NationStates Jolt Archive

So, do you think that one can assert the superiority of the West over the Arab-Muslim world? Or do you believe that such comparisons cannot be made on objective terms or are blatantly racist?

YES, not sure what my yes is to but. . .

YES

Superior in what ways? I think it's almost impossible to make that kind of judgement. I mean it's so odd that the Jews, Christians, and Muslims, all share the same history, but are so different. I think anyone of them who tries to claim superiority over the other is racist. It's just so difficult because in a situation like this you're no talking country borders, you're talking cultures and what not. Because there are Muslims that live in Western Civilizations

the west is not superior to the arab nations full stop. in fact about 700 years ago the arab world was far superior to the west in all areas (science, medicine etc)

Superior in what ways? I think it's almost impossible to make that kind of judgement. I mean it's so odd that the Jews, Christians, and Muslims, all share the same history, but are so different. I think anyone of them who tries to claim superiority over the other is racist. It's just so difficult because in a situation like this you're no talking country borders, you're talking cultures and what not. Because there are Muslims that live in Western Civilizations
Yes, but these latter muslims live in Europe...when i mentioned the Arab-Muslim world as a term of a possible comparison i meant countries where muslim culture is dominant.

I don't think it's racist. I just think it can't be done.
There are actually several Muslim cultures, not just one.

Arab muslim culture is inferior to Western cultures in many ways. For example, universities in the Arab world tend to graduate a huge number of people with degrees in Islamic Studies. That's a worthless degree. It doesn't help you build your nation's infrastructure, create wealth, or challenge old ideas with new ones. It only serves to censor new ideas and keep people ignorant of modernity. Such a degree is about as usefull as a doctorate from Bob Jones University.

Arab culture, for the most part, relegates women to lesser roles than men and thereby limits the contributions they can make to society. They seem to adhere more to the xenophobic and biased views of Islam as well. This puts them in a position where their contact with the wider world is limited. There are probably plenty of Saudi citizens who've never met a Christian or Jew. That situation breeds hatred.

European Muslims like the Bosnians and the Turks, on the other hand, tend to be better educated and have more contact with new ideas and diverse cultures. One can't really see them as having an inferior culture.

Yes, but these latter muslims live in Europe...when i mentioned the Arab-Muslim world as a term of a possible comparison i meant countries where muslim culture is dominant.

So in other words, you're asking whether America has any right to try to change the Middle East.

the west is not superior to the arab nations full stop. in fact about 700 years ago the arab world was far superior to the west in all areas (science, medicine etc)
And since then Arab culture has stagnated and indeed even slipped backward. Western culture, on the other hand, has progressed rapidly.

good point well made

Run around in your little circles! Perhaps after some exhaustion you will realise that the Chinese civilisation and culture are superior to every other one. :D

Run around in your little circles! Perhaps after some exhaustion you will realise that the Chinese civilisation and culture are superior to every other one. :D
They're not bad for a second-rate nation. :p

So, do you think that one can assert the superiority of the West over the Arab-Muslim world? Or do you believe that such comparisons cannot be made on objective terms or are blatantly racist?

I don't think that it's fair to say that one culture's traditions and customs are superior to another's.

Nonetheless, the Western culture has happy, propserous people, whereas the Arab-Muslim culture has impoverished suicide bombers. Our paths clearly delineated at some point.

So in other words, you're asking whether America has any right to try to change the Middle East.
No, that´s entirely besides the point...i´m not trying to build up a rationale for cultural imperialism...no rummie´s bedfellows around here

Yes, but these latter muslims live in Europe...when i mentioned the Arab-Muslim world as a term of a possible comparison i meant countries where muslim culture is dominant.

Well then I would never use the word superioir, but I do believe they are behind. It is most likely due to their society. Such as women's lib never happening. Also they're religion/culture does seem to not want to accept modern theories and advances, but then again neither does the Jewish and Chrisitian in some aspects such as accepting Evolution or that the world is billions of years old as opposed to thousands. Western culture does have more technology, but I don't think technology is the solution to the world's problems. In fact it's obvious it isn't, we have the technology to improve the world to everyone as mentioned in another post.

So inconclusion yes Muslim culture may be 'behind' the western world in some ways, but to me all are the same. Muslims clinging to their ways determined it's the one true way, and the west doing the same. The west primarily believing that capitalism will some how save the world.

Run around in your little circles! Perhaps after some exhaustion you will realise that the Chinese civilisation and culture are superior to every other one. :D

i heard yesterday that china invented football :eek:

Run around in your little circles! Perhaps after some exhaustion you will realise that the Chinese civilisation and culture are superior to every other one. :D
That´s rich, comming from a people who got their asses kicked by the japanese...

They're not bad for a second-rate nation. :p

SECOND-RATE? SECOND RATE? Oh yeah, jealousy instills denial! :mp5:

Western Culture isn't necessarily superior, just newer. Islamic Culture didn't accept some tenents Western Culture did. But then the Chinese didn't either, and they stagnated around the time of Confucius. Islam peaked centuries ago, and Western Culture took off.

Where are we headed now, is the question.

Western culture is far superior to Islamic culture. Look at what it has produced compared to the Islamic world. It must also be mentioned that the 'advanced' arab world of 700 years ago was mainly based on Roman and Greek learnings rather than invention. Western civilization and culture has given the world : vaccination, antibiotics, many surgical techniques, advanced hygiene, refrigeration, telecommunications and many more things relevant to the modern world. What has the Islamic World done recently?
P.S Capitalism will save the world, it just needs to get the right balance.

That´s rich, comming from a people who got their asses kicked by the japanese...

Oh no! That's sixty years ago! Thirty years ago the Americans, with their very superior force and armaments, got beaten by a bunch of Asian, illiterate guerilla fighters and were forced to retreat in a hurry! Heh.

That´s rich, comming from a people who got their asses kicked by the japanese...

to be fair quite a lot of countries were gettin their asses kicked by japan around that time ;)

SECOND-RATE? SECOND RATE? Oh yeah, jealousy instills denial! :mp5:
Oh, come on. What's with the hate? Can't we just agree to look down on each other? :D

Oh, come on. What's with the hate? Can't we just agree to look down on each other? :D

Heh. :D :fluffle:

i heard yesterday that china invented football :eek:
That is rubbish. As any fule kno' practically every sport was created by the English: Football, Hockey, Rugby, Cricket, Rugby/American Football (They're practically the same), modern tennis, billiards etc.

I don't think it's racist. I just think it can't be done.
There are actually several Muslim cultures, not just one.

And there are of course several Western cultures. Some better than others.

not true,

"There is documentary evidence that a a game or skill building exercise, involving kicking a ball into a small net, was used by the Chinese military during the Han Dynasty - around the 2nd and 3rd centuries BC. Earlier evidence - of a field marked out to play a ball-kicking game has been found at Kyoto, in Japan"

That is rubbish. As any fule kno' practically every sport was created by the English: Football, Hockey, Rugby, Cricket, Rugby/American Football (They're practically the same), modern tennis, billiards etc.

You rubbish. Football was invented by the Chinese. So was golf, kite-flying and vaccines, all stolen from the Chinese and labelled as "Western inventions". THEFT! BURGLARY!

Oh no! That's sixty years ago! Thirty years ago the Americans, with their very superior force and armaments, got beaten by a bunch of Asian, illiterate guerilla fighters and were forced to retreat in a hurry! Heh.
They did not have superior numbers tho' and the Vietminh had millions of acres of jungle to hide in. the Americans were also fighting in foreign territory. If the North Vietnamese army been ploked down in the middle of the US how long do you think they would have lasted? In fact they US left the Vietnam war after signing a peace treaty and did not surrender. North Vietnam broke the treaty after the US left and so won the war. If anything it was the ARVN that lost the war as well as the anti-war american public. Had they stuck at the war america would have won.

And there are of course several Western cultures. Some better than others.
Yeah, but we can't all be as advanced and foreward thinking as the people of Alabama.

You rubbish. Football was invented by the Chinese. So was golf, kite-flying and vaccines, all stolen from the Chinese and labelled as "Western inventions". THEFT! BURGLARY!
Get out! Proper vaccination- the safe kind were pioneered by Edward Jenner. The ancient form of vaccination was amost as dangerous as the disease! Football=English (or at least British as ancient remains showing evidence of football were found somewhere in Scotland).

P.S Capitalism will save the world, it just needs to get the right balance.

Define save? I don't wanna be a slave to a megacorps neither do I want to run one and enslave people...

Yeah, but we can't all be as advanced and foreward thinking as the people of Alabama.

Don't forget creationist Kansas! Or abortion outlawing Portugal, Ireland and Poland! Don't forget Poland.

Had they stuck at the war america would have won.

Yes. Using shady methods such as Agent Orange, nicely disguised and euphemistically named "protection areas", mass bombing, human rights atrocities etc. etc. etc. You think that's "winning a war"?

to be fair quite a lot of countries were gettin their asses kicked by japan around that time ;)
Not us. Suck on that China!

Get out! Proper vaccination- the safe kind were pioneered by Edward Jenner. The ancient form of vaccination was amost as dangerous as the disease! Football=English (or at least British as ancient remains showing evidence of football were found somewhere in Scotland).

No no. Jenner invented the vaccine in Europe, yes, but the first to invent the first vaccine to smallpox with cowpox was the Chinese. Football = institutionalised and internationalised by the English with imperialism. Football = invented in China.

