David Dennison said:

None of the above has any bearing whatsoever on the white racism that currently exists in this country, racism which evolved, in part, from the practice of enslaving Africans.

 

Ohhhh you.

[TwiceHorn 32087]

29 minutes ago, zork said:

Maybe the Mongols were excellent at winning the war, but shitty at winning the peace?  Plus their tactical advantage of swooping in with horse riders might have been short term success even on the winning the war front.  That is just off the top of my head and I'm certainly not a Mongol expert.

Yeah, that's kind of what I meant by the warlike materialism.  I think the notion that some form of materialism propels advancement of a technological sort is very valid and that that same materialism may be hazardous to a society. But I also think a certain degree of materialism may be necessary to support an academic or thought "class" to keep less tangible forms of progress moving (thought, spirituality, politics, that kind of thing).  The Mongols certainly were epic warriors and conquerors and to one degree or another brought some Chinese advancements with them, perhaps only warlike ones because other than that, I don't see that they left any sort of cultural legacy in the places they conquered.

It's fascinating to me that China invented gunpowder, used guns and incendiary/explosive weapons, turned them on Europe, then, when their warriors finally "got beat," just sort of retreated into global irrelevance for a few centuries, while still churning along internally. Of course, Mongols probably shouldn't be conflated with Chinese:  they got some benefit from proximity to China, but were/are a different culture/society. 

[HOOK'EMHOOAH 1610]

Anyone who tries to justify slavery of any kind from any period is morally bankrupt. The disillusioned notion that "they did it, so when we did/do it, its ok for us to do it" only digs the hole deeper. Excusing any sect of humanity for their crimes sets the precedent that it can be done again.

[zork 629]

4 minutes ago, HOOK'EMHOOAH said:

Anyone who tries to justify slavery of any kind from any period is morally bankrupt. The disillusioned notion that "they did it, so when we did/do it, its ok for us to do it" only digs the hole deeper. Excusing any sect of humanity for their crimes sets the precedent that it can be done again.

Who is justifying slavery?

[HOOK'EMHOOAH 1610]

1 hour ago, zork said:

Who is justifying slavery?

You're not serious. You can't be serious.

[zork 629]

Saying the WWEM appropriated slavery from somewhere else is not justification in my opinion.  Saying it was legal isn't a justification either. 

Live your life on what is right or wrong whether it is legal or not, and big titties.  Added the last part because, big titties.

[DixonHur 11967]

7 hours ago, HOOK'EMHOOAH said:

Anyone who tries to justify slavery of any kind from any period is morally bankrupt. The disillusioned notion that "they did it, so when we did/do it, its ok for us to do it" only digs the hole deeper. Excusing any sect of humanity for their crimes sets the precedent that it can be done again.

That's a very defensive way to read this thread.  

I think Zork & co. are simply pointing out that slavery isn't unique to WWEM.  

[TwiceHorn 32087]

10 minutes ago, DixonHur said:

That's a very defensive way to read this thread.  

I think Zork & co. are simply pointing out that slavery isn't unique to WWEM.  

Has there ever been a society/culture/civilization that conquered or invaded another without enslaving portions of the conquered people?  Or otherwise eschewed the use of slaves?

On the one hand, I suppose that it's just human nature, on the other, it's just so unfathomable.  I guess if you lack the science, perhaps it becomes easier if you truly believe the enslaved are a lesser species.

 

I'm left with the grim conclusion that all this advancement has come with a huge moral price tag that's been accumulating since more or less the dawn of time.

[TwiceHorn 32087]

On 7/3/2018 at 11:16 AM, FondrenRoad said:

I actually agree with the original premise as well as this post.  However, I think it is the cultural failure of rampant materialism that created much of the advancement.  It's also why the "means" was often brutal as it mostly consisted of materialism driven takings either through forced labor, stolen gold, or warfare. And really, the vast majority of our current tech has its roots in waging war. There are and have always been later societal benefits to advancements made for the purpose of taking, fighting, and wealth accumulation.

Culturally, populations that focus on food, shelter, and family are happier than those that focus on materialism, so I wouldn't call ourselves culturally superior even though I would say we are technologically superior. This is even true of white cultures in Scandanavia, as well as other Europeans that have stepped back from cultural materialism over the last several decades.  

I also see a step back trend in American millennials. And a step up in cultural materialism in Asian cultures. The next technological sea changes are likely to come from China because of it. 

