|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On December 06 2017 04:15 kollin wrote:Show nested quote +On December 06 2017 04:07 IgnE wrote:On December 06 2017 04:00 kollin wrote:On December 06 2017 03:57 IgnE wrote:On December 06 2017 03:53 kollin wrote:On December 06 2017 03:46 IgnE wrote:On December 06 2017 02:35 xDaunt wrote:On December 06 2017 02:22 kollin wrote:
Western culture is a product of capitalism, and the fact other countries adopt it is more of an example of the power of capital in transforming them than the strength of Western values overwhelming them. You have it backwards. Capitalism is a product of Western culture. There's a reason why capitalism did not emerge until the later stages of the Enlightenment. yes indeed. kwark is on record as being a proponent of the superiority of some interpretation of western values. i think one compelling reason for being pro-western values is that western thought is unique in having developed philosophical tools which can be reflexively applied towards self-critique. a space exists for critique of western values themselves, and that space is arguably the very space in which most of this thread's participants are situated on this very topic RE: that book on islam being an "origin" of capitalism i havent read the book, ony the blurb. that goes far enough, i think, in laying out the hypothesis that Muhammed was "an entrepreneur" and therefore had a lot to say about markets and consumers. i feel pretty confident in saying that the historian who wrote it probably has a done a lot of careful work, but oversteps his evidence to be deliberately provocative. as any historians know, there is a great difference between ancient market traders and capitalists. markets and bazaars were the principal gathering place of many eastern civilizations that had contact w the greeks and romans (im not talking about china etc.). compare, for example, the greek agora to the persian marketplace. you might as well say that capitalism originated in the "entrepreneurial" activity of those eastern traders in ancient civilizations. they are far more the prototype of muhammed than muhammed is the prototype of modern titans of capital. the main differences being that traders lacked the financing structures of capital and that they failed to fundamentally change the means of production. I've not read the book either, I just wanted to be facetious - though it's worth mentioning that writers rarely determine what's on the blurb of a book. Do you agree with the argument that capitalism emerged from the Enlightenment though? Because that seems counter factual to the developments of the 16th and early 17th century. "emerged?" no "thrived as a result of?" yes. but i would say as a result of enlightenment AND reformation. max weber said this over a hundred years ago But posters here are claiming that the reason for the adoption of Western culture by non-Western cultures is due to its inherent superiority - not due to the spread of capitalism stamping western culture into these countries whether they like it or not. To try and explain this by pointing to capitalism as emerging due to the Enlightenment misrepresents the causal relationship between capitalism and 'Western' values. well saying "the enlightenment and reformation ohenomena led to the growth of capitalism in the west" and saying "other countries are only forced to adopt capitalism and western values out of necessity" (the two being inextricably linked) arent mutually exclusive. what i think is the more pressing question is: what to make of so called "capitalism w asian values" in what is supposed to be the only region of the world that poses a true threat to continued American global dominance Very true, I just have a problem with xDaunt expressing the idea that Western culture 'produced' capitalism.
I'd argue that individualism is undoubtedly an asset when it comes to producing capitalism, and that Western individualism was certainly shaped by enlightenment (without quibbling too much as to whether they're co-emergent or where it falls on the time scale). Individualism isn't even close to all-encompassing of Western values though--you could probably scrap 2/3 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and still have individualism.
