NationStates Jolt Archive

Perhaps if the west would push it's values and priorites more agressively on the (CENSORED so the mods won't ban me) "people" who inhabit much of the world things like this wouldn't happen.

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,1525238,00.html

BUMPing just this once

But Pakistan is one of the American allies. They're one of the good guys.

They're not the good guys until they stop cutting off women's feet.

Somehow DCD reminds me of the 'Culture Revolution'.. Great success that was.

Perhaps if the west would push it's values and priorites more agressively on the (CENSORED so the mods won't ban me) "people" who inhabit much of the world things like this wouldn't happen.

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,1525238,00.html
Let's hear it for "cultural imperialism!" Yayyy!

Seriously, this sort of thing is older than written history and often arises in patriarchal societies where women are regarded more as chattel than as human beings.

Let's hear it for "cultural imperialism!" Yayyy!

Seriously, this sort of thing is older than written history and often arises in patriarchal societies where women are regarded more as chattel than as human beings.
So we stamp out those cultures and replace them with better western style cultures.

Let us take up the White Man's Burden and free the heathens!

But seriously, we cannot tolerate oppressive backwards cultures like this.

Hmmm... eradicate cultures I don't understand.... or have a taco?

*rubs chin thoughtfully* Sorry, guy. I gotta go with the taco. *munches on a taco*

Perhaps if the west would push it's values and priorites more agressively on the (CENSORED so the mods won't ban me) "people" who inhabit much of the world things like this wouldn't happen.

Which values "of the west"? From which part of the west? Because, to be frank, some of us in the west (the Netherlands, Scandinavia sans Denmark, Canada) have better values than others(France, the US, Denmark, Portugal) in the west.

Which values "of the west"? From which part of the west? Because, to be frank, some of us in the west (the Netherlands, Scandinavia sans Denmark, Canada) have better values than others(France, the US, Denmark, Portugal) in the west.
Any of those would be an improvement.

Any of those would be an improvement.

Why settle for second best? If we're going to impose "our values," why not choose the values of those of us who have the best values?

Why settle for second best? If we're going to impose "our values," why not choose the values of those of us who have the best values?
Not to mention, which culture? It's not like "the west" has one uniform culture, especially in such multi-cultural lands as Canada and the US.

Perhaps if the west would push it's values and priorites more agressively on the (CENSORED so the mods won't ban me) "people" who inhabit much of the world things like this wouldn't happen.

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,1525238,00.html
I completely agree. The West is not perfect, but it can hardly be denied that our values are just plain superior to this patriarchal crap.

The only thing I regret is that the main people in the west who are in favour of cultural imperialism are socially conservative (anti-feminist, patriarchal) Amurcans.

Which values "of the west"? From which part of the west? Because, to be frank, some of us in the west (the Netherlands, Scandinavia sans Denmark, Canada) have better values than others(France, the US, Denmark, Portugal) in the west.
I agree (though I have never known Canada to be a part of Scandinavia). I would support the exportation of Swedish culture.

Talar ni svenska. Yarrr, that's the shit!

Hmmm... eradicate cultures I don't understand.... or have a taco?
So you think that attacks on human rights should be tolerated because it is "in their culture"? Wasn't that the excuse used be those German Turks who murdered their sister for being "too western"?

I'm not really in favour of cultural eradication. They can keep their bizarre religions and other things. I just don't want them stamping all over human rights.

Let us take up the White Man's Burden and free the heathens!

But seriously, we cannot tolerate oppressive backwards cultures like this.
They will most likely disappear with increasing globalization. The problem is that many will suffer before that happens. Although suffering is nothing new to humanity, it sticks in my craw when it's inflicted by humans on humans ( or, for that matter, on animals ) for no valid reason. :(

Why settle for second best? If we're going to impose "our values," why not choose the values of those of us who have the best values?

It's obvious you're just being facetious, but what the hell -- I'm an expert at taking silly things seriously.

The differences between the countries (France, Denmark, Canada, the US) you mentioned are differences of degree. The difference between all those western nations and countries such as Pakistan is much more substantial. We should focus on eliminating the huge divide between us before we westerners start quibbling between ourselves about whose values are best.

And, in the event, any values and culture imposed would probably be American, since most of the other countries you mentioned don't have the wherewithal to practice cultural imperialism of their own.

The only thing I regret is that the main people in the west who are in favour of cultural imperialism are socially conservative (anti-feminist, patriarchal) Amurcans.

That's because we don't make a fetish of respecting (or worse yet, "celebrating") every damnfool culture on this earth.

That's because we don't make a fetish of respecting (or worse yet, "celebrating") every damnfool culture on this earth.
Did you even read the rest of my post? I said that I think cultures that allow this to happen should not exist.

But anyway, I don't like American social conservatism. It's too similar to Islam.

Did you even read the rest of my post? I said that I think cultures that allow this to happen should not exist.

But anyway, I don't like American social conservatism. It's too similar to Islam.

I completely agree with you on the need for some good cultural imperialism. I was just adding that the reason we social conservatives are usually the ones advocating it is because, unlike the left, we don't give a damn about respecting everyone else's culture.

You must have very thin skin to call social conservatism similar to Islam. The two are miles apart.

But anyway, I don't like American social conservatism. It's too similar to Islam.

Wow. Please explain. Kinda insular viewpoint, no?

Swimmingpool is saying the modern American Social Conservativism (ASC) (neo-conservatism) seems to be obsessive about promoting one religion (Christianity) like Muslim nations promote one religion (Islam), as well as ASC being pretty damn determined to make every live according to a biblical code (Muslim nations = Sharia law), and on top of it, ASC seems to want to stick its nose in everybody's personal lives to moderate how they can live, except when it comes to guns (Islam - sharia law dominating life with government/tribal/patriarchial law backing it, telling people how they can live)


So, while the two may seem miles apart, lots of parallels can be drawn between them.

Wow. Please explain. Kinda insular viewpoint, no?
I think he's right. Only the social conservatives in America and the radical Islamists want to put religion in every aspect of life from the courts (sharia law vs. ten commandments, sodomy laws, blue laws) to the schools (madrassas vs. abstinance only, prayer in school, creationism in science class).

I completely agree. The West is not perfect, but it can hardly be denied that our values are just plain superior to this patriarchal crap.
Yes, we have far superior patriarchal crap.

Yes, we have far superior patriarchal crap.
Yep. Our patriarchal crap doesn't stone women to death for getting raped, doesn't use gang rape as a legitimate punishment, condemns honor killings, and doesn't let a husband saw his wife's feet off.

Weird, as i read the article i notice a pakistani condemning what happened. Well, too bad for him, we need to eliminate the whole of pakistani culture.

Weird, as i read the article i notice a pakistani condemning what happened. Well, too bad for him, we need to eliminate the whole of pakistani culture.
Not at all. They can keep the parts that don't violate human rights.

Not at all. They can keep the parts that don't violate human rights.
Based on that principle i would like to go all imperialistic on the US. Anyone has a problem with that?

Yep. Our patriarchal crap doesn't stone women to death for getting raped, doesn't use gang rape as a legitimate punishment, condemns honor killings, and doesn't let a husband saw his wife's feet off.
Instead it condones beating wives to death for coming home late after work, it condones gang rape as a college fraternity prank, it forces abortions on women for unwanted pregnancies, and forces other women into feeling the need to cut their husband's penises off. Our own Western patriarchal traditions, still in practice today, stem from English common law, where beating women was entirely acceptable, and are not that much different in terms of controlling the females from modern Pakistan. We are not that far removed from it. It was here (North America) in the 40's and the 50's, when my mom was young, and we have not escaped it, not by a long shot. And although feminism has forced a change upon us, feminism itself is mocked and derided even today, even for its accomplishment.