You have obviously considered/read up on this materialism theory.  What is the relationship between materialism and collectivism, meaning a collectivist society or culture, as many Asian cultures are said to be (as opposed to an enforced, political collectivism), or, if you prefer, individualism (used as the opposite of collectivism)?  The Chinese, said to be collectivist, certainly aren't particularly more or less warlike than anyone else.

[DixonHur 11967]

10 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Has there ever been a society/culture/civilization that conquered or invaded another without enslaving portions of the conquered people?  Or otherwise eschewed the use of slaves?

On the one hand, I suppose that it's just human nature, on the other, it's just so unfathomable.  I guess if you lack the science, perhaps it becomes easier if you truly believe the enslaved are a lesser species.

 

I'm left with the grim conclusion that all this advancement has come with a huge moral price tag that's been accumulating since more or less the dawn of time.

Reminds me of a line in the Ken Burns Vietnam documentary...

"Man didn't become the dominant species by being nice"

...which brings up an interesting philosophical question.  Is our inate violence and inhumanity the reason for our success, a hindrance to our survival, or both?

[TwiceHorn 32087]

Just now, DixonHur said:

Reminds me of a line in the Ken Burns Vietnam documentary...

"Man didn't become the dominant species by being nice"

...which brings up an interesting philosophical question.  Is our inate violence and inhumanity the reason for our success, a hindrance to our survival, or both?

Right, and I think Aphelion touched on the really big picture there, above.  It's quite unsettling, really.

 

 

[HOOK'EMHOOAH 1610]

30 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Has there ever been a society/culture/civilization that conquered or invaded another without enslaving portions of the conquered people?  Or otherwise eschewed the use of slaves?

On the one hand, I suppose that it's just human nature, on the other, it's just so unfathomable.  I guess if you lack the science, perhaps it becomes easier if you truly believe the enslaved are a lesser species.

 

I'm left with the grim conclusion that all this advancement has come with a huge moral price tag that's been accumulating since more or less the dawn of time.

The position in your first paragraph is exactly what I'm getting at when I said it only digs the hole deeper. It's morally repugnant and nothing will ever excuse one human owning another human. It wasn't ok for the Egyptians, the Phoenicians, the Mongols, the Persians, the Greeks, the Romans, the Jews, the Muslims , the Christian's, or anyone else. So it certainly wasn't ok for the Europeans or Americans when it came time for their conquests of the western hemisphere.

As I've stated at other points in this thread, it is against the laws of physics to go back and undo what past civilizations did to one another. However, it is not against any law of nature to learn from the mistakes throughout human history and commit ourselves to never repeating them. I'm committed to this cause, some of you seem as though as long as your own ethnicity is on top you dont care what happens to anyone else. If you feel like I might be talking about you with this comment, then I probably am. I won't apologize for taking a stand against such reprehensible moral recidivism.

[DixonHur 11967]

3 minutes ago, HOOK'EMHOOAH said:

I won't apologize for taking a stand against such reprehensible moral recidivism.

The problem with this type of thinking is that morality is fluid, and you're applying today's standard of morality on historical events. 

[HOOK'EMHOOAH 1610]

4 minutes ago, DixonHur said:

The problem with this type of thinking is that morality is fluid, and you're applying today's standard of morality on historical events. 

Are you ok with one human owning another?

[Celery Man 21099]

Minor carp - if something is innate to “us”, broadly, it is not inhuman. Inhumane, maybe.

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

7 hours ago, HOOK'EMHOOAH said:

You're not serious. You can't be serious.

Has someone suggested slavery was OK here ? Or are you just shouting at clouds 

[DixonHur 11967]

16 minutes ago, HOOK'EMHOOAH said:

Are you ok with one human owning another?

Now?  Of course not.  But I'm not going to pass judgement on those in the past based on society's current moral compass. 

[TwiceHorn 32087]

1 hour ago, HOOK'EMHOOAH said:

The position in your first paragraph is exactly what I'm getting at when I said it only digs the hole deeper. It's morally repugnant and nothing will ever excuse one human owning another human. It wasn't ok for the Egyptians, the Phoenicians, the Mongols, the Persians, the Greeks, the Romans, the Jews, the Muslims , the Christian's, or anyone else. So it certainly wasn't ok for the Europeans or Americans when it came time for their conquests of the western hemisphere.