"Not us. Suck on that China!"

where are you from?

Bottom-line, i think that western culture as a whole is superior to muslim culture and civilization. The West invented the concept of Modernity, wich implied the separation of State and Church, the refusal of the divine origin of earthly power, and critical scientific thought. One musn´t forget that only a society that isn´t subject to a sole code of morality can flourish and thrive.

A great number of muslims actually think it's the opposite. They believe western society is decadent and corrupt, embroiled in debauchery and other sinful behaivours. And from the philosophical perspective of wealth and power being inherently corrupting influences on man, they would be correct.

I personally don't think either culture is inherently superior to the other, and find such statements to reflect more on the ego of the proponent than on any factual basis.

Not us. Suck on that China!

Not to mention that we've had 5000 years of history to brag about when the US has a mere 300 - not even that! AND that the first Americans were Chinese.

Yes. Using shady methods such as Agent Orange, nicely disguised and euphemistically named "protection areas", mass bombing, human rights atrocities etc. etc. etc. You think that's "winning a war"?
1) The side effects of Agent orange weren't anticipated.
2)The Vietminh committed far more atrocities against their own people than the americans but these weren't publicized.
3)Carpet bombing- what's ur problem? Its a perfectly acceptble method to win a war, used to great succes in WW2 to destroy German industry and so on.

Not to mention that we've had 5000 years of history to brag about when the US has a mere 300 - not even that! AND that the first Americans were Chinese.
Or Korean.

Yeah, but we can't all be as advanced and foreward thinking as the people of Alabama.
Whew, that one made me fall out of my chair. :p


As to which culture is superior...like any good contest, this can only be decided with a massive battle royale with nothing but sticks and stones. None of this fancy shmancy "technology." And NO MIRACLES! Just good ol' fashioned ***-kicking.


(My money is on Texas...)

Or Korean.

The Koreans are also descendants of the Chinese. -_-'

Not to mention that we've had 5000 years of history to brag about when the US has a mere 300 - not even that! AND that the first Americans were Chinese.
In England we have 10,000 years to brag about -Stonehenge etc. Hah! We also aren't a corrupt murderous hell-hole like China.

A great number of muslims actually think it's the opposite. They believe western society is decadent and corrupt, embroiled in debauchery and other sinful behaivours. And from the philosophical perspective of wealth and power being inherently corrupting influences on man, they would be correct.

I personally don't think either culture is inherently superior to the other, and find such statements to reflect more on the ego of the proponent than on any factual basis.
The concepts of "debauchery" and "sinfull behavior" have no relevance in the real world. They're based on arbitrary rules laid down by self-proclaimed prophets in the name of a god or gods for whom no evidence exists.

On the other hand, western culture allows people great freedom to live their lives as they choose. This may not please the invisible man in the sky, but it's great for people, who we know are real.

By any measure of tangible benefits Western culture beats Arab culture hands down.

1) The side effects of Agent orange weren't anticipated.
2)The Vietminh committed far more atrocities against their own people than the americans but these weren't publicized.
3)Carpet bombing- what's ur problem? Its a perfectly acceptble method to win a war, used to great succes in WW2 to destroy German industry and so on.

1. Yeah....they never are. :rolleyes:

2. Bleh. Therefore the most powerful state in the world has to reduce themselves to that kind of status? If you really are a superpower, act like one.

3. Mass civilian killing AND supporting very highly unpopular regimes.

Don't forget creationist Kansas! Or abortion outlawing Portugal, Ireland and Poland! Don't forget Poland.
Please, do not ofend the thread starter´s country. Thank you.

The Koreans are also descendants of the Chinese. -_-'
So you claim.

except chinas the oldest civilisation in the world

"In England we have 10,000 years to brag about -Stonehenge etc. Hah! We also aren't a corrupt murderous hell-hole like China"

The West invented the concept of Modernity, wich implied the separation of State and Church, the refusal of the divine origin of earthly power, and critical scientific thought.

Wrong. Russia, China, Japan, India, Malaysia, etc are all modern societies who didn't follow Western Europe's path to get there.

One musn´t forget that only a society that isn´t subject to a sole code of morality can flourish and thrive.

According to whom? Is this from "Sergio's 5-step Plan for successful civilizations"?

In England we have 10,000 years to brag about -Stonehenge etc. Hah! We also aren't a corrupt murderous hell-hole like China.

From 8,000BC to 1AD England was a bunch of no-states. But already in 1AD China was the most advanced state in the world. Egypt was gone. Sumeria was gone. Indus was gone. Out of the four original civilisations only China lived on.

1. Yeah....they never are. :rolleyes:

2. Bleh. Therefore the most powerful state in the world has to reduce themselves to that kind of status? If you really are a superpower, act like one.

3. Mass civilian killing AND supporting very highly unpopular regimes.
I think u'll find many of the South Vietnamese hated the idea of communist rule. Much dissent was generated through protest at the corruption of the S. Vietnam regime rather than support for the Communist regime. Had more effort been made to clean up the S. Vietnam governmant then there would have been far less trouble.

1. Yeah....they never are. :rolleyes:

2. Bleh. Therefore the most powerful state in the world has to reduce themselves to that kind of status? If you really are a superpower, act like one.

3. Mass civilian killing AND supporting very highly unpopular regimes.
Although we are not here discussing the vietman war or to compare western civilization to chinese one. i´ll tell you this: the west is superior to china in the same way that a democracy is always superior to a dictatorship that puts an end to a peaceful demonstration of its citizens by butchering them for all the world to see. The main difference between a democracy and a dictatorship?In a democracy, if someone knocks at your door at 5:00 a.m., you don´t have to worry being someonelse than the milkman.

Middle Eastern civilizations were the highest and most advanced until Islam ruined them. Arabs were eating cockroaches in the desert until Persia taught them mathematics and writing. Persia, Egypt, and Sumer had advanced knowledge of astronomy, math, and science thousands of years ago (in fact, if you read the biographies of Greek mathematicians, they all studied in Persia, Babylonia and/or Egypt). Meanwhile, the Phoenicians were better sailors thousands of years ago than anyone until very recently. They sailed around the Horn of Africa way back then, and no one else could until the Portugese finally did in the 18th century. Persia invented the spoon, fork, and knife, as well as chess and backgammon, while the Old Kingdom of Egypt (or perhaps an earlier civilization) built the Great Pyramid, which architects still can't figure out how to make. The Arabs were a small group of nomads in the desert that no one cared about, until Mohammad invaded Persia, and his religion only spread because a) Iranians were sick of the Zoroastrian clergy, and b) the Shah of Iran at the time didn't believe the Arabs could possibly be a threat to anyone, and thus never defended the Persian Empire. But sadly, once Islam took over, a gradual decline began. The same decline began in Europe, as both areas experienced the Dark Ages, but during the Renaissance, Europeans started to question the dumb monotheist dogma and think past it, scientifically, artistically, and politlcally. Persians also thought past Islam to some extent, like when Nader Shah made the country powerful and conquered most of India, but he was replaced by a weak dynasty that eventually fell to British and Russian imperialism, because of corrupt Islamic clerics ruining the country from within. Egypt and Babylonia, meanwhile, lost their own identities and became Arab. However, the Islamic countries became very powerful when the Turks controlled the Near East. The Crusaders were no match for them, but finally the Mongols defeated them.

Please, do not ofend the thread starter´s country. Thank you.

What, the US, Portugal, Ireland or Poland? Not that any is better than the other.

From 8,000BC to 1AD England was a bunch of no-states. But already in 1AD China was the most advanced state in the world. Egypt was gone. Sumeria was gone. Indus was gone. Out of the four original civilisations only China lived on.
Between approx 1400-1918 England was not only one of the most advanced countries in the world but the most powerful. From 1066 onwards England has never suffered an invasion (except for 1 civil war) . China - Mongol, British/French, Japanese, civil wars (many). China since about 1200 has never reache dthe upper echelons of power.

well william of orange invaded, but we'ed sortof invited him over :)

Wrong. Russia, China, Japan, India, Malaysia, etc are all modern societies who didn't follow Western Europe's path to get there.



According to whom? Is this from "Sergio's 5-step Plan for successful civilizations"?
I wasn´t talking of modenity as simply a array of gadgets and plasma tv´s, bu rather refering to the concept that political philosophy as come to undedstaind as "Modernity".
Not acording to me, just look up a world map.

Middle Eastern civilizations were the highest and most advanced until Islam ruined them. Arabs were eating cockroaches in the desert until Persia taught them mathematics and writing. Persia, Egypt, and Sumer had advanced knowledge of astronomy, math, and science thousands of years ago (in fact, if you read the biographies of Greek mathematicians, they all studied in Persia, Babylonia and/or Egypt). Meanwhile, the Phoenicians were better sailors thousands of years ago than anyone until very recently. They sailed around the Horn of Africa way back then, and no one else could until the Portugese finally did in the 18th century. Persia invented the spoon, fork, and knife, as well as chess and backgammon, while the Old Kingdom of Egypt (or perhaps an earlier civilization) built the Great Pyramid, which architects still can't figure out how to make. The Arabs were a small group of nomads in the desert that no one cared about, until Mohammad invaded Persia, and his religion only spread because a) Iranians were sick of the Zoroastrian clergy, and b) the Shah of Iran at the time didn't believe the Arabs could possibly be a threat to anyone, and thus never defended the Persian Empire. But sadly, once Islam took over, a gradual decline began. The same decline began in Europe, as both areas experienced the Dark Ages, but during the Renaissance, Europeans started to question the dumb monotheist dogma and think past it, scientifically, artistically, and politlcally. Persians also thought past Islam to some extent, like when Nader Shah made the country powerful and conquered most of India, but he was replaced by a weak dynasty that eventually fell to British and Russian imperialism, because of corrupt Islamic clerics ruining the country from within. Egypt and Babylonia, meanwhile, lost their own identities and became Arab. However, the Islamic countries became very powerful when the Turks controlled the Near East. The Crusaders were no match for them, but finally the Mongols defeated them.
The reson the Crusaders lost was through French leadership. Guy, King of Jerusalem is the sole reson why it was lost.

well william of orange invaded, but we'ed sortof invited him over :)
Doesn't count. It was a bloodless revolution and also upon invitation.

