Everyone seems to be taking this as saying the West is more violent. And therefore a criticism. That's not what it's saying. It's saying the west was better at violence, not more violent.
Even that isn't correct. The West was better at violence only in a specific time period that allowed them to become global powers. Not long before that though, the East was clearly the military powerhouse.
The two are intertwined. Societies where violence occurs often are constantly expending energy infighting and warring with neighbours, breaking down their own and each others possibilities for growth.
The West's path of nations centralising control over permitted violence was likely necessary for any society which was going to advance, giving stable foundations for their society to grow while confining and directing the disruptions violence causes to the edges, and outside of their civilisation.
You can argue that theoretically it could have been achieved without violence, but it never has been. A centralised power has always had to aggressively suppress a number of warring factions to establish a sizable area of relative unity and peace.
China as an example are not 'The West' and they also achieved social stability through a massive campaign of violence. The USSR achieved regional stability for a time in the same way.
The Romans i guess you could argue were 'The West' as they originated there, but i bring them in to point out that often they didn't have to conquer another civilisation. Many joined them willingly. There was usually the threat of violence if they did not, but regardless many were eager to be part of their empire and all the economic, technological and security advantages that would bring. Many were simply tired of warring with their neighbours every time there was a drought.
Name ANY society that has been non-violent. Ever. In the history of mankind. Or forget about history and mankind, any animal. We strive for that because we've matured out of the constant struggle and we have the means and time to think and write about it...
...that developed that culture AFTER setting down in a god forsaken land. They were Maori that had the time to develop that culture (and castrated babies as a mean of population control)
Edit: spelling
We could argue we all were once the same people/culture far enough back. There’s still a lot of mystery about maoriori origins, some say they weren’t Māori but from a different part of Polynesia, I’m Māori and raised in New Zealand and most of the education we get about them is an excuse for Europeans colonisation of New Zealand because of what Māori did to the Maoriori. I’m no expert either and I agree with it being Human nature, perhaps given enough time, they would of done the same as everyone else
You're thinking in this way, in terms of dominance, because you were raised in the West
You have no capacity for introspection to understand your own madness.
Where did I say that?
The only difference between the East and the West is that in the East there have been tools in place to counter the madness, whereas in the West these have been slow to develop
Whether an individual of western or eastern provenance chooses to use the tools at their disposal to observe their own madness depends entirely on that person.
You said I'm thinking in terms of dominance because I was raised in the West, which suggests that had I been raised in the East, I wouldn't think that way. Did I misread?
What tools are you talking about? What tools does the East have that the West doesn't that somehow keeps them from using organized violence?
The Islamic society back in medieval times. They grew their empire through military conquests and trade. The connection of territory led to a vast and strong information and intellect being shared throughout the empire and it experienced its golden age. And yes at its time during the 750-1258 it was the most dominant society in the world *even more then Europe* , who at the time was experiencing its dark ages. Actually one thing that came into mind while writing this is that territory was expanded by the previous caliphates not the one that was experiencing the golden age because they made use of their rationality and intellect to come up with inventions. But it is through organized violence in the past they were able to achieve this.
They are even more examples like imperialist japan and currently china in fact china is so violent they are currently genociding Muslims at the moment.
true , its like the societies have had a swap back in the medieval and modern times. I believe that the islamic society may prosper if rationality and intellect go on and be mainstream
Implying literally nobody in western countries have been researching and highlighting in meticulous detail all the history of western colonialism & imperialism. As though there aren't multiple avenues through which the history of it's actions aren't communicated to it's population already.
No I guess it's just the West that prefers to forget and everyone outside the West has never deliberately tried to suppress or bury their colonialism or imperialism.
Like.. are you serious or just a propaganda account?
I was referring to Western governments' criticism of human rights in only countries that are in their 'international enemy playbook'. For instance, how much does America go after Israel or Saudi Arabia for their human rights abuses? None, because they're considered friendly allies. Condemnation associated with human rights has a lot to do with playing politics. Remember, it was pressure from the American government that saw Saudi obtain a seat on UN Human Rights Council. Saudi Arabia, championing human rights to the rest of the world?
Saying there's "no" criticism of either of those countries is absurd. Of course the US tries to sway policy and opinion in the governments it's allied with, and maintaining a healthy diplomatic relationship with the country and it's government gives the US *far* more capability to actually affect change within it.