|
On December 06 2017 04:26 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On December 06 2017 04:15 xDaunt wrote:On December 06 2017 04:07 IgnE wrote:On December 06 2017 04:00 kollin wrote:On December 06 2017 03:57 IgnE wrote:On December 06 2017 03:53 kollin wrote:On December 06 2017 03:46 IgnE wrote:On December 06 2017 02:35 xDaunt wrote:On December 06 2017 02:22 kollin wrote:
Western culture is a product of capitalism, and the fact other countries adopt it is more of an example of the power of capital in transforming them than the strength of Western values overwhelming them. You have it backwards. Capitalism is a product of Western culture. There's a reason why capitalism did not emerge until the later stages of the Enlightenment. yes indeed. kwark is on record as being a proponent of the superiority of some interpretation of western values. i think one compelling reason for being pro-western values is that western thought is unique in having developed philosophical tools which can be reflexively applied towards self-critique. a space exists for critique of western values themselves, and that space is arguably the very space in which most of this thread's participants are situated on this very topic RE: that book on islam being an "origin" of capitalism i havent read the book, ony the blurb. that goes far enough, i think, in laying out the hypothesis that Muhammed was "an entrepreneur" and therefore had a lot to say about markets and consumers. i feel pretty confident in saying that the historian who wrote it probably has a done a lot of careful work, but oversteps his evidence to be deliberately provocative. as any historians know, there is a great difference between ancient market traders and capitalists. markets and bazaars were the principal gathering place of many eastern civilizations that had contact w the greeks and romans (im not talking about china etc.). compare, for example, the greek agora to the persian marketplace. you might as well say that capitalism originated in the "entrepreneurial" activity of those eastern traders in ancient civilizations. they are far more the prototype of muhammed than muhammed is the prototype of modern titans of capital. the main differences being that traders lacked the financing structures of capital and that they failed to fundamentally change the means of production. I've not read the book either, I just wanted to be facetious - though it's worth mentioning that writers rarely determine what's on the blurb of a book. Do you agree with the argument that capitalism emerged from the Enlightenment though? Because that seems counter factual to the developments of the 16th and early 17th century. "emerged?" no "thrived as a result of?" yes. but i would say as a result of enlightenment AND reformation. max weber said this over a hundred years ago But posters here are claiming that the reason for the adoption of Western culture by non-Western cultures is due to its inherent superiority - not due to the spread of capitalism stamping western culture into these countries whether they like it or not. To try and explain this by pointing to capitalism as emerging due to the Enlightenment misrepresents the causal relationship between capitalism and 'Western' values. well saying "the enlightenment and reformation ohenomena led to the growth of capitalism in the west" and saying "other countries are only forced to adopt capitalism and western values out of necessity" (the two being inextricably linked) arent mutually exclusive. what i think is the more pressing question is: what to make of so called "capitalism w asian values" in what is supposed to be the only region of the world that poses a true threat to continued American global dominance What you see are countries that acknowledge the obvious power and superiority of a capitalist economy but are still expressly rejecting most of the core individual-oriented, Western values that gave birth to that system. This is why I say that cultural differences matter and Western culture should be defended. There very clearly are competitors out there that seek to eventually overtake and replace the dominant position of Western culture. Anyone who purports to cherish the fruits of Western culture -- which, as I have pointed out, is pretty much everyone here -- should be mindful of this reality and act accordingly. You act as if our cultural identity is something so fragile and unstable that it must be insulated from conflicting ideas. If Western Culture as you frame is so meritorious, it won’t need us to defend it. We have to shield this “culture” from the free exchange of idea that birthed it. If capitalism and liberty if going to “survive” this culture war you claim is coming, it isn’t going to do it by limiting the US citizen’s exposure to other ideas and cultures.
There's also an unsettling assumption here by xDaunt that the cultural experiences of many non-white Americans is somehow inferior because of their ties and roots in non-western culture. Which, to me, would mean the diminishing the generations of contributions (including culturally) by those former immigrants. That a Chinese-American's upbringing is somehow fundamentally un-American.
|
On December 06 2017 04:35 Logo wrote:Show nested quote +On December 06 2017 04:26 Plansix wrote:On December 06 2017 04:15 xDaunt wrote:On December 06 2017 04:07 IgnE wrote:On December 06 2017 04:00 kollin wrote:On December 06 2017 03:57 IgnE wrote:On December 06 2017 03:53 kollin wrote:On December 06 2017 03:46 IgnE wrote:On December 06 2017 02:35 xDaunt wrote:On December 06 2017 02:22 kollin wrote:
Western culture is a product of capitalism, and the fact other countries adopt it is more of an example of the power of capital in transforming them than the strength of Western values overwhelming them. You have it backwards. Capitalism is a product of Western culture. There's a reason why capitalism did not emerge until the later stages of the Enlightenment. yes indeed. kwark is on record as being a proponent of the superiority of some interpretation of western values. i think one compelling reason for being pro-western values is that western thought is unique in having developed philosophical tools which can be reflexively applied towards self-critique. a space exists for critique of western values themselves, and that space is arguably the very space in which most of this thread's participants are situated on this very topic RE: that book on islam being an "origin" of capitalism i havent read the book, ony the blurb. that goes far enough, i think, in laying out the hypothesis that Muhammed was "an entrepreneur" and therefore had a lot to say