Doesn't count. It was a bloodless revolution and also upon invitation.
well i did say that :)

What, the US, Portugal, Ireland or Poland? Not that any is better than the other.
At least not one of the nations you mentioned entered the "Let´s see if we can suicide the country into extintion, shall we?" contest

From 8,000BC to 1AD England was a bunch of no-states. But already in 1AD China was the most advanced state in the world. Egypt was gone. Sumeria was gone. Indus was gone. Out of the four original civilisations only China lived on.
England had been united for hundreds of years through a high-king (the first being Offa, King of Mercia). When the smaller Kindoms were dissolved such kings as Edmund Ironside and Alfred the Great ruled and made England wealthy. Why do u think the Vikings invaded? We were the only people worth bothering with.

Between approx 1400-1918 England was not only one of the most advanced countries in the world but the most powerful. From 1066 onwards England has never suffered an invasion (except for 1 civil war) . China - Mongol, British/French, Japanese, civil wars (many). China since about 1200 has never reache dthe upper echelons of power.
Hmph. If I remember correctly, China could've conquered a very large portion of the known world during the mid-1400's, if they had listened to the Eunuch captain who's name eludes me. :p

Zheng He?

Hmph. If I remember correctly, China could've conquered a very large portion of the known world during the mid-1400's, if they had listened to the Eunuch captain who's name eludes me. :p
Sure they could! Even the Mongols couldn't manage that and they were leagues ahead of China. Also, most of the territory they supposedly could have taken is empty desert and arid steppe, no land of value whereas the British Empire consisted of the best bits of the world.

Wrong. Russia, China, Japan, India, Malaysia, etc are all modern societies who didn't follow Western Europe's path to get there.



According to whom? Is this from "Sergio's 5-step Plan for successful civilizations"?
Russia-currently an authocracy, still a improvement over a dictatorship wich saw its citizens as cannon-fodder;
China- a tottaly corrupt cleptocracy bent on a savage version of no-restraints capitalism;
Japan-nuked into the 21st century;
India-ever visited Mumbai, or what is more popularly know everywhere else has "a hellhole the size of Dublin"?
Malasia- where homossexuality can get you a nice firing squad, tottaly state-sponsered.

But sadly, once Islam took over, a gradual decline began. The same decline began in Europe, as both areas experienced the Dark Ages, but during the Renaissance, Europeans started to question the dumb monotheist dogma and think past it, scientifically, artistically, and politlcally.

I agree. If you clump Arabs, Jews and Christians they are all inferior as compared to living and let live.

Hmph. If I remember correctly, China could've conquered a very large portion of the known world during the mid-1400's, if they had listened to the Eunuch captain who's name eludes me. :p
Also IF we had given the American colonies parliamentary representation we MIGHT still have them and be the world #1 power instead of #3/#4. It's just speculation.

Between approx 1400-1918 England was not only one of the most advanced countries in the world but the most powerful. From 1066 onwards England has never suffered an invasion (except for 1 civil war).

That wouldn't have anything to do with the fact that England is an island nation, eh? Unless you think there was some other reason why the Nazi blitzkrieg didn't roll right over you. And don't forget Napoleon and Phillip II.

Also I know of another island nation, Japan, that has never been successfully invaded in human history, and that has only had one civil war in its history. Do you really want to be using these particular historical facts to claim how great your nation is?

At least not one of the nations you mentioned entered the "Let´s see if we can suicide the country into extintion, shall we?" contest

You might want to look into the Irish terrorists in Northern Ireland. Or Poland's, the US's and Portugal's poor excuses for human rights records. Poland and Portugal were brutal dictatorships mere decades ago, and to this day remain disgraces for Europe when it comes to civil rights. Not even half a century ago, the US was an apartheid state.

So, spare me the holier-than-thou crap, please. The West has its fair share of things to be ashamed of and judged for.

You might want to look into the Irish terrorists in Northern Ireland. Or Poland's, the US's and Portugal's poor excuses for human rights records. Poland and Portugal were brutal dictatorships mere decades ago, and to this day remain disgraces for Europe when it comes to civil rights. Not even half a century ago, the US was an apartheid state.

So, spare me the holier-than-thou crap, please. The West has its fair share of things to be ashamed of and judged for.
Of course we all have our sins to atone for, but that doesn´t mean that all citizens of the western world have to carry the white man´s burden for ever...why cant we claim our superiority over other civilizations without the risk of incurring into the wratho of moral and cultural relativists?

That wouldn't have anything to do with the fact that England is an island nation, eh? Unless you think there was some other reason why the Nazi blitzkrieg didn't roll right over you. And don't forget Napoleon and Phillip II.

Also I know of another island nation, Japan, that has never been successfully invaded in human history, and that has only had one civil war in its history. Do you really want to be using these particular historical facts to claim how great your nation is?
Why hasn't Japan been invaded? Huge Mongol invasion fleet is wiped out by tsunami. In WW2 there would have been an invasion but 'little boy' and 'fat man' ever so abruptly removed that necessity.
Why didn't England get invaded in WW2? The sea can't be the answer because the Channel is only 26 miles wide. We won they battle of Britain, had a comparable navy and bombed the living hell out of Germany's industry as well as having the Brains to give us the technological edge.

Russia-currently an authocracy, still a improvement over a dictatorship wich saw its citizens as cannon-fodder;
China- a tottaly corrupt cleptocracy bent on a savage version of no-restraints capitalism;
Japan-nuked into the 21st century;
India-ever visited Mumbai, or what is more popularly know everywhere else has "a hellhole the size of Dublin"?
Malasia- where homossexuality can get you a nice firing squad, tottaly state-sponsered.

WWII was a modern war, and look at who was involved. Modern USSR: tortured and killed its excess citizenry, Modern Germany: implemented a policy of racial genocide against its minorities, Modern Italy: consumed by a totalitarian dictatorship, Modern United States: practiced segregation and lynched a still unknown number of blacks, Modern Japan: embarked on a colonial campaign through Asia and the Pacific killing millions.

Clearly modernity and civil rights have nothing to do with one another.

WWII was a modern war, and look at who was involved. Modern USSR: tortured and killed its excess citizenry, Modern Germany: implemented a policy of racial genocide against its minorities, Modern Italy: consumed by a totalitarian dictatorship, Modern United States: practiced segregation and lynched a still unknown number of blacks, Modern Japan: embarked on a colonial campaign through Asia and the Pacific killing millions.

Clearly modernity and civil rights have nothing to do with one another.
You keep talking of modernity as if it was simply a catalog of automated kitchen-cuttlery. It´s an Idea, not something material.

Of course we all have our sins to atone for, but that doesn´t mean that all citizens of the western world have to carry the white man´s burden for ever...why cant we claim our superiority over other civilizations without the risk of incurring into the wratho of moral and cultural relativists?

Blowing smoke up our own collective asses, which happen to be themselves sullied, serves to do nothing else but inflate our heads beyond the scope of being able to see our own unwiped filth. You already are well on your way - selectively minimising the atrocities of the West and magnifying those of others.

Why hasn't Japan been invaded? Huge Mongol invasion fleet is wiped out by tsunami.
Actually the force had landed the previous day, encountering a 3-meter high, 20-mile long wall constructed to keep them out. They attacked it and were repulsed.


Why didn't England get invaded in WW2? The sea can't be the answer because the Channel is only 26 miles wide. We won they battle of Britain, had a comparable navy and bombed the living hell out of Germany's industry as well as having the Brains to give us the technological edge.
And here I was thinking it was the USAF's Mustangs and B-29s who beat back the Luftwaffe and destroyed Germany's industrial capacity. Silly me. :rolleyes:

Actually the force had landed the previous day, encountering a 3-meter high, 20-mile long wall constructed to keep them out. They attacked it and were repulsed.



And here I was thinking it was the USAF's Mustangs and B-29s who beat mack the Luftwaffe and destroyed Germany's industrial capacity. Silly me. :rolleyes:
You'd be wrong there. Many of the greatest raids (i.e. Dambusters) were RAF night raids conducted by the Lancaster bomber, one of the greatest pieces of aviation engeneering ever. The British Mosquito bomber could carry more bombs, faster and further than the B29. It's half the size and made of plywood. When it comes to flying we win. The most famous US plane, the P-51 didn't even work properly until it was fitted with a Rolls-Royce Merlin engine.

Blowing smoke up our own collective asses, which happen to be themselves sullied, serves to do nothing else but inflate our heads beyond the scope of being able to see our own unwiped filth. You already are well on your way - selectively minimising the atrocities of the West and magnifying those of others.
No, simply sticking to my guns and insisting that i prefer to live in a country where a battered woman can freely press charges agains her abuser...but guess you people way up at the north still wallow in self-hatred fests.