What makes you think honour killings (http://www.critcrim.org/redfeather/journal-pomocrim/vol-8-shaming/araji.html) are absent in the West? Sinehue did a thread related to it just a few days ago. "As Middle Eastern and other non-Western developing countries are increasingly exposed to Western culture through television, music, clothes, and travel, the clash between traditional and modern ideas may serve to increase family violence, especially abuse of women," as the male's need for control is challenged.

Yeah, that'll make things a whole lot better (not).

You must have very thin skin to call social conservatism similar to Islam. The two are miles apart.
Maybe I'm just so liberal that they look similar to me! Not that I'm saying social conservatives endorse Taliban-style behaviour, but then neither do most Muslims. Just in my experience Islam is too conservative for my liking.

I am puzzled that my fellow liberals profess to support human rights, but only in their own countries.

Swimmingpool is saying the modern American Social Conservativism (ASC) (neo-conservatism) seems to be obsessive about promoting one religion (Christianity) like Muslim nations promote one religion (Islam)
Basically right, but it's wrong to blame neo-"conservatism". The only reason the secular neocons are associated with social conservatives is to win votes. When the US was isolationist in the 1920s the Christian Right held a frighteningly strong sway.

Based on that principle i would like to go all imperialistic on the US. Anyone has a problem with that?
No problem at all. Looks like it's already working. Partially based on the good example set by Europe, America has banned state murder of children/teenagers (capital punishment for under 18s).

Instead it condones beating wives to death for coming home late after work, it condones gang rape as a college fraternity prank, it forces abortions on women for unwanted pregnancies, and forces other women into feeling the need to cut their husband's penises off.
I am concerned about violence against women everywhere. Which is why I support feminism and am a member of Amnesty International.

And, in the event, any values and culture imposed would probably be American, since most of the other countries you mentioned don't have the wherewithal to practice cultural imperialism of their own.

Hardly any point to it then, is there? They would exchange their culture to one that still practices the death penalty, that wages wars on a regular basis, where there is a strong urge for theology in government, where income divides are huge, human rights are of secondary importance to "national security," gender equality is lagging, sexual equality is a pipe dream, poverty is rampant, social segregation is epidemic, racial segregation was done away with only four decades ago, political influence is dependant on financial assets and so on... Hardly the grand prize, if you ask me.

I agree (though I have never known Canada to be a part of Scandinavia).

Notice the comma. It was there to separate "Scandinavia sans Denmark" from "Canada."

So we stamp out those cultures and replace them with better western style cultures.
No...you stamp out PARTS of the culture that are abhorent, and abusive, and then leave the rest of it the hell alone.

Hardly any point to it then, is there? They would exchange their culture to one that still practices the death penalty, that wages wars on a regular basis, where there is a strong urge for theology in government, where income divides are huge, human rights are of secondary importance to "national security," gender equality is lagging, sexual equality is a pipe dream, poverty is rampant, social segregation is epidemic, racial segregation was done away with only four decades ago, political influence is dependant on financial assets and so on... Hardly the grand prize, if you ask me.
Although I agree with every one of your criticisms of America, I would still say that American culture is an improvement on the status quo. Still, I dunno bout Gramonia, but I'm not proposing to turn the Middle East into little USA. Look at western Europe. We are partially the result of US cultural imperalism (and actual military intervention/imperialism) but we don't suffer from all of the problems mentioned above.

So we stamp out those cultures and replace them with better western style cultures.

No, we stamp out the elements of those cultures that demand this kind of punishment. We dont wipe out a culture, thats just wrong. But we make sure that every culture keeps to basic human rights. Humans have a right to their feet I expect (thats not a specific right for any idiots who would quote that out of context)

Maybe I'm just so liberal that they look similar to me! Not that I'm saying social conservatives endorse Taliban-style behaviour, but then neither do most Muslims. Just in my experience Islam is too conservative for my liking.

I am puzzled that my fellow liberals profess to support human rights, but only in their own countries.


Basically right, but it's wrong to blame neo-"conservatism". The only reason the secular neocons are associated with social conservatives is to win votes. When the US was isolationist in the 1920s the Christian Right held a frighteningly strong sway.


No problem at all. Looks like it's already working. Partially based on the good example set by Europe, America has banned state murder of children/teenagers (capital punishment for under 18s).


I am concerned about violence against women everywhere. Which is why I support feminism and am a member of Amnesty International.


What seemed to me an incredible generalization turns out to have a reasonable explanation.

But I don't think that Blairganistan's statement "ASC being pretty damn determined to make every live according to a biblical code and on top of it, ASC seems to want to stick its nose in everybody's personal lives to moderate how they can live, except when it comes to guns" is close enough to reality to give it any time.

I think you're right about the neo-cons whipping up some support.

Instead it condones beating wives to death for coming home late after work, it condones gang rape as a college fraternity prank, it forces abortions on women for unwanted pregnancies, and forces other women into feeling the need to cut their husband's penises off. Our own Western patriarchal traditions, still in practice today, stem from English common law, where beating women was entirely acceptable, and are not that much different in terms of controlling the females from modern Pakistan. We are not that far removed from it. It was here (North America) in the 40's and the 50's, when my mom was young, and we have not escaped it, not by a long shot. And although feminism has forced a change upon us, feminism itself is mocked and derided even today, even for its accomplishment.

And yet some of the very people that mock feminism are probably quite proud of the status of women in the West as compared to Pakistan or other nations...what...you think that kind of change just happens on its own?

We haven't solved our own problems yet. Let's not 'export' an imperfect model. Instead, tackle this on a human rights platform, rather than a cultural one.

Perhaps if the west would push it's values and priorites more agressively on the (CENSORED so the mods won't ban me) "people" who inhabit much of the world things like this wouldn't happen.

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,1525238,00.html

Knowing what happened the last time Europe in particular took over the world, I can assure you this is not a good idea. I also find your argument to be 100% self-serving. I really doubt you are honestly concerned with what people do to their wive's feet in Pakistan, or anywhere for that matter. It is what I call an "excuse" or "casus belli".

But I don't think that Blairganistan's statement "ASC being pretty damn determined to make every live according to a biblical code and on top of it, ASC seems to want to stick its nose in everybody's personal lives to moderate how they can live, except when it comes to guns" is close enough to reality to give it any time.


Read a bit out of this blog (www.closedcafeteria.blogspot.com) and you will see what I mean about some sections of conservatism strongly pushing Christianity as a state religion.

For the part about moderating how we live, why else would there be considered challenges to abortion, euthanasia (see Terry Schiavo and Congressional actions), an amendment attempt to ban gay marraige, the only recent revoke of sodomy laws, the Patriot Act (grants government surveillance on what we read, what we buy etc. . . ), and strong oppositions to any case remotly involved in removing a Christian symbol from the public. Also, hatred of the ACLU, a group that tends to expand civil liberties.

My point is actually quite close enough to reality to warrant some thought.

Which values "of the west"? From which part of the west? Because, to be frank, some of us in the west (the Netherlands, Scandinavia sans Denmark, Canada) have better values than others(France, the US, Denmark, Portugal) in the west.

Just a small correction, France, Portugal, Canada and the non Danish Scandinavians have better values and higher moral standards then the Netherlands and other US puppet states.

