NationStates Jolt Archive

In our world, there are many Societies, Cultures and Religions.

My question for today is about the stark contrasts bewteen different Idealogies around the world.

For instance, what makes Western Europe have equal rights, democracy and all that jazz, whereas in somewhere like the Middle East, a culture has evolved where women have less rights and Dicatatorships have become the norm.

I'm wondering, what does NSG think causes the massive differences bewteen different cultures in the Human World?

The current configuration of the world (both political and social), from the US to Africa to the Middle East, is heavily influenced by the actions of European colonial powers, which were in turn due to the naval prowess of countries like Britian, France and Spain, which was in turn due to the frequent wars with each other, which were in turn mainly due to religious differences, which were in turn due to the centralised Catholic Church, which was in turn due to the Roman Empire adopting Christainity, which was in turn due the nature of Christianity, was was in turn due to its creation as a reaction to Judaism, which was in turn due to the patriarchal nature of Judaism, which was in turn due to the nature of the ancient belief systems from which it evolved, which were in turn due to the relationship between humans and their changing environment...

Erm, I think I was going to make a point, but I've forgotten what it was.

The current configuration of the world (both political and social), from the US to Africa to the Middle East, is heavily influenced by the actions of European colonial powers, which were in turn due to the naval prowess of countries like Britian, France and Spain, which was in turn due to the frequent wars with each other, which were in turn mainly due to religious differences, which were in turn due to the centralised Catholic Church, which was in turn due to the Roman Empire adopting Christainity, which was in turn due the nature of Christianity, was was in turn due to its creation as a reaction to Judaism, which was in turn due to the patriarchal nature of Judaism, which was in turn due to the nature of the ancient belief systems from which it evolved, which were in turn due to the relationship between humans and their changing environment...

Erm, I think I was going to make a point, but I've forgotten what it was.


Hehe, but, if the actions of the USA and the Middle East we're both influenced by the colonial powers, why are they so different?

Hehe, but, if the actions of the USA and the Middle East we're both influenced by the colonial powers, why are they so different?
'Cause they did a better job with the genocide of the natives in the Americas than in Africa and the Middle East.

Thats that settled then.

It has to do with separation of church and state. Europeans started to toy with the idea, eventually embracing it culturally and Americans, influenced heavily by European philosphers, codified it into law. Meanwhile in the middle east religion culture and government were welded together. Any change in government or culture was seen as an affront to god. America and Europe progressed, the middle east remains a steaming pile of Jihad. Try not to step in it.

Western Culture is what it is today because of two fundamental factors. First is the philosophical basis of western thought in the writings of the great Greek philosophers. Second is conflict and order, and the roles they played in western politics.

It has to do with separation of church and state. Europeans started to toy with the idea, eventually embracing it culturally and Americans, influenced heavily by European philosphers, codified it into law. Meanwhile in the middle east religion culture and government were welded together. Any change in government or culture was seen as an affront to god. America and Europe progressed, the middle east remains a steaming pile of Jihad. Try not to step in it.
I disagree. In Europe the trend away from religious belief is more important that any notion of separation of church and state. While some countries do make a big deal about it (such as France), in general the Church has lost influence because most people don't care what it says anymore (consider the minor role of religion in Britain, despite the fact that the head of state is 'defender of the faith' and schools are legal required to have a daily 'act of worship'). Meanwhile, religion gained influence in the Middle East because a population already radicalised makes easy prey for the religious (or any similar belief system - the Communists and Fascists owed their rise to the same technique).

I disagree. In Europe the trend away from religious belief is more important that any notion of separation of church and state. While some countries do make a big deal about it (such as France), in general the Church has lost influence because most people don't care what it says anymore (consider the minor role of religion in Britain, despite the fact that the head of state is 'defender of the faith' and schools are legal required to have a daily 'act of worship'). Meanwhile, religion gained influence in the Middle East because a population already radicalised makes easy prey for the religious (or any similar belief system - the Communists and Fascists owed their rise to the same technique).
Good point. Still, the main thing is that both in Europe and America religion was divorced from politics, economics, et cetera either through legislation or lack of public interest in religion. This didn't happen in the middle east and unfortunately the positive trend is being reversed in the USA.

Maybe, partly genetics?


Gene-culture coevolution of complex social behavior: human altruism and mate choice

The hypothesis is examined that genes bias the development of complex social behavior in one direction over alternatives. Studies of altruism and political attitudes in twins estimate that approximately 50% of the variance is associated with direct genetic inheritance, virtually 0% with the twin's common family environment, and the remainder with each twin's specific environment. Studies of human marriages show that spouses choose each other on the basis of similarity, assorting on the most genetically influenced of a set of homogeneous attributes. These data imply a genetic canalization of social influences such that, within the constraints allowed by the total spectrum of cultural alternatives, people create environments maximally compatible with their genotypes.



http://www.pubmedcentral.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=386712