about markets and consumers. i feel pretty confident in saying that the historian who wrote it probably has a done a lot of careful work, but oversteps his evidence to be deliberately provocative. as any historians know, there is a great difference between ancient market traders and capitalists. markets and bazaars were the principal gathering place of many eastern civilizations that had contact w the greeks and romans (im not talking about china etc.). compare, for example, the greek agora to the persian marketplace. you might as well say that capitalism originated in the "entrepreneurial" activity of those eastern traders in ancient civilizations. they are far more the prototype of muhammed than muhammed is the prototype of modern titans of capital. the main differences being that traders lacked the financing structures of capital and that they failed to fundamentally change the means of production. I've not read the book either, I just wanted to be facetious - though it's worth mentioning that writers rarely determine what's on the blurb of a book. Do you agree with the argument that capitalism emerged from the Enlightenment though? Because that seems counter factual to the developments of the 16th and early 17th century. "emerged?" no "thrived as a result of?" yes. but i would say as a result of enlightenment AND reformation. max weber said this over a hundred years ago But posters here are claiming that the reason for the adoption of Western culture by non-Western cultures is due to its inherent superiority - not due to the spread of capitalism stamping western culture into these countries whether they like it or not. To try and explain this by pointing to capitalism as emerging due to the Enlightenment misrepresents the causal relationship between capitalism and 'Western' values. well saying "the enlightenment and reformation ohenomena led to the growth of capitalism in the west" and saying "other countries are only forced to adopt capitalism and western values out of necessity" (the two being inextricably linked) arent mutually exclusive. what i think is the more pressing question is: what to make of so called "capitalism w asian values" in what is supposed to be the only region of the world that poses a true threat to continued American global dominance What you see are countries that acknowledge the obvious power and superiority of a capitalist economy but are still expressly rejecting most of the core individual-oriented, Western values that gave birth to that system. This is why I say that cultural differences matter and Western culture should be defended. There very clearly are competitors out there that seek to eventually overtake and replace the dominant position of Western culture. Anyone who purports to cherish the fruits of Western culture -- which, as I have pointed out, is pretty much everyone here -- should be mindful of this reality and act accordingly. You act as if our cultural identity is something so fragile and unstable that it must be insulated from conflicting ideas. If Western Culture as you frame is so meritorious, it won’t need us to defend it. We have to shield this “culture” from the free exchange of idea that birthed it. If capitalism and liberty if going to “survive” this culture war you claim is coming, it isn’t going to do it by limiting the US citizen’s exposure to other ideas and cultures. There's also an unsettling assumption here by xDaunt that the cultural experiences of non-white Americans is somehow inferior because of their ties and roots in non-western culture. Which, to me, would mean the diminishing the generations of contributions (including culturally) by those former immigrants. That a Chinese-American's upbringing is somehow fundamentally un-American.
Capitalism is about winners and losers. Weirdly, losers in American capitalism and non-western values seem to go hand in hand.
|
I just can't stand by the idea that because western culture produced all these great ideas and is the dominant culture in the world now, that it has nothing to be gained from exposure to other cultures and any possible integration of ideas from other cultures is automatically some kind of downgrade (and therefore potential exposure to those ideas should be discouraged)
Even if western culture has been the most successful to date, I don't see how it follows that there isn't room for improvement by integration of ideas from other cultures. Western culture is great in a lot of ways but also still shitty in a lot of ways. Just because it's less shitty than some other cultures doesn't mean we can't strive to improve further. Western culture didn't develop in a vacuum, it already became what it is today through integration of ideas from other places (e.g. trade with the Middle and Far East), why should we stop?
The fact that other cultures are "stealing" successful western cultural constructs like capitalism just further lends credence to the idea that cultures are a modular collection of ideas and we should be doing the reverse and taking successful ideas from them too, not isolating ourselves and avoiding exposure to them. Even if we accept that the goal here is cultural superiority, that's not a race that's won by closing all our doors and burying our heads in the sand--it's won by being better than everyone else at taking successful ideas from other people (something that western culture has been damn good at historically).
|
It's akin to people who think making a video game is this process whereby one person with a creative vision dictates everything and is neither enriched nor improved by listening to, processing, or heeding the opinions of any of the people they work with, let alone the game's players.
|
On December 06 2017 04:37 TheYango wrote:
I just can't stand by the idea that because western culture produced all these great ideas and is the dominant culture in the world now, that it has nothing to be gained from exposure to other cultures and any possible integration of ideas from other cultures is automatically some kind of downgrade (and therefore potential exposure to those ideas should be discouraged)
Even if western culture has been the most successful to date, I don't see how it follows that there isn't room for improvement by integration of ideas from other cultures. Western culture is great in a lot of ways but also still shitty in a lot of ways. Just because it's less shitty than some other cultures doesn't mean we can't strive to improve further. Western culture didn't develop in a vacuum, it already became what it is today through integration of ideas from other places (e.g. trade with the Middle and Far East), why should we stop?