Blowing smoke up our own collective asses, which happen to be themselves sullied, serves to do nothing else but inflate our heads beyond the scope of being able to see our own unwiped filth. You already are well on your way - selectively minimising the atrocities of the West and magnifying those of others.
Name some Western atrocities as I think practically every one (except for the Holocaust) has been done by non-Westerners. The purges (18000000 dead russians), Mao's regime, (70000000 dead chinese), Cambodia (4000000 dead cambodians). How exactly can u magnify these? And how does the West come anywhere close?

No, simply sticking to my guns and insisting that i prefer to live in a country where a battered woman can freely press charges agains her abuser...but guess you people way up at the north still wallow in self-hatred fests.

But damn her if she wishes to control her own body and reproduction. We in the north have many things to rightfully hate ourselves for, and we are wise enough never to forget them or sweep them under the carpet like some others!

You keep talking of modernity as if it was simply a catalog of automated kitchen-cuttlery. It´s an Idea, not something material.
Well then by all means, describe to me this esoteric notion of moderity you have, and what it means to you. And keep in mnd we aren't discussing artwork here.

Having modernity be your own pet philisophy, and using that to determine who is and isn't modern, is circular logic. In the end your judgement is meaningless, because you used parameters that were simply convenient to what you were trying to prove. In peer review we call it 'a priori conviction'.

So if modernity truly isn't something concrete then we might as well stop arguing about it. Either one of us could simply claim to have a different idea of what modernity was and there would be no way of contesting that.

But damn her if she wishes to control her own body and reproduction. We in the north have many things to rightfully hate ourselves for, and we are wise enough never to forget them or sweep them under the carpet like some others!
You still presume to know a great deal about my country...but i can assure you that no woman in my country has ever gone to jail for carrying out an abortion...we don´t stone her to death or spray her face with acid, and, gosh, go figure!, we do find ourselves superior to those countries that take that kind of action.

Going back to the original idea the point is that Western culture = advanced, fair(ish), free and open-minded.
Islamic culture= backward, unfair, repressed and dogmatic.
How is there a contest?

Well then by all means, describe to me this esoteric notion of moderity you have, and what it means to you. And keep in mnd we aren't discussing artwork here.

Having modernity be your own pet philisophy, and using that to determine who is and isn't modern, is circular logic. In the end your judgement is meaningless, because you used parameters that were simply convenient to what you were trying to prove. In peer review we call it 'a priori conviction'.

So if modernity truly isn't something concrete then we might as well stop arguing about it. Either one of us could simply claim to have a different idea of what modernity was and there would be no way of contesting that.
The concept of modernity:strict separation between the State and Church;
freedom of thought; critical scientific thought; refusal of the divine origin of the governement´s power; divining society as a free association of individuals and not an organic body where the individual is under the heel of the colective.
If you apply this concept to many of the countries you refered, you´ll see that none of them is "Modern", although modern in the more current meaning.

Name some Western atrocities as I think practically every one (except for the Holocaust) has been done by non-Westerners. The purges (18000000 dead russians), Mao's regime, (70000000 dead chinese), Cambodia (4000000 dead cambodians). How exactly can u magnify these? And how does the West come anywhere close?
1) Near extermination of Native Americans
2) The taking, using, and killing of African slaves
3) Collonization and exploitation of the Americas, Africa, and parts of Asia

You still presume to know a great deal about my country...but i can assure you that no woman in my country has ever gone to jail for carrying out an abortion...we don´t stone her to death or spray her face with acid, and, gosh, go figure!, we do find ourselves superior to those countries that take that kind of action.

You still have not mentioned which country you're from. For someone so proud of his/her squalor, that's ironic.

You still have not mentioned which country you're from. For someone so proud of his/her squalor, that's ironic.
Oh man you´r rich! Never thought coming upon a Nordic with a sense of humour. Ok, to be fair, its his "squalor", and a portuguese "squalor", since we´re at it. ;)

You'd be wrong there. Many of the greatest raids (i.e. Dambusters) were RAF night raids conducted by the Lancaster bomber, one of the greatest pieces of aviation engeneering ever. The British Mosquito bomber could carry more bombs, faster and further than the B29. It's half the size and made of plywood. When it comes to flying we win. The most famous US plane, the P-51 didn't even work properly until it was fitted with a Rolls-Royce Merlin engine.

Greatest ie Most Spectacular raids might have been British, but they didn't do much to defeat the Nazi megalith. And night bombing doesn't accomplish anything. All you do is indicriminately drop ordinances over the entire city, killing civilians and missing industrial centers. US bombing was by day, which resulted in more casualties but also was much more effective at actually hitting what they were aiming for.

Also a plane made of plywood isn't going to survive a strong wind, much less a single flak shell. Next you'll be telling me the Swordfish was the best torpedo plane of WWII.

Is the culture superior? I don't know, I've never been there. But I have a questionaire for this that I answer for myself. Are they technologically backwards? Yes. Are they tribalistic? Very. Do they foster thought? They once did. Now, only military thought is allowed. And is the body of thought superior? The answer is a resounding no. Not since the number 0 have the Arabs ever done anything to impact each and every single life. Unless, that is, you don't consider terrorism an infectious Middle Eastern disease, which I do.

1) Near extermination of Native Americans
2) The taking, using, and killing of African slaves
3) Collonization and exploitation of the Americas, Africa, and parts of Asia
1) It wasn't all one sided. Many settlers' last visions were a speedily advancing tomohawk.
2) The slaves were taken by other Africans. They were bought by the West that is true and that was wrong. However, the descendants of those slaves live in better countries than they originate so at least some good has come of it.
3) Exploitation is variable. In many places the Europeans were invited by natives in order to help them in conflicts.
How does any of this come anywhere near what I previously highlighted? its worlds apart.

Greatest ie Most Spectacular raids might have been British, but they didn't do much to defeat the Nazi megalith. And night bombing doesn't accomplish anything. All you do is indicriminately drop ordinances over the entire city, killing civilians and missing industrial centers. US bombing was by day, which resulted in more casualties but also was much more effective at actually hitting what they were aiming for.

Also a plane made of plywood isn't going to survive a strong wind, much less a single flak shell. Next you'll be telling me the Swordfish was the best torpedo plane of WWII.
Worked at Taranto. The mosquito's construction meant that it was able to withstand surprising amounts of damage and be repaired easily.
Britsih night bombing meant thatthe planes survived long enough to drop their bombs whereas the American planes got shot down long before they got to the target. There's no point in accuracy if ur not alive long enough to take advantage of it.

1) It wasn't all one sided. Many settlers' last visions were a speedily advancing tomohawk.
2) The slaves were taken by other Africans. They were bought by the West that is true and that was wrong. However, the descendants of those slaves live in better countries than they originate so at least some good has come of it.
3) Exploitation is variable. In many places the Europeans were invited by natives in order to help them in conflicts.
How does any of this come anywhere near what I previously highlighted? its worlds apart.
1) The native Americans didn't try to conquer Europe. Europe conquered them.
2) The slaves were still brutally treated and killed or raped at their master's whim.

Every group of people has commited some attrocities at some point in time.

The concept of modernity:strict separation between the State and Church;
freedom of thought; critical scientific thought; refusal of the divine origin of the governement´s power; divining society as a free association of individuals and not an organic body where the individual is under the heel of the colective.
If you apply this concept to many of the countries you refered, you´ll see that none of them is "Modern", although modern in the more current meaning.

See, that is precisely the problem I am having with your argument. You have essentially defined 'modern' as being non-theocratic and non-communist, thereby conveniently excluding the two societies you just happen to be arguing aren't modern. You have tailored the definition to obtain a conclusion that satisfies you.

OK I'll admit I'm a scientific person who doesn't like subjective stances, but do you see my point? If we don't use universal standards to define things, we risk arriving at conclusions that aren't useful to uderstanding the world.

I say base modernity strictly on technology, and in particular the latest technological leaps that characterize humanity. ie the Industrial Revolution, the Information Age, Globalization. Therefore countries like Mongolia or Guinea aren't to modern, whereas global or regional superpowers like the US, Russia, and China are. That would be a more universal standard IMO.

1) The native Americans didn't try to conquer Europe. Europe conquered them.
2) The slaves were still brutally treated and killed or raped at their master's whim.

Every group of people has commited some attrocities at some point in time.
But keep it in proportion. On the grand scale of things the West hasn't been that bad.

What I look at is three criteria:

Wealth

State Economic policy

State Moral policy

As far as wealth the United states is far and above the best, because it is endowed with such vast natural resources that they have transformed through relatively free economic policy into stable wealth.

As far as economic policy I'm not totally sure, but micro-states like Hong Kong, Monaco, and Lichtenstein are generally very liberal when it comes to economics. Most of Western Europe has strayed away from this policy twoards more socialist ones with natural results. The United States and Japan have solid economic policy, but I'm sure there are better ones.

As far as Moral policy I would probably pick one of the Western European nations, extremely liberal attitudes twoards religion, sex, drugs, and what not are signs that people have abandoned irrational ideas on these subjects. Of course in many cases these nations adopt policies equally irrational by going beyond equality to support people with minority views, opinions, or ethnicities to the detriment of the majority, traditional population.

In all of these categories western nations are far beyond most of the Arab World, especially when it comes to moral policy. The Muslim Religion, even more so than Christianity, contains beliefs that are extremely detrimental to the economy when put into policy, such as policies against usury and women's rights.