Good point. Still, the main thing is that both in Europe and America religion was divorced from politics, economics, et cetera either through legislation or lack of public interest in religion. This didn't happen in the middle east and unfortunately the positive trend is being reversed in the USA.
That in and of itself fails to explain the OP's question, as back in the 1000's islam and the middle east were relatively liberal and free places to live. I think the answer lies more in economic factors driving people towards fundimentalist religions, especially following the cold war were dictatorships and poverty were forced upon the people by larger states. Egypt, Iraq, Iran, Saudi Arabia, almost every dictatorship was/is proped up by a first world power leading to corruption, which destroys the economy and causes people to flee towards fundimentalism (a rich society is not, generally, a fundimentalist one. Fundimentalism is repugnant to any free society, and by and large the richest societies are also the most free)

Good point. Still, the main thing is that both in Europe and America religion was divorced from politics, economics, et cetera either through legislation or lack of public interest in religion. This didn't happen in the middle east and unfortunately the positive trend is being reversed in the USA.
Indeed. Authoritarian religious belief is certainly a bad influence in the Middle East, as it once was Europe, but I don't think it's solely responsible. I think authoritarian religous belief in the region gains its power from anti-Western sentiment, and not the other way round (through there is of course feedback).

In regards to Islam, primarily because they have enjoyed nigh on a millenia, omitting the crusades, of cultural independance. The only Isalmic state to constitute a great power subsequent to the medieval ages, the Ottoman empire/ Turkey, is considerably more "westernised" than its Islamic counterparts.

In regards to Islam, primarily because they have enjoyed nigh on a millenia, omitting the crusades, of cultural independance. The only Isalmic state to constitute a great power subsequent to the medieval ages, the Ottoman empire/ Turkey, is considerably more "westernised" than its Islamic counterparts.
Turkey only became more liberal relativity recently after it decided to become a secular state. The only significant act of the Ottoman empire in this context was the abolition of the Caliphate. Furthermore, the current rampant anti-Western attitude of much of the Middle East owes its origins mainly to the actions of the European powers after the World Wars (particularly the creation of Israel).

That in and of itself fails to explain the OP's question, as back in the 1000's islam and the middle east were relatively liberal and free places to live. I think the answer lies more in economic factors driving people towards fundimentalist religions, especially following the cold war were dictatorships and poverty were forced upon the people by larger states. Egypt, Iraq, Iran, Saudi Arabia, almost every dictatorship was/is proped up by a first world power leading to corruption, which destroys the economy and causes people to flee towards fundimentalism (a rich society is not, generally, a fundimentalist one. Fundimentalism is repugnant to any free society, and by and large the richest societies are also the most free)
Yeah, RELATIVELY liberal and free. Compared to it's contemporaries it was liberal and free. Compared to us now, it was pretty damn backward. Bernard Lewis makes a pretty good case for the Muslim middle east's problems being traceable to the aversion to modernization and westernization and gives Islamic scholars in the region part of the blame. The other part of the blame goes to the arrogant feeling that Islam was on top and whatever the Europeans were doing couldn't change that. Europeans were barbarians and their ways weren't to be imitated because they would never lead to success.

Turkey only became more liberal relativity recently after it decided to become a secular state. The only significant act of the Ottoman empire in this context was the abolition of the Caliphate. Furthermore, the current rampant anti-Western attitude of much of the Middle East owes its origins mainly to the actions of the European powers after the World Wars (particularly the creation of Israel).
So what accounts for the old Anti-Western attitudes that make Middle Eastern muslims regard Europeans as barbarians and Europe as a place fit only for conquest and the breeding of white slaves?

Hehe, but, if the actions of the USA and the Middle East we're both influenced by the colonial powers, why are they so different?
less recent interference-note monroe doctrine(1824 i think)

less recent interference-note monroe doctrine(1824 i think)
That and the US/Canada escaped from much of the exploitation and were under a relatively benevolent european nation. The US really was never a colony until after the late 1600's and even then they had a great amount of leeway in their governance.

with many many many other factors, but generally from about 1815 -1914 most european powers(notably britain Russia and germany)fucked things up, for instance afghanistan was used by britain to ward off russian expansionism(1878 had two invasion of afghanistan by britain and in 1885 russia messed around with a afghani villages to get up britains nose) This kind of thing happened all the time.

Western Culture is what it is today because of two fundamental factors. First is the philosophical basis of western thought in the writings of the great Greek philosophers. Second is conflict and order, and the roles they played in western politics.
Except Europe lost that during the dark ages. The Greek philosophers' thoughts were only maintained by the Arabs, and continued by philosophers like Ibn Rushd. Only later did Europe reclaim that Greek legacy.

I agree that in the 1000's the Muslim countries were only relatively more liberal places to live (but remember that resident non-Muslims had to pay higher taxes, couldn't ride horses, and had to wear distinctive clothing, so ... ). At the end of the 1000's Islam got the fear of Allah put to it when that nasty, smelly, heavily-armored horde of barbarians appeared in Asia Minor and started bulldozing its way toward Jerusalem. The Crusades frightened the living daylights out of the Islamic countries and when they got over being frightened they became permanently angry about it. Essentially Islam was frozen in a state of constant defense against a possible renewal of European attacks. Calling the Americans in Iraq "crusaders" is not just propaganda, I think they honestly see our guys that way. What must be even more galling to Muslims is that the shape of Israel is almost exactly that of the Kingdom of Jerusalem, minus the West Bank. I do not know if Islam will ever get over the Crusades. That seems odd to Westerners, because we certainly have gotten over them, but they have not.