No one is expressing hesitance to Japanese culture influencing our own.
|
And the assumption of superiority and the need to protect "western culture" pretty much kills that discussion. Which might be the intent all along.
|
On December 06 2017 04:41 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On December 06 2017 04:37 TheYango wrote:
I just can't stand by the idea that because western culture produced all these great ideas and is the dominant culture in the world now, that it has nothing to be gained from exposure to other cultures and any possible integration of ideas from other cultures is automatically some kind of downgrade (and therefore potential exposure to those ideas should be discouraged)
Even if western culture has been the most successful to date, I don't see how it follows that there isn't room for improvement by integration of ideas from other cultures. Western culture is great in a lot of ways but also still shitty in a lot of ways. Just because it's less shitty than some other cultures doesn't mean we can't strive to improve further. Western culture didn't develop in a vacuum, it already became what it is today through integration of ideas from other places (e.g. trade with the Middle and Far East), why should we stop? No one is expressing hesitance to Japanese culture influencing our own.
I'm pretty sure I've heard/read "fucking weebs" with 0 irony a few times in my life.
|
On December 06 2017 04:41 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On December 06 2017 04:37 TheYango wrote:
I just can't stand by the idea that because western culture produced all these great ideas and is the dominant culture in the world now, that it has nothing to be gained from exposure to other cultures and any possible integration of ideas from other cultures is automatically some kind of downgrade (and therefore potential exposure to those ideas should be discouraged)
Even if western culture has been the most successful to date, I don't see how it follows that there isn't room for improvement by integration of ideas from other cultures. Western culture is great in a lot of ways but also still shitty in a lot of ways. Just because it's less shitty than some other cultures doesn't mean we can't strive to improve further. Western culture didn't develop in a vacuum, it already became what it is today through integration of ideas from other places (e.g. trade with the Middle and Far East), why should we stop? No one is expressing hesitance to Japanese culture influencing our own.
homogeneity seems to be the big fetish of the right so it's not exactly surprising that they take (their imagined) version of Japan as a positive example. There seems to be also some kind of sexual component involved where disgruntled Western men fantasize of dating asian women who are supposed to behave like loving, obedient housewives from the 60s or whatever
|
On December 06 2017 04:20 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On December 06 2017 04:15 kollin wrote:On December 06 2017 04:07 IgnE wrote:On December 06 2017 04:00 kollin wrote:On December 06 2017 03:57 IgnE wrote:On December 06 2017 03:53 kollin wrote:On December 06 2017 03:46 IgnE wrote:On December 06 2017 02:35 xDaunt wrote:On December 06 2017 02:22 kollin wrote:
Western culture is a product of capitalism, and the fact other countries adopt it is more of an example of the power of capital in transforming them than the strength of Western values overwhelming them. You have it backwards. Capitalism is a product of Western culture. There's a reason why capitalism did not emerge until the later stages of the Enlightenment. yes indeed. kwark is on record as being a proponent of the superiority of some interpretation of western values. i think one compelling reason for being pro-western values is that western thought is unique in having developed philosophical tools which can be reflexively applied towards self-critique. a space exists for critique of western values themselves, and that space is arguably the very space in which most of this thread's participants are situated on this very topic RE: that book on islam being an "origin" of capitalism i havent read the book, ony the blurb. that goes far enough, i think, in laying out the hypothesis that Muhammed was "an entrepreneur" and therefore had a lot to say about markets and consumers. i feel pretty confident in saying that the historian who wrote it probably has a done a lot of careful work, but oversteps his evidence to be deliberately provocative. as any historians know, there is a great difference between ancient market traders and capitalists. markets and bazaars were the principal gathering place of many eastern civilizations that had contact w the greeks and romans (im not talking about china etc.). compare, for example, the greek agora to the persian marketplace. you might as well say that capitalism originated in the "entrepreneurial" activity of those eastern traders in ancient civilizations. they are far more the prototype of muhammed than muhammed is the prototype of modern titans of capital. the main differences being that traders lacked the financing structures of capital and that they failed to fundamentally change