The Dutch for example are something like the Mac Donalds of Europe and I don't speak about food but about their lack of originality, most Dutch are as boring and tastless like Texans or other hillbillies. Even Albanians, Kroats, Bulgarians have a better developed identity. :)

Which values "of the west"? From which part of the west? Because, to be frank, some of us in the west (the Netherlands, Scandinavia sans Denmark, Canada) have better values than others(France, the US, Denmark, Portugal) in the west.

It all depends on how you look at it Fass. I dont think Scandanavias values surpass the US at all. When did Scandinavia last free any oppressed peoples? Will even argue that Denmark, France, Netherlands, Portugal and Canada all surpass Scandinavia. In fact you would be close to the middle on my list. At least the above mentioned countries have stood up for the little guys in most recent history. Even Portugal, as little and poor they are.(Balkans war refference)

I am puzzled that my fellow liberals profess to support human rights, but only in their own countries.


I think this is the smartest thing I've heard anyone say in a very long time.

Hardly any point to it then, is there? They would exchange their culture to one that still practices the death penalty, that wages wars on a regular basis, where there is a strong urge for theology in government, where income divides are huge, human rights are of secondary importance to "national security," gender equality is lagging, sexual equality is a pipe dream, poverty is rampant, social segregation is epidemic, racial segregation was done away with only four decades ago, political influence is dependant on financial assets and so on... Hardly the grand prize, if you ask me.

You cant even compare the US to Sweden or the other Scandinavian countries. Its impossible to do so. We are so different in so many regards its apples and oranges. Now if you want to claim your socialist utopia is superior. You didnt do it without the help of the rest of the west. You are free and have no fear of attack because of countries like the US, UK and even France. Your standard of living is high because of the rest of the west. Who do you think buys Scandinavian exports? Who stabilizes the economy of europe? Guess what, its not Scandanavia. You can thank the French, British and Germans for that one. So toot your horn all you want. Majority of us out in the real world know the true story.

It all depends on how you look at it Fass. I dont think Scandanavias values surpass the US at all. When did Scandinavia last free any oppressed peoples? Will even argue that Denmark, France, Netherlands, Portugal and Canada all surpass Scandinavia. In fact you would be close to the middle on my list. At least the above mentioned countries have stood up for the little guys in most recent history. Even Portugal, as little and poor they are.(Balkans war refference)

None of the things you mention partain to values (for instance Portugal's continued ban on abortions, Denmark's barbaric stance on immigration, France's continued involvement in Côte D'Ivoire and its restrictive laws on freedom of religion, the US's countless flaws when it come to respecting equality before the law). What you are doing is trying to bait and switch interference in other countries affaires, or outright neo-colonialism with values. You aren't succeeding.

By the by, just to mention "the little guys", we can mention the Balkans (as my parents are from there): Sweden sent and sends peace-keeping troops there, sent aid, was one of the countries that accepted the most refugees from there and so on and so forth. It is clear that you know not what you speak of.

You cant even compare the US to Sweden or the other Scandinavian countries. Its impossible to do so. We are so different in so many regards its apples and oranges. Now if you want to claim your socialist utopia is superior. You didnt do it without the help of the rest of the west. You are free and have no fear of attack because of countries like the US, UK and even France. Your standard of living is high because of the rest of the west. Who do you think buys Scandinavian exports? Who stabilizes the economy of europe? Guess what, its not Scandanavia. You can thank the French, British and Germans for that one. So toot your horn all you want. Majority of us out in the real world know the true story.

I'm not tooting anyone's horn - I'm just arbitrarily deciding which values are better just like the thread starter is doing. Fortunately for me, I'm actually dealing with the values themselves, while you mention nothing about values, but drag such irrelevancies as economic trade, military might and some imaginary comparison (where did I compare the US to us? I mentioned your lack of values within your flawed culture, uncontrasted with that of anyone else) into the equation. Come back to me when you get to the topic and stop dealing in the irrelevant.

None of the things you mention partain to values (for instance Portugal's continued ban on abortions, Denmark's barbaric stance on immigration, France's continued involvement in Côte D'Ivoire and its restrictive laws on freedom of religion, the US's countless flaws when it come to respecting equality before the law). What you are doing is trying to bait and switch interference in other countries affaires, or outright neo-colonialism with values. You aren't succeeding.

By the by, just to mention "the little guys", we can mention the Balkans (as my parents are from there): Sweden sent and sends peace-keeping troops there, sent aid, was one of the countries that accepted the most refugees from there and so on and so forth. It is clear that you know not what you speak of.

Number one, The right to have an abortion is not a cultural value. That is a whole other topic to say the least.

As far as the Balkans I was in Italy when it kicked off. Not once did I see a Swedish airplane or troops take part. If they felt obligated to show up after the fact then I dont consider them participating in fighting the Serbs. But can say that not once did I see or heard of any Swedish operations during the air campaign against Yugoslavia. Showing up after the fact doesnt mean you can take credit for winning the conflict.

No other nation on earth has taken more refugees than the US.

Just a small correction, France, Portugal, Canada and the non Danish Scandinavians have better values and higher moral standards then the Netherlands and other US puppet states.

The Dutch for example are something like the Mac Donalds of Europe and I don't speak about food but about their lack of originality, most Dutch are as boring and tastless like Texans or other hillbillies. Even Albanians, Kroats, Bulgarians have a better developed identity. :)
I'm insulted. If more people in the world had the morals of hillbillies, or even Texans, it would be a much better place. It's the moral indifference of Yankees that is causing the problems.

Perhaps if the west would push it's values and priorites more agressively on the (CENSORED so the mods won't ban me) "people" who inhabit much of the world things like this wouldn't happen.

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,1525238,00.html
I dunno about importing western culture there...

I say just take the father-in-law, husband and whoever else was involved in this out, chain them to a tree, shoot them in the crotch with a shotgun at close range...and leave them there to bleed to death/die of shock...and televise it as an example of what happens to bastards who do shit like that to women.

Why be culturally imperialistic? We already are, in an economic sense. But as history shows us far too often... all empires eventually crumble. Trying to force the entire Middle East to change their Islamic values for Judaeo-Christian ones, what would that accomplish? And what makes you think it would even be possible?

Number one, The right to have an abortion is not a cultural value. That is a whole other topic to say the least.

You are actually trying to claim that the freedom of a woman to decide over her own body is not a matter pertaining to values? Have you missed what this entire thread is about? Did you even read the link supplied in the first post of this thread?

As far as the Balkans I was in Italy when it kicked off. Not once did I see a Swedish airplane or troops take part.

Of course not. We do not get involved in other countries' wars.

If they felt obligated to show up after the fact then I dont consider them participating in fighting the Serbs. But can say that not once did I see or heard of any Swedish operations during the air campaign against Yugoslavia. Showing up after the fact doesnt mean you can take credit for winning the conflict.

Where did I do that? Have you even read what I wrote? Peace-keeping troops being the keyword. Oh, and, please, do not simplify and trivialise the Balkan conflict as being as simple as "the Serbs were bad, and we fought them" because that will severely put a dent in your credibility to even mention the conflict.

No other nation on earth has taken more refugees than the US.

Per capita? What sort of refugees? How does that negate your lack of democratic values in the areas I mentioned? Tooting horns seems to be your only modus operandi so far.

Your silence on the second half of my rebuttal is resounding.