As I've stated at other points in this thread, it is against the laws of physics to go back and undo what past civilizations did to one another. However, it is not against any law of nature to learn from the mistakes throughout human history and commit ourselves to never repeating them. I'm committed to this cause, some of you seem as though as long as your own ethnicity is on top you dont care what happens to anyone else. If you feel like I might be talking about you with this comment, then I probably am. I won't apologize for taking a stand against such reprehensible moral recidivism.

It's because you choose to read it that way.  It's a question, not a statement of a position.  I'm not trying to excuse anything, I'm just curious why something that is so obviously repugnant today was so easily acceptable and part and parcel of humans doing human stuff 200 or 2000 years ago.  I suppose if you want to, you can pervert that question into "well if we did it for a couple of millenia, then it must be ok" and then you would be bad_teammate.  Don't be bad_teammate.

And a subset of that is how it is that a couple of millenia's worth of depredation became finally unacceptable.  I think a part of it has to do with science in that Darwin, among others, finally gave a scientific basis for human equality, which, of course, certain folks quibble with to this day.  But I think another part of it, also implicated by Darwin, is that  materialistic progress permitted the advancement of science and philosophy, and education of the masses in same, so that what was always morally inexcusable finally became almost universally seen that way.

Edited July 5, 2018 by TwiceHorn

[TwiceHorn 32087]

28 minutes ago, DixonHur said:

Now?  Of course not.  But I'm not going to pass judgement on those in the past based on society's current moral compass. 

Well, and here's the thing.  I think we have to pass judgment on the past.  It was wrong, it was immoral.  The more interesting question, posed and answered for himself, by Aphelion, is if you could change it, would you?

And, of course, Aphelion's position is that morality is not fluid.  I think perhaps conception of it is fluid, and that's one aspect of this whole mess that I find interesting, because I think it's the very advancement that is done immorally leads to the clearer conception of that immorality, as you noted above.

And then, where this goes that is fascinating, is are primitive, non-materialistic societies/cultures/civilizations morally superior to more advanced ones, especially considering that they probably subscribe to a supernatural, "mythical" by modern standards, religion.

And, while I clearly see the "do the ends justify the means" aspect of my original post, I don't find that an interesting question, really, because I think the answer is virtually always no, they don't.

The interesting aspect to me, poorly articulated as it may have been, is:  is it possible to achieve material or technological advances (and the associated less tangible advances), without committing what I originally called malfeasance.  History seems to indicate no.

Edited July 5, 2018 by TwiceHorn

[bad_teammate 13562]

1 hour ago, TwiceHorn said:

Has there ever been a society/culture/civilization that conquered or invaded another without enslaving portions of the conquered people?  Or otherwise eschewed the use of slaves?

On the one hand, I suppose that it's just human nature, on the other, it's just so unfathomable.  I guess if you lack the science, perhaps it becomes easier if you truly believe the enslaved are a lesser species.

 

I'm left with the grim conclusion that all this advancement has come with a huge moral price tag that's been accumulating since more or less the dawn of time.

TwiceHorn's progression of white supremacist logic in a nutsack...

Paragraph 1: He doesn't know the answer to this question, and without an answer a conclusion cannot be logically drawn.
Paragraph 2: He begins to rationalize his desired answer into existence with vague waffling.
Paragraph 3: He accepts the "grim conclusion" of his entirely baseless answer that whites are, after all, the supreme result of ugly reality. He has successfully turned his own ignorance into the bedrock of his argument.

Step-by-step, baby.

But even the question starting this dismal train down the tracks is flawed. What the hell is the purpose of the caveat "that conquered or invaded another"? Why is the question not, "Has there ever been a society/culture/civilization that did not enslave people?"

It's because the answer to that question is obvious and it doesn't reinforce white supremacy.

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

15 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

TwiceHorn's progression of white supremacist logic in a nutsack...

Paragraph 1: He doesn't know the answer to this question, and without an answer a conclusion cannot be logically drawn.
Paragraph 2: He begins to rationalize his desired answer into existence with vague waffling.
Paragraph 3: He accepts the "grim conclusion" of his entirely baseless answer that whites are, after all, the supreme result of ugly reality. He has successfully turned his own ignorance into the bedrock of his argument.

Step-by-step, baby.