[A good book on this is The crusades through Arab eyes by Amin Maalouf. I highly recommend it. Also, Steven Runciman's History of the Crusades, in three volumes, is also excellent.]

The US and Canada escaped the kind of misrule the European powers applied elsewhere because North America was so much less populated than other parts of the globe, and because the aboriginal peoples were so much less developed. Yes, the North American Native Peoples are cool and noble and all that, but when the English and the French began arriving they were a Neolithic culture, and doomed from the minute a Puritan got up off the beach and brushed the sand off his shoes.

And, finally, before I have a senior moment and forget my point, it's true that fundamentalism is repugnant to free societies, but that can also be stated the other way around: free societies are repugnant to fundamentalism of any sort.

The US and Canada escaped the kind of misrule the European powers applied elsewhere because North America was so much less populated than other parts of the globe, and because the aboriginal peoples were so much less developed. Yes, the North American Native Peoples are cool and noble and all that, but when the English and the French began arriving they were a Neolithic culture, and doomed from the minute a Puritan got up off the beach and brushed the sand off his shoes.

And, finally, before I have a senior moment and forget my point, it's true that fundamentalism is repugnant to free societies, but that can also be stated the other way around: free societies are repugnant to fundamentalism of any sort.

For all practical purposes, the people of the US and Canada ARE European (yuck, I can't believe I said that ;) ). Even though Europe was ruled by kings, they already had some tradition of personal freedom, and we built on that. In the Middle East, the people there most definitely are NOT European, and they did not have a tradition of personal freedom. In addition, they were p*ssed off at Europeans, and still had control over their nations, despite European meddling.

For all practical purposes, the people of the US and Canada ARE European (yuck, I can't believe I said that ;) ). Even though Europe was ruled by kings, they already had some tradition of personal freedom, and we built on that. In the Middle East, the people there most definitely are NOT European, and they did not have a tradition of personal freedom. In addition, they were p*ssed off at Europeans, and still had control over their nations, despite European meddling.
Oh, it's not so bad being European. It's easier than being green, for instance.

Yes, there was a tradition in Europe of personal freedom that grew and was built upon. I think personal freedom is always a work in progress and we have to be careful that we don't let well-meaning (and some not so well-meaning) people dismantle it.

Economics, mostly. Geographically, Islam emerged at one of the most convenient crossroads in the world: the converging points between Europe, Persia, Egypt, and India. Virtually any trade in the world not being limited purely to Europe went through an Islamic territory, and even then, Islam controlled most of the critical junctures in land or sea lanes: Gibralter was under their control, the Hellespont was held open only by the last vestiges of the Roman empire, they had access to Sicily and the natural chokepoint between Lilybaem and Carthage, and they at their apex were awefully close to choking off Venice by their control of one side of the Adriatic coast. Once Europeans broke Islamic monopoly on trade goods, and even further started choking off their means of expansion (if you look at colonial regions, they seem almost designed to squeeze the Islamic areas: Sub-Saharan Africa to the southwest, the emergence of Serbia, Bosnia, Russia, and Greece to the northwest, natural barriers to expansion in the form of the Punjab, Pamir, and Caucasus ranges in the north and northeast, and India to the East), Islam's decline was virtually inevitable. Without their access to trade, virtually all Islam had left was a common religion to tie themselves together.

Economics, mostly. Geographically, Islam emerged at one of the most convenient crossroads in the world: the converging points between Europe, Persia, Egypt, and India. Virtually any trade in the world not being limited purely to Europe went through an Islamic territory, and even then, Islam controlled most of the critical junctures in land or sea lanes: Gibralter was under their control, the Hellespont was held open only by the last vestiges of the Roman empire, they had access to Sicily and the natural chokepoint between Lilybaem and Carthage, and they at their apex were awefully close to choking off Venice by their control of one side of the Adriatic coast. Once Europeans broke Islamic monopoly on trade goods, and even further started choking off their means of expansion (if you look at colonial regions, they seem almost designed to squeeze the Islamic areas: Sub-Saharan Africa to the southwest, the emergence of Serbia, Bosnia, Russia, and Greece to the northwest, natural barriers to expansion in the form of the Punjab, Pamir, and Caucasus ranges in the north and northeast, and India to the East), Islam's decline was virtually inevitable. Without their access to trade, virtually all Islam had left was a common religion to tie themselves together.
True, true, but India wasn't that much of a barrier to Islam, else why is there such a large Islamic population in Indonesia and parts of Southeast Asia? You're quite right about geographic position (location, location, location) but when the Europeans started expanding in the 14th and 15th centuries, why didn't Islam compete? Partly, I think because "Islam" isn't a country, but the Ottomans might have, they were central and active. Then again, they did give Europe a run for it, but their attention was all to the north, the Balkans and southeast Europe. Maybe had they looked the other direction ... An interesting topic.