Perhaps if the west would push it's values and priorites more agressively on the (CENSORED so the mods won't ban me) "people" who inhabit much of the world things like this wouldn't happen.

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,1525238,00.html



When I say that adultery should be illegal, I'm referring to non-physical punishments such as jail terms....just so everyone knows :(

We haven't solved our own problems yet. Let's not 'export' an imperfect model. Instead, tackle this on a human rights platform, rather than a cultural one.
I tihnk human rights and culture are related. But whatever leads to respect for human rights everywhere in the world is good with me.

Knowing what happened the last time Europe in particular took over the world, I can assure you this is not a good idea. I also find your argument to be 100% self-serving. I really doubt you are honestly concerned with what people do to their wive's feet in Pakistan, or anywhere for that matter. It is what I call an "excuse" or "casus belli".
Actually I would argue that the British Empire of the 19th century was, overall, a force for good. Unjustified Atrocities were committed, but they also created the world's largest democracy, and enriched millions of people.

It all depends on how you look at it Fass. I dont think Scandanavias values surpass the US at all. When did Scandinavia last free any oppressed peoples? Will even argue that Denmark, France, Netherlands, Portugal and Canada all surpass Scandinavia. In fact you would be close to the middle on my list. At least the above mentioned countries have stood up for the little guys in most recent history. Even Portugal, as little and poor they are.(Balkans war refference)
I'm pretty sure Fass was referring to domestic policies, not foreign policies.

You cant even compare the US to Sweden or the other Scandinavian countries. Its impossible to do so. We are so different in so many regards its apples and oranges. Now if you want to claim your socialist utopia is superior. You didnt do it without the help of the rest of the west. You are free and have no fear of attack because of countries like the US, UK and even France. Your standard of living is high because of the rest of the west. Who do you think buys Scandinavian exports? Who stabilizes the economy of europe? Guess what, its not Scandanavia. You can thank the French, British and Germans for that one. So toot your horn all you want. Majority of us out in the real world know the true story.
This is just stupid. We live in an interdependent world. Every country depends on the trade of everyone else. Fass merely said that he believed Swedish values to be better than British/French values. He didn't say that those countries should go to hell.

PS... Sweden was not taken over in WWII.

I think this is the smartest thing I've heard anyone say in a very long time.
:)

I'm insulted. If more people in the world had the morals of hillbillies, or even Texans, it would be a much better place. It's the moral indifference of Yankees that is causing the problems.
I wholeheartedly disagree. For explanation read posts 1-40.

When I say that adultery should be illegal, I'm referring to non-physical punishments such as jail terms....just so everyone knows :(

Doesn't make your stance any better, because you are principally doing the same things as they are - applying your outdated religious view to punish those who do not comply with your religion. You have no moral high ground on them - you wade in the same muck.

Why be culturally imperialistic? We already are, in an economic sense. But as history shows us far too often... all empires eventually crumble. Trying to force the entire Middle East to change their Islamic values for Judaeo-Christian ones, what would that accomplish? And what makes you think it would even be possible?
Which is just another way of saying "things change." In some hopefully distant future, all life on the entire planet will go the way of the dodo. What happens between now and then is important to those of us who have an investment in the future.

Read a bit out of this blog (www.closedcafeteria.blogspot.com) and you will see what I mean about some sections of conservatism strongly pushing Christianity as a state religion.

For the part about moderating how we live, why else would there be considered challenges to abortion, euthanasia (see Terry Schiavo and Congressional actions), an amendment attempt to ban gay marraige, the only recent revoke of sodomy laws, the Patriot Act (grants government surveillance on what we read, what we buy etc. . . ), and strong oppositions to any case remotly involved in removing a Christian symbol from the public. Also, hatred of the ACLU, a group that tends to expand civil liberties.

My point is actually quite close enough to reality to warrant some thought.

Thanks for the explanation. Here's my thinking: there is no 'ASC' except in the general sense - no political party and not even a uniform ideology. Just a bunch of citizen-groups who contribute money to political action. Just like liberals do.

Liberals have the ACLU, etc., and use the courts and the court of public opinion to advance their views. Just like the 'ASC' coalition (if it is even that).

My sense is that the 'ASC' is an expediently constructed enemy of the liberal, particularly since the media has given a lot of time to the "Christian Right". Sure, the Republicans tapped into those groups and organized them to get political support. Thereby somehow elevating them into the realm of political powerhouse in the eye of the liberal. Which they are not, in my view.

There are a millions of what you may call ASC people who are leading quiet lives forcing nothing on anyone personally - they take the same opportunity to support their beliefs that all Americans have. There are millions of liberals doing the same thing. This is how it works. We'll see how it plays out at the polls.

Sort of a pot-kettle argument, IMO.

Perhaps if the west would push it's values and priorites more agressively on the (CENSORED so the mods won't ban me) "people" who inhabit much of the world things like this wouldn't happen.

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,1525238,00.html

America's moral decline has long infected our allies. I have complained bitterly about it already.

Read more here. (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=428889)

I understand your sympathy. In due time there will be a civil rights movement over there just by being exposed to "western" culture and violence such as this is only proof that is coming. Look back at American Civil Rights Movement, the peak of racist attacks were right before and during the movement.

However, going over there and forcing our ideals on them will only give them an "excuse" to bomb some more innocent and completely uninvolved civilians.

So we stamp out those cultures and replace them with better western style cultures.

Yeah, that has a high success rate. Hey, give up your stupid culture and adopt ours! I can see them flocking to it. Billions of them!

Come on Mr. Commies Deleated.

Do I need to find an example of an American doing something bad to another American and say "Ah ha! Lets destroy the US culture!"? There are good and bad elements to every culture.

More than that, I would consider the destruction or forced alteration of a culture as a genocide of sorts. The fact that there are different cultures, creating a tableaux of different experiences and viewpoints is one of the strengths of this world, not one of the weaknesses. I would weep if I woke up tomorrow and everyone in the world was American, and not just because I lean towards the anti-american. To know that wherever I went, everyone thought like me, everyone dressed like me, that there was nothing new to experience, the world would just be bland. Variety is the spice of life, after all. To suggest the destruction of a culture and replacing it with our own is a horrid act. Not to mention doomed to both international condemnation and failure, but that's a different story.

Now if you want to try and change a part of a culture, that's okay. Some off the map places haven't heard the news of human rights, and as human rights are by definition deserved by everyone, we should work to support human rights movements in other cultures. But no one has the right to condemn a culture to death or assimilation because there are human rights issues. Isn't the right to a culture a human right? If not it should be IMHO.

Oh, and didn't different Pakistanis condemn the action? I believe "Talat Ali, a senior police official in Punjab" took issue with the action. Now if there had been mass rejoicing in the streets after this, then maybe it's an ingrained part of a culture. But this appears to just be a horrible crime. Whew. Case solved, and I didn't even need to break out the Scooby Snacks.

Yeah, that has a high success rate. Hey, give up your stupid culture and adopt ours! I can see them flocking to it. Billions of them!

China, India, Europe... yup! That's about 3 billion right there!

I would weep if I woke up tomorrow and everyone in the world was American, and not just because I lean towards the anti-american. To know that wherever I went, everyone thought like me, everyone dressed like me, that there was nothing new to experience, the world would just be bland.

Yes, because if you go to the US you will see everyone is dressed in uniform clothings, that rural Montana is the exactly same kind of place as Boston, and there is not a single instance of political or social conflict within the United States and hasn't been for fifty years. :rolleyes:

Yeah, obviously no white guy ever butchered his wife in a fit of jealousy. :rolleyes:

America's moral decline has long infected our allies. I have complained bitterly about it already.