But even the question starting this dismal train down the tracks is flawed. What the hell is the purpose of the caveat "that conquered or invaded another"? Why is the question not, "Has there ever been a society/culture/civilization that did not enslave people?"

It's because the answer to that question is obvious and it doesn't reinforce white supremacy.

Anything coming from you on the subject of race is tainted by your bizarre notion that anyone who disagrees with you on anything is a racist.

[Dahobbs 18339]

18 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

TwiceHorn's progression of white supremacist logic in a nutsack...

Paragraph 1: He doesn't know the answer to this question, and without an answer a conclusion cannot be logically drawn.
Paragraph 2: He begins to rationalize his desired answer into existence with vague waffling.
Paragraph 3: He accepts the "grim conclusion" of his entirely baseless answer that whites are, after all, the supreme result of ugly reality. He has successfully turned his own ignorance into the bedrock of his argument.

Step-by-step, baby.

But even the question starting this dismal train down the tracks is flawed. What the hell is the purpose of the caveat "that conquered or invaded another"? Why is the question not, "Has there ever been a society/culture/civilization that did not enslave people?"

It's because the answer to that question is obvious and it doesn't reinforce white supremacy.

I'm confident that TwiceHorn isn't a white supremacist. That said, I do believe all of us like to believe we are special, whether individually or by association with a group. I think it is a natural inclination and I wouldn't fault anyone for it. This thread may be at least partly driven by that base desire/belief. But asking the question is also a good way to discover one's own subconscious preconceptions and biases. Thus, I think the intellectual exercise is worthwhile, especially the way TwiceHorn has approached it.  

[Dahobbs 18339]

12 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

Back to this, yes, at a particular point in the timeline, one society or another can call itself the most advanced.  But my interest is in why that society finds itself at the furthest right, while others at the same point in the timeframe are further left on the progress scale.  Is it really just historical accident? 

Yes, the Mongols collapsed under their own weight (I sense this is probably true, without being intimately familiar with the history), but they also ceased (I think?) to continue to have influence over other civilizations in the same way that Romans, Greeks, and Egyptians did.  Perhaps their influence/progress was driven only by "warlike" materialism as opposed to potentially more benign forms of materialism?

There may be some cultural aspects that allow certain civilizations to come to dominance during their time. However, I'm not convinced there is a perfect recipe for dominance, as everything depends on your surrounding environment. You see some of the same things in evolution -- mammals forced into small niches during the reign of the dinosaurs and only come to prominence when other conditions allow it. I also think that power and influence, including of civilizations, tends to be a zero-sum game. This planet will only support so many dominant civilizations at anyone time, and as a result resources are drained from others that might have otherwise risen to the top ranks. You can find reasons why one civilization prospered over another during a particular point in time, but it would be a mistake to assume that those results mean that civilization is superior. Think of it like paper, rocks, scissors-- the match up determines the outcome.  

[FondrenRoad 4378]

2 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

You have obviously considered/read up on this materialism theory.  What is the relationship between materialism and collectivism, meaning a collectivist society or culture, as many Asian cultures are said to be (as opposed to an enforced, political collectivism), or, if you prefer, individualism (used as the opposite of collectivism)?  The Chinese, said to be collectivist, certainly aren't particularly more or less warlike than anyone else.

Actually, the Chinese are less warlike.  They did fill up most of the, at the time, empty area around them with Han Chinese people, and for most of their history, their wars were about unification and dissolution of tribes of people of the same culture.  On a global scale, they've never been participants until recently.  On a regional scale, they defended themselves against materialist Mongols, British, Portuguese, Japanese, and Americans, but never really sought to take over anywhere else, including adjacent Korea and nearby Japan. Their modern outward turn is due to their recent embrace of consumer materialist culture.

The Japanese also did the same.  They were content to be isolationist and remain on their islands until Perry forcefully opened them up requiring them to embrace materialism or be conquered.  They then wreaked havoc on Korea, China, and Asia at-large, seeking primarily land and wealth.

But, I don't consider collectivism to be the opposite of materialism.  While collectivist societies are probably less likely to be materialist, it isn't necessarily linked.  Both South Korea and Japan remain collectivist while being extremely materialist.  Latin American culture is less materialist while being more individualist.