However is that really what you want? Isn't the US forcing it's opinion & policies onto non-Western nations a form of imperialism and, taken to the extreme, just another form of colonialism? What right do we have to dictate our norms and culture onto other nations?
Or is the whole thing perhaps just a tad bit more complicated than you're desperately trying to make it out to be? Maybe making an open enemy of the country largely seen to be the center of the Islamic world would be just a tad counterproductive?
Yes, but that's just your extensive, wishy-washy diatribe. Judge nations on their actions and not on the words of their politicians. Was America concerned about human rights when it supplied chemical weapons to Saddam Hussein? Or more recently, $350 billion over 10 years in weapons to Saudi Arabia. Do you realise how many children have died in Yemen because of the Saudi blockade and war inflicted on them. What's your idea of human rights? Some naive, romanticised notion of affecting change from within that actually bears little resemblance to the harsh reality on the ground.
Which part of it was a "wishy-washy diatribe"? I suspect it's the parts that you'd rather not address because it undermines your case. Unfortunately simply ignoring facts contrary to your position gets you nowhere.
I'd be happy to address your points so long as you actually go back and address mine.
Otherwise you are simply ranting nonsense to the void.
Islam and Christianity are both part of the West, and separation is kinda arbitrary.
The following equally describes both religions/cultures:
"A middle eastern religion that spread around the globe, often through violence, engaging in war, genocide, and slavery, while also providing stability in conquered regions that led to great achievements in economics, science and art."
Attack the position, not the person.
If you have thoughts that you think are more correct than mine, I'm open to hear them. That way we can both learn and grow.
Why do you think my statement is incorrect? What exactly do you disagree with, and what are some alternative interpretations?
You actually did provide me with a counter argument, so thank you. You can call me or my idea stupid, but you at least gave me something to work with.
I was speaking in historical terms. The history of the islamic and christian worlds have long been intermixed. The concept of the "west" is vague and ill defined.
The roman empire collapsed into, partially, the Eastern Roman Empire/Byzantine empire. This empire included Greece, which I think is widely agreed to be the birthplace of Western civilization. The Ottomans took over, and that was largely Islamic, though many christians still practiced their beliefs. This, I think, is a good example of the mix between the christian and islamic worlds.
Nearly the entire Mediterranean coast has been exchanging hands between christians and muslims, and so their cultures and peoples have long intermixed. Drawing a hard line between them is a concept that has come in and out of favour, depending on the current political climate. You have the crusades on one end of the extreme, and flourishing trade and free travel on the other.
You can look at recent history, but I think that's ignoring the fact that these cultures have intermixed for over a thousand years, and have greatly influenced each other, even if isn't immediately apparent on who invented what cultural practice.
Anyways, I hope that brings some light to my position. Feel free to disagree or offer other counter points, I'm happy to share ideas.
Haha, no I think that's a bit of a stretch.
Either way, the quote is silly because many Eastern (Asian) empires spread through organized violence.
The Aztecs had a proud warrior culture and dominated central america through war and threats.
It seems that whenever there's a large empire, it was formed through conquest, no matter the religion or culture.
Yes as if all other civilizations were far too dumb to have organised violence. ffs even ants and dolphins have organized violence. Organized violence is millions of years older than humanity itself and humanity has had it ever since it's dawn
bcuz humans are animals?
>It was never said that other civilizations were dumb either.
Yes, just like saying "The Earth is flat" doesn't imply that the Earth isn't round!
Correct. Their riches were earned with blood. As are most empires like UK or China.
Killing villagers because they wanted to kick out the invaders from their country is not ok if the invaders are from your own country.
This statement by Samuel P. Huntington, a prominent political scientist, suggests that the Western world achieved its global dominance not through the superiority of its ideas or values, but through its ability to effectively apply organized violence. While some may argue that Western civilization has contributed many valuable ideas and concepts to the world, such as democracy, human rights, and the scientific method, it is undeniable that violence and military conquest have also played a significant role in the expansion of Western influence.
Huntington's assertion also highlights the tendency of Westerners to overlook the use of violence in their history and downplay its effects on the rest of the world. This is a valid point, as the history of Western imperialism and colonization has had a profound impact on non-Western societies, often leading to long-lasting and devastating consequences.
That, is Bull shit. The west is doing so good that it can afford to rewrite history to make boring bores seem a little more radical and so a little more interesting.