Read more here. (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=428889)

That isn't really a complaint, more of a "I wish more Christians like me got thier way" whine.
We live in a secular society, we have secular laws. True, some of them are Biblical, but more are Roman, mostly from Justinian.
Had our founders been conservative Christians, I think that there would not be an Establishment or Free Excersize clause of the First Amendment. But, lucky for us and our secular society, they were mainly educated, thinking men of the enlightenment.
I do not want the Court or the government telling me who or how to worship. Do you?

Yes, because if you go to the US you will see everyone is dressed in uniform clothings, that rural Montana is the exactly same kind of place as Boston, and there is not a single instance of political or social conflict within the United States and hasn't been for fifty years. :rolleyes:

That's not what I meant, and you probably bloody well know it. I mean there are differences between say, NC and MO, or MD and CA, but it creates an overall culture, that is unique to the United States. I can still recognize that I'm in the US whether you drug me and dump me in Boston or Montana. Speak English, majority Christian, majority white, majority has strong patriotism, similar goals, often similar ideas(all in Quadrent 1 of political compass, regardless of Democrat/Republican alignment). The US, like it or not is a culture. Of course there are differences between people in that culture(as there are in all cultures, they are called subcultures(Mexican-American, African American, etc), sometimes called counter-cultures if sufficiently wild for that overarching culture), but they pale in comparison when you compare an American to a Frenchman or an Indian, or a Chinese individual. And I'm saying that I like the more difference, and would be extemely unsatisfied if someone tried to pass the difference between NC and MO as an acceptable standard deviation for world culture. That's what I meant.

Oh, and I live in the US for now BTW.

Wouldn't work. Like anything else, forcing something on people leads to disaster. Witness, for example, the mess that is Africa. Had it not been for forced nationalisation under the British Empire, it would... well, still be a mess, but at least there wouldn't be dictators in the mix (how can you have a dictator without a country?). There are other situations where trying to force a political system onto people has gone horribly wrong, but I won't bring them up.

Does this hold for cultures too? Well, I can't think of any specific examples, but yes, I'd say it likely does. You can't march in there and say 'Right, here's your new laws, get to 'em.'. They'll smile, nod, and carry on as they always did. Even if the authorities agree and try to enforce the laws, you'll just end up with about half the population in prison.

I'm not saying nothing should be done. Just pointing out that direct action isn't the way. What is? Well, indirect action. Greater communication. Basically, show them what we do, show them ways in which it's better, and hope that they, or their children, or their children's children (we're not going to get rapid reactions on this one - it's not a war, it's an assimilation) adopt enough of our habits to stop doing things like this.

And who knows? /We/ might learn something, too.

That's not what I meant, and you probably bloody well know it. I mean there are differences between say, NC and MO, or MD and CA, but it creates an overall culture, that is unique to the United States. I can still recognize that I'm in the US whether you drug me and dump me in Boston or Montana. Speak English, majority Christian, majority white, majority has strong patriotism, similar goals, often similar ideas(all in Quadrent 1 of political compass, regardless of Democrat/Republican alignment). The US, like it or not is a culture. Of course there are differences between people in that culture(as there are in all cultures, they are called subcultures(Mexican-American, African American, etc), sometimes called counter-cultures if sufficiently wild for that overarching culture), but they pale in comparison when you compare an American to a Frenchman or an Indian, or a Chinese individual. And I'm saying that I like the more difference, and would be extemely unsatisfied if someone tried to pass the difference between NC and MO as an acceptable standard deviation for world culture. That's what I meant.

Oh, and I live in the US for now BTW.

Alright, I take your point there. 'Pologies, didn't interpret what you said in your post properly.

Come on Mr. Commies Deleated.

Do I need to find an example of an American doing something bad to another American and say "Ah ha! Lets destroy the US culture!"? There are good and bad elements to every culture.

More than that, I would consider the destruction or forced alteration of a culture as a genocide of sorts. The fact that there are different cultures, creating a tableaux of different experiences and viewpoints is one of the strengths of this world, not one of the weaknesses. I would weep if I woke up tomorrow and everyone in the world was American, and not just because I lean towards the anti-american. To know that wherever I went, everyone thought like me, everyone dressed like me, that there was nothing new to experience, the world would just be bland. Variety is the spice of life, after all. To suggest the destruction of a culture and replacing it with our own is a horrid act. Not to mention doomed to both international condemnation and failure, but that's a different story.

Now if you want to try and change a part of a culture, that's okay. Some off the map places haven't heard the news of human rights, and as human rights are by definition deserved by everyone, we should work to support human rights movements in other cultures. But no one has the right to condemn a culture to death or assimilation because there are human rights issues. Isn't the right to a culture a human right? If not it should be IMHO.

Oh, and didn't different Pakistanis condemn the action? I believe "Talat Ali, a senior police official in Punjab" took issue with the action. Now if there had been mass rejoicing in the streets after this, then maybe it's an ingrained part of a culture. But this appears to just be a horrible crime. Whew. Case solved, and I didn't even need to break out the Scooby Snacks.
Great analysis. Really!

I too would grieve for cultures lost, since there are none I can think of which have nothing constructive to contribute. The deaths of less technological cultures is probably inevitable, but there's surely no reason to condemn an entire culture and then speed the process.

look. this is ridiculous.

i don't agree with the practice described in that article. i think it was barbaric and inappropriate.

however, the view expressed in the first post of this thread was equally inappropriate. a bad society will disintegrate. it is not the 'culturally superior' who are called upon to replace or 'fix' it.

did you read 'things fall apart', by chinua achebe? read it.

god, what a thing to say.

and yes, the other people are right. you cannot isolate an instance and base your view of the culture on it.

That isn't really a complaint, more of a "I wish more Christians like me got thier way" whine.
We live in a secular society, we have secular laws. True, some of them are Biblical, but more are Roman, mostly from Justinian.
Had our founders been conservative Christians, I think that there would not be an Establishment or Free Excersize clause of the First Amendment. But, lucky for us and our secular society, they were mainly educated, thinking men of the enlightenment.
I do not want the Court or the government telling me who or how to worship. Do you?

Did you even check the other link? It was sarcasm.

Knowing what happened the last time Europe in particular took over the world, I can assure you this is not a good idea. I also find your argument to be 100% self-serving. I really doubt you are honestly concerned with what people do to their wive's feet in Pakistan, or anywhere for that matter. It is what I call an "excuse" or "casus belli".

I think you're being unesseccarily hard on him. I think he'd be quick to agree that the US also needs some other country to come in and stamp out our culture once he reads this Texas News Story. (http://www.click2houston.com/news/4160551/detail.html)

a) Cultural Imperialism is a stupid idea.
b) Who am I to call my culture, in which people are left to die if they don't have health insurance, and thousands die of drugs everyday, better than another one - especially one that I know next to nothing about?
All cultures are equally bad, not one is worth being imposed on others.
c) Even if you'd try, don't you think there would be resistance? All action causes a reaction, that goes for physics and for politics. The best one can do is "impose" certain laws and humanitarian standards on other countries, not our culture.
And that gang-raped woman is probably going to win her appeal, no?

More than that, I would consider the destruction or forced alteration of a culture as a genocide of sorts. The fact that there are different cultures, creating a tableaux of different experiences and viewpoints is one of the strengths of this world, not one of the weaknesses.