As for the China vs. the West, China has a long history of authority worship that continues today, I find that disturbing as it has allowed the rise of a super-state.

As for the Britain vs. the World, it has been many years since brittania has ruled the waves, and the only reason Britain wasn't conquered was because the majority of German resources were redirected into invading the largest nation on earth. Germany could have easily demolished Great Britain had it's attentions not been focused on driving into the muddy heart of Russia. Today Britain is poised to collapse into a totalitarian socialist hellhole.

As to who invented the girly "sport" of soccer, I'll let you guys argue over which nation is effeminate enough to invent such a game.

No culture is superior to the other, there just diffrent with diffrent views and values, I balive I had this disscussion with Drunk commies before.

No culture is superior to the other, there just diffrent with diffrent views and values, I balive I had this disscussion with Drunk commies before.
I completely reject that point of view. It completely ignores the fact that people are born wanting certain things and some cultures provide them better than others. It embraces instead the idea that we are blank slates programmed by our culture. It's postmodernist, cultural relativist bull.

Here are some key indicators of how Arab countries measure:

No Arab country spends more than 0.2 percent of its gross national product on scientific research, and most of that money goes toward salaries. By contrast, the United States spends more than 10 times that amount.

Fewer than one in 20 Arab university students pursue scientific disciplines.

There are only 18 computers per 1,000 people in the Arab world. The global average is 78 per 1,000.

Only 370 industrial patents were issued to people in Arab countries between 1980 and 2000. In South Korea during that same period, 16,000 industrial patents were issued.

No more than 10,000 books were translated into Arabic over the entire past millennium, equivalent to the number translated into Spanish each year.

In the Arab world, MEMRI contends that the illiteracy rate, often said to be 50%, is actually 80%.

The number of books per person in Europe is 10 times the number of books per person in Africa and the Middle East combined.

At the Google headquarters in Silicon Valley, there is a large map with lights that show the number of searches going on at any given time. The world is bright except for the region stretching from Morocco to the border of India, which is all but dark.

At Davos, the outsourcing of high-tech jobs is discussed; India, Mexico, and China are mentioned, but not a single mention of any country in the Arab world is made. None has the infrastructure, productivity, or educational system that can support such jobs.

"The Arab World's Scientific Desert" http://chronicle.com/free/v50/i26/26a03601.htm

Ever heard the phrase one man's meat is another man's poison.

What works in one area and for one group of people isn't necasarrily going to transfer.

Your question ignores a few things, western society so far has lead to the destruction of the true sense of family, destruction of mutual care for peers in society, lower life spans, higher stress rates, increased violence and continued destruction of our planet.
Of course we have Mc Donalds, plastic, cars etc to compensate for it so I guess it all balances.

...

Ever heard the phrase one man's meat is another man's poison.

What works in one area and for one group of people isn't necasarrily going to transfer.

Your question ignores a few things, western society so far has lead to the destruction of the true sense of family, destruction of mutual care for peers in society, lower life spans, higher stress rates, increased violence and continued destruction of our planet.
Of course we have Mc Donalds, plastic, cars etc to compensate for it so I guess it all balances.

...Western society has also eradicated many illnesses, found ways to treat and cure many more, lengthened the life expectancy of nearly everyone on earth, made racism socially unacceptable, built communications infrastructures that bring people together from all over the world, established societies where nobody is legally discriminated against based on religion, and allowed men to walk upon the moon.

Arab culture, meanwhile, has stagnated in the 14th century.

The Arab countries are completely backwards scientifically and economically. I don't know enough about their culture to comment with certainty, but I'm not aware of any significant cultural advances. Their religion seems to deter advances.

The Arab countries who are in a figurative dark age also are hostile to the west which is much further ahead. A number of their people would destroy us rather than advance their own people. Destroy what they have been unable to achieve, even with boatloads of western money. Ironically, the money may even be the thing that has prevented them from achieving more.

I completely reject that point of view. It completely ignores the fact that people are born wanting certain things and some cultures provide them better than others. It embraces instead the idea that we are blank slates programmed by our culture. It's postmodernist, cultural relativist bull.

I wouldn't say it's postmodernist, because I hold many postmodern ideals as truth, yet it's damn obvious to me that a society which holds a woman's worth in the business world to be half that of a man (Koranic verse) is pretty sick.

Those science/tech quotes are pretty interesting.

Zheng He?
That's the one!

Sure they could! Even the Mongols couldn't manage that and they were leagues ahead of China. Also, most of the territory they supposedly could have taken is empty desert and arid steppe, no land of value whereas the British Empire consisted of the best bits of the world.

Dude, the Mongols DID conquer most of the known world. And they did it in style. The only empires I can name of the top of my head that provided any serious resistance were the Song (which were...Chinese) and the Mamluks in Egypt.
That side, China was VERY powerful in the 1450's, much more so than Europe. In fact, the average European power was behind the Islamic gunpowder empires for quite a long time...at least into the late 1500's.

Sorry to just butt in, but i have to offer my opinion. I think that currently, yes, western civilisation is better than Muslim civilisation, but it wasn't always like that. Muslim Civilisation was probably better than ours up to about 200-300 years ago. After all, Muslim scientists and mathematicians made many great advances, such as plumbing, during the dark ages, while we sat in dark dank huts, with all the intelligence of a 10 year old, dying of cholera.

Is Western culture and civilization superior to the Arab-Muslim culture? Well, the Arab-Muslim cuture and civilization certainly aren't superior to the west's...

To be fair, there is an economic disparity between Arab-Moslem countries. We're kinda lumping them all together. Morocco, Tunisia, Algeria, Sudan, for example, don't share in the oil wealth of the Gulf states.

The statistics I posted earlier don't seem as damning when applied to nations that are fairly poor. The rich nations really have a problem, though, and are not rising to the challenge. To simultaneously roll in western wealth while not advancing their people - and to some degree promoting terrorism, as the Saudis did with the Wahhabis - is very short-sighted to say the least. Continuing to divert blame from themselves by blaming Israel, America, and the western culture in general is not productive.

Whether the Arabs made significant advances between about 750 AD - 950 AD (Historiography, religious texts, medicine, astronomy, mathematics, sciences, literature, geography and travel) is immaterial to where we all are today. Great, they made some advances for a few hundred years. Where have they been since then, besides throwing rocks at the west?

I wonder if some of their older leaders wish oil had never been found. Culturally speaking, they might be better off.

So, do you think that one can assert the superiority of the West over the Arab-Muslim world? Or do you believe that such comparisons cannot be made on objective terms or are blatantly racist?

Socially, the Arab states; though in the past being superior technologically (but equal, in social structure) to Post-Roman/Pre-Enlightenment Western Civilization.... However, after the enlightenment; the Western Nations began to surpass (technologically, and socially) their Arab counterparts.... At present, there is little difference between the Arab Countries, and the Papal-Controled Holy-Roman Empire (of centuries ago) socially.

Western Culture is "superior" in the sense that we have passed enlightenment (through the 18th century); whereas they are still existing in a pre-enlightenment culture; though their are indications that it is comming to a boil; whereby they will soon end up drastically changing [as Europe and North America did in the 16-1700's]

I wonder if some of their older leaders wish oil had never been found. Culturally speaking, they might be better off.

It goes back before oil; I imagine they wish the Portuguese never sailed around the tip of Africa. That was what put the Arab trading states and cities in to decline (along with Venice and Constantinople), and resulted in the decline in power which was evidenced by Napoleon and later the colonizing powers of Europe.

Western Culture is "superior" in the sense that we have passed enlightenment (through the 18th century); whereas they are still existing in a pre-enlightenment culture; though their are indications that it is comming to a boil; whereby they will soon end up drastically changing [as Europe and North America did in the 16-1700's]

The evolutionary path of the Western world is applicable only to the Western World, and should not be the standard by which all other nations are judged.

Just take a look at Russia: completely missed the Reformation and Enlightenment. Still had the same autocracy in 1905 as it had on its founding seven centuries earlier. By all western accounts was an extremely backwards civilization. And yet by 1960 it was a modern superpower with influence stretching to virtually every corner of the globe. To this day Russia is a nation with major influence on global events, with the second largest defense budget.

Also look at Japan: isolationist and a non-factor even locally while in the west the industrial revolution was taking place. Then it suddenly exploded onto the world stage in the mid-19th century, in under a century industrializing into a global superpower that threatened all of Asia. Now it has the world's second largest national economy.

Neither examples took the Western approach to social development. Both by Western standards are still technically living in 'pre-enlightenment' states, and they won't be having western-style enlightenments any time soon. But that's rendered meaningless, because the Reformation and Enlightenment were specific to western culture and not established global procedures.

The evolutionary path of the Western world is applicable only to the Western World, and should not be the standard by which all other nations are judged.

Just take a look at Russia: completely missed the Reformation and Enlightenment. Still had the same autocracy in 1905 as it had on its founding seven centuries earlier. By all western accounts was an extremely backwards civilization. And yet by 1960 it was a modern superpower with influence stretching to virtually every corner of the globe. To this day Russia is a nation with major influence on global events, with the second largest defense budget.

Also look at Japan: isolationist and a non-factor even locally while in the west the industrial revolution was taking place. Then it suddenly exploded onto the world stage in the mid-19th century, industrializing into a global superpower in under century that threatened all of Asia. Now it has the world's second largest economy.