the means of production. I've not read the book either, I just wanted to be facetious - though it's worth mentioning that writers rarely determine what's on the blurb of a book. Do you agree with the argument that capitalism emerged from the Enlightenment though? Because that seems counter factual to the developments of the 16th and early 17th century. "emerged?" no "thrived as a result of?" yes. but i would say as a result of enlightenment AND reformation. max weber said this over a hundred years ago But posters here are claiming that the reason for the adoption of Western culture by non-Western cultures is due to its inherent superiority - not due to the spread of capitalism stamping western culture into these countries whether they like it or not. To try and explain this by pointing to capitalism as emerging due to the Enlightenment misrepresents the causal relationship between capitalism and 'Western' values. well saying "the enlightenment and reformation ohenomena led to the growth of capitalism in the west" and saying "other countries are only forced to adopt capitalism and western values out of necessity" (the two being inextricably linked) arent mutually exclusive. what i think is the more pressing question is: what to make of so called "capitalism w asian values" in what is supposed to be the only region of the world that poses a true threat to continued American global dominance Very true, I just have a problem with xDaunt expressing the idea that Western culture 'produced' capitalism. well there was some western culture before the enlightenment in which capitalism "emerged" and in which the reformation itself "emerged" . . . china and the ottomans didnt exactly produce the magna carta Nor did western culture produced the magna carta. It was strong nobility in England. Notably other European countries and other countries around the globe also independently at different times produced a broad charter of rights with different emphasis across the board. But in the end, what is defined as western culture becomes nebulous. If an ancient English charter is western culture, that may or may not have its ideas spread and adapted by other nearby European cultures, then why do other ideas and concepts such as capitalism adopted by other nearby cultures not neccesaraily in Europe, aren't neccessarily counted as part of western culture?
As a side note, why is the Magna Carta so well known in USA? It's not the first time the Magna Carta has been mentioned in the US pol thread. Other Europeans don't don't really have it as part of their cultural knowledge sphere, but for some reason I have noticed that Americans exalt it. I'm from UK, it's expected that I would have it as part of my general knowledge, but it's strange that Americans do as well.
|
The Magna Carta has a weird relevance in US politics for no real reason. It also get cited by sovereign citizens in their bullshit legal "briefs" where they ramble on about how the courts of the US have no power over them.
|
On December 06 2017 05:01 Dangermousecatdog wrote:Show nested quote +On December 06 2017 04:20 IgnE wrote:On December 06 2017 04:15 kollin wrote:On December 06 2017 04:07 IgnE wrote:On December 06 2017 04:00 kollin wrote:On December 06 2017 03:57 IgnE wrote:On December 06 2017 03:53 kollin wrote:On December 06 2017 03:46 IgnE wrote:On December 06 2017 02:35 xDaunt wrote:On December 06 2017 02:22 kollin wrote:
Western culture is a product of capitalism, and the fact other countries adopt it is more of an example of the power of capital in transforming them than the strength of Western values overwhelming them. You have it backwards. Capitalism is a product of Western culture. There's a reason why capitalism did not emerge until the later stages of the Enlightenment. yes indeed. kwark is on record as being a proponent of the superiority of some interpretation of western values. i think one compelling reason for being pro-western values is that western thought is unique in having developed philosophical tools which can be reflexively applied towards self-critique. a space exists for critique of western values themselves, and that space is arguably the very space in which most of this thread's participants are situated on this very topic RE: that book on islam being an "origin" of capitalism i havent read the book, ony the blurb. that goes far enough, i think, in laying out the hypothesis that Muhammed was "an entrepreneur" and therefore had a lot to say about markets and consumers. i feel pretty confident in saying that the historian who wrote it probably has a done a lot of careful work, but oversteps his evidence to be deliberately provocative. as any historians know, there is a great difference between ancient market traders and capitalists. markets and bazaars were the principal gathering place of many eastern civilizations that had contact w the greeks and romans (im not talking about china etc.). compare, for example, the greek agora to the persian marketplace. you might as well say that capitalism originated in the "entrepreneurial" activity of those eastern traders in ancient civilizations. they are far more the prototype of muhammed than muhammed is the prototype of modern