Don't kid yourself with this diversity stuff. I don't care how much you think there should be alternate experiences and viewpoints, if they are intolerant and oppressive viewpoints they should be wiped out. I don't mean militarily, however, they should be economically pressured and assimilated.

Did you even check the other link? It was sarcasm.

Hmm.... well, I have looked like an idiot before, but I am not seeing the sarcasm. I hate to ask this, but could you point it out to me? I am being totally serious.

Don't kid yourself with this diversity stuff. I don't care how much you think there should be alternate experiences and viewpoints, if they are intolerant and oppressive viewpoints they should be wiped out. I don't mean militarily, however, they should be economically pressured and assimilated.

If you mean by "intolerant and oppressive viewpoints," those that flaunt human rights, then we are on the same page. We should work to support appreciation for human rights within all cultures, and oppose certain cultural tenants that do violate human rights. I just won't support the extermination, oppression or assimilation of an entire culture.

For lack of a better analogy, think of it as smart bombing the culture rather than just carpet bombing it. You take out the offensive target(human rights violation), without the collateral damage of destroying a unique culture. Just a minor surgical strike. I hope I made some sense.

If you mean by "intolerant and oppressive viewpoints," those that flaunt human rights, then we are on the same page. We should work to support appreciation for human rights within all cultures, and oppose certain cultural tenants that do violate human rights. I just won't support the extermination, oppression or assimilation of an entire culture.

For lack of a better analogy, think of it as smart bombing the culture rather than just carpet bombing it. You take out the offensive target(human rights violation), without the collateral damage of destroying a unique culture. Just a minor surgical strike. I hope I made some sense.

I think we are somewhat in agreement here, I don't agree with the outright extermination of benevolent cultures, but I have no problem with natural assimilation. I don't see the necessity for cultural diversity, just as long as people are able to live under a free culture.

Hmm.... well, I have looked like an idiot before, but I am not seeing the sarcasm. I hate to ask this, but could you point it out to me? I am being totally serious.

The post is written to sound like a typical conservative anti-supreme court rant complaining about their disregard for traditional values. The story that is linked to as evidence of this turns out to be a story in which the supreme court of Pakistan has decided that gang-rape is not a traditional value worth respecting.

The point of the post is that a Supreme Court that does not consider traditional values and religious dogma to be a basis for law is a good thing. It's a hyperbolic assertion that the US supreme court overturning the anti sodomy laws and affirming gay rights (and other things that infuriate the religious right) is the American version of the Pakistan Supreme Court overturning mens' "right" to commit gang-rape.

The reason I linked to it at all for this discussion (aside from my puppet being a shameless attention whore) was to point out that Pakistan is already working to end this sort of thing on their own. We don't need to go imposing our culture on them because we don't like what some of their most awful people do.

And while I'm at it... as for this being "part of their culture." It's international news. There's a reason that things become international news; they don't happen very often. If they did, then the story wouldn't be "man chops unfaithful wife's feet off," it would be "last year in Pakistan over 300 women had their feet chopped off by suspicious husbands."

Don't kid yourself with this diversity stuff. I don't care how much you think there should be alternate experiences and viewpoints, if they are intolerant and oppressive viewpoints they should be wiped out. I don't mean militarily, however, they should be economically pressured and assimilated.

But that sort of tolerance comes with economic development, it will not arise because opportunities for economic development are being witheld. Trying to punish countries this way into improving is like spanking a crying child for making noise. It's totally counter productive. The child will just cry more for having been struck and the country will only treat its women more poorly as impoverished men take their frustration out on their wives.

In America, women only made headway in the areas of sufferage and equal rights when economic conditions made it desirable for women to enter the workforce. In some cases because men weren't available to work those jobs (war time), in other cases because men wouldn't take those jobs (garment factories). In virtually all societies women only have rights insofar as they produce food (or in the modern world, money). This is true from hunter/gatherer societies to post modern ones.

I think we are somewhat in agreement here, I don't agree with the outright extermination of benevolent cultures, but I have no problem with natural assimilation. I don't see the necessity for cultural diversity, just as long as people are able to live under a free culture.

Well I'm not entirely decided on natural assimilation. It seems that for some reason Western culture is slowly but surely encroaching on the rest of the world's cultures, altering them significantly. As an anthrophile I have my reservations about the possibility of unchecked assimilation. Now if we're talking immigrants to a new land, then that's perfectly acceptable. What I stand entirely opposed to is forced or coerced assimilation.

But that sort of tolerance comes with economic development, it will not arise because opportunities for economic development are being witheld. Trying to punish countries this way into improving is like spanking a crying child for making noise. It's totally counter productive. The child will just cry more for having been struck and the country will only treat its women more poorly as impoverished men take their frustration out on their wives.

In America, women only made headway in the areas of sufferage and equal rights when economic conditions made it desirable for women to enter the workforce. In some cases because men weren't available to work those jobs (war time), in other cases because men wouldn't take those jobs (garment factories). In virtually all societies women only have rights insofar as they produce food (or in the modern world, money). This is true from hunter/gatherer societies to post modern ones.

I agree that economic punishments should not be leveed on human rights violating cultures. As you said, our past efforts down that route have shown, that only has tightened the grip the culture had in the first place.

We can use our economic power to control industries and economies as well, and not just to punish them. If it requires complete assimilation, so be it.

I agree that economic punishments should not be leveed on human rights violating cultures. As you said, our past efforts down that route have shown, that only has tightened the grip the culture had in the first place.

We can use our economic power to control industries and economies as well, and not just to punish them. If it requires complete assimilation, so be it.

Well that sort of thing is going on on its own.

Egyptian Baywatch. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/3039751.stm)

Sadly, the only thing that our corporations tend to do is suck money out of those countries, making them more backward than before.

We don't usually go in with our military first like we, and Europe, used to. But our CEO's find it to be very economical to bribe a few corrupt politicians into allowing awful business practices to drive the country into deeper and deeper poverty. And the revolving door in our own political structure ensures that corporate and government interests are controled by the same people.

All of this amounts to us having a government that really wants foreign governments to be controlled by corrupt greedy dictatorial bastards, as long as they're our corrupt greedy dictatorial bastards. That was what got Noriega into trouble in Panama. We put him there and made him rich, but then he decided that he would like to get richer on his own.

I've never looked into whether or not the US aided the military takeover of the Pakistan government a few years ago, but I'd be surprised if they didn't have something to do with it.

Knowing what happened the last time Europe in particular took over the world, I can assure you this is not a good idea. I also find your argument to be 100% self-serving. I really doubt you are honestly concerned with what people do to their wive's feet in Pakistan, or anywhere for that matter. It is what I call an "excuse" or "casus belli".
I never advocated taking over their land, only forcing our values upon them using economic and political leverage.

How does preventing some scumbag from cutting a woman's feet off serve me? You really should think for a moment before you decide to make assumptions about other people's motivations.

Why be culturally imperialistic? We already are, in an economic sense. But as history shows us far too often... all empires eventually crumble. Trying to force the entire Middle East to change their Islamic values for Judaeo-Christian ones, what would that accomplish? And what makes you think it would even be possible?
Actually I was thinking more along the lines of secular and humanistic values rather than Judeo-Christian ones.

What would it change? Well, with a free press, gun ownership, free assembly, and democratic elections tyrants couldn't control the region. With freedom of religion, and rule of law no religious group could coerce people into adhering to it's values if they don't want to. Basically it would make the world a more free and prosperous place.