Neither examples took the Western approach to social development. Both by Western standards are still technically living in 'pre-enlightenment' states, and they won't be having western-style enlightenments any time soon. But that's rendered meaningless, because the Reformation and Enlightenment were specific to western culture and not established global procedures.
Russia was modernized thanks in large part to ideas and technology imported from the west.

Japan too simply adopted the technology of the west in it's buildup to power. It also embraced the western tradition of collonizing and exploiting other nations.

Neither of those examples rose to modernity and power independant of the west. They immitated the west, borrowed ideas and technology from the west, and retained part of their original culture.

They're not pre-enlightenment. They're secular, democratic nations. They've embraced the principles of the enlightenment.

So, do you think that one can assert the superiority of the West over the Arab-Muslim world? Or do you believe that such comparisons cannot be made on objective terms or are blatantly racist?
Yes I think it is superior. For example, we generally believe gays to be deserving of the same rights as all others. In the Middle East many societies don't believe that gays deserve to live.

I however do not think that Middle Eastern people are inferior to Western people. In those lands there are just as many good people as over here. They just have some backward beliefs.

The evolutionary path of the Western world is applicable only to the Western World, and should not be the standard by which all other nations are judged.

Just take a look at Russia: completely missed the Reformation and Enlightenment. Still had the same autocracy in 1905 as it had on its founding seven centuries earlier. By all western accounts was an extremely backwards civilization. And yet by 1960 it was a modern superpower with influence stretching to virtually every corner of the globe. To this day Russia is a nation with major influence on global events, with the second largest defense budget.

Also look at Japan: isolationist and a non-factor even locally while in the west the industrial revolution was taking place. Then it suddenly exploded onto the world stage in the mid-19th century, in under a century industrializing into a global superpower that threatened all of Asia. Now it has the world's second largest national economy.

Neither examples took the Western approach to social development. Both by Western standards are still technically living in 'pre-enlightenment' states, and they won't be having western-style enlightenments any time soon. But that's rendered meaningless, because the Reformation and Enlightenment were specific to western culture and not established global procedures.

Russia only began to develop when Czar Peter took a look at the West and embarked upon a quest to match it, it's culture further adapted after the Communist revolution(because communist ideas were decidedly Western), and then further after the collapse of the Soviet Union.

Japan only advanced when Perry's fleet came in and threatened to blow up Japan with their amazing god-like cannon power and massive ships if they wouldn't open up to western investment and trade, and Japan then adapted much of Western culture with trade and even more after it was nuked into submission.

While the reformation and enlightenment happened in the west, the culture they produced changed others in ways just as revolutionary as those movements themselves, albiet in a different way. The Arab World was left largely unexposed to western culture until we discovered their oil, and now western culture is seeping into their societies just as it did with Japan, Russia, China, India, and many other societies. While none of them can be considered western, with the exception of Russia, they have all been profoundly changed by western ideas and culture.

Don't forget creationist Kansas! Or abortion outlawing Portugal, Ireland and Poland! Don't forget Poland.
I suppose there is cold comfort that my country (Ireland) is not alone in being backward. I agree (and I'm serious) that Sweden probably has one of the better cultures around. All the Swedish people I've met are very proud of their nation, and rightfully so.

Yes, the Islamic world is equal to the West if not better. Didn't you hear that half of the middle East's workforce is made up of women, most of whom would typically dress like Rhona Cameron and Germaine Greer but with less clothes and that over there gays and lesbians can French kiss in public without anyone caring, that "housewife" is a foreign concept, that Jews are exhalted especially in Egypt, that caucasians are loved, especially in Pakistan and that Christians are lauded, especially in Sudan. In fact, nobody in North Africa or the Middle East is poor, thanks to their brilliant economists and politicians with a particular knack for foreign relations.

The evil empire of George Bush shouldn't have invaded the egalitarian paradise of Saddam's Iraq and most certainly has no right to invade Iran or Saudi Arabia. Sure they might carry out among the most horrific human rights abuses in the world but look at George Bush, Abu Graib and desecrating the Quran at Guantanamo Bay, look at Ariel Sharon. That's REAL evil. George Bush is the real terrorist for going into Iraq and provoking those nice, well-to-do freedom fighters. They might have killed at least twice as many people in Iraq as the coalition forces did together but it's still all George Bush, Tony Blair and Ariel Sharon's fault. I don't know where Ariel Sharon comes into this but it's still that dumb jew's fault.

The Koreans are also descendants of the Chinese. -_-'

And the Chinese are descendents of the Africans.

You have a nice tendency to include something about China in just about every post. I think I'll do that as well.

Subject: Roman Imperialism

Random Poster: Caligula was an asshat!
Average Guy: Totally!
Luporum: AMERiCa Rulz!!!!11shift+1

And the Chinese are descendents of the Africans.

You have a nice tendency to include something about China in just about every post. I think I'll do that as well.

Subject: Roman Imperialism

Random Poster: Caligula was an asshat!
Average Guy: Totally!
Luporum: AMERiCa Rulz!!!!11shift+1

No. Everybody are descendants of what we would today call Mesopotamians. But that's a religious debate. Heh.

Nobody else includes China in their posts. I might as well take up that task. :D

So, do you think that one can assert the superiority of the West over the Arab-Muslim world? Or do you believe that such comparisons cannot be made on objective terms or are blatantly racist?


Western Civilization, or Modern Civilization if you prefer a more neutral term, is the dominate culture on this planet. It is the Modern Western States which are Democratic, Secular, Economicaly/Militarily Powerful, and (despite the attempts by Christian Fundamentalists) Advancing.

The present Modern Civilization is superior to (and not to be confused with) the previous Christian Civilization, which killed itself by embracing literacy, pluralism and science.

I would argue that there is no such thing as an Islamic civilization or any other competitor. I hold that there are only States in differing stages of Modernism, ranging from the fully Modernized States (Western Europe, Japan and Canada, where god's shadow is merely a memory) to those States which currently have a basterdized verson of Modernism (most of the Islamic world/Africa and Central Asia). Bastardized Modernism is caused by many factors (for more detail read The Future of Freedom by Fareed Zakaria).

There is an attempt to vanish modernism from the Middle East and reestablish the former Islamic civilization, which like the Christian civilization of Western Europe died but unlike Europe had no immediate replacement. This attempt is behind the current Islamic terrorist movement and is doomed to failure!

So, do you think that one can assert the superiority of the West over the Arab-Muslim world? Or do you believe that such comparisons cannot be made on objective terms or are blatantly racist?

Pretty much if you prefer Muslim states over western then you no doubt feel sorrow that Hitler lost. Same kinda thing. In Islam, once and enemy always and enemy. Unbelievers need to die sorta thing.

Is a part if it which is a peaceful sect I know. But your comment was general, so I generalized in response.

Morgallis you are talking complete crap.

1. Only a *tiny* proportion of the south vietnamese, the rich city dwellers, didn't want communism. The vast majority of the population who worked as farm labourers wanted it, and for good reason.

2. No matter how you try and spin it China has a history to be proud of, is the source of many of the worlds inventions and has often being extremley powerful, though isolationist. They tend to keep to themselves, hence the Great Wall. If they had being a more imperialist nation, things may have being a lot different.

3. It is possible for the act of kicking a ball into a net to be "invented" in two different places independently without them being related. It's a pointless debate - it's like Africans saying "Well the first records of apes walking on two legs come from Africa, therefore we invented walking!"

As for the topic at hand, I do think that currently western culture is superiour to arab culture, though like Swimmingpool said this CANNOT be confused with "Westerners are superiour to Arabs", which a lot of bigoted people believe. Arab culture did used to be a lot more tolerant and progressive than western culture, and who knows, it might be again in the distant future. But it just has not evolved as much and so currently is fairly backward.

So, do you think that one can assert the superiority of the West over the Arab-Muslim world? Or do you believe that such comparisons cannot be made on objective terms or are blatantly racist?


I don't know really. The Arab-Muslim world is far older then the western world. But as the most powerful countries are in the West(well some of them) its does seem apparent that this is bound to happen.

Of course we are superior, what a stupid question.

I don't know really. The Arab-Muslim world is far older then the western world. But as the most powerful countries are in the West(well some of them) its does seem apparent that this is bound to happen.
What's bound to happen again?

Whether or not western culture and civilization is 'superior' cannot be understood without first defining 'superior'. If we are thinking in terms of technological superiority, then this is due to the west having a greater percieved need to develop. Powerful empires such as those of China and the Ottomans Turks fell into stagnation because they no longer percieved a need to develop, arguably because they had crushed all local opposition. One can argue that societies develop economically and technologically in order to fight wars more effectively. A shortage of wars may lead to the society in question seeing no need for further development, and focusing on other matters. Centuries of near-constant warfare meant that the west never had this luxury, and thus continued to develop.
Also, it is a matter of easily available resources. The western empires started out as medieval kingdoms requiring little more than timber and stone, to grossly oversimplify. As technology developed, so more of certain resources were needed, hence the empires. Primitive Africans were not mentally deficient as some still insist, but simply had no immediate uses for oil or diamonds in their daily lives, and thus saw no need to go digging for things they didn't know existed and didn't particularly need.

The point is that technology has almost always been developed in order to increase the military or economic power of a particular country, either directly or indirectly. Although it is possible to consider the possession of wealth and power to be virtuous, this is by no means universal. Thus, I submit that the overall value of a particular culture cannot be judged on the basis of technological sophistication.