titans of capital. the main differences being that traders lacked the financing structures of capital and that they failed to fundamentally change the means of production. I've not read the book either, I just wanted to be facetious - though it's worth mentioning that writers rarely determine what's on the blurb of a book. Do you agree with the argument that capitalism emerged from the Enlightenment though? Because that seems counter factual to the developments of the 16th and early 17th century. "emerged?" no "thrived as a result of?" yes. but i would say as a result of enlightenment AND reformation. max weber said this over a hundred years ago But posters here are claiming that the reason for the adoption of Western culture by non-Western cultures is due to its inherent superiority - not due to the spread of capitalism stamping western culture into these countries whether they like it or not. To try and explain this by pointing to capitalism as emerging due to the Enlightenment misrepresents the causal relationship between capitalism and 'Western' values. well saying "the enlightenment and reformation ohenomena led to the growth of capitalism in the west" and saying "other countries are only forced to adopt capitalism and western values out of necessity" (the two being inextricably linked) arent mutually exclusive. what i think is the more pressing question is: what to make of so called "capitalism w asian values" in what is supposed to be the only region of the world that poses a true threat to continued American global dominance Very true, I just have a problem with xDaunt expressing the idea that Western culture 'produced' capitalism. well there was some western culture before the enlightenment in which capitalism "emerged" and in which the reformation itself "emerged" . . . china and the ottomans didnt exactly produce the magna carta Nor did western culture produced the magna carta. It was strong nobility in England. Notably other European countries and other countries around the globe also independently at different times produced a broad charter of rights with different emphasis across the board. But in the end, what is defined as western culture becomes nebulous. If an ancient English charter is western culture, that may or may not have its ideas spread and adapted by other nearby European cultures, then why do other ideas and concepts such as capitalism adopted by other nearby cultures not neccesaraily in Europe, aren't neccessarily counted as part of western culture? As a side note, why is the Magna Carta so well known in USA? It's not the first time the Magna Carta has been mentioned in the US pol thread. Other Europeans don't don't really have it as part of their cultural knowledge sphere, but for some reason I have noticed that Americans exalt it. I'm from UK, it's expected that I would have it as part of my general knowledge, but it's strange that Americans do as well.
Well, for one, US owes much of its democratic history to British history.
Second, I'd guess overthrowing of the monarchy is a big deal in the US, and I imagine a lot of history pertaining to the loss of royal power is emphasized.
But in general I'd guess most ex-British colonies are taught something about the progression of British parliament and democracy. Canadian history spends several years just teaching British history before the discovery of North America is even touched upon.
On December 06 2017 05:09 Plansix wrote:
The Magna Carta has a weird relevance in US politics for no real reason. It also get cited by sovereign citizens in their bullshit legal "briefs" where they ramble on about how the courts of the US have no power over them.
Okay scratch that I guess people know it in the US because the name sounds cool and it involves flipping off current leaders.
|
americans are anglophile anglophones from the anglosphere. of course they "exalt" the magna carta. the american caselaw legal system is derived from english precursors based in the magna carta.
the rest of your post is fairly incoherent, dangermousecatdog. the first two sentences alone demonstrate the problem. of course english culture produced the magna carta. eg strong "nobility" in japan produced shoguns, not a magna carta. the english social structure was constituted by and was constitutive of english/western "culture"
|
Do not try to understand the inner workings of sovereign citizens. I once had one tell me the court had no jurisdiction over him because it didn't have the proper flag in the court. And I was a traitor and he was moving the court to have me banished.
|
United States42004 Posts
On December 06 2017 05:11 IgnE wrote:
americans are anglophile anglophones from the anglosphere. of course they "exalt" the magna carta. the american caselaw legal system is derived from english precursors based in the magna carta.
the rest of your post is fairly incoherent, dangermousecatdog. the first two sentences alone demonstrate the problem. of course english French culture produced the magna carta. eg strong "nobility" in japan produced shoguns, not a magna carta. the english French social structure was constituted by and was constitutive of english/western "culture"
These were Angevins folks.