What makes me think it's possible? It's happened in other parts of the world. Hell, even Turkey is much better off than the middle east and central Asisa because of liberal reforms.

Yeah, obviously no white guy ever butchered his wife in a fit of jealousy. :rolleyes:
Not as often as in Pakistan and other backward nations.

The post is written to sound like a typical conservative anti-supreme court rant complaining about their disregard for traditional values. The story that is linked to as evidence of this turns out to be a story in which the supreme court of Pakistan has decided that gang-rape is not a traditional value worth respecting.

The point of the post is that a Supreme Court that does not consider traditional values and religious dogma to be a basis for law is a good thing. It's a hyperbolic assertion that the US supreme court overturning the anti sodomy laws and affirming gay rights (and other things that infuriate the religious right) is the American version of the Pakistan Supreme Court overturning mens' "right" to commit gang-rape.

The reason I linked to it at all for this discussion (aside from my puppet being a shameless attention whore) was to point out that Pakistan is already working to end this sort of thing on their own. We don't need to go imposing our culture on them because we don't like what some of their most awful people do.

And while I'm at it... as for this being "part of their culture." It's international news. There's a reason that things become international news; they don't happen very often. If they did, then the story wouldn't be "man chops unfaithful wife's feet off," it would be "last year in Pakistan over 300 women had their feet chopped off by suspicious husbands."

Ah-ha!

Yeah, backward nations...Who are we to say that we have a superior culture, just diffrent. Theres a hell of a lot of flaws in our culture that don't exist over there. You may think that your culture is better bacause you live in it, no doubt they think the same. You don't understand why they did this, they don't understand some of the things we do.

There are things to be admired from both cultures, do we want to lose any of them.

Not as often as in Pakistan and other backward nations.

Yes and then there's the female circumcision they still practice in some tribal areas.

Yeah, backward nations...Who are we to say that we have a superior culture, just diffrent. Theres a hell of a lot of flaws in our culture that don't exist over there. You may think that your culture is better bacause you live in it, no doubt they think the same. You don't understand why they did this, they don't understand some of the things we do.

There are things to be admired from both cultures, do we want to lose any of them.
You're absolutely right. Someday my wife might mouth off to me when I'm not in the mood and I may want to smack her around a bit. Perhaps my daughter will want to date a person I don't like and I may have to stone her to death. You've convinced me. My culture isn't superior, only different.

You're absolutely right. Someday my wife might mouth off to me when I'm not in the mood and I may want to smack her around a bit. Perhaps my daughter will want to date a person I don't like and I may have to stone her to death. You've convinced me. My culture isn't superior, only different.
Diffrent values, just as my values are diffrent to yours. They see things diffrently. Personally I feel that sort of things completly wrong but thats my view, just as i see the death penilty as wrong, I understand why people think it's right but I don't.

Diffrent values, just as my values are diffrent to yours. They see things diffrently. Personally I feel that sort of things completly wrong but thats my view, just as i see the death penilty as wrong, I understand why people think it's right but I don't.
Different and better values. My values stress greater equality and liberty. Theirs stress making sure the food's on the table and hot when Jawad gets home from a hard day at work or else.

Different and better values. My values stress greater equality and liberty. Theirs stress making sure the food's on the table and hot when Jawad gets home from a hard day at work or else.
As I say, in your opinion there better, in ym opinion there better, in there opinion there worse.

As I say, in your opinion there better, in ym opinion there better, in there opinion there worse.
So we change their opinion by whatever means necessary and everyone will be happy. BTW, I'm not joking.

Well, if we were powerful enough to do it, then yes we should go in for all out cultural imperialism, but unfortunately the recent struggles in Iraq and Afghanistan have shown that we are not powerful enough to pull it off, and the more we try, the more we end up aggravating the situation even more.

The only way to improve the situation is by 'soft' imperialism. We need to show other cultures how advanced, tolerant and civilized we are, by exporting quality mass culture (so no Van Damme movies, instead historical documentaries on how our culture evolved). But neither help nor hinder other cultures in their evolutionary trajectory. If we follow this path they will eventually need to modernize their societies just to compete with us.

It all depends on how you look at it Fass. I dont think Scandanavias values surpass the US at all. When did Scandinavia last free any oppressed peoples?
Hmmmm...take that on the flip side...when did Scandinavia ever impose dictatorships that went on to oppress their own people?

Number one, The right to have an abortion is not a cultural value. That is a whole other topic to say the least.


Wronger words have never been uttered.

So we change their opinion by whatever means necessary and everyone will be happy. BTW, I'm not joking.
See, I see that is wrong, change people's opinion through peaceful methods yes, chage it by inviting to your nation and letting them make up there own minds, yes. change it by invading and saying HA Where in charge! Our cultures better-NO!

b) Who am I to call my culture, in which people are left to die if they don't have health insurance, and thousands die of drugs everyday, better than another one - especially one that I know next to nothing about?
All cultures are equally bad, not one is worth being imposed on others.

So do you not agree that everyone in the world should have the right to health care? It's human rights that we're talking about here.

Well, if we were powerful enough to do it, then yes we should go in for all out cultural imperialism, but unfortunately the recent struggles in Iraq and Afghanistan have shown that we are not powerful enough to pull it off, and the more we try, the more we end up aggravating the situation even more.

The only way to improve the situation is by 'soft' imperialism. We need to show other cultures how advanced, tolerant and civilized we are, by exporting quality mass culture (so no Van Damme movies, instead historical documentaries on how our culture evolved). But neither help nor hinder other cultures in their evolutionary trajectory. If we follow this path they will eventually need to modernize their societies just to compete with us.
That's what most of us advocate. Few people are suggesting that cultural imperialism be carried out like actual imperialism. We don't need to invade everyone to spread human rights around the world.

I never advocated taking over their land, only forcing our values upon them using economic and political leverage.

How does preventing some scumbag from cutting a woman's feet off serve me?

OK, what substantive personal action have you ever taken to protect the human rights of people in other nations? Correct me if I'm wrong, but my first guess would be not much.

Personally I haven't really done much either, but then again I don't claim to have the interests of abused Pakistani women at heart. I empathize for them but realize that culturally tinged reprobation directed at their nation is likely to succeed only at placing them in the crossfire of even more heinous abuse. And I absolutely would not use their suffering as an excuse to diss on Pakistani culture in general. That would be extremely opportunistic.

BTW my original assertion that your argument is self-serving still stands. The cultural hegemony of YOUR values is in YOUR best interest, which makes your overall argument too convenient to be taken very seriously.

So do you not agree that everyone in the world should have the right to health care? It's human rights that we're talking about here.
We are? Well, human rights are a good idea, but I was under the impression that this is about imposing one culture over another.
The health care thing was mainly a swipe at Western civilisation in general. It's easy to criticise other cultures for having values that may permit what seems like ridiculous punishments for minor offenses, but the ethical problems in our society are there too, although we don't often notice them.
Specifically with health care (that I think should be universal, but that's beside the point), people in the US apparently can die because they don't have an insurance that will pay for needed treatments. I don't think that would happen in rural Pakistan - family, friends and even strangers will probably work together to help a fella out. Even though they don't have hospitals and Electroshock treatments...

So what I'm saying is: Every culture has its' drawbacks, and unless you are from Mars and can really neutrally choose between them, there is no way of knowing if there actually can be a "better" one that should be universal.

Not as often as in Pakistan and other backward nations.
Because they're black. Or Muslim. Maybe next time you'll pick on Jews.