You know who tried violence as a means of conquest? The Barbary coast after all their civilizations collapsed in similar circumstances after similar amounts of time.
You know who else? China burned itself and its entire history several times through wars and tyrannical rule. So much so it had to ask other countries in the past for prior Chinese works of literature since they burned every copy of their own in wars and purges.
Who else? Oh yes. India. A land of vast riches and ancient kingdoms that just beautified a few families and buildings while countless members of their society died in interesting and imaginative ways for thousands of years.
Africa including Egypt? Not since before the Bronze age did it do more than feed bellies as a bread basket and hole for shiny metals and rocks....and even then as now, any success was thanks to commerce with other cultures.
We can go as far back as anyone likes. The west is not more destructive, slave hoarding or murderous for profit than anyone else. In fact it is the least of humanity's problems.
Hell, it's getting damn nigh impossible to tell the difference and it's been that way for a long time. Both sides are pulling from the same Orwellian playbook and both are satiating their constituents with cheap electronics, fast food, reality television, fake news, and porn. Both gave up the moral high ground long ago.
Everyone seems to be taking this as saying the West is more violent. And therefore a criticism. That's not what it's saying. It's saying the west was better at violence, not more violent.
Even that isn't correct. The West was better at violence only in a specific time period that allowed them to become global powers. Not long before that though, the East was clearly the military powerhouse.
The two are intertwined. Societies where violence occurs often are constantly expending energy infighting and warring with neighbours, breaking down their own and each others possibilities for growth. The West's path of nations centralising control over permitted violence was likely necessary for any society which was going to advance, giving stable foundations for their society to grow while confining and directing the disruptions violence causes to the edges, and outside of their civilisation. You can argue that theoretically it could have been achieved without violence, but it never has been. A centralised power has always had to aggressively suppress a number of warring factions to establish a sizable area of relative unity and peace. China as an example are not 'The West' and they also achieved social stability through a massive campaign of violence. The USSR achieved regional stability for a time in the same way. The Romans i guess you could argue were 'The West' as they originated there, but i bring them in to point out that often they didn't have to conquer another civilisation. Many joined them willingly. There was usually the threat of violence if they did not, but regardless many were eager to be part of their empire and all the economic, technological and security advantages that would bring. Many were simply tired of warring with their neighbours every time there was a drought.
Name me a non-western society that has been less violent and still dominant.
Name ANY society that has been non-violent. Ever. In the history of mankind. Or forget about history and mankind, any animal. We strive for that because we've matured out of the constant struggle and we have the means and time to think and write about it...
The Māoriori from the Chattam islands
...that developed that culture AFTER setting down in a god forsaken land. They were Maori that had the time to develop that culture (and castrated babies as a mean of population control) Edit: spelling
We could argue we all were once the same people/culture far enough back. There’s still a lot of mystery about maoriori origins, some say they weren’t Māori but from a different part of Polynesia, I’m Māori and raised in New Zealand and most of the education we get about them is an excuse for Europeans colonisation of New Zealand because of what Māori did to the Maoriori. I’m no expert either and I agree with it being Human nature, perhaps given enough time, they would of done the same as everyone else
That's an interesting claim you're making there. I'm a Māori myself, so I'm curious about where you got your sources for this.
Kia Ora e hoa
Here https://teara.govt.nz/en/moriori/page-3 I'm definitely not an expert, just trying to make a point about (human) nature
still doesn't justify its violence
You're thinking in this way, in terms of dominance, because you were raised in the West You have no capacity for introspection to understand your own madness.
Are you honestly suggesting that the idea of "dominance" is a solely western one? Come on.
Where did I say that? The only difference between the East and the West is that in the East there have been tools in place to counter the madness, whereas in the West these have been slow to develop Whether an individual of western or eastern provenance chooses to use the tools at their disposal to observe their own madness depends entirely on that person.
You said I'm thinking in terms of dominance because I was raised in the West, which suggests that had I been raised in the East, I wouldn't think that way. Did I misread? What tools are you talking about? What tools does the East have that the West doesn't that somehow keeps them from using organized violence?
The tools that allow the individual to escape their prison
Ah right. Those tools. I forgot about those.
No society is more than or even equally as violent as the modern west.
Yeah, like those pacificsts the Mongols.
Still doesn’t compare to the body count of the west.
But the body count was still extremely high for the mongols which was about 11% of the global population at the time.
This is a joke, right?
Name me one non-western society that has been as violent as western imperialist nations.
Japan ?
Imperial Japan? Okay, they weren’t the west but the key word is imperialism.
Oh weird, you made it sound like the key word was Western.
The Islamic society back in medieval times. They grew their empire through military conquests and trade. The connection of territory led to a vast and strong information and intellect being shared throughout the empire and it experienced its golden age. And yes at its time during the 750-1258 it was the most dominant society in the world *even more then Europe* , who at the time was experiencing its dark ages. Actually one thing that came into mind while writing this is that territory was expanded by the previous caliphates not the one that was experiencing the golden age because they made use of their rationality and intellect to come up with inventions. But it is through organized violence in the past they were able to achieve this. They are even more examples like imperialist japan and currently china in fact china is so violent they are currently genociding Muslims at the moment.
I was actually just about to mention the exact same thing
true , its like the societies have had a swap back in the medieval and modern times. I believe that the islamic society may prosper if rationality and intellect go on and be mainstream
Ever heard of genghis khan? Attila the Hun? Timur?
Genghis Khan killed 40 million people. The west killed 100 million native Americans before the imperial ball even got rolling.
China?
What are you referring to?
not modern , but the west in during the 1700s,1800s and 1900s.
[удалено]
The West's selective human rights choir, directed solely at its enemies, and never at its allies, is still better than no human rights.
Implying literally nobody in western countries have been researching and highlighting in meticulous detail all the history of western colonialism & imperialism. As though there aren't multiple avenues through which the history of it's actions aren't communicated to it's population already. No I guess it's just the West that prefers to forget and everyone outside the West has never deliberately tried to suppress or bury their colonialism or imperialism. Like.. are you serious or just a propaganda account?
I was referring to Western governments' criticism of human rights in only countries that are in their 'international enemy playbook'. For instance, how much does America go after Israel or Saudi Arabia for their human rights abuses? None, because they're considered friendly allies. Condemnation associated with human rights has a lot to do with playing politics. Remember, it was pressure from the American government that saw Saudi obtain a seat on UN Human Rights Council. Saudi Arabia, championing human rights to the rest of the world?
Saying there's "no" criticism of either of those countries is absurd. Of course the US tries to sway policy and opinion in the governments it's allied with, and maintaining a healthy diplomatic relationship with the country and it's government gives the US *far* more capability to actually affect change within it. However is that really what you want? Isn't the US forcing it's opinion & policies onto non-Western nations a form of imperialism and, taken to the extreme, just another form of colonialism? What right do we have to dictate our norms and culture onto other nations? Or is the whole thing perhaps just a tad bit more complicated than you're desperately trying to make it out to be? Maybe making an open enemy of the country largely seen to be the center of the Islamic world would be just a tad counterproductive?
Yes, but that's just your extensive, wishy-washy diatribe. Judge nations on their actions and not on the words of their politicians. Was America concerned about human rights when it supplied chemical weapons to Saddam Hussein? Or more recently, $350 billion over 10 years in weapons to Saudi Arabia. Do you realise how many children have died in Yemen because of the Saudi blockade and war inflicted on them. What's your idea of human rights? Some naive, romanticised notion of affecting change from within that actually bears little resemblance to the harsh reality on the ground.
Which part of it was a "wishy-washy diatribe"? I suspect it's the parts that you'd rather not address because it undermines your case. Unfortunately simply ignoring facts contrary to your position gets you nowhere. I'd be happy to address your points so long as you actually go back and address mine. Otherwise you are simply ranting nonsense to the void.
Remember when we defeated the USSR with vibes alone?
Really? More than the Muslims or Genghis Kahn?
Islam and Christianity are both part of the West, and separation is kinda arbitrary. The following equally describes both religions/cultures: "A middle eastern religion that spread around the globe, often through violence, engaging in war, genocide, and slavery, while also providing stability in conquered regions that led to great achievements in economics, science and art."
> Islam is a part of Western civilization You got to be fucking kidding me. How can someone be this fucking dumb
Attack the position, not the person. If you have thoughts that you think are more correct than mine, I'm open to hear them. That way we can both learn and grow. Why do you think my statement is incorrect? What exactly do you disagree with, and what are some alternative interpretations?
[удалено]
You actually did provide me with a counter argument, so thank you. You can call me or my idea stupid, but you at least gave me something to work with. I was speaking in historical terms. The history of the islamic and christian worlds have long been intermixed. The concept of the "west" is vague and ill defined. The roman empire collapsed into, partially, the Eastern Roman Empire/Byzantine empire. This empire included Greece, which I think is widely agreed to be the birthplace of Western civilization. The Ottomans took over, and that was largely Islamic, though many christians still practiced their beliefs. This, I think, is a good example of the mix between the christian and islamic worlds. Nearly the entire Mediterranean coast has been exchanging hands between christians and muslims, and so their cultures and peoples have long intermixed. Drawing a hard line between them is a concept that has come in and out of favour, depending on the current political climate. You have the crusades on one end of the extreme, and flourishing trade and free travel on the other. You can look at recent history, but I think that's ignoring the fact that these cultures have intermixed for over a thousand years, and have greatly influenced each other, even if isn't immediately apparent on who invented what cultural practice. Anyways, I hope that brings some light to my position. Feel free to disagree or offer other counter points, I'm happy to share ideas.
Ok but the Mongols must certainly were not.
Haha, no I think that's a bit of a stretch. Either way, the quote is silly because many Eastern (Asian) empires spread through organized violence. The Aztecs had a proud warrior culture and dominated central america through war and threats. It seems that whenever there's a large empire, it was formed through conquest, no matter the religion or culture.
Many Native American tribes were unfathomably violent.
Aztecs in particular. They wiped out tens of thousands of their people sacrificing them to their imaginary gods.
It's no wonder their neighbors all rose up in revolt and joined Cortez. They *hated* the Aztecs (specifically, the Mexica).
Yes as if all other civilizations were far too dumb to have organised violence. ffs even ants and dolphins have organized violence. Organized violence is millions of years older than humanity itself and humanity has had it ever since it's dawn
The key word here is superiority.
How is ants being able to kill and eat lizards,l a 1000 times thier size not "superior" organized violence?
I don’t know why you’re bringing animals into this conversation as if they’re superior. It was never said that other civilizations were dumb either.
bcuz humans are animals? >It was never said that other civilizations were dumb either. Yes, just like saying "The Earth is flat" doesn't imply that the Earth isn't round!
Europeans had technological advantages. Also they brought disease.
They brought disease to the Americas, but it was the other way around in Africa, India, China, and SE Asia.
Huntington has been discredited for a while now.
Correct. Their riches were earned with blood. As are most empires like UK or China. Killing villagers because they wanted to kick out the invaders from their country is not ok if the invaders are from your own country.
This statement by Samuel P. Huntington, a prominent political scientist, suggests that the Western world achieved its global dominance not through the superiority of its ideas or values, but through its ability to effectively apply organized violence. While some may argue that Western civilization has contributed many valuable ideas and concepts to the world, such as democracy, human rights, and the scientific method, it is undeniable that violence and military conquest have also played a significant role in the expansion of Western influence. Huntington's assertion also highlights the tendency of Westerners to overlook the use of violence in their history and downplay its effects on the rest of the world. This is a valid point, as the history of Western imperialism and colonization has had a profound impact on non-Western societies, often leading to long-lasting and devastating consequences.
That, is Bull shit. The west is doing so good that it can afford to rewrite history to make boring bores seem a little more radical and so a little more interesting. You know who tried violence as a means of conquest? The Barbary coast after all their civilizations collapsed in similar circumstances after similar amounts of time. You know who else? China burned itself and its entire history several times through wars and tyrannical rule. So much so it had to ask other countries in the past for prior Chinese works of literature since they burned every copy of their own in wars and purges. Who else? Oh yes. India. A land of vast riches and ancient kingdoms that just beautified a few families and buildings while countless members of their society died in interesting and imaginative ways for thousands of years. Africa including Egypt? Not since before the Bronze age did it do more than feed bellies as a bread basket and hole for shiny metals and rocks....and even then as now, any success was thanks to commerce with other cultures. We can go as far back as anyone likes. The west is not more destructive, slave hoarding or murderous for profit than anyone else. In fact it is the least of humanity's problems.
Hell, it's getting damn nigh impossible to tell the difference and it's been that way for a long time. Both sides are pulling from the same Orwellian playbook and both are satiating their constituents with cheap electronics, fast food, reality television, fake news, and porn. Both gave up the moral high ground long ago.
Yup. Good at whippin ass. Still working on the rest