Interestingly, even as an individualist country, much of America's greatest achievements are collectivist in nature due to the way our research universities work.  Also, the scientific method itself, as well as peer review, are collectivist ideals which allowed others to build off prior knowledge.  The greatest failing of ancient Chinese science was that it often died with the individual and had to be "re-discovered."  Also, in spite of our individualism versus Soviet collectivism in general, I think our space program took a collectivist approach while theirs was more "cowboy" in nature.

Also, I'd say its best to be 2nd in technology, both as a nation state and a culture.  You can take advantage of the effort of the first while freeing your own culture up to pursue happiness rather than wealth.  This is where Western Europe is right now and their culture is now largely different from American culture in spite of the initial claim that WWEM occupy a single cultural entity..

Edited July 5, 2018 by FondrenRoad

[TwiceHorn 32087]

38 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

I'm confident that TwiceHorn isn't a white supremacist. That said, I do believe all of us like to believe we are special, whether individually or by association with a group. I think it is a natural inclination and I wouldn't fault anyone for it. This thread may be at least partly driven by that base desire/belief. But asking the question is also a good way to discover one's own subconscious preconceptions and biases. Thus, I think the intellectual exercise is worthwhile, especially the way TwiceHorn has approached it.  

Thank you.  I freely admit that I'm a middle-aged white dude that has been conditioned to think certain ways, that are probably white supremist-ty [sic].  But I am skeptical of those ideas, the  white guy's conventional wisdom, and therefore have questions.  And concerns.

 

I also have this kind of weird education that's a mile wide and an inch deep on both mathematical/scientific fronts and social science fronts, so I need the help of others with more in depth education in historical and social matters.

Edited July 5, 2018 by TwiceHorn

[TwiceHorn 32087]

33 minutes ago, FondrenRoad said:

Actually, the Chinese are less warlike.  They did fill up most of the, at the time, empty area around them with Han Chinese people, and for most of their history, their wars were about unification and dissolution of tribes of people of the same culture.  On a global scale, they've never been participants until recently.  On a regional scale, they defended themselves against materialist Mongols, British, Portuguese, Japanese, and Americans, but never really sought to take over anywhere else, including adjacent Korea and nearby Japan. Their modern outward turn is due to their recent embrace of consumer materialist culture.

The Japanese also did the same.  They were content to be isolationist and remain on their islands until Perry forcefully opened them up requiring them to embrace materialism or be conquered.  They then wreaked havoc on Korea, China, and Asia at-large, seeking primarily land and wealth.

But, I don't consider collectivism to be the opposite of materialism.  While collectivist societies are probably less likely to be materialist, it isn't necessarily linked.

Interestingly, even as an individualist country, much of America's greatest achievements are collectivist in nature due to the way our research universities work.  Also, the scientific method itself, as well as peer review, are collectivist ideals which allowed others to build off prior knowledge.  The greatest failing of ancient Chinese science was that it often died with the individual and had to be "re-discovered."  Also, in spite of our individualism versus Soviet collectivism in general, I think our space program took a collectivist approach while theirs was more "cowboy" in nature.

Also, I'd say its best to be 2nd in technology, both as a nation state and a culture.  You can take advantage of the effort of the first while freeing your own culture up to pursue happiness rather than wealth.  This is where Western Europe is right now and their culture is now largely different from American culture in spite of the initial claim that WWEM occupy a single cultural entity..

Thanks, very insightful.

 

Additional thought/question.  For whatever reason, the Chinese and perhaps Asians more broadly seem not to have embraced ocean navigation/exploration the way some societies had in the distant past.  I think you imply or state, and I would agree that that is "materialist."  But it isn't necessarily warlike (or maybe my definition of warlike is too narrow).  I think at one time the Portuguese were regarded as the most prolific explorers of the ocean, and at another the Dutch, yet neither of them are not particularly notorious (or maybe it's just unsuccessful) for being warlike or even accumulating many colonies.

I think I am arriving at a notion that, as you say, some tempered materialism or being "second best" technologically (assuming those are relatively synonymous), is the best place to "be," but I am struggling a little to separate benign materialism from belligerent, if you will.

Edited July 5, 2018 by TwiceHorn

[bad_teammate 13562]

43 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

I'm confident that TwiceHorn isn't a white supremacist.