Whether or not western culture and civilization is 'superior' cannot be understood without first defining 'superior'. If we are thinking in terms of technological superiority, then this is due to the west having a greater perceived need to develop. Powerful empires such as those of China and the Ottomans Turks fell into stagnation because they no longer perceived a need to develop, arguably because they had crushed all local opposition. One can argue that societies develop economically and technologically in order to fight wars more effectively. A shortage of wars may lead to the society in question seeing no need for further development, and focusing on other matters. Centuries of near-constant warfare meant that the west never had this luxury, and thus continued to develop.


Not exactly true. One of the main reasons that the European Christian Civilization destroyed itself and gave rise to Modern Civilization in the process, while the Chinese and Islamic Civilizations fell into stagnation and death without producing a successor, is decentralization.

China was centralized quickly in its history, most differing ethnic and linguistic groups being destroyed in the process. Since that centralization, the driving force behind the Chinese Civilization and its advancement has been the Dynasty and the bureaucracy. There are numerous examples in which China stepped back from discovery and Modernism because the Emperor did not approve. Furthermore the idea that China faced fewer wars then Europe is completely false. China had wage constant wars against northern barbarians, which often could lead to a dynasties collapse and civil war. At one point a group of northern barbarians (the Mongols) conquered China (along with almost all of Eurasia). These barbarian invasions and civil wars, however, never created an alternative to the Chinese State and Civilization, as China was always quickly unified afterwards. The same was true (in a less extreme form) concerning other Asian States.

Islamic Civilization was not as centralized along political lines (the great Islamic Empire only remained united for a few centuries) but possessed a powerful religious unity. The story of the Islamic Civilizations decline is the story of how the Conservatives and Fundamentalists came to dominate Islamic government, culture, and thought. A crippling lack of curiosity and suffocating uniformity came to grip the Islamic Civilization, stopping its development and leaving it no match for the emerging Modern Civilization.

I would also like to point out that Islamic Civilization was never that dynamic. Islamic Civilization developed in a cultural back-water (Arabia) and incorporated much from those it conquered (the Greeks, Romans, Persians,est.) When one realizes how little of Islamic Civilization is original, it is no wonder they fell into the swamp...

Europe, throughout its history, has been decentralized. No one power has ever been able to dominate Europe, be it a political or religious power. After the fall of the Roman Empire (which in its heyday only controlled half of Europe) Europe experienced a massive decentralization (a population, economic and infrastructure decline). All effective authority and government became local. All attempts to recentralize Europe failed and only deepened the decentralization (by killing people, looting and creating divides). The Catholic Church claimed authority over all Christians, but was unable to assert much power over the Kings/Princes, who in turn were unable to exert much control over the Church. The Catholic Church, in the latter Middle Ages, became quite corrupt, which led to the Reformation and wars of Religion. There was thus no great political authority, as in China, nor a powerful unified Religious entity, as in Islamic Civilization, to effectively turn off the tap (though they sure did try, as the thousands they burnt at the stake would testify).

The decentralized nature of Europe's Christian Civilization meant it was more likely to make errors fatal to its continuation. Those fatal errors being the embrace of science (in a futile attempt to give the idea of god physical proof; it did the opposite), literacy (in an attempt to save more people by giving them personal knowledge of the Bible; it led to the questioning of authority and dogma), and pluralism/tolerance (so the various Christian groups could live together without killing each other; it led to the Atheist reemerging from the shadows). Once the mistakes were realized, it was too late.

These mistakes resulted in the Death of Christian Civilization and gave birth to the Modern Civilization, which killed all competitors (don't think of glorious battles, think of a comatose man being suffocated with a pillow) and now dominates the globe.

The Middle East has no culture, all they do is pray and build bombs.

Hmmm thats a question on opinions personally I do think were better but at the same time you have to respect their culture

My view-as long as those terriorist keep off our lawns I don't care

"Is western culture and civilization superior to muslim ones?"

Yes.

Next question!

Drawing a comparison between cultures is a pointless exercise, but if one was to use what are considered the traditional benchmarks (quality/quantity/renown/importance of science and the arts) then surely America would come in under the muslim world? Which led the way both technologically and culturally (preserving many important texts) while medieval Europe was being throttled by semi-governmental catholicism all those centuries ago. This thread has clearly been designed to make rednecks and chavs, hoi paloi etc. tick.

"Is western culture and civilization superior to muslim ones?"

Yes.

Next question!

Wow I'd like to hear more behind the points you've addressed in your argument.

Here's my take. If you want to blame Islam for terrorists, and cite that as a reason why Western culture is superior, are you including Nazi Germany in Western Culture, or do you not feel that exterminating millions of people and starting the most deadly and destructive war in history is as bad as a suicide bomber?

Here's my take. If you want to blame Islam for terrorists, and cite that as a reason why Western culture is superior, are you including Nazi Germany in Western Culture, or do you not feel that exterminating millions of people and starting the most deadly and destructive war in history is as bad as a suicide bomber?

True that was worse but humans are short sighted creatures
Not only that but I actually have a lot of respect for modern Germany they actually are the people who have apologized in a good way they actually make it against the law to glorify the holocaust

Personally, I believe that it is the religion which should be held responsible rather than the 'culture'. Therefore you cannot really associate terrorism with the culture. Do the majority see the IRA as the focal point of Irish culture? No. Religion poisons minds all the time, don't judge a culture by the acts of a few extremists.

Personally, I believe that it is the religion which should be held responsible rather than the 'culture'. Therefore you cannot really associate terrorism with the culture. Do the majority see the IRA as the focal point of Irish culture? No. Religion poisons minds all the time, don't judge a culture by the acts of a few extremists.

Hmm Religion is like everything in the world if you take it slowly it'll give you hope and joy
But if your a fanatic its horrible, thats why the middle east has so much problems I've studied their religion and it isn't as bad as you think its just the stupid government their takes it to the extreme

I must say I feel that it depends on what one bases superiority upon. Certainly as far as technology, economy and healthcare are concerned, western society is superior. But the middle eastern cultures are far ahead of us when dealing with religion. I feel this way because they have a much stronger feeling of spirituality amongst themselves then we do. Sure there are bloody wars fought over religion, but few in the west could say with honesty that they would be willing to die for religion, with the "knowledge" that they will be rewarded in the afterlife. This is a common understanding amongst muslims int the middle eat.

Hmm Religion is like everything in the world if you take it slowly it'll give you hope and joy
But if your a fanatic its horrible, thats why the middle east has so much problems I've studied their religion and it isn't as bad as you think its just the stupid government their takes it to the extreme

I wasn't saying it was their religion that was bad, all religions are.

It's hard to work within the bounds of such a poorly structured and inaccurate question. If it was simply thus:
Are first world secular socialist-democratic countries better than third world religious quasi-democratic, totalitarian, or theocratic countries?Then the answer is an obvious yes.


But the question was:
So, do you think that one can assert the superiority of the West over the Arab-Muslim world? Or do you believe that such comparisons cannot be made on objective terms or are blatantly racist?Which doesn't define what either the "West" or the "Arab-Muslim world" is, nor does it define what makes a region superior.


So perhaps a better question is:
Can one objectively define what makes one thing better than another?To which the obvious answer is no.

It's hard to work within the bounds of such a poorly structured and inaccurate question. If it was simply thus:

"Are first world secular socialist-democratic countries better than third world religious quasi-democratic, totalitarian, or theocratic countries?"

Then the answer is an obvious yes.


But the question was:

"So, do you think that one can assert the superiority of the West over the Arab-Muslim world? Or do you believe that such comparisons cannot be made on objective terms or are blatantly racist?"

Which doesn't define what either the "West" or the "Arab-Muslim world" is.

Valid points, but I believe it was the cultural qualities that were being judged.

Valid points, but I believe it was the cultural qualities that were being judged.

Well, if you people want to get into a Crusade about it, then "yes", this time around, the "Muslim/Arab world" has obviously failed miserably at maintaining an overall ideal of tolerance and peace compared to the "West" or "Christian world."
That's an objective given.

Besides that, you still can't be too objective about "culture" other than whether one has actually even been true to what their culture is.

So, do you think that one can assert the superiority of the West over the Arab-Muslim world? Or do you believe that such comparisons cannot be made on objective terms or are blatantly racist?Simple answer. which Culture do you wish to live in. Iraq or the US? Iran or Britian?

btw the matching was done at random.

Well, if you people want to get into a Crusade about it, then "yes", this time around, the "Muslim/Arab world" has obviously failed miserably at maintaining an overall ideal of tolerance and peace compared to the "West" or "Christian world."
That's an objective given.

Besides that, you still can't be too objective about "culture" other than whether one has actually even been true to what their culture is.

I'm simply suggesting that to overlook the cultural acheivements of the arab/muslim world would be imprudent, considering that Christianity is responsible for as much 'evil' and injustice as Islam is. Plus, the idea of a 'Christian World' is pretty dead considering only 10% of Europeans attend church regularly.

But the middle eastern cultures are far ahead of us when dealing with religion. I feel this way because they have a much stronger feeling of spirituality amongst themselves then we do. Sure there are bloody wars fought over religion, but few in the west could say with honesty that they would be willing to die for religion, with the "knowledge" that they will be rewarded in the afterlife. This is a common understanding amongst muslims int the middle eat.

I would argue the opposite, that the Western World is far ahead when it comes to religion (primarly Europe), because we have killed god. In other words, we are putting that terrible error of judgement early man made thousands of years ago behind us.

Well, if you people want to get into a Crusade about it, then "yes", this time around, the "Muslim/Arab world" has obviously failed miserably at maintaining an overall ideal of tolerance and peace compared to the "West" or "Christian world."
That's an objective given.


The Christian Civilization of Europe died due to its mistakes and was replaced with the current Modern Civilization. Has anyone read my posts?

i heard yesterday that china invented football :eek:

No, the English did during the middle ages.

I'm simply suggesting that to overlook the cultural acheivements of the arab/muslim world would be imprudent, considering that Christianity is responsible for as much 'evil' and injustice as Islam is. Plus, the idea of a 'Christian World' is pretty dead considering only 10% of Europeans attend church regularly.

Which is why I was toying with adding the exception of "time" in my initial post, but I figured that it was implied and assumed that we were only talking current times.

You want me to be perfectly blunt?

There was a period when the "Christian world" or "West" was extremely inferior to the "Arab/Muslim world". However, for the past several centuries, it has been quite the opposite.

And please note, the only reason why I brought up the term "Christian world" is to point out that it is quite problematic to be objective when you characterize a religion or ethnicity by a certain region, or define a region by an arbitrary direction.

the west is not superior to the arab nations full stop. in fact about 700 years ago the arab world was far superior to the west in all areas (science, medicine etc)
What have they done for us lately?

Which is why I was toying with adding the exception of "time" in my initial post, but I figured that it was implied and assumed that we were only talking current times.

You want me to be perfectly blunt?

There was a period when the "Christian world" or "West" was extremely inferior to the "Arab/Muslim world". However, for the past several centuries, it has been quite the opposite.

And please note, the only reason why I brought up the term "Christian world" is to point out that it is quite problematic to be objective when you characterize a religion or ethnicity by a certain region, or define a region by an arbitrary direction.

Erm, read what I said about the middle east during the middle ages. I don't believe it has been quite the opposite, they still produce music and art and while it may not be to your tastes you can hardly say it is inferior.

Amestria']The Christian Civilization of Europe died due to its mistakes and was replaced with the current Modern Civilization. Has anyone read my posts?

I have, which is why I'm making the point to show how silly it is to juxtapose a region with a religion or ethnicity, unless the two exist only in said region.

What have they done for us lately?

Every day people read Greek tragedies and Roman texts which would not have survived if Arab Scholars had not preserved them all those years ago.

I have, which is why I'm making the point to show how silly it is to juxtapose a region with a religion or ethnicity, unless the two exist only in said region.

Indeed, religion is something totally apart. A supreme demonstration of ignorance which is not related to ethnicity or location.

Erm, read what I said about the middle east during the middle ages. I don't believe it has been quite the opposite, they still produce music and art and while it may not be to your tastes you can hardly say it is inferior.

So once again, this gets into the semantics of "culture."

When I read the word "culture", especially in the context of "West"/"Arab" comparison, I usually assume that it's just another argument about whether one group's society is in a better state than the other.

If you want to get into "culture", or a less polarized argument (i.e. involving food, arts, music), then it's all personal preference. Although I have my opinions, I'm sure that literature, religion, philosophy, et al, are still pretty subjective territory as well.

So once again, this gets into the semantics of "culture."

When I read the word "culture", especially in the context of "West"/"Arab" comparison, I usually assume that it's just another argument about whether one group's society is in a better state than the other.

If you want to get into "culture", or a less polarized argument (i.e. involving food, arts, music), then it's all personal preference. Although I have my opinions, I'm sure that literature, religion, philosophy, et al, are still pretty subjective territory as well.

I consider all things to be at least an essence of culture.

Don't forget creationist Kansas! Or abortion outlawing Portugal, Ireland and Poland! Don't forget Poland.

And you abortion people can stay out of Ireland,Poland and Portugal.A few places where people havnt lost their minds.

And you abortion people can stay out of Ireland,Poland and Portugal.A few places where people havnt lost their minds.

Abortion is good, nothing hits the spot like a good aborting. Mmmm, foetus on rye.

I consider all things to be at least an essence of culture.

As do I. I guess why I immediately jumped to the politics of the two regions, besides the fact that that's usually what is bickered about, is because it's the only thing that can be argued objectively about.

Every day people read Greek tragedies and Roman texts which would not have survived if Arab Scholars had not preserved them all those years ago.

I don't think this helped your argument.

The point is that lately, that region has been in a slump -- there's no way around it.

I don't think this helped your argument.

The point is that lately, that region has been in a slump -- there's no way around it.

No, it helped my argument because their acheivements are still of contemporary relevance. Plus, I flew in an Arab-made spaceship today. I think we know who's bending the time barrier this side of Chester.

Abortion is good, nothing hits the spot like a good aborting. Mmmm, foetus on rye.

take the piss all you like but thats just ignorant.

No culture is superior. Sure, the west is technologically and economicly superior than the Arabs. Sure, the US alone could reduce the entire middle east to a radioactive plain of glass(melted sand) and rubble. But what defines all around superiority? Which, if any, qualities are superior to others.

Also:
china has nothing to do with the topic
niether does soccer
religion isn't bad. it gave us some of our earliest laws and a reason to not kill that guy, rape his wife, and then kill her and her kids too. if we based our lives soley on science, what reason would we have for not invading that nation next door if we have a more powerful military? religion is the first science. sure, religious nuts hate atheists. atheist nuts hate theists.

Drawing a comparison between cultures is a pointless exercise, but if one was to use what are considered the traditional benchmarks (quality/quantity/renown/importance of science and the arts) then surely America would come in under the muslim world? Which led the way both technologically and culturally (preserving many important texts) while medieval Europe was being throttled by semi-governmental catholicism all those centuries ago. This thread has clearly been designed to make rednecks and chavs, hoi paloi etc. tick.
OK, people, let´s get something straight: i started this thread simply to promote some hearted debate on an issue i find extremely relevant in our time. I don´t spend my time devising ways to appear as the leading figure of some far-right fringe-group. As you may or may not have noticed form the title of the thread, i do give ample space to any of the stands in this problem; if that wasnt the case, we wouldn´t have seen so many different opinions being posted. Let´s not try to divine ulterior motives in everything, ok? Although i do cope weel with ad-hominem attacks, i believe they bring nothing valid to the debate. :)

No, the English did during the middle ages.

Uh uh. The first version of "football", i.e. kicking a ball as a systematic game, began with the founder of the Chinese civilisation, Yandi. He introduced this game to the army and called it "chuju". If you think the Xia Dynasty is all but myth, at least during the Zhou Dynasty the Chinese were playing it. There is even an entry in the Chinese history books that somebody got a stroke and died after playing chuju.

china has nothing to do with the topic
niether does soccer

HIJACCCK!
:D

No culture is superior. Sure, the west is technologically and economicly superior than the Arabs. Sure, the US alone could reduce the entire middle east to a radioactive plain of glass(melted sand) and rubble. But what defines all around superiority? Which, if any, qualities are superior to others.

Also:
china has nothing to do with the topic
niether does soccer
religion isn't bad. it gave us some of our earliest laws and a reason to not kill that guy, rape his wife, and then kill her and her kids too. if we based our lives soley on science, what reason would we have for not invading that nation next door if we have a more powerful military? religion is the first science. sure, religious nuts hate atheists. atheist nuts hate theists.
I do believe one can assert western culture and civilization´s over muslim ones in perfectly objective terms. First, there a number of cultural traits in Muslim-dominated countries that do impede on their developement. The fact that there is no separation between State and Mosque, for instance. This means that many of the views of the muslim clergy on scientific research and experiment, for instance, strongly infiltrate the outlook of the governement and the legislative branch (if they are two separate bodies, which doesn´t always happen). This presents one of the main reasons why technology and scientific developements are virtually unheard for in the muslim world. In the West, the separation between the State and the Church left a clear space for scientific research (although in some western countries i´ll grant that sometimes religious influence does weigh upon public officials, like in the case of intelligent design and stem cell research in the US).

"Is western culture and civilization superior to muslim ones? "

Of course, YES, far far superior.

"Is western culture and civilization superior to muslim ones? "

Of course, YES, far far superior.

Yup. Muslim cultures haven't really invented much or done anything since, well, they came into existence. When the US liberated Iraq we did so with advanced weaponry and equipment that are a direct result of Western thinking.

Of course, the best example right now is the fact that even a small/weak European country (IE, FRANCE) could take on the largest Middle eastern country (IF they put their will into it, which is doubtful).

Yup. Muslim cultures haven't really invented much or done anything since, well, they came into existence. When the US liberated Iraq we did so with advanced weaponry and equipment that are a direct result of Western thinking.

Of course, the best example right now is the fact that even a small/weak European country (IE, FRANCE) could take on the largest Middle eastern country (IF they put their will into it, which is doubtful).

That's a stupid thing to say.Just because Western nations have through circumstance become wealthy while Islamic nations have not,you cannot say Western culture is in some way better.

The worth of a people is not based on their list of achievements.And even if it was,the Islamic world has quite a long one.Much of western achievement is built on or borrows from it.Don't forget,the mathematics that went into inventing that technology was carried out in Arabic numerals.

Run around in your little circles! Perhaps after some exhaustion you will realise that the Chinese civilisation and culture are superior to every other one. :D

*Cough* Communism. *Cough*

*Cough* Communism. *Cough*

:rolleyes: Communism happens to be a WESTERN concept.