+ Show Spoiler +
+ Show Spoiler +
The Barons couldn't read English. They read Latin and Anglo-Norman.
|
On December 06 2017 05:11 IgnE wrote:
americans are anglophile anglophones from the anglosphere. of course they "exalt" the magna carta. the american caselaw legal system is derived from english precursors based in the magna carta.
the rest of your post is fairly incoherent, dangermousecatdog. the first two sentences alone demonstrate the problem. of course english culture produced the magna carta. eg strong "nobility" in japan produced shoguns, not a magna carta. the english social structure was constituted and was constitutive of english/western "culture"
See, this is why this conversation can be so irritating. Outside of Igne, I'm not convinced that anyone else has sufficient historical understanding of what Western culture is (much less what other cultures are) and how it came to be to intelligently engage on this topic. For example, let's take post a like Yango's, where he basically argues that I'm all wet because every culture has its good and shitty parts that can be cherrypicked. This isn't even responsive to what I'm arguing much less demonstrative of an understanding of what the key issue is. The key issue is that other cultures reject the best parts of Western culture (notably the parts concerning individual liberty and freedom) while actively seeking to repress and ultimately supplant Western culture. Let's just take China as an example, whom I presume we can all agree is actively looking to expand its influence and footprint around the world. The Chinese government is on record rejecting key Western ideas and values like inalienable rights and individual liberty. For anyone who purports to adhere to anything resembling liberal ideals, that should be horrifying and reason enough to declare the superiority of Western culture and the need for its defense. This conclusion is unavoidable, and all of the dancing around it that I'm seeing is a function of either ignorance of what the real issue is or cowardice.
|
|
|
On December 06 2017 05:25 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On December 06 2017 05:11 IgnE wrote:
americans are anglophile anglophones from the anglosphere. of course they "exalt" the magna carta. the american caselaw legal system is derived from english precursors based in the magna carta.
the rest of your post is fairly incoherent, dangermousecatdog. the first two sentences alone demonstrate the problem. of course english culture produced the magna carta. eg strong "nobility" in japan produced shoguns, not a magna carta. the english social structure was constituted and was constitutive of english/western "culture" See, this is why this conversation can be so irritating. Outside of Igne, I'm not convinced that anyone else has sufficient historical understanding of what Western culture is (much less what other cultures are) and how it came to be to intelligently engage on this topic. For example, let's take post a like Yango's, where he basically argues that I'm all wet because every culture has its good and shitty parts that can be cherrypicked. This isn't even responsive to what I'm arguing much less demonstrative of an understanding of what the key issue is. The key issue is that other cultures reject the best parts of Western culture (notably the parts concerning individual liberty and freedom) while actively seeking to repress and ultimately supplant Western culture. Let's just take China as an example, whom I presume we can all agree is actively looking to expand its influence and footprint around the world. The Chinese government is on record rejecting key Western ideas and values like inalienable rights and individual liberty. For anyone who purports to adhere to anything resembling liberal ideals, that should be horrifying and reason enough to declare the superiority of Western culture and the need for its defense. This conclusion is unavoidable, and all of the dancing around it that I'm seeing is a function of either ignorance of what the real issue is or cowardice.
The West has rejected key Western ideas and values in its past many, many times. The election of Donald Trump is a rejection of Western values - if anything, I see Western culture as much more likely to eat itself than be dominated by any other cultural force.
|
On December 06 2017 05:25 xDaunt wrote:
Let's just take China as an example, whom I presume we can all agree is actively looking to expand its influence and footprint around the world. The Chinese government is on record rejecting key Western ideas and values like inalienable rights and individual liberty. For anyone who purports to adhere to anything resembling liberal ideals, that should be horrifying and reason enough to declare the superiority of Western culture and the need for its defense. This conclusion is unavoidable, and all of the dancing around it that I'm seeing is a function of either ignorance of what the real issue is or cowardice.
This makes several assumptions that I'm not on board with:
1) That the actions of the Chinese government are synonymous with Chinese culture
2) That the Chinese regime's repression of "good" Western values is a sustainable state in and of itself
Maybe I'm just naive, but quite frankly I don't see how what a particular Chinese government regime does represents a threat to Western culture as it stands in the United States or how it warrants some kind of "defense".
|
"Only IgnE humor my thinly masked jingoism with responses that don't call out my thinly masked jingoism"
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/87/France_1154-en.svg/800px-France_1154-en.svg.png)
![[image loading]](https://www.bl.uk/britishlibrary/~/media/bl/global/magna%20carta/collection%20items/magna-carta-anglo-norman-french-add-32085-f102-b20152-44.jpg)