Ethnocentrism is a common feature of humanity. If you're white, that manifests as white supremacy. I do not think TwiceHorn is a skinhead who sets crosses on fire. I think he is exactly what he describes himself as being: a middle-aged white dude that has been conditioned to think certain ways, that are probably white supremist-ty [sic]

That describes me as well, with "middle-aged" being generous.

It seems that many of you attach an emotional weight to the label, "white supremacist" or "white supremacy" and many of you seem to think that white supremacy only exists in the space of hammerskins and Klan members when, in reality, white supremacy is extremely pervasive in polite company, corporate spheres, and government, especially law enforcement. It's not (just) about the obvious bigoted hateful racists in ICE or the police, but the starched-shirt, suit-and-tie white supremacy of good-hearted men raising families making policy in the back rooms.

The first step to not being a white supremacist anymore is to acknowledge that such a thing is possible, but the ability to self-apply a label like that and be that self-critical is rare and often comes from being openly confronted instead of patiently coddled and "allowed" to get away with fuzzy logic.

[Whitman 694]

1 hour ago, HOOK'EMHOOAH said:

Are you ok with one human owning another?

With my personal experience with (now dead) very old relatives, one of the ways slavery was rationalised was that the individuals were dehumanized.  Many did not think of blacks as humans, so you weren't owing a human.  My maternal grandmother was like this.  Though born after the war, she knew people that had been born slaves and we had slaves here on the farm that I currently own.  If you had asked her, there were "people", that was the white folks, "animals", like oxen and horses and cows, and then there were "nigras".  As repungnant as that is to us, if you dehumanize people, you can do some pretty terrible things to them.  I would imagine that happened often and by many in Nazi Germany with jews and even to some extent in any current military in a combat situation. 

[David Dennison 19560]

2 minutes ago, Whitman said:

With my personal experience with (now dead) very old relatives, one of the ways slavery was rationalised was that the individuals were dehumanized.  Many did not think of blacks as humans, so you weren't owing a human.  My maternal grandmother was like this.  Though born after the war, she knew people that had been born slaves and we had slaves here on the farm that I currently own.  If you had asked her, there were "people", that was the white folks, "animals", like oxen and horses and cows, and then there were "nigras".  As repungnant as that is to us, if you dehumanize people, you can do some pretty terrible things to them.  I would imagine that happened often and by many in Nazi Germany with jews and even to some extent in any current military in a combat situation. 

It's happening right now. That's what "animals" is all about.

[TwiceHorn 32087]

5 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

It's happening right now. That's what "animals" is all about.

And there are small-scale dehumanizations going on everywhere. It's kind of the MO of online communities of all kinds, including this one.

[bad_teammate 13562]

1 minute ago, TwiceHorn said:

And there are small-scale dehumanizations going on everywhere. It's kind of the MO of online communities of all kinds, including this one.

Are you equating the president calling immigrants "animals" with people on message boards being called out for expressing white supremacist ideas? Just curious.

[Dahobbs 18339]

28 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

Ethnocentrism is a common feature of humanity. If you're white, that manifests as white supremacy. I do not think TwiceHorn is a skinhead who sets crosses on fire. I think he is exactly what he describes himself as being: a middle-aged white dude that has been conditioned to think certain ways, that are probably white supremist-ty [sic]

That describes me as well, with "middle-aged" being generous.

It seems that many of you attach an emotional weight to the label, "white supremacist" or "white supremacy" and many of you seem to think that white supremacy only exists in the space of hammerskins and Klan members when, in reality, white supremacy is extremely pervasive in polite company, corporate spheres, and government, especially law enforcement. It's not (just) about the obvious bigoted hateful racists in ICE or the police, but the starched-shirt, suit-and-tie white supremacy of good-hearted men raising families making policy in the back rooms.

The first step to not being a white supremacist anymore is to acknowledge that such a thing is possible, but the ability to self-apply a label like that and be that self-critical is rare and often comes from being openly confronted instead of patiently coddled and "allowed" to get away with fuzzy logic.

I feel like you didn't read my entire post. I agree with you in substance, just not approach. "White supremacist" is obviously a derogatory term to most people and is a subset of those with ethnocentric beliefs--mainly those who have made a conscious decision that not only is the white "race" superior, but that it should subjugate the other races. I don't think it typically includes those hidden biases that we all tend to have. TwiceHorn has been pretty receptive to constructive feedback on this issue, so I don't see the need or benefit of berating him with insults. 

Edited July 5, 2018 by Dahobbs