I've been reading these threads...you're essentially just another racist hiding behind the same old "their culture is more violent" line... I've been around a couple of years, seen plenty like you. At least the Stormfront community were honest about what informs their opinions when they were around. :rolleyes:

Bump-

The culture of "the west" used to stone women for being "witches," remember? That too was a practice rooted in religion. However, it disappeared when democracy and modern social systems evolved in the west. Similarly, mistreatment of women in Muslim countries is not part of Islam and will surely disappear as the level of development we enjoy in North America and Europe reaches the Middle East and South Asia.

Because they're black. Or Muslim. Maybe next time you'll pick on Jews.

I've been reading these threads...you're essentially just another racist hiding behind the same old "their culture is more violent" line... I've been around a couple of years, seen plenty like you. At least the Stormfront community were honest about what informs their opinions when they were around. :rolleyes:
Nice accusation. Too bad you've got nothing to back it up. Look back on some of my older threads as Drunk Commies and Drunk Commies reborn. I've never said anything bad about black people or Jews. Most of my posts on Islam single out the terrorist extremists and don't paint all muslims with the same brush.

I don't have to prove to you that I'm not a racist. You wouldn't listen anyway. It's just a convenient way for you to label me and an excuse to disregard my arguments.

Originally posted by Rummania
The culture of "the west" used to stone women for being "witches," remember? That too was a practice rooted in religion. However, it disappeared when democracy and modern social systems evolved in the west. Similarly, mistreatment of women in Muslim countries is not part of Islam and will surely disappear as the level of development we enjoy in North America and Europe reaches the Middle East and South Asia.

The witch trials were not limited to women, and were not rooted in religion, but in superstition. And England, Germany, and the English Colonies had the most of that, which just happened to be Protestant.

Rural Pakistan is pretty nuts and extreme right.

Nice accusation. Too bad you've got nothing to back it up. Look back on some of my older threads as Drunk Commies and Drunk Commies reborn. I've never said anything bad about black people or Jews. Most of my posts on Islam single out the terrorist extremists and don't paint all muslims with the same brush.

I don't have to prove to you that I'm not a racist. You wouldn't listen anyway. It's just a convenient way for you to label me and an excuse to disregard my arguments.
Not that your current arguments are holding up anyway that is.

I agree (though I have never known Canada to be a part of Scandinavia). I would support the exportation of Swedish culture.

Still reading up on this thread, but I just have to say this: If you for 1 second believe I'll put up with System Bolaget (spelling?), you are sorely mistaking. I'll rather distil the blood of Swedish politicians :mad:

If some government took it into its collective mind to export Western culture to those poor misguided nations of the world, one would have far more trouble than such aggressive action would be worth. Such actions obviously hadn't succeeded in the former Soviet Union, or in China, or in various other countries in which it had been attempted (Canada, the United States, Latin America, Africa, shall I go on?). What has been shown to work is influencing nations by moral suasion and diplomatic and economic browbeating, which is why Musharraf (sp?) and other senior Pakistani officials are condemning the actions of those criminals. It's a much slower process, but in the end a more effective one that allows the beneficial aspects of other cultures -- as well as one's own -- to be retained.

If some government took it into its collective mind to export Western culture to those poor misguided nations of the world, one would have far more trouble than such aggressive action would be worth. Such actions obviously hadn't succeeded in the former Soviet Union, or in China, or in various other countries in which it had been attempted (Canada, the United States, Latin America, Africa, shall I go on?). What has been shown to work is influencing nations by moral suasion and diplomatic and economic browbeating, which is why Musharraf (sp?) and other senior Pakistani officials are condemning the actions of those criminals. It's a much slower process, but in the end a more effective one that allows the beneficial aspects of other cultures -- as well as one's own -- to be retained.

Okay, I really don't get the inclusion of those two countries in your list. How was the exportation of Western culture to Canada and the US a total failure?

Hardly any point to it then, is there? They would exchange their culture to one that still practices the death penalty, that wages wars on a regular basis, where there is a strong urge for theology in government, where income divides are huge, human rights are of secondary importance to "national security," gender equality is lagging, sexual equality is a pipe dream, poverty is rampant, social segregation is epidemic, racial segregation was done away with only four decades ago, political influence is dependant on financial assets and so on... Hardly the grand prize, if you ask me.

*Yawn* Really Fass, I think you're missing the point. My basic response to all of the above is "So what?" Oh no, not the death penalty! I'm going to put national security in scare quotes! Oh no, not income inequality! (I completely fail to understand the outrage on this one). If you can look at American culture and then at Pakistani culture and just shrug off the yawning gap between them, simply because America isn't close enough to your ideal society, maybe you should go spend some time in Saudi Arabia, or Pakistan, or Indonesia, to fully understand America's superiority.

We are? Well, human rights are a good idea, but I was under the impression that this is about imposing one culture over another.
The health care thing was mainly a swipe at Western civilisation in general. It's easy to criticise other cultures for having values that may permit what seems like ridiculous punishments for minor offenses, but the ethical problems in our society are there too, although we don't often notice them.
It's about spreading human rights, not Americanising the world. In western societies, human rights are generally valued and respected (the US is somewhat behind Canada and Europe though). In more savage regions, they are not.

Still reading up on this thread, but I just have to say this: If you for 1 second believe I'll put up with System Bolaget (spelling?), you are sorely mistaking. I'll rather distil the blood of Swedish politicians
I said Swedish values, not Swedish laws. I don't want to turn the whole world into Pan Swedenia.

It's about spreading human rights, not Americanising the world. In western societies, human rights are generally valued and respected (the US is somewhat behind Canada and Europe though). In more savage regions, they are not.

I've read most of this post now...
Human rights and culture isn't the same thing. Sure, medival moral concepts and laws are the bane of human rights, but Europe have suffered the same thing. Yet I don't see anyone being eager to do away with our cultures.

We (the rich guys) are exerting a major influence over things like human rights. We're already forcing our economic agenda on the rest of the world. Why not force human rights?
Fine, so we are doing that somewhat, but can't we do better? If we forbid all business from investing in countries that does not respect human rights (such as China & USA), those countries can only do one of 3 things: Declare war on us. Have their economies collapse. or respect human rights.

We need not butt in on their cultures or religion to do it. Besides, it's not like most people in Pakistan think it's a real great idea to saw off people's feet (unless perhaps the to-be-feetless are Americans or EU citizens).

I said Swedish values, not Swedish laws. I don't want to turn the whole world into Pan Swedenia.
You wouldn't get a joke, even if it ran you over with a freight train, would you :p I know full well that a lot of Swedes hate System Bolaget just as much as I do.

Quoting Carthage and Troy
The only way to improve the situation is by 'soft' imperialism. We need to show other cultures how advanced, tolerant and civilized we are, by exporting quality mass culture (so no Van Damme movies, instead historical documentaries on how our culture evolved). But neither help nor hinder other cultures in their evolutionary trajectory. If we follow this path they will eventually need to modernize their societies just to compete with us.

This is perhaps one of the most intelligent things I have heard, because it at least provides an incentive for change without the usual imperialist influence. This is exactly the mindset needed... not to make them give up their Islamic values, or stop wearing their pretty fashionable white robes, but to make them realize they must modernize in order to compete. Certainly, such a mindset would be beneficial to everyone.

Okay, I really don't get the inclusion of those two countries in your list. How was the exportation of Western culture to Canada and the US a total failure?

For the US I can think of WACO, fundamental christians, FLDS, need I go on?

For him